If not Kyoto, what?

Now that we know the Conservatives want to kill the Kyoto protocol, perhaps they would be good enough to explain what their alternative is. No, seriously: what is it?

I think we can take the premise of the question as read. It may not have been entirely clear amid the fog of non-denial denials, but the substance of that news report over the weekend, that Canada’s negotiators at the Bonn talks had been instructed to oppose extending the commitments made at Kyoto past 2012 -- commitments that neither Canada nor a good number of other signatories are likely to meet, in any event -- is true. So: if not Kyoto, what?

The negotiators’ instructions suggest the government would prefer some sort of voluntary approach, such as that adopted by the six-nation Asia-Pacific Partnership, rather than Kyoto’s system of binding targets. Supporters note that the APP includes the United States and China, neither of which agreed to any commitments under Kyoto. Should that be taken as evidence the voluntary approach works better? Or does it show that joining the APP amounts to doing nothing?

Doing nothing, it should be said, does not count as an alternative. It does, if you’re a global warming skeptic, like my friend Terry Corcoran: if you think it’s not happening, or that if it is human activity is not to blame, or that if we are it’s easier to adapt to it than avert it, or that it may even be beneficial, on balance. If you believe all that -- and believe it with some certainty -- then doing nothing is indeed an option. The right one, in fact.

But the government insists it is not among the skeptics: that it believes the science, accepts the global warming thesis, with all of its implications for mankind. And if you believe that -- or even if, like me, you sort of half-believe it -- you surely have an obligation to take action to prevent it. How much you should be willing to do will depend upon what likelihood you attach to it: you multiply the costs of inaction by the probability of the event. But there is clearly some price you should be willing to pay.

Now here’s the thing. Global warming, if it is real, is a global event. Averting it, or even mitigating it, will require a global response, to which every country will have to contribute. You can’t just leave it to voluntarism, for the same reason you have to pay your taxes: because otherwise some participants will be tempted to “free-ride” on the others, calculating that even if they do not pay up, they will still benefit so long as others do.

Of course, that’s what’s happening now, even with Kyoto’s binding commitments. The Conservatives may have no serious plan for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, but neither did the Liberals: as is now common knowledge, Canada’s emissions have been rising, not falling, since the treaty was signed, and are now 35% above where they are supposed to be by 2012. But that’s not an argument for scrapping the treaty, any more than the existence of tax evasion makes the case for abolishing the tax laws.

And while tax evasion can usually be reduced by cutting tax rates, the analogous option is not available to us with regard to global warming. If there is anything on which both supporters and opponents of Kyoto are agreed, it is that Kyoto, on its own, is not going to stop anything. It’s a downpayment, the first installment in what, if the science proves to be correct, will be a decades-long effort to first slow and then reverse the buildup of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. It’s going to require much deeper reductions than Kyoto, in other words. Deeper, not shallower.

There’s nothing sacrosanct about the specific terms agreed to at Kyoto, of course, and a good case can be made that Canada, by committing to reduce its emissions to 6% below 1990 levels (the number chosen with no purpose but to show up the Americans, who were then pledged to a 5% reduction), assumed a disproportionate share of the overall burden. Perhaps there’s room for renegotiation. Perhaps the world will tell us to take a hike.

The point is, fair or unfair, Kyoto’s the agreement we have. Without it, or some agreement like it, there is little prospect of the world summoning the collective will to take action against global warming. Or never mind the world: let’s stick with Canada. It’s always possible for us to do our share, even if we aren’t required to by treaty. But if we are going to pursue such a “made-in-Canada” solution, shouldn’t we get started? Five-per-cent ethanol isn’t going to do it.

The Conservatives used to grouse that the Liberals had eight years to come up with a plan to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions, and failed to do so. Fine: the Tories have had just as long. Where’s their plan?