Cyclists and Pedestrians Better for Business than Drivers

"The objective, unless you own a parking lot, is to attract the largest possible number of people – not the largest number of cars."

[...]

"A recent report by the Clean Air Partnership about Bloor St. in the Annex [in Toronto] found that only 10 per cent of patrons at local businesses arrive by car and that patrons arriving by foot and bicycle spend the most money each month. The report also noted that about 20 per cent of spaces in nearby parking lots were empty even during peak periods. Finally, the report's survey found that more merchants than not believed that wider sidewalks or bike lanes would increase business. (Patrons preferred the bike lane option by a ratio of four to one.)

"CAP's report suggests one rather obvious conclusion: bringing a single 70 kilogram shopper to a store in a 1,400 kilogram vehicle is a cumbersome route to success. By contrast, about half a dozen bikes can fit in the space of a single car. And since bikes can stop faster than cars, the amount of space between bikes can be small, which means far more shoppers on bikes can fit onto our roads than shoppers in cars.

[...]

"A study in Munster, Germany, found that cyclists buy fewer goods on each trip but spend more overall in the course of a greater number of trips."

File this article under "sudden outbreak of good sense".

More here: TheStar.com | Opinion | Shoppers on bikes good for business

(Alas, many of the comments below this article in the Star range from wilful ignorance, i.e. refusing to read TFA* - what else is new on the Internet - to blind hatred of cyclists, tarring them all with the same brush because some cyclists disobey traffic laws. Some Toronto drivers run red lights and/or speed and/or drive drunk, some kill pedestrians and/or cyclists and/or other people in cars, but you don't see people making hateful generalizations about all drivers. Double standard? You decide.)

_____

* TFA = The Famous Article (substitute other words for the "F" one if you must :-)

[Important Notice]

World leaders say green thinking can help global economy

"'We must decide to put a price on carbon,' said Al Gore, the former US vice president, adding that President Barack Obama would play a positive role in combating climate change.

'He is pushing hard for dramatic and bold moves in the right direction,' said Gore, noting that the House of Representatives had passed a stimulus bill, 'the largest component of which is a green stimulus.'

'We must appreciate the magnitude of change in United State's leadership,' said Gore."

Source: World leaders say green thinking can help global economy

Wake up and smell the coffee, Harper and Ignatieff!

[Important Notice]

Financial Crisis Distracting Leaders from Dealing with Climate Crisis

There are headlines about weather extremes in Canada and around the world. There are signs of climate change happening faster than predicted, most dramatically in the Arctic. Additional warming is predicted for 2009 and even more for subsequent years, probably leading to a larger number of severe storms. Now is the time to start acting, before it's too late. But politicians may be too busy worrying about a recession that could last a few years to act on a bigger problem like climate change whose effects may last for millenia. Here's a recent example of political pessimism:

"The global financial crisis has made efforts to agree on a new global treaty on climate change more challenging, Swedish Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt said in an interview published Sunday. 'A lot of the political energy that existed a few years ago has disappeared,' Reinfeldt told the Stockholm daily Svenska Dagbladet.

"The financial crisis means that 'there are fewer shoulders to push the process. Many use estimates that aim to make their own country do less,' Reinfeldt said."

And the departing Bush administration in the U.S. is still actively sabotaging positive change. This time, it is trying to tie the hands of the incoming Obama administration to prevent regulation of carbon emissions from power plants.

Sigh.

(Edited to enhance text and add more links.)

[Important Notice]

Coalition, Stimulus and a "Green New Deal" - Open Letter to Liberal and NDP Leaders

Here is the email that I sent to the Liberal and NDP leaders via http://www.smartvote2008.ca/coalition/ (h/t Dave for this link). As you will see, I modified the suggested email text to include the need to integrate economics and ecology in the coalition's stimulus package. I also pared down some of the political verbiage to focus on the critical need for a "Green New Deal".

-----------

Français suit

An Urgent Message to Stéphane Dion and Jack Layton: Only a Coalition Government Can Provide the Leadership Canada Needs

Dear Leaders,

At this critical moment, a coalition government would be the most capable of delivering the kind of stewardship the economy AND ECOLOGY needs, and the least likely to put partisan interests ahead of responsible government.

The stimulus package must be the start of a New Green Deal, as recommended by the U.N. Environment Program: see http://www.cbc.ca/money/story/2008/11/06/f-savory-unep.html and http://www.unep.org/Documents.Multilingual/Default.asp?DocumentID=548&ArticleID=5957&l=en

In the medium and long term, not making Canada's economy sustainable can lead to results that are at least as devastating as the current crisis.

Thank You

+++

Message urgent à Stéphane Dion et Jack Layton : seul un gouvernement de coalition peut offrir le leadership dont le Canada a besoin

Chers dirigeants,


En ce moment critique, le mieux placé pour offrir le genre d’intendance dont a besoin l’économie ET L'ÉCOLOGIE, et pour faire passer la responsabilité gouvernementale avant les intérêts partisans… serait un gouvernement de coalition.

La stimulation doit être le début d'un « new deal écologique mondial », tel que recommandé par le Programme des Nations Unies pour l’environnement: voir http://www.cbc.ca/money/story/2008/11/06/f-savory-unep.html et http://www.unep.org/Documents.Multilingual/Default.asp?DocumentID=548&ArticleID=5957&l=fr

À moyen et à long terme, ne pas construire l'économie durable au Canada peut conduire à des résultats qui sont au moins dévastateurs que la crise actuelle.

-----------

[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.

Conservatives Cheer More McJobs and Unsustainable "Growth" -- Oh, And Where are Those Numbers From, Anyway?

The Conservatives and their supporters are trying to claim credit for the latest job figures. They also tout the the IMF's “economic growth” projections for next year. But even if we believe the numbers, most of the new jobs are part-time. It is also unclear how many of them are ecologically sustainable. The IMF's “growth” forecast takes the Conservative government's budget projections as the starting point – hardly an impartial source. The IMF's measure of GDP (Gross Domestic Product) also does not seem to substract growing pollution, health costs and resource depletion from the “growth” numbers. People who have to pull out ducks from the Tar Sands tailings ponds could tell you just how “Gross” the Gross Domestic Product can be. It is time to start creating real, full-time jobs in green-collar sectors, and ensuring that “growth” numbers are real and verifiable.

The Canadian unemployment rate apparently held steady in September 2008, with new jobs being created despite the economic turmoil on the horizon in that month. This fits nicely into the Conservative election strategy, but it sounds just a bit too good to be true. Private-sector economists are scratching their heads:

"'It seems like everyone has a paper route these days,' said Avery Shenfeld, economist at CIBC World Markets. 'How else to explain how Canada created 97,000 part-time jobs in a single month during a period of severe economic strain across the country?'"

There are other reasons to be a bit sceptical. Recently, we've seen suppression of studies on the benign effects of carbon taxes (discussion) and the negative health effects of climate change, allegations of outright political interference with government scientists, plus fudged numbers of the cost of the Afghan war. “Et tu, StatsCan”? (Their own statement on data quality is here.)

Also, if you believe the numbers,

“With September's increase, part-time work has increased by 131,000 so far in 2008, nearly double the increase in full time.” (StatsCan).

In other words, more McJobs.

(See also Relentlessly Progressive Economics blog.)

Conservative

“Finance Minister Jim Flaherty had a muted reaction to the data. “'This is not a time for unfounded optimism. This is a difficult time'... '"But our economic fundamentals are good. [...]'” (canada.com)

Good economic fundamentals in an economy that is not ecologically sustainable? StatsCan does not say exactly how many of the new jobs depend on depleting non-renewable resources and/or pollute the environment without paying the true cost. But in the “goods-producing sector” so far this year, the job number changes were:

Agriculture	-6.0 %
Natural resources	+4.2 %
Utilities	+6.8 %
Construction	+10.4 %
Manufacturing	-2.1 %

How many of these jobs are truly sustainable is anyone's guess. It would be nice to have a Green Jobs Index for a more realistic picture.

By the way, “Information, culture and recreation” was at -4.9 % so far this year -- so much for Harper's famous rich artists' galas.

The IMF's “growth” projections are suspect for similar reasons. The IMF had started with the Conservative government's budget numbers and growth projections from way before the current crisis had hit:

“Canada. Projections use the baseline forecasts in the 2008 federal budget and the 2007 Economic Statement. The IMF staff makes some adjustments to this forecast for differences in macroeconomic projections. The IMF staff forecast also incorporates the most recent data releases from Statistics Canada, including provincial and territorial budgetary outturns through the first quarter of 2008. ”

(Statistical Appendix [PDF], screen pages 2-3 of 12)

Just how much they believe the Harper/Flaherty budget numbers and how much they “adjust” is unclear.

Again, even if we believe the numbers, the GDP is notorious for not counting the real costs of pollution, health problems and depletion of resources. For example, The IMF projects China's GDP “growth” in 2009 to be 9.3% but in recent years

“Independent estimates of the cost to China of environmental degradation and resource depletion have for the last decade ranged from 8 to 12 percentage points of GDP growth.[2] These estimates support the idea that, by this measure at least, the growth of the Chinese economy is close to zero” (Wikipedia: “Green GDP” and the sources quoted there).

Searching for “Green GDP” on the IMF's web site produced no results as of today. In fact, searching the full text of the IMF report (PDF) for “pollution” produced nothing. Resource depletion is mentioned only once, as a challenge for older middle-eastern oil fields (screen page 77 of 321) – as if depleting non-renewable resources elsewhere does not count. Memo to IMF: these resources are not coming back. Using up your natural capital as if it were annual revenue is hardly good accounting – or economics.

Let's stop kidding ourselves about “jobs and growth” and start creating sustainable jobs in a sustainable economy. Voting strategically to defeat the Conservatives on October 14 would be the first, vital step.

[Important Notice]

Back carbon tax, leading economists tell politicians

Another open letter to party leaders:

Back carbon tax, leading economists tell politicians:

"More than 230 academic economists have signed an open letter to the leaders of the federal political parties, urging them to acknowledge that putting a price on carbon is 'the best approach' to combatting climate change."

Soon Harper will be the only one left in the room who wants to do nothing on climate change.

"'Economists disagree on many things, but on what needs to be done about climate change there is considerable agreement,' explains Ross Finnie, one of the three authors of the letter and an Associate Professor in the Graduate School of Public and International Affairs at the University of Ottawa. 'The signatories come from a wide range of political persuasions and will vote for different parties, but we all agree that effective policies for addressing climate change must be based on sound economic principles. Our goal is to help inform public debate on climate change at a time when people are really paying attention to this issue – during the federal election. Our hope is that whichever party forms the next government will act on these principles.'

"'It’s remarkable how much agreement there is among economists on this key point – the best climate change policy is to put a price on carbon,' says Nancy Olewiler, another of the authors and director of SFU’s Public Policy Program. David Green, the third author and professor at UBC, adds 'We also want people to be clear that all policies that alter carbon emissions will affect the prices they face – some more than others.'

"The signatories agree on these 10 principles:

1. "Canada needs to act on climate change now.


2. "Any substantive action will involve economic costs.


3. "These economic impacts cannot be an excuse for inaction.
   


4. "Pricing carbon is the best approach from an economic perspective.
   
   
   
   • a. "Pricing allows each business and family to choose the response that is best and most efficient for them.
   
   
   • b. "Pricing induces innovation.
   
   
   • c. "Carbon is almost certainly under-priced right now.


5. "Regulation is the most expensive way to meet a given climate change goal.


6. "A carbon tax has the advantage of providing certainty in the price of carbon.


7. "A cap and trade system provides certainty on the quantity of carbon emitted, but not on the price of carbon and can be a highly complex policy to implement.


8. "Although carbon taxes have the most obvious effects on consumers, all carbon reduction policies increase the prices individuals face.
   


9. "Price mechanisms can be regressive and our policy should address this.


10. "A pricing mechanism can allow other taxes to be reduced and provide an opportunity to improve the tax system."

Direct link to Press release: http://econ-environment.ca/

(h/t to Red Tory v3.0 and Worthwhile Canadian Initiative)

Green the Bailout

An interesting perspective on the financial crisis:

Op-Ed Columnist - Green the Bailout - Op-Ed - NYTimes.com: "“I cannot help but ponder about how quickly we are ready to act on fixing the transmission, by pumping in almost one trillion dollars in a fortnight,” said Sridhar. “On the other hand, the engine, which is slowly dying, is not even getting an oil change or a tuneup with the same urgency, let alone a trillion dollars to get ourselves a new engine. Just imagine what a trillion-dollar investment would return to the economy, including the ‘transmission,’ if we committed at that level to green jobs and technologies.”"

Save & Share

CTV NewsNet Refusing to Talk Issues, Treating Election as Just a "Horse Race"

This has nothing to do with climate change as such, but it's a great example of the mainstream media wilfully refusing to talk about the issues in this election. I just couldn't resist blogging about it. Here's a copy of an email that I've sent to CTV NewsNet:

---------------

To the editor of CTV NewsNet:

I like some aspects of your election coverage, especially the fact that you put detailed video clips on the web. But I am deeply disappointed with your recent refusal to focus on the issues.

Two Recent Examples:

1. Your Ottawa Bureau Chief Robert Fife today ignored the substance of Stephane Dion's latest speech. Fife was covering the election as if it were just about polls, leaders' poularity and tactics (the video clip is at http://watch.ctv.ca/news/election-2008/liberal-strategies/#clip96747). It was also the perfect "set-up" for the next segment.
2. A CTV NewsNet anchor (Kate Wheeler?) interviewed Susan Smith, a Liberal strategist. The video clip is at http://watch.ctv.ca/news/election-2008/liberal-strategies/#clip96749. All the anchor asked about were polls and tactics. After responding to this, Ms. Smith also talked about Dion and the following issues (starting around 00:30 mm:ss):

• Representation and status of women,
• Child care
• Poverty
• Education
• Seniors
  
• Economic policy.

The anchor responded,

"Sure, and those are all issues that are important to many voters, but I guess my question was more specific, I guess why this last-minute addition for him to appear at this rally?"

(See around 01:45 mm:ss; my transcript.)

Your journalists sure knows how to stay "on message", and the "message" is that important issues are not worth discussing! It's all about the "horse race".

I'm not a Liberal party member. I strategically support the local Liberal candidate for action on climate change (I would have supported the Liberal, NDP or Green candidate, depending on who had the best chance to win the riding: see this blog entry for reasons).

But this goes beyond just climate change or party politics. It's about responsible journalism in general.
This election is a debate about the future of Canada and the world. Please treat it as such.

Thanks in advance for considering this feedback.

Note: The above represents my personal views only, not those of my employer or any other person or organization.
---------------

Stephane Dion's actual speech in Toronto is here: video, followed by a Q & A with reporters: video. Both clips are well worth watching. As Susan Smith pointed out,

"Stephane Dion came to an event with 500 people today. He had stood at a raucus rally, a fantastic rally, that demonstrated not only the depth of his candidates but of the women in his caucus."

[Important Notice]

Layton Links Environment and Economy - Sort Of

NDP Leader Jack Layton's campaign-opening speech included some good bits linking economic and environmental policy:

"... invest ... money with companies that provide training, and are innovating in the new energy economy and green collar jobs."

[...]

"We’ll make sure Canada lives up to the challenge of climate change – not with Mr Harper’s idle words or by taxing you and your family – but with tough laws that force polluters to clean up the mess they’ve made.

"We’ll invest in solutions that’ll create thousands of sustainable jobs and make environmental choices more affordable for you and your family."

While he objects to carbon taxes, Layton agrees with the Liberals and the Greens on the need for meeting Kyoto targets, tougher emission controls on large polluters, and the desirability of creating "green jobs".

Still, Layton's opening speech did not show an integrated vision such as those of Dion's Liberals and the Green Party, explicitly connecting economy, ecology and social justice. In fact, Layton provided a "laundry list" of promises, clichés ("winds of change"..?) and shallow accusations (criticizing Harper's handling of the tainted meat scandal, but not taking the opportunity to comment on meat consumption as such, despite the UN climate chief's recent call to eat less meat).

NDP Press Releases against fast-tracking tar-sands development, and Layton calling for a moratorium (video clip), are great stuff.

But flying an air plane that emits CO2 to show reporters tar sands projects that emit CO2 is just a little odd. Could Layton not have used existing photos (including air and satellite images) to make the same point?

"Pierre Sadik, a senior policy adviser at the David Suzuki Foundation... says parties can curb the environmental costs of campaigning by limiting personal appearances and using more video links, the Internet and other means to get their messages out." (CP via CTV)

I know, the NDP are offsetting their campaign emissions -- but if the tar sands companies declared tomorrow that they are offsetting all of their emissions, too, would Layton rescind his call for a moratorium?

While the Liberals and the Greens also plan to offset their campaign emissions, the Green

"...Leader Elizabeth May plans to travel by train as much as possible and drive a Toyota Prius hybrid 'slowly' around her Pictou County, N.S., riding." (CP via CTV)

In fairness, Layton had been a steady promoter of public transit and cycling as well. It's just that he looked so comfortable on that NDP plane in the video.

In any event, Harper did not even walk the 395 metres from his residence to the Governor-General's office when he asked for Parliament to be dissolved: "He arrived in a four-vehicle motorcade that included a gas-gulping van and SUV". And no, they will not even try offsetting the emissions. Once again, the difference between the Conservatives and the other parties could not have been clearer.

[Important Notice]

Green Party Knows Environment & Economy Should Be Same Thing -- But Their Own Pollsters Forget

Compare these three quotes, first and second from their Green Values statement, and the third from a recent official Press Release:

"We acknowledge that human beings are part of the natural world and we respect the specific values of all forms of life, including non-human species.
[...]
"We acknowledge that human society depends on the ecological resources of the planet, and must ensure the integrity of ecosystems and preserve biodiversity and the resilience of life supporting systems."

http://www.greenparty.ca/en/about_us/green_values/ecological_wisdom

"Creating a world economy which aims to satisfy the needs of all, not the greed of a few; and enables those presently living to meet their own needs, without jeopardising the ability of future generations to meet theirs."

www.greenparty.ca/en/about_us/green_values/sustainability

"Overwhelmingly, Guelph voters say the environment is the most important issue: 50% rating it as the #1 or #2 issue vs. 37% for the economy and 28% for health care."

www.greenparty.ca/en/releases/05.09.2008

Again, the environment and the economy are treated as if they were two separate issues. Where is the polling question about reconciling our economy with the ecosystem? By failing to make the connection, this Press Release and poll are undermining the Green Party's core message.

(Edited to fix links, change "unofficial blog" characterization as this was an official Press Release, make contrast between Values and last quote easier to see, and strengthen the last paragraph.)

[Important Notice]

Dion Wants to Link Environment and Economy - Video Clip

Dion shows again that he sees the issues as related, and even links them with social fairness:

Speech video: http://watch.ctv.ca/news/latest/liberals-vision/#clip90399

Whether his policy is the best one on the combined environment/economy/social justice question remains to be seen.

(Q & A session video:http://watch.ctv.ca/news/latest/liberals-vision/#clip90400)

But he shows that he "gets it" by posing the issue the right way. The Tories are not even close.

[Important Notice]

Hey Pollsters and Canadians, "Economy" and "Environment" is the SAME Question!

The depressing thing about the hoopla leading up to today's Canadian election call was the poll results. It's not just that the Tories, who continue to score lowest on Climate Change policy, might be set to win a "majority" government. Or that despite all evidence to the contrary, "On climate change, 68 per cent of us think Harper's government is taking the right approach" (CBC). The trouble is also at a deeper level: pollsters asked Canadians which party is best able to manage the economy and which party is better for the environment -- and got two different answers!

Remember folks, the economy and the environment are really the same issue:

• As the saying goes, "the economic system is a wholly owned subsidiary of the ecosystem".
  
• You cannot have a good economy on a wrecked planet.
  
• Any economic policy which destroys the ecosystem is bound to result in disaster.
  

So pollsters should ask, "which party is best able to transform our economy so that it stops destroying the ecosystem on which it -- and we -- depend?" And Canadians should start thinking about it quickly, before it's too late.

[Important Notice]

First, they tax your carbon, and then they tax your shirt? -- The Trouble with the Green Party of Ontario's "Tax Shifting" Proposal

BlogThis!

I've blogged (here and here) that the Green Party of Ontario (GPO) should be in the Legislature, to help keep Climate Change on the agenda. I agree with many points in their 2007 Platform, and I still think that they should have a voice in the Legislature (and I still support MMP). Having said this, I have problems with the GPO's proposal to shift revenues from the income tax to a carbon tax ("pay for what you burn, not for what you earn"). Better alternatives exist, including direct regulation and cap-and-trade.

The GPO wants to tax carbon and to cut carbon emissions to zero. In fact, they want a 100% renewable energy system (including a nuclear power phase-out). I support this goal, but I question the GPO's proposed way of getting there. There is a conflict of interest between relying on carbon revenues and eliminating the revenue source (remember Tobacco Taxes and Lotteries?..).

I raised this concern, among others, directly with GPO Leader Frank de Jong on a CBC radio phone-in on September 20, 2007*. Unfortunately, his answers made me even more wary. He said that once carbon is phased out, the GPO would make up the revenues by raising taxes on things like food, clothing and shelter:

“Your point about you know, let’s say if we continue to raise the tax on cigarettes, and sooner or later everyone will stop smoking, and then up -- uh, your revenue stream will dry up. But I think we will always need products, we’ll always need resources, we'll always need, you know, clothing, and food, and stuff to build houses with, so there will always be something to collect as much General Revenue as you need. And it will be a a continuous virtual spiral toward sustainability. It’s a long process but we got to get started at it” [my transcript of Frank de Jong's remarks; my bolding].

Hear for yourself: on the ODEO player below, click Play, wait for the player to buffer the whole file, and drag the slider to around 00:04:19.

powered by ODEO

Or download the MP3 from mediamax.com (4.3 MB).

The phone-in show cut me off before I could retort, to the tune of ‘First, we take Manhattan’:

First, they’ll tax your carbon, and then they’ll tax your shirt!
(With apologies to Leonard Cohen :-)

Some "spiral toward sustainability"!

Sure, taxing carbon instead of income today would mean "taxing bad instead of good". But taxing food, shelter and clothing instead of income would mean "taxing good instead of good". Worse yet, consumption taxes are notoriously more regressive than income taxes. Consumption taxes do not take into account ability to pay. The GPO leader seemed to have no problem with that. I do.

Background:

I had actually started debating carbon taxes with one of the candidates for the federal Green Party of Canada (GPC), Glenn Hubbers, Newmarket-Aurora, on his blog (here and here -- see my Comments). The GPC also supports carbon taxes, e.g. "$50/tonne".

Then the GPO announced that a carbon tax would be an even bigger part of their 2007 Platform. Frank de Jong, Leader of the Green Party of Ontario (CBC profile), was on the CBC Radio Ontario Noon Phone-In show on September 20, 2007. I managed to get through and challenge him on-air to justify his Party's carbon tax plan. In particular, I asked:

• What is the price-elasticity of carbon emissions, i.e. how much would their tax really reduce emissions? Where is the economic modelling?

• The GPO Platform calls for a transition to a 100% renewable energy system—what would happen to the revenue from the carbon tax then?

• There is a conflict of interest between wanting more revenue and less carbon emissions. This would weaken incentive for Government to drive emissions to zero—think of the Tobacco Tax & Lotteries.

• A carbon tax is regressive, like any consumption tax. Income tax relief may help some of the poor, but not all. Increased Northern/Rural subsidies may help others, but at cost of encouraging further inefficient development (e.g. the proposed Green Party subsidies to airports, even if they would be in the North?..)

• They also want to phase out nuclear power, but they are not proposing a tax on Uranium. Apparently, nuclear power would be phased out entirely by regulation, not taxation. Why not use regulation instead of taxes for carbon as well?
  

• Why not expand the carbon cap-and-trade system that GPO also proposes? (See more below.)
  

Unfortunately, I don't think that he answered most of my questions, though in fairness the phone-in format makes it difficult to conduct an in-depth debate. Further comments from GPO supporters (and opponents) are very welcome.

You can listen to the part of the show that contained my questions and Frank de Jong’s response using the ODEO player below, or you can download the MP3 from mediamax.com (4.3 MB).

powered by ODEO

[UPDATE, September 26, 2007: After posting this blog entry, I discovered that Marc Lee, a Senior Economist with the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, had made many similar points about carbon taxes in the Progressive Economics Forum here and here. He also agreed somewhat reluctantly in a Comment to a post that putting carbon tax moneys into an arms-length fund might be better than putting them into General Revenue. I prefer cap-and-trade, which sounds simpler and more direct to me -- see below.]

More on cap-and-trade:

One advantage of cap-and-trade is that it does not make governments dependent on carbon revenues. The money from high emitters goes to low emitters through a private (regulated) carbon market. The incentives to reduce emissions are very clear, with no conflicts of interest. Prices on carbon-heavy products go up, but prices on carbon-light products come down, which eases the effect on consumers. Progressive income taxes and redistribution can help take care of the rest in the usual way.

_____
* You can hear the entire September 20, 2007 phone-in on the CBC Ontario Today archive site (in Real Audio format - direct link). Unfortunately, they only keep these free links for 30 days, after which you have to pay some other company for a recording or transcript.

[Important Notice]

Discuss this on your own Blogger blog! Click on this post's title for a permalink in the Address Bar > highlight any text for quoting > click BlogThis!

"Ontario: The new frontier for alternative energy"?

To balance out the sceptical view linked in my previous post, here's a more sunny view:

Ontario: The new frontier for alternative energy | News.com to go | CNET News.com

Optimism, the final frontier :-)

[Important Notice]

McGuinty's Climate Change "Plan rests on technology, cash" - TheStar.com - sciencetech

Here's a good summary of the trouble with McGuinty's Climate Change Plan (besides missing the Kyoto deadline by a couple of years): TheStar.com - sciencetech - Plan rests on technology, cash

I will try to provide a more detailed analysis when I have more time.

[Important Notice]

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]

Canadian Greenhouse Gas Emissions Fall in 2005 - Let's Make Sure It Becomes a Trend, Not a Blip

There was an encouraging story in the Toronto Star today:

"Gloomy forecasts about Canada's efforts to halt global warming brightened yesterday with the release of new figures showing that greenhouse gas emissions dropped slightly between 2004 and 2005, the most recent period for which figures are available.

"According to a national emissions inventory that will be presented to the United Nations tomorrow, an anticipated increase in the gases that contribute to climate change failed to materialize in 2005.

"Instead, Canada's emissions dropped to 747 megatonnes in 2005 from 758 megatonnes in 2004, according to government calculations.

"Overall emissions in 2005 were still 32.7 per cent above the greenhouse gas cuts called for under the Kyoto Protocol by 2012."

Could it be that the Canadian economy can actually turn around and reduce total emissions (not just "emission intensity" per dollar of output) without causing a massive recession -- contrary to Conservative fear-mongering? Might former Ontario Premier Mike Harris deserve a footnote to his otherwise abysmal environmental record for helping with these emission cuts (though at the expense of creating more nuclear waste)? Can Liberal Leader Stephan Dion stop his valiant attempts to defend the Liberals' record on grenhouse gas emissions, and take pride in making Kyoto part of industrial planning in this country?

(UPDATE May 27, 2007, 9:31 AM: LNeumann disagrees with giving the former Harris Conservative Government in Ontario credit for greenhouse gas reductions from coal power generation. She says that Dalton McGuinty's Liberal Government should get credit for actually reducing the use of coal for electricity in Ontario since the 2003 election. The McGuinty Government says that

"From 2003 to 2005... progress includes:

"* Closing the single-largest contributor to smog in the GTA — the Lakeview Generating Station in Mississauga — in April 2005.

"* Reducing total coal-fired electricity generation in Ontario from 36.2 terawatt-hours to 30.1 terawatt-hours, a drop of 17 per cent.

"* Reducing carbon dioxide emissions, a greenhouse gas responsible for global warming, by 15 per cent.

"* Reducing sulphur dioxide emissions by 28 per cent.

"* Reducing nitrogen oxide emissions by 34 per cent."

See also their News Release, bringing the data up to 2006.)

Unfortunately for politicians of all stripes, one year does not make a trend. As the Toronto Star article itself points out,

"There have [sic.] also been modest declines in emissions in 1991 and 2001 that proved to be just one-year anomalies."

Getting 2006 Canada-wide data ASAP, to compare with the 2005 numbers, would be great.

In any event, we need sustained, multi-year reductions in total emissions to reach or even come close to our Kyoto obligations. The latest Baird scheme does not even aim to comply with Kyoto; in fact, his scheme would not guarantee any reductions in total emissions (see the stories under the "Baird" label in this blog for more details).

