TURNING THE CORNER - CANADA'S NEW REGULATORY

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 08 OTTAWA 000795

SIPDIS

SENSITIVE
SIPDIS

DEPARTMENT FOR WHA, OES, EB
PARIS ALSO FOR USOECD
EPA FOR OFFICE OF THE ADMINISTRATOR AND INTERNATIONAL
AFFAIRS
DOE FOR POLICY AND INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS
WHITE HOUSE FOR CEQ

E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: SENV ENRG CA
SUBJECT: TURNING THE CORNER - CANADA'S NEW REGULATORY
FRAMEWORK FOR EMISSIONS

REF: A. 06 OTTAWA 3182


B. 06 OTTAWA 3423

C. 07 OTTAWA 0627

This message is Sensitive but Unclassified. Please protect
accordingly.

Summary
--------------

1. (U) Saying "the time has come for action," Environment
Minister John Baird released the government's long-awaited
"Turning the Corner" plan, its framework to regulate
emissions of greenhouse gases and air pollutants, in Toronto
on April 26. The plan's targets will force significant
action by Canada's main industry sectors: Mandatory targets
will require industry to reduce the intensity of GHG
emissions by 18 percent (from current levels) by 2010 and a
further 2 percent annually thereafter. The plan sets
nationwide caps for air pollutants (NOx, SOx, VOCs, and PM,
as well as for mercury and benzene from some applications)
that will see emissions of these pollutants fall from current
levels by 20 percent (for PM) to 55 percent (for SOx) by

2015. The plan allows for several mechanisms industry can
use to meet targets, ranging from own action to emissions
trading (domestic, but Canada will actively explore
opportunities with the U.S. and individual states) to the
Kyoto Protocol's Clean Development Mechanism to payments
(initially at the rate of C$15 per tonne of carbon) into a
technology fund. In making the announcement, Baird stressed
other initiatives, such as reducing emissions from
transportation and stricter efficiency standards for
appliances, will continue to be important elements in
Canada's overall climate change strategy.


2. (U) Baird noted the new plan will impose significant costs
on the Canadian economy, estimating it may cost up to C$8
billion and cut up to 0.5 percent off GDP in its costliest
years. However, he said the plan will yield C$6 billion in
health care savings annually by 2015, widely benefit the
environment, and present opportunities for long-term economic
gains primarily deriving from investments in technology.


3. (U) Reaction from opposition parties was swift and
unanimous: Green Party leader Elizabeth May called it a
"climate disaster plan," and other leaders and environment
critics voiced similar views. Environmental groups were
harsh in their own criticism, bemoaning along with the
political opposition the plan's final rejection of Kyoto
Protocol targets for GHGs. (Baird estimated Canada will meet
the Kyoto target of cutting emissions by 6 percent from 1990
levels, but not until 2025.) Al Gore's comment (in response
to an question from a Toronto audience) that the Plan was
"fraud" prompted a swift retort from Baird and an offer to
brief the former-VP on the Plan's specifics. Reaction from
industry groups seemed less strident, though most called the
targets aggressive, "difficult to meet," and more ambitious
than those proposed by the Liberal government in 2005. In
fact, Baird seemed largely unbothered, noting in
post-announcement interviews that criticism from opposite
ends of the interest spectrum had to be indication the plan
was balanced.


4. (SBU) The government had announced its intention to
release a new regulatory framework for GHG and air pollutant
emissions last October in its Notice of Intent to regulate,
Qemissions last October in its Notice of Intent to regulate,
and last week followed through with "Turning the Corner."
Critics have charged the government with trying to rule on
the environment by administrative decree rather than
legislation, ignoring the fact that the government announced
its intentions six months ago and already has the authority
to regulate as outlined in the plan under the Canadian
Environmental Protection Act of 1999. Even if Turning the
Corner makes good progress in establishing the Conservative's
environmental credentials, such charges do highlight the
continuing problem the government faces in what to do with
the re-drafted Clean Air Act, the Kyoto Protocol

OTTAWA 00000795 002 OF 008


Implementation Act already passed by the House and awaiting
Senate action, and another similar bill in the House, none of
which the government wishes enacted. With the odds on an
early election getting longer, speculation is now shifting to
the possibility the government might clear the legislative
calendar by proroguing parliament.
End Summary.

