Canada will follow U.S. lead for Climate Change Targets

by Karl Gotthardt - albertacowpoke | December 5, 2009 at 03:58 am

279 views | 42 Recommendations | 19 comments

Canadian Environment Minister, Jim Prentice said that the Canadian Government will follow Presidents Obama's lead at next week's Climate Summit in Copenhagen. Canada will propose no more or less than its southern neighbour.

Canada has become the target of environmental groups for its dismal environmental record in view of the upcoming summit.

Despite being a signatory to Kyoto, Canada has not even come close to the agreed to targets, in fact emissions have increased.

In a speech to a Montreal business audience, Jim Prentice said that Canada's policy for cutting greenhouse gases will be in lockstep with the United States.

Canada's economy is fully integrated with that of the United States and to have differing or higher targets than the U.S. would unfairly affect the Canadian economy.

"Given the integration of our two economies it is essential our targets remain in line — not more, not less," Prentice said. "It all comes down to jobs."

In a recent poll, Canadians have ranked the economy and jobs above climate change.

The Canadian government says it will follow U.S. President Barack Obama's lead at next week's Copenhagen climate summit — and will propose to do no more, no less, than its neighbour.
In a speech to a Montreal business audience Friday, Environment Minister Jim Prentice said Canada's policy for cutting greenhouse gases would be in lockstep with the United States.

He also brushed off critics of his government's climate-change positions, saying he will stick to his convictions despite international pressure at Copenhagen.

He cited two reasons why Canada would need to twin its policies with the U.S.: This country would "suffer economic pain for no real environmental gain" if it took a more aggressive approach, he said. On the other hand, it would face punitive measures if it did less.

"Given the integration of our two economies it is essential our targets remain in line — not more, not less," Prentice said. "It all comes down to jobs."

1 See all footage | View Slideshow

Share: email story | add to any | | facebook | stumbleupon

recommend This comment thread is now closed

Manuel Dahm (not verified)

at 04:21 on December 5th, 2009

"It all comes down to jobs" - That's exactly the problem we are facing these days. An ever growing economy is responsible for the climate changes, species extinction, oil spills, and what not. Now that we face the global consequences, the politicians are only worried about "the economy" to keep on growing, to not take a disadvantage, to basically not do more then the weakest link in the system, the biggest polluter, the handbrake that keeps the climate-actions from rolling - the US. How few do politicians really understand of the situation we are in? Are their intellectual capacities really that limited, or is the economy really that one and only one thing they are interested in? I think so. I think they fully understand what is going on, but the whole wide world is behind the big money. That's priority No.1 till No. 100 and just after that, other issues might be relevant. In this light, we really do need a paradigm shift. And I am curious, really curious how this might happen.

Karl Gotthardt - albertacowpoke

at 04:31 on December 5th, 2009

The statement "It all comes down to jobs" was related to setting different targets than the U.S., especially more aggressive ones. The U.S., with President Obama, has elected what has been phrased the Green President.

While Canada's Oil Sands have received a horrible reputation, I also see the smog in Toronto every summer that seems to stifle breathing. That smog however comes from the Industrial Heartland south of the border.

I wait in anticipation of all the promises that will be made in Copenhagen and then ignored. The target dates for cutting emission will be way beyond the time in office for most leaders. Maybe there should be an annual review to make them all accountable.

Either these politicians have their heart in it and say what they mean, or mean what they say. How much weight will the promises of Obama hold, without approval and funding from Congress? The whole thing is political smoke and mirrors.

YankeeJim

at 06:13 on December 5th, 2009

When the winds blow from North to East with a strong down draft, only Buffalo and upstate New York have to choke.

Karl Gotthardt - albertacowpoke

at 06:19 on December 5th, 2009

lol and Toronto:)

a211423

at 08:07 on December 5th, 2009

The "annual review" methodology might be a mechanism whose time has arrived. I agree, cowpoke, having summits on irregular basis can mitigate dedication even when goals and timelines are set. Knowing there will be a timely progress review is good idea.

