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...

Clean Air Act Legislative Committee on Target Setting

The transcripts are now available for meetings 7 through 10 of the legislative committee on Bill C-30. Here's a summary of meeting 7, which focused on target setting, with much additional discussion on policy. The committee heard from Greenpeace, the Canadian Chamber of Commerce (CCC), the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy (NRTEE), and Dr. Marc Jaccard of SFU. Political sparring between the committee members was remarkably low.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions Targets: Greenpeace reiterated the long term CANet targets of 25% below 1990 by 2020 and 80% below 1990 by 2050. No one else advocated a specific target. NRTEE presented on its work on achieving a 60% reduction by 2050, and the CCC emphasized the need to respect investment cycles and Canada's energy-intense economy. Dr Jaccard made the point that setting targets is irrelevant if you don't have the policies in place to achieve them. Everyone agreed with a key NRTEE point - that long-term targets are needed ASAP, and that short-term targets have to be developed within a long-term plan.

Achieving Canadian Kyoto targets: Greenpeace says its achievable, but when pressed didn't have a detailed analysis of how. The CCC says it is impossible without doing very serious damage to the economy. Dr. Jaccard says at this point it isn't doable - domestically it is impossible and international credits will be in short supply, potentially causing price spikes. He also talked about his work in 98-99 for the feds, where it looked like the only way to achieve Kyoto domestically would have been the equivalent of a $120-150$/tonne carbon tax starting in 2000.

Emissions intensity targets: Lots of discussion on this. Greenpeace says its a bad idea and often gets used to mask lack of absolute reductions. They cited Canada's 1990-2004 intensity gain of 14% while absolute emissions rose 27%. The CCC supports the intensity approach because it doesn't penalize emitter growth. Dr. Jaccard says that intensity targets can work but you will need the capacity to increase them if growth exceeds predictions.

Emissions trading: Some discussion of the large final emitters system (now of course the "Clean Air Industrial Regulatory Framework"...who comes up with these zingy names? so catchy!) Greenpeace advocates absolute targets, no permit price cap, and having industry cover 50% of our reductions (this would make for a much more ambitious target than the 45-55 Mt aimed at right now). Dr Jaccard points out that the LFE/CAIRF system will be compulsory and so will probably achieve some reductions, but that still leaves the other half of the economy.

Policy effectiveness: Dr Jaccard focused on this issue. He cited a few big trends based on global experience to date with climate change policy:

• voluntary policies don't work - we can't depend on subsidies, information campaigns and moral suasion
• we can't count on energy efficiency - its more expensive to implement than thought, and there is evidence that the energy saved just gets used up by new energy-using devices

So:

• we need compulsory policies - his biggest point - be it cap and trade, a carbon tax, or standards, policy needs to have teeth
• focus on emissions rather than efficiency.
• the likely winners - he sees them as a mix of zero-emissions fossil fuels, renewables, nuclear, and some efficiency. ( I should point out that he's well-known and somewhat controversial for his writing on clean coal and other fossil fuels technology)

Link to all transcripts.

My comments: The most interesting thing for me here was Jaccard's comments on policy effectiveness, especially the key point that we need to focus on compulsory policies. I found his point on energy efficiency interesting; its also been made by George Monbiot in his book Heat. I haven't had a chance to look at energy efficiency in depth so I won't comment on it further. Re our Kyoto targets, I'm pretty much convinced by the mountain of respected Canadian environmental analysts chiming in to say its just not possible at this point. What I'd like to see now, though, are some proposals for achievable domestic reductions. How close to Kyoto can we get?

Pembina Institute Op-Ed on Harper's response to Kyoto

Matthew Bramley of the Pembina Institute wrote an op-ed in La Presse Sunday entitled Les changements climatiques: rien a faire? ("Climate change: can nothing be done?"). It critiques the Harper government's assertion that its a "fantasy" to think that Kyoto targets can be achieved without spending billions on Russian hot-air credits. His main points:

a) reducing GHGs won't cause economic pain. The NRTEE's 2006 advice on a long-term strategy on energy and climate change demonstrates that long term reductions are achievable using today's technology with minimal economic disruption and significant economic benefits.
b) the 'hot air' argument is a red herring. Kyoto can be achieved by buying verified, real reductions credits from developing countries.
c) the government can act immediately. Regulating GHGs can be done without waiting for the Clean Air Act, because the government has already given itself the power it needs under CEPA (Canadian Environmental Protection Act).
d) the Conservatives are stalling. Bramley references John Ibbitson of the Globe and Mail in suggesting that the Conservatives want the public to believe that nothing can be done about climate change.

Link to the op-ed piece

My comments: I have to agree with everything Bramley says. The most interesting thing for me in reading this, however, is that its the first time I've seen one of the big ENGOs specifically say that Canada can't respect Kyoto targets using only domestic action.