It’s been around 120 days since I was appointed to be Minister of
the Environment. It’s a privilege I do not take lightly and a responsibility
I do not underestimate.
I thought I’d share with you some of my thoughts and experiences.
One of those experiences which has been most challenging but extremely
fulfilling has been presiding as the Chair over the Conference of the Parties
to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.
In essence, I am presiding over the process that is presently examining
certain questions and challenges around the global effort to address climate
change. Questions such as “what has worked and not worked with the
first phase of the Kyoto Protocol? What can we do to broaden our efforts?
How can we include countries and initiatives that are outside of the Kyoto
Protocol? How do we address the impasse between developing and developed
countries as we move forward? In other words, what are the common challenges
we are facing and what are the common solutions we can share with one another
when it comes to addressing climate change, but most importantly where do
we go from here?
What has emerged out of our last meeting in Bonn is a consensus that how
and where we go from here will determine our opportunity to move towards
a truly global approach. How we move towards a more inclusive solution that
involves all countries and considers a multitude of initiatives means we
have to engage one another in ways we have never done in the past.
When I was appointed to this position I was new to this process – I
arrived without the preconceived notions and the silo mentality that
exists all too often in this debate. I now know what an advantage
it is to approach these challenges without preconceived notions and
without the fear to question the status quo and how important that
has become in determining our ability as a country to lead this challenging
debate.
I arrived with the belief that being transparent was the right thing to
do – being honest about the challenge Canada was facing may be helpful
to other countries who found themselves in the same circumstances. Because
one of the largest challenges facing Kyoto is what has not worked – this
debate has become so polarized by skepticism and political ideology that
countries were afraid to even suggest they may not meet their targets. That
somehow if we admit that some things are not working while others are, means
we are abandoning Kyoto.
Some would like to position Kyoto as a simplistic, zero sum game, an all
or nothing debate, an answer to the question “are you in or are you
out?”.
This lack of substantive recognition for the reality of what is happening
in the global dialogue on climate change and clean air has the ability to
undermine Canada’s opportunity to lead the world in a more inclusive
discussion on climate change.
But we have not allowed these voices to silence Canada’s will to lead
the world in an urgent, transparent, honest debate about the challenges that
we and our international partners are facing when it comes to finding a truly
global solution to climate change.
We are all involved in a work in progress, it is an evolution of an idea
that is finding form in various responses to an environmental challenge we
are all facing together.
So we became the first and only country to publicly state that we know we
will not reach our Kyoto targets. This was met by controversy. But we will
not be the last. However, no one that follows this debate in any serious
manner was surprised to find out that after years of no action on climate
change, meeting the onerous targets negotiated under the Liberals was not
a reality. Some environmental groups stated this was akin to a complete abandonment
of Kyoto – which is ludicrous. To our international partners who find
themselves in our situation, it came as a relief and an acknowledgement that
when we face these challenges together it doesn’t mean that all is
lost or that we’ve given up the fight. This was clearly the first big
hurdle we have overcome to move this debate beyond the first phase of Kyoto.
I also arrived without the preconceived notion that Kyoto is the only game
in town – that again was met with controversy – the all or nothing
belief in Kyoto has led to a silo mentality espoused by some groups that
freely and irresponsibly criticize other initiatives to reduce greenhouse
gases. I asked myself how can anyone who cares about addressing climate change
knowing full well all of the complexities and challenges of this issue possibly
criticize any initiative by any individual, municipality, province, country
or groups of countries in their efforts to reduce greenhouse gases? That
came as a surprise to me at first but now that I am involved I see clearly
that this kind of territoriality is driven by self serving politics and self
righteousness. There is no one size fits all solution.
Fortunately what we do have however is a global consensus emerging
on this issue, and we should make every effort to encourage that to emerge – not
point fingers at one another and suggest that one initiative is somehow better
than another initiative. It is not an “are you in or are you out” game
or an “Are you with us or are you against us” paradigm. That
is unproductive and it is undermining our attempts to find ways to incorporate
broad participation on this issue. Kyoto is not the only game in town – The
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change includes countries
outside of Kyoto such as the United States and Australia, the G8 +5 is a
dialogue involving the world’s largest emitters.
