The Mark 2010

Any reduction in greenhouse gas emissions must be both politically and economically viable.

Canada's plan to fight climate change calls for a 23 per cent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from the 2007 level by 2020. If the country wants to attain this target, it is going to have to go very green, very quickly. And that just might be too green for the majority of Canadian voters.

According to a recent survey conducted on behalf of the David Suzuki Foundation, 67 per cent of Canadians want the government to prioritize the economy, with the environment coming third on the list after health care. In this context, any plan to reduce emissions must pass both economic and political tests. Should it fail to do so, whether it looks like an ideal environmental solution or not, it will be impossible to implement.

To pass the economic test, the reduction target must not cost more than what voters are willing to pay to satisfy their environmental virtue. According to a report by the Network for Business Sustainability, consumers are ready to spend an extra 10 per cent to obtain a green product. Anything more expensive than that, and they opt for a more polluting one.

Unfortunately, the economic consequences of a 23 per cent reduction in emissions are likely to exceed this 10 per cent tolerance level. According to the study Climate Leadership, Economic Prosperity, carried out by the Pembina Institute and the David Suzuki Foundation, Canada will have to spend some $7 billion annually to acquire carbon credits and reduce emissions coming from natural gas extraction and crude oil production sectors by 33 per cent, and 22 per cent respectively to reach this goal.

This means that, unless an affordable method of capturing and storing carbon is discovered, there will be a major slowdown in the gas and petroleum extraction industry. In order to understand the economic consequences of such a slowdown and the domino effect it might trigger in the economy, imagine a slowdown in agriculture, forestry, hunting, fishing, lodging, and restaurants, because as a proportion of GDP, this grouping of Canadian industries is equal in importance to the gas and petroleum extraction industry.

As for the political test, a target will only be passed if it doesn't also mean political suicide for the party in power. Stéphane Dion and the Liberals learned this when, after the announcement of their green shift plan, they were hammered in the last election. Unfortunately, any politician with the necessary courage to back a genuine green shift for Canada would be risking their careers at a time when economic concerns trump environmental ones.

Then there is the issue of national unity. An overly ambitious target will inevitably provoke significant transfers of wealth from western to eastern Canada by taxing the geographic markets and regions that are polluting to the advantage of the others. This in a country already perturbed by the unequal distribution of natural resources, serious constitutional issues, constant wrangling for power between western and eastern Canada, national unity, and Québec nationalism. Borders have been rearranged for much less.

Canada must also consider the energy concerns of the United States. As that country's largest and most reliable supplier of oil, natural gas, electricity, and uranium, any environmental solution for Canada must also satisfy its southern neighbour. It is highly unlikely that the Americans would accept a Canadian commitment in Copenhagen that would weaken its own energy security.

Considering the above observations, it seems that a 23 per cent reduction target will have too many negative consequences to be considered a genuine possibility. This is especially true given the current Canadian voter profile. If the government is really serious about helping the country go green, it will be necessary to reduce the target in a politically correct manner, while still ensuring that the planet's environmental objectives are respected.

The most accessible solution to this problem is to demand that the United States take responsibility for its share of the oil sands development. Currently, Canadian taxpayers are being asked to absorb the entire environmental burden arising from the development of this resource, one that is being exploited mainly for the benefit of the Americans who consume 83 per cent of its production and constitute the largest foreign investors in the petroleum companies in western Canada.

In addition, the difference in targets between Canada and the United States – which is aiming for only a 17 per cent reduction in emissions – obliges Canadians to absorb a much higher environmental cost compared to Americans, even though it is the Americans who have a greater ability to pay for it. (In 2008, the GNP per capita in terms of buying power was $46,859 (U.S.) for each American-6th in the world, while only $38,183 (U.S.) for each Canadian-13th in the world.)

It is also necessary to examine the key environmental indicators, which demonstrate that each American is responsible for more overall environmental damage compared to each Canadian, even though Canadian emissions have increased more drastically since 1990.

It remains to be seen whether the Americans will accept their share of responsibility for the oil sands. It all depends on the relative importance it accords to Canadian energy resources and the capacity of Canadians to transcend their feelings of inferiority toward Uncle Sam. In the meantime, let us not forget that the ultimate issue with climate change is that too great an accumulation of errors concerning the right target levels may mean that in the end, we, the human race, become the target ourselves.