rabble blogs are the personal pages of some of Canada's most insightful progressive activists and commentators. All opinions belong to the writer; however, writers are expected to adhere to our guidelines. We welcome new bloggers -- contact us for details.

Missing the Copenhagen target

Please chip in to support more articles like this. Support rabble.ca today for as little as $1 per month!

On February 15, with the Conservatives' typical, quiet Friday afternoon, splash-less launch, the 2012 Progress Report to the Federal Sustainable Development Strategy was tabled in the House of Commons. The following week was a break in the Parliamentary schedule, and, so far, the report has been ignored in the national media.

If you have had any exposure to the talking points repeated, ad nauseum, by Prime Minister Stephen Harper, Environment Minister Peter Kent, and Michelle Rempel (Kent's Parliamentary secretary) on Canada's actions in reducing Greenhouse gases (GHG), you will have heard that 'Canada is half way to our Copenhagen target.' This is the target adopted by Stephen Harper when he attended the climate talks, COP15, in 2009.

It represented the second time Harper weakened Canada's target. The first, rejecting the Kyoto pledge (6 per cent below 1990 levels by 2012) in 2006, was immediately after he became Prime minister. He cancelled the previous government's climate plan, which actually would have gotten us quite close to the Kyoto target. Instead, he promised to reduce 2006 levels by 20 per cent by 2020.

The United Nations gathering in Copenhagen was tragically hijacked by a backroom deal, orchestrated by the U.S., called the 'Copenhagen Accord.' Unlike the legally binding Kyoto protocol, The Copenhagen Accord was described as 'politically binding.' It also gave Stephen Harper a chance to weaken our target further by adopting the same one announced by Barack Obama -- 17 per cent below 2005 levels by 2020. As it happened, Canada's emissions were higher in 2005 than in 2006 -- a convenient anomaly that further weakened our pledge.

As well, the Copenhagen Accord included a commitment from signing nations that their collective resolve must avoid allowing the global average temperatures to increase by 2ºC above what they were before the Industrial Revolution. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change assessed the collectivity of pledges by the Copenhagen Accord signatories and concluded that the pledges fell far short of avoiding the 2ºC threshold. No matter how you slice it, Copenhagen targets were too little, weak and inadequate.

So, it may be that we are inured to the idea that the target matters. Or it may be that our cognitive processes automatically reject the possibility that the whole government, including departmental reports, can be lying to us.

The February 15 update states: that 'Canada's 2020 emissions are projected to be about one-half of the way to the target.' Before examining the actual claim that we are halfway to the target, let's underscore the blazingly obvious point that the self-congratulatory sentence confirms -- by the date the pledge is due, by the deadline year of 2020, we will have failed to achieve the goal.

Half of what?

Now, let's look at that claim that in 2020 we will be half way there. In 2005 emissions were 740 Megatons (Mt). 17 per cent of 740 is 126. So Harper's pledge (17 per cent below 2005 levels by 2020) means, that by 2020, Canada should have reduced by 126Mt.

But the emissions graph used in the Environment Canada report shows our 2020 emissions at 720Mt. Not tough math. 720 is 20 less than 740, and there isn't any new math in the world that makes 20 half of 126.

So, how can they get away with even attempting to say that 720Mt is halfway to the target?

Well, they have thrown in a red herring.

The graph includes an estimate (the red line) of what they claim would have happened without government action -- a 'business as usual' figure for 2020 of 850Mt. Not uninteresting, and perhaps of some use for other comparisons, if in fact, the estimate is based on any reasonable assumptions and methodologies. (We will have to guess on that because no set of assumptions or methodologies are disclosed).

To re-state the obvious, the Copenhagen pledge was straightforward (although weak and inadequate) and no element of the Copenhagen target makes a business-as-usual figure relevant. The imaginary whopping big 850Mt that won't happen is only useful in confusing the picture.

The Conservatives' talking points also claim that they have reduced GHG emissions. And it is true that in 2010 emissions were down to 692Mt. This is explained by some provincial actions, but primarily was due to the worldwide recession.

I think it is unlikely that the Prime Minister would claim credit for the recession as a deliberate climate policy.

It is galling to hear the lie repeated over and over that the Conservative policies are responsible for reducing emissions. Especially as emissions are rising rapidly, slated to go from 692Mt in 2010 to 720Mt by 2020.

Maybe no one can absorb the numbers -- admittedly, as I write this, I worry there are too many numbers. Environment Canada further complicates the picture by adjusting 2005 levels to 731Mt, making the 2020 reduction only 11Mt).

But the millions of tons of GHG Canada dumps into the global atmosphere really matter. Our trail of broken promises will be noticed, if not in Canada, around the world.

Elizabeth May is the Leader of the Green Party of Canada and Member of Parliament for Saanich-Gulf Islands. First printed in the Island Tides.

Thank you for reading this story…

More people are reading rabble.ca than ever and unlike many news organizations, we have never put up a paywall – at rabble we’ve always believed in making our reporting and analysis free to all, while striving to make it sustainable as well. Media isn’t free to produce. rabble’s total budget is likely less than what big corporate media spend on photocopying (we kid you not!) and we do not have any major foundation, sponsor or angel investor. Our main supporters are people and organizations -- like you. This is why we need your help. You are what keep us sustainable.

rabble.ca has staked its existence on you. We live or die on community support -- your support! We get hundreds of thousands of visitors and we believe in them. We believe in you. We believe people will put in what they can for the greater good. We call that sustainable.

So what is the easy answer for us? Depend on a community of visitors who care passionately about media that amplifies the voices of people struggling for change and justice. It really is that simple. When the people who visit rabble care enough to contribute a bit then it works for everyone.

And so we’re asking you if you could make a donation, right now, to help us carry forward on our mission. Make a donation today.


We welcome your comments! rabble.ca embraces a pro-human rights, pro-feminist, anti-racist, queer-positive, anti-imperialist and pro-labour stance, and encourages discussions which develop progressive thought. Our full comment policy can be found here. Learn more about Disqus on rabble.ca and your privacy here. Please keep in mind:


  • Tell the truth and avoid rumours.
  • Add context and background.
  • Report typos and logical fallacies.
  • Be respectful.
  • Respect copyright - link to articles.
  • Stay focused. Bring in-depth commentary to our discussion forum, babble.


  • Use oppressive/offensive language.
  • Libel or defame.
  • Bully or troll.
  • Post spam.
  • Engage trolls. Flag suspect activity instead.