Yesterday I had my second visit from the UK, yesterday with the Deputy
Prime Minister of the UK who for the second time invited Canada to join the
G8+5 dialogue on climate change in a more meaningful way. The Asia Pacific
Partnership is a new, also very powerful group of countries which has emerged,
also made up of the world’s largest emitters. It is a public private
partnership focused on clean technology development and deployment. Both
Australia and the United States have asked Canada to consider joining. Regional,
national, and continental frameworks are emerging all over the world to address
climate change. All of these have their challenges and their opportunities.
But none of these should be discounted, undermined or dismissed. Another
big hurdle we overcame in Bonn was our efforts to successfully move the debate
towards a more inclusive framework to recognize and acknowledge these initiatives
outside of Kyoto and encourage information sharing between these different
initiatives. Just the notion of sharing information between non-United Nations
and United Nations initiatives was met with controversy.
In Bonn we succeeded in beginning to break down those silos and begin
a dialogue between Kyoto and non-Kyoto countries. In fact, this inclusive
dialogue is now being chaired by Australia.
I also arrive without the preconceived notion that the United States is
the enemy of climate change. In the past, Kyoto has been used a vehicle to
attack the United States – we saw that in Montreal during the last
election when the Liberals invited Bill Clinton to swoop in on a Kyoto meeting
to bash the bush government. What many people don’t know is that the
Americans had a delegation at that meeting and that stunt did nothing to
help get the Americans on board. While the Americans may be arriving late
to this debate and while their key driver may be energy security, they are
arriving in a fast and furious manner investing billions in climate change
science and almost 15 billion in renewable energy.
Engaging the Americans is key to a successful long term global solution.
We are engaging the Americans actively on this issue and that has not gone
unnoticed. Our partners within the Kyoto protocol have expressed their hope
that Canada’s unique relationship with the United States will be helpful
to facilitate the dialogue between the key initiatives that are emerging
to address climate change. There are many people in this debate who think
they hold the moral high ground but when you scratch below the surface, I
can tell you that no one really does. We’re in this together and tearing
each other down will accomplish nothing for the environment.
We should be very proud of our success along with the United nations and
our International partners in challenging the status quo and some of the
entrenched mentality – this is the only way we will ensure that territoriality
and politics does not hinder this process from moving forward, and we should
not underestimate our ability as Canadians to build bridges to broaden the
participation of new initiatives and involve new countries.
The issues I have just mentioned are issues I have no question will be addressed
by the developed world – I have complete faith that we will find a
path forward that is inclusive and that will involve broad participation.
The real challenge is still ahead of us for Kyoto – it is the question
that was not answered in Bonn and is still on our plates for our next meeting
in Nairobi. And that is the impasse that has emerged between developed and
developing nations. In Bonn the developed countries reached a consensus that
they would not take on further commitments until the developing nations also
considered commitments or targets. The developing nations reached a consensus
and held firmly to the position that they will not take on such commitments.
This is problematic for two reasons:
First, the next phase of Kyoto hinges on the need for both sides to give – developed
countries need to take on commitments in order for developing countries to
do the same. Unfortunately, both sides are skeptical of the others willingness
to follow through. Second, Countries like China, Brazil and India are considered
developing nations under Kyoto. But no one will argue that they are economic
superpowers – so developed countries who are taking on targets want
the question answered: “why should I take on new more stringent targets
that will potentially make me less economically competitive in the short
term when a country I am directly competing with economically will not take
on that same commitment?”
This will be the crux of the debate in Kyoto for the next few years.
The answer I believe lies in a compromise that has been put forward by Canada.
In my role as chair, I engaged Russia in a consultation on the opportunity
for developing countries to take on voluntary targets. This was also met
with great controversy because many developing countries are firm about not
being subjected to targets.
But we need to find a way to bridge this gap Canada also put forward a
compromise position that any future approaches to new targets for developed
countries should reflect a country’s specific national circumstances – considerations
such as the nature of a country’s economy and energy sources. This
may provide countries with the flexibility to remain involved and the opportunity
to bridge this impasse.
