U
unimaginative2
Guest
PM plans 'intensity' alternative to Kyoto
Blueprint wouldn't necessarily reduce emissions; critics react with scorn
BILL CURRY and MARK HUME
With reports from Shawn McCarthy in Ottawa and Canadian Press
OTTAWA, VANCOUVER -- Prime Minister Stephen Harper said yesterday that greenhouse-gas targets in the federal government's new environmental policy will be "intensity-based," a system that effectively scuttles Canada's commitments under the Kyoto Protocol.
Mr. Harper said his government will introduce next week its Clean Air Act, legislation that will trigger at least a year of talks with industry and the provinces to set mandatory reduction targets for pollution and greenhouse gases.
But in responding to questions in Vancouver, Mr. Harper uttered a phrase that had the opposition fuming. "We will produce intensity-based targets over the short range and the long term and they will cover a range of emissions, not just carbon dioxide, but nitrous oxide, sulphur oxide, sulphur dioxide; so it will be a comprehensive plan," the Prime Minister said.
It marked the first time the Harper government has said its plan to address global warming would be "intensity-based." That means industries would have to reduce emissions per unit of production, such as per barrel of oil.
Lowering emissions per unit, however, does not mean that Canada's total output of greenhouse gases will decline. If, for example, there is an expansion in the oil sands, total levels of emissions would increase even if per-unit emissions decrease.
Such an approach runs contrary to Canada's commitments under Kyoto, which calls for the country's total output of greenhouse gases to decline. Canada has signed on to the accord for its first phase, which ends in 2012, but there are no penalties if countries do not meet its targets.
Last month's report from federal Environment Commissioner Johanne Gélinas warned that, left unchecked, greenhouse-gas emissions from Alberta's oil sands could double between 2004 and 2015.
The commissioner also said that Canada must work toward lowering total emissions to avoid problems such as a melting polar ice cap and more frequent droughts. To achieve this, she said Ottawa would have to "take on" heavy industry such as the auto and oil-and-gas sectors.
But Mr. Harper said yesterday technology improvements will ultimately reduce total reductions over the long term. He cited a recent federal report that says emerging technologies -- such as injecting carbon emissions back into the ground -- could reduce emissions by 60 per cent in 2050.
"With technological change, massive reductions in emissions are possible," the Prime Minister said. "We have reason to believe that by harnessing technology we can make large-scale reductions in other types of emissions. But this will take time. It will have to be done as part of technological turnover."
In her report, Ms. Gélinas also sharply criticized the previous Liberal government for allowing total greenhouse-gas emissions to increase by 27 per cent above 1990 levels, even though Canada pledged through Kyoto to reduce emissions to 6 per cent below 1990 levels.
Ms. Gelinas's report says the previous Liberal government's 2005 plan only would have slowed the growth in greenhouse-gas emissions, not reduced them, in part because it also relied on intensity-based targets for specific industrial facilities.
Liberal environment critic John Godfrey, who accused Mr. Harper yesterday of using "ominous weasel words," said the Liberal plan was better because it also called for forced reductions of 45 megatonnes of greenhouse gases for Canada's industrial sector as a whole.
"What we need are absolute targets, not ones based on energy intensity. Those are words that are used by [U.S. President] George Bush and the Republicans to describe what they want," Mr. Godfrey said.
New Democratic Party Leader Jack Layton expressed similar concerns yesterday and said Mr. Harper shows an unwillingness to tackle the rising emissions from Alberta's oil sands.
"My guess is they'll be celebrating in the big oil companies' boardrooms right now," he said in an interview with CTV.
Pierre Alvarez, president of the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, said intensity-based standards are key for the industry.
"You've got a sector that is growing very, very quickly and that at each step is improving environmental performance . . . so intensity is hugely important," he said, noting the Liberal government had also been negotiating intensity-based targets.
Several leading environmental groups held a news conference yesterday to express their strong concerns with the intensity-based approach and the length of consultations.
"It's clear this government is committed to postponing action on climate change and abandoning the Kyoto protocol," said John Bennett, executive director of the Climate Action Network.
Speaking outdoors at a Vancouver news conference, Mr. Harper said his government is following in the tradition of Conservative former prime minister Brian Mulroney by bringing in concrete and achievable measures to protect the environment.
Mr. Harper said he anticipates criticism that his government is not moving fast enough, but said Mr. Mulroney faced similar criticisms and was ultimately named Canada's greenest prime minister by environmentalists.
