The Human Environment And Our Economy Is A Very Difficult Job For The Leaders Of Nations Around The World

Ontario has its own creative and effective strategies to combat climate change. One of Ontario’s goal is a low-carbon future. To accomplish this the province started making carbon reductions in 1990 and are on track to reduce carbon emissions by 15% in 2020, 37 per cent in 2030 and 80 per cent in 2050 (Climate Change Action Plan, 2017). Ontario’s target of reducing emissions by 6% was met on schedule in 2014 (Climate Change Action Plan, 2017). One of the reasons this has been made possible is because of Ontario’s investment in carbon reduction. For example, in 2015 Ontario committed $325-million payment to Ontario’s Green Investment Fund to support programs that help households and businesses implement

The Kyoto Protocol does not benefit Canada because it is unfair and too costly. The countries involved are not treated fairly, especially Canada. Some of the world’s largest polluters, such as China and India, are exempt from the first half of the Protocol and large polluters such as the US didn't choose to ratify the agreement. Secondly, Kyoto allows some industrialized countries, such as Russia and New Zealand, to make no cuts, and even permits some places, like Iceland, to emit more greenhouse gasses (Torrie and Parfett et al.). Finally, Canada will need to provide developing countries with funding to help them reach their reduction goals ("Canada's Kyoto Protocol Targets and Obligations"). Canada has more to lose with the Protocol than other countries and many other countries are not giving any funding at all. Every country that is signed on to the Kyoto agreement should be treated equally, and there should be no exceptions. For these reasons, the Kyoto Protocol will have little effect on the earth’s

Its adoption in 1997 and ratification in 2002 furthered the fight against anthropogenic interference with earth’s climate system. Canada’s commitment began with a goal to reduce GHGs by 6% reduction from 1990 levels by 2012, or 461 megatons (Canada and the Kyoto Protocol 2016). In order to achieve these goals, legal requirements expected policies and measures prepared by the participating countries to reduce GHGs, by utilizing all available mechanisms, including joint implementation to earn emissions reduction units (ERU) to be counted towards the target, the clean development mechanism and emissions trading (Kyoto Protocol 1997). Every year, on the date set forth, every participating country was expected to keep track of emissions limits and performance standards, develop spending or fiscal measures, as well their expectation for the next year and results from the previous (E. Canada 2013). When the first reduction timeline was up in 2008, instead of a decrease in emissions, Canada recorded an increase 24.1 percent higher than 1990 levels. The lack of commitment was superseded by the new government’s ‘Made in Canada” effort to push country-unified laws, though no significant changes were

The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) aspires to “stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that will prevent dangerous human interference with the climate system.” The Paris Agreement, created under the UNFCCC, helps make that goal a reality. Signed by Canada on Earth Day 2016, the agreement “requires all Parties to put forward their best efforts through ‘nationally determined contributions’ (NDCs) and to strengthen these efforts in the years ahead. This includes requirements that all Parties report regularly on their emissions and on their implementation efforts. There will also be a global stocktake every 5 years to assess the collective progress towards achieving the purpose of the agreement and to inform further individual actions by Parties.” As of 5 November 2016, ninety-seven parties out of one hundred ninety-seven have signed the agreement that went into effect on 4 November 2016. Canada’s involvement in the UNFCCC and the Paris agreement is just the tip of the iceberg, and it is quite a contribution to global efforts to reduce climate change.

Stephane Dion (2007) published a summary of the liberal party’s proposal intended to decrease the carbon emissions in Canada. The liberal party suggested making the carbon emissions reduction not only a governmental concern but also the businesses need to get involved. This proposal recommended having a targeted goal so that all the businesses can be on the same page. The industries that would respect these new regulations and reduce their carbon emissions would be recognized and those that do not would be penalized. The party believed that the long-term positive effects outweigh socially and economically the negative impacts. The liberal party was certain that this new plan took into account the human lives threaten by climate change. Reading this article, the question that arose is: would this plan affect the economy of the country if applied?

Cap and trade is a system aimed at diminishing the rate at which carbon is emitted into the atmosphere by creating an economic system based on meeting a certain minimal threshold or paying low-emitting companies for the right to emit in their place. For example, if company A only emits half of the emissions cap, that company can sell (or trade) the remaining credits to company B, should company B choose to emit one-and-a-half times the cap. A main objection to the cap and trade system is that it is not a strong enough means by which to curb emissions of fossil fuels and is inferior to specifically stronger carbon taxes. While initially appealing, the notion of simply strengthening carbon taxes fails to properly stifle carbon emissions and to adequately incentivize “green” development in comparison to the cap and trade system, preventing carbon taxes from occupying a central role to mitigate carbon emissions.