Again, there is no one size fits all approach. Both of our suggestions have
received wide support from the United Nations and our international partners
and will be considered at our next meeting in Nairobi. Finding a compromise
does not mean turning your back on the original intent of this agreement,
it means recognizing the challenges that have emerged, facing them head on
and moving forward in a realistic and constructive manner.
It was suggested to me by some that I quietly move through this process,
that my role should be merely as cheerleader, never to question, never to
challenge but that also means that nothing ever happens and nothing ever
changes.
By being transparent about the challenges Canada is facing we have the opportunity
to put in place a domestic solution which will contribute to our international
efforts. Instead of pretending that singing an international agreement means
we’ve done our part internationally. I was reading Canada’s Green
Plan, former Prime Minister Brian Mulroney’s environmental plan yesterday
and I came across the words, “think globally act locally” and
know that we have come back full circle. That is exactly the approach this
government is taking as we move forward. And I also came across the words
of Jean Charest, the then Minister of Environment for Canada. He said, “Because
of the Green Plan, Canada went well prepared to contribute to global progress.” That
is the key that has been missing. It is not enough to sign an agreement and
say you believe in it. As Rex Murphy stated, “Canada touted its signature
on the Accord as being in itself a great Boy Scout badge of international
and environmental do-goodism”. Well, that is not good enough for our
government. Canadians deserve better, our environment deserves better.
We intend on earning our boyscout badges on the environment every step of
the way. And on climate change we will earn that badge by putting in place
a long term, realistic domestic solution that will lead to the kind of transformational
change in technology we need to contribute to a global solution.
What many people miss is that what we do at home is Kyoto – and under
the Liberals we have failed at home and because of that we have failed our
international obligations under Kyoto.
But it’s not too late. I was reading the paper the other day
and came across a letter to the editor in response to an article that
had been written by Terrence Corcoran on Kyoto – he must have
made the point in his original article that Kyoto may not be the answer
to our environmental problems. Everyone seems to have an opinion about
Kyoto these days but what struck me was this short, one sentence letter
to the editor in response to his article. A man from Ontario wrote, “If
not the Kyoto Protocol, then what? And then he says…. I have
the answer, how about “US” ”
That short sentence encapsulates the issue we are facing when it comes
to moving on this issue. Its now about “us” – what
we are willing to do, contribute, give up, compromise – but I
have no concerns, I know Canadians care deeply about their environment,
I know this government cares deeply about the environment and we will
work together from the ground up with individual Canadians, the provinces
and territories and industry to find solutions that work for Canada.
Every order of government, every individual, every business, every
organization has a role to play in improving air quality and reducing
greenhouse gas emissions.
And we know our responsibility and obligation to this important effort and
in the first 120 days we have already started taking tangible, real steps
to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and clean up the air Canadians breathe.
First, we acted to clean the air we breathe.
I just couldn’t accept the kind of statistics I was seeing, without
doing something about it: last year, 53 smog advisory days in Ontario, 24
in Quebec and three in Atlantic Canada. In 2006, 12 winter smog advisories
issued in Quebec, and five in Ontario.
So what did this government do about it? What is it doing to demonstrate
its commitment to clean air?
Transportation is one of the largest sources of air pollution in Canada.
In some of our urban centres, it accounts for up to two-thirds of smog forming
pollutants. To address this, we decided to invest up to $1.3 billion in urban
transit infrastructure public transportation, plus an estimated $1.1 billion
over 5 years in the form of a tax credit to help with the cost of monthly
transit passes. This translates into 2 months of free public transit for
individual Canadians.
Increasing the use of public transit will help reduce traffic congestion
in Canadian cities and fight air pollution
Increasing the use of public transportation will also help reduce greenhouse
gas emissions.
Based on Canadian Urban Transit Association information that there were
almost 1.6 billion urban transit rides in 2004 and an average emission of
2.8 kilograms per 10 kilometre trip, urban transit users avoid about 4.5
Mt of greenhouse gas emissions – increasing ridership is key to reducing
emissions.
