Below are some of the most frequently asked questions about the Kyoto Protocol, and what it means for Canada.

• What is the Kyoto Protocol?
• What are greenhouse gases?
• Isn’t global warming just a part of normal long-term weather cycles?
• Why are developing countries exempt from emissions targets?
• What happens to industrial nations that fail to meet their Kyoto targets?
• Will Canada face financial penalties if we fail to meet the Kyoto target?
• Why should Canada have to adopt Kyoto when we only produce two per cent of the emissions?
• How can we meet Canada’s Kyoto target?
• If there are so many industries and communities doing good work, why don’t we just rely on voluntary action to reduce emissions?
• How will Kyoto affect the Alberta economy?
• How much of the responsibility for Kyoto will be assigned to the oil and gas industry?
• Why is the U.S. opposed to Kyoto?
• Will our household energy costs go up now that Canada has adopted Kyoto?
• Won't Canadian businesses be unable to compete with the U.S., and go bankrupt, if Kyoto is implemented?
• What about industry claims that Kyoto will cost Canada 450,000 jobs?
• What about industry claims that Kyoto will cost Canada tens of billions of dollars?
• Will Kyoto force governments to divert money away from health care and other important priorities?
• What are the main sources of energy emissions in Canada?
• Is shifting to nuclear power a good way to reduce emissions and fight climate change?

What is the Kyoto Protocol?

The Kyoto Protocol is an international treaty agreed to in 1997 in Kyoto, Japan. It requires countries around the world to cut greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming.

Because global warming is primarily caused by burning fossil fuels, Kyoto encourages countries to move to more environmentally responsible ways of producing and using energy.

Under Kyoto, the target to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is different for each country. For the European Union as a group, the target is eight per cent from 1990 levels; for Japan, seven per cent; and for Canada, six per cent. Because we have allowed emissions to increase since 1990, Canada is actually required to reduce emissions by about 18 per cent from today’s levels.

Kyoto officially entered into force on February 16, 2005.

What are greenhouse gases?

Greenhouse gases trap heat in the earth's atmosphere. Without these gases, the earth’s temperature would not support the variety of life on this planet.

But when we burn large amounts of fossil fuels such as oil, coal and gas, we are dramatically increasing the atmospheric concentration of these gases. Like the glass in a greenhouse, this raises the average air temperature in the lower atmosphere. More energy is retained as heat or manifested as increased atmospheric activity. The result is climate change.

The main greenhouse gas is carbon dioxide (CO₂), most of which comes from the burning of fossil fuels. Methane (CH₄) is produced from natural gas processing, pipeline leaks, livestock operations and solid waste dumps; nitrous oxide (N₂O) is mostly a result of fertilizer use. Three industrial gases used as refrigerants, heat conductors and insulators are also listed as greenhouse gases under the Kyoto Protocol: hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs) and sulphur hexafluoride (SF₆). Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) are also powerful greenhouse gases that have been banned by a separate treaty, the Montreal Protocol, which is aimed at protecting the ozone layer.


Isn’t global warming just a part of normal long-term weather cycles?

The science on climate change is solid.

In 1988, the United Nations appointed a group of more than 2,000 non-partisan climate scientists worldwide to find out whether climate change is real or not. This group, known as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, has released three conclusive reports since then confirming the scientific basis of global warming. The U.S. National Academy of Science and many other national academies have reached similar conclusions.

By studying core samples from glaciers, scientists can calculate average temperatures and analyze atmospheric composition many years into the past. They show that the global climate has indeed varied over time. However, the current rapid, steep rise in greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere in the last 200 years is without precedent. Scientists say the problem will get worse at an accelerating rate unless action is taken.

The Royal Society of Canada, our senior body of scientists and scholars, released along with 17 other national and regional scientific bodies an international statement by scientists in March, 2001. Here is an excerpt:

"Despite increasing consensus on the science underpinning predictions of global climate change, doubts have been expressed recently about the need to mitigate the risks posed by global climate change. We do not consider such doubts justified. The balance of the scientific evidence demands effective steps now to avert damaging changes to the earth's climate."

Why are developing countries exempt from emissions targets?

Developing countries, including India and China, do not have to commit to reducing greenhouse gas emissions in the first phase of Kyoto reductions because their per-capita emissions are much lower than those of developed countries. They have not contributed significantly to today’s levels of pollution: that has been the product of the developed world’s Industrial Revolution.

Industrialized nations have created the climate change problem by producing over 84 per cent of fossil fuel emissions. They also have most of the innovative technologies that will be required to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

The second phase of compulsory emission reductions to be set out in the Kyoto Protocol will be negotiated during the coming decade, with implementation to begin in 2013. Once the industrial nations have begun to act, the developing world will be expected to act.

