PEJ News (Victoria, B.C., Canada), December 15, 2007

CURRENT REGIMES HAVE NO RIGHT TO SPEAK FOR CANADA AND THE US

[Rachel's introduction: Both Canada and the United States signed the Framework Convention on Climate Change, and subsequently ratified the Convention. The Framework Convention on climate Change called for the invoking of the precautionary principle which reads: "The Parties should take precautionary measures to anticipate, prevent or minimize the causes of climate change and mitigate its adverse effects. Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing such measures...."]

By Joan Russow -- Global Compliance Research Project

The Dominance of the United States, aided and abetted by Canada, in the recent climate change conference in Bali, spawned a profound comment about international negotiating process; "If you are not willing to lead get out of the way."

The US exceptionalism has been prevalent at the United Nations for years; Now, with the "new" Conservative government in Canada, the US has a willing accomplice in undermining international resolve.

At the 2002 World Summit Conference on Sustainable Development (WSSD), Canada and the United States were placed on the "Environmental Axis of Evil" until suddenly the Right Honourable Jean Chretien, the former Prime Minister of Canada, drifted into the Conference and declared that Canada would ratify the Kyoto Protocol. Now in 2007, Canada will be perceived as a charter member of the Environmental Axis of Evil.

The Dominance of the United States, aided and abetted by Canada, in the recent climate change conference in Bali, spawned a profound comment about international negotiating process; "If you are not willing to lead get out of the way."

The US exceptionalism has been prevalent at the United Nations for years; Now, with the "new" Conservative government in Canada, the US has a willing accomplice in undermining international resolve.

At the 2002 World Summit Conference on Sustainable Development (WSSD), Canada and the United States were placed on the "Environmental Axis of Evil" until suddenly the Right Honourable Jean Chretien, the former Prime Minister of Canada, drifted into the Conference and declared that Canada would ratify the Kyoto Protocol. Now in 2007, Canada will be perceived as a charter member of the Environmental Axis of Evil.

One must question when governments can speak on behalf of their citizens. The Bush and Harper regimes are at the 30 and 33 percentile respectively; yet, they can undermine, in the name of their countries, the international resolve to set firm targets and deadlines for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. In Canada, the three opposition parties representing 66% of the electorate, voted for Canada to meet its obligations under the Kyoto Protocol.

It is often forgotten that both Canada and the United States signed the Framework Convention on Climate Change, and subsequently ratified the Convention. The Framework Convention on climate Change called for the invoking of the precautionary principle which reads: The Parties should take precautionary measures to anticipate, prevent or minimize the causes of climate change and mitigate its adverse effects. Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing such measures....

Both the US and Canada caved into the fossil fuel industry's plethora of "deniers". These deniers, including academics funded by the fossil fuel industry, were continually referring to what they claimed to be the lack of scientific evidence, and thus fundamentally contravening the essence of the precautionary principle.

If the governments in Bali were to seriously address the threat of climate change, they should have agreed to the following:

The UNFCCC must reach agreement immediately on a path to below 2 deg. C and 400ppm CO2-equivalent emission target within adequate timeframes should be imposed, and a phase out to at least 90% of 1990 levels by 2050. Governments should agree to take immediate actions to maximise reductions in CHG emissions, with the ultimate aim to phase out CHG emissions by 2050 and reduce atmospheric concentration below 400 ppm/ levels that result in interference with our climate, these must be below 2 % or less. It is not enough for targets to be set to these levels, targets must be set to maximums as possible taking into account maximum possible reductions. Emissions must be reduced to at least 40% of 1990 levels by 2030 (Russow/Levicki. December 2nd. Submission to Negotiators in Bali).

To achieve this goal, all states all member states of the United Nations must implement the commitment made, in Agenda 21, to the "the reallocation of resources presently committed to military purposes" ( 33.18e); and urge part of the peace dividend to be transferred to the development of environmentally safe and sound alternative energy.

The Canadian and US regimes are so intertwined currently in the pursuit of militarism and corporatism, that the rest of the member states in the United Nations should demand that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change investigate and estimate the full impact on greenhouse gas emissions by the military and demand that each state release information related to the greenhouse gas emissions, from the production of all weapons systems, military exercises, from war games, weapons testing, military aviation, environmental warfare, troop transfer, military operations, waste generation, and reconstruction afteracts of violent interventions etc.

In 2008 at the United Nations, the annual meeting of the Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD) will be taking place in New York. At this meeting, hopefully there will be an opportunity to revisit the weak measures agreed to at the Conference in Bali.

Also at that time, perhaps the new voting measures in the European Union Constitution will be in place; the current voting procedures require consensus which results in the dominance of the minority; the new measures require majority support. Hopefully, at the CSD, will not succumb to the Compromiser's credo that "the best is the enemy of the good".

Until this time, low-lying states, should seriously consider taking the United States and Canada to the International Court of Justice, for violations of the obligations under the Framework Convention on Climate change.