By Mark Jaccard
Professor of Resource and Environmental management, Simon Fraser University

At the Australian summit meeting in early September, political leaders of the U.S., China, Canada, Australia and other Asia-Pacific countries enthused about "aspirational targets" for long-term greenhouse gas reductions. Some offered specific targets for reducing their national emissions to 50% or more below today's levels by 2050.

This sounds laudable. According to my dictionary, an aspiration is an ambition, expectation or hope. And we all hope for reduced greenhouse gas emissions. But are aspirations what we should expect from our politicians? Or should we hope for more?

Because our Canadian politicians have been acknowledging and addressing the climate change risk for over two decades, we can learn from history - if we care to. In 1988, Brian Mulroney's government set a target to reduce Canadian emissions to 20 per cent below their 1988 levels by 2005, and at the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro in 1992, he claimed that emissions in 2000 would be back down to their 1990 levels. In 1997, at Kyoto, Jean Chrétien's government set a target to reduce Canadian emissions to six per cent below their 1990 levels by 2010. This year, Stephen Harper's government set a target that emissions would be 20 per cent below their current level in 2020 and 65 per cent below in 2050.

"By reducing waste, you're going to trigger cost savings."

Given that almost 20 years have passed since Mr. Mulroney started the business, we now have a lengthy track record for measuring the effect of these aspirational targets on Canadian emissions. They had no effect. Between 1988 and 2007, Canadian emissions have continued their relentless climb. Our emissions far exceeded the targets set for 2000 and 2005 and are at least 30 per cent above the Kyoto target for 2010.

Any researcher in this area - in fact, anyone who understands anything about a modern economy - knows why these aspirations were meaningless. The policies our governments enacted to reach their aspirational targets were also… aspirational. These policies essentially "hoped" that Canadian individuals and firms would reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. The policies included product labels, information brochures, advertisements, demonstration projects, awards, lots of speeches and some subsidies. There was no compulsion. There were no financial or regulatory repercussions for any Canadian firm or individual if they maintained or even increased their greenhouse gas emissions. And this is still the case today, a decade after the Kyoto agreement.

Of course, governments have plenty of means to ensure that targets are met, even so-called aspirational ones. If our politicians make firm commitments that drivers will not speed in school zones, they ensure the outcome by applying financial penalties and regulations. Speeding drivers pay fines. Repeat offenders lose their licence. If our politicians truly wanted to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, their policies would be similar. All emissions in the economy would face a financial penalty. This cost of emitting would result from either an emissions tax or the cost of emission permits in some kind of tradable permit system. Either way, the solution - the only possible solution - is the same. Emissions have to face a cost. If, instead, governments continue to allow firms and individuals to treat the atmosphere as a free waste receptacle for greenhouse gas emissions, these emissions will not fall. This is certain. The only uncertainty is how long the Canadian public will allow politicians to keep peddling their aspirational targets.

Mark Jaccard is professor of resource and environmental management at Simon Fraser University. This article is based on his new book with Jeffrey Simpson and Nic Rivers called Hot Air: Meeting Canada's Climate Change Challenge. It is available this month from McClelland and Stewart.