Stéphane Dion gave this speech during COP 16. I have attached a PDF version of his speech (including footnotes) at the bottom.

Doing One's Share in the Fight Against Climate Change: Will Canada be a Free Rider?

The Cancún Conference, COP 16, will be over in a few days. And what we can hope for is some progress in specific areas: financing, results measurement, forest protection.  And this, only if we get lucky, and thanks largely to the efforts deployed by our Mexican hosts.

We will not secure the global treaty that the world needs.  We did not get one in Copenhagen, we will not get one in Cancún and it will take a huge attitude change to achieve one in Durban next year.

So what's happening?  Why can't we agree to act together?  Surely, we know that global threats – such as climate change – beg for global responses and concerted action by all of the world's regions.

The most renowned scientific institutions couldn't be clearer on the threat posed by climate change to the whole of humankind. Nobody will escape unscathed. Considering the seriousness of the threat, it is clear that we are doing too little, too slowly.  There is a huge gap between what science says must be done and the commitments countries are making.

To avoid going over a dangerous climate tipping point, global warming must be kept below 2 degrees C over pre-industrial levels.  In Copenhagen, the countries said yes to this 2 degree C ceiling.  Unfortunately, the sum of their national commitments leaves us well short of the objective.  Even if all countries were to fulfill their commitments, the Earth's temperature would eventually increase by over 3.5 degrees C. And since Copenhagen, many countries – mine included – have backtracked away from these commitments, on the pretext that these commitments should be linked to the adoption of a robust global treaty.

So why this gap?  Why is it so difficult to do what must be done, to do what’s right?

I can’t think of a more difficult public policy to develop and implement than Climate Change Policy.  And the most fundamental reason for this is the perverse Free Rider Effect.

The Free Rider Effect

The Theory of Collective Action teaches us that it is easier to develop public policy when the goods are divisible, that is when those who work to achieve the results are the ones to benefit from them.  Unfortunately, climate change doesn’t work this way.  In effect, those who do something to fight it are working for all of us and even those who do nothing reap the benefits of that action.   And the negative impacts of climate change, to those who are particularly affected by them, have no direct link with the latter's level of GHG emissions.

Here is a concrete example of what I mean.  If a group of lakeside residents are polluting their lake, they have a personal interest in curbing their effluents.  They will be the ones to benefit from this action.  But with climate change, there is no similar, strictly localized, effect.  One ton of CO₂ emitted in Montreal has the same warming impact on Montreal as on Cancún and the whole world.

Here is another example  –  a Canadian example.  There is a lot of debate on Alberta’s oil sands operations, notably because of their GHG emissions.  If the melting of Western Canada’s glaciers – which puts fresh water supplies in the region at risk – was caused only by Alberta’ s oil sands, there would certainly be a more concrete interest in reducing GHG emissions in Alberta.  But the fact is that the oil sands are only responsible for 1/10 of 1% of global GHG emissions, and therefore, responsible for 1/10 of 1% of the melting of Western Canada’s glaciers linked to climate change.

Another Canadian example:  as part of his climate change policy, the Premier of the Canadian province of Ontario has been trying for years to shut down the province's half-dozen coal-fired power plants.  Well, given the speed with which China builds new coal-fired plants, it would take that country less than two months to offset the GHG emission cuts that would be achieved by shutting down Ontario's coal-fired plants.

You, yourselves, in Mexico, can gauge the potential link between climate change and the increased number and severity of the extreme climate events – from droughts to floods – that you have been through.  And yet you are emitting only 1.5% of global GHGs, and thus are responsible for only 1.5% of your own climate change problems.

The same can be said of the fires in Russia, the floods in Pakistan or any place where local catastrophies can be linked to a global cause – and responsibility.  This is a very difficult public policy and governance issue to handle.

If it wasn’t for this Free Rider Effect, every country would say: “I will do the most I can.  See what I’m doing and do more yourself.  I am a leader, a precursor.”  Instead, what we hear again and again, here in Cancún, is the typical Free Rider excuse:   “Why should I do more when others are doing so little?”  The Climate Free Riders put forward reasons to do as little as possible while asking others to do more – knowing very well that they will benefit from the others’ actions.  

A few brave exceptions notwithstanding, we are all more or less guilty of climatic free riding.  Fundamentally, this is why our collective effort is so inadequate.  But some Free Riders are more egregious than others.  Sadly, my own country has joined their ranks.

Climate Free Riding in Canada

Many Canadians – in universities, businesses, NGOs, municipal and provincial governments – are admirable in their efforts to fight climate change.  One example: the only North-American government to implement a substantive carbon tax is the government of British Columbia.  But no country can do its share if its government is unable or unwilling to coordinate all efforts through the level of leadership only it can assume.

So what is the Canadian government saying in Cancún?  That it cannot do more than the United States, the giant neighbour that accounts for three quarters of my country's international trade.  The government of Canada will do nothing more until the United States government and Congress come up with a climate bill, greenhouse gas emissions regulations and a carbon pricing regime of their own.  Ottawa sits tight, waiting for Washington to move!

Mind you, if the Canadian government were to do at least as much as its US counterpart, this would be a marked improvement.  The Harper government invests eighteen times less, per capita, in renewable energies than the Obama administration.  Essentially, the Canadian government waits for the United States to do something, anything, with no guarantee whatsoever that the US will go ahead, and if it goes ahead, no guarantee that they will be interested in linking or integrating their system with ours – if and when we get one.

Thus Canada chooses to ride on the United States' coat-tails, whereas everybody knows that our US neighbours are not about to adopt a national cap and trade system for GHG emissions.   As long as the US government stays put, the present Canadian government will use this lack of action as a lame excuse to do nothing more.

Well, the Canadian government is wrong to play the Climate Free Rider game.  And considering that it emits four times as much GHGs per capita as Mexico and ranks eighth in the world among GHG emitters but only 36th population-wise, Canada is wrong to shirk its climate responsibilities.

And the Canadian government's procrastination is also wrong because it goes against Canada's own economic interest.  According to a renowned Canadian research institution, the C.D. Howe Institute, delaying the adoption of concrete measures “will likely increase the overall costs of long term reductions in Canada.”  Catching up will be very costly.  “Canada should forge ahead with its own system”, concludes the C. D. Howe Institute.

According to another study – this one by the Pembina Institute, another Canadian research group – the impact of climate policies on competitiveness might well be confined to a few industries.  The study shows that if Canadian carbon prices are significantly higher than those in the US, production accounting for only about 5% of industrial emissions seem to be at risk.

Another well known research center – the Conference Board of Canada – notes: “The global market for technologies that reduce greenhouse gas emissions is exploding.  Yet for the most part, Canadian research, policies, and business have not focused on these opportunities."  The Conference Board goes on to recommend: “Putting a price on carbon, for example, would provide broad incentives to develop and commercialize Canadian climate-friendly technologies”.

As recently as in May 2008, Prime Minister Stephen Harper announced he would move immediately without waiting for the US, by launching a domestic carbon trading system: "We are establishing, he said, a regulatory framework that will impose mandatory emissions reduction targets across the spectrum of Canadian industry. Our plan will effectively establish a price on carbon of $65 a tonne", he bragged. But when the time came to walk the talk, the Canadian government backed off and today, it exploits the US situation as a lame excuse for doing nothing for as long as it can.

I have to tell you that in Canada, many people – and not only scientists and environmentalists – take issue with this climate inaction.  More and more, business people are pushing for a shift toward a low-carbon economy.  The official Opposition, the Liberal Party to which I belong, and its leader, Michael Ignatieff, have committed to swift, effective and responsible action as soon as they become the government.

Canadians should be asked the following question, which goes to the heart of what we are as country : when did  Canada become fearful of entertaining different policies from the US, and unable to develop original policy instruments for the benefit of our people?  Weren't we Canadians able, in better days, to adopt:
 

• a more accessible, efficient and business-friendly health care system than the United  States;
• more generous worker rights than the United States;
• more effective anti-crime policies than the United States;
• a lower public debt than United States – while managing to keep corporate taxes lower than the US?
• an independent role in world affairs, as a constructive global actor.

So why does this inability to be different from the United States suddenly manifest itself now, notably on the issue of climate change?  Why, when studies point out that we can move forward without significant competitive problems?

Conclusion: Overcoming Climate Free Riding

The fight against climate free riding must be won in Canada and in every country.  The lame excuse "I'll take action when others do" must be rejected if we are to achieve what the title of this panel suggests: creating as much synergy as possible between business, government and academia.
 
Then will the countries of the world be able to send, to the next COP, delegations with the tools to negotiate and implement the global treaty we need to reconcile humankind with the planet.

Presentation to the panel: “Transición a una economía baja en carbono : estableciendo sinergias entre empresas, gobierno y la academia”

("The transition to a low-carbon economy:
Creating synergies between business, government and academia")

Organized by the Secretaria de Relationes Exteriores de México in Cancún, Quintana Roo, Mexico, December 8, 2010

The Honourable Stéphane Dion, P.C., M.P.
(Privy Council of Canada and Member of Parliament for St-Laurent / Cartierville)
House of Commons, Ottawa
Email: dions0@parl.gc.ca