Climate Change

Alberta’s Oil Sands: Key Issues and Impacts

George Hoberg — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 09:32:40 -0600

Northern Alberta’s oil sands are increasingly becoming a source of political conflict, both domestically and globally, as scrutiny of the world’s second-largest known oil reserve intensifies. While recent production in the oil sands has driven rapid economic growth in Alberta, there is increasing concern that this growth is causing unprecedented ecological harm. Major environmental non-government organizations (ENGOs), such as Greenpeace and the Pembina Institute, and local First Nations have begun to call for a moratorium on new oil sands projects until associated environmental destruction can be mitigated. At the same time, prominent political observers, such as former Alberta Premier Peter Lougheed, have argued publicly that development in the oil sands is proceeding at a rate that is not economically and socially beneficial for Alberta. As the primary regulatory body responsible for the oil sands, the Alberta government is responsible for shaping most of the economic, social and environmental policies that guide oil sands development. Numerous complex and divisive policy problems that all demand resolution compete for the government’s attention. The provincial government, however, has remained generally hostile to any calls for a slowdown in oil sands growth.

This article provides an overview of the major environmental, social, and economic policy problems that figure prominently in the debate over the future of oil sands development.

Overview of Oil Sands Development in Alberta

Numerous stakeholders are involved in shaping oil sands policy

Environmental Issues and Impacts of Oil Sands Development

Impact on water, greenhouse gases and on northern Alberta ecosystem a major concern

Social Policy Issues and Impacts Oil Sands Development

Alberta's Social Services and First Nations are impacted by oil sands development

Economic Issues and Impacts of Oil Sands Development

The negative impact of oil sands development on Alberta's and Canadian economy

Sources and Links to More Information

List of article sources and links to more on the development of the Alberta Oil Sands

Overview of Oil Sands Development in Alberta

Numerous stakeholders are involved in shaping oil sands policy

The Alberta government, as owner of the province’s resources, has played the dominant role. Different divisions of the Albertan government are responsible for the various aspects of oil sands policy. The Energy Resources Conservation Board is responsible for regulating the oil and gas industry in Alberta, while Alberta Energy is responsible for granting rights to industry for exploration and development, collecting royalties, and administering the energy sector’s fiscal regime. Alberta Environment, through relevant legislation and guidelines, regulates the impact of oil sands development on air, land, and water in the province. Recently, the Oil Sands Secretariat was created within the Treasury Board to strengthen policy coordination.

To inform policy development the Government of Alberta has also turned to processes involving a multitude of stakeholders. To guide the direction of future growth in the oil sands, the Alberta government created the Oil Sands Multi-Stakeholder Committee to consult with all relevant stakeholders in the province, including the general public. The committee released its report in June 2007. As of the end of May 2008, the government has yet to respond. The Cumulative Environmental Management Association (CEMA) was created in 2000, with the charge to propose a framework for environmental management for the Athabasca oil sands region. For various reasons, its progress has been slow. In January 2008, CEMA did call for a halt to the issuance of new tenures in one area while it continued deliberating , but the provincial government rejected the request, saying it would consider the issue when CEMA delivered its complete report. CEMA released its Terrestrial Ecosystem Management Framework on June 5, 2008.

The federal government’s role in managing the oil sands has been minimal. While the Government of Canada has jurisdiction over waterways, fisheries, Indian lands, and environmental assessments, it has been hesitant to exercise this jurisdiction in a way that would threaten Alberta’s perceived right to develop its resources as it sees fit.

The oil and gas companies involved in oil sands production have been extremely powerful stakeholders in the province. As of the end of December2006 there were 21 companies operating 74 projects in the Alberta oil sands. Some of the companies producing the largest amounts of oil included Imperial Oil, Suncor, Shell Canada Limited and Canadian Natural Resources. Of the 21 producing companies, the largest seven accounted for about 84 percent of production in 2006.

Today, environmental groups are increasingly asserting their concerns regarding oil sands development, and have gone so far as to challenge government policies in court. As the Alberta government remains relatively hostile to these groups’ demands, environmentalists find themselves largely removed from the formal political sphere in this arena.

Finally, the 23 Aboriginal groups that live in northern Alberta are increasingly asserting their right to shape the development of their ancestral lands. Many of their concerns are articulated in the recent First Nations’ consultative process.

All of these stakeholders are attempting to shift the pace, scale and direction of oil sands development in a particular direction that suits their respective needs or interests. To this end, some of the challenges with oil sands exploration – outlined further in this feature – are cited by many of these groups as they attempt to articulate their vision for the oil sands.

The absolute scale of current development in the oil sands, and the consequent environmental, social and economic implications of this development, are massive. Since the mid-1990s, production of oil from the region has increased exponentially. In 2006, oil sands production was at approximately 1.2 million barrels a day – a figure representing about 42 percent of Canada’s total crude output. Accordingly, the potential for future growth is enormous, as to date less than five percent of the established reserves have been produced. Alberta Energy estimates that production could reach five million barrels a day by 2030. As production continues to propel the Alberta economy forward, the policy problems that remain unresolved today will only increase.

Environmental Issues and Impacts of Oil Sands Development

Impact on water, greenhouse gases and on northern Alberta ecosystem a major concern

The Impact on Water Consumption in Alberta

Oil sands production requires an extremely large quantity of water. In general it takes about 2 to 4.5 barrels of water, most of which is withdrawn from the Athabasca River, to produce one barrel of oil. While much of this water is recycled and used many times over, the oil sands use more water per year than the entire city of Calgary. The key policy problem regarding water for this purpose is the need to allocate water supplies in a way that properly balances oil sands production needs with ecosystem and human needs in the region. While the amount of water consumed per barrel of oil produced has been declining, a 2006 Government of Alberta report warned that there simply may not be enough available water to meet the needs of all planned oil sands projects while maintaining adequate stream flows.

Criticism from academics and activists has primarily focused on the effects of water withdrawals on fish populations, particularly during low-flow months, and the water security of communities within the Athabasca watershed. Alberta’s current regulatory framework has been criticized because the quantity of water withdrawals it authorizes does not adequately ensure ecosystem protection or the long-term conservation of the Athabasca watershed. As the federal government has jurisdiction over fisheries and the Athabasca watershed is shared by the province of Saskatchewan, the Northwest Territories and numerous First Nations communities, there is a large potential for future jurisdictional disputes and power-sharing arrangements. Some affected communities are becoming increasingly vocal with their demands that a moratorium be placed on development, citing the negative effect that oil sands production is having on the region’s water systems. As new projects will require further massive withdrawals of water, the availability of freshwater sources may very well limit the continued expansion of oil sands production.

The Impact on Greenhouse Gases and Climate Change

More than any other environmental issue, the Alberta government is increasingly being criticized for its approach to climate change. Currently, Alberta is responsible for one-third of Canada’s Greenhouse Gas Emissions (GHGs). Specifically, the oil sands are Canada’s largest-growing source of GHGs, and these emissions are expected to increase substantially in the future. It is clear the Alberta government’s intention is to allow total GHG emissions from the oil sands to continue to rise. It recently released a GHG plan that relies heavily on intensity-based targets , which focus on reductions in emissions per unit of production, instead of setting absolute limits on total emissions. The Government of Alberta’s long-term target is a 14 percent reduction in GHGs, below 2005 levels, by 2050. Its most ambitious goal is to have emissions stabilized by 2020.

Like the provincial government, the current federal government’s climate change plan considers carbon capture and storage to be the solution to the oil sands’ ever-increasing emissions, but the concept has yet to be proven technologically or economically feasible. While recent funding announcements for carbon capture research are important, the amount of funding allocated falls far short of what is required to jump-start an industry-wide capture-and-storage program. If carbon capture and storage continues to form the foundation of Alberta’s climate change plan, finding a way to overcome the large associated financial and technological hurdles will prove extremely challenging.

