Just before the 1997 Kyoto climate change meeting, Prime Minister Chretien told reporters that Canada would be able to count on credits for nuclear power and natural gas as low greenhouse gas energy sources.

Canada, a country with growth potential, came away from Kyoto with a greenhouse gas reduction target matching fully developed European countries.

Later on, at a meeting in Bonn, Canada agreed under pressure not to seek credits for nuclear power exports.

So far Canada's well-reasoned request for credits for clean energy exports has been spurned.

Still, in spite of these setbacks, Canada's government seems bound and determined to vote on ratification before Christmas. Why? I see no compelling reason. The public debate has barely started. Canadians need to know more about Kyoto. Is there a rush to ratify before we know too much? Why not wait a year or two while taking appropriate action.

Canada, a country with growth potential, came away from Kyoto with a greenhouse gas reduction target matching fully developed European countries.

Later on, at a meeting in Bonn, Canada agreed under pressure not to seek credits for nuclear power exports.

So far Canada's well-reasoned request for credits for clean energy exports has been spurned.

I'll start with a review of the science underlying the climate change issue. We also need to put Kyoto in the broader context of longer-term international action on climate change - Kyoto is but a first step.

I've been involved with Canada's developing plan to meet the Kyoto commitment and will provide some background on that as well as the latest "plan"

The public debate on Kyoto really only started this summer. I've noticed many serious errors in the newspapers. I'll comment on some of those and other issues not yet discussed. I've also noticed accuracy of reporting is improving recently. We still need more time.

The most noticeable example of the greenhouse effect these days is the heating inside our cars in the sun. Short wavelength visible radiation passes through the glass and heats interior surfaces. These warm the air inside the car and the glass traps the heat inside.

Fourier, an early expert on heat science postulated that gases in the atmosphere could trap heat in a similar way. Energy from the sun mostly passes through the atmospheric blanket to warm the surface. The warmed surface re radiates energy out toward space at longer wavelengths. The atmosphere captures some of that energy and is warmed.

Tyndall confirmed this with experiments and demonstrated that water vapor is the most important greenhouse gas. It and other "natural" greenhouse gases warm earth's surface atmosphere about 33 degrees C.

Others raised concerns that burning coal could add sufficient carbon dioxide to the atmosphere to increase the greenhouse gas effect. Callendar and Keeling confirmed rising carbon dioxide level and established an extensive global greenhouse gas monitoring system in the mid 1950's.

We've heard and read, this summer, that carbon dioxide is a pollutant gas. Alberta's Bill 32, introduced Tuesday, identities it as a natural resource.

Carbon dioxide is essential to life. Plants absorb it from the atmosphere and incorporate the carbon component in their growing structure. Animals use plant material as fuel and release the carbon content as carbon dioxide.

This carbon cycle diagram establishes the sheer magnitude of the carbon cycle.

Note that plants absorb about 120 billion tonnes of carbon from 440 billion tonnes of atmospheric carbon dioxide annually. A similar amount is released by plant and animal respiration, decay, fires etc..

Human use of fossil fuels releases about 5.5 billion tonnes of carbon to the atmosphere as 20 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide.

We've heard and read, this summer, that carbon dioxide is a pollutant gas. Alberta's Bill 32, introduced Tuesday, identities it as a natural resource.

This carbon cycle diagram establishes the sheer magnitude of the carbon cycle.

Note that plants absorb about 120 billion tonnes of carbon from 440 billion tonnes of atmospheric carbon dioxide annually. A similar amount is released by decay, fires and food consumption by animals.

Human use of fossil fuels releases about 5.5 billion tonnes of carbon to the atmosphere as 20 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide.

So, what has this carbon dioxide increase done to global temperatures? I recall that ten years ago, the experts thought it quite uncertain that global temperature was indeed increasing. They would know in ten years. I vowed not to look at it for ten years at the time, as the arguments pro and con were very tiresome.

