The general perception among Canadians is that the United States has abandoned the Kyoto treaty and everything it stands for.

And while that perception is convenient -- particularly for those eager to torpedo Ottawa's bid to ratify the accord -- it doesn't tell the whole story.

At its core, the Kyoto treaty is about emission reductions enforced by national governments. Canada, for example, has agreed to cut its emissions of carbon dioxide and other ozone-depleting pollutants 6 per cent below 1990 levels over the next decade.

It is true that the United States -- Canada's largest trading partner and chief economic rival -- won't ratify the Kyoto treaty. The Bush administration has made that clear.

Nor will the United States meet the emission reduction targets it pledged it would in Rio de Janeiro 10 years ago.

But that doesn't mean the principle of nationally mandated emission cuts is dead on this side of the border.

In U.S. newspaper ads this week, the Arlington, Va.-based Pew Center on Global Climate Change has released a list of nearly 40 leading companies that endorse the idea of mandatory reductions. The companies are mostly U.S.-based, but the list also includes large multinationals with significant U.S. sales or operations.

Some of the signatories might surprise you. On it are energy producers (Sunoco), utilities (Pacific Gas & Electric Corp.), major energy consumers (Alcoa and Georgia-Pacific) and key product manufacturers (Toyota).

Also notable are large multinationals that already have well-known sustainable development policies, including Royal Dutch/Shell and British Petroleum.

Two Canadian energy companies have also signed on: TransAlta and Ontario Power Generation.

And while the pledge is cautiously worded, the meaning is significant.

The companies agreed to a four-point "checklist for a climate-friendly and secure energy future." The list includes an endorsement of financial incentives to encourage energy efficiency, expanding natural gas supplies and disclosing major emission sources.

Most interesting, however, is the last point, which reads: "Ultimately, adopt a comprehensive national strategy that couples mandatory reductions and flexible market-based approaches."

That is Kyoto in a nutshell -- national governments setting targets to curb emissions.

And if 40 corporate heavyweights say they can live with mandatory emission cuts, then perhaps there is a glimmer of hope the United States may rejoin the Kyoto process some time down the road.

Negotiations are due to start in 2005 to consider what should happen in the years after 2012, when the Kyoto agreement is due to expire. U.S. environmentalists are already working hard to keep the United States on a parallel track and at least moving in synch with the rest of the world.

That may already be happening, in spite of the Bush administration's noisy rejection of Kyoto.

Some U.S. state governments are ignoring Washington and adopting ambitious greenhouse gas reduction programs of their own. For example, all the New England states have joined with Canada's eastern provinces to reduce emissions to 1990 levels by 2010, and 10 per cent below 1990 levels by 2020.

In other areas, Canada may actually be falling behind the United States while Ottawa dithers over implementing Kyoto, a recent report by the Alberta-based Pembina Institute concluded.

Three U.S. states now limit carbon dioxide emissions by power plants: New Hampshire, Massachusetts and Oregon. The study also found that the United States outspends Canada on public transit, has 20 times more installed wind generation and requires landfills to capture escaping methane gas. Perhaps not coincidentally, greenhouse gas emissions grew more slowly in the United States than in Canada in the 1990s.

"It's a mistake to just look at the position of the Bush administration," said the Pembina Institute's Matthew Bramley, who wrote the report. "The United States is ahead of Canada in terms of things that are actually happening."

By far the strongest argument against ratification of Kyoto has always been that it would make Canada uncompetitive with the United States. Alberta's dire warning that implementing the emission cuts would plunge Canada into an economic hell of lost jobs, soaring taxes and European-style energy prices assumes that the United States remains stuck in a time warp.

But the playing field isn't static.

And, in the smoggy haze that hangs over the debate, Canada may well find that Kyoto is just the club it needs to keep its economy in step with the rest of the world, and not the tool of its own demise.
bmckenna@globeandmail.ca