Contents
--------------
Summary and Introduction paras 1-4
Early Tory efforts on climate change paras 5-9
Pre-announcement drama paras 10-11
Emission targets for industry paras 12-15
Compliance mechanisms paras 16-18
Other Plan elements paras 19-21
Costs and benefits paras 22-23
Opposition, ENGO reaction paras 24-26
Industry reaction paras 27-28
Kyoto stance para 29
The way forward paras 30-31
Emissions statistics paras 32-33


A Long and Winding Road
--------------

5. (U) Stephen Harper and his Conservative Party campaigned
on a platform that did not include climate change, and when
his government took power in early February 2006, its stated
focus was on law and order, health care, and tax breaks for
the middle class. In March Environment Minister Rona Ambrose
went so far as to state publicly "...the Kyoto accord is
seriously flawed and the emissions targets it imposes on
Canada are unrealistic and unattainable." Throughout the
spring of 2006, opposition parties and the environmental NGO
community railed against the government's lack of interest in
climate change, but action in parliament produced only a
private member's bill, the Kyoto Protocol Implementation Act
(C-288),that would force the government to comply with
Canada's Kyoto Protocol obligations, if enacted.


6. (U) Introduced in mid-May 2006, C-288 proposed a
compressed timetable to "ensure Canada takes effective and
timely action to meet its obligations under the Kyoto
Protocol." The bill would have authorized a cap-and-trade
system with limits on permits to emit GHGs. It easily passed
its first and second readings and was sent to committee just
before the summer recess. With C-288 galvanizing the
opposition, and public opinion polls showing concern for the
environment was a top-of-mind issue, the Tories began giving
greater prominence to the climate change and environment
files by early summer and repeatedly promised that a "Made in
Canada" plan to address climate change and air pollution
would soon be unveiled.


7. (U) But it was not until October 19, 2006, that Rona
Ambrose introduced the government's "Clean Air Act," Bill
C-30, into the House (ref A). Opposition reception was
extremely chilly, with NDP leader Jack Layton pointedly
characterizing the bill as a "Xerox copy of a
made-in-Washington solution, delayed." Environmental groups
also reacted with dismay, with the Sierra Club calling it
mostly "smoke and mirrors." On the other hand, business
groups were largely relieved. The Canadian Chamber of
Commerce applauded the Clean Air Act's movement away from
QCommerce applauded the Clean Air Act's movement away from
"unrealistic short-term Kyoto targets" to "more practical
medium- and long-term targets...which will ensure that Canada
takes the time to make the right decisions and that companies
have time to develop, implement and commercialize new
technologies."


8. (U) In fact, the Clean Air Act proposed a number of new
initiatives and approaches (such as mandatory nation-wide
regulation of air pollutants, greatly expanded efficiency
standards for appliances, and mandatory intensity-based
targets for GHG emissions) for Canada. At the same time the

OTTAWA 00000795 003 OF 008


government issued a Notice of Intent to Regulate, which
announced plans for the administrative measures it would use
to regulate emissions of GHGs and air pollutants and
promising targets would be issued in early 2007.
(Importantly, the bulk of the measures the government
contemplated in the Clean Air Act and the Notice of Intent
depended for their legislative authority not on the new Act,
but on the existing Canadian Environmental Protection Act.)
But from the standpoint of the opposition and environmental
groups, it failed the litmus test: it ignored Kyoto and
seemed to pay more attention to air pollution than climate
change.