It is important to note that China has already cut emissions, even without legal requirements to do so.

What happens to industrial nations that fail to meet their Kyoto targets?

Under the terms of the Kyoto Protocol, these countries will be required to compensate with accelerated rates of emission reduction after 2013.Countries that fail to meet their Kyoto target will also have reduced ability to take advantage of "flexibility" mechanisms such as international emissions trading after 2013.

Will Canada face financial penalties if we fail to meet the Kyoto target?

No.

Why should Canada have to adopt Kyoto when we only produce two per cent of the world’s emissions?

Climate change is a global problem and the solution must be global.

Canadians currently produce about 700 megatonnes of greenhouse gases per year, much of it from wasteful energy use. This is about two per cent of total global emissions, coming from a country with about half of one per cent of the world’s population.

In other words, the average Canadian produces four times the global average level of emissions – 23.6 tonnes per person, per year.

By taking action to reduce emissions, we will accept responsibility for the damage we are causing, demonstrate our leadership in the world community and promote innovation and energy efficiency among our own industries. Other benefits include job creation, cleaner air and a cleaner environment.

How can we meet Canada’s Kyoto target?

We can meet our Kyoto target mostly by reducing our wasteful use of energy, with technologies that are widely available.

Canadians have already taken big strides in energy conservation since 1970, even without any overall plan to do so. New homes, appliances and cars are more energy efficient than they were a generation ago. So is the equipment used by industry, from factory lighting to diesel railway engines. Efficiency improvements have slowed the growth in greenhouse gas emissions by 38 million tonnes is also saving Canadian energy consumers $8.7 billion in reduced annual energy bills between 1990 to 2000.

Many communities and businesses are now going further to reduce emissions. Here are a few examples:

• Interface Canada’s floor covering plant in Ontario has cut emissions by 64 per cent, while doubling production and exports to the U.S. The company also offers home energy conservation incentives to employees.
• Canada’s oldest company, the Hudson’s Bay Company, has cut energy use by eight per cent and annual energy costs by $14 million by making the company’s buildings more energy efficient.
• Canada Post’s prototype delivery van, to go into service within two years, will cut greenhouse gas emissions by 90 per cent compared with the current diesel fleet.
• Mountain Equipment Co-op, with $150 million in annual sales, has built its stores to use 40 to 60 per cent less energy than the retail industry average.
• The City of Calgary is using wind power to run its rapid transit system.
• The City of Edmonton cut its transportation fuel use by 15 per cent simply by re-training its city works drivers.
• The City of Toronto has cut its total energy use by 70 per cent through an overhaul of its buildings and its operating procedures.

A recent study, Kyoto and Beyond, shows that we can cut Canada’s total emissions in half by 2030 using existing technology, while maintaining our quality of life and economic growth at "business as usual" levels.

If there are so many industries and communities doing good work, why don’t we just rely on voluntary action to reduce emissions?

Voluntary action taken by Canadian industries and governments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions has been inadequate.

In 1995, the federal government established the Voluntary Challenge and Registry (VCR) in partnership with Canadian industry to encourage companies to voluntarily cut their emissions.

Some Canadian companies have been successful in cutting their emissions but they are outnumbered by companies that remain ‘free riders.’ For example, of the 493 companies listed with the program in mid-2002, only 102 had reported their performance for the year 2000 by the reporting deadline of March 31, 2002.

Most industrial firms who send reports to the VCR say their emissions have increased significantly since 1990. In many cases, they are shifting to more greenhouse-gas-intensive activities – the opposite of what one would expect from firms making meaningful efforts to address climate change. A recent report, The Case for Kyoto, provides a critical analysis of industry's voluntary program.

Governments need to update standards and provide performance-based incentives for homeowners, building owners and industry to invest in more energy efficient technologies.

How will Kyoto affect the Alberta economy?

Canada’s key strategy in reducing greenhouse gas emissions will be to reduce the wasteful burning of oil and coal. If we succeed, Canadian demand for these fossil fuels will drop. This means oil-rich Alberta may have to diversify its economy more fully, rather than just relying on the unlimited expansion of the oil sands.

In addition, an effective national strategy will require all industries, including the oil industry, to reduce their pollution levels. Alberta and its oil industry are concerned that this will increase production costs. For some firms, this may be the case. However, those costs are expected to be manageable.

As the CEO of Suncor stated in October 2002, "Kyoto is just a small bump in the road." As well, BP, one of the world’s largest energy companies, reduced its emissions below the Kyoto target with a gain of $1 billion.

There are also some excellent opportunities for Alberta under Kyoto.

A low carbon strategy will support increased production of natural gas, and of Alberta’s new wind power industry. It will provide agriculture with opportunities from the increased production of bio fuels like ethanol. Any new energy-related pollution control technologies can be marketed around the world.