While it will take time to put the regulatory framework in place, Mr. Harper assured Canadians his government intends to act.
"Make no mistake about it. We know what our destination is. Our government is going to replace talk with action on the reduction of air pollutants and greenhouse gases and we will move forward inexorably."
The Vancouver-based David Suzuki Foundation criticized Mr. Harper for flying across the country to make an announcement that was short on detail.
"The government has been promising Canadians for months that it would come up with a comprehensive, national environmental plan, one that would tackle the most pressing environmental issues facing the nation," spokeswoman Morag Carter said.
"Instead we got an announcement there will be an announcement of a vague plan in Parliament next week."
The Prime Minister is blowing a lot of hot air
JEFFREY SIMPSON
E-mail Jeffrey Simpson | Read Bio | Latest Columns
Prime Minister Stephen Harper is following his instincts and party polls in minimizing global warming.
Most citizens, he apparently believes, do not much understand the challenge of greenhouse-gas emissions and certainly won't change their lifestyles to do anything about them.
Global warming, he thinks, is no more or less important than other environmental concerns. In fact, since carbon dioxide can't be seen the way pollutants that cause smog can be seen and felt, carbon dioxide emissions are actually less important, politically speaking.
We've known this line of thinking for some time, at least since the last election when the Conservatives' campaign document pointed to smog as an issue but remained silent on carbon dioxide emissions, except to say the party did not favour the Kyoto Protocol on greenhouse-gas emissions.
What the Prime Minister said yesterday in Vancouver, therefore, was hardly a surprise, even if it was a disappointment. His speech -- and the Clean Air Act that will come next week -- means that greenhouse-gas emissions from Canada will rise, and rise again, in future years and decades.
Mr. Harper is an Albertan, and his party holds every seat in the province. He knows, or must know, that any serious reduction of greenhouse-gas emissions must be led by Alberta, for the indisputable reason that Alberta produces more of them than any other province.
According to last week's Energy Outlook from the Department of Natural Resources, Alberta's share of total emissions is 31 per cent, whereas its share of national population is 11 per cent. Higher oil sands production will push Alberta's share to 34 per cent by 2020.
Petroleum refining alone will feature annual emissions increases of 13 per cent (!) until 2010 and 3.4 per cent thereafter as Canada's mix of petroleum moves from crude to synthetic and heavy oils.
Since 1990, greenhouse-gas emissions have been rising 1.7 per cent annually. Natural Resources believes they will increase annually by 1.1 per cent from 2004 to 2020. Most of that increase will come from two sources: upgrading synthetic crude oil and transportation.
Yesterday, Mr. Harper signalled, without saying anything specific, that voluntary limits accepted by industry will become mandatory. He was likely pointing to the automobile industry, which is already, predictably, lobbying with the auto unions against such a requirement. The Prime Minister also said his government would be consulting industry -- something that Ottawa has been doing for years.
Thus far, industry sources report privately that consultations with the Conservatives have been desultory. Oil, natural gas, auto and coal executives remain in the dark about precisely what the Conservatives have in mind.
These industries can be expected to resist, delay, lobby and plead for as little regulation as possible. Yesterday, however, a report from PricewaterhouseCoopers underscored the urgency of dealing with climate change.
PWC says a "business as usual" scenario under which energy efficiency improves as it has in the past 25 years, with no change in fuel mix, would see greenhouse-gas emissions worldwide double by 2050.
By contrast, emissions could be stabilized if three changes occurred: a greener fuel mix (with 30 per cent of primary energy consumption from energy and renewables), a 1-per-cent energy efficiency gain annually above the historic trend, and widespread use of carbon capture and storage.
Canada is far from any of these policies. The Natural Resources report forecasts that the fuel mix "will not change substantially." Energy efficiency gains are projected to be less than half what PWC recommends. And carbon capture is proceeding at, shall we say, a stately pace.
Climate change is the ultimate tragedy of the commons. Everyone contributes, some more than others, to the problem, but no one change will put things right.
Climate change is a long struggle, whereas governments are elected for a handful of years. Almost nothing any government does about climate change will be reflected in tangible results within the mandate of the government.
Rare political courage is thus required for such an issue. Now that we understand such leadership will not be forthcoming from Ottawa, the country can only hope that the next premier of Alberta will take the lead and, in so doing, make Alberta the world leader in sustainable development.
