The Fifteenth Conference of the Parties (COP-15) of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) concluded on December 19, 2009 without long-term targets after a 31-hour negotiating marathon. The conference, which saw the creation of the Copenhagen Accord, has been criticized as "a predictable disappointment" due to fears of economic repercussions, high domestic political stakes, and political finger-pointing. Despite criticisms, Prime Minister Harper called the agreement, "comprehensive and realistic," while President Barack Obama described is as a "meaningful and unprecedented breakthrough." The accord, which is not binding, has been scrutinized as a "toothless failure" by politicians and industry opponents as it only provides the opportunity for individual countries to propose green house gas emissions reductions targets. It has also given rise to controversial discussions within Canada and the United States about who is leading the fight against climate change in North America.

Following the conference on January 28, 2010, the United States signed the accord and outlined its goal to reduce emissions by approximately 17 percent, compared to 2005 levels, by 2020. Three days later, on January 31, 2010, the Canadian government echoed this commitment and proposed to reduce its emissions by 17 percent from 2005 levels by 2020. The decision to match the US' reduction targets has reignited pre-Copenhagen criticisms against PM Harper and Environment Minister Jim Prentice for their decision to follow the US' climate strategy. "What this government is saying now is that they intend to do nothing until the U.S. government forces them to take action which is an incredible abdication of responsibility, not to mention sovereignty," said Graham Saul of the Climate Action Network Canada.  Perhaps the most vocal critic in recent weeks, Quebec Premier Jean Charest has charged that Ottawa is kowtowing to Washington and that, "the only federal plan is to align with the United States."

In an effort to rebuff criticisms like those of Charest, Gary Doer, Canadian ambassador-designate to the United States, addressed Canada's post-Copenhagen plans in his keynote address at a conference at the Peterson Institute for International Economics. He rejected criticism that Canada is relinquishing its sovereignty over climate-change policy to the US. Rather, Canada's decision to match US reduction targets is similar to the approach taken by the European Union. "The EU signed up not as France, Germany, Spain and Portugal -- they signed up as the EU. And it's interesting in terms of those people arguing you should have sovereignty," Doer said. He went on to argue that, "...Canada, the United States and Mexico is an economic bloc as well as an environmental ecosystem in our world." With the decision to "continentalize" Canadian policy with that of the US, the government of Canada is therefore attempting to protect its trade within North America while also appearing environmentally active. Speaking to this perspective, Prentice stated, "it is absolutely counter-productive and utterly pointless for Canada and Canadian businesses to strike out on their own, to set and to pursue targets that will ultimately create barriers to trade and put us at a competitive disadvantage."

Despite the Canadian government's efforts to follow suit with the US' climate change policy, the Alberta oil sands are still making headlines as a contentious issue for some North American businesses. On February 10, 2010, Whole Foods Market and Bed Bath & Beyond, two large US companies, restricted their suppliers from using fuel from the oil sands. According to Michael Besancon, vice-president of Whole Foods, the decision was made because, "we lead on issues. That's what we do and it's what's expected of us." While the boycott by Whole Foods and Bed Bath & Beyond does not threaten to cripple the oil industry in Alberta, it does signal an increase in initiatives by businesses in carbon reduction. According to Aaron Sanger of ForestEthics, the activist group pushing companies like Whole Foods to boycott the oil sands, "at least 30 large U.S. brands are seriously considering taking action to address the brand risk of being associated with tar sands."

With the Waxman-Markey Bill and its cap-and-trade measures still before the US Senate, and with some skeptics anticipating its demise, the future of climate change policy in the US, and in Canada, is uncertain. In the weeks since Copenhagen there have been efforts to commit the two countries to lower emissions targets but without legislation to enforce its reduction and with concerns over the economy at the fore, the future of climate change policy in North America is still to be determined as attention is focused on COP16, set to take place at the end of 2010 in Cancun, Mexico.

Related:

• In the Classroom: Transboundary Environmental Governance in Canada and the United States
• CIGI Publication: Is the Copenhagen Accord Really "Nopenhagen"?
• CFR Related Material: Economist: Carbon markets after Copenhagen: Don't hold your breath
• Notice Board Item: Linking National Cap-and-Trade Systems in North America - Clean Energy and Climate Action: A North American Collaboration
• Past Feature: Relief for the Tar Sands Proposed amid Copenhagen Summit

(Image Credit: Flickr user fotographix.ca)