The Feb. 2 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change confirmed that human activities are likely responsible for the global warming, and an April 6 one laid out the likely consequences of changing the climate.

What to do about that reality, both globally and in Canada, is now the next phase of discussion.

Canada, under the Liberal government of then-prime minister Jean Chretien, signed onto the Kyoto Protocol on April 28, 1998, ratifying the accord 4½ years later. The Conservative Party's predecessors, the Canadian Alliance and Progressive Conservative parties, both fought against the accord and voted against its ratification.

The accord was the first to set targets for cuts in greenhouse gas emissions. Canada agreed to a six per cent reduction from its 1990 levels by 2012. The average reduction is 5.2 per cent.

Kyoto became law when 55 per cent of countries representing 55 per cent of emissions ratified the deal. This became official on Feb. 16, 2005.

Between the time of signing Kyoto and the ratification, however, greenhouse gas emissions continued to rise in Canada (for more details, see the CTV.ca feature Why Canada's greenhouse gas record stinks).

While the Liberals tabled a Kyoto plan in April 2005, they lost power to the Conservatives in the Jan. 23, 2006 federal election.

When the Conservatives tabled their Clean Air Act this past fall, it didn't even mention the word "Kyoto."

In the wake of the IPCC report, The Globe and Mail newspaper argued in two Feb. 3 editorials that while the climate change phenomenon is real, it might not be in Canada's interests to stay in the accord.

Parliament held a non-binding vote on Feb. 5 to reaffirm Canada's commitment to Kyoto, the resolution passed 161-115. The government members voted against it.

While Prime Minister Stephen Harper accepted the IPCC report and vowed in a Feb. 6 speech to act on greenhouse gases and air pollution, he again failed to mention the Kyoto Protocol. His government has effectively abandoned it.

However, there was also a Liberal MP's private bill that called on Canada to respect its Kyoto targets. On Feb. 14, the House passed that bill 161-113. Some critics think it may bind the government to act.

Harper has grudgingly said the government will respect the bill. However, on April 19, Environment Minister John Baird claimed that trying to meet the Kyoto target would cause a nasty recession - something his critics hotly deny. A new Tory climate plan is expected Thursday.

On the international front, the "G8 plus five" -- the G8 countries plus China, India, Brazil, South Africa and Mexico -- issued a non-binding declaration on Feb. 16 that they want a replacement for Kyoto in place by 2009.

Given that some of the details about Kyoto might have faded, here is some background on the accord and its implications for Canada and the world.

(Note: GHG in this article is shorthand for greenhouse gases. All temperatures are in degrees Celsius)

Refresh me about the accord

The accord was signed in Kyoto, Japan on Dec. 11, 1997 by 180 countries. The objective was to encourage the "stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system," as set out in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, which came into force on March 21, 1994.

Kyoto committed 38 industrialized countries to cut their emissions by 5.2 per cent below 1990 levels by 2012, although the accord would take effect in 2008. In addition, the parties - including developing countries that signed -- would have to keep track of their progress and report on it.

Kyoto covers the six main greenhouse gases:

• Carbon dioxide (CO2)
• Methane (CH4)
• Nitrous oxide (N2O)
• Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs)
• Perfluorocarbons (PFCs) and
• Sulphur hexafluoride (SF6)

There were varying targets for the different countries and there was some variation in the base year, although it's generally set at 1990. Canada agreed to a target of a six per cent cut, the U.S. seven per cent, the European Union "15" to eight per cent, while Russia didn't have to cut at all. Australia's emissions were allowed by rise by eight per cent.

The accord separated developed countries such as Canada from developing economies. The developing countries didn't have to cut emissions but could participate in what was called the clean development mechanism.

If a country didn't meet its emissions target cut by 2012, it would have a 30 per cent penalty tacked on in the next round of Kyoto (Kyoto II, for lack of a better word).

To ease the burden of compliance, the accord had three tools:

• Clean Development Mechanism
• Activities Implemented Jointly (better known as joint implementation)
• Emissions trading

Clean development allowed developed countries to invest in clean energy projects in developing countries, help plant new forests or generally contribute to sustainable development. This would earn them credits.

Joint implementation was a similar approach, but aimed specifically at either emissions reductions or "carbon sinks" (forests absorb carbon dioxide).

Emissions trading only involved developed countries. Those who were below their assigned amount could sell carbon credits to those who were above.

The UN Framework on Climate Change (UNFCC) makes this point on its website:

"These mechanisms enable parties to access cost-effective opportunities to reduce emissions, or to remove carbon from the atmosphere, in other countries. While the cost of limiting emissions varies considerably from region to region, the effect for the atmosphere of limiting emissions is the same, irrespective of where the action is taken."