(Update May 28, 2007, 1:03 AM: Unfortunately, Dalton McGuinty is not really getting it either. First came the delay in shutting down Ontario's remaining coal power stations. Next was an emissions-trading proposal to Northeastern U.S. jurisdictions where Ontario would have tried to claim credit for emissions cuts due to decisions predating the agreement (i.e. cuts that would have happened anyway). Recently another McGuinty's "cap and trade" emission proposal failed to get support even from Quebec, never mind Alberta. Now there's an agreement with California to follow their standards for carbon content in fuels -- but not their standard for efficient cars.

How many more delays, half-measures, creative accounting exercises and ineffectual proposals would it take before the Ontario Government realizes that it's time to get serious? That would mean doing the right thing consistently, regardless of who else may come on board.)

[Important Notice]

What's Wrong with Baird's Anti-Kyoto "Economics"?

"The purpose of studying economics is... to learn how to avoid being deceived by economists." --Joan Robinson

John Baird claims that complying with Kyoto would cause a recession (Press Release, Full Report). Baird and the economists supporting him ignore the costs of inaction (which could further undermine post-Kyoto talks). They forget that emissions trading creates incentives to cut emissions. Finally, they ignore mitigating economic strategies -- and the many benefits of action. Other economists disagree with Baird, which he has failed to mention. Meanwhile, Germany is already reaping a bonanza of jobs and exports from renewable energy. Why can't we?

• Failure to properly account for all the costs of inaction.
  

• This goes beyond the direct effect of Canada's emissions over a few years on the global climate:
  

• By officially giving up on Kyoto for fear of a supposed recession, we would also undermine post-Kyoto negotiations (even more than we already have under this Government). Other countries could use Canada's example as an excuse to delay their own emission reductions for years. The effect on the global climate would be compounded.

• Failure to understand the economic incentives of emissions trading.
  

• The fear that we would need a carbon tax of $195 per tonne is based on a rejection of unlimited international trading in carbon credits.
  

• If unlimited trading is allowed, the Baird Report itself admits that we would only need to pay the international price of $25 per tonne.
  

• So why are they rejecting unlimited international trade in carbon credits? The main argument is this:
  

"Assuming that 80% or so of Canada's Kyoto target would be met through international credits, somewhere in the range of $6 billion annually would be required for these purchases, while at the same time there would be little incentive for domestic investment in energy efficiency and GHG [Greenhouse Gas] reduction technologies" [emphasis added].

• Let's see: businesses would pay $6 billion per year for carbon emissions -- but they would have "little incentive" to reduce this cost?! Ignoring a $6 billion/year incentive for energy efficiency and GHG reduction might pass for "economic analysis" around the Harper Cabinet table. But how did it not get red-lined by the (formerly) level-headed economists endorsing the report?

• Failure to account for the benefits of action, and mitigating economic strategies:

• "...the report he [Baird] presented also states that its calculations do not take into account the benefits of green technology infrastructure, or the jobs created by new investments in that technology. Neither does it consider the impact of monetary policies the government could implement to diminish losses." (Source: Globe & Mail, emphasis added.

• Failure to disclose that other economists reviewing the draft Report had refused to endorse it:
  

"Baird did not mention that other economists who were asked to review the study came to different conclusions.

"'While Canada cannot plausibly meet its Kyoto commitments by domestic action, I think the report overstates the difficulty of implementing policies in the short term,' said David Keith, Canada Research Chair in Energy and the Environment at the University of Calgary.

"'The difficulty of meeting Kyoto is not an excuse for inaction.'"

(Source: Canadian Press, via Yahoo!)

• Meanwhile, Germany is already making Stephane Dion's famous "megatonnes of money" on green energy.
  

• Here are the details from United Press International. They are worth quoting at length:
  

"Great export numbers and thousands of new jobs -- Germany is expecting a 'green' economic boom sparked by its renewable energy sector.

"As early as 2020, sales from wind and solar energy companies will surpass those of automobile and machinery companies, right now among the largest industry sectors in Germany, according to a study from international consulting firm Roland Berger.

'The 'green' sector is turning into a leading sector in Germany,' Torsten Henzelmann, a senior official at Roland Berger, told the Frankfurter Allgemeine Sonntagszeitung weekly. 'It really is a job motor. In 2020, the renewable energy and environment technology sector will employ more people than the machinery or car sector. Today already, companies complain that they can't find enough qualified personnel.'

"The study, commissioned by the German Environment Ministry, polled officials at 1,500 German renewable energy and environment technology firms. [...]

"The world market for environmentally friendly products has a volume of roughly $1.3 billion, and that will double by 2020, the study said. The main drivers of this growth will be renewable energy generation and energy-efficiency technologies, thus handing Germany great chances for additional economic development.

