The announcement made by Peter Kent, the Canadian Environment Minister, to formally withdraw from the Kyoto Protocol comes as a major jolt to the global climate action movement. The timing of the announcement – barely a day after more than 190 nations signed off a deal at Durban – is also puzzling.
But this should not come as a surprise, if one looks at the scenario from a ‘game-theory’ perspective. Game-theory is the study of models of conflict and cooperation between intelligent rational decision-makers where a person’s success is based upon the choices of others.
Likewise, the developed nations are bound to alter their strategy based on strategies adopted by others and their subsequent outcomes. The effort is to maximize payoffs that can be related to pure national interests.
Kyoto Part I came into existence with a fractured mandate that has had two negative consequences.
First, without the US on board, the effectiveness of the global effort to cut global carbon emissions was drastically hampered. The US accounts for over 30% of total cumulative emissions during 1900-2005 and has the highest per-capita emission of over 24 tonnes.
Second, the absence of the US spurred inequity amongst other richer nations. The US spared itself from spending billions of dollars from buying carbon credits to offset any over-the-cap emissions and remained in an advantageous position while some others had to bleed to fall in line with the emission caps. Canada happens to be one of them.
With over USD 14 billion required to buy carbon credits to offset its over-the-cap emissions, Canada finds itself a big looser. This inequity was breeding since 2001 when George Bush, the then US president, withdrew from the Kyoto Protocol. Canada’s economy is deeply inter-locked with the US and it cannot afford to tow a different line that adversely impacts its economy.
Canada’s industrial policies, especially those related to tar sands, are exploitative and antithetical to emissions reduction. The tar sands project is highly GHG intensive and has faced strong opposition by environmental groups, but the government intends to continue these projects. It is not surprising to note that instead of targeting a 6% emissions reduction over 1990 levels – the Kyoto target – Canada’s emissions have actually increased by 16%.
The Durban platform has made certain that these two negative consequences continue to play spoil-sport until 2020. Much of the talk has centered on bringing all big polluters on board for a new deal that would come into effect only from 2020. The problem begins here. It virtually insulates the US from committing to any legally-binding agreement until 2020 and gives an enviable competitive edge over others.
With threats of an economic recession looming ahead, nothing else can offer a better trigger. If a few more rich nations move out of this treaty, the period 2012-2020 would be the worst phase in history.
The euphoria over a successful Durban deal is now dampened. The deal has traded the “possibility of long term certainty” for “definite short term uncertainty”.
The author is currently Editor at ThinktoSustain.com – a market space for ideas…