The Alberta government’s lack of progress on mitigating oil sands emissions may prove to be a political liability in the future. Already, vocal international environmentalists have begun targeting the oil sands on the issue of climate change. As perhaps the global environmental issue of the 21st century gains increasing international attention, Alberta’s ability to ignore this growing chorus of voices may prove impossible. At the same time, many predict that a large political showdown between the provincial and federal government is looming; the belief is that it’s only a matter of time before the federal government moves to aggressively limit industrial sources of GHGs in Canada. Recently, the Federal Court of Canada struck down the environmental assessment of a proposed major oil sands project, arguing the project did not have an adequate plan to deal with its GHG emissions.

Even the United States, which buys the vast majority of oil from the region, has begun taking steps that could force the Government of Alberta to take the issue of GHG emissions from the oil sands more seriously. California has enacted legislation to reduce the emissions intensity of its transportation fuels, a move that may limit the ability of oil derived from the oil sands that is to be sold in that state. Moreover, a recent US federal law forbids the US government from purchasing oil from ‘non-conventional’ sources whose production creates greater emissions counts than that of ‘conventional’ oil resources. While the Alberta government lobbied the US successfully to ensure this law did not apply to the oil sands, it is likely that pressure from the US will only increase.

The Government of Alberta’s ability to continue developing the oil sands while largely ignoring growing concerns about climate change, both in the domestic and international political arenas, is uncertain. Public attention to climate change issues is only now beginning to focus on the oil sands, and this attention is only likely to increase.

The Impact of Oil Sands Development on the Northern Alberta Ecosystem

Oil sands development causes large-scale spatial disturbances to Alberta’s northern boreal forest . According to critics, the cumulative effects of deforestation, habitat fragmentation, and species loss caused by exploration, open pit mines, in-situ developments, urban development, forestry, and road clearing in the region are not being adequately managed or even considered.

In April 2008, the impact on habitat received widespread media attention when hundreds of migrating ducks died in a Syncrude tailings pond. There is also concern about links between habitat loss and declines in populations of at-risk species, such as caribou. The Alberta government, as articulated in its Mineable Oil Sands Strategy, has always maintained this disturbance is “temporary” and that production sites will be reclaimed when projects are completed. Provincial requirements for reclamation, however, are considered by environmentalists to be an inadequate means of ensuring that reclaimed land resembles a functioning ecosystem. In this context, reclaimed land is not actually required to resemble the site as it existed prior to development. Environmentalists point out that ecologically complex wetlands will be replaced with dry tree plantations, though there is uncertainty as to whether trees will even be able to grow on the sites used by oil sands projects.

To date, only one oil sands project has been awarded a reclamation certificate, which means that the reclaimed land has been formally approved by the provincial government. Critics were quick to point out, however, that this site was only minimally disturbed by oil sands activity and is not reflective of the massive land disturbances that take place in most oil sands project sites. Despite uncertainty as to whether the land base can be adequately reclaimed and how much money this will cost in the future, approvals for new oil sands projects continue to be granted. There is concern, however, particularly among environmental groups, that the Alberta government (and thus taxpayers) will be stuck with the future cost of reclamation. Though operators are required to provide the government with “financial security” that can be used if the land is not adequately reclaimed, it is the oil sands companies that tell the provincial government how much this deposit should be. It is also unclear whether this amount of money will be close to the amount required for ecologically sound reclamation, if needed.

Alberta's Social Services and First Nations are impacted by oil sands development

The Impact on Social Services in Alberta

There is much concern in Northern Alberta communities about their ability to keep up with the pace of development in the oil sands. In towns like Fort McMurray and Cold Lake, housing costs are spiralling upwards, such that many newcomers cannot find adequate housing. The region’s physical infrastructure, from roads to water and sewage systems, are severely overtaxed, with communities reporting massive infrastructure deficits. Social services, including health care, crime prevention and education, are inadequate and unable to meet the demands of population pressures. Communities in Northern Alberta feel they are absorbing a disproportionately high amount of the negative impacts of oil sands growth while failing to receive their fair share of the benefits. Many mayors, municipal councils, and individuals from these communities outlined their concerns in submissions to Alberta’s Oil Sands Consultations process. While the Government of Alberta has acknowledged there are indeed gaps in social services and infrastructure, few of its own recommendations have been implemented.

To alleviate some of these major social problems, communities have requested large investments from the provincial government and a new arrangement for tax and royalty regimes to ensure communities in the oil sands region can meet both infrastructure and social demands. Despite budgetary surpluses, the Alberta government has been slow to provide these communities with the requested funding. Massive social and infrastructure deficits remain; finding a way to fairly share the economic costs and benefits of the oil sands will remain a politically difficult policy problem for the foreseeable future.

The Impact on First Nations in Alberta

Over 30 different First Nations live in the oil sands region of Northern Alberta. Unlike in most of neighbouring British Columbia, formal treaties cover the area and, as with many resource extraction industries, the oil sands industry has been a mixed blessing for rural First Nations communities. While many First Nations members are indeed employed in the oil sands, there is much concern that oil sands companies are not doing enough to hire local First Nations. That said, the amount of business flowing to First Nations-owned companies (such as trucking and construction) has been extremely large. Furthermore, many of the larger oil sands companies have strategies and targets for hiring specific numbers of First Nations employees, and for purchasing from, and contracting with, First Nations-owned businesses, as outlined in a report published by the National Energy Board in 2004. These economic benefits, however, have not been sufficient to mute the resistance of many First Nations members to the scale and pace of development in their ancestral lands.

The problems cited by First Nations members regarding oil sands development include: lack of proper consultation and accommodation of First Nations interests; lack of adequate compensation; loss of traditional hunting and trapping territory; habitat destruction (particularly fishing grounds); health concerns relating to surrounding air and water pollution; and general concerns regarding the wide range of environmental issues pertaining to oil sands development. As many of the First Nations affected by oil sands development are located downriver in Saskatchewan and the Northwest Territories, this poses challenges for other governments (provincial and territorial), as well as the federal government. Several First Nations groups, including the Decho, have made high-profile calls in support of declaring a moratorium on oil sands development. Recently, the Assembly of Treaty Chiefs, which is comprised of representatives from all First Nations groups in Northern Alberta, unanimously passed a resolution calling for the provincial government to cease granting approval for new oil sands projects until certain conditions, including the development of a proper water management strategy, are met. While recent consultations with Alberta’s First Nations about the oil sands have concluded, it remains too early to determine how the Alberta government will respond to the issues raised during these proceedings.

Economic Issues and Impacts of Oil Sands Development

The negative impact of oil sands development on Alberta's and Canadian economy

The Impact on the Alberta Economy

Despite the enormous economic growth that oil sands development has spurred in Alberta, distribution of benefits has been uneven overall. In general, the level of investment and growth in the oil sands has hurt the province’s conventional oil and gas industry. Rising real estate costs and general inflation have hurt sectors such as agriculture and manufacturing particularly hard. Consequently, today there is a growing income split between those Albertans who are employed in the oil sands and those who are not employed by the oil sands – but who are faced with the rising daily cost of living. There is also concern that the economic benefits associated with oil sands development are being concentrated geographically and not diffused throughout the province. Moreover, despite recent changes to the province’s royalty regime, the Government of Alberta has been criticized for not collecting enough economic rent (in the form of royalties) from the oil sands on behalf of Albertans (the so-called ‘owners’ of the resource), and for allowing the vast majority of oil sands profits to flow to industry. Also worth noting here is that since labour demands for the oil sands are so large, a significant proportion of oil sands employment is going to non-Albertans. Consequently, more oil sands-related economic benefits are flowing beyond Alberta. Accordingly, it has been argued that a more prudent economic strategy would see oil sands development slowed, thereby ensuring Albertans can fill any related jobs and benefit from oil sands employment over the longer period. While economic benefits are the primary motivation behind the current pace and scale of development in Alberta’s oil sands, the manner in which these benefits are distributed within the greater Alberta economy remains a contested policy issue.

