But this is simply not going to happen. There is no feasible way we can achieve the Kyoto targets.

All of the opposition parties in Ottawa say that they support the Kyoto accord, and they insist that any climate change policy must be aimed at achieving the Kyoto targets for greenhouse gas emissions.

Here is a graph of Canada's greenhouse gas emissions (GGE) over the period 1990-2004, taken from the Environment Canada website:

There are several things to note from this graph. Firstly, the rate of growth of GGE has been remarkably stable throughout this period, at around 1.7% a year: the only time GGE growth slowed appreciably was during the economic slowdown of 2001. A second, related point is that the rate of growth after the 1998 signing the Kyoto accord is pretty much the same as it was before the treaty was signed.

But the big point is just what is involved in getting from where we are to to the Kyoto target in the bottom right-hand corner of the graph. If we extrapolate the trend to 2007 (and I don't see why this wouldn't be a reasonably good estimate), then achieving the Kyoto target would require decreasing emissions by more than 30% of their current levels.

There are two main channels by which we can reduce GGE:

For a given state of technology, we can cut down on certain activities that generate GGE as a by-product.

For a given choice of activities, we can adopt technologies that generate fewer GGEs.

There's no reason to choose between these options, of course: we can do both. What distinguishes them is the horizon in which they work. Even if the appropriate technologies are already available - and that's not always the case here - adopting them is a process whose duration is measured in decades. For example, hybrid cars are a proven technology, and some are already on the market. But any realistic policy for replacing conventional cars with hybrids would take decades to implement, and it's hard to imagine achieving much more than marginal progress before 2012. The same argument applies for the other technologies that have been proposed to reduce GGEs. There are many good ideas out there, and some will no doubt be part of a long-term solution - but not in time for the Kyoto deadline.

So any serious attempt to achieve the Kyoto goals would have to be based on using the technology we have now. That can only happen by cutting back on activities that generate GGEs. Which ones, and by how much? The Kyoto target is the equivalent of 563 mt of CO 2 by 2012. In 2004, emissions were the equivalent of 758 mt, making a 'Kyoto gap' of 195 mt. What sort of action would generate savings like that?

Here is a breakdown of the sources of GGEs in 2004:

The scale of the problem is staggering. For example, we know that the fossil fuels industry and its associated fugitive sources are a major source of GGEs. But even if we shut the industry down entirely - a gesture that would have catastrophic implications for the Canadian economy, and important effects worldwide - it wouldn't be enough.

In the short run, we can expect greenhouse gas emissions to be roughly proportional to economic activity. Reducing emissions by 30% in the next 5 years means a reduction of income and employment on a scale commensurate with the Great Depression. No government would inflict such disruption, nor should it.

Update: The price of Kyoto.