VANCOUVER, British Columbia - Canada is in the uncomfortable position of choosing between its pledge to ratify the international agreement to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and its allegiance to a key oil and gas customer — the United States — which rejects it.
Prime Minister Jean Chretien says his government intends to ratify the 1997 agreement negotiated in Kyoto, Japan, which commits industrialized nations to reduce emissions to 1990 levels.
But there is growing support from business interests to help Canada's largest trade partner formulate an alternate plan for reducing the industrial gases blamed for contributing to global warming (news - web sites).
The Kyoto protocol (news - web sites) was signed by the Clinton administration, but never ratified by the Senate. President Bush (news - web sites) backed out of it last year, saying it would be too costly for the U.S. economy, and has since presented an alternative plan.
The premiers of Alberta and Ontario — provinces involved in major trade with America — said Canada should reject the Kyoto treaty, too, because it might stop Canadian industry from competing with rivals with less stringent requirements.
A survey by Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters, an industry group, claimed the agreement would wipe out 450,000 manufacturing jobs and cost the economy up to $25.6 billion by 2010.
Environment Minister David Anderson called those figures "absurd" and said they represented a worst-case scenario.
But other members of Chretien's Cabinet are expressing reservations.
"We have to make sure we do it right and that's what the government's intention is, to make sure we have all the information, have an analysis and work with the provinces and then make a decision on whether we can ratify or not," Natural Resources Minister Herb Dhaliwal said Thursday.
The issue is prominent in Canada because of its huge Arctic territory, which scientists say is being affected by warming temperatures. Some scientists believe global warming is part of a natural cycle of temperature change, while others blame emissions as significant contributors.
Negotiators from more than 100 countries, including the United States and Canada, wrote the Kyoto agreement. Under the agreement, the treaty must be ratified by at least 55 countries, including those responsible for 55 percent of the world's emissions in 1990.
So far, 49 nations have signed the protocol, but its rejection by the United States — responsible for about one-fourth of the world's man-made carbon dioxide emissions — means virtually every other industrial country must agree to meet the threshold.
Europe's environment ministers agreed that all 15 European Union (news - web sites) nations should adhere to the Kyoto agreement.
Chretien said Canada wants to ratify Kyoto by June, when the G-8 summit will be held in Alberta, but Anderson suggested that an August U.N. summit in South Africa might be a more realistic target.
"I don't think the American actions are a total bar to us considering ratification. I think we should consider ratification despite the close connection with the United States," Anderson said Wednesday, speaking before delegates from 65 countries at the Global 2002 conference on business and the environment.
Bush rejected the Kyoto agreement because he said it would have cost the U.S. economy $400 billion and 4.9 million jobs. Bush's alternative plan, presented to the Senate last month, uses voluntary incentives to lure the energy industry into reducing air pollution. It has not reached a vote.
With the United States implementing an energy policy emphasizing continued reliance on oil and natural gas — both Canadian resources — Chretien's government wants to avoid creating trade obstacles with the world's largest economy.
Anderson, however, called Bush's rejection of the Kyoto agreement a mistake and said the U.S. alternative proposal does not go far enough.
Environmental groups say Canada is sending mixed signals. Greenpeace activists protested outside the meeting where Anderson spoke.
"Get your act together and ratify Kyoto," Greenpeace's Gavin Wilson said.
Phil Austin, chairman of the Atmospheric Sciences Program at the University of British Columbia, criticized the U.S. position as being out of date.
"Europe has a more accurate understanding of the risks of business-as-usual that the United States has adopted," Austin said.
FAIR USE NOTICE: This page contains copyrighted material the use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. NoNonsense English offers this material non-commercially for research and educational purposes. I believe this constitutes a fair use of any such copyrighted material as provided for in 17 U.S.C § 107. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond fair use, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner, i.e. the media service or newspaper which first published the article online and which is indicated at the top of the article unless otherwise specified.