Oil sands development to date has been fuelled largely by natural gas. While many factors are contributing to the increase in price of natural gas in Western Canada, it is important to note that massive demand from the oil sands is a major factor. In the future, this rising price trend is likely to lead to large increases in home heating costs. At the same time, many have questioned the logic of using a relatively clean-burning fuel (in terms of greenhouse gases and air pollutants) such as natural gas to aid in the extraction of an extremely dirty form of crude oil for the purposes of export. Faced with the rising cost of natural gas, and expected shortages due to increased demand from the oil sands, as a fuel source, nuclear power is now seriously being considered to help power oil sands extraction.

The Impact on the Canadian Economy

The oil sands bring economic benefits to other areas of the country outside Alberta. Increasingly, however, development in the oil sands is having an overall net-negative economic impact. Attracted by record profits in the oil sands, investors are pulling their money from other economic sectors and concentrating their investments in the oil sands. This has created problems for other sectors as they struggle to attract required investment. At the same time, the rising Canadian dollar, caused in part by the economics of oil sands growth, is hurting export-orientated sectors. The forestry industry in BC and the Ontario manufacturing industry serve as two prominent examples. As a result, there is increasing discord, with some provinces – such as the Government of Ontario – becoming increasingly vocal in criticizing the federal government for allowing the oil sands to develop so rapidly without considering (or compensating) other important national economic sectors. Indeed, friction between the provinces around this issue, and also between specific provinces and the federal government, is likely to increase following a recent announcement by Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper that it is not the federal government’s responsibility to bail out struggling industries.

Sources and Links to More Information

List of article sources and links to more on the development of the Alberta Oil Sands

Sources Used for this Article

Dunbar, R.B. Existing and Proposed Canadian Commercial Oil Sands Projects. Calgary: Strategy West, April 2008. Available at: <http://www.strategywest.com/downloads/StratWest_OSProjects.pdf>
National Energy Board. Canada’s Oil Sands. Opportunities and Challenges to 2015: An Update. Ottawa: National Energy Board, 2006. Available at: <http://www.neb.gc.ca/clf-nsi/rnrgynfmtn/nrgyrprt/lsnd/lsnd-eng.html>
Radke, Doug. Investing in our Future: Responding to the Rapid Growth of Oil Sands Development. Edmonton: Oil Sands Ministerial Strategy Committee, 2006. Available at: < http://www.alberta.ca/home/395.cfm>
Standing Committee on Natural Resources. The Oil Sands: Towards Sustainable Development. Report of the Standing Committee on Natural Resources. Ottawa: Library of Parliament, March 2007. Available at: <http://cmte.parl.gc.ca/Content/HOC/committee/391/rnnr/reports/rp2614277/rnnrrp04/04_TOC_ENG.htm>
Vlavianos, Nickie. “Key Shortcomings in Alberta’s Regulatory Framework for Oil Sands Development.” Newsletter of the Canadian Institute of Resources Law Calgary 100 (2007). Available at: <http://www.ucalgary.ca/~cirl/pdf/Resources100.pdf>
Westman, Cint. “Assessing the Impacts of Oil Sands Development on Indigenous Peoples in Alberta, Canada.” Indigenous Affairs 2-3, 2006. Available at: <http://www.iwgia.org/sw161.asp>
Woynillowicz, Dan et al. Oil Sands Fever: The Environmental Implications of Canada’s Oil Sands Rush. Drayton Valley: The Pembina Institute, 2005. Available at: http://pubs.pembina.org/reports/OilSands72.pdf

Links for More Information

A Carbon Tax in Canada - The Elephant in the Room...

Greg Farries — Wed, 09 Jan 2008 15:50:38 -0700

John Baird and Canada's Position on Climage Change in Bali

Greg Farries — Thu, 13 Dec 2007 11:34:44 -0700

Developing Countries and Green House Gas Emissions

Greg Farries — Tue, 04 Dec 2007 14:19:04 -0700

Global Warming vs the Cold Canadian Winter

Greg Farries — Mon, 03 Dec 2007 20:04:54 -0700

Prime Minister Harper and his Nonbinding Emissions Targets

Greg Farries — Thu, 29 Nov 2007 09:53:07 -0700

Global Warming: Overview & Debates

Jay Makarenko — Thu, 01 Feb 2007 00:00:00 -0700

Global warming and climate change have become major environmental and political issues, both internationally and within Canada. This article provides an introduction to the scientific claims and debates concerning global warming. More specifically, it focuses on key scientific theories concerning the meaning of global warming, its causes, and potential impact on Canadians, in addition to exploring some of the scientific debates surrounding these theories and their political implications.

What is Global Warming?

Warming of the air temperature

Global Warming & the Greenhouse Effect

Theories on the causes of global warming

Impact of Global Warming on Canada

Potential consequences for Canadians

Debates on the Science of Global Warming

Scientific debate & political implications

Sources & Links for Further Information

List of article sources, links for more on this topic

What is Global Warming?

An explanation of what global warming is

Changing Weather & Climate

What precisely does global warming mean? It’s useful to begin first with a brief look at the ideas of weather, climate, and climate change. Weather is the condition of the air or atmosphere (the huge blanket of gas that circles the entire Earth) at a particular place and time. Weather is usually measured in terms of wind, temperature, humidity, atmospheric pressure, cloudiness, and precipitation. A snow flurry or rainstorm is weather. A clear sunny day is weather.

Climate is the “average weather” in a given location over a long period of time. For example, Vancouver has a wet and moderate climate. The area receives a high level of annual precipitation and temperatures are relatively moderate. In contrast, the Canadian Arctic has a dry and cold climate. The region receives relatively low levels of annual precipitation and experiences regular cold temperatures.

Climate change refers to shifts in the climate or average weather. This involves more than simply the annual changing of the seasons from summer, fall, winter, and spring. Instead, climate change involves significant and relatively permanent shifts in the average weather of a geographical location. If, for example, a region experiences a drastic and recurring drop in its annual precipitation, then we would say that its climate is changing (it is now a “dryer” climate). Similarly, if an area experiences several decades of abnormally cold temperatures, we would again say its climate has changed (it has changed to a “colder” climate).

Definition of Global Warming

Global warming is the scientific claim that the temperature of the air on the earth’s surface is increasing, making the planet warmer (hence, the term “global warming”). Moreover, this scientific claim has to do with the earth’s climate or average weather, as opposed to simply changes in the seasons. The global warming claim is not that the earth’s air temperature is warmer today than it was six months or a year ago. It is, instead, a claim that the average annual temperature of the earth’s air is increasing (the average temperature of all the days in one calendar year). Two important components of this global warming claim can be further distinguished. Firstly, global warming holds that the earth’s air temperature has increased significantly in the past. In other words, the average annual air temperature is warmer today than it was 50 or 100 years ago. Secondly, and more significantly, the claim also holds that the earth’s air temperature will continue to rise in the future. That is to say that the average annual temperature 50 or 100 years from now will be even warmer than it is today. This distinction is important because each component is based on different scientific evidence (see below) and comes with varying implications for the planet – and its inhabitants.

Scientific Basis for Global Warming

The claim of global warming has been based, in large part, on two different types of scientific evidence. On the one hand, there is the instrumental record. For over 150 years, scientists have been using instruments (such as thermometers) to observe and record daily air temperatures across the earth. These instrumental recordings have then been used to calculate the average temperature of the earth for each year, and then compared on a year-to-year basis. Using these recordings and comparisons, scientists have found that the earth’s annual average temperature has increased by approximately 0.6 degrees Celsius between the years 1861 and 2000, with major increases occurring in two periods: 1910 to 1945, and 1976 to 2000 (IPCC, Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis: 2001).