Alberta’s high-tech sector, and other emerging sectors will receive some of the investment capital that is diverted away from energy mega-projects. Investment in the energy sector is one of the least effective ways to produce employment in any economy.  This sector accounts for over 20 per cent of capital expenditure by Canadian business, but only two per cent of employment in business.

Canada’s adoption of Kyoto will not directly affect Alberta oil and gas exports to the U.S. These exports account for about half of current oil and gas production, and will likely continue to rise in the near future. The long-term future for Alberta oil exports depends on consumer behaviour in the United States, along with the U.S. government’s strategic decisions on importing energy. It is hoped that the U.S. will move toward climate friendly energy policies, in line with the rest of the world.

Oil and gas is a volatile industry in terms of activity and employment levels, and is driven largely by global prices and demand levels. Job losses are usually related to cash flows from current production, near-term investment plans, company mergers and new technologies. Overall, the number of direct jobs in Alberta oil and gas has declined steadily over the past decade, despite increases in production.

The Canadian government’s options paper on climate change forecasts that the Alberta economy will grow by 26.2 per cent by 2012, assuming a middle-of-the-road plan for implementing Kyoto. This is a significant growth rate that does not match the dire warnings of Premier Klein and many anti-Kyoto oil industry leaders.

How much of the responsibility for Kyoto will be assigned to the oil and gas industry?

A recent economic study from the David Suzuki Foundation, Kyoto and Beyond,  forecasts that the oil and gas industry will be less affected than other sectors of the economy because so much of the product is exported to the U.S. In 2004, it is estimated that the oil and gas industry will emit the equivalent of 126 megatonnes of carbon dioxide. Our study concludes that this that number can be cut to 116 by 2012 and to 94 by 2030, or by about a third. We believe the average emission reduction across the economy will be about one half in the same period.


Why is the U.S. opposed to Kyoto?

The U.S. has opposed or opted out of many multicultural security initiatives in recent years. The convention on land mines and the international war crimes tribunal are prominent examples.

With Kyoto in particular, the current U.S. administration has expressed fears similar to those of Alberta: that reducing the burning of fossil fuels will reduce the incomes of oil and coal companies. In its energy plan, the Bush administration continues to rely on fossil fuels. It is not seriously challenging the status quo despite the costs of climate change and air pollution.

The Bush administration has adopted a weak plan to encourage industries to reduce emissions, assuming an 18 per cent increase in emissions by 2012. The good news in the U.S. is that many states are taking steps to cut emissions, including California, New York, Michigan and Massachusetts. Read a releated report from the Pembina Institute called How Ratifying the Kyoto Protocol will Benefit Canada's Competitiveness.

Will our household energy costs go up now that Canada has adopted Kyoto?

Canada can achieve the Kyoto target by relying on targeted tax incentives for industry and consumers, and on higher product standards. The effect will be to make industry and consumers more efficient in using energy, and to cut costs.

Even without a federal program in place, Canadian energy consumers saved about $50 billion between 1970 and 1998 through energy conservation. A concerted effort will mean even more savings – about $30 billion annually by 2030, according a study from the David Suzuki Foundation.

Crude oil and gasoline prices are set internationally, according to OPEC decisions and world political developments. Canada’s support for Kyoto will have no affect on this price volatility.

In fact, the Kyoto-driven trend to energy efficiency, local power generation, renewable energy sources and bio fuels will increase our independence from global energy price shocks.

Won't Canadian businesses be unable to compete with the U.S., and go
bankrupt, when Kyoto is implemented?

The shift to energy efficiency can make Canadian businesses more, rather than less competitive – by saving energy costs, and by improving their ability to innovate.

When it is time to replace equipment – such as furnaces, office equipment, or lighting – businesses should be encouraged to choose the most efficient models. Governments can accelerate this process by phasing out the sale of highly inefficient products, by updating standards as the technology improves and by offering rebates or incentives for energy efficient choices.

In many cases, the payback from energy efficiency investments is more attractive than the return on conventional financial investments. Looked at another way, the purchase of energy efficiency is often less expensive than the purchase of fuel or electric power on a per-unit basis.Interface Canada, a carpet producer with a single manufacturing facility in Ontario, has cut energy costs by $640,000 per year through adopting new technologies and processes, while expanding production and exports. Vancouver International Airport has paid two cents per kilowatt for energy efficiency since 1996, compared with an average 2.7 cents per kilowatt for electric power. The airport’s total savings from reduced energy costs and maintenance costs are at least $2 million. On an international scale, energy giant BP estimates it has saved $1 billion in less than 10 years from improved energy efficiency. Read more on the economics ofthe Kyoto Protocol.

