Understanding the Canadian Youth Delegation’s Policy Position

Amara Possian with Marie-Marguerite Sabongui

After several weeks of hard work, the Canadian Youth Delegation is very excited to announce the release of the CYD policy statement. Policy is one of the most central but daunting aspects of the UN climate change negotiations and we have done our best to ensure that the descriptions and recommendations in our statement are very clear and comprehensive. In addition to the CYD’s position, the statement provides a summary, a description of areas of contention, and the perspective of the Canadian government for each major issue.

In this post, I will give you a quick rundown of the key components of the CYD’s policy position but if you would like to delve into the details, you are highly encouraged to check out the full document here.

As usual, Canada has arrived at the negotiations empty handed. Just over a week ago the Climate Change Accountability Act (Bill C-311), Canada’s only piece of climate legislation, was killed in the unelected Senate without debate. A couple of weeks before that, Minister of Environment Jim Prentice resigned. His replacement, the interim Environment Minister John Baird, has a rough track record when it comes to climate policy. The Liberal Environment Critic, Gerard Kennedy, was only appointed very recently in September 2010. Furthermore, lead negotiator, Guy Saint-Jacques called the entire UNFCCC process into question last week.  Things aren’t looking so bright for Canada.

But it’s not all bad. Several developed and developing countries are taking steps toward meeting their international commitments. Norway has $1 billion partnerships with Indonesia and Brazil to prevent deforestation. South Africa has gone above and beyond expectations for developing countries by setting hard targets for emissions reductions. The Australian coalition government is working on a climate bill as we speak.

By committing to and implementing responsible climate policy, Canada can still redeem its reputation on the international stage:

  • Canada must stop waiting for the US and pressuring other governments to dilute their climate policy in the interest of economic gain.
  • Despite the fact that Canada was one of the first countries to sign the Kyoto Protocol in 1998, Canadian emissions have risen drastically above 1990-levels. Canada must adopt aggregate emissions reductions targets of 40% below 1990 levels by 2020 in a fair, binding and ambitious climate agreement, supported by strong domestic legislation.
  • Canada must take international responsibility and slow the development of the Tar Sands, an enormous source of greenhouse gas emissions, water and air pollution that jeopardizes biodiversity.
  • Canada must support the establishment of an International Adaptation Fund managed in a sovereign, transparent and equitable manner. Canada must fairly contribute to this fund for the most vulnerable populations who are most often least responsible for emissions.  This funding must be new and additional to existing development assistance, and must be in the form of grants, not loans.
  • Mechanisms to protect forests, which naturally absorb greenhouse gas emissions, should not be profit-driven. When developing a mechanism to protect forests Canada must support the inclusion of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, as these populations are often dependent on forests for their livelihoods.
  • Canada must accept international standards for the proper measurement, reporting, and verification of greenhouse gas emissions from all sources including forestry, agriculture and emissions from aviation and marine travel.
  • Canada must provide its fair share of essential context-appropriate clean-energy technologies for global development, and not leave this critical task in the hands of private initiatives.

Our policy team will be tracking Canadian policy throughout the negotiations so keep an eye on our blog!

Comments
5 Responses to “Understanding the Canadian Youth Delegation’s Policy Position”
  1. “But it’s not all bad. Several developed and developing countries are taking responsible steps toward meeting their international commitments. Norway has $1 billion partnerships with Indonesia and Brazil to prevent deforestation. South Africa has gone above and beyond expectations for developing countries by setting hard targets for emissions reductions. The Australian coalition government is working on a climate bill as we speak.”

    This is extremely problematic, this scheme is designed to profit the same people causing climate chaos, will not respect Indigenous rights, and could lead to huge problems for biodiversity in Indonesia and around the globe.

    For more info: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/nov/28/redd-forest-protection-banks-oil

    Invoking FPIC in one part of a policy statement, and endorsing REDD projects in a other is a bit of an oxymoron.

    • Amara Possian says:

      Thanks for pointing that out to us – the CYD does not endorse REDD+ initiatives and does support FPIC. We were using the examples of Norway (committing public funds), South Africa (targets), and Australia (climate legislation) in contrast to Canadian inaction.

  2. dtseleie says:

    Kudos on the nice synopsis.

    But I, personally, would not posit the notion that Indonesia’s deal with Norway on what they consider to be forest protection is a “responsible step.”

    Indonesia is pushing to have massive amounts of its forests classified as “degraded” so it can cut them down and replant them with industrial plantations for biofuel crops.

    Indonesia is working on forest schemes with Shell, Gazprom, and the Clinton Foundation (these three parties stand to profit by $750 million over 30 years from this project).

    Replanting natural forests with biofuel crops is not a good way to stop global warming.

    Increasing the profts of oil and gas companies (Shell and Gazprom) will not stop global warming (it will probably make it worse, actually).

    We need a vision of a future where we don’t burn fossil fuels, not a vision of a future where Gazprom and Shell have profited by hundreds of millions over the next 30 years through schemes that claim to combat climate change.

    I also tend to agree with the Indigenous Peoples Caucus in calling for emissions reductions of at least 50% below 1990 levels by 2020.

    And I think we need to shut down the tar sands. Again, we can’t stop global warming and climate change while continuing to burn fossil fuels.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/nov/28/redd-forest-protection-banks-oil

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/nov/23/indonesia-climate-aid-forests-greenpeace

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/nov/09/more-biofuels-could-hit-fuel-production

Trackbacks
Check out what others are saying...
  1. […] of the climate policy stuff I mentioned above, you can check out the Canadian Youth Delegation’s policy statement, which gives a good […]

  2. […] of the climate policy stuff I mentioned above, you can check out the Canadian Youth Delegation’s policy statement, which gives a good […]



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: