What Canadian delegation said:

At an informal briefing on mitigation of climate impacts Canada suggested that losses or damages due to climate change should not be addressed as part of the objectives on adaptation.

“would not envisage loss and damage [due to climate change impacts] being addressed as part of the objectives on adaptation”

Perhaps it would be better if Canada and other major emitters waited for a world court to find us at fault for knowingly contributing to damage and destruction around the world for doing so little to combat climate change.

With the African nations walking out of negotiations and G77 supporting them there has been an effort to ratchet up negotiations and move the Cop15 process forward.

Will Canada shine its shoes and start offering real solutions or continue to stall the process?

“A Copenhagen Agreement that does not recognize that such impacts exist and that does not include resolute provisions to address these impacts would mean that the world’s most vulnerable people, namely those for which adaptation funding is not available, would be left out of the agreement,” said Antonio Hill from Oxfam International.

Read Zoe Caron interview with Michael Martin, Canada’s Ambassador for Climate Change and head UN negotiator at the Bonn II climate talks.

When Canada hosts the G8 in 2010, less than an hour from my home in Huntsville, Ontario we’ll want to have the moral authority to call on our guests to make real progress on issues of economic reform, poverty and climate change. Between now and then, Canadians need to send clear unequivocal messages to our leaders encouraging them to live up to our existing agreements and negotiate significant action on poverty an climate change.

Canada has the right to encourage strong controls on the Global Financial System:

Canada can hold its head high when it comes to demanding transparent International standards for regulating banks. Back under Paul Martin’s stint as Economic Minister it was Canada who proposed a look under the hood of the G8 (actually it was the G7 back then) financial regulations in response to the Asian Economic Crisis of the late 1980’s. Canada was the first to undergo such a review and our banking system stands as perhaps the best prepared to weather the current economic crisis.

On Poverty

If Canada wants the moral authority to call on other countries to meet their international agreements regarding poverty and climate change, Canadian leaders need to first have a look at their own record.

From Rabble.ca:

Prime Minister Harper at the press conference he gave on the final day of the G8 boasted about Canada keeping its commitments on doubling aid to Africa and argued against the G8 making new promises until it has delivered on past ones.

Canada, while on track to fulfill the doubling aid to Africa pledge made in 2005, is still in a weak moral position to provide global leadership unless it commits to a timetable to reach the UN aid target of 0.7%. Many other countries have either already achieved or have timetables to achieve the 0.7% target by 2015. And Canada stands at only 16th out of 22 donor countries in terms of the aid we give as a percentage of our national income.

Remember Kyoto?

Canada has also failed in a big way to live up to its international commitments on Climate Change. Remember Kyoto Prime Minister? That’s where we committed to a 5% reduction on 1990 carbon emissions by 2012. Last I checked, Canada was 22% ABOVE 1990 emissions. We’ve missed the mark by quite a bit. Will we live up to any agreements made under the new UN Framework being negotiated for Copenhagen this December? Canadians hope so

As Dennis Howlett states, at the conclusion of his Rabble.ca article, “For this to happen, we will need to engage Canadians in an unprecedented way, and mount a huge campaign for Canada to be a leader again on the world stage in tacking global poverty and the threat of climate change. I hope I can count on your support.”

I couldn’t’ agree more.

Check out:

• Rabble: Looking for Canadian Leadership

Today the members of the G8, meeting in Italy released a declaration that that highlights the importance of Climate Change without committing member countries from taking any serious action.

Leaders of the G8 recognise the broad scientific view that the increase in global average temperature above pre-industrial levels ought not to exceed 2°C.

While G8 Nations express agreement that it is desirable that global temperature not rise above 2 degrees C, member countries fail to agree to firm commitments which will ensure this important temperature threshold is not breached.

On Climate Change

From the G8 Declaration:

The interlinked challenges of climate change, energy security and the sustainable and efficient use of natural resources are amongst the most important issues to be tackled in the strategic perspective of ensuring global sustainability.

We must seize the opportunity to build on synergies between actions to combat climate change and economic recovery initiatives, and encourage growth and sustainable development worldwide.

Consistent with this ambitious long-term objective, we will undertake robust aggregate and individual mid-term reductions . . .

We reiterate our willingness to share with all countries the goal of achieving at least a 50% reduction of global emissions by 2050, recognizing that this implies that global emissions need to peak as soon as possible and decline thereafter. As part of this, we also support a goal of developed countries reducing emissions of greenhouse gases in aggregate by 80% or more by 2050 compared to 1990 or more recent years.

With a view to building on these experiences and to facilitate action under the global post 2012 agreement, we commit to further explore, taking into account national circumstances, the potential of carbon trading systems and their possible linkages;

Behind the Words:

The declaration is clear that human-caused climate change requires “Immediate and resolute action” but much less clear when it comes to putting solutions in place.

It is widely regarded that global Carbon emissions must start declining by 2015 in order to stave off the most drastic climate change scenarios possible. This in itself is a problem. To permit emissions to continue to climb (in Canada they climb almost 2% annually!) and to say they need to peak as soon as possible is disingenuous. Emissions need to start decreasing NOW. How soon is possible? 5 years, 10 years, 20 years? Kyoto is a decade old and although Canada declared to have emissions below 1990 levels by 2012 they are still on the rise and at present are 22% above 1990 levels.

Coupled with the pledge to have emissions by 2050 be 80% below 1990 or current levels is a direct challenge to the goals outlined by Kyoto which stated 1990 as the default baseline for emissions tracking. By allowing for a flexible date up to current emission levels, the G8 declaration openly disregards the Kyoto Protocol which called on developing nations to reductions in Greenhouse gas emissions of 5.2% vs. 1990 levels by the interim date of 2012. This is just the robust intermediate target, as the G8 declaration calls for, however Canada has declared not to meet its international obligations according to the Kyoto Treaty and is 27% above its agreed-upon greenhouse gas emissions target.

The declaration strongly supports Cap and Trade schemes which have been shown to be successful in reducing emissions, however the G8 loophole phrase - taking into account national circumstances, leaves application of this otherwise strong support for emissions trading on very weak grounds. It begs the question, “What are Canada’s circumstances regarding developing or participating in an emissions trading scheme?

On a Green Recovery

From the G8 Declaration:

The emergency response to the economic crisis should not overlook the opportunity to facilitate a global green recovery putting our economies on a path towards more sustainable and resilient growth. Our fiscal stimulus packages are increasingly investing in measures encouraging the creation of green jobs and low-carbon, energy efficient and sustainable growth. These include energy efficiency measures, investment in public transportation infrastructure, incentives for fuel-efficient vehicles, research in alternative sources of energy, support for renewable energy technologies, as well as in enhanced CO2 reduction, recycling and disposal such as Carbon Capture and Storage. We remain committed to enhance the environmental dimension of budgetary measures and to reinforce efforts to promote clean energy and energy efficiency.

Behind the Words:

The Declaration would be much more meaningful with specific targets for Green Fiscal stimulus. The US Climate Legislation which has recently passed the House of Representatives has billions in stimulus for a Greening of the Economy. Other countries have instituted specific recommendations for allocation of funds for green carbon friendly recovery. South Korea is allocating 80% of its recovery dollars for green projects. Instead Canada dumped the majority of fiscal stimulus into a failing automotive industry. The G8 declaration inspires little in the way of Green Fiscal Stimulus commitments for laggard member nations like Canada, ascribing no specific targeted stimulus investments to green economic recovery.

In Conclusion:

While the declaration fails to commit G8 members from taking action on Climate Change, it does succeed in highlighting agreement among members that Climate Change is the critical issue of the year. Hopefully, tomorrows Major Economies Forum (MEF) called by U.S. President Barack Obama to discuss progress towards a new global climate agreement will produce a more positive communiqué that identifies clear targets and commits contributing countries to firm targets and action on climate change.

Read the Entire Declaration

http://www.g8italia2009.it/static/G8_Allegato/G8_Declaration_08_07_09_final,0.pdf

On Thursday, the leaders of the world’s largest economies will meet in L’Aquila, Italy, for Major Economies Forum (MEF). Called by U.S. President Barack Obama to discuss progress towards a new global climate agreement, it is hoped the side-meeting of G8 World Leaders, meeting April 8-10 will result in strong concensus among world leaders who account for 80% of global emissions. June 27, the U.S. House of Representatives narrowly passed the “American Clean Energy and Security Act,” a legislation to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The bill came as a hard-won victory for President Obama, who is keen on a leading U.S. role in tackling global warming.

In six months, a deal is supposed to be struck in Copenhagen, so the MEF meeting comes at a vital moment. When many of the G20 leaders met in April to address the economic crisis, they rightly pledged to do “whatever is necessary” to secure a deal for Copenhagen (COP-15)

The new US administration is supporting strong action. China is setting ambitious targets for reducing energy intensity and making massive investments in renewable energy. India has put forward its own action plan. Europe has set a goal of cutting emissions by 30 percent below 1990 levels by 2020 if there is an ambitious global agreement. Japan has published its proposals for major carbon reductions. Across the world, commitments are forthcoming.

Canada must focus on clear, practical, and achievable goals, with major reductions in order to ensure that, whatever the precise interim target, the world will fashion a radical new approach to economics that embraces Carbon mitigation as a cost of doing business.

Blair says we have the answers

Tony Blair (former prime minister of the United Kingdom) says,

Fully 70 percent of the reductions needed by 2020 can be achieved by investing in three areas: increasing energy efficiency, reducing deforestation and use of lower-carbon energy sources, including nuclear and renewables. Implementing just seven proven policies — renewable energy standards; industry efficiency measures; building codes; vehicle efficiency standards; fuel carbon content standards; appliance standards, and policies for reduced emissions from deforestation and forest degradation — can deliver these reductions.

Between L’Aquila and Copenhagen, there will undoubtedly be difficult discussions over interim targets for developed countries. While such targets are important, what matters most is agreement on the measures that ultimately will set the world on a new path to a low carbon future.

For years, the emphasis has rightly been on persuading people that there must be sufficient “will” to tackle climate change. But leaders, struggling to cope with this challenge even amidst economic crisis, need to know that there is also “a way.” Only by combining the two will we succeed. Fortunately, such a way exists.

Where will Canada be?

Wednesday’s annual G8 scorecard the WWF blasts Canada for greenhouse-gas emissions that are surging “far above” its obligations under the UN’s Kyoto Protocol, singling Canada as being the worst of the G8 countries in tackling climate change. The report says Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s conservative government had no plan to curb emissions, already among the highest in the world per capita and steadily increasing.

It’s time Canada gets in line with other G8 nations and offers solutions to clear, binding limits on carbon emissions and lives up to the agreements world leaders agree to . Canada agreed under the Kyoto Protocol to reduce CO2 emissions to 6.0 percent below 1990 levels by 2012. In 2007, the latest year for which figures are available, its emissions were 26.2 percent higher than in 1990.

UN countries, under the 192-party Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), aim to forge a new agreement in Copenhagen in December that will set targets for emissions curbs and channel help to poor countries beyond 2012.

The bill requires Canada to live up to it’s Kyoto pledge and should help inspire our government to commit to firm Carbon targets at the upcoming meetings in Copenhagen – COP 15.

The IPCC is urging developed countries to reduce emissions by at least 25% below 1990 levels by 2020, and at least 80% by the year 2050. These reductions are needed to avoid the most dangerous impacts of climate change.

Bill C-311 incorporates recommendations of the Nobel Prize-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and if the bill passes third reading and the Senate, Canada will need to commit to the firm targets agreed to under Kyoto Protocol.

Take a moment and contact your member of Parliament and encourage them to support Bill C-311 in its third reading.

We have a lot to learn from the stories and wisdom of First Nations people who hold cultural knowledge about climate change, and social justice. That’s why I was delighted to learn about Isuma.tv.

http://www.isuma.tv/hi/en

Live Streaming from the Arctic

Countdown to Copenhagen is Isuma’s six-month internet campaign to promote the importance of Inuit knowledge and human rights in the global discussion of Climate Change. Monthly webcasts on IsumaTV from May to November will culminate in Live From the Floe Edge, ten days of daily internet streaming hosted by Zacharias Kunuk live from his arctic wilderness hunting camp during the UN Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen, December 7-17.

Starting May 29 at 7:45 pm EST

The series will launch with a live webcast on Friday May 29, featuring Siila Watt-Cloutier, Inuit climate activist and 2007 Nobel Peace Prize nominee, speaking on Inuit, Human Rights and Climate Change live from Iqaluit, Nunavut to a worldwide audience.. The program leads off at 7:45 pm EST with the World Premiere of Tungijuq, Isuma’s new 6-minute video starring Inuit jazz and throat-singing sensation, Tanya Tagaq. At 8 pm Siila Watt-Cloutier delivers the 9th annual LaFontaine-Baldwin Lecture, introduced by John Ralston Saul, The Right Honorable Michaëlle Jean, Governor General of Canada, Isuma’s Zacharias Kunuk and The Honourable Ann Meekitjuk Hanson, Commissioner of Nunavut.

I’ll be watching. Will you?

Join a gathering:

Screenings organized so far for Friday, May 29 include:

MONTRÉAL Ewola Cinéma
7:45 pm – 10 pm EST Eastern Time
3981 Blvd Saint Laurent Suite #900

TORONTO Hart House (U of T)
7:45pm- 10pm EST
7 Hart House Circle (Debates Room)

IGLOOLIK Isuma building
7:45-10pm EST
www.isuma.ca

WINNIPEG Urban Shaman Gallery
6:45pm-9pm CST
203-290 McDermot Avenue

CALGARY Arusha Centre Society (old YMCA)
5:45 – 8 pm MST Mountain Time
223 12 avenue SW

VANCOUVER Vancity Theatre
4:45 pm – 7 pm PST Pacific Time
Vancouver International Film Centre

Vancouver Peak Oil Group and Vital Knowledge 2.2
4:45 pm – 7 pm PST
Studio 302 – 1067 Granville Street

I am also working with a Sacred Fire Ceremony on Greenland to take place July 17-19 on Greenland.

“Elizabeth May said it best in the debates, the Harper climate change plan is a fraud,” said Avaaz Executive Director Ricken Patel.

“I have also seen first hand how the Conservative government is actively wrecking international progress on climate change.”

While the majority of Canadians want action on climate change and believe that Harper is offside with their views, voters often feel that one vote can’t make a difference. This is why prominent Canadian artists have come together in support of strategic voting to defeat Harper.

“These bright lights of the Canadian music scene are sending a message to voters: you can make a difference, and we need to come together and strategically support candidates who will defeat Stephen Harper and fight climate change,” said Patel.

The Canadian artists who rallied together for this effort include: K-OS, Ed Robertson of the Barenaked Ladies, Ben Kowalewicz of Billy Talent, Adam Gontier of Three Days Grace, Sarah Harmer, Hawksley Workman, Jason Collett of Broken Social Scene, Darren Dumas of The Salads and the Arts Offstage Choir under the direction of David Reed. The song was written and produced by The Hundreds and Thousands’ Ian Lefeuvre and K-OS. Lyrics all contributed by the artists. Additional keyboards are performed by Todor Kobakov from Major Maker. The track was mastered by Joao Carvalho.

With bagpipes, swirling guitars, soaring choruses and a chilling choral performance, familiar voices bring a powerful message of the necessity of action and the importance of each and every vote on October 14. “You Have a Choice” will be released to radio stations across Canada, and Canadians can download an MP3 by visiting AVAAZ.ca.

About AVAAZ CANADA

Avaaz is a new web-based democratic advocacy group that has grown in 18 months to over 300,000 supporters across Canada. Avaaz exposed and challenged the Harper government’s policy at the UN climate change summit in Bali through sending hundreds of thousands of messages and funding a widely publicized ad campaign.

Avaaz Canada is part of Avaaz.org, a global web movement with a democratic mission to close the gap between the world we have, and the world most people everywhere want. At 3.4 million supporters, Avaaz.org is the largest online activist community in the world and brings people-powered politics to global decision-making. It is the latest chapter in new wave of web-based, people-powered political movements that have profoundly impacted countries from Australia to the US to the Philippines

Dream Conversation?

Broadcast consortium. “We think we might have to invite Liz to the party? Any ideas on getting out of this mess with the 2008 Leader’s debate?”

Steve. “Oh no, can’t have that, it’ll make Canadians want to learn more about Climate Change and make Stephane’s Green Shift ideas seem sensible. Got to keep people in the dark on that one. Keep ‘em thinking Stephane is loony, out there on the fringe, sneaking another tax on ‘em. Let’s call her Stephane’s mouthpiece. We couldn’t possibly be able to shift focus away from that issue if there were two parties talking about climate. No. No. No. I don’t want to debate her.”

Consortium. “Not good enough, could you offer us some help, we can’t exclude her because you don’t want her there. Why don’t you tell us, you won’t come to the leader’s debate.”

Steve. “I, I, …. I won’t come. That’s it, I’m not coming if she shows up. . . . Convincing? I’ll look wimpy.”

Consortium: “You could say you are having a bad hair day.”

Steve. “I’m not sure I like this idea. If I’m not there, they’ll all be talking that climate change nonsense and we won’t be able to refute it with our “Science” and economic doom and gloom talk.

