Eagle vs. Beaver pollution

If you ever needed evidence that our government in Ottawa is simply stalling on climate change when it says "we will wait and copy the U.S.," just watch the release of the U.S. Senate draft energy and climate legislation tomorrow.

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

Canada's Oil Spill

We're putting out a report tomorrow that we put together not knowing that the BP oil spill would be happening when we released it.

Major catastrophes like the one now unfolding in the U.S. Gulf have a way of crystallizing the thinking of the day. The Exxon Valdez spill had both the legacy of polluting Prince William Sound but also of reinforcing for the wider public the fragility of wilderness in the face of reckless humans.

The context of the spill now unfolding in the Gulf is different. We now know we must end our use of fossil fuels or endanger our children by cooking the planet, yet we still resist changing due to inertia. We now realize that the easy-to-get fossil fuels are almost gone and so seem prepared to take ever bigger risks to get the hard stuff. Finally, we know there's a new economic race out there to be the company or the country best positioned to profit in the clean energy economy when fossil fuels are gone.

So, I suspect that this time out the longer term legacy of the BP spill will be to move the U.S. public to a new place on the urgency and benefits of transitioning to a clean energy economy.

Whether this new understanding reaches Canada is harder to say. Our government in Ottawa seems to have hardened itself against any challenges to its strategy of doubling down on tar sands promotion. Likewise, Canadian industry seems tone deaf - with Enbridge CEO Pat Daniel pitching his new tar sands pipeline to the fragile BC coast (just below where the Valdez spill happened) right at the time of the BP spill.

Tomorrow we'll release a report that quantifies for the first time how many jobs Canada is missing out on in the clean energy economy due to Ottawa's love affair with dirty oil. It's hard to see whether it will take a Canadian oil spill to change our politics too - let's hope not.

Matt Price
Policy Director
Environmental Defence