By Keith Heyde
It seems as if the United States has a yet another reason to be thankful for our friendly northern neighbors. As of December, Canada joined the United States as the only other “large” nation to reject the Kyoto protocol.
Why the sudden turn of heart? Perhaps the warmer winters started to sound a bit more appealing?
More likely, it was the 14 Billion Dollars in carbon credit offsets that Canada would have been required to pay out internationally. Because Canada is far from meeting it’s mandated 6% reduction of carbon emissions (from a 1990 baseline), it has failed to meet regulations and therefore must purchase carbon offsets to maintain compliancy under the treaty. This amount equals roughly 450 dollars per Canadian citizen that would have to be paid in 2012 to countries that had achieved carbon ‘compliancy’. It seems like a no brainer, but in an economy as hard as this one, Canada chose to withdraw from the Kyoto protocol rather than enact a (rather steep) tax hike to buy the compliancy status.
But what if Canada had not withdrawn? The simple answer is that they would have only been labeled ‘non-compliant’. No embargoes, no sanctions, just a label. Is the ‘bad name’ worth pulling out of the entire treaty? The answer is more of a moralistic perspective than a strict right or wrong.
What does this mean for the Kyoto protocol as a whole? Well in the short term, probably not much. Canada had not been meeting their compliance requirements and as a consequence has enacted little help for achieving the Kyoto Protocols mandates. Furthermore, they will, most likely, be the only country to withdraw in the near future. This is more a prediction of economic situation than of policy.
However, Canada’s withdrawal does set an unfortunate precedent that removal from the Kyoto Protocol is possible. And, to make matters even more dicey, Canada’s action was entirely legal under the treaties bylaws. Like Canada, few countries are going to choose to stay in the treaty if it means taxing citizens more, stressing economies, and potentially losing election.
Canada’s withdrawal, more than anything, is an insight into the human nature: one that can only take so much ‘following the rules’ and ‘being good’ from peer pressure alone. As soon as the regulations got tough, the politically savvy get going. Canada may be the only major country to withdrawal from the treaty thus far, but if pressures to comply reach as high as 14 Billion in taxes elsewhere, you can be sure that Canada will not be the last.
It seems as if the United States has a yet another reason to be thankful for our friendly northern neighbors. As of December, Canada joined the United States as the only other “large” nation to reject the Kyoto protocol.
Why the sudden turn of heart? Perhaps the warmer winters started to sound a bit more appealing?
More likely, it was the 14 Billion Dollars in carbon credit offsets that Canada would have been required to pay out internationally. Because Canada is far from meeting it’s mandated 6% reduction of carbon emissions (from a 1990 baseline), it has failed to meet regulations and therefore must purchase carbon offsets to maintain compliancy under the treaty. This amount equals roughly 450 dollars per Canadian citizen that would have to be paid in 2012 to countries that had achieved carbon ‘compliancy’. It seems like a no brainer, but in an economy as hard as this one, Canada chose to withdraw from the Kyoto protocol rather than enact a (rather steep) tax hike to buy the compliancy status.
But what if Canada had not withdrawn? The simple answer is that they would have only been labeled ‘non-compliant’. No embargoes, no sanctions, just a label. Is the ‘bad name’ worth pulling out of the entire treaty? The answer is more of a moralistic perspective than a strict right or wrong.
What does this mean for the Kyoto protocol as a whole? Well in the short term, probably not much. Canada had not been meeting their compliance requirements and as a consequence has enacted little help for achieving the Kyoto Protocols mandates. Furthermore, they will, most likely, be the only country to withdraw in the near future. This is more a prediction of economic situation than of policy.
However, Canada’s withdrawal does set an unfortunate precedent that removal from the Kyoto Protocol is possible. And, to make matters even more dicey, Canada’s action was entirely legal under the treaties bylaws. Like Canada, few countries are going to choose to stay in the treaty if it means taxing citizens more, stressing economies, and potentially losing election.
Canada’s withdrawal, more than anything, is an insight into the human nature: one that can only take so much ‘following the rules’ and ‘being good’ from peer pressure alone. As soon as the regulations got tough, the politically savvy get going. Canada may be the only major country to withdrawal from the treaty thus far, but if pressures to comply reach as high as 14 Billion in taxes elsewhere, you can be sure that Canada will not be the last.
No comments:
Post a Comment