"Already, the country's renewable energy sector is among the most innovative and successful worldwide. Nordex, Repower, Enercon (all wind energy), SolarWorld and Conenergy (solar energy) -- renewable companies based in Germany -- dominate the world market. Every third solar panel and every second wind rotor is made in Germany, and German turbines and generators used in hydro energy generation are among the most popular worldwide.

"Most companies in German told Roland Berger they want to hire more staff because they expect even more growth.

"Nearly 800,000 people work in the German environment technology sector; an estimated 214,000 people work with renewables in Germany, up from 157,000 in 2004, an increase of 36 percent.

'Last year alone, the number of people employed in the German renewable energy sector grew by 24,000,' German Environment Minister Sigmar Gabriel said last month in Berlin. 'This is a real success story.'"

The author of this study has no doubt that setting clear GHG emissions targets would help solidify Germany's lead:

"Berlin should formulate 'clear goals' for carbon dioxide emissions, support innovative research projects and fund "green" education programs at universities." (Emphasis added throughout.)

So the Germans get it. What are we waiting for?

[Important Notice]

NOT A Green Federal Budget

The CBC has a good summary of reactions to yesterday's Canadian Federal Budget from environmental groups and others, including Green Party leader Elizabeth May: 'Green' budget falls short for environmental groups. As expected, throwing a few goodies at the problem simply does not cut it. The lackluster green car rebate/gas guzzler levy (more here and here), reviving a few Liberal programs in reduced form -- without a plan on how to actually implement the Kyoto Protocol -- without even mentioning Kyoto by name -- is not nearly enough.

Tax subsidies for the Oil Sands would be phased out -- but not until 2015.

"They're going to continue to subsidize the big oil and gas companies at the same level as today for another three years," said NDP Leader Jack Layton. "That's billions of dollars shoveled into the bottom lines of Exxon and such companies while they continue to pollute."

The absurdity of helping the world's wealthiest -- and most polluting -- corporations to destroy the planet to the tune of $1.4 billion per year is apparently not enough for this Government to end it immediately.

Spending most of the water strategy budget on Coast Guard ships does little to address the looming water quality and shortage issues of the 21st century -- which would be made worse by lack of action on Climate Change.

The list goes on and on.

For more opposition reaction, see Bloc to support budget; Liberals, NDP say no.

Elizabeth May summed it up best:

"We're just losing time and we can't afford to lose time."

Beyond these criticisms, there is no National Transit Strategy, and no linking of infrastructure spending to success in curbing urban sprawl.

In general, the Conservative Government has no vision on how to transition Canada to a sustainable economy based on renewable energy. Thirty-four years after the publication of the Canada as a Conserver Society by the Science Council of Canada (in 1973!), the federal budget does not even try to make environmental and social costs part of the economic bottom line. This unscientific approach amounts to economic and ecological negligence, almost guaranteeing the continuation of "uneconomic growth" (some of these issues are also covered in the interview with David Suzuki on the Treehugger Radio podcast).

Writing about the Conserver Society idea in the Canadian Encyclopedia, Dixon Thompson notes:

"As we move to the 21st century... capitalism has begun to look beyond its own horizons and has seen the profitability of conservationism blooming on the hillsides. Advanced conserver societies may thus have better prospects for the future."

In the U.S., 65 financial companies and investment groups representing USD $4 trillion have just called for:

• "Long-term greenhouse gas reductions by 2050, in line with the 60 to 90 percent cuts below 1990 levels that are urgently needed to avoid worst case scenarios — including 'mandatory market-based solutions, such as a cap-and-trade system, that establish an economy-wide carbon price, allow for flexibility and encourage innovation.'

• "Realignment of U.S. energy and transportation policies to promote research, development, and deployment of new and existing clean technologies at the scale required.

• "Clear guidance from the SEC [U.S. Securities Exchange Commission] on what companies should disclose to investors relative to climate change."

(Sources: Wired Blogs - Autopia; Boston Globe).

One of these days, Canadian businesses will wake up, too. If the message comes from a business lobby, perhaps the Conservative Government would start to listen.

More realistically, it would take an election to displace the Conservatives before we see real progress.

This is where the parochialism of the Bloc Québécois endangers us all: their own web site links to a brochure [PDF] titled "Save Kyoto" that opposes the oil-sands subsidy (on p. 1), and says says (on p. 2):

"If nothing is done to combat climate change, future generations may well end up living on an uninhabitable planet where natural disasters are the rule rather than the exception.

"Kyoto is an all-round winner for Quebec. We need it to save the planet and allow our children to continue to live comfortable lives.

[...]

"Each barrel of oil that Quebec doesn’t consume enriches us and helps reduce pollution.

"Kyoto is necessary for the environment and essential for Quebec’s economy."

[...]

[Bolding added.]

Yet somehow, just increasing federal transfers to Quebec, without even a mention of Kyoto, has made this budget good for Quebec in the Bloc's view. They will support this budget, and let this Government stand.

"Après moi, le déluge" -- literally, and by their own admission.

[Important Notice]