Karl Gotthardt - albertacowpoke

at 08:28 on December 5th, 2009

That's the only way to make politicians accountable. I am looking forward to what they come out of Copenhagen with. I don.t know what to read into President Obama's changed schedule.

marianmo

at 08:22 on December 5th, 2009

ty for this post acp

a211423

at 08:38 on December 5th, 2009

Government Officials will be attending as well as Obama. The Administration wisely wants a well represented U.S. contingent. I saw last night that John Kerry will be attending.

White House also said a half dozen Cabinet officials including Energy Secretary Steven Chu and Commerce Secretary Gary Lock as well as the head of the Environmental Protection Agency — which is preparing regulations to cut greenhouse gases — will take part in the Copenhagen talks. It is the highest profile contingent of U.S. officials to ever take part in international climate negotiations.

YankeeJim

at 09:51 on December 5th, 2009

Kerry wants to become the new Ted Kennedy without drwoing in girlfriends.

Karl Gotthardt - albertacowpoke

at 10:11 on December 5th, 2009

Those are the guys doing the actual work on this accord or statement that will come out at the end of the Climate Change Conference. Canada's Jim Prentice is also attending.

a211423

at 10:31 on December 5th, 2009

I don't know if your definition of Kerry was meant to be condescending or not. However, I heard him speak and he said his work now is in the Senate, and one thing he wants to focus on in the future is campaign spending as it influences and detracts from the business of the Congress. This has been one of my concerns for a long time. Limiting campaign spending in terms of how much they can receive and from whom they can accept donations could have an influencial effect on how legislation is processed.

a211423

at 10:35 on December 5th, 2009

cowpoke

I am optomistic about Copenhagen because with China and India also taking a significant role and commitment, events that take place will set the stage for the rest of the world.

Karl Gotthardt - albertacowpoke

at 11:01 on December 5th, 2009

I.ll take a wait and see attitude. Actions are stronger than words. Quite frankly I haven't seen too much action. We have been fooled by phony targets before. In the end it'll get down to "It's the Economy Stupid". I think James Carvelle said that.

I also think that Climategate will play a major part in it, especially now that UN actually wants to do an investigation on it.

As an aside I just heard that the scientist in the centre of climategate stepped down.

Hugh Askew

at 11:28 on December 5th, 2009

That kind of attitude won't win many supporters from the Al Gore drones, cowboy.

It makes a lot of sense, and that just does't cut it when you are trying to save us from a fate worse than ummm, ummmmmm, freedom?

beachmeat

at 11:30 on December 5th, 2009

Canada has a nice history in sabotaging such events, breaking treaties and encouraging others to do so in order not to be the only black sheep. A good summary can be read here.
Today, Canada is probably the one developed nation on earth that does the most to destroy its nature and our planet.

Karl Gotthardt - albertacowpoke

at 13:21 on December 5th, 2009

Thanks for Montbiot's article. It was actually published here not too long ago. I think for those that want to point the finger at Canada, they should also take a look in their own backyard. The Alberta Oil Sands have been a one sided discussion for way too long. I think it.s time that some of those bashing also take a look at what is being done to cut down carbon emission with carbon equestration, the process of reclaiming water and the land.

Here is a story not being reported as balance to Greenpeace or by Greepeace or other environmental groups. It should also be noted why the Oil Sands exist in first place. It is that neverending quest and thirst for oil in North America and Europe. It is easy to point the finger if you're only the end user and not the producer. Canada uses very little of its own oil. The owners of the oil sands are mostly American companies and China has now also bought interests in the oil sands.

All this to say, yes the environment is important, but let/s not have the rest of the world pad itself in the back as long as they demand the oil that is produced in Alberta, Saudi Arabia (is anyone protesting there?), Texas, Alaska.

I liken oil to drugs, there would be no drug smuggling if there was no demand. The same applies to oil.

Canada is also one of the leading nations when it comes to green technologies, so let's quit the bashing and let Canada work this out, while the world needs more oil.

By the way I used my horse this morning.