Impossible? As Canadian historian Margaret MacMillan reminds us in her latest book, Richard Nixon did go to China.
jsimpson@globeandmail.com
Blueprint wouldn't necessarily reduce emissions; critics react with scorn
BILL CURRY and MARK HUME
With reports from Shawn McCarthy in Ottawa and Canadian Press
OTTAWA, VANCOUVER -- Prime Minister Stephen Harper said yesterday that greenhouse-gas targets in the federal government's new environmental policy will be "intensity-based," a system that effectively scuttles Canada's commitments under the Kyoto Protocol.
Mr. Harper said his government will introduce next week its Clean Air Act, legislation that will trigger at least a year of talks with industry and the provinces to set mandatory reduction targets for pollution and greenhouse gases.
But in responding to questions in Vancouver, Mr. Harper uttered a phrase that had the opposition fuming. "We will produce intensity-based targets over the short range and the long term and they will cover a range of emissions, not just carbon dioxide, but nitrous oxide, sulphur oxide, sulphur dioxide; so it will be a comprehensive plan," the Prime Minister said.
It marked the first time the Harper government has said its plan to address global warming would be "intensity-based." That means industries would have to reduce emissions per unit of production, such as per barrel of oil.
Lowering emissions per unit, however, does not mean that Canada's total output of greenhouse gases will decline. If, for example, there is an expansion in the oil sands, total levels of emissions would increase even if per-unit emissions decrease.
Such an approach runs contrary to Canada's commitments under Kyoto, which calls for the country's total output of greenhouse gases to decline. Canada has signed on to the accord for its first phase, which ends in 2012, but there are no penalties if countries do not meet its targets.
Last month's report from federal Environment Commissioner Johanne Gélinas warned that, left unchecked, greenhouse-gas emissions from Alberta's oil sands could double between 2004 and 2015.
The commissioner also said that Canada must work toward lowering total emissions to avoid problems such as a melting polar ice cap and more frequent droughts. To achieve this, she said Ottawa would have to "take on" heavy industry such as the auto and oil-and-gas sectors.
But Mr. Harper said yesterday technology improvements will ultimately reduce total reductions over the long term. He cited a recent federal report that says emerging technologies -- such as injecting carbon emissions back into the ground -- could reduce emissions by 60 per cent in 2050.
"With technological change, massive reductions in emissions are possible," the Prime Minister said. "We have reason to believe that by harnessing technology we can make large-scale reductions in other types of emissions. But this will take time. It will have to be done as part of technological turnover."
In her report, Ms. Gélinas also sharply criticized the previous Liberal government for allowing total greenhouse-gas emissions to increase by 27 per cent above 1990 levels, even though Canada pledged through Kyoto to reduce emissions to 6 per cent below 1990 levels.
Ms. Gelinas's report says the previous Liberal government's 2005 plan only would have slowed the growth in greenhouse-gas emissions, not reduced them, in part because it also relied on intensity-based targets for specific industrial facilities.
Liberal environment critic John Godfrey, who accused Mr. Harper yesterday of using "ominous weasel words," said the Liberal plan was better because it also called for forced reductions of 45 megatonnes of greenhouse gases for Canada's industrial sector as a whole.
"What we need are absolute targets, not ones based on energy intensity. Those are words that are used by [U.S. President] George Bush and the Republicans to describe what they want," Mr. Godfrey said.
New Democratic Party Leader Jack Layton expressed similar concerns yesterday and said Mr. Harper shows an unwillingness to tackle the rising emissions from Alberta's oil sands.
"My guess is they'll be celebrating in the big oil companies' boardrooms right now," he said in an interview with CTV.
Pierre Alvarez, president of the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, said intensity-based standards are key for the industry.
"You've got a sector that is growing very, very quickly and that at each step is improving environmental performance . . . so intensity is hugely important," he said, noting the Liberal government had also been negotiating intensity-based targets.
Several leading environmental groups held a news conference yesterday to express their strong concerns with the intensity-based approach and the length of consultations.
"It's clear this government is committed to postponing action on climate change and abandoning the Kyoto protocol," said John Bennett, executive director of the Climate Action Network.
Speaking outdoors at a Vancouver news conference, Mr. Harper said his government is following in the tradition of Conservative former prime minister Brian Mulroney by bringing in concrete and achievable measures to protect the environment.
Mr. Harper said he anticipates criticism that his government is not moving fast enough, but said Mr. Mulroney faced similar criticisms and was ultimately named Canada's greenest prime minister by environmentalists.
