With less than two weeks to go before delegates from around the world gather in Bali to tackle climate change, we thought it was time to check in on what Canada is doing to go green.

How does all of our talk about being a world leader in the fight against climate change match up with reality?

Let's find out!

Issue 1: Greenhouse gases
Canada says it will cut greenhouse gas emissions 20 per cent by 2020.

Reality check
Sounds good, right? Well, if you dig a little deeper, Canada's 20 per cent target isn't so impressive.

Here's what's missing from the fine print: Canada will cut its greenhouse gas emissions 20 per cent below 2006 levels by 2020.

The small print is a big problem. Under the Kyoto Protocol, we are obligated to cut our emissions six per cent below 1990 levels. While a 20 per cent cut may sound stronger than a six per cent cut, it's actually much weaker.

That's because the federal government is using 2006 as a base year for its 20 per cent cut. Because we put off action on climate change for so long, our greenhouse gas emissions rose 33 per cent above our Kyoto commitment by the end of 2005.

Let's do the math. Canada emitted 596 million tonnes of greenhouse gases in 1990. That figure rose to 747 million tonnes in 2005. (Environment Canada hasn't released the numbers for 2006 yet so let's assume the 2006 total is the same as the 2005 total.)

If we cut our emissions 20 per cent above 2006 levels, what we're really doing is cutting our emissions 2 per cent above 1990 levels (see the Pembina Institute's analysis of the federal government's plan).

So far, not so good.

Next!

Issue 2: Intensity targets
Canada says it will use emission-intensity targets to cut greenhouse gases from large, polluting industries.

Reality check
Right. And I still believe in the tooth fairy. Emission-intensity targets are a fancy way of allowing large industries to keep polluting.

Here's how it would work. An intensity target accounts for greenhouse gas emissions per unit of economic activity. (Stay with me here. I'll try to make this as painless as possible.)

Let's use oil as an example. One barrel of oil is equal to one unit of economic activity. If the government legislates an 18 per cent improvement in emission-intensity, oil producers will have to emit 18 per cent fewer greenhouse gases per barrel of oil produced.

But if the number of barrels of oil produced increases by 300 per cent, then overall emissions will rise too. Intensity targets won't help us make the big cuts in emissions that are needed to get climate change under control.

A better solution would be to legislate absolute emission reductions. For example, the government could set a cap requiring Canadian oil producers to reduce their overall greenhouse gas emissions 50 per cent (it's not so far-fetched. Shell Canada has committed to doing just that).

We still have a lot of work to do.

Next!

Issue 3: International leadership
Canada claims it is a world leader in the flight against climate change.

Reality check
There's a lot of hot air coming out of Ottawa these days and it's not because of global warming.

"We want to be a world leader in the fight against global warming and the development of clean energy," said Prime Minister Stephen Harper in a recent speech. "We want to lead, not by lecturing, but by example."

Federal Environment Minister John Baird went one step further and claimed Canada is already a champion of environmental protection.

Of course, there's no mention of the fact that Canada tends to stall and block progress during international Kyoto negotiations.

Here's just one example. At a 2007 UN climate meeting in Bonn, each country was asked to submit a report on what it could do to cut emissions. The EU wanted to set a submission deadline before the Bali meeting so that these reports could be discussed at Bali. Everyone was on-board . . . everyone except Canada, that is. We pushed for, and won, a February 2008 deadline, which will be long after the Bali meeting has ended.

If Canada wants to be a true international leader on climate change, we need to play a more constructive role at these talks.

So what's the verdict of our check-in two weeks in advance of the Bali climate summit? Well, our federal government has certainly spent a lot of time and effort talking about climate change. We'll give them that.

But we haven't actually done anything to cut our greenhouse gas emissions. We need less talk and more action.

Recommended reading
For anyone wanting to dive deeper into Canada's position heading into Bali, the David Suzuki Foundation and the Pembina Institute released a backgrounder on the 2007 UN climate negotiations today. Download it here (pdf).