Pesticides and the Kyoto Protocol

By Nabil Mailloux M.Sc., Ph.D.Candidate

Jan 8th, 2003

Kingston, Ont. -- Traditionally, most people concerned with pesticides are moved by the developmental risk to children1 or the increased risk of certain types of cancer, such as Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma2. Well if that wasn't enough, now there is another one, climate change.

It may seem incredible, but our recent ratification of the Kyoto Protocol is forcing us to leave no stone unturned in our search for greenhouse gas emission reductions. As surprising as it may seem, pesticides are among the most energy intensive products. The manufacturing of pest control products such as glyphosate (Roundup) and 2,4-D releases enormous amounts of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, on a per pound basis. These emissions are hidden from view. Unlike the tailpipe of the next car in a traffic jam, we never see the smokestacks of the factories that produce these materials.

Canadian consumption of pesticides is attributable to a release of 0.3 MT (million metric tonnes) of carbon dioxide annually3. This is the result of the energy required for their manufacture, most often derived from coal or fossil fuel power plants. If one were to also consider the carbon dioxide emitted from the tailpipes of tanker trucks, used to transport and distribute these products, that number increases to 0.4 MT5.

Yet another source of greenhouse gas emissions results from the eventual breakdown of these pesticides following application. Hailed as a boon to the consumer because of the resulting loss of toxicity soon after application, it is also a bane to those trying to meet their Kyoto obligations. Pesticides are derived from crude oil, so that their breakdown, either biological or photochemical, ultimately leads to the formation more carbon dioxide. Combustion by any other name is still combustion. On an annual basis, Canada consumes approximately 30 million kilograms of pesticides4, or 0.03 MT. Conservative estimates7 of the resulting carbon dioxide emissions point to a 0.03 MT release into the atmosphere, bringing the total emissions from pesticide use to 0.43 MT

While most measures that are undertaken to mitigate climate change are overseen by the federal or provincial governments, it is rare to find an initiative that can be implemented by municipalities and that will result in a reduction in greenhouse gases. Such is the case with local by-laws restricting cosmetic pesticide use. Since such applications are responsible for one tenth of the total emissions, and that proportion is increasing, "cosmetic pesticides" are responsible for approximately 0.043 MT or 43 kilo-tonnes of carbon dioxide. However, in drafting bill C-8, the Federal Government did not include measures to ban cosmetic pesticide use, which is contrary to the recommendations from its Standing Committee. Similarly, Ottawa's plan for meeting its Kyoto targets do not involve pesticide reduction as an option.

However, should municipalities undertake pesticide reduction strategies, the benefits will be small, but not trivial. An average sugar maple can sequester 0.204 tonnes of carbon dioxide in a single year6. So eliminating "cosmetic" pesticide use would be the equivalent of planting some 200 000 trees across Canada. Sweetening the pot further, it is widely expected that the Russian Federation will also ratify Kyoto sometime in 2003. Once Kyoto enters into force, municipalities will also be able to sell their emission credits and earn roughly $1.3 million in total, assuming a market price of $30/metric tonne. For a city the size of Kingston, Ont., that would mean a reduction of 162 tonnes of CO2 that could then be sold on the open market to Kyoto signatories at a profit of roughly $5000 for the city coffers. In addition, this reduction would the equivalent of the city planting 800 trees. Ottawa will have to clarify how municipalities may claim the 43 000 tonnes in emission credits.

In an ever-litigious world, some believe that banning pesticide use will elicit a NAFTA Chapter 11 law-suit from the agri-chemical producers in the US. However, many municipalities in the Maritimes, and in Quebec, have already taken measures to ban pesticide use. The Province of Quebec has even contemplated a provincial ban. Now they may have even more reason to consider this option, they may be able to claim Kyoto credits for doing so.

It is rare that the issues of toxicity and climate change converge in issues of public policy, and it is even rarer that municipalities can have a say in implementing solutions. It would appear that the Supreme Court's ruling on the Town of Hudson, PQ's By-Law 270 has given a clear mandate to municipalities to take action on pesticide related risks and, concomitantly, their potential to exacerbate climate change. Now all that remains to be seen is how many municipalities will take advantage of these facts and persuade the Federal Government to recognize their efforts.

1. Guillette, E. A., An Anthropological Approach to the Evaluation of Preschool Children
Exposed to Pesticides in Mexico , Environmental Health Perspectives - V.106, N.6 - Jun98

2. McDuffie, H., et.al., Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention, Vol. 10, 1155-1163, November 2001.

3. The Health of Our Air: Toward a sustainable agriculture in Canada, Agriculture and Agri-Foods Canada.

4. i) Pesticides: Making the Right Choices, Canadian Parliamentary Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development. (ii) David Richard Boyd, Canada vs. The OECD: An Environmental Comparison, Eco-Research Chair of Environmental Law and Policy, University of Victoria, p. 23.

5. Fluck, R.C. (ed.) Energy in Farm Production. vol.6 in Energy in World Agriculture. Elsevier, New York. pp.177-201.1992

6. US Dept. of Energy, Energy Information Administration

7. Assumes that ½ of the tonnage will degrade to CO2, that the carbon content of a typical pesticide is 50%, and then multiplied by 3.67 to obtain the tonnage of CO2.