Hello loyal readers,
Sorry about the month long hiatus that has no doubt left all of you on tenterhooks. My excuse: once copious free time has been eaten up by various work projects. I will try to start this up again in June or July - meanwhile, the various links on the sidebar should give you endless amounts of sharp, insightful environmental commentary.
Tuesday, April 17, 2007
Thursday, March 22, 2007
Conservatives will let Clean Air Act die?
Today's National Post gives a great analysis of the trials and tribulations of the Clean Air Act over the last few months. According to the article, the Tories are likely to let the Clean Air Act die on the order paper and simply bring out regulations for Large Final Emitters using existing legislation. Article author John Ivison explains that two factors are at work. Firstly, a majority of Canadians are pro-Kyoto and want action on climate change. Perhaps more importantly, the special legislative committee on the bill have made a huge number of suggested amendments that make any eventual vote over an amended bill not worth it for the Conservatives.
In terms of eventual regulation targets for LFEs (with an accompanying emissions trading system), the article mentions a likely target of 20% below 2004 levels by 2020.
Tories having second thoughts on Kyoto
My comments: As far as I can tell (based on the Climate Action Network's background documentation and the legislative committee meeting transcripts I've seen), the Clean Air Act was largely a huge waste of time and would have possibly set up some serious regulatory loopholes. So good riddance, if its true that the legislation will die. Meanwhile, however, that 20% below 2004 levels target - by 2020(!) - looks pathetic. We need to have absolute targets in 2020 that are substantially below the Kyoto targets - the EU is recommending 15-30% below 1990 levels, and we probably need even tougher targets.
Personally, I am open to the argument that it is unrealistic to impose full Kyoto targets on industry for 2008-2012 because the timeline for adaptation is too short and industry was led to expect easier targets by previous government negotiations. Maybe we can let them off the hook a bit, something along the lines of gradually tightening targets that get us to 1990 levels by 2012, and Kyoto levels by 2014, for example. But there is absolutely no reason to set 2020 targets that are lower than Kyoto. Let's hope Harper keeps backtracking and backtracking...
In terms of eventual regulation targets for LFEs (with an accompanying emissions trading system), the article mentions a likely target of 20% below 2004 levels by 2020.
Tories having second thoughts on Kyoto
My comments: As far as I can tell (based on the Climate Action Network's background documentation and the legislative committee meeting transcripts I've seen), the Clean Air Act was largely a huge waste of time and would have possibly set up some serious regulatory loopholes. So good riddance, if its true that the legislation will die. Meanwhile, however, that 20% below 2004 levels target - by 2020(!) - looks pathetic. We need to have absolute targets in 2020 that are substantially below the Kyoto targets - the EU is recommending 15-30% below 1990 levels, and we probably need even tougher targets.
Personally, I am open to the argument that it is unrealistic to impose full Kyoto targets on industry for 2008-2012 because the timeline for adaptation is too short and industry was led to expect easier targets by previous government negotiations. Maybe we can let them off the hook a bit, something along the lines of gradually tightening targets that get us to 1990 levels by 2012, and Kyoto levels by 2014, for example. But there is absolutely no reason to set 2020 targets that are lower than Kyoto. Let's hope Harper keeps backtracking and backtracking...
Baird open to some international emissions trading?
A pro-international emissions trading piece at globeandmail.com yesterday mentions that Environment Minister John Baird has indicated he is open to including some international trading in his climate change plan. The piece doesn't offer further details, but does provide an overview of emissions trading and the opportunities involved in international trading.
Emissions trading: Like foreign aid, but better
My comments: Glad to hear it. International credits won't necessarily let us meet Kyoto, but they will get us a lot closer, more cheaply than 100% domestic reductions, and might help boost our international development aid budget to the UN's target for developed countries, 0.7% of GNP. (Canada is well below that, at 0.23% in 2003-2004; also well below the OECD average of o.42% - thank you, effortlessly available internet statistics)
Emissions trading: Like foreign aid, but better
My comments: Glad to hear it. International credits won't necessarily let us meet Kyoto, but they will get us a lot closer, more cheaply than 100% domestic reductions, and might help boost our international development aid budget to the UN's target for developed countries, 0.7% of GNP. (Canada is well below that, at 0.23% in 2003-2004; also well below the OECD average of o.42% - thank you, effortlessly available internet statistics)
Sunday, March 18, 2007
Liberals grab FoE's proposal and run with it
Repeat after me - I love minority government. Sure, elections every year or two mean little gets actually done on climate change, but meanwhile the Liberals and Conservatives are one-upping each other to the point where radical environmental proposals transmogrify into mainstream policy!
