Canada's decision to withdraw from the Kyoto Protocol after December's U.N. Climate Change Conference in Durban, South Africa, has left many questioning the country's commitment to lower greenhouse gas emissions (ClimateWire, Dec. 15, 2011). Yesterday, a panel of experts met in Washington to offer their insight on why Canada decided to back out of the treaty and what it means for the future.

"We have to face the fact ... we were nowhere near reaching our Kyoto goals," said Peter Stoett, who holds the visiting research chair in Canada-U.S. relations at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, during an event sponsored by the center's Canada Institute.

By signing the protocol, Canada committed to reducing its emissions 6 percent below 1990 levels by 2012. But by 2009, it was emitting 17 percent more than it did in 1990, and the government was facing an estimated $14 billion in penalties this year, which it avoided by withdrawing from the protocol.

Stoett believes the emissions reductions were hard to achieve, in part, because of difficulties coordinating policies among the country's 10 provinces. Another early challenge was cutting emissions while trying to fuel a growing economy, said David McLaughlin, the president and CEO of Canada's National Roundtable on the Environment and the Economy.

The nation's energy and economy relationship is "incredibly integrated," McLaughlin explained, noting that it costs Canada more to reduce emissions on a per-ton basis than it does for other countries. This made it especially frustrating when other nations, such as the United States, refused to ratify the protocol, he said.

McLaughlin said Canada is still making progress without the Kyoto commitment, although it's expected to fall short of its national target to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 17 percent below 2005 levels by 2020.

The "Durban Platform" could become a new, binding treaty that Canada will sign, said Andrew Light, a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress. But he noted that it's unlikely to make a real impact before 2020 (ClimateWire, Dec. 12, 2011).

Light suggests that Canada might follow the lead of Norway, which actively works to reduce emissions in developing countries, while still "making a fortune" off oil exports. He says the wealth from Canada's fossil fuels could be used to pay for mitigation efforts in other countries -- a gesture that would show international leadership.