Is Kyoto perfect?

No. There have been complaints about the selection of 1990 as a base year, about not using per capita emissions and the exclusion of developing countries who, because of their sheer population, are big greenhouse gas emitters.

China and India are the two biggest, with China expected to surpass the U.S. as the world's biggest greenhouse gas emitter by 2009. However, that's in total emissions, not on a per capita basis. Australia, Canada, the United States and Luxembourg are the world's biggest greenhouse gas emitters.

However, during negotiations, a consensus emerged that developed countries have caused most of the emissions, developing countries still had relatively low emissions and that they should be able to grow those emissions.

From the UNFCC's Kyoto website:

"The Kyoto Protocol is a complicated agreement that has been slow in coming -- there are reasons for this.  The Protocol not only has to be an effective against a complicated worldwide problem -- it also has to be politically acceptable."

Why do the critics think Kyoto is bad for Canada?

Former energy company CEO-turned-columnist Gwyn Morgan wrote the following in The Globe and Mail on Feb. 5:

"Canada was the only net energy exporter to take on targets. Canada tried to make the point that we should get credit for emissions associated with energy exports, but to no avail. By the time Canada ratified the accord, we were already around 25 per cent over our Kyoto target, and moving up. Meanwhile, emissions from developing countries were free to grow with no restrictions."

Chretien threatened to pull out of the accord in the spring of 2002 if Canada didn't get credit for clean energy exports such as natural gas and hydro power.

"We're next to the United States and we are the only one in that position to export non-polluting energy to a non-signing country that pollutes a lot. This should be recognized," he said in a 2002 BBC News Online article. European countries would have none of it.

The Globe argued that Canada's Kyoto commitment is virtually unattainable, noting that the target is 563 million tonnes of GHGs while this country will likely produce close to 780 million tonnes this year.

"To meet those targets, Canada would almost certainly be forced to buy emissions credits from other nations. That market is tight, because the Europeans and the Japanese have also been buying credits, often from the offshore operations of corporations that pay taxes to them. That's very convenient for them. Suppose Canada bought 90 million tonnes a year over the five-year period of the treaty? At the current price of roughly $23 a tonne, that could hit $10-billion. Even then, Canada would not meet its treaty obligations. (Note: There is some reaction to this claim in the 'carbon emissions trading' question).

"It gets worse. The Kyoto Protocol is essentially a trade treaty. Other nations, such as the United States and Britain, sent financially savvy negotiators. Canada sent aid and environmental experts. The terms reflect that imbalance. Energy-exporting nations such as Canada are held responsible for 60 per cent of all emissions from exported products such as natural gas."

Dale Marshall of the David Suzuki Foundation told CTV.ca that Canada is only responsible for the emissions created during the production of oil and gas products.

"If Canada does not meet its commitments, if it does not buy credits from other nations after 2012, Europe and Japan can impose sanctions on Canadian exports under World Trade Organization rules. 'Essentially the treaty is operating against us as a permanent wealth transfer to other nations,' Ms. Donnelly (Aldyen, of the Greenhouse Emissions Management Consortium, a not-for-profit group consisting of some of Canada's largest emitters) concludes," the Globe said.

In his April 19 appearance before the Senate environment committee, Environment Minister John Baird said the Canadian economy would get hammered if Canada attempted to meet its Kyoto obligations (more below in 'Would it wreck Canada's economy to meet Kyoto, as the government and some critics suggest? If not, why not?')

Can Canada still meet its target by 2012?

Veteran environmental activist David Suzuki told CTV's Question Period the following on April 22:

"It's still possible. We've got to have the will to do it, and we've got to be willing to pay, because clearly we're not going to be able to cut the emissions to a point where we're going to have the six percent below 1990 levels without actually paying for some kind of carbon credits in some way."

Here's the environmental perspective from the Pembina Institute, an environmental think tank:

"It is definitely in Canada's best interests to be part of Kyoto, because Kyoto is currently the only international treaty aimed at cutting greenhouse gas pollution. Climate change is a global problem that will require international cooperation to solve - no nation can deal with it in isolation. We need to be part of the global solution, and that means being part of Kyoto.

"Canada's target is still achievable, but it's been clear for some time now that we can't meet our target entirely through domestic emission reductions: we have simply left it too late. Luckily, the Kyoto Protocol provides options for laggard countries like Canada. Kyoto's Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) allows industrialized countries to invest in emission-reduction projects in poorer countries, and count the emissions saved towards their national target. Environmentally, the benefit is exactly the same whether we cut greenhouse gases in Mumbai or in Montreal."

