The painfulness of the U.S. legislative process is notorious, and full credit should be given to the Canadian government for finding a climate dodge that the Canadian media has largely bought by saying it must do nothing on climate since we'll have to harmonize with the U.S. later.
The spill in the Gulf will play short term havoc with the draft Senate Bill, since it had been written with a mind to get moderate Republicans (if that isn't an oxymoron) onside by also promoting offshore drilling. Now, Democrats whose constituents are horrified by the BP spill are likely to harden their stance against offshore drilling, thereby taking away votes that the Bill cannot afford to lose.
This chaos in the Senate is exactly the kind of thing the Canadian government has been counting on - and in addition it can't seem to help itself by taking advantage of the spill to talk up the tar sands.
Yet, while the offshore provisions may change, the draft Senate Bill may still set the tone for other aspects of climate and energy policy in the U.S., aspects that our federal government keeps pledging to copy.
One aspect in particular bears some exploration, since it gets at a big difference between how the U.S. and Canada pollute differently with regards to global warming, and means that if we simply copy U.S. efforts, there's no way we will even meet the weak national emissions reduction target that Ottawa is now promoting.
The draft Senate Bill takes the approach of clamping down on the U.S. electricity sector sooner and harder than on other U.S. industry. Without commenting on the merit of this approach, if Canada were to follow this lead, we'd be doing less than the U.S. since our electricity sector accounts for less than half of what the U.S. electricity sector does on a proportional basis.
See the following pie charts for the difference between the countries (all numbers sourced from EPA and Environment Canada):
Also, consider these trends:
· In 1990, the electricity sector accounted for 30% of US emissions and by 2008 it had grown to 35% of US emissions.
· In 1990, industry accounted for 25% of US emissions, and by 2008 it had shrunk to 19% of US emissions.
· In 1990, the electricity sector accounted for 16% of Canadian emissions, and by 2008 it had shrunk to 15%.
· In 1990, industry accounted for 26% of Canadian emissions, and by 2008 it had grown to 28%. The mining, oil and gas industries in particular grew from 17% of total emissions in 1990 to 21% by 2008.
The fact of the matter is that the U.S. simply doesn't have a sector like the tar sands that is poised for explosive pollution growth over the coming years. This alone warrants an approach tailored to the Canadian context if we are to have any chance of meeting emissions reductions targets.
Matt Price
Policy Director
Environmental Defence
Posts