The plots show an increase of about 0.2 degrees C per decade in the last 25 years. The United Nations experts are becoming more positive there is actually an increase due to human intervention each time they review the evidence. Source: http://www.ipcc.ch/press/cop7/part1.ppt

IPCC Presentation to COP - 7

We invented another use for energy about 1950. Computing. Computer models predict mean temperature increases of 1.5 to 5.5 degrees C by 2100 if no action is taken to limit greenhouse gases.

The output of these models provides the rationale for the Kyoto Protocol's reduction of atmospheric greenhouse gases.

Source : http://www.ipcc.ch/press/cop7/part5.ppt

IPCC Presentations to COP 7

To place Kyoto in context we need to step back to 1992. At that time, at the World Earth Summit in Rio, countries set an objective to stabilize greenhouse gases at a level that would prevent dangerous human interference with the climate system.

As an initial step, the developed countries set a goal to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2000.

Source: http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/convkp/conveng.pdf

Five years later progress had been slow. At Kyoto more stringent goals were set. Individual targets were set for each of the developed countries after some negotiation.

Canada came away from that meeting with no recognition that it has more potential for population growth than many of the developed countries. Our target, at 6% below 1990 levels is very near the average of about 5%.

Again, developing countries were not asked to meet a target in view of their low per capita emissions and the need for energy to improve their lot.

An important point for Canada is that international emission/permit credit trading is allowed and supported under Kyoto. This allows for the purchase of emission reductions from other countries.

Shortly after Kyoto the federal government set up the National Climate Change Process. The goal was to consider means of reducing greenhouse gases - not to evaluate the connection between greenhouse gas emissions and climate change

Fifteen "Issue Tables" employing some 450 greenhouse gas "experts" in various economic sectors were established. These Tables studied their sectors extensively for 2 years. I served on the Technology Table. Other Working Groups with federal and provincial membership are involved in analysis.

An Integrative Group was also formed to overview the studies. Some members of the Issue Tables, including me, continued with the Integrative Group when Issue Tables completed their tasks.

Two series of major meetings with stakeholders were held across Canada.

This work is quite well documented and most is publicly available.

Let's go back to the Global Carbon Cycle for a minute. It provides seeds for some important ideas.

About half the fossil fuel carbon dioxide emissions do not show up in the atmosphere - maybe absorbed by the oceans or vegetation.

Vegetation absorbs a lot of carbon dioxide - thus the concept of sinks to remove it from the atmosphere.

Much of earth's carbon is sequestered from the atmosphere in soil, fossil fuel and sedimentary rock deposits - thus the idea we might be able to sequester carbon dioxide in soil, underground in emptied oil reservoirs - or even turn it into rocks.

The most recent estimate of Canada's greenhouse gas emissions in 2010 is 809 million tonnes - expressed as their carbon dioxide equivalent. This is based on "business as usual" or "do nothing to curtail them".

Transportation, electricity, industry and buildings are major sources of carbon dioxide.

Oil and gas production contributes both carbon dioxide and methane.

Agriculture contributes mostly methane and nitrous oxide.

Our rotting landfills contribute methane equivalent to 27 million tonnes of carbon dioxide.

This chart puts the magnitude of Canada's task in context. Our emissions in 1990 were 607 Mtonnes making our Kyoto target 571 Mtonnes.

We thus need to reduce emissions by about 240 Mtonnes from the expected level under "business as usual". That is close to a one third reduction from our current practice. A cynic would also note that our emissions estimates are increasing every couple of years when they are re-evaluated.

Contrary to what you may have heard recently, the federal government does have plans. I went to the presentation Calgary where four optional federal plans were presented.

Those plans were not very well liked and generated a lot of feedback.

The government went back to the drawing board, incorporated comments and come up with a new draft plan complete with computer model economic analysis.

With a mixture of efficiency policies and measures, forest and agricultural sinks and buying of international permits Canada hopes to meet 170 Mtonnes of the 240 Mtonnes gap. The remaining 70 Mtonnes is expected from the clean energy export credit - or some other alternate.

