As 2009 draws to a close, here are our current seat projections. There has been little change over the last month.

CONSERVATIVE — 38.9% (144 seats)
LIBERAL — 27.6% (87 seats)
NDP — 16.0% (32 seats)
BLOC — 9.3% (45 seats)
GREEN — 7.1% (0 seats)

See our 41st Election website for regional breakdowns.

(Note to Facebook readers: Facebook doesn’t format tables, so please hit ‘view original post’ and the bottom to see the formatted table)

With the Copenhagen Climate Change (COP-15) conference set to begin today, I thought it might be useful to get a sense where different nations stand, both in terms of their current total and per capita CO2 emissions, but also what they have publicly offered in terms of CO2 cuts. There are some slight variances depending on the sources, so bear with me — below is my best guess based on a number of sources. The other thing that complicates comparison is that different countries using different baselines, so I’ve included a column showing the equivalent cuts relative to the 1990 Kyoto baseline.

Scientists from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) say developed countries need to collecting reduce CO2 emissions 25-40% below 1990 levels by 2020 to have a chance of avoiding a greater than 2% increase in global temperatures (which is considered a breaking point). As you can see from the table below, only a few are offering cuts remotely near that — the European Union (20-30%), Japan (25%), and Norway (30-40%) are closest. But Japan might have trouble actually reaching its target. Australia’s 24% looks promising but it hasn’t yet passed legislation and much of its cut is due to concessions it won previously to count reductions in deforestation, so it’s a bit artificial. The U.S. and Canada are clearly laggards, offering what amounts to only a 3-4% cut. Considering Canada committed (and ratified) under Kyoto to a 6% cut by 2012, it’s clear Canada in particular is well behind the eight ball. China and India are significant players, but as developing countries they are not committing to absolute targets but rather merely “intensity” based reductions (this means their CO2 emissions will continue to rise as their economies expand, but not by as much).

Clearly, there is much work to be done to close the gap between North America and Europe, as well as bring emerging giants like China and India into the mix. It should be interesting to see how the next two weeks play out.

Notes
¹ 2008 estimate
² 2008 estimate (tons)
³ by 2020
⁴ per unit of GDP only (intensity target)
⁵ from 2006 level
⁶ from 2000 level

Various Sources
BBC
Pembina Institute (PDF)
Wikipedia
CIA World Factbook
Energy Daily

I would encourage everyone to watch/listen to the Munk Debates on Climate Change today (Dec 1) at 7pm EST (click the ‘live webcast’ link in the upper left to follow online). The debate will revolve around this question: is this the moment for a bold international treaty to curb carbon emissions? Or, are the social and economic costs of reducing C02 emissions too high in a world where a billion people live on a dollar or less a day? Arguing in favour of an international treaty will be Elizabeth May and George Monbiot, while countering their arguments will be Bjørn Lomborg and Nigel Lawson.

By now, it should be clear to everyone that human actions are having a detrimental effect on the environment generally, and climate change specifically. So I would hope the debate isn’t about the science of climate change — and I don’t think it will be. But I suspect the PRO argument will be essentially outlining the apocalyptic scenario if we fail to get an international treaty, and I suspect the CON argument will revolve around the costs that an international treaty would entail. And that’s because the central question pre-supposes that an international treaty is the key to tackling climate change.

This is unfortunate, because the treaty becomes a proxy for underlying ideological views. And this is where the debate gets complicated. For those of us concerned about climate change, it seems natural to want to support another round of global targets. And those more skeptical or concerned about the costs will naturally not want a treaty. But this sets up a no-win, all-or-nothing scenario tied exclusively to whether or not a treaty gets signed or not, instead of a more productive understanding of what practical measures we can and should take now to tackle climate change.

To get to this more productive place, both sides of the ideological divide will need to shift their thinking.

On the one hand, pro-treaty forces will have to shift their thinking from top-down prescriptions (and you can’t get more top-down than global CO2 reduction targets) to bottom-up solutions. Committing to global CO2 reduction targets to some extent gives false comfort to those in favour of addressing climate change. It would certainly represent a political victory, but unless there is an actual implementation plan attached — created in partnership with provincial (or state) and municipal levels of government that have as much or more of a role in reducing CO2, as well as (at least tacit) buy-in from industries that will be most impacted — then the targets won’t be met. We’ve seen this movie before. In 1992 (Rio), the OECD committed to reducing CO2 emissions back to 1990 levels by 2000, yet CO2 actually increased by 12%. In 1997 (Kyoto), we agreed to cut CO2 emissions by an average of 5.2% below 1990 levels by 2010, yet CO2 actually increased by roughly 25%. Clearly, it is easier to make promises than to actually implement them.

And on the other hand, the anti-treaty forces will need to shift their thinking from seeing solutions to climate change as having inherently negative impacts on the economy to seeing the vast economic opportunities that moving towards a more sustainable path offers. Those arguing against a treaty are often (though not always) arguing against taking any action, seeing that action as an impediment to economic growth. This is a narrow view. Check out former Green Party leader Jim Harris’s National Post column every week, in which he argues that going green is good for the bottom line. It is clear that changes are coming. Those who deny that will lose. Those who embrace and invest in a more sustainable future will win. Not all growth is good, and not all growth is bad.

I believe sustainability (in the broadest sense) is *the* major challenge of our time. But to tackle it will require us moving beyond simplistic debates about whether or not global CO2 targets are the key. We need to understand that moving to a more sustainable path represents an economic opportunity, not an impediment. And we need to move beyond top-down policy objectives to actual implementation plans that focus on bottom-up actions we can take now at local and regional levels.

UPDATE:
Having just watched the debates, I must admit that I was a bit disappointed. A good portion of the debate was spent arguing about the science, which was futile, especially for the audience. I thought the inclusion of Lawson brought down the quality of debate because he is a climate change denier, which forced May and Monbiot on the defensive about the science. I had hoped the debate would really be about the most effective ways of addressing climate change are, but instead the debate was largely about if we should address it (and I applaud May for making this very point). It seemed the audience was more swayed by the PRO side, with roughly 60% of voters supporting the question and roughly 70% of viewers thought the PRO side won the debate. As for the debaters, Monbiot was the clear winner, with roughly 45% of viewers saying he was the best, Lomborg was second with roughly 25% support, May third with roughly 20% support and Lawson clearly the least favoured at just 10% support. I also thought Monbiot made the most compelling case, largely because he appealed to people’s sense of justice and fairness, rather than rely on statistics (which is frankly not effective as an oral device — most people’s eyes glaze over when so many numbers are tossed around). Lawson rambled far too much and seemed rather dismissive of the other side. As one commenter said, “May seemed to a personal vendetta against Lomborg”, and at one point seemed to have her mike cut as she tried to talk over him and the moderator. Lomborg had at least a plausible argument in that he accepted climate change as real, but argued it would be more effective to spend money solving the problems created by climate change rather than spend money trying to reduce CO2 (which he seemed to think was futile). But I didn’t think he made a particularly strong case to back up that claim. Anyway, it was a useful to watch if only to remind myself of how far we really have to go.