There's no question about it: When it comes to greenhouse gas emissions, Canada's record stinks.

	CO2 emissions per capita, 2003
	Tonnes of CO2 per capita Source: OECD

According to OECD numbers, we're third-worst of 30 countries when it comes to CO₂ emissions per capita and ninth-worst on emissions on a GDP basis.

Why are we failing so badly?

John Bennett, a senior policy adviser with the Sierra Club of Canada, told CTV.ca there are three key reasons:

• A surge in carbon energy exports, particularly oil and gas,
• Loss of nuclear generating capacity in Ontario in the mid-1990s and its replacement with coal-generated electricity, and
• A lack of political will to force action on cutting emissions.

Canada first signed a global climate change agreement in 1992: The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.

"What it says is climate change is a problem," Bennett said. "We should work together through the United Nations to deal with it." While there were voluntary targets, no government was legally bound to act on the agreement.

Kyoto came about five years later. That accord set targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions starting in 2008.

	CO2/GDP, 2003
	Kg. of CO2 per US$2,000 of GDP Source: OECD

Canada agreed to cut its emissions by six per cent below 1990 levels by 2012. The average reduction target was about five per cent.

Bennett said the Liberals tabled two minor plans -- one in 2000 then another in 2002.

The Liberal government's  third climate change plan wasn't tabled until April 2005 (the Kyoto accord became law in February of that year when more than 55 per cent of the signatories had ratified it).

As of 2004, however, Canada's emissions had risen by 27 per cent over its 1990 level (in that period, the population grew about 15 per cent and GDP about 47 per cent).

"It's not fair to say they dallied and did nothing, but it is fair to say that everything they did didn't slow emissions from rising," Bennett said, noting the Liberals weren't prepared to begin legislating large polluters until Kyoto began in 2008.

Here are some hard numbers:

• Canada produced 599 megatonnes (Mt) of CO₂ equivalents in 1990.
• The country's Kyoto target is 563 Mt.
• Canada emitted 758 Mt of emissions in 2004
• Canada's CO₂ emissions rose 27 per cent between 1993 and 2003. The G7 average was 12.1 per cent. It was three per cent for the EU-15 and 13.7 per cent for the United States.

Environment Canada points a finger at rising oil and gas exports.

"In 2004, net emissions associated with these exports were 47.8 Mt, a 123 percent increase over the 1990 level of 21.5 Mt," Environment Canada said on its website.

As Alberta oil sands development steps up, that number will only get worse, as separating the oil from the sands requires tremendous amounts of energy, Bennett said.

Electricity and heat generation is a greater overall contributor. In 2004, it accounted for about 17 per cent of overall emissions, or 130 Mt. However, that sector's greenhouse gas emissions had risen by about 34.7 Mt over 1990 levels, a rise of almost 37 per cent.

Part of the reason for electricity's surge related to problems with Ontario's nuclear power plants in the 1996-97 period.

Ontario has some coal-fired power plants, including Nanticoke, the largest such station in North America. Coal-fired power in Ontario is designed to help nuclear plants meet peak demand, Bennett said.

But when some nuclear units had to be taken out of service to be repaired, those coal-fired plants got pressed into service full-time. That shot massive amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, he said.

Environment Canada noted that emissions due to electricity actually fell by nine megatonnes from 2003 to 2004, in part because of more nuclear power and less coal.

Political will

"The most important single answer to the question of why Canada's emissions have risen so much is because governments allowed them to," Matthew Bramley, director of climate change for the Pembina Institute, told CTV.ca in an email.

Governments at various did a significant amount of analysis on how to meet Kyoto and found it could be done, he said.

"But to make this happen, governments needed to implement a comprehensive, aggressive set of policies and measures, especially regulations, emissions trading and major financial incentives. They failed to do so."

The Liberal governments of 1993 to 2006 (the Conservatives took power in February 2006) never moved forcefully to require emissions reductions from industry or to encourage consumers to use energy more efficiently, Bennett said.

"As several politicians actually said to me, 'You actually want me to regulate the oil and gas industry ... but my phone's not ringing, I've got no letters on climate change from the public, but I've got a whole stack of letters on health care?"

That pressure is happening now, but it wasn't happening in the late 1990s, he said.

Political resistance to change  explains part of it. In a 2002 parliamentary vote on Kyoto, the Liberals, Bloc Quebecois and NDP all supported the accord. The Canadian Alliance and Progressive Conservatives -- the forerunners of today's governing Conservatives -- both voted against it.

Stephen Harper, now the Conservative prime minister, was the Alliance's leader at the time. Then-Alberta Premier Ralph Klein, a Progressive Conservative and Kyoto opponent, even raised the spectre of Alberta's separation as a possible consequence.

"What do you consider acceptable job losses to the United States and to other trading partners who don't ratify the treaty?" Mike Harris, then the Progressive Conservative premier of Ontario, said to then-prime minister Jean Chretien in a 2002 letter.

Australia and the United States didn't ratify the treaty. Those two countries bookend Canada when it comes to per-capita emissions.

Bennett said the Liberals' attempts to deal with climate change relied heavily on voluntary measures. At one point, they even used intensity-based targets, which would allow overall emissions to grow while requiring energy to be used more efficiently.

The $10 billion, eight-year climate change plan -- steered by then-environment minister Stephane Dion -- that the Liberals ultimately tabled received a mixed reaction. Some environmental groups said it didn't do enough to control industrial emissions.

However, Bennett said it contained some good measures like the EnerGuide retrofitting program, which helped homeowners make their dwellings more energy efficient. The Conservatives cancelled that program.

This past fall, the Conservatives' Clean Air Act was essentially dead on arrival. The bill didn't even mention the Kyoto accord and no opposition party was prepared to support it.

The bill took the unusual step of going to an all-party committee after first reading to see if it can be salvaged.

"The Conservatives threw out the best of what the Liberals did and kept the worst," Bennett said of the Clean Air Act.

Harper still paints Kyoto as unachievable, even after his recent cabinet shuffle and announcement that the environment is now one of his government's top five priorities.

"This country is headed to be 50 percent over its Kyoto target in 2012. We can't tell the Canadian population to heat their home one-third less of the time," Harper said in a CTV Question Period interview broadcast on Jan. 7.

"I thought he was setting me up when he said that," Bennett chuckled, noting that proper retrofitting can help cut a home's energy use by at least a third.

He argues the public sees climate change as a significant problem, wants real leadership on this issue and is ready for it. The prime minister appears to be throwing his hands up and not willing to even try, he said.

Former Tory prime minister Brian Mulroney has warned the Harper government that it ignores the environment at its peril.

The ball is now in the government's court. At a news conference Tuesday, a coalition of environmental groups made it clear their support rests on the Tories embracing Kyoto.

"It's up to Mr. Harper and his colleagues to decide whether they want to have a credible climate change plan," Bramley said.