For more information on instrument-based estimates of global warming: IPCC: Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis: Summary for Policymakers (PDF)

In addition to instrumental recordings, scientists have also constructed climate models or simulations to estimate past and future climate changes. Climate models for the Northern Hemisphere have indicated that the temperature increase of the 20th century is likely to have been the largest of any century between the years 1000 and 2000 (with the 1990s likely being the warmest decade, and 1998 the warmest year). Moreover, these climate models have suggested this global warming trend will likely accelerate in the future. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a United Nations agency that reports on climate change, has reported that current climate models project the earth’s average temperature will likely increase by an additional 1.4 to 5.8 degrees Celsius between 1990 and 2100 (IPCC, Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis: 2001).

For more information on model-based estimates of past and future global warming: IPCC: Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis: Summary for Policymakers (PDF)

Global Warming & the Greenhouse Effect

Theories on the causes of global warming

Leading theories on global warming suggest that the rise in the earth’s temperature is the result of a process called the ‘enhanced’ greenhouse effect, and, moreover, that this process is the result of human activities.

‘Normal’ Greenhouse Effect Theory

It is important to distinguish the ‘normal’ greenhouse effect from the ‘enhanced’ version. The normal greenhouse effect is a scientific theory concerning the regulation of the air temperature around the earth’s surface. Central to this theory is the idea that planets in our solar system are constantly being bombarded by energy radiated by the sun. In most situations, this energy simply bounces off a planet and back into space. In the case of the earth, however, a special process (the greenhouse effect) occurs by which much of the energy is trapped on the planet’s surface. This results in the earth having warmer air temperatures than it otherwise would.

How does this process work? Located in the earth’s atmosphere (the layer of gases and materials that surrounds the planet) are materials called greenhouse gases (such as water vapour, carbon dioxide, ozone, methane, nitrous oxide, and chlorofluorocarbons, or CFCs). These gases have important properties. On the one hand, they allow some of the sun’s radiated energy to pass through the atmosphere and hit the earth’s surface. On the other hand, they block that energy from bouncing off the earth’s surface and heading back out into space. The result: a trapping of energy along the earth’s surface, which, in turn, warms the earth’s air temperature. This process operates much like a vegetable greenhouse in someone’s backyard (hence the reference to the “greenhouse effect”).

This normal greenhouse effect is naturally occurring, and has taken place on earth for millions of years. It is also a critical element for the development and continuation of many forms of life on this planet. Without the greenhouse effect, the earth would be a much colder planet and would not be able to support many of the plants, animals, and other organisms that exist today.

‘Enhanced’ Greenhouse Effect Theory

When scientists assert that global warming is the result of the greenhouse effect, they are actually referring to another related theory called the ‘enhanced’ greenhouse effect. This theory holds that over the last few hundred years, the normal greenhouse effect has become much more powerful than it was before. This, in turn, has resulted in more of the sun’s energy being trapped on the earth’s surface, and higher air temperatures – resulting in global warming.

What is causing the process to become more powerful? According to the theory, the enhanced greenhouse effect is the result of higher amounts of greenhouse gases in the earth’s atmosphere. The basic idea is that the ‘energy-trapping’ property of the atmosphere is directly related to the total amount of greenhouse gases it contains. As the level of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere grows, the stronger the greenhouse effect becomes, and the warmer the air on the earth’s surface becomes.

Global Warming & Human Activities

If the enhanced greenhouse effect theory is correct, then it raises an important question: why are there higher levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere? Many scientists have pointed to human beings as the primary cause. This view contends that as human societies have developed and become more industrialized, they have created greater levels of greenhouse gases (and carbon dioxide in particular) to be emitted into the earth’s atmosphere. This, in turn, has resulted in the enhanced greenhouse effect and global warming.

How do humans contribute to greenhouse gas levels? On the one hand, human beings are large producers of greenhouse gases, through such activities as the burning of fossil fuels (which produces carbon dioxide); agricultural production (which generates methane and nitrous oxide); and waste dumping, coal mining, and natural gas production (which all involve the production of methane). Moreover, human beings have also impacted the planet’s ability to naturally absorb these gases before they enter the atmosphere. The earth’s forests, for example, are major consumers of carbon dioxide, taking in the gas and releasing oxygen in exchange. Over the last 100 years, humans have developed large-scale forestry industries, resulting in high levels of deforestation. Fewer trees, it is argued, mean lower levels of carbon dioxide consumption and higher amounts being emitted into the earth’s atmosphere.

Impact of Global Warming on Canada

Potential consequences for Canadians

Global Warming & the Inter-dependent Planet

The earth’s ecosystem is a complex and inter-dependent process. Changes in one constitutive part (such as air temperature) can often lead to significant changes in other parts of the ecosystem. As such, there is much concern in the scientific community regarding global warming and what it might mean for the planet as a whole.

One area of concern is the affect of global warming on other climate trends. Some scientists, for example, have predicted that higher air temperatures could lead to changes in annual precipitation, shifting wind and cloud patterns, as well as changes in incidents of extreme weather (including hurricanes, tornadoes, hailstorms, and lightning storms). Such broad-based climate change would vary from region –to region, with some areas actually benefiting (such as from greater rainfall), and others facing difficult challenges (such as greater incidents of drought).

Another area of study involves the affect of global warming (and the wider climate change that may accompany it) on the planet’s physical and biological systems. Higher average temperatures may, for example, result in a rise in sea levels across the planet, which would drastically affect coastlines. Changes in precipitation could also impact river, stream, and lake systems (involving higher or lower levels of water flow). These climate and physical changes could, in turn, have implications for biological life on the planet, as plants, animals, insects, and micro-organisms adapt to their changing environment. Even human societies may face opportunities and/or challenges stemming from global warming (see below for more on the possible consequences of global warming for Canadians).

It is important to note, however, that the precise impacts of global warming and climate change are not certain. Our understanding of global warming, and its relationship with other physical and biological processes, while growing, is far from complete, and is often based on scientific theories and models that can only provide “best estimates.” Thus, when considering the potential implications of global warming, it is important to view current scientific assessments (such as those summarized in this article) as tentative projections, which are open to modification as new evidence becomes available.

See the Scientific Debate on Global Warming section of this article for more information on the debate surrounding global warming and its impacts.

Consequences of Global Warming for Canadians

What are some possible consequences of global warming for Canadians? In 2004, the Government of Canada released a comprehensive report on climate change, entitled Climate Change Impacts and Adaptation: A Canadian Perspective. Before summarizing key conclusions of the Report, some background is essential.

The Report was delivered under the Government of Canada’s Climate Change Impacts and Adaptation Program, which provides funding for research and activities to “improve our knowledge of Canada’s vulnerability to climate change, to better assess the risks and benefits posed by climate change, and to build the foundation upon which appropriate decisions on adaptation [to climate change] can be made.” (Climate Change Impacts and Adaptation Program: 28 November 2006). The Report is a summary of research literature from 1997 to 2002 in two primary areas of study: a) the potential impacts of climate change across Canadian regions and economic sectors, and b) possible strategies for adapting to these impacts

The Report adopts, as its basis, several important scientific claims. Firstly, it accepts the conclusion that the earth’s average temperature has increased by an estimated 0.6 degrees Celsius between the period 1861 and 2000. Secondly, it recognizes current projections by climate models and simulations are plausible. These models predict that the earth’s average temperature will further increase by 1.4 to 5.8 degrees Celsius between 1990 and 2100, and will bring with it broader climate and environmental changes (such as changes in precipitation, wind and cloud patterns, and sea levels). Thirdly, it recognizes human-caused increases of greenhouse gas levels in the atmosphere as a potential (but not necessarily definitive) cause of global warming.

The following section provides a summary of four key areas discussed by the Report:
1) water resources, 2) coastal zones, 3) natural resource sectors, and 4) human health and wellness. For the full text of the 2004 Report, please see:

Natural Resources Canada: Climate Change Impacts and Adaptation: A Canadian Perspective.