What about industry claims that Kyoto will cost Canada 450,000 jobs?

There are no studies to support this number. Industry lobby groups continue to use it for scare purposes.

There may be a drop in total employment in conventional energy production in Canada, but this is a trend that has been underway for several years. According to Natural Resources Canada, the energy sector employed almost 81,000 fewer workers in 1998 than it did in 1990 despite rapidly expanding production.

However, a shift of investment away conventional energy production into other activities is likely to create more jobs. With 20 per cent of capital investment by Canadian businesses, the oil, gas and electricity industries produce just 2 per cent of the jobs. The Communications Energy & Paperworkers Union, the Alberta Federation of Labour, the Canadian Auto Workers, and the Canadian Labour Congress all publicly support the Kyoto Protocol.

In other sectors, many analysts see a net gain in employment. In fact, the Canadian economy is projected to grow by 30.4 per cent by 2012, from $1 trillion to $1.315 trillion if we meet out Kyoto targets. For more information, read the Tellus Institute’s report, The Bottom Line on Kyoto.

What about industry claims that Kyoto will cost Canada tens of billions of dollars?

Most of the so-called "costs" of Kyoto will be related to investments in energy efficiency, with payback times of a few years or even months. These investments will be made when it is normal to make them – that is, when it is time to purchase new and better industrial equipment, motor vehicles or home furnaces.

Such investments in energy efficiency since 1970 have produced net cost savings for Canadian consumers of more than $50 billion, and the annual savings amount is rising.

A well-executed emissions reduction program can provide all kinds of benefits to industry. These include

• energy savings;
• reduced energy dependency;
• a better competitive position through efficiency;
• an improved capacity to innovate, and a chance to market new processes and technologies in a global market;
• better relations with local communities as industries clean up the air and show leadership on the environment..

Further, any discussion of costs and benefits needs to consider the costs of doing nothing about climate change and air pollution. We are already absorbing the high costs of inaction – including droughts, floods, more extreme weather events, and impacts on natural resource industries. As well, fossil fuel air pollution imposes immense human and financial costs related health impacts. In other words, taking action to reduce energy use has substantial economic benefits in many areas of our lives.

Will Kyoto force governments to divert money away from health care and other important priorities?

There should be no need for our Kyoto strategy to consume large amounts of new money. Our core strategy will be to reduce the wasteful burning of fossil fuels.

Governments, like private industries and consumers, can generate net savings for themselves by making their own operations more energy efficient. Several municipalities, including Calgary, Edmonton, Regina, Sudbury and Toronto are already leading the way in this area.

Governments can also adjust their tax policies to encourage energy efficiency among businesses and households. This could include targeted tax cuts instead of general tax cuts, and the adjustment of business tax incentives to reward energy efficiency. This type of tax policy is already well established in strong market economies such as the United Kingdom, Denmark and the Netherlands.

What are the main sources of energy emissions in Canada?

According to the inventory, the main sources of energy emissions in Canada are:

Residential buildings: 45 MT

Commercial buildings 32 MT

Personal transportation 107 MT

Freight transportation 71 MT

Industry (energy use) 64.9 MT

Non-energy sources (industry, agriculture,

waste management) 135 MT

Oil and gas production 119 MT

Electric utilities 128 MT

Coal-fired electric power plants are an extremely inefficient energy source, and produce about one-seventh of Canada’s total emissions. The increasing use of trucks for personal transportation in contributing to rapid emissions growth in the transportation sector. Oil sands production is very energy intensive; the process burns about three-quarters of a barrel of oil to produce one barrel for sale.

Canada can cut its emissions by 50 per cent by 2030 using existing technologies. This would include phasing out coal-fired power plants in favour of cleaner sources; phasing in more efficient truck engine technologies; and reducing our use of crude oil.

Is shifting to nuclear power a good way to reduce emissions and fight climate change?

It’s true that generating electricity from nuclear fuel does not directly produce greenhouse gas emissions.

However, nuclear power is not a practical long-term source of energy. Nuclear power is very expensive and is highly subsidized by public funds. The last plant constructed in Canada, at Darlington, Ontario, was billions of dollars over budget when it was completed in the mid-1980s. Its net cost was $4,000 per kilowatt, compared to costs in the $1,000-$1,200 range for current wind power and natural gas power plants. And the Darlington plant was actually cheaper than the average plant built in the U.S. during the same period.

Nuclear power creates radioactive waste, and there is no accepted method of storing that waste. Spent fuel will remain radioactive for 250,000 years and storage will be extremely expensive for taxpayers.

Finally, nuclear power involves the production and shipment of materials that can be used to make nuclear weapons. This has already created significant security issues on our highways and railways, and added to international tensions.