Angry in the Great White North

Canada's approach to climate and environment treaties must recognize Canada's differences compared to other countries:

Canadian officials are warning that any post-Kyoto pact to reduce greenhouse gases must recognize the country's uniqueness as an economic force and emerging energy superpower.

The position will form the key to Stephen Harper's strategy as he enters discussions with leaders of the world's industrialized nations next week as they try to forge a way ahead after the Kyoto agreement runs out in 2012.

“What we have to be sure of is that we have a solution that, while it advances things internationally, also reflects the fact that Canada is a country with a growing economy, a growing population [and] a major energy sector,” a senior official said, briefing reporters on next week's meeting of the G8 industrialized nations.

“We're special, we're unique in the G8. We're not like Europe. We're not like the United States in all respects. We'll be looking for a result that both advances things on an international level but is also true to Canadian requirements.

Is Canada that different? Starting with the Liberal Party's own Environment and Sustainable Development Taskforce Report, I went to a major study used to prepare that report, the World Wildlife Fund's Living Planet Report 2006.

Check out this map:

The full-sized map appears on page 17 of the report. As you can see, Canada is a bright green, while the rest of the G8 countries are red, with the exception of Russia.

Just what is the map measuring? It shows the difference between "biocapacity" and "ecological footprint". Biocapacity is the product of area and bioproductivity. Footprint is population times per capita consumption times footprint intensity.

What is different about Canada and Russia? They are both countries covering vast areas, suggesting large ecocapacity, but that doesn't tell the whole story. Russia's population density is 8.3 persons per square kilometer, while Canada is just 3.2 persons per square kilometer, meaning Russia's ecological footprint ought to be much higher.

Russia scores so well because it's industrial base has crashed since the breakup of the Soviet Union. Per person consumption and footprint intensity is very low. Just remember that when environmentalists dismiss the argument that the economy would suffer under Kyoto. It would suffer, and that's fine by them.

But Canada's industrial and economic health is excellent, as such things go, but it is concentrated in area compared to the large area of untouched landscape. That large biocapacity compared to a small ecological footprint is what paints Canada green.

The rest of the G8 is red (except for economically wrecked Russia).

Now obviously the colour scheme is a function of the way the planet is subdivided. By country, Canada shows green. If on the other hand, you subdivided Canada into ridings, large swaths of Canada near the US border would show red. But Kyoto and other environmental initiatives are organized by national governments and reflect what obligation that population has with respects to the land area under sovereign control.

And with regards to the land area under Canada's sovereign control, we're far from exceeding our biocapacity supply with our ecological footprint demand.

That according to the World Wildlife Fund, and it supports the Canadian government's position that we'll be pursuing an environmental policy consistent with Canada's reality.

If the environmentalists don't like it, they can go pick on one those red countries. Like China or India.