9. (U) Shortly after its introduction, NDP leader Layton
engineered referral of the bill to an ad hoc House committee
for re-drafting (ref B),and the committee (on which Tories
were in the minority) began revising the Act in January
(about the same time John Baird replaced the ineffective Rona
Ambrose as Environment Minister). On March 30 it emerged,
now emphasizing hard caps for reducing greenhouse gas
emissions and penalties for non-compliance (ref C). It came
as no surprise that the government opposed the changes, but
since it controlled the parliamentary calendar, the bill has
not been re-submitted to the House for a final vote. The
fate of C-288, the Kyoto Protocol Implementation Act, is a
bit more certain: the bill is now before the Senate Energy
and Environment Committee. It was, in fact, at that
Committee's hearing on C-288 just two weeks ago that Baird
announced his apocalyptic vision of the costs of implementing
C-288 and meeting Kyoto.

Laying the Groundwork
--------------

10. (SBU) Release of the "Turning the Corner" framework and
emissions targets had been promised in the Clean Air Act and
the Notice of Intent and expected for months. Many observers
thought March, or early April, and John Baird himself had
been saying for sometime the announcement would happen in
"coming weeks." But by last week, Embassy began picking up
increasing signs that the long-promised announcement was
imminent. Baird's presentation on April 19 to the Senate
committee considering C-288 of the economic modeling study
demonstrating very hefty costs to the Canadian economy of
meeting Kyoto commitments was the final clue. The estimated
impacts (GDP down by 4 percent and 275,000 jobs lost, for
example) were so dire, the study's major usefulness could
only have been to set up an announcement of the government's
own targets, whose economic costs would appear much more
manageable in comparison.


11. (U) All question as to whether the targets would be
released last week was resolved when a draft of John Baird's
speech announcing them was accidentally faxed to the House
opposition lobby late on April 24. Liberal environment
critic David McGuinty told hastily assembled press that he
could not reveal details under threat of prosecution, but he
did describe the plan as potentially market-moving.
Environment Canada essentially confirmed the fax was
authentic by posting the text of Baird's speech late that
night. As promised, Baird made his announcement in Toronto
Qon the 26th, though the circumstances were unusual. After
Tuesday's misstep, the government went to extraordinary
lengths to control the official release of the actual plan.
Separate segregated briefings for the media, business, and
environmental groups were held in different locations, and
the groups were locked in briefing rooms from noon to 4 pm,
with no outside electronic access. Observers noted that
security for the announcement rivaled that traditionally put
in place for release of the federal budget, even though many
details of the plan were already known.

The Plan Says -- on Emissions Targets...
--------------

12. (U) The government proposed its basic regulatory approach
last October in its "Notice of Intent to Develop and
Implement Regulations and Other Measures to Reduce Air

OTTAWA 00000795 004 OF 008


Emissions," which in essence described the mechanisms by
which the government intended to implement its Clean Air Act
(ref A). Among the elements in the Notice of Intent, the
government promised action on greenhouse gases and air
pollutants, and stressed that its regulatory framework for
both classes would depend for legislative authority largely
on the Canadian Environmental Protection Act (1999),rather
than the Clean Air Act itself. In the Notice, the government
also announced that it would develop targets for emissions of
greenhouse gases and air pollutants based on consultation,
with provinces, territories, aboriginal peoples, and other
stakeholders on the overall framework, and then with industry
sectors on the specific targets for those sectors.


13. (U) The document released April 26, the Regulatory
Framework for Air Emissions (the central element, really, of
Turning the Corner) largely addresses air emissions from
industry, which account for around half of Canada's
emissions, with a view to stabilizing GHG emissions by 2010
and cutting emissions of air pollutants by up to 55 percent
(from current levels) by 2012. Under the Framework, the
government will apply short term targets for emissions of
both classes to the following sectors: thermal power
generation; oil and gas; forest products; smelting and
refining (including aluminum and alumina); iron and steel;
cement, lime, and chemicals production; and some mining.
Final consultations with stakeholders on sector-specific
provisions will conclude by the end of this year, and
specific draft regulations will be gazetted in early 2008.