Water Resources

According to the Report, global warming and its associated climate change could have a significant impact on water resources, and particularly water availability and water quality. Regarding water availability, the hydrological cycle (the natural cycle of water through the air and on land) is greatly influenced by air temperature; even small changes can have a large impact on water flows and supplies. According to the Report, some regions of Canada may experience higher rates of water shortage and droughts (especially in the summer months) due to greater water evaporation and reduced levels of precipitation. Some regions may also face water quality issues; higher air and water temperatures could result in greater incidents of water-borne diseases (such as E. coli), as well as contamination of water reservoirs due to increased flooding and heavy rainfall events.

Coastal Zones

Another potential consequence highlighted by the Report is a rise in sea levels along Canada’s coastal areas. Sea levels may rise because of several global warming–related factors. On the one hand, warmer average temperatures mean that the planet’s glaciers (large bodies of frozen water) will begin to melt into the oceans, causing sea levels to elevate. At the same time, higher air temperatures mean warmer water temperatures, which will also expand the total volume of the planet’s oceans and seas. According to the Report, the global sea level is projected to rise by anywhere from 8 to 88 centimetres between 1990 and 2100 (although, precise changes in sea levels would vary regionally).

If this rise in sea level were to occur, each of Canada’s coastal areas would face significant challenges. Many regions along the Atlantic coast, for example, are identified as highly sensitive to a rise in sea level, with key issues being higher incidents of surge flooding, permanent submerging of parts of the coast, accelerated levels of coastal erosion, and the degradation of coastal wetlands. While most of the Pacific coast would be generally unaffected by a rise in sea levels, some small but important (and highly populated) areas would be at high risk, including the Queen Charlotte Islands, the Fraser Delta, and parts of Victoria and Vancouver. Main issues there include the breeching of dykes, flooding, and coastal erosion. Finally, some areas of the Arctic coastline would face amplified coastal erosion stemming from rising sea levels in combination with decreased ice cover and permafrost degradation (which would also result from global warming).

According to the Report, there are several different strategies for dealing with rising sea levels, each with their own social and economic impacts. One option is to protect coastal areas through the construction or improvement of seawalls and dyke systems. Such a strategy would involve high capital costs. Another option is accommodation, which would involve adapting infrastructure, industry, and agricultural practices to deal with higher incidents of flooding (which would again involve capital costs). A third option is to retreat and abandon coastal regions affected by rising sea levels, which would entail significant social and economic costs associated with uprooting communities and businesses.

Natural Resource Sectors

According to the Report, global warming may also have significant consequences for several Canadian natural resource sectors, including agriculture, forestry, and fisheries.

Regarding the agriculture sector, global warming is projected to bring both advantages and disadvantages. Warmer temperatures would significantly increase the length of the growing season in many Canadian regions, and could result in increased yields in certain crops. This would, in turn, lead to higher levels of agricultural production and a more robust agricultural industry. Warmer temperatures (and other associated climate changes), however, may also lead to higher rates of crop damage in some regions due to heat stress, water shortages, extreme weather events, and insect problems.

The impact of global warming on the forestry sector could vary considerably between regions in Canada. Warmer temperatures would lead to longer growing seasons and increased plant growth, particularly in northern regions and those at higher elevations. Moreover, some species of trees would adapt more readily to global warming and its associated climate changes (such as higher levels of carbon dioxide), resulting in a proliferation of certain tree species and a decline in others. Warmer temperatures may also lead to higher incidents of forest fires and greater outbreaks of forest pests (such as spruce budworms and mountain pine beetles), with negative environmental and economic consequences.

Finally, global warming is also expected to have large impacts on the fisheries sector. An increase in average air temperatures would lead to changes in water temperatures, water levels, ice cover, extreme weather events and fishery diseases, all of which could have an impact on fresh and seawater fish populations and sustainable harvests. As with the agricultural and forestry sectors, these impacts on the fisheries could vary greatly between regions and bring both advantages and disadvantages to the industry.

Human Health & Wellness

While recognizing that a range of demographic, social, and economic factors influence physical health and wellness in the population, the Report concludes that changes in climate could have important ramifications for such factors as rates of death, illness, and injury. In some cases, these potential consequences would be direct. For example, higher average temperatures are expected to increase the occurrence of heat-related illness, such as heat exhaustion and heat stroke, and exacerbate existing conditions related to circulatory, respiratory, and nervous system problems. Global warming may also lead to increases in heat waves, particularly in urban areas, which may result in more deaths. As for beneficial impacts, higher average temperatures may result in decreased extreme cold events during winter months, and a fall in cold-weather-related fatalities.

Global warming could also have several indirect impacts on human health and wellness. These involve broad climate and environmental changes, which may be induced by a rise in the average air temperature. For example, global warming could lead to changes in wind patterns, cloud cover, and incidents of forest fires. This, in turn, may impact average and peak air pollution levels, with consequences for persons with respiratory disorders. Higher average temperatures may also encourage the migration and proliferation of insect species, leading to higher rates of insect-borne diseases such as malaria and West Nile virus. Moreover, global warming may also lead to higher incidents of heavy rainfall events and flooding in some regions, which would also encourage water- and insect-borne diseases. In other regions, however, global warming could lead to more arid climate conditions, which would then reduce the rates of these diseases in those areas.

The Report further goes on to detail the consequences related to adapting to these health and wellness issues. Some adaptation initiatives include the development of vaccines against emerging diseases, the reduction of global warming-related health risks through public education programs, an improvement of emergency preparedness measures, and an improvement of water protection and management systems (all of which may require substantial capital costs).

Debates on the Science of Global Warming

Scientific debate & political implications

Throughout this article, mention has been made of the ‘uncertainty’ and ‘tentativeness’ of the claims associated with global warming and climate change. While there exists widespread (but not absolute) agreement that global warming is a real possibility, there remain gaps in our understanding of its scope and precise environmental and social consequences. Moreover, some in scientific and political circles have challenged the existence of global warming entirely, as well as the notion that it represents a substantial and pressing threat to the planet and its inhabitants. The following section offers an introduction to key issues and debates in this regard, as well as the political implications of these debates.

Existence of Global Warming

One point of contention is the existence of global warming itself. It is important to note, however, that this is a very complex debate with several important nuances. Most in scientific and political circles recognize the evidence of the instrumental record and its conclusion that the earth’s temperature has increased between the period 1861 and 2000 (see the What is Global Warming? section of this article for more on the instrumental record). There has, however, been some disagreement concerning the implications in the broader context.

Some have observed that the instrumental record alone does not prove that the earth is experiencing a prolonged and relatively permanent period of global warming. It may, instead, simply indicate a temporary rise in average air temperature, which will naturally correct itself over time. In response, supporters of the global warming thesis point to other forms of evidence, such as climate models and simulations, which suggest not only that the current rise and level of the air temperature is a unique event over the last 1,000 years, but also that it will continue (and even accelerate) in the foreseeable future.

This line of thinking, however, does raise questions concerning current climate models. Most in the scientific community (including the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the United Nation’s agency that reports on climate change) recognize the possibility that current models may not be absolutely accurate. (This is due, in large part, to the fact that scientists today cannot completely account for all the possible variables associated with changes in air temperature). Accordingly, critics of the global warming thesis often argue against using these models as evidence of global warming. In response, supporters often contend that current models are reliable enough to be taken seriously. In this vein, supporters often point to the fact that current models are highly consistent with the instrumental record. The basic idea behind this argument being that, if these models correctly reflect the observed rise in temperature over the last 150 years, then their estimates regarding previous and future temperature changes should be taken seriously.

Global Warming & Human Activities

Another issue often raised by critics concerns the causes of global warming, and, in particular, the claim that it is the result of human activities. Leading scientific theories hold that global warming is the result of the ‘enhanced’ greenhouse effect in the earth’s atmosphere, and, moreover, that this effect is connected to human activities, such as the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation.

See the Global Warming & the Greenhouse Effect section of this article for more information on global warming, the greenhouse effect, and human activities.

