Prentice "Channels" U.S. Policies on Absolute Emissions Caps, "Intensity Targets" Gone At Last

Canadian Federal Environment Minister Jim Prentice is on a roll. First, he confirmed his conviction that climate science is clear and we need to reduce emissions despite the "stolen emails". Then, he told a House of Commons committee that his government is giving up the roundly criticized and notoriously ineffectual "intensity targets" approach. They are finally moving toward imposing hard caps on total greenhouse gases emissions.

The reason? Desire to harmonize Canadian rules with U.S. policies. Despite arguing earlier in 2009 that "intensity targets" and hard caps are "not mutually exclusive'', Prentice has finally conceded what the experts had been saying all along. There is no way to make these apples into oranges.

Given that the leaders of our "51st State" government are so wishy-washy on this issue, aren't we in Canada lucky to have elected Obama and a Democratic Congress to lead us at the federal level? Oh, wait...

[Important Notice]

Power alarm over home electronics

"All told, between 5 and 10 per cent of electricity used in the average Canadian home is consumed by appliances and home electronics while the devices are on standby, Natural Resources Canada estimates. In some cases, the gadget actually needs to be unplugged to cut the power use.

"Ottawa now plans to force the industry to reduce the standby power needs of a wide range of appliances and home electronics – first issuing regulations by 2010 to meet California standards which are the toughest in the United States, and then regulating a one-watt standby mode in 2013.

"Power usage of electronics on standby currently ranges from five watts to 25.

"In its report yesterday, the International Energy Agency said the boom in electronics threatens to undermine efforts to reduce residential power demand and cut greenhouse gas emissions."

More at globeandmail.com: Power alarm over home electronics

[Important Notice]

Coalition = Real Greenhouse Gas Cuts = Hope for Planet!

The bottom line on why we support the Liberal-NDP coalition:

"The opposition coalition poised to topple the Harper government is promising steep cuts to greenhouse-gas emissions and a continental cap-and-trade system.

[...]

"'Knowing what we know . . . it still adds up to being a... joint platform that is leagues ahead of the Conservative party platform,' said Jean Langlois of the Sierra Club.

"'On climate change, it’s really day and night.'"

Source: Canadian Press via http://www.edmontonsun.com/News/Canada/2008/12/03/7622786.html

[Important Notice]

COALITION! CO-A-LI-TION!

The federal opposition parties have finally seen the light, and are working on putting together a coalition government. I had supported this idea, and I continue to think that it would be good for the country -- and the planet. The potential coalition partners agree that total emissions should be priced, not just emissions per unit of product ("intensity targets"). The NDP and Liberals also agree on the importance of promoting green technologies and jobs. The details can be worked out, and differences (how to price carbon emissions: tax shifting and/or cap-and-trade) can be settled by compromise -- unlike Harper, responsible politicians know how to do it.

I hope that Harper's procedural move to delay the confidence vote does nothing more than postpone the inevitable. As I said during the last election, we cannot afford to risk four more years of Harper inaction on climate change.

So Go Coalition Go!

[Important Notice]

EU upholds climate plan despite financial turmoil

Europe has been hit harder and faster than Canada by the global financial meltdown. Yet the EU has just confirmed that their emissions-trading based plan on climate change will still go ahead.

"French President Nicolas Sarkozy, who currently holds the rotating presidency of the 27-country European Union, said that despite some misgivings about the cost, 'climate change is so important that we cannot use the financial and economic crisis as a pretext for dropping it.'"

Central- and eastern-European countries that depend heavily on coal will get help from the other EU members.

In contrast, in Canada, faced with the fear of an oncoming recession, we've just reelected a Conservative government whose "intensity-based" climate change plan will not work. Both the Green Party/Liberal plan (carbon tax/income tax cuts plus emissions trading) and the NDP plan (just emissions trading) were defeated.

The EU's ambition on climate change is indeed "made of sterner stuff" (Shakespeare: Caesar). Canada has missed another chance to show the world some real leadership and resolve.

C.D. Howe Institute Calls Baird's Bluff

"In 'Estimating the Effect of the Canadian Government’s 2006-2007 Greenhouse Gas Policies,' authors Mark Jaccard and Nic Rivers say Ottawa’s current policy proposals will fall short of its reduction target for 2020 by almost 200 megatonnes. Further, because of this gap, which the authors estimated using an energy-economy simulation model, it is unlikely that a future government would be able to meet the ambitious 2050 target."

Source (likely to be later archived here); see also the more detailed "ebrief" (in PDF); and the even more detailed Working Paper (in PDF).

Click on image to enlarge.

Image source: Working Paper (in PDF, screen page 21 of 24).

As noted earlier in this blog, Mark Jaccard is one of the economists who had questioned the effectiveness of Baird's scheme. Backing up his criticism with research is great. Having it published in a peer-reviewed journal would be even better. Still, this is already much more than Baird's Ministry has done:

"We asked Environment Canada for information on the energy-economy modeling tools it used and the major assumptions it applied in concluding that its policies would reduce emissions by 20 percent by 2020, as well as in concluding that its policies would set the country on the trajectory needed to achieve its 2050 target of a 65 percent reduction. While the government provided aggregate results for individual policies, we are still unclear about the key assumptions the government used in estimating how businesses and consumers would respond to its 2006-2007 policy initiatives and also unclear about how the government ensured that the effects of overlapping policies were not double counted."

Source: Working Paper (in PDF, screen pages 8 and 9 of 24)

[Important Notice]

Economics experts question Tory environmental approach

Gotta love this - even the same economists that Baird used to help him trash Kyoto are now saying they're skeptical of Baird's own plan:

Bernard and others were skeptical about the government's plan, which requires industry to reduce the intensity of their emissions instead of making absolute reductions. Opposition parties and environmentalists have criticized the intensity approach, favoured by the Bush administration in the U.S., since companies with increasing emissions can still meet the targets if their pollution levels are rising more slowly than their overall rate of growth.