14. (U) In his announcement, Baird called targets for
industry "concrete and challenging, yet realistic." In terms
of the specifics for reducing GHG emissions, the Plan
requires affected industries to reduce the intensity of their
GHG emissions by 18 percent from current levels by 2010, and
by a further 2 percent per year from 2011 to 2015. The
government calculates these targets will lead to an absolute
reduction in GHG emissions as early 2010 and by 2012 at the
latest. Over the medium-term the government estimates GHG
emissions will fall from current levels by 20 percent by
2020, and in the longer-term by up to 70 percent by 2050. In
justifying its intent to stick with intensity-based targets
for GHGs, the government stresses that these will "allow
(Canada) to reduce greenhouse gases now and prepare for
deeper cuts later without de-railing Canada's economy."


15. (U) For air pollutants, the government said Turning the
Corner will introduce for affected industries fixed caps on
emissions of nitrogen oxides, sulfur oxides, volatile organic
compounds and particulate matter. In some sectors, caps will
also be introduced for other pollutants, such as mercury from
thermal power generation and smelting, and benzene from the
refining, natural gas, and iron and steel sectors. The
framework will provide an adjustment period for industry, and
caps will not go into effect until 2012-2015. The government
intends to finalize the caps for specific sectors, as well as
the exact date they will come into force by the fall of 2007.
Qthe exact date they will come into force by the fall of 2007.
At the national level, the government expects the caps to
force reductions from 2006 levels of around 40 percent for
NOx, of around 55 percent for SOx, of around 45 percent for
VOCs, and of around 20 percent for PM. The Plan states the
government is holding to its commitment in the Notice of
Intent last fall to impose targets that "are at least as
rigorous as those in the U.S. or other environmental
performance-leading countries."

...and on Mechanisms for Industry
--------------

16. (U) "Turning the Corner" provides industry a number of
compliance mechanisms, ranging from own action to emissions
trading to deposits into a climate change technology fund for
non-compliers. New facilities will be allowed a three-year
grace period, but will have to employ best available clean
fuel and technology standards and make 2 percent annual
improvements thereafter (putting them on the same schedule as
existing plant after 2010). Firms will also be allowed a one

OTTAWA 00000795 005 OF 008


time credit (up to 15 megatonnes nationally and distributed
among firms proportionally) for verified abatement actions
taken between 1992 and 2006. Industry will have access to
domestic trading and domestic offsets, and firms can
discharge up to 10 percent of their obligation with
investments in Kyoto Protocol Clean Development Mechanism
projects. Additionally the government announced intent to
actively explore possible linkages to potential GHG trading
mechanisms in North America, including at sub-national
levels. The government says it would be willing to consider
credit for participating in other emissions trading schemes
globally in the future but that it will not purchase credits
itself, domestically or internationally.


17. (U) As for the technology fund, firms could meet a
portion of their GHG reduction obligations by paying into the
fund at the rate of C$15 per tonne of CO2 equivalent (between
2010-2012) and at the rate of C$20 per tonne of CO2
equivalent during 2013, after which the rate would increase
annually at the rate of growth of nominal GDP. Firms would
be able to discharge up to 70 percent of their total
obligation through such payments in 2010, but this limit will
decline to zero by 2018. While complete details remain to be
finalized, based in part on further consultation with
industry, the provinces and territories, the government
expects the fund will be administered by a non-profit,
non-governmental body and used principally to fund technology
deployment and related infrastructure projects that have a
high potential to reduce GHG emissions in the near-term, such
as carbon capture and storage infrastructure in Alberta or an
east-west electricity grid. The fund may also help finance a
limited amount of R&D on transformative technologies with
payouts over the mid- to longer term. Baird stressed that
the fund will have no inter-province wealth transfer impacts
and that payments into the fund will be used in the
originating province or territory.


