KEY POINTS:
Canada was one of the first countries to sign up to the Kyoto Protocol, the limiting greenhouse gas emissions agreement, in 1998, with formal ratification following in 2002.
A minority conservative Government was elected in January 2006. Part of that party's election platform was to withdraw from the
Kyoto agreement and come up with its own local approach to reduce greenhouse gases.
When the Conservatives tabled their first Budget in May 2006, it contained no mention of the protocol but merely repeated their election pledge to develop a "made-in-Canada" climate change programme that would cost C$2 billion ($2.5 billion) over five years.
In adopting Kyoto, the previous Liberal Government had pledged that Canada would reduce its greenhouse gas emissions to 6 per cent below 1990 levels by the end of the five-year commitment period in 2012.
In March last year the Canadian Environment Minister told a Vancouver audience that Canada's emissions were up by 24 per cent over 1990 levels - a far cry from the earlier commitment.
The same minister later endorsed the Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate, an alternative to the Kyoto Protocol backed by the US, Australia, Japan, China, India and South Korea, which requires only voluntary emissions-reduction targets.
In February this year a new Environment Minister said Canada would not attempt to meet its Kyoto target. As yet, Canada has not yet officially withdrawn but it seems likely this will happen before 2012, especially if the US, its neighbour and major trading partner, makes no moves to embrace the Kyoto treaty.
Will New Zealand follow Canada? Australia, our major trading partner, is also making no moves to sign up to Kyoto, and our percentage increase in emissions since 1990 is almost as much as in Canada, although our target is a zero increase on 1990 levels, not a 6 per cent decrease like Canada's.
There is no way we will be able to meet our Kyoto target.
Our Government is already allowing for about $600 million to purchase carbon credits to meet our obligation by 2012.
To date the Government has not actually purchased any credits but is merely regarding this as a future liability.
Other political parties (National and the Greens) have disagreed with this estimate of credits required and suggested it should be at least $1.7 billion by 2012.
It is unlikely taxpayers will find it acceptable for our Government to spend such a sum on paper carbon credits, probably from Russia or Eastern Europe, for no demonstrable benefit apart from trying to maintain our "clean and green" image.
By 2012, other countries including Canada may have withdrawn from the Kyoto agreement rather than purchase carbon credits. A new type of agreement is likely to be under negotiation. It is to be hoped it involves the US, China and India, as without these countries any agreement will be meaningless.
There may be no penalty for withdrawing from the existing agreement because entrants to a new agreement cannot be expected to be bound by previous arrangements.
I support New Zealand and other countries now taking strong measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but the present Kyoto Protocol is not the appropriate vehicle.
We would be much better advised to spend that money here on implementing emissions-reduction measures for the long term.
This is similar to Canada's proposed approach.
* John Blakeley is a research fellow at the School of the Built Environment at Unitec in Auckland.