But based on the previous analysis, for Canada, the method that can impact carbon dioxide emissions the most is the carbon tax system. A proper carbon tax will deter fossil fuels and encourage clean energy (Carbon Tax or Cap-and-Trade?, 2014). The carbon tax will provide a predictable price for carbon dioxide emissions for Canadians. As well, with the carbon tax system, there is more motivation to adhere to regulations because it will become a standard. The revenue generated from the taxation will also assist Canadians by ultimately facilitating greener practices by subsidization and funding environmentally conscious research. Finally, the practicality of reducing emissions under a carbon taxation system is much more functional than the cap-and-trade program. The carbon tax system has been cited to both grow the economy while reducing emissions. That is why a carbon tax system is a superior approach to the experimental cap-and-trade program for reducing emissions and growing the economy (Brander,

Cap-and-trade is a program which uses a market-based mechanism to control greenhouse gas emissions, the primary driver of global warming. The “cap” sets a limit on emissions, which is lowered over time to reduce the amount of pollutants released into the atmosphere. It limits emissions in electric power generation, natural gas, transportation, and large manufacturers. The “trade” creates a market for carbon allowances, leading to more cost-effective pollution cuts, and incentive to invest in cleaner technology. The less they emit, the less they pay, so it is in their economic incentive to pollute less. Each allowance (typically equivalent to one metric ton of carbon dioxide) are auctioned or allocated to regulated emitters on a regular basis.

Canada is also known for dropping out of the Kyoto Protocol, which included 139 parties. Canada then switched to the Copenhagen Agreement. This agreement wants Canada to cut 17% of its emissions {Meyer,2009}. 4% of emissions have been saved since signing back in 2009. This plan will not work because Canada only reduced 4% of its GHG’s in four years, there is no detailed plan to fix the average 1% decrease by 2020 or the future {Wingrove, J 2015}. Another strategy created by the government is the carbon pricing mechanism. Alberta teamed up with the Climate Control and Emissions Management Act (CCEMA) and placed a tax for carbon emissions on all Canadian Oil companies {CSA Group, 2015}. The tax is $15 per tonne and the CCEMA expects and wants a 12% decrease of oil sands GHG’s each year {CSA Group, 2015}. Canada is an oil producing company and a change like this would need time but we can switch over to less GHG emitting mechanisms {Mansbridge, P 2015}. The CCEMA plan will not be very effective because Canada has done so little to follow its rules and be effective in the past, and now we are even deeper I trouble. If the oil sands didn’t pay much attention to rules of GHG’s before, who says they are going to change now?

The Paris Agreement is made up of 195 nations who plan to cut their greenhouse-gas emissions in an attempt to slow down the increase in the global temperature. President Obama’s decision to sign this agreement does not only promote his personal climate change legacy but the climate change legacy of the United States of America. Since this environmental pact is only legally binding when “at least 55 countries representing 55 percent of global emissions sign on,” a United States signature could very well be the difference between a revolutionary global climate change policy and

The climate change impacts of greenhouse gases threaten the economic development and environmental quality. These threats indicate that all nations regardless their economic growth should work collaboratively to reduce the emission to a certain level. Hare et al. (2011) argued that “climate change is a collective action problem” thus requires a global coordination from all countries. This indicates that actions from several countries would never be sufficient to address the climate change problem. If a global target to limit warming to 2°C or below is about to achieve (UNFCCC 2010, p.4) a broad range of participation is required (Hare et al., 2011). However, the increasing complexity of negotiation processes is inevitable. Each country will pursue its own interests during the

The concurrent development of United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change 1992 and the Kyoto Protocol 1997, as well as the World Trade Organization, and the North American Free Trade Agreement 1994 has proven to be incompatible. The green business energy projects are diminished under the international trade rules. According to Klein, “after the US disapproved other countries’ local renewable energy development, some other countries now considered Ontario’s local content requirement as the violation of World Trade Organization” (66). Climate actions and the development of green energy are frequently challenged under the free trade policy. With the rise of such system which gives us the power of overproduction and overconsumption, with no doubt, government interventions on climate action have to be

Although the Kyoto Protocol had the right intentions with the desire to lower greenhouse gases, however, lowering gas emissions would hinder the economy for many of the nations without a proper substitution or solution. This is a proposal that would not sit well with many of nations; especially since the nations did not all agree climate change. The Kyoto Protocol would produce concentrated costs because lowering gas emissions would affect nations differently, and in addition to that, there would exist a distribution of benefits because not all nations would benefit equally because their polluted atmospheres vary. With a proposal that could hinder the progress of they industry, “both economics and politics deal with problems of scarcity and conflicting preferences” in which nations would rather support the economy than take a risk at an opportunity to help the atmosphere (Wilson 363). The Kyoto Protocol falls under the categorization as entrepreneurial politics where the overall conclusion contains distributed benefits and concentrated

Since the industrial revolution, greenhouse gas emissions, namely carbon dioxide, have been on the rise. Greenhouse gases are generally created when fossil fuels are burned. Many daily activities require burning fossil fuels—warming houses, driving cars, and using electricity. As written in Horizons, Canada emits some of the most greenhouse gases globally, and will be especially susceptible given its latitude (Cranny et al. 17). Global warming will damage the wildlife and environment. “Humans depend on the environment and adapt to it, but they also change it dramatically to suit their needs and wants,” (Cranny et al. 13). Although fossil fuels are burning at an increased rate, there are ways to reduce emissions—a carbon tax or a

Pollution, specifically global warming, is of growing concern to people and governments. It is a controversial issue whose validity is still being debated by scientists. The Kyoto Protocol is an international attempt to address global warming through emissions controls. Traditional neoclassical economic models do not incorporate pollution in rudimentary theories of supply, demand, or pricing, as a result, firms do not consider pollution as a cost of production, which leaves government regulation as the primary method for controlling these externalities. The goal of emissions trading is to allow one business, which can make greenhouse gas emission reductions for a relatively low cost, to sell