Clean Air and Climate Change Act - Good, but is it enough?

The amended Bill C-30 (the "Clean Air Act", now renamed the "Clean Air and Climate Change Act") has achieved widespread approval from environmentalists and opposition politicians. It has been panned by the Conservatives and the Globe & Mail - which, in itself, makes me think that it's probably a good idea. However, will the targets laid out in the amended Bill be tough enough to save us from disastrous climate change? Or are they only a good first step?

While Minister Baird seems to think that the new Bill is "weaker", environmental groups are giving the revised Bill a big "thumbs up":

“This is a moment of truth for government. We now have a bill that puts us on the right path to honouring our Kyoto obligations, with stronger targets for heavy industry, energy efficiency and long-term greenhouse gas reductions for Canada,” said John Bennett, Executive Director of the Climate Action Network/Réseau action climat Canada.

The Globe and Mail has dumped on the new act, labeling it the Clean Red Tape Act, and calling it "a revenue grab, pure and simple". Since the revenue from the emissions penalties will go back into emission-reducing projects, I can't see where they are coming from. They end by saying "To tackle the real problem of emissions, we need new ideas, not more bureaucracies." Well, if you don't like these ideas, let's hear some others... please!

The Toronto Star says, that "overall it is a much better bill", hints that Harper will re-introduce his own amended version when parliament re-opens in two weeks, and suggests their own list of ways to reduce GHG emissions, including:

• financial rewards for creating clean power and fuels and for cleaner extraction techniques, while imposing fines or so-called "carbon taxes" on all dirty energy production
• fuel efficiencies must be increased, more people must stop using their cars to get to work and more goods must be hauled by trains instead of trucks
• breaks for commuters using public transit and more fuel-efficient vehicles [presumably, they mean better ones than what Harper has already introduced]
  
• higher fuel taxes and penalties on gas guzzlers or parking lots

The amended version seems to include most of the changes proposed by the Climate Action Network, many of which were introduced by the NDP, plus changes suggested by Stephane Dion's Liberals. The Green Party of Canada also supports the amended legislation.

Highlights of the new Bill include:

• implementing the Kyoto targets (6% reduction from 1990 levels by 2012)
• a carbon budget of 20% below 1990 levels by 2020, 35% by 2035, and 60-80% by 2050
  
• a price on carbon emissions for Large Industrial Emitters (starting at $20/ton in 2008 and increasing to $30/ton by 2011, and higher after that)
  
• removal of the sections which were widely agreed to have weakened the Canadian Environmental Protection Act
  
• creation of "an independent agency to be known as the Green Investment Bank of Canada, which is to be responsible for monitoring and regulating the greenhouse gas emissions of large industrial emitters"
• provision for a greenhouse gas emissions trading system (cap and trade)
• a requirement for the government to produce a yearly Climate Change Plan
• setting ambient air quality standards, with emissions managed on a "zone by zone" basis to achieve the standards
  
• energy efficiency standards for all energy-using products the use of which has a significant or an increasing impact on energy consumption in Canada
• a fuel consumption standard that meets or exceeds international best practices for any prescribed class of motor vehicle for any year
• a fuel efficiency labeling scheme for motor vehicles

While the goal of 60-80% reduction by 2050 sounds ambitious (and it is!), it's possible that even the targets listed in the new Bill do not go far enough. For example, the target of 35% by 2035 would be seen as far too little, too late by people who agree with George Monbiot:

If we’re to have a high chance of preventing global temperatures from rising by 2C above pre-industrial levels, we need, in the rich nations, a 90% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2030. The greater part of the cut has to be made at the beginning of this period.

See also Monbiot's book Heat.

If Monbiot is right, then we're in deep trouble even with the new targets. But, we've got to start somewhere. Every journey starts with a single step, etcetera...

Perhaps the yearly Climate Change Plan required in the Bill should be vetted regularly by a panel of independent scientists, to ensure that our plans and targets are still in line with the latest science. That way, we would have some feedback on whether our planned targets still make sense, and would help to ensure that we are not lulled into false complacency. And, of course, we may end up changing our emissions targets anyway if a new post-Kyoto international agreement is made.

The Fourth Assessment Report of IPCC Working Group III (Mitigation), to be approved in early May 2007, will likely have some useful things to say about emission targets. It will be interesting to compare that report with this new Bill.

Also, we'll need to have some sort of plan for adapting to the climate change that is already in progress, and will not be stopped by the reductions targeted in this Bill.

So overall, I think that it is wonderful to see so much political consensus on this topic. These amendments are miles ahead of where we were before. If we had proportional representation, we may already have this plan in place and be well on our way to serious GHG reductions. Harper could show true leadership (and potentially neutralize this issue for the next election) by accepting the amended Bill and making it unanimous. I think that many Canadians would cheer this result.

Some people are speculating that Harper may use the amended Bill as an excuse to call an election. If, as the Star suggests, Baird introduces another version when parliament resumes, it may indeed play out that way. I can't see the opposition voting for something that doesn't include their own amendments. However, given Harper's record on the environment, I can't believe that the Tories really want an election over Kyoto and climate change. What they'll do next, is anyone's guess.