These leading theories, however, draw much of their evidence from climate models and simulations (actual experiments on the earth’s atmosphere would be impractical and highly dangerous). As discussed above, most scholars acknowledge that these climate models may not be absolutely accurate. Accordingly, critics often dismiss the connection between human activities and global warming (or, at the minimum, call it into question), on the basis that the evidence is far from reliable. Again, supporters of the connection counter by arguing that, while not perfect, current climate models are sophisticated and reliable enough to be taken seriously.

Consequences of Global Warming

A third issue, and possibly the most contentious, concerns the precise impact of global warming. Most in scientific and political circles would agree that if global warming were to occur to a significant extent, then other components of the planet’s ecosystem would be impacted. However, there is often significant disagreement concerning the precise nature and extent of these impacts.

Again, much of this disagreement is based on the soundness of climate and environmental models and theories. Our understanding of the precise extent of global warming, and its relationship with other physical and biological processes, is far from complete, and is often based on models and theories that can only provide “best estimates.” For some, this uncertainty means we should be cautious of current studies and reports, especially those that project drastic environmental and social consequences. For others, these reports and studies, while far from conclusive, represent well-educated projections, and, as such, should be taken seriously until disproved by additional evidence.

Political Implications of these Scientific Debates

Finally, it is important to recognize the political implications of these debates. If, on the one hand, the earth is in fact experiencing a human-induced period of global warming, and if this represents a situation that should be avoided, then there would seem to be very strong grounds for political action and change. Such a situation would provide an important justification for the creation of international agreements (such as the Kyoto Protocol on Climate Change), as well as higher levels of spending and regulation by societies and their governments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and stall the global warming process.

If, however, the reality is that recent changes in the earth’s average air temperature are simply temporary, or beyond the control of human beings, or will not result in significant environmental and/or social changes, then the political implications are much different. Such a situation would seem to undercut the necessity of agreements such as the Kyoto Protocol. The same would also seem to be true of expensive government programs aimed at limiting the emission of greenhouse gases, as well as greater social regulation of personal and industry behavior.

In sum, the debate on global warming is much more than simply a scientific project. It also entails important, and very real, political and social implications.

Sources & Links for Further Information

List of Article Sources, Links for More on this Topic

Sources Used for this Article

Electronic Sources

Warren, F., et al. “Climate Change Impacts and Adaptations: A Canadian Perspective.” Climate Change Impacts and Adaptation Program. 2004. 27 September 2006. <http://adaptation.nrcan.gc.ca/perspective_e.asp>
“What is Climate Change?” Natural Resources Canada. 27 September 2006. <http://adaptation.nrcan.gc.ca/posters/cc_en.asp>
“Feeling the Heat.” United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. 27 September 2006. <http://unfccc.int/essential_background/feeling_the_heat/items/2918.php>
Bell, M. “What is Global Warming and Why is there Such Controversy Surrounding this Issue?” The International Research Institute for Climate and Society. 27 September 2006. <http://ingrid.ldgo.columbia.edu/dochelp/QA/Basic/globalwarming.html>
“Summary for Policymakers: A Report of Working Group I of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.” Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2001. 27 September 2006. <http://www.ipcc.ch/pub/spm22-01.pdf>

Links for Further Information

Canadian Links

International Links

The Kyoto Protocol on Climate Change: History & Highlights

Jay Makarenko — Thu, 01 Feb 2007 00:00:00 -0700

Abstract: The Kyoto Protocol on Climate Change, which formally came into effect on February 16, 2005, represents a significant political and environment international regime. This article provides an introduction to the Kyoto Protocol, with a particular focus on the history of its negotiation and implementation, its central elements as a regime of governance, and key opportunities and challenges faced by the Protocol.

What is the Kyoto Protocol on Climate Change?

Protocol as an International Regime

History of the Kyoto Protocol

Negotiation & Ratification of the Protocol

Central Elements of the Kyoto Protocol

Targets, Flexibility & Enforcement

Kyoto Protocol: Opportunities & Challenges

Some Key Issues Surrounding the Protocol

Sources & Links for Further Information

List of Article Sources and Links for More on this Topic

What is the Kyoto Protocol on Climate Change?

Protocol as an International Regime

International Regime on Greenhouse Gas Emissions

The Kyoto Protocol is an international system of governance, implemented under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change for the purpose of regulating levels of greenhouse gases in the earth’s atmosphere. The Protocol was first adopted in principle at a 1997 United Nations-sponsored meeting held in Kyoto, Japan (hence, the name “Kyoto Protocol”), and officially came into force in 2005, after being formally ratified by the required number of nations. As a system of governance, the Protocol is underwritten by national governments and is operated under the aegis of the United Nations. Participating nations have agreed to meet certain greenhouse gas emissions targets, as well as submit to external review and enforcement of these commitments by United Nations-based bodies.

See the Central Elements of the Kyoto Protocol section of this article for more information on the operation of the Protocol as a system of governance.

Objectives of the Protocol: Stalling Global Warming

The objective of the Protocol is the stabilization of levels of greenhouse gases in the earth’s atmosphere in order to stall global warming. Global warming has become a global concern; the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a United Nations agency, has predicted the earth’s average temperature will increase between 1.4 and 5.8 degrees Celsius between the years 1990 and 2100, with potentially significant environmental and social consequences. Moreover, the IPCC has linked the global warming phenomenon to human actions, and specifically, to increased levels of greenhouse gas emissions by humans through such activities as the burning of fossil fuels, deforestation, and industrial and agricultural production. The Protocol is meant to serve as a framework by which participating countries work cooperatively to stabilize concentrations of greenhouse gases in the earth’s atmosphere.

For more on global warming and its potential consequences for Canada:

Mapleleafweb: Global Warming: Overview & Debates.

National Participation in the Kyoto Protocol

As of July 2006, 164 national governments, including Canada, had ratified the Kyoto Protocol (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change: 10 July 2006). Ratification means that these nations have formally adopted the Protocol in their domestic political institutions. As such, these nations are formally committed to meeting their specific greenhouse gas emission targets and are open to external review and enforcement by United Nations-based bodies. There are, however, notable “non-ratifying” nations, in particular, the United States and Australia. While both nations have signed the Protocol, neither has passed the agreement in their respective national legislatures. This means that they are neither bound by Kyoto emission target commitments, nor subject to external review and/or enforcement of those commitments.

For more information on Protocol ratification by nation:

UN Framework Convention on Climate Change: Kyoto Protocol Status of Ratification (July 10 2006) (PDF)

History of the Kyoto Protocol

Negotiation & Ratification of the Protocol

The Kyoto Protocol involved a process of inter-governmental negotiations over a 13-year period. The following provides an historical overview of these negotiations, from the original meeting of nations in 1992, to the Protocol’s coming into force in 2005.

United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (1992)

In the 1980s & early 1990s, the issue of global warming came to the forefront of international politics. In 1992, 154 countries, including Canada, signed the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. The central element of the Convention was a commitment to stabilize greenhouse gas levels in the atmosphere within a timeframe that would be sufficient to allow ecosystems to adapt naturally to climate change.

Nations agreed, moreover, that developed countries (countries with modern, fully developed economies) were to take a leadership role in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Implicit in this understanding was the recognition that developed nations had been the primary greenhouse gas emitters over the last century, and that emission stabilization would be more problematic for non-developed or developing countries. (It was believed emission stabilization could come at the cost of economic development for non-developed and developing countries, something they could not easily afford.)

The 1992 Convention was only a general agreement in principle aimed at stabilizing greenhouse gas emissions. The Convention did not provide any of the important specifics for action, such as precise emission reduction targets, a timetable by which nations were to meet their targets, or a penalty system to punish violators. These issues were to be addressed at subsequent “Conferences of the Parties” (or COP), which were regular meetings that include all of the Protocol’s participating members.

Berlin Mandate (1995) & Ministerial Declaration (1996)

Between the signings of the UN Convention and the Kyoto Protocol, two Conferences of the Parties were held (referred to as “COP-1” and “COP-2”). At the first Conference, held in Berlin in 1995, nations adopted the Berlin Mandate, a commitment by developed nations to set specific targets and timeframes for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and to outline explicit policies and measures to meet these targets.