18. (U) For emissions of air pollutants, the Plan will
establish a Canada-wide cap and trade system for NOx and SOx
only, even though caps will be put in place also for VOCs,
PM, and mercury and benzene from some industrial
applications. The allocation of caps among facilities, as
well as the exact date (between 2012 and 2015) the caps will
come into effect will be determined in consultation with
provinces, industry and other stakeholders in the coming
months and announced, the government said, by June 2007. In
the Plan, the government stresses its intent to set targets
"at least as rigorous as those in the U.S." and re-iterates
the important role U.S.-Canadian cooperation, such as through
the Air Quality Agreement, will play in addressing pollution
issues in shared cross-border airsheds. (In 2005 Canada and
the U.S. completed a study under the Air Quality Agreement
which suggested a cross-border cap and trade system for NOx
and SOx could be feasible.) For the other regulated air
pollutants, the CEPA provides the government with several
compliance and enforcement provisions, including
administrative and judicial orders and prosecution, with
Qadministrative and judicial orders and prosecution, with
maximum fines of up to C$1 million per day.

Also in the Portfolio
--------------

19. (U) "Turning the Corner" does not reserve all its focus
for Canada's industrial sector: the Plan also emphasizes the
government's commitment to addressing emissions from
transportation, strengthening energy efficiency standards,
and improving indoor air quality. In addressing emissions in
the transport sector (which contributes over 25 percent of
GHG and air pollutant emissions) the Plan, for the first time
in Canada, will impose mandatory fuel efficiency standards
for cars and light trucks beginning with the 2011 model year,
and the government says it wants to develop a "Clean Auto
Pact" with the U.S. to harmonize standards for such vehicles.
More broadly, the government will in the future develop
additional regulation to continue to align Canadian vehicle
and engine regulations with U.S. standards for motorcycles,
outboard engines, snowmobiles, all-terrain vehicles, on-road

OTTAWA 00000795 006 OF 008


heavy-duty engines, and off-road diesel engines. (Canada
originally passed a Motor Vehicle Fuel Consumption Standards
Act in 1982, but it was never put in use. Currently the auto
industry is operating under the terms of a voluntary
memorandum of understanding covering the period 2005-2010
that commits the industry to reducing GHG emissions by 5.3
megatonnes. The government's regulatory approach under an
amended MVFCSA will continue to use fuel efficiency standards
as the mechanism for reducing emissions.) Final regulations
are expected to be in place by the end of 2008.


20. (U) Consumer and commercial appliances will also have to
become more efficient. Amendments to the Energy Efficiency
Act will institute efficiency standards for 20 presently
unregulated products (such as vending machines, commercial
refrigerators and freezers, commercial washers, traffic
signals, residential furnaces, commercial boilers, and
digital converter boxes) and strengthen standards for 10
already regulated products (such as air conditioners and heat
pumps, dishwashers, icemakers, residential refrigerators and
freezers, and dehumidifiers) between 2007-2012. Plus, the
government will phase out the use of incandescent light bulbs
in common applications by 2012. (This measure was actually
announced on April 25 by Baird and Natural Resources Minister
Gary Lunn.)


21. (U) The plan goes a bit further afield in committing
Health Canada to develop guidelines and measures to improve
indoor air quality, starting with the development of a
priority list of indoor air contaminants. The government
also intends to issue regulations limiting the VOC content of
architectural and industrial maintenance coatings, automotive
refinishing coatings, and selected consumer products. The
government expects that reducing the VOC content of solvents
(which account for 21 percent of urban VOC emissions in
Canada) will provide scope for significant gains in reducing
VOC emissions overall.