For anyone interested in reading the actual amendments, legislation, and proposals involved (a LARGE cup of Organic, Fair Trade and Shade Grown coffee might help :-) -- here are the relevant links:

• Original Bill C-30
• Opposition amendments to C-30
• Canadian Environmental Protection Act (CEPA)
• Energy Efficiency Act (EEA)
• Motor Vehicle Fuel Consumption Standards Act (MVFCSA)
• NDP proposed amendments
• Climate Action Network proposed amendments
• Liberal carbon budget/green investment plan
• the Green Party position on C-30
  

"Green Levy" lightened by the elimination of the HVT

An addendum to yesterday's post. Down at the bottom of the section on the Green Levy (in Appendix 5 of the budget document), it says this:

With the introduction of the new levy, the existing excise tax on heavy vehicles will be eliminated effective March 20, 2007

What is this "heavy vehicle tax"? I looked all over the GC web site, without much luck. But this article in the Star says:

the impact of the penalty will be reduced, because the budget states that Ottawa will drop its excise tax on heavy vehicles, which typically adds $500 to $700 to the cost of a big luxury car or full-size SUV.

So, it's even less of a penalty than it sounds.

Another note: The complete list of vehicles eligible for the fuel-efficiency rebate can be found here.

Federal green levies and rebates for cars

The US has had rebates for hybrid vehicles available for a while now, and we are finally catching up. In fact, yesterday's budget brings in both rebates for efficient cars, and a new "green levy" on the most inefficient of cars sold in Canada. (See Annex 5 for details. Search way down at the bottom for "green levy") This levy is comes into effect immediately on any new cars delivered or imported after March 19, 2007. (However vehicles already on dealer lots are exempted.)

So, how inefficient does a car need to be to get hit by the levy? And will it stop people from buying these cars? According to the Dept. of Finance:

Vehicles that have a weighted average fuel consumption of 13 or more litres per 100 kilometres will be subject to the levy at the following rates:

* at least 13 but less than 14 litres per 100 kilometres, $1,000;

* at least 14 but less than 15 litres per 100 kilometres, $2,000;

* at least 15 but less than 16 litres per 100 kilometres, $3,000; and

* 16 or more litres per 100 kilometres, $4,000.

Note that this is a weighted average fuel consumption:

"taking into account 55 per cent of city fuel consumption and 45 per cent of highway fuel consumption, as determined in accordance with information published by the Government of Canada under the EnerGuide mark, such as the 2007 Vehicle EnerGuide."

So, which vehicles will get hit with this levy? If you look at the National Resources Canada Vehicle Energuide site, you can get an idea. Of course, you'll have to do a bit of calculating to figure it out, as they haven't yet added the weighted average calculation to the tables. As an example, I looked at 2007 mid-size vehicles, and sorted by fuel consumption. It looks like anything from the Audi S6 (15.2 l/100 km city/10.4 l/100km hwy) on down will be "levied".

Now, given that the Audi S6 pricing starts at $100,000, how many buyers are likely to be deterred by a $1,000 (or even $4,000) levy?! In fact, this is probably the case for most of the cars likely to be hit with the levy (whose brand names include Mercedes-Benz, Cadillac, Rolls-Royce, Ferrari, etcetera).

[Actually, the CHRYSLER SEBRING FFV (15.5 l/100km city; 10.0 l/100km hwy) looks like it would fall under the levy as well, however the FFV stands for "flex-fuel vehicle", which means that it can run on 85% ethanol, and is therefore eligible for the rebate instead; see below. However, there aren't many places yet in Canada to buy E85 fuel. A lot of the time owners of this car would likely end up using gasoline; and the gasoline consumption ratings alone certainly wouldn't have qualified this car for a rebate.]

In addition to the levy, Flaherty will give you a rebate of up to $2000 if you purchase a more efficient car. (See Chapter 3 of the budget for details.)

The basic rebate amount will be $1,000, and an additional $500 will be added for each half litre per 100 km improvement in the combined fuel-efficiency rating of the vehicle below these thresholds. The maximum rebate value will be $2,000. Efficient E-85 fuel vehicles will be eligible for a rebate of $1,000. Eligible new vehicle purchases or leases as of March 20, 2007, will qualify for the rebate.

Eligible for the full rebate are the Toyota Prius (4.1 l/100km weighted average, MSRP starts at $31,280), Honda Civic Hybrid (4.5 l/100 km weighted average, MSRP starts at $26,250), and Ford Escape Hybrid (7.4 l/100 km weighted average, MSRP starts at $31,499).


These rebates are on top of any provincial rebates that you may have available. (Described in this post, and this post.)

Note the fine print:

While the introduction of rebates for eligible fuel-efficient vehicles is proposed to take effect March 20, 2007, the payment of rebates will be made once administration and delivery systems have been put in place. The Government is aiming to make rebate payments by fall 2007.

So, to sum up, while it's nice to reward people for buying Priuses, it's unlikely that the levy on highly inefficient luxury cars will have any effect on reducing pollution or GHG emissions.