The plan was issued again this morning. A brief review suggests it has changed a bit but nothing big jumps out.

What will the new plan cost Canada and Canadians? That is a difficult question.

Kyoto provides an opportunity to buy credits from outside Canada. Our federal government expects these will be available at a low cost of about $10/tonne. That possibility could keep the overall cost low while allowing increased emissions in Canada.

The costs of buying credits and increasing efficiency are offset to some degree by reduced fuel use. The most costly case analyzed reduces GDP by nearly 2%. The experts doing the analysis compared that with Canada's trillion-dollar economy and deem it a minor impact relative to expected growth.

Many are not so sure.

We've all heard about the "Made in Alberta Plan"

A review of the plan, although it lacks detail, shows similarity to the federal plan. There is an emphasis on efficiency improvements.

It links emissions to product output rather than imposing an absolute cap.

The Alberta plan better recognizes the possibility more stringent reductions will be needed in the long term. There is thus more emphasis on developing major technology such as emission free energy from coal and establishing hydrogen energy technology.

The most recent addition to the plan, Bill 32, introduced Tuesday seeks to establish principles and details needed to put the plan into action.

At the moment, it's pretty easy to be pessimistic. We hear about Alberta's intent to mount legal challenges. Media reports of John Manley's visit to Lethbridge last week make us wonder if the UN has the capability to encourage compliance by Canada and - perhaps more importantly - other countries.

There seems some possibility the whole initiative could fizzle out in a sea of bickering. Perhaps in the meantime, it will be determined greenhouse gases are really not a problem.

On the other hand, it's possible the federal plan will work. I'm personally dubious all the efficiency measures will work or that permits will be as cheap as expected. It does not seem to prepare us well for post Kyoto restrictions in greenhouse gas emissions.

No one expects that Kyoto size greenhouse gas reductions will suffice to avoid climate change. It is just a first step.

It will be essential to get the whole world involved. We should anticipate we will ultimately need to reduce emissions to 25 to 50% of 1990 levels.

It is very hard to collect emissions from scattered exhaust pipes and chimneys. You can forget your fossil fuel powered cars and home heating. Hopefully we will develop the technology to use electricity and/or hydrogen in its place. Producing electricity and hydrogen without emissions will be the challenge.

Economic considerations at present suggest nuclear, large hydro, emissions free coal and wind power will be greatly expanded.

At least we will be prepared for the decline of oil supplies.

I have a few points of particular concern

The concept of a "Made in Alberta Plan" is nice jingoism - and an oxymoron. Greenhouse gas emissions from the USA and China are mixed into the atmosphere and blown all over the world. They will have far more effect on our climate than Alberta' emissions.

Energy efficiency improvements reduce emissions? History says otherwise. Steam engines of 200 years ago were less than 1 % efficient. The current day equivalent gas turbine power plant approaches 60% efficiency. Where have emissions gone? Up and up. We developed grossly inefficient expensive computers 50 years ago. Now they are small, efficient, cheap and numerous. It seems efficiency improvements ultimately lead to proliferation of the technology.

Canada expects to get some modest credits for forest sinks (20-30 Mtonnes annually). At the same time we consider our forest products to be a source of 150 million tonnes of carbon dioxide in Canada. The products go into houses and most are exported. They retain carbon as a sink. Why are we not credited, instead of charged, for that? That is a paradox I can't understand.

Kyoto covers only about 1/3 of the world's emissions, now that the USA has dropped out. Would Canada and the world be better off if we were to try and partner with the US in an alternative parallel emission reduction strategy?

Minister Anderson stated a few weeks ago "Provinces will be Provinces" in relation to concerns voiced. That implied greater wisdom from our federal government parent.

He presses on with the agenda to vote on Kyoto ratification before Christmas. It is hard to understand the rush.

I think a wise parent would hold off the ratification decision for a year or two until the consequences are better understood by all.

Thank you.