Capitalism Fouls Things Up
World heads of state, meeting in Kyoto, Japan in December 1997, signed an international agreement aimed at reducing world-wide greenhouse gas emissions and slowing the onset of global warming. Even in the face of perhaps the most serious environmental threat, capitalist governments still saw to it that the future health and safety of earth's inhabitants do not get in the way of short-term profits for the world's industrial giants.
The agreement, signed after 10 days of gruelling negotiations, requires industrialized countries to cut their overall output of greenhouse gases by 5.2 percent between 2008 and 2012 — far below what is truly needed to stabilize the world's climate. The treaty sets different reduction targets for the world's 38 richest nations, while allowing Australia, Norway and Iceland to increase their emissions. Canada is committed to a 6 percent reduction in emissions, 1 percent below the target to which the US has pledged, and an undoubted embarrassment to the Chretien administration (see below).
The major question now is whether the agreement will ever be implemented. Environment Minister Christine Stewart is already implying that Canada may not ratify the treaty until the government sees how our major trading partners respond to the terms of the agreement. The federal government is also under tremendous pressure from provinces, led by Alberta, to reject any measures that may be seen as having negative impacts on our economy. The capitalist media is already spreading the bogeyman of "job losses" as the major result of the treaty. We'll come back to this issue next column with an update on the treaty and its possible impacts on the Canadian economy.
There is broad agreement across the international scientific community that human actions are having an impact on the global climate. Burning fossil fuels, in particular coal and oil, are the actions most responsible for the changes predicted to occur in the next century. Despite a well-financed campaign by the oil and coal lobbies, scientists and the public are increasingly aware that these 'fossil fuels' are being used at a rate which is changing the climate and endangering human life.
Most scientists predict that increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases in the earth's atmosphere, primarily carbon dioxide, will have significantly negative consequences for the earth sometime in the next century. Weather patterns will become more erratic, ocean levels will rise perhaps as much as 30 inches, increasingly frequent violent storms will occur, heat waves will become more intense and frequent, and droughts, floods and forest fires will be more numerous. Large scale human migrations caused by flooding and crop failures are predicted by many as the logical consequences of this climate change.
It was in response to these scientific predictions that world leaders met to reach agreement on binding targets to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Five years have passed since the "Earth Summit" in Rio de Janeiro, and the Canadian government finds its back to the wall. At the 1992 Rio conference, Canadian representatives made a commitment to stabilize our greenhouse gas emissions at 1990 levels by the year 2000. However, in the past 5 years our federal government has adopted a "do nothing" approach. The result is that our emissions are now 13 percent higher than 1990 levels.
There is no shortage of excuses offered to deflect criticism of the government's failure to take action on its commitment. Excuses include the old favourite: living in a cold land that relies on energy-intensive resource extraction. Our increasing population is also blamed. Next thing you know politicians will be pointing the finger at immigrants, and using greenhouse gas reduction targets as a further excuse to limit immigration to Canada.
However, as Andrew Duffy notes, the real culprit for the increase in our greenhouse gas emissions is the fact that "between 1990 and 1995, oil and gas production in Canada increased by more than 35 percent, while exports doubled. Emissions from oil and gas production account for up to 50 percent of the total net increase in Canadian greenhouse gas levels this decade".1 This is where negotiating a new Canadian commitment for the next century breaks down.
Alberta Tory Premier Ralph Klein steadfastly refuses to agree to any federal promise to reduce emissions that may have a negative impact on Alberta's fossil fuel energy sector. Klein continues to play to Western populist sentiments by reviving memories of Pierre Trudeau's hated National Energy Policy from the early '80s. Alberta has recently found a new ally in Newfoundland Premier Brian Tobin. Tobin does not want to risk doing anything that could harm the future of the recently opened Hibernia off-shore oil well, and the promise of new petro dollars for the ailing Newfoundland economy.
The split between federal and provincial governments is mirrored by splits in the federal Liberal cabinet. While environment minister Christine Stewart, Allan Rock (health) and Lloyd Axworthy having been lobbying for tighter emission controls, they have been opposed by a strong pro-business and western lobby led by Alberta's Anne McLellan (justice), Ralph Goodale (natural resources), Paul Martin (finance) and John Manley (industry).2
On the international level, several negotiating positions were advanced prior to the start of talks. Small island states wanted emissions cut drastically by 20 percent by 2005, the European Union (EU) proposed a 15 percent reduction in emissions by 2010, and Japan, a modest 5 percent by 2012.3 The Americans lagged behind with a ridiculous offer to "return their greenhouse-gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2008-2012 and below 1990 levels in the next five years".4
What lies hidden behind these differing levels of commitment, aside from the real fears of small island states, are at bottom, competing interests in the global economy and the desire to gain an edge on the competition. European nations as a whole have benefitted from the sharp decline of the economies in Poland, the former East Germany and the ex-Soviet Union. Their economic collapse has meant a significant decline in their greenhouse gas emissions, freeing them to propose larger reduction targets. The EU also benefits from a wider-range of energy sources than do North America and Japan. Another factor in the EU's favour is that many European economies have made significant investments in energy efficiency measures in the past decade, thereby better positioning themselves to compete in a world of higher energy prices and tighter emission controls.
American capitalists are quite understandably frightened that their economy will not be able to compete successfully if they are forced to significantly cut their greenhouse gas emissions. Canadian leaders have voiced similar concerns, but Prime Minister Chretien was determined to come up with some sort of face-saving commitment slightly better than American promises in the hope that he will be remembered in a positive light as "having done something for the environment".