Costs and Benefits
--------------

22. (U) In making the announcement, Baird admitted there will
be costs to the Canadian economy from implementing the Plan.
These costs could amount to up to C$8 billion a year and
knock 0.5 percent off Canada's GDP in the costliest years.
However, Baird said, few jobs would be lost. (This in
comparison the costs of implementing C-288, the bill passed
by the House to mandate adherence to Kyoto, which Environment
Canada economic modeling estimated in a worst case scenario
would slam Canadian GDP by over 4 percent and cost 275,000
Canadians their jobs.)


23. (U) On the other hand, Baird cited significant health
benefits for Canadians, stemming largely from reductions in
summer ozone levels (by 3 percent) and particulate matter (by
8 percent) by 2015. These reductions, said the minister,
would eliminate 1200 premature deaths annually and save C$6.4
billion annually in health costs. There would of course be
major benefits for the environment, according to Environment
Canada modeling. Agricultural production should benefit by
at least C$123 million, and losses of fisheries stocks and
forests to acid rain should be reduced. Lower GHG emissions
Qforests to acid rain should be reduced. Lower GHG emissions
would have a positive impact, of course, on climate change.

Survey Says: Reactions from Pols and ENGOs
--------------

24. (U) Reaction to the announcement was swift and pretty
much unanimous, but it focused almost exclusively on the
plan's climate change elements. Leaders of opposition
parties of course panned it. NDP head Jack Layton told TV
interviewers that Turning the Corner "wouldn't get the job
done," and challenged the government to put the plan before
parliament. That would be "democratic" and allow parliament
to select the best elements from the environmental plans put
forward by all the parties. Elizabeth May, head of Canada's
Green Party, called it a "climate disaster plan" that was
both shameful and despicable. She went on to announce that

OTTAWA 00000795 007 OF 008


in her thinking the Kyoto targets were just a "modest first
step." The real target, she continued, must be an 80 percent
reduction from 1990 levels of GHG emissions. Liberal
environment critic David McGuinty called the plan defeatist
and bad for the country, continuing that by finally
disavowing the Kyoto targets, Canada no longer stood any
chance of convincing the U.S. to join the Kyoto Protocol(!)


25. (U) A representative of the World Wildlife Fund said the
plan failed the test of what the planet needs; that it was on
"the wrong side of science, the wrong side of business, the
wrong side of public opinion, and the wrong side of Canada's
international obligations." A Green Peace representative
commented that in walking away from Kyoto, Canada was now
alone, and international leaders were already commenting on
the lack of Canadian action on Kyoto. Canada's best known
environmental activist, David Suzuki, sought Baird out Friday
to convey his disappointment. "What you promised is a long
way from what you delivered," he said. The plan is "not
enough."


26. (U) Even former-Vice President Gore, in Toronto on April
28 to present "An Inconvenient Truth" at an environmental
trade show, got into the act, calling the plan (in response
to a question) a "complete and total fraud...designed to
mislead the Canadian public." According to media reporting,
Gore concluded the plan was "shocking," since the rest of the
world looks to Canada for moral leadership. John Baird
wasted no time, firing back in a statement that evening that
it was "difficult to accept criticism from someone who
preaches about climate change, but who never submitted the
Kyoto Protocol to a vote in the United States Senate, who
never did as much as Canada is now doing to fight climate
change during eight years in Office..." Baird offered to
meet with Gore "to discuss the climate change threat and our
Government's tough plan to reduce Canada's emissions."

But Industry More Positive
--------------

27. (U) Early reactions from industry groups were a bit more
positive, but hardly let the government off the hook. A
fairly common view seemed to be that the targets would be
difficult to meet and were more challenging than those
proposed by the Liberals back in 2005 when they were in
power, but that they were more "realistic" than current
opposition proposals and would at least provide some guidance
for business going forward. A few specifics: The Forest
Products Association complained the plan did little to
recognize and give credit for that industry's claimed 54
percent reduction in intensity of GHG emissions since 1990.
A policy executive with the Canadian Chamber of Commerce
worried about adding an extra layer of bureaucracy to handle
the additional "regulatory burden." Alberta oil patch
executives seemed to feel the plan would not threaten major
oil sands developments, but would impose greater costs on the
industry across the board.