At the second Conference, held a year later in Geneva, Switzerland, nations adopted the Ministerial Declaration. This Declaration firmly stated that the science of climate change was compelling, and that legally binding commitments on greenhouse gas emissions were warranted. The Declaration was a response to the charge that the science of global climate change was uncertain, and that action was unwarranted.

Signing of the Kyoto Protocol on Climate Change (1997)

At the third Conference of the Parties, held in Kyoto, Japan, member countries signed the Kyoto Protocol. The 1997 Protocol document was a comprehensive agreement that included precise greenhouse gas emission targets for each member country, the general framework of a greenhouse gas emissions-trading program, and a commitment to hold future Conferences of the Parties to round out important details of the new regime (such as establishing the penalties for failure to meet targets and the rules of the new emissions-trading program).

The 1997 agreement also provide a specific procedure for bringing the Protocol into full force and effect. The Protocol would have to be formally ratified by at least 55 industrialized nations accounting for a minimum of 55 percent of the total global greenhouse gas emissions produced in 1990. “Ratification” required nations to formally adopt the Protocol in their domestic political institutions. In Canada, for example, the Protocol received majority support by both the House of Commons and the Senate, and was formally ratified in 2002.

Negotiating Implementation of the Kyoto Protocol (1997-2002)

Following the signing of the Kyoto Protocol in 1997, participating nations held a string of COP meetings in order to work out the Protocol’s details. In 1998, nations adopted the Buenos Aires Plan of Action, which established a list of 140 items that necessitated agreement before countries could ratify the Protocol. These items ranged from working out an enforcement regime to establishing the rules for an emissions-trading system.

Most of the high-profile issues that remained outstanding were finally resolved in the Bonn Agreements and the Marrakech Accords, signed at the sixth and seventh Conferences of the Parties (both held in 2001). Under these agreements, participating members committed to comprehensive schemes governing flexibility mechanisms under the Protocol, such as the operating rules for emissions trading, emissions “sinks,” the Clean Development Mechanism, and Joint Implementation Projects. Nations also agreed to a general framework for enforcing compliance with emissions targets.

See the Central Elements of the Kyoto Protocol section of this article for more information on emissions trading, the Clean Development Mechanism, the Joint Implementation Projects, and the Protocol’s compliance framework.

The Bonn and Marrakech agreements effectively completed the work began under the Buenos Aires Plan of Action, setting the stage for participating members to ratify the Kyoto Protocol and to bring it into force.

US & Australian Rejection of the Kyoto Protocol (2001-2002)

In 1997, the Clinton Administration committed the United States to the Kyoto Protocol agreement, both as a signatory and as an active participant in its implementation negotiations. In 2001, following the election of George W. Bush in 2000, the Bush Administration announced a change in direction for the US; the US would no longer be formally ratifying the agreement. While accepting the general principles of global warming, and the need for international cooperation to reduce levels of greenhouse gases in the earth’s atmosphere, the Bush Administration was highly critical of many of the Protocol’s components, in particular the exemption granted to China, the second largest emitter of greenhouse gases (after the United States). Under the Protocol, China is recognized as a “developing nation” and is, accordingly, exempt from emission reduction targets. The Bush Administration has also expressed concerns over uncertainty in the precise impacts of global warming, as well as the potential impacts of the Protocol on the US economy.

For more information on the Bush Administration’s position on the Protocol:

The White House: President Bush Discusses Global Climate Change (2001)

In 2002, Australia also announced it would not ratify the Kyoto Protocol, even though it had signed the agreement in 1998. Publicly, Australian Prime Minister John Howard expressed concern over the potential effectiveness of the Protocol, considering the United States was no longer participating, and because the agreement did not impose any emission reduction targets on developing nations, in particular, China and India. The Howard government also expressed concern over the potential impact of the Protocol on the Australian economy.

Rejection by the US and Australia placed the entire Kyoto climate control process in doubt. The Protocol would only come into force with ratification by at least 55 members of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Control, representing a minimum of 55 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions in 1990. Given that the US alone produced approximately 36 percent of the total 1990 greenhouse gas emissions, its non-participation would make it extremely difficult to meet this ratification threshold. While Australia did not represent nearly the same level of emissions as the US, its non-participation, nevertheless, made reaching the ratification threshold that much more difficult.

Kyoto Protocol Comes into Effect (2005)

By January 2004, several countries had ratified the Kyoto Protocol, including Japan, Canada, New Zealand, and most European signatories. Collectively, these ratifying countries represented approximately 44 percent of the total greenhouse gas emissions produced in 1990 – only 11 percent shy of the 55 percent target cited in the Protocol’s terms. The deciding factor in the eventual implementation of the Protocol was Russia, which represented 17 percent of total 1990 emissions.

Russia had been unclear about whether it would ratify the Protocol, However, in November 2004, Russian President Vladimir Putin announced his government would indeed pass the agreement, ensuring the Protocol would come into effect in 2005. Russian support was due, in large part, to its desire to become a member of the World Trade Organization (WTO); Russia agreed to ratify the Protocol in exchange for European support for Russia’s WTO entry. This development was pivotal; without Russia’s support, the Protocol would not have met the 55 percent threshold and would have failed accordingly.

On February 16, 2005, the Kyoto Protocol formally came into effect, committing key industrialized countries, including Canada, to specific targets for reducing or limiting their greenhouse gas emissions between 2008 and 2012.

Central Elements of the Kyoto Protocol

Targets, Flexibility & Enforement

Greenhouse Gas Emission Targets

The central element of the Kyoto Protocol is the agreement by participating nations to meet specific greenhouse gas emission targets. The Protocol covers the emission of six primary greenhouse gases: carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perflurocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride.

It is important to note that nations do not have the same emission reduction targets under the Protocol. Instead, different groups of nations have different targets. Canada’s target, for example, is to bring greenhouse gas emissions to six percent lower than what its emissions were in the year 1990. Most European countries, by contrast, are obliged to reduce their emissions to eight percent below their 1990 levels.

The Protocol requires each participating nation to achieve its particular emissions targets by the period 2008-2012, with evidence of demonstrable progress by 2005. Countries undergoing the process of transition to a market economy, such as many Eastern European nations, were accorded some flexibility under the Protocol in meeting their emission target deadlines. (The understanding was that these nations should not sacrifice necessary economic development in order to meet their Kyoto obligations.)

For more information on the precise targets of each participating country:

UN Framework Convention on Climate Change: Emission Targets by Nation

‘Developed’ & ‘Developing’ Nations Under the Protocol

Under the Protocol, “ratifying nations” (those that formally adopted the Protocol in their domestic political institutions) are divided into basic two categories: developed nations and developing nations. This distinction is based on economics, with “developed nations” (referred to under the Protocol as “Annex 1” countries) representing economies that are well developed, such as Canada, Japan, Russia, and most European nations. “Developing nations” (referred to as “Non-annex 1” countries), by contrast, represent economies considered to be underdeveloped or in the process of developing, such as China, India, and the nations of Africa and South America.

Only Annex 1 nations have binding greenhouse gas emission targets, while Non-Annex 1 countries are currently exempt. This means that major greenhouse gas emitters, such as China and India, are not obliged to limit their emissions and may, in fact, increase their production of greenhouse gases without penalty. Non-annex 1 countries, however, do have an important role to play in the Protocol’s flexibility mechanisms (see below); developed nations (Annex 1 countries) receive emission credits for funding greenhouse gas reduction projects in developing nations (Non-annex 1 countries). Moreover, special funds, such as the Least Developed Countries Fund, have been committed under the Protocol to aid developing countries in dealing with greenhouse gas emissions and the potential impact of global warming.

The Protocol’s distinction between developed and developing nations stems from an early recognition that developed nations had been the leading contributors to increasing greenhouse gas levels over the last century and, as such, should take the lead in stabilizing the process of global warming. As noted earlier, negotiating parties further agreed that developing nations should not be required to sacrifice economic development in order to reduce or stabilize their greenhouse gas emissions – accounting for their exemption from emission targets. There is, however, the possibility that some developing nations, particularly China and India, may take on more formal obligations under the Protocol in the future.

Flexibility Mechanisms Under the Protocol

Another important element of the Kyoto Protocol is its flexibility mechanisms. These enable participating nations to achieve their emission targets by means other than simply reducing their own national emissions of greenhouse gases – hence, the term “flexibility mechanisms.” The Protocol provides for three such mechanisms:

Clean Development: This mechanism allows developed (or Annex 1) nations to receive emission credits towards their own emission targets by participating in certain projects in developing (or Non-annex 1) countries. These Clean Development projects must be approved by members of the Protocol and must contribute to sustainable development and greenhouse gas emission reductions in the host developing country.

Joint Implementation: This mechanism allows Annex 1 nations to receive emission credits towards their own emission targets by participating in certain projects with other Annex 1 nations. These Joint Implementation projects must be approved by all nations participating in the project, and must either reduce greenhouse gas emissions or contribute to enhanced greenhouse gas removal through emission sinks (i.e. reforestation).

Emissions Trading: This mechanism allows Annex 1 nations to purchase emission ‘credits’ from other Annex 1 countries. Some countries will be below the emission targets assigned to them under the Protocol and, as such, will have spare emission credits. Under the emissions trading system, other nations may purchase these spare credits and use them towards their own emission targets.

These mechanisms are meant to provide individual countries some flexibility in meeting their particular emission targets, while still ensuring an overall reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. Under the Clean Development Mechanism, for example, the Annex 1 nation receives emission credits for reducing greenhouse gas emission in a developing nation. Hence, while emissions in the Annex 1 nation have in actuality remained the same, overall global emissions have been reduced.

For more information on the Protocols flexibility mechanisms:

Protocol Compliance Mechanisms and Bodies

In addition to these flexibility mechanisms, the Protocol also provides for a compliance regime consisting of a Compliance Committee that is made up of two branches: a Facilitation Branch and an Enforcement Branch. The mandate of the Facilitation Branch is to provide advice to, and assist, participating nations in meeting their Protocol commitments. The Enforcement Branch, by contrast, has the power to assess whether or not nations have met their emission commitments, and to determine possible consequences for non-compliance. Under the Protocol, nations that fail to meet their emission targets are required to make up the shortfall, plus an additional 30 percent goal, over the next emissions target period. Moreover, the Enforcement Branch may also assess a financial penalty to violating nations by suspending their eligibility to sell emission credits under the Protocol’s emission trading system.

For more information on the Protocol’s compliance regime:

UN Framework Convention on Climate Change: Compliance

Kyoto Protocol: Opportunities & Challenges

Some Key Issues Surrounding the Protocol

Since its signing in 1997, the Kyoto Protocol has been the centre of controversy, with some applauding its implementation and environmental benefits, and others expressing concerns over its effectiveness and potential economic consequences. The following section briefly highlights some of the key issues surrounding the Protocol.

Science of Global Warming & the Protocol

One of the more fundamental issues centres on the science of global warming itself. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a United Nations agency, has predicted that the earth’s average temperature will increase between 1.4 and 5.8 degrees Celsius between the years 1990 and 2100, with potentially significant environmental and social consequences. There has been, however, some limited controversy over these IPCC projections, especially in regards to the precise environmental and social impact of global warming. This has, in turn, led some to question the necessity of the Kyoto Protocol, especially considering its potential impacts on the sovereignty and economic development of nations (see below).

For more information on the science of global warming:

Mapleleafweb: Global Warming: Overview & Debates

Limited Participation in the Protocol

Another common criticism of the Protocol is the non-participation by the United States and developing nations, in particular, China and India. These nations represent significant portions of the earth’s emissions of greenhouse gases; as such, this has led some to argue that, ultimately, the Protocol will have only a very limited impact on the process of global warming.

Proponents of the Protocol, however, may point to its limited participation as a partial success. Even without the United States and developing countries, the Protocol will result in a slower rate of increase in greenhouse gas emissions – in other words, a limited Protocol is better than no Protocol at all. A further argument often cited is that the Protocol may be an important first step to a truly global emissions reduction regime. For example, by reducing their own emissions first, developed nations might gain the legitimacy required to convince developing nations to also reduce their emissions.

Economic Impacts of the Protocol

Another key issue surrounding the Protocol: its potential economic impact on participating nations. Critics of the Protocol, for example, have emphasized potential negative economic impacts for developed nations as they work towards meeting their emission targets. They suggest that many economic sectors may be disrupted as companies are forced to introduce new technologies and procedures to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. In some cases, so the argument goes, the cost of introducing these technologies and techniques may be such that some companies will simply close.

Moreover, critics argue that governments and taxpayers will have to cover the cost of developing and enforcing stricter emission regulations, and providing aid and assistance to the private sector. Critics also contend that consumers in developed nations may experience a higher cost of living, particularly if the price of important fossil fuels (such as coal and oil) is raised to induce conservation and switching to non- greenhouse gas emitting energy sources. Individuals may also have to pay higher prices for manufactured goods, as companies pass on costs associated with emission reduction to the consumer.

It is important to note, however, that the Protocol itself does provide some means for dealing with possible short-term economic impacts, notably its flexibility mechanisms. With the Emissions Trading, Joint Implementation, and Clean Development mechanisms, nations can still meet their emission-reduction targets without having to undergo massive economic changes overnight. In Canada’s case, for example, there is concern the Protocol could cause serious disruptions to the oil sector; in this context, however, Canada can take its time in reforming the sector while continuing to meet its reduction targets by buying emission credits from other countries.

Supporters of the Protocol also cite its potential economic benefits. These include those stemming from the Protocol’s objective of stalling global warming, particularly in regions that may be impacted by rising sea levels and drastic changes in the weather and precipitation. There will also be significant opportunities for companies and economies that are able to take advantage of this new economic environment. Nations that have extra room in their emission targets ‘portfolios,’ for example, will benefit financially from being able to sell emissions credits to other nations. Developing nations may also benefit, as they collaborate with developed nations under the Clean Development Mechanism. Finally, businesses that are able to offer products and services for reducing greenhouse gas emissions will undoubtedly prosper.

Sources & Links for Further Information

List of Article Sources and Links for More on this Topic

Sources Used for this Article

Electronic Sources

“Essential Background.” United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. 2006 12 October. <http://unfccc.int/essential_background/items/2877.php>
“Clean Development Mechanism.” United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. 2006 12 October. <http://unfccc.int/kyoto_mechanisms/cdm/items/2718.php>
“Joint Implementation.” United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. 2006 12 October. <http://unfccc.int/kyoto_mechanisms/ji/items/1674.php>
“Emissions Trading.” United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. 2006 12 October. <http://unfccc.int/kyoto_mechanisms/emissions_trading/items/2731.php>
“Compliance.” United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. 2006 12 October. <http://unfccc.int/kyoto_mechanisms/compliance/items/2875.php>
“Kyoto Protocol Status of Ratification.” United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. 2006 10 July. 2006 12 October. <http://unfccc.int/files/essential_background/kyoto_protocol/application/pdf/kpstats.pdf>
“Countries Included in Annex B to the Kyoto Protocol and Their Emissions Targets.” United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. 2006 12 October. <http://unfccc.int/essential_background/kyoto_protocol/items/3145.php>
“President Bush Discusses Global Climate Change.” The White House. 2001 June. 2006 12 October. <http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/06/20010611-2.html>
“Australia Rejects Kyoto Pact.” BBC News. 2002 5 June. 2006 12 October. <http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/2026446.stm>
Makarenko. J. “ Global Warming: Overview & Debates.” Mapleleafweb. 2006 12 October.

Links for Further Information

Layton, Harper and Global Warming

Greg Farries — Tue, 10 Oct 2006 08:41:20 -0600