To be realistic about the future, it may not matter whether, or by how much, industrialized nations cut their greenhouse gas emissions. The final chapter in this story may well be written in countries such as China and India. These countries are industrializing at a fast pace and rapidly increasing their consumption of fossil fuels, coal in particular. Although the U.S. is the world's largest greenhouse gas polluter, China and India are catching up quickly. Unless Western nations can provide aid and incentives sufficient to induce China and India to develop their economies with renewable energy, there may well be no way that we can prevent realization of the worst fears of scientists regarding global warming. Future generations may look back at the Kyoto conference of 1997 and lament that when presented with an opportunity to save the planet, capitalists of the day chose instead to protect their own competitiveness and short term profits.
"Canada volunteers as world's nuclear waste dump!" How does that headline grab you? Can't be true, you say? Even our pro-nuclear Prime Minister would not go that far to serve his nuclear friends. But check again. The governments of Canada, the United States and Russia, in partnership with Ontario Hydro and Atomic Energy of Canada Limited (AECL) at Chalk River, Ontario, have quietly developed a plan whereby plutonium from dismantled nuclear warheads will be used as fuel in Ontario Hydro's CANDU nuclear reactors.
The U.S. and Russian governments are now implementing nuclear disarmament agreements and beginning to dismantle thousands of nuclear weapons. The prime concern facing American and Russian leaders is what to do with the plutonium that is used in the nuclear weapon triggers. In a gesture intended to appear as a "swords into ploughshares" initiative, AECL and Ontario Hydro propose to import reactor fuel made from dismantled warheads from the U.S. and former Soviet Union for use in CANDU reactors at Ontario Hydro's Bruce nuclear generating station.
Plutonium is also a by-product of all nuclear fission reactors and forms part of the highly radioactive nuclear fuel waste. According to a pamphlet distributed by the Campaign for Nuclear Phaseout, "It is one of the most dangerous human-made poisons known — a very potent cancer-causing element once inhaled.... Only a few kilograms of separated plutonium are needed to make a nuclear bomb."5
If approved, each shipment will bring 200 kilograms of plutonium diluted into about 1,000 fuel bundles. Since the plutonium to be imported is still classified as nuclear-weapons-useable (only a few kilograms are needed to make a nuclear bomb) so-called "Safe, Secure Transport" (SST) is required.6 Shipments would enter Canada at least once a month for 20 or more years if the proposed plan is implemented.7 According to Irene Kock of the Nuclear Awareness Project, "The convoys would be satellite-tracked, and have a heavily armed escort. The Bruce Nuclear Power Development site would have to have a security make-over, turning it into an armed fortress".8
The proposal, as it now stands, is for the plutonium (in the form of a mixed oxide fuel combination of uranium and plutonium or MOX) to be transported by truck from the Los Alamos armed forces base in New Mexico, via one of three routes yet to be finalized, to the destination point at Chalk River west of Ottawa. One route proposes to cross the Canadian border south of Winnipeg, and drive east across the vast expanse of Northern Ontario; a second enters Canada at Sarnia, in southwest Ontario, and proceeds across the most densely populated region of Canada; while the third route enters Canada at Watertown, U.S.A. and proceeds northwest to Chalk River. The possibility of a traffic accident on journey, which could release unknown quantities of plutonium into the environment, is a frightening prospect. Terrorist attempts to hijack the shipments, en route, are not beyond the imagination. Either way, the people of Canada will be subjected to unwanted and unacceptable risks.
The ironic aspect to this plan is that while it is touted as a way in which Canada can contribute to ending the nuclear arms race, the actual amount of plutonium that is eliminated by use in CANDU reactors is a minuscule 1 percent of the amount of plutonium that is put into the reactor.9 People should not be subjected to the degree of risk associated with this plan when the benefits are so few.
The AECL and Ontario Hydro proposal received support in principle from Prime Minister Chretien in April 1996. Since then, there has been no public or parliamentary debate on this policy, nor any form of environmental assessment of the entire issue.
There are other, safer disposal alternatives for the world's nuclear stockpiles. One alternative, according to Irene Kock, "involves mixing weapons-useable plutonium with existing liquid high level radioactive wastes, and turning it into a glass or ceramic form. The resulting product is too radioactive to approach without sophisticated radiation protection gear and remote control equipment."10 This form of nuclear waste is much easier to monitor and presents less of a security threat.
The government's plan to use MOX fuel must be stopped. Public pressure is the only way to force the government to abandon this unsafe, unnecessary and expensive plan. If you are opposed to importing plutonium into Canada, write or call the Prime Minister and your MP. Tell them to cancel the planned "test burn" at Chalk River, and withdraw their "support in principle" for CANDU plutonium fuel imports. The fax number for the Prime Minister's Office is 613-941-6900. The PMO telephone number is 613-992-4211.
1. Duffy, Andrew. "Canada's greenhouse gas paradox", The Ottawa Citizen, November 1, 1997, A4. (Back to text)
2. Gherson, Giles. "Epiphany in Moscow", The Ottawa Citizen. November 1, 1997, 1 B7. (Back to text)
3. Duffy, Andrew. "Canadians will pay to cut gas emissions, minister says", The Ottawa Citizen, October 21, 1997, A8. (Back to text)
4. Freeman, Alan. "Global emissions talks end under cloud", The Globe and Mail, November 1, 1997, A2. (Back to text)
5. Campaign for Nuclear Phaseout. "Cold War Leftovers", Ottawa, Ontario, 1997. (Back to text)
6. Irene Kock. "Remarks to MP Breakfast Briefing on Plutonium/MOX fuel", Nuclear Awareness Project, October 7, 1997. (Back to text)
7. Op. cit., Campaign for Nuclear Phaseout. (Back to text)
8. Op. cit., Irene Kock. (Back to text)
9. Nuclear Information and Resource Service. "NixXMox", undated pamphlet. (Back to text)
10. Op.cit., Irene Kock. (Back to text)