28. (U) In speaking to the press after the plan's release an
upbeat Baird claimed Turning the Corner was balanced. He
cited criticism from both ends of the supposed "climate
Qcited criticism from both ends of the supposed "climate
change spectrum" as the best evidence the government had
gotten the targets about right.

So, What about Kyoto?
--------------

29. (U) Baird admitted Canada won't reach its Kyoto Protocol
target of reducing GHG emissions by 6 percent from 1990
levels by 2012, the end of the first commitment period. But
he did say the reductions will put Canada on pace to meet
that original Kyoto commitment in 2025. Officially, Canada
continues to support Kyoto and remains active in discussions
about an international climate change regime for the
post-2012 period. Taking a page from the U.S. climate change
play book, the government says effective future international
cooperation on climate change will require all major emitting
countries to do their part to reduce emissions.

OTTAWA 00000795 008 OF 008



The Way Forward
--------------

30. (SBU) While the government now has an announced framework
to regulate GHGs and already has the legislative authority to
accomplish much of what it proposes in "Turning the Corner,"
there are pending items still to be finalized. These range
from the technical (additional consultations with industry
and the provinces will be needed through the end of this year
to finalize sector-specific regulations) to the policy level.
Clearly the government's most important policy decision will
be how to handle the climate change legislation already in
parliament. Given the somewhat tortuous progress to the
present state of affairs, one suspects the government would
prefer to regulate only by decree. One also suspects the
opposition and environmental activists will be loath to let
the government ignore the climate change legislation now
pending before parliament. Proroguing parliament would solve
the immediate problem by taking this legislation (the
re-written Clean Air Act (C-30),the Kyoto Implementation Act
(C-288),and a similar NDP bill (C-337)) off the table, but
re-introducing some of this legislation would certainly be an
early order of business for the opposition in a new
parliamentary session.


31. (SBU) The government also still faces the even greater
challenge of managing public perceptions of its environmental
record (which really does not suffer in comparison to the
Liberal's record). How can the government sideline the
pending legislation (through proroging parliament or by
simply not submitting for royal assent a bill that has passed
both chambers of parliament) without seeming cynical or
manipulative or even (in a possibly emerging theme)
anti-democratic? And, how can the government gain
credibility on "green" issues in the face of unrelenting
criticism from the Kyoto-centric press, environmentalists,
and opposition? The government has to address both aspects
of its environmental dilemna, and seems committed to the
fray. But whether Turning the Corner will prove an effective
weapon for the Conservatives in their battle to convince a
skeptical electorate remains to be seen.

Canada's Emissions (a Postscript)
--------------

32. (U) Canada committed in the Kyoto Protocol to reduce its
GHG emissions in 2012 to 6 percent below their 1990 levels of
599 megatonnes. By 2004, however, total GHG emissions had
grown to 758 megatonnes, 26.5 percent above their 1990 level,
and 34 percent above the Kyoto target. The latest business
as usual projections from Natural Resources Canada put
Canada's GHG emissions at 830 megatonnes in 2010 and 850
megatonnes in 2012, nearly 51 percent above the original
Kyoto target. The government estimates that cuts embodied in
"Turning the Corner" will bring total emissions down to the
Kyoto target in 2025, and to 60-70 percent below present
levels by 2050.


33. (U) Sources of Current Canadian Emissions by Sector
GHG Pollutants
(2004) (2002)
Agriculture 8 percent 10 percent
Commercial/
Residential Heating 11 percent 1 percent
QResidential Heating 11 percent 1 percent
Commercial/
Consumer Appliances 1 percent 8 percent
Industry 51 percent 52 percent
Transportation 25 percent 27 percent
Other 4 percent 2 percent.

Visit Canada's Classified Web Site at
http://www.state.sgov.gov/p/wha/ottawa

WILKINS