The April 2005 plan tabled by the Liberals said Canada will meet its Kyoto target, John Bennett of Climate Action Network Canada told CTV.ca.

The Conservatives cancelled that plan but then brought back some parts of it, he said. However, Canada then lost a year.

Bennett doesn't deny a challenge exists. "We have to be honest. Nobody has ever done this before. You don't phone up someone and say, 'how did you reduce your emissions by 300 megatonnes?'"

What are the good points and bad points of carbon emissions trading?

From the Pembina Institute:

"... The Clean Development Mechanism is an environmentally legitimate option that allows Canada to meet its target by making investments in green projects in poorer countries. Those reductions are just as effective in protecting Canadians from dangerous climate change as reductions made in Canada.

"Emissions trading allows companies or countries to reduce emissions in a way that's flexible and cost-effective. If it's more efficient to reduce emissions on-site, a company can do that. If it's easier to purchase credits from a facility that has exceeded its target, the company can take that option instead.

"Globally, US$10 billion in emissions trading took place in 2005, but Canada was largely absent from this growing market due to the lack of mandatory limits on greenhouse gas emissions from Canadian industry."

Dale Marshall of the David Suzuki Foundation said the price of international emissions trading under the clean development mechanism is about $12 per tonne, not $23 as the Feb. 5 Globe editorial claimed.

"Environmentalists have definite pushed for (GHG reductions) as much as possible to be done at home," he said.

The strange thing, however, is that carbon trading is a market-based solution, and conservatives have generally been in favour of market mechanisms, he said.

So what if we don't meet our target? We only produce two per cent of the world's greenhouse gases, right?

Kyoto critics say Canada only emits two per cent of the world's greenhouse gases, but at 32 million people, it only has about 0.4 per cent of the world's population.

That means we contribute five times the greenhouse gases that our population indicates we should.

The United States contributes 25 per cent of the world's greenhouse gas emissions yet only has five per cent of the world's population, again contributing five times the amount of emissions.

Figures from the OECD indicate that the worst per capita CO2 emitters in 2003 among that organization's membership were:

• Luxembourg - 21.49 tonnes
• United States - 19.68
• Canada - 17.49
• Australia - 17.35

According to data from the World Resources Institute, in 2003, Canada, Australia and the U.S. produced about five to six times the per capita CO2 emissions of China.

Why didn't the United States and Australia ratify Kyoto?

U.S. President George W. Bush refused to ratify Kyoto because he thought it would damage the U.S. economy and that it gave an unfair advantage to developing countries.

"Australia is the world's biggest coal exporter. For us to ratify the protocol would cost us jobs and damage our industry," Prime Minister John Howard told his country's parliament in 2002. Howard also thought that the accord was too soft on developing countries.

The U.S. Natural Resources Defence Council said that the average American uses more electricity in two weeks than an average person in India uses in a year.

"Given that developed countries have put 75 percent of accumulated greenhouse pollution in the atmosphere and the disparity in living conditions between the United States and such countries as China and India, it is morally bankrupt to argue that the United States should refuse to take additional action until the world's poor countries take the same action."

Would it wreck Canada's economy to meet Kyoto, as the government and some critics suggest? If not, why not?

That's a matter of some debate.

In a pre-Kyoto ratification brief, Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters predicted 450,000 lost manufacturing jobs alone by 2010. However, its analysis didn't say whether new jobs would emerge as a result of new technologies.

Dale Marshall of the David Suzuki Foundation said he did an analysis using the same numbers the CME had from Natural Resources Canada. Over the same time period, there would have been 1.8 million jobs created.

Environment Minister John Baird told a House of Commons committee on Feb. 8 that trying to meet Kyoto would cause an economic collapse. But he has also ruled out the purchase of emissions credits. However, a spokesman for Baird told The Globe that the minister realizes there is a cost to not acting.

In his April 19 appearance before the Senate environmental committee, Baird put out the following numbers for implementing Kyoto:

• Gasoline will cost more than $1.60 a litre over the 2008-to-2012 period

• 275,000 Canadians working today will lose their jobs by 2009

• Job loss will cause unemployment rates to rise 25 per cent by 2009

• The decline of economic activity in the range of $51 billion

Liberal senators accused him of fear-mongering. Liberal Sen. Dennis Dawson said the automotive industry used the economic argument to oppose catalytic converters. The economic argument was also brought out to argue against acid rain controls, he said. "Every time we talk about changes that would normally protect the environment we have people coming in and telling us it will destroy the economy."

Baird was backed in his assessment by TD Bank chief economist Don Drummond.