In January, Friends of the Earth and Corporate Knights publicized a proposal to create an emissions tax at 30$/tonne CO2e for large emitters, with the catch that the tax revenues would actually be kept in special accounts for each emitter, who would have the option of getting the money back to spend on emissions reductions. Many, many orders of magnitude beyond any existing Canadian policy to date. I loved the idea but assumed it would be ignored within federal politics. (See my post for more details)
Last month, FoE and Corporate Knights released a more global proposal, with additional carbon taxes all over the place, tax shifting, the whole caboodle. Again, I thought, this is great, but we'll be lucky to get even absolute emissions limits for industry, let alone making them pay for every tonne emitted! (See my post for more details). Meanwhile, the Climate Action Network set out clear proposals for amending the Clean Air Act, including setting absolute targets for large emitters at our Kyoto target level ((1990 minus 6%). (Here's the post on that one)
NOW, the Liberals release their environmental plan, which first of all sets absolute targets for large emitters; even better, it sets them at our Kyoto target level. This is a much, much better idea than the intensity-based system that the Liberals built and the Conservatives are now recycling. (See this post for why). And on top of this, it brings in the FoE/CK idea of tax +emitter account, with a 20$/tonne tax with emitter accounts allowing emitters to reuse the money, with the tax rising to 30$/tonne in 2011. The key, unfortunate difference is that industry only pays for emissions beyond their targets, not for all emissions as per the FoE/CK plan. This is still an improvement over the old Liberal LFE system, which had a $15/tonne charge (much too low according to both environmentalists and economists). The Conservatives are rumoured to be sticking with the $15/tonne charge.
We'll have to see what the Conservatives come up with, but so far it looks like easy intensity-based targets starting in three years. If that's the case, the Liberal plan is much more effective, and fair (industry shoulders its share of the reductions burden). It'll be interesting to see how things go...
Meet Kyoto or Pay Up, Dion Tells Industry (Globe)
Liberal press release
Dymaxion World post on Liberal plan
In January, Friends of the Earth and Corporate Knights publicized a proposal to create an emissions tax at 30$/tonne CO2e for large emitters, with the catch that the tax revenues would actually be kept in special accounts for each emitter, who would have the option of getting the money back to spend on emissions reductions. Many, many orders of magnitude beyond any existing Canadian policy to date. I loved the idea but assumed it would be ignored within federal politics. (See my post for more details)
Last month, FoE and Corporate Knights released a more global proposal, with additional carbon taxes all over the place, tax shifting, the whole caboodle. Again, I thought, this is great, but we'll be lucky to get even absolute emissions limits for industry, let alone making them pay for every tonne emitted! (See my post for more details). Meanwhile, the Climate Action Network set out clear proposals for amending the Clean Air Act, including setting absolute targets for large emitters at our Kyoto target level ((1990 minus 6%). (Here's the post on that one)
NOW, the Liberals release their environmental plan, which first of all sets absolute targets for large emitters; even better, it sets them at our Kyoto target level. This is a much, much better idea than the intensity-based system that the Liberals built and the Conservatives are now recycling. (See this post for why). And on top of this, it brings in the FoE/CK idea of tax +emitter account, with a 20$/tonne tax with emitter accounts allowing emitters to reuse the money, with the tax rising to 30$/tonne in 2011. The key, unfortunate difference is that industry only pays for emissions beyond their targets, not for all emissions as per the FoE/CK plan. This is still an improvement over the old Liberal LFE system, which had a $15/tonne charge (much too low according to both environmentalists and economists). The Conservatives are rumoured to be sticking with the $15/tonne charge.
We'll have to see what the Conservatives come up with, but so far it looks like easy intensity-based targets starting in three years. If that's the case, the Liberal plan is much more effective, and fair (industry shoulders its share of the reductions burden). It'll be interesting to see how things go...
Meet Kyoto or Pay Up, Dion Tells Industry (Globe)
Liberal press release
Dymaxion World post on Liberal plan
Wednesday, March 14, 2007
Liberals eying absolute targets for large emitters?
Tiny story in today's online National Post - the Liberals are supposedly considering absolute targets for large final emitters as part of their election plan, as opposed to the intensity-based targets that the Conservatives (and previous Liberal governments) have been working on.
National Post story
My Comments: I'm very glad to see absolute targets being discussed for emissions trading, and I hope this is a bit more long lasting than Stephane Dion's brief endorsement of a carbon tax. I don't know if this is an issue that can grab the public's attention politically, and who knows at this point if the Liberals will make it back into power, but I am certain that absolute targets, even if extremely generous ones initially, are a better choice for Canada. They would provide more certainty in terms of our reductions achievements, and will make it much easier for our system to become integrated with the European Emissions Trading System and other eventual tradeable permit systems based on absolute targets.
National Post story
My Comments: I'm very glad to see absolute targets being discussed for emissions trading, and I hope this is a bit more long lasting than Stephane Dion's brief endorsement of a carbon tax. I don't know if this is an issue that can grab the public's attention politically, and who knows at this point if the Liberals will make it back into power, but I am certain that absolute targets, even if extremely generous ones initially, are a better choice for Canada. They would provide more certainty in terms of our reductions achievements, and will make it much easier for our system to become integrated with the European Emissions Trading System and other eventual tradeable permit systems based on absolute targets.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