While it will take time to put the regulatory framework in place, Mr. Harper assured Canadians his government intends to act.
"Make no mistake about it. We know what our destination is. Our government is going to replace talk with action on the reduction of air pollutants and greenhouse gases and we will move forward inexorably."
The Vancouver-based David Suzuki Foundation criticized Mr. Harper for flying across the country to make an announcement that was short on detail.
"The government has been promising Canadians for months that it would come up with a comprehensive, national environmental plan, one that would tackle the most pressing environmental issues facing the nation," spokeswoman Morag Carter said.
"Instead we got an announcement there will be an announcement of a vague plan in Parliament next week."
The Prime Minister is blowing a lot of hot air
JEFFREY SIMPSON
E-mail Jeffrey Simpson | Read Bio | Latest Columns
Prime Minister Stephen Harper is following his instincts and party polls in minimizing global warming.
Most citizens, he apparently believes, do not much understand the challenge of greenhouse-gas emissions and certainly won't change their lifestyles to do anything about them.
Global warming, he thinks, is no more or less important than other environmental concerns. In fact, since carbon dioxide can't be seen the way pollutants that cause smog can be seen and felt, carbon dioxide emissions are actually less important, politically speaking.
We've known this line of thinking for some time, at least since the last election when the Conservatives' campaign document pointed to smog as an issue but remained silent on carbon dioxide emissions, except to say the party did not favour the Kyoto Protocol on greenhouse-gas emissions.
What the Prime Minister said yesterday in Vancouver, therefore, was hardly a surprise, even if it was a disappointment. His speech -- and the Clean Air Act that will come next week -- means that greenhouse-gas emissions from Canada will rise, and rise again, in future years and decades.
Mr. Harper is an Albertan, and his party holds every seat in the province. He knows, or must know, that any serious reduction of greenhouse-gas emissions must be led by Alberta, for the indisputable reason that Alberta produces more of them than any other province.
According to last week's Energy Outlook from the Department of Natural Resources, Alberta's share of total emissions is 31 per cent, whereas its share of national population is 11 per cent. Higher oil sands production will push Alberta's share to 34 per cent by 2020.
Petroleum refining alone will feature annual emissions increases of 13 per cent (!) until 2010 and 3.4 per cent thereafter as Canada's mix of petroleum moves from crude to synthetic and heavy oils.
Since 1990, greenhouse-gas emissions have been rising 1.7 per cent annually. Natural Resources believes they will increase annually by 1.1 per cent from 2004 to 2020. Most of that increase will come from two sources: upgrading synthetic crude oil and transportation.
Yesterday, Mr. Harper signalled, without saying anything specific, that voluntary limits accepted by industry will become mandatory. He was likely pointing to the automobile industry, which is already, predictably, lobbying with the auto unions against such a requirement. The Prime Minister also said his government would be consulting industry -- something that Ottawa has been doing for years.
Thus far, industry sources report privately that consultations with the Conservatives have been desultory. Oil, natural gas, auto and coal executives remain in the dark about precisely what the Conservatives have in mind.
These industries can be expected to resist, delay, lobby and plead for as little regulation as possible. Yesterday, however, a report from PricewaterhouseCoopers underscored the urgency of dealing with climate change.
PWC says a "business as usual" scenario under which energy efficiency improves as it has in the past 25 years, with no change in fuel mix, would see greenhouse-gas emissions worldwide double by 2050.
By contrast, emissions could be stabilized if three changes occurred: a greener fuel mix (with 30 per cent of primary energy consumption from energy and renewables), a 1-per-cent energy efficiency gain annually above the historic trend, and widespread use of carbon capture and storage.
Canada is far from any of these policies. The Natural Resources report forecasts that the fuel mix "will not change substantially." Energy efficiency gains are projected to be less than half what PWC recommends. And carbon capture is proceeding at, shall we say, a stately pace.
Climate change is the ultimate tragedy of the commons. Everyone contributes, some more than others, to the problem, but no one change will put things right.
Climate change is a long struggle, whereas governments are elected for a handful of years. Almost nothing any government does about climate change will be reflected in tangible results within the mandate of the government.
Rare political courage is thus required for such an issue. Now that we understand such leadership will not be forthcoming from Ottawa, the country can only hope that the next premier of Alberta will take the lead and, in so doing, make Alberta the world leader in sustainable development.
Impossible? As Canadian historian Margaret MacMillan reminds us in her latest book, Richard Nixon did go to China.
jsimpson@globeandmail.com