But, if the Canadian government does what it says it will do and follows lockstep with U.S. climate legislation, the chances of meeting even its weak national target are slim.
The reason is that, as expected, the draft Senate climate and energy Bill out today waits until 2016 before adding industry into its carbon cap, tackling electricity first. Yesterday, we pointed out the difference in the two countries, with electricity emissions being proportionally more than double the share of emissions in the U.S., while our main problem in Canada is exploding tar sands emissions.
Here is some bad math to illustrate the problem with Canada mimicking this approach - the math is bad both because it is very crude on our part, but also because it adds up to big problems for our kids.
Where could Canada end up, emissions-wise by 2016?
- Our current (weak) target is to cut our emissions by 17% from 2005 levels by 2020. Canada's emissions in 2005 were 731 million tonnes, and 17% below that is 607 million tonnes. Our latest emissions numbers in 2008 were 734 million tonnes, so by 2020 we have a 127 million tonne cut to make.
- In following the U.S. on tackling electricity first, the Canadian government is vastly helped by the fact that the Ontario government has already pledged to shut down it's coal fired power plants by 2014, which account for about 23 million tonnes of emissions.
- Ottawa estimates that by following the U.S. vehicle efficiency regulations, it will cut 28 million tonnes of emissions by 2016 - although it's unclear whether this figure is an absolute reduction or a reduction from "business as usual." Let's be charitable for purposes of illustration here and call it an absolute reduction.
- But, Ottawa also estimates that tar sands emissions will grow by about 70 million tonnes by 2020, so if we say that 2016 is about half way there, we could be adding about 35 million tonnes by that point.
- - 23 (Ontario coal shut down, assuming replaced with zero emission options)
- - 28 (vehicle efficiency, being charitable)
- + 35 (tar sands growth)
- - 16 (Net)
- 111 (Distance from the 127 million tonne cut needed by 2020 - about 87% away)
This math assumes nothing else will happen, policy-wise, which we hope is untrue. Provincial policies are rolling out, albeit slowly, and Environment Minister Jim Prentice seems to be cooking up something behind closed doors with the utility industry.
Yet, the math illustrates just how big a gap such policies would have to fill, if by 2016 if Canada follows the U.S. in allowing industrial emissions a pass until then. It's doubtful the math would work.
We have a circumstance with the tar sands that the U.S. doesn't have, and if we wait to tackle those emissions, there's no way we'll hit Ottawa's weak target and keep pace with the Americans.
Matt Price
Policy Director
Environmental Defence
Posts