Consortium. “Steve, you won’t really have to miss it, we could get everyone else to say they don’t want to come to the debate either. That way, we’ll surely have to leave her out.”

Steve. “Won’t we look bad if the public thinks we won’t show up because we don’t want to debate her. We need a better angle.”

Consortium. “Hmmmmm. The public would go crazy if all the parties chose not to come to the debate!”

Steve. “That’s it. We’ll Boycott the debates. That sounds better. Do you think we could convince Jack not to come?”

Consortium. “Are you kidding? The Greens have almost as much public support as the NDP. The last thing Jack wants is to stand beside Elizabeth. He doesn’t want to get hidden by her shadow. He’ll be in for the Boycott ruse.”

Steve. “What about the bloc? Help me remember, Why is Gilles in the debate again? After all, only Quebecers can vote for them? Did you ask our party if we’d boycott back when we let them in?”

Consortium. “Oh, no we didn’t bother with that. Nobody across Canada listens when he speaks at the debate anyway. Even the Quebec Nation. They will have heard him the night before. It’s like a commercial break. People need a bathroom break after listening to you boys. Remember, there are no commercials.”

Steve. “Don’t people wonder why he’s there?”

Consortium. “Have you ever seen Gilles? He wonders why he’s there!”

Steve. “Well it’s clear he’ll join the Boycott then.”

Consortium. “That’s the answer then. Thanks Steve, you’re a pal. So you’ll tell the media that you’d Boycott if we let her in?”

Steve. “Oh, no, we can’t do that. It has to be the Consortium’s decision to not invite her. And you can’t say that I or any leader in particular threatened to Boycott. That would give the people a place to point the blame. Best to keep the electorate guessing. You have no choice, you have to keep Liz out, for democracy’s sake.”

Consortium. “Right, we have no choice. If no one showed up, there’d be no leader’s debate. We have no other course of action, but to deny her right to participate – regardless of the ground rules.”

Steve. “. . . and remember, keep the electorate off-balance. Having no one to blame is critical.”

Consortium. “We won’t talk to Stephane then. We’ll get three of the parties to say they’d Boycott. That way, the public won’t be sure where the idea started in the first place. After all, you have the most to lose if she’s there. If everyone threatened to Boycott you’d take the heat.”

Steve. (chuckles). “Stephane will be stunned. He’ll probably Boycott that we’re boycotting the debate.”

Consortium. “Right, in fact, Jack and Stephane will take the hardest hits in the media because their constituents will expect them to take a stance loyal to the underdog.”

Steve. “If they do come to me, I’ll just say that letting the greens in, is a ploy cooked up between the liberals and the greens to get extra speaking time on the environment.”

Consortium. “The storm from this should all die down in a couple of days. Three max. If the media comes to you for a quote any time after today, just say it’s water under the bridge, you already talked about it. You have nothing more to say.”

Steve: ” . . . and we can’t afford another lawsuit. Its a demonstration of great leadership that I just keep quiet. If the Greens decide to try to fight this in court, they won’t know who to sue. By the time they figure that out, the debates will be over and we’ll have our majority. The first thing we’ll do is pass a bill that says anyone who has a flower in their logo, is female, lives on an island or drives a hybrid can’t participate in any National Leader’s Debate.”

Consortium. “That will make things easy for the future. Ok, so, we’ll say we decided not to invite her, because some of the parties threatened to Boycott.”

Steve. “That will work. After all, we wouldn’t want democracy to be put into the hands of the people. They’ll see its better to keep democracy in the hands of you media types. After all you need viewers. You don’t just do this for the goodwill of Canadians. It’s viewership that matters.”

Consortium. “Not exactly Steve. We hope no one watches the debates. No commercial revenue. We hope people are at home consuming our other media products like print and internet. If Liz is in the debate, viewership would skyrocket. That would be bad for business.”

Steve. “I get it. It’s bad for business and the political elite if Liz is in the debate. It’s bad for the people, democracy and the greens if she’s out!”

Consortium. “No need to flip a coin on this then. She’s out – for the best of Canadian Democracy.”

Someone wake me . . . I get the feeling that Canadian Democracy might be a dream.

addendum – Thankfully, the voices of ordinary Canadians rose up on blogs, in online comments of National publication web sites and were heard on radio call-in shows across the nation, leading Steve to back down on his threat to boycott the debates if Liz wasn’t allowed in. . . . as if the Tories would ever would miss the opportunity to try to split the left wing vote.

I for one, can’t wait to tune into the Leaders debate.