John Bennett from the Climate Action Network said the problem is these numbers on based on a plan but on conjecture.

From the Pembina Institute:

"No - the reality is exactly the opposite. There are all kinds of economic opportunities in renewable energy, energy efficiency, and technologies like carbon capture and storage. Those technologies are being deployed more aggressively in jurisdictions like California and Europe, where government climate change policies are pushing green innovation. If Canada's government re-committed to our Kyoto target and put policies in place to meet it, Canada's industries could become world leaders in green innovations.

"Industries like oil and gas or electricity generation can meet even very ambitious greenhouse gas reduction targets for very modest costs (for example, oil sands facilities could reduce their emissions to zero by 2020 for the cost of just a few dollars a barrel).

"The other important point to consider here are the economic costs of not taking action on climate change. Sir Nicholas Stern, the former chief economist of the World Bank, produced an authoritative review of climate change economics that was was released last October. Stern found that unchecked climate change would devastate the world's economy, costing between 5 and 20 per cent of global GDP. In contrast, the cost of solving the climate change problem is just one per cent of the world's GDP. Stern's conclusion was that "[T]ackling climate change is the pro-growth strategy; ignoring it will ultimately undermine economic growth."

If everyone who signed on to Kyoto met their targets, will it stop global warming?

From the Pembina Institute:

"No. Kyoto is just the first step in a decades-long battle against global warming. But until countries take that first step of halting the growth in emissions, and then reducing them in absolute terms, we won't be able to move on to the deeper cuts that scientists are calling for."

Here's some further background on the nature of the problem.

The Feb. 2 IPCC report found the average global surface temperature went up by 0.74 degrees between 1906 and 2005. Global warming of 0.2 degrees per decade was predicted for the next two decades. If CO2 emissions were held to 2000 levels, there would be warming of 0.1 degrees.

The best-case scenario the IPCC found was for global warming of 1.8 degrees by 2100. The worst-case was a rise of up to 6.4 degrees (described as A1F1). While A1F1 is complex to describe, it essentially involves rapid economic growth, population growth to mid-century and continued use of fossil fuels.

Mark Lynas, author of the forthcoming book Six Degrees: Our Future on a Hotter Planet, wrote the following about a possible six-degree rise in planetary temperature in a Feb. 3 commentary for The Independent newspaper in Britain:

"How people might fare is anyone's guess. With the tropics too hot to grow crops, and the sub-tropics too dry, billions of people would find themselves in areas of the planet which are essentially uninhabitable. ... As world food supplies crash, the higher mid-latitude and sub-polar regions would become fiercely-contested refuges. The British Isles, indeed, might become one of the most desirable pieces of real estate on the planet. But with a couple of billion people knocking on our door, things might quickly turn rather ugly."

Avoiding the worst effects of climate change means holding the rise to 2 degrees, advocates say.

Doing so will take a cut of 80 per cent below 1990 GHG levels by 2050, says the Pembina Institute.

In his 2006 book Heat: How to stop the planet from burning, British author George Monbiot tries to argue that a cut of 90 per cent in GHGs could be achieved by 2030.

What are the international implications of Canada giving up on its Kyoto targets?

From the Pembina Institute:

"The first one is that Canada would be violating international law. Kyoto is a legally binding treaty, which Canada ratified after a majority vote in Parliament.  The target is not optional.

"Canada's rejection of its Kyoto target also has an effect on the international negotiations for a second, deeper target for the period after 2012. Developing countries like China and India do not have Kyoto targets in the 2008-2012 period, but their emissions are growing rapidly. When a rich country like Canada walks away from its target, it gives us very little leverage to ask developing countries to take on targets for themselves."

How are other countries doing with respects to meeting their targets?

The UN Framework on Climate Change summarized it this way: "In general, the message from the 2006 data is that industrialized countries will need to intensify their efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Transport remains a sector were emissions cuts are needed but seem especially difficult to achieve."

More ominously, between 2000 and 2004, only seven "Annex I" countries managed to cut emissions. Canada is an Annex I country whose emissions have risen.

However, Canada is the only country that has ratified the treaty but has apparently given up.

From the Pembina Institute:

"Other energy exporters (notably Norway) have Kyoto targets and are on track to meeting them, through a combination of good domestic climate policies and emissions trading.

"The European Union has also recently committed to a minimum 20 per cent reduction in greenhouse gas pollution by 2020. If other industrialized countries agree to a 20 per cent reduction of their own, the EU has pledged to make a 30 per cent reduction."

Sources: UN Framework on Climate Change, The Globe and Mail, BBC News Online, OECD, World Resources Institute, The Pembina Institute, Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters