Le Palais des Congrès
Montréal
September 16, 2007
(Check against delivery)
We observe today an anniversary that reminds
us not only of the importance of preserving
our planet, but equally of the importance
of involving us all in preserving it.
Not just the United Nations, not just its
member states, not just governments at all
levels, but all elements of civil society
everywhere, and all of us who live on this
Earth. We are all environmentalists, without
exception and without exclusion.
Twenty years ago today, the nations of
the world came together in this city to
sign the Montreal Protocol. It's widely
known as the accord on Ozone Depletion.
It's actually the accord to stop Ozone Depletion.
And twenty years later, the good news is
that it's working. It's working for the
planet. It's working for the 191 UN nations
that have signed it. It's working for national
governments such as Canada, representing
provinces and states such as Quebec, and
cities such as Montreal. It's working for
all of us, assuring that we'll leave a world
that is whole to our children and grandchildren.
And believe me, I have a vested interest
in this positive outcome.
Yes, I was head of the national government
that hosted the Montreal conference in 1987,
and I was gratified by the signing of the
Montreal Protocol, as well as proud of the
leadership of our Environment Minister,
Tom McMillan, and grateful to our public
servants for their tireless efforts.
In retrospect, it was the first concerted
action on climate change. At the end of
one century, it foretold the great global
issue of the next.
But Mila and I are not only parents of
four children, but also grandparents of
four more. Like all of you, we are aware
that the greatest legacy we can leave our
children and grandchildren is the earth
itself, not only as the place we live, but
also as a livable place.
And what would I say if any of our children
twenty years ago, or our grandchildren today,
were to ask me, what is the ozone layer,
and why is it so important?
I couldn't answer those questions in terms
of science or the stars, though there's
no shortage of experts at this important
twentieth anniversary conference. I'll leave
that to you.
But I think I would have told my children
or my grandchildren that the earth is our
home, and the ozone is the roof of that
home. Or perhaps more precisely, the insulation
in the attic.
Twenty years ago, there was a hole in the
roof, and it was getting bigger. There would
be a huge hole in the ozone layer over the
Antarctic.
Twenty years later, we can report gratifying
signs of progress.
Thanks to the UN, thanks to governments,
thanks to activists, but also thanks to
industry for innovative and essential solutions,
and thanks to every person working to make
a difference for the future of the Earth-our
home under that roof.
And we are all making a difference, in
our own lives, in the lives of our cities,
in the lives of our countries, to secure
the future of life here on Earth.
The environment is not only a compelling
global issue; it's one that demonstrates
humanity's capacity for learning, for adapting,
for changing. Just consider the changes
citizens have made in their daily lives
over the last generation in re-cycling things
like newspapers, food boxes and bottles.
Blue or green boxing is now second nature
The environment is also an issue which
reminds us that problems require solutions.
The great challenge of public policy is,
as President Kennedy once put it: "to
be an idealist without illusions."
We must all be idealists on the environment.
But we must also be without illusions.
We must not make the perfect the enemy of
the good.
In the real world, progress comes in stages,
and improvement comes before perfection.
The Montreal Protocol is an example of an
international treaty that works.
Former UN Secretary General Kofi Anan called
it: "Perhaps the single most successful
international agreement to date."
As Canada's Environment Minister John Baird
has said: "It's not perfect, but it's
the best success of its kind."
And Elizabeth May, now the leader of Canada's
Green Party but then an adviser to our government,
has written that the Montreal Protocol is:
"the most significant global treaty
to protect life on earth since the 1963
Treaty to End Atmospheric Nuclear Weapons
Testing."
The results speak for themselves.
Last week, Le Devoir carried a starting
banner headline on the front page of its
Saturday edition: "The Montreal Protocol
more effective than Kyoto: five times more
greenhouse gases have been eliminated by
protecting the ozone layer."
In translation, the headline reads: "The
Montreal Protocol more effective than Kyoto:
five times as many GHGs eliminated in protecting
the ozone layer".
Quoting UNEP sources, the article goes
on to report: "In 2005, the combined
efforts of 191 countries who ratified the
Montreal Accord enabled the reduction by
95 percent of substances depleting the ozone
layer."
(In 2005, the combined efforts of the 191
countries that ratified the Montreal Protocol
resulted in a global reduction of 95% of
ozone-depleting substances.)
How did we get here, to this twentieth
anniversary of the Montreal Protocol, and
what progress are we making on the great
issue of climate change?
It is no exaggeration to say that twenty
years ago, here in Montreal, the global
community took the first critical steps
to prevent the end of life on earth.
At the time, there was general agreement
on the problem, but no unanimous sense of
a solution. Even the science was still controversial.
Does this sound familiar in terms of today's
debate on climate change? Is there an echo
in the room?
One senior U.S. official of the day called
on mankind to wear more broad-brimmed hats,
and use more sunscreen. But the global community
understood that action was required, even
before the full implications of ozone depletion
were apparent.
The world learned a great deal from the
experience of the Montreal Protocol. We
learned that it was possible to take action
based on incomplete but substantial knowledge.
We learned that it was possible to devise
a global protocol to eliminate dangerous
substances, allowing later science to inform
more aggressive action.
The Montreal Protocol was also the first
to develop the principle of common but differentiated
responsibilities. This allowed developing
countries to increase the use of ozone depleting
substances, while developed nations such
as Canada and the United States committed
to significant decreases. It also established
the Multilateral Fund for the Implementation
of the Montreal Protocol, providing over
$US 2 billion to date to help developing
countries phase out ozone depleting substances.
And, not least, the Montreal Protocol involved
industry in solutions. Let me cite the example
of DuPont, then the largest manufacturer
of CFCs.
When we signed the Montreal Protocol, we
made it very clear to DuPont that there
was no turning back from our determination
to eliminate these dangerous ozone-depleting
substances. DuPont responded to the challenge
by creating innovative technologies that
have only made the company more profitable,
as well as a world leader in environmental
responsibility.
And we now learn from UNEP, as reported
by Le Devoir last week, that one of the
side benefits of the Montreal Protocol has
been an unforeseen reduction in greenhouse
gases.
The newspaper's respected environmental
correspondent, Louis-Gilles Francoeur, reported:
"The latest calculations of UN experts
on the progress accomplished under the terms
of the Protocol indicate that the massive
reduction of ozone depleting substances
over the last 20 years has had a beneficial
impact, as important as it was unforeseen,
on global warming, because several ozone
depleting substances also produced powerful
GHGs."
(The latest calculations by UN experts
on the progress made within the framework
of this protocol indicate that the massive
withdrawal of ozone-depleting substances
(ODS) carried out in 20 years has had a
beneficial impact, as crucial as it is unrecognized,
on the global warming because many of the
ozone-depleting substances also turned out
to be potent greenhouse gases (GHGs).")
As business columnist Peter Hadekel has
written: "The agreement showed that
the global business community really could
respond to a global threat." He noted
the Montreal Protocol "has been extraordinarily
effective in phasing out the use of harmful
chemicals that depleted the ozone layer
in the Earth's stratosphere."
And what does the experience of the Montreal
Protocol tell us about the prospects for
addressing global warming and climate change?
Last year, when a group of leading environmentalists
named me Canada's Greenest Prime Minister-which
I regard as one of the significant honours
of my life-I offered two observations for
addressing environmental issues.
I offer them again.
First, it doesn't really matter what the
process is, so long as the problem is addressed
by leadership. Resolute leadership at the
national level. And coordinated leadership
at the international level, particularly
in the global forum of the UN.
And second, there are few durable solutions,
on the environment or anything else, without
the engagement of the United States and
the leadership of its president.
It doesn't really matter whether the process
is called Kyoto, or something else, as long
as we are addressing the urgency of global
warming. Whether we use the Kyoto roadmap,
or another one, the important thing is to
get to where we want to go.
We have also needed to get the United States,
China and India, among others, seated around
the same table to discuss climate change.
When the U.S. didn't sign Kyoto, it walked
away with 25 percent of the world's GHG
emissions. China and India signed it, but
neither assumed obligations in the first
commitment period, 2008-2012.
Yet India's GHG emissions could rise by
more the two-thirds over the next twenty
years. Its energy consumption already doubled
in the last two decades of the 20th century.
China is expected to overtake the United
States as early as the end of 2007 to become
the world's largest emitter of greenhouse
gases - an 80% increase in greenhouse emissions
since 11000 driven largely by increases
in consumption of electricity generated
from coal. China's total electricity demand
will rise an estimated 2,600 gigawatts by
mid-century. Stated another way, China requires
the construction of 1 ½ Hydro-Quebecs
every year, and Hydro-Quebec is one of the
largest electrical utilities in North America.
Fortunately, we are making progress. The
United States and President Bush are engaging.
And I'm delighted that Canada and Prime
Minister Harper are providing leadership.
President Bush has invited the world to
Washington later this month for a conference
on climate change, to be chaired by Secretary
of State Condoleezza Rice. China and India
will be there. This is an important moment.
The president of the United States is putting
the unique moral authority of his office-what
the great environmental president Theodore
Roosevelt called "the bully pulpit"-behind
a global conference on climate change.
This marks a return to America's leadership
role on multilateral issues. The world must
see this for the opportunity that it is
to achieve real progress on climate change.
Real progress has already been achieved
at this month's APEC summit in Australia,
where Prime Minister Harper played an important
leadership role.
Last weekend's Sydney agreement underlined
a shared commitment by developed and developing
countries alike to take effective action,
through negotiations under the United Nations
Framework Convention on Climate Change to
slow, stop and then reverse the global growth
of greenhouse gas emissions.
Prime Minister Harper called this "the
signature accomplishment" of the APEC
summit and a "big, big step" forward
for climate change. He is quite right. He
is also right in detecting "an emerging
consensus on the need for all countries
to contribute to the reduction of greenhouse
gas emissions."
Critics will say these targets are voluntary
rather than binding, but the fact is Canada
and much of the world have missed the binding
targets of Kyoto.
Binding targets, unless achieved, are just
that--targets. Results are measured on the
bottom line. And when business improves
its environmental performance on the top
line, the results invariably flow to increased
profits on the bottom line.
This was certainly our experience with
DuPont on ozone depletion, as well as with
Inco and other large emitters on acid rain.
Canada's forest products industry has voluntarily
reduced its emissions intensity from pulp
and paper mills by 44 per cent since 11000.
Alcan, the Montreal-based aluminum company,
reduced its emissions intensity by 25 percent,
and has committed to a further 10 percent
reduction between now and 2010.
Perhaps the enduring value of Kyoto is
that it has focused the world's attention
on the importance of climate change, which
we first addressed in the Climate Change
Convention at the Rio summit in 1992. Kyoto
is part of a continuum.
Going forward, the question is how do we
get everyone on board in developing a comprehensive
post-2012 agreement? Important steps have
been taken at this year's G8 summit and
at Sydney, and there is real momentum going
into the Washington conference and the next
meeting of the parties in Bali.
Whatever the post-2012 agreement is called,
it will not be successful without the U.S.,
China and India. They will be in Washington,
and that's an important step forward.
Let's get the world to agree on what the
world will agree on as we did here in Montreal
20 years ago. That would be a good step
forward, it certainly was for the ozone
layer. Not perfect, just good. But then,
we shouldn't make the perfect the enemy
of the good.
Thank you very much.
