Tweet
Not only is the Kyoto protocol long gone, now they won't even meet the Copenhagen promise of 17% below 2005 levels:
The Harper government sees politics as a constant battle of “sword” and “shield” issues.
The Prime Minister wields them like a great lord in Game of Thrones – going on the offensive on “sword” issues; parrying on “shield” issues, where even talking about them is considered a vote-loser.
There is no subject on which the Harperites are more defensive than the environment, and, given their recent stumbles, it was a particularly inopportune time for the release of a new report from the Environment Commissioner, Scott Vaughan. He suggested Tuesday there is no plan to meet the targets on greenhouse gas emissions that the government set for itself and, consequently, those targets are unlikely to be met.
To be fair, the Tories haven’t been completely inactive on the file.
Regulations to control greenhouse gases have been developed behind the scenes. The problem is, that’s where they have remained.
The Conservatives circulated a notice of intent to regulate the oil and gas sector last summer that went to Cabinet but was spiked in the face of opposition from the industry and Ed Stelmach’s Alberta government.
As Mr. Vaughan pointed out in his spring report on Canada’s 2020 climate change commitments, in the absence of such regs, the government is unlikely to hit its target of emission levels 17% below 2005 levels.
In 2006, I interviewed the Conservative government’s first environment minister, Rona Ambrose. Legislation was a “national priority,” she said. The government was prepared to impose regulations unilaterally on large emitters in the oil and gas, electricity and automotive sectors, she said.
In Copenhagen in 2009, the Conservatives pledged to hit the same target as the Americans – namely, 17% below 2005 levels by 2020.
Sean Kilpatrick/Canadian Press
Environment Commissioner Scott Vaughan thinks the Conservatives are unlikely to meet their greenhouse gas emissions targets because they've made no plans to do so.
Yet, Mr. Vaughan’s report said, not only is there still no plan to achieve those targets, there is also no economic analysis on what the cost of doing so will be to the Canadian economy.
The government has introduced regulations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the transport sector. Regulations have been proposed for the electricity sector but are not expected to take effect until 2015. But there are no regulations for the oil and gas sector.
Environment Canada’s own Emissions Trends calculator estimates GHG emissions will be 7.4% above 2005 levels by 2020, not 17% below. Canada emitted 631 million tonnes of GHGs in 2005; that rose to 690 million tonnes by 2009, before dipping thanks to the recession. But Environment Canada’s own numbers suggest that dip is temporary and forecast an increase to 785 million tonnes by 2020. The oil sands will add an estimated 62 million tonnes in that period, while the transportation sectors already regulated are expected to reduce emissions by just 11-13 million tonnes.
Peter Kent, the Environment Minister, continued to insist that the government is making “significant progress” towards its target but, while it may not be an outright lie (emissions are down), neither is it remotely true.
By appearing indolent and indifferent, the Conservatives risk backlash from those who may have been willing to give them the benefit of the doubt in the past.
Another Tory political calculation is that the world is divided into carnivores, who don’t care about the environment, and herbivores, who do and never vote Conservative.
Yet there seem to be an increasing number of people who fit neither pigeon-hole. Recent polls suggest a majority of Canadians believe in man-made global warming — a number that is likely rising in the wake of yet another winter of record-breaking warm temperatures. A crowd estimated at 250,000 people took to the streets of Montreal to celebrate Earth Day last month.
Governments that stand against action will increasingly look like an old calendar.
Some form of carbon pricing to bring down intensity emissions is inevitable, if Canada is to escape being tagged as purveyors of “dirty” oil by jealous trading partners. Better that pricing be imposed by the Conservatives than a future federal NDP government that wants to reduce profits in the oil sands to bring down the value of the dollar and boost manufacturing in Ontario and Quebec.
If the Conservatives do not dust off their regulations for the oil and gas sector, they may again raise the dander of the Alberta government – but this time, rather than being asked to sit on their hands, Premier Alison Redford may ask Ottawa to provide some leadership on the climate change file.
National Post
Let's resume the main points of our previous discussion:
1) Harper works directly for the oil lobby
2) He probably honestly thinks that the energy sector is Canada's economic future, so it's not like he's doing it "without a reason"
3) The result is still that the only way to preserve the value of oil on the long term is to torpedo international agreements for as long as possible
The Harper government sees politics as a constant battle of “sword” and “shield” issues.
