Protecting the environment was a major point of discussion at the joint Ontario-Quebec Cabinet meeting held in Quebec City today. Premiers McGuinty and Charest agreed to develop the regulations needed to implement cap and trade, reaffirming their commitment to transition both provinces to a clean energy economy.
Putting a price on global warming pollution through cap and trade is an important tool for reducing emissions, and we're glad to see Ontario and Quebec agreeing to take the next step.
Manitoba and British Columbia have also committed to implementing a cap and trade system. With the federal government continuing to use the U.S. as an excuse for inaction, provinces are stepping into the void.
As President Obama said yesterday in his Oval Office address:
"We cannot consign our children to this future. The tragedy unfolding on our coast is the most painful and powerful reminder yet that the time to embrace a clean energy future is now. Now is the moment for this generation to embark on a national mission to unleash American innovation and seize control of our own destiny."
Now is the time to break our addiction to oil.
Gillian McEachern
Program Manager
Environmental Defence
Showing posts with label cap and trade. Show all posts
Showing posts with label cap and trade. Show all posts
Wednesday, June 16, 2010
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
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
Wednesday, May 12, 2010
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?
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
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
Friday, October 16, 2009
Tar Sands CEO: Make Ontario Pay
A tar sands CEO - Marcel Coutu of Oil Sands Trust (Syncrude) - finally had the audacity to say out load what we have known for months his industry is thinking: make the rest of Canada pay for the massive increases in pollution the industry wants to inflict upon our deteriorating atmosphere.
We've documented this very issue in the Report "Divided We Fall" that shows the tar sands industry quickly taking up all the space underneath a hard cap on emissions should the federal government give it special treatment under a coming national cap and trade system. Who pays for this special treatment? Mainly the manufacturing sector in Ontario and Quebec.
We also polled on this very issue in August and found coast-to-coast opposition to giving the tar sands industry weaker pollution controls than the rest of the country in order to let it expand.
Even though we knew it to be true, it's still shocking, though, to have someone say out load that somehow his pollution is more special than the next person's, that his industry should be allowed to inflict even greater damage on our kids so that it can be allowed to expand.
The ball is very clearly in the court of federal Environment Minister Jim Prentice on this issue. He's denied that his behind-closed-doors design of a national cap and trade system is going to give special treatment to the tar sands, but has refused to provide any specifics in this regard beyond vague platitudes.
We've got about 40 days until UN climate negotiations open in Copenhagen and Canada is absolutely nowhere in terms of being able to show up with any kind of national consensus on how we should be cutting carbon and transitioning to the clean energy economy. The fact that Mr. Coutu can still stand up with a straight face and say "make others pay" is a tesitment to the lack of leadership on this file from the Harper government.
Matt Price
Program Manager
Climate and Energy
We've documented this very issue in the Report "Divided We Fall" that shows the tar sands industry quickly taking up all the space underneath a hard cap on emissions should the federal government give it special treatment under a coming national cap and trade system. Who pays for this special treatment? Mainly the manufacturing sector in Ontario and Quebec.
We also polled on this very issue in August and found coast-to-coast opposition to giving the tar sands industry weaker pollution controls than the rest of the country in order to let it expand.
Even though we knew it to be true, it's still shocking, though, to have someone say out load that somehow his pollution is more special than the next person's, that his industry should be allowed to inflict even greater damage on our kids so that it can be allowed to expand.
The ball is very clearly in the court of federal Environment Minister Jim Prentice on this issue. He's denied that his behind-closed-doors design of a national cap and trade system is going to give special treatment to the tar sands, but has refused to provide any specifics in this regard beyond vague platitudes.
We've got about 40 days until UN climate negotiations open in Copenhagen and Canada is absolutely nowhere in terms of being able to show up with any kind of national consensus on how we should be cutting carbon and transitioning to the clean energy economy. The fact that Mr. Coutu can still stand up with a straight face and say "make others pay" is a tesitment to the lack of leadership on this file from the Harper government.
Matt Price
Program Manager
Climate and Energy
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