But that’s not all.
For those who cannot use public transit or for Canadians where public transit
is unavailable.
Our government decided to help Canadians make cleaner fuel choices
by acting to increase the average renewable fuel content in gasoline
and diesel fuel to 5 percent by 2010.
The use of biodiesel in public transit vehicles will yield significant clean
air benefits.
On May 23rd , I met with the federal / provincial ministers responsible
for renewable fuels.
This meeting, a first in Canadian history, was our first step in honoring
the commitment that the Prime Minister made during the election campaign
on moving to a target of 5% biofuel content in Canada by 2010.
This is a very ambitious timetable that we have set out. Our U.S. counterparts
will be at a 4% renewable fuel content by 2012 and the European Union will
be at a 5.75% renewable content by 2010. But as ambitious as it may be, we
know it is reachable. When we set targets we reach them.
As the Government moves forward on its strategy, we will be looking at renewable
fuel technologies that have the potential to further reduce emissions.
For example, some next-generation technologies have the potential to dramatically
reduce greenhouse gas emissions when all factors in the life-cycle are considered.
Finally, I’ll mention that on June 1st , we set in place regulations
to reduce sulphur in diesel.
This means that from now on, Canadian refineries can only produce low sulphur
diesel. This also means that after September 1st, Canadian diesel distributors
and retailers can only offer low sulphur diesel for sale. That's cleaning
up the environment.
By offering these cleaner choices, we are helping Canadians work with us
and participate in made-in-Canada solutions for a cleaner and healthier Canada.
But our action is not limited to the transportation sector.
Canada’s industrial sector is also a major contributor to air pollution;
therefore, our government recently announced a pollution prevention initiative
for base metal smelters which will reduce sulphur dioxide and metal pollutants,
such as lead and mercury, from a major industrial source of these pollutants.
As smelters address emission reduction targets, it is expected that the
sector will reduce annual particulate matter emissions containing metals
by over 3,000 tonnes (about 50 percent) and reduce annual sulphur dioxide
emissions by over 600,000 tonnes (about 70 percent) by 2015.
This approach to reducing sulphur dioxide and metal pollutants from base
metal smelters across the country, will bring environmental and health benefits
to Canadians, while respecting the economic and social well-being of communities
close to the smelters.
In addition to the early action described, I am pleased to announce that
I intend to eliminate the uncontrolled disposal of mercury switches from
the processing of scrap cars.
I will be using my authority under the Canadian Environmental Protection
Act to issue a Pollution Prevention Planning Notice for the automotive and
steel sectors.
This action will help prevent the release into the environment mostly
to the air - of almost 10 tonnes of mercury over the next 10 years.
Now, our mercury switch initiative is not going to be our government’s
only action to reduce emissions of mercury, a recognized neurotoxin.
Finally, I want to mention that we are also acting to improve our knowledge
of the air quality situation, to give Canadians better tools to address the
problem.
Environment Canada and Health Canada are developing a new national Air Quality
Health Index, together with provincial and municipal governments, as well
as other partners.
This health-information tool will be the first of its kind in the world.
It will empower Canadians to protect their health from the negative effects
of air pollution, much like the UV Index helps us protect ourselves from
the harmful effects of too much sun.
So as you see, this federal government is taking comprehensive action
for the environment.
We will assume leadership, but addressing air pollution is a shared responsibility.
So we will not be acting alone: environmental stewardship is all
about governments, industries, associations, municipalities and individuals
working together to address our challenges and to make a difference.
Already, we are cooperating with other orders of government in Canada, industry
and individual Canadians, to achieve the highest level of air quality for
all of us.
In addition, Canada works jointly with other countries, especially the United
States, to address flows of air pollutants across the borders. Canada now
has lags behind in almost every industry sector on pollution control compared
with the US.
My message to you, on Clean Air Day, is that the Government of Canada is
working towards a “Made-in-Canada” approach to deliver real change
and real results for all Canadians, in our common campaign to clean up our
air and to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions.