The Prime Minister wields them like a great lord in Game of Thrones – going on the offensive on “sword” issues; parrying on “shield” issues, where even talking about them is considered a vote-loser.
There is no subject on which the Harperites are more defensive than the environment, and, given their recent stumbles, it was a particularly inopportune time for the release of a new report from the Environment Commissioner, Scott Vaughan. He suggested Tuesday there is no plan to meet the targets on greenhouse gas emissions that the government set for itself and, consequently, those targets are unlikely to be met.
To be fair, the Tories haven’t been completely inactive on the file.
Regulations to control greenhouse gases have been developed behind the scenes. The problem is, that’s where they have remained.
The Conservatives circulated a notice of intent to regulate the oil and gas sector last summer that went to Cabinet but was spiked in the face of opposition from the industry and Ed Stelmach’s Alberta government.
As Mr. Vaughan pointed out in his spring report on Canada’s 2020 climate change commitments, in the absence of such regs, the government is unlikely to hit its target of emission levels 17% below 2005 levels.
In 2006, I interviewed the Conservative government’s first environment minister, Rona Ambrose. Legislation was a “national priority,” she said. The government was prepared to impose regulations unilaterally on large emitters in the oil and gas, electricity and automotive sectors, she said.
In Copenhagen in 2009, the Conservatives pledged to hit the same target as the Americans – namely, 17% below 2005 levels by 2020.
Sean Kilpatrick/Canadian Press
Environment Commissioner Scott Vaughan thinks the Conservatives are unlikely to meet their greenhouse gas emissions targets because they've made no plans to do so.
Yet, Mr. Vaughan’s report said, not only is there still no plan to achieve those targets, there is also no economic analysis on what the cost of doing so will be to the Canadian economy.
The government has introduced regulations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the transport sector. Regulations have been proposed for the electricity sector but are not expected to take effect until 2015. But there are no regulations for the oil and gas sector.
Environment Canada’s own Emissions Trends calculator estimates GHG emissions will be 7.4% above 2005 levels by 2020, not 17% below. Canada emitted 631 million tonnes of GHGs in 2005; that rose to 690 million tonnes by 2009, before dipping thanks to the recession. But Environment Canada’s own numbers suggest that dip is temporary and forecast an increase to 785 million tonnes by 2020. The oil sands will add an estimated 62 million tonnes in that period, while the transportation sectors already regulated are expected to reduce emissions by just 11-13 million tonnes.
Peter Kent, the Environment Minister, continued to insist that the government is making “significant progress” towards its target but, while it may not be an outright lie (emissions are down), neither is it remotely true.
By appearing indolent and indifferent, the Conservatives risk backlash from those who may have been willing to give them the benefit of the doubt in the past.
Another Tory political calculation is that the world is divided into carnivores, who don’t care about the environment, and herbivores, who do and never vote Conservative.
Yet there seem to be an increasing number of people who fit neither pigeon-hole. Recent polls suggest a majority of Canadians believe in man-made global warming — a number that is likely rising in the wake of yet another winter of record-breaking warm temperatures. A crowd estimated at 250,000 people took to the streets of Montreal to celebrate Earth Day last month.
Governments that stand against action will increasingly look like an old calendar.
Some form of carbon pricing to bring down intensity emissions is inevitable, if Canada is to escape being tagged as purveyors of “dirty” oil by jealous trading partners. Better that pricing be imposed by the Conservatives than a future federal NDP government that wants to reduce profits in the oil sands to bring down the value of the dollar and boost manufacturing in Ontario and Quebec.
If the Conservatives do not dust off their regulations for the oil and gas sector, they may again raise the dander of the Alberta government – but this time, rather than being asked to sit on their hands, Premier Alison Redford may ask Ottawa to provide some leadership on the climate change file.
National Post
Let's resume the main points of our previous discussion:
1) Harper works directly for the oil lobby
2) He probably honestly thinks that the energy sector is Canada's economic future, so it's not like he's doing it "without a reason"
3) The result is still that the only way to preserve the value of oil on the long term is to torpedo international agreements for as long as possible
Comment