Tone Deaf?

With the equivalent of an Exxon Valdez worth of oil spilling into the U.S. Gulf every four days, you can't help but wonder about the timing of the Western Premiers in lobbying to reduce regulatory oversight in Canada - in large part for oil and gas projects.

A key part of President Obama's Oval Office address two days ago came when he said the U.S. needs an offshore regulator that "that acts as the oil industry's watchdog not its partner."

Here in Canada we have similar issues of coziness between our regulators and the oil and gas industry. This is evidenced in the fact that they barely ever say "no" to proposals. Another example is from a Canadian landowners group that recently attended a conference where they were surprised at the chummy relationship between regulators and the industry.

Will it take a similar BP-like disaster in Canada before we too get serious about regulatory independence? Meanwhile, will the gung-ho tar sands government in Ottawa go along with Stelmach et al at this time of heightened public anxiety over how industry is run? Let's see.

Matt Price
Policy Director
Environmental Defence

Obama Spills Into Quebec

Last night U.S. President Obama gave an Oval Office address about the BP spill, rightly pointing out that the bigger message it sends us is that we need to break our addiction to oil.

At the same time, the Quebec and Ontario Premiers began meeting in Quebec City, and both underlined the need to move ahead on regulating large polluters in the transition to a clean energy economy. They too are taking the lesson of the BP spill to heart.

Unfortunately, this continues to stand in stark contrast to what we are hearing from Ottawa. A British diplomat is the latest to push the boundaries of what is usually said and not said in those overly polite circles (following the Mexican President) by contradicting Canadian Environment Minister Jim Prentice who has an intentionally overly rosy view of progress on climate change.

The one line from the Oval Office address that stood out as the exact opposite of what the Canadian federal government believes is when Obama said this: "the one approach I will not accept is inaction."

Right now it seems that any hopefulness we have in Canada must come from provincial capitols. Let's see what comes out of the joint Ontario/Quebec cabinet meeting today, and what those governments will do to follow through quickly on ending our addiction to oil.

Matt Price
Policy Director
Environmental Defence

Shooting the Messenger

Why tackle the problem when you can tackle those talking about it instead? Canadian Environment Minister Jim Prentice is going after the very cautious National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy for daring to suggest that Canada ranks near the bottom of the G8 countries when it comes to low carbon performance.

The problem Mr. Prentice has, though, is that it doesn't matter how many messengers you shoot if your record sucks. So far, all he has done in the positive column is to copy the U.S. on auto standards, because he had to.

Otherwise, he has successfully stalled any action on large polluters and cut programs that were helping renewable energy and housing retrofits. Our report shows that he is costing Canadians tens of thousands of jobs by failing to keep up with other countries in the transition to a clean energy economy.

Canadians can only be jealous looking across the pond at those other Conservatives who just took power in the UK. They just released their "programme for government" which in stark contrast to the Canadian Conservative government embraces a wide range of action on climate change. Do we shoot those Conservative messengers too?

Meanwhile, the Harper government remains stuck in its ideological bunker, keeping climate change off the G8/G20 agenda by saying that anything other than the economy is a "sideshow."

Yet, as David McLaughlin, president and CEO of the Round Table said: "...in a low-carbon world, the environment is the economy."

Until Harper and Prentice grasp that truth, Canada will continue to fall behind the rest of the world.

Matt Price
Policy Director
Environmental Defence

Bad Math

UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon today pleaded with Canada to both put climate change on the G8/G20 agenda and to live up to its greenhouse gas targets.

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.

So, adding up the crude numbers by 2016, we get:

• - 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

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

Quebecers see through oily smokescreen

Recently, Quebecers have been told to suck up rising global warming pollution from the oil sands because of the money oil companies contribute to equalization. But new polling released today by Environmental Defence and Equiterre show Quebec residents aren’t buying that line.

56% of people surveyed disagreed that they should accept increased global warming pollution due to money received from the oil sands in Alberta. The appointment of Christian Paradis, a Quebec M.P., to oversee the tar sands file hasn’t helped to win over public opinion either, the poll showed. And 52% of people said they are LESS likely to vote for Prime Minister Harper’s government because of his climate change policies.

The poll comes on the heels of the firestorm kicked off when Environment Minister Jim Prentice chided Quebec for being too ambitious with its new vehicle efficiency regulations.

Time to wake up Ottawa – Quebecers are seeing through all this spin and want action on global warming, not just threats and rhetoric.

Gillian McEachern
Program Manager, Climate and Energy