"Basically, the intensity cap and trade program for large final emitters looks like it has far too many loopholes (so-called flexibility provisions) to cause much in the way of GHG (greenhouse gas) reductions in Canada," Mark Jaccard, a professor at B.C.'s Simon Fraser University's school of resource and environmental management, said in an e-mail. "It sounds tough to talk about six per cent emissions-intensity reductions per year, and then two per cent per year, but how much of that will actually be 'real emissions reductions?' My preliminary sense is 'not a lot.'"

With the economists now deserting him, soon Baird's only friend will be Buzz Hargrove. (Talk about your strange bedfellows!)

Baird's claim to "most agressive plan" finally deflated

Every time Baird has been interviewed recently, he's claimed that his new plan is "one of the most aggressive plans to tackle greenhouse gases and air pollution in the world". (See here or here). At first (before the plan was leaked), I felt a tiny, tiny ray of hope from this statement. Now, it just makes me gag.

Last night, CP released story that finally deflates this claim:

Just as Environment Minister John Baird was bragging that Canada now has one of the "most aggressive" anti-climate change plans in the world, Denmark's energy minister was inadvertently helping to punch holes in the claim.

Flemming Hansen, on a two-day trip to Canada, was explaining to an audience at Carleton University on Thursday how renewable sources would account for 30 per cent of Danish energy consumption by 2025. (Canada's is currently 17 per cent).

The oil-exporting country has long made consumers and industry pay hefty carbon taxes on gasoline and cars. Its energy consumption has been reduced to 1975 levels even as its economy has continued to grow.

Because of drastic measures taken over the last decade, the country is struggling to find additional ways to cut emissions and meet its Kyoto commitment - but it still believes it'll come in somewhere around 3 per cent over the target.

That's considerably more aggressive than Baird's plan, under which Canada's greenhouse gas emissions are supposed to "stabilize" from last year's levels by 2010 - 38 per cent higher than the Kyoto commitment.

I've been wondering if he had any evidence to back up his assertion. The story says:

Baird's assertion that Canada is among the best in the pack was not backed up by any government paperwork and questions put to Environment Canada bureaucrats were not answered Friday. For example, are we being compared to all countries, or just those in the industrialized world?

A spokesman for Baird said that the claim was based on Canada's "actual carbon output" and the projected impact of the newly promised reductions on a "national basis . . . over the course of the next five years."

Yet, much of the reductions in Baird's plan don't occur in the first five years. For instance:

• Major industrial emitters will not have to start cutting their emissions until 2010.
• In 2010, polluters will be able to meet 80 per cent of their reduction obligations either by buying credits from a technology research fund or helping to fund green projects internationally, leaving only a fraction devoted to actual reductions. If a company's production booms, it could actually increase carbon output.
• Some polluters who just started operations won't have to make any reductions at all in the next five years.
• There are no taxes directed at Canadians to change consumption patterns.
• A promise to regulate better efficiencies in the automobile industry will kick in for model year 2011. But because the commitment hinges on the negotiation on a new North American standard, there is no guarantee any changes will actually occur.

In addition, some economists are questioning whether Baird's plan will even work at all.

Chris Green, an economist at McGill University, said he found it difficult to comment on the possible impact on consumer prices because he finds the plan confusing.

He said he does not understand how the targets in the plan can be achieved.

So basically, it's all lies (or "spin", if you prefer). As usual!

Canadian Government Goes From Failing to Plan to Planning to Fail Kyoto Targets

"The new program does not bring Canada into compliance with its commitments under the Kyoto Protocol—a reduction of emissions to 6% below 1990 levels by 2012. Canada’s emissions are currently 30% above 1990 levels, and the new goal puts Canada 11% above its Kyoto targets. Under the new plan, Canada will meet its Kyoto targets in 2025, 13 years late."

(Source: Green Car Congress, based on Globe & Mail and Government Website; emphasis added.)

Of course, Baird's latest scheme would actually regulate "intensity" i.e. GHG emissions per unit of production, not total emissions. If production increases enough, it might wipe out the gains from "intensity". Reaching Kyoto targets may take even longer -- if ever.

So the Harper Government has gone from failing to plan on addressing this issue at all after the last election to deliberately planning to fail our international obligations.

This may end up costing Canada much more than expected. The Harper Government's most detailed document [PDF] explaining their scheme fails to mention that Kyoto has "teeth":

"If a Party [to the Kyoto Protocol] fails to meet its emissions target, it must make up the difference in the second commitment period, plus a penalty of 30%. It must also develop a compliance action plan, and its eligibility to “sell” under emissions trading will be suspended."

(Source: UNFCCC; bolding added; italics in original.)

So much for the Harper Government's scheme reliance on Kyoto Protocol emissions trading to reach some of their goals.

There is also the cost of not directing new business to a greener path right away:

"New facilities will be granted a three-year grace period before they have to meet an emissionintensity reduction target in order to provide sufficient time for the facilities to reach normal operating levels. After the third year, the initial greenhouse gas emission-intensity target will be based on cleaner fuel standards. New facilities will also be required to improve their emission intensity each year by 2%, as with existing facilities. New facilities are defined as those whose first year of operation is 2004 or later."

(Source: Environment Canada)

[satire]

In other news:

• The Government will introduce a motion in the House of Commons to change the word "Nation" to "Procrastination" in all official documents.
  

• The book How to Lose Your International Credibility and Wreck the Planet for Canadians for Dummies, with a Foreword by Rona Ambrose, is headed for the top of the bestseller list.

[/satire]

[Important Notice]