[trueviking]

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/canada-ties-new-emissions-cuts-targets-to-us-goals/article1451436/


Canada ties new emissions-cuts targets to U.S. goals


Canada has set new targets for cuts to greenhouse-gas emissions that confirm this country will follow the United States' lead on climate-change intervention.

Environment Minister Jim Prentice announced over the weekend that Canada's new aim is to reduce the emissions linked to global warming by 17 per cent from 2005 levels by 2020 - numbers that mirror those in a bill that is currently before the U.S. Senate.

The old target, which the Canadian government had been using since 2007, was to reduce emissions by 20 per cent over 2006 levels.

The accord reached at global climate-change talks in Copenhagen in December required signatories, including Canada, to file individual targets to the United Nations by Jan. 31, identifying both a base year and a target.

In keeping with the government's commitment to "continentalize" the emissions-reduction plan and to harmonize Canada's actions with those of the United States, Mr. Prentice submitted figures that match what is being debated by the Senate in Washington.

"We now have formalized that Canada and the United States have the same level of ambition and that we will be moving forward in concert with an identical base year and an identical target," Mr. Prentice said in a telephone interview yesterday.

There is no assurance that the U.S. Senate will pass the legislation that is known as the Waxman-Markey bill.

But, if the United States ultimately chooses different targets than what the bill proposes, Mr. Prentice said Canada will also change course - and has left itself some wiggle room to do so.

The documents filed with the UN say Canada's goal will "be aligned with the final economy-wide emission target in the United States in enacted legislation," said Mr. Prentice.

In the meantime, regulations to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions that the Conservative government initially said would be developed in 2008 have been put on hold as Canada waits to see how the United States will tackle the problem. "We need to know whether the United States is prepared to proceed by a cap-and-trade system or a regulatory approach," said Mr. Prentice. "The two of them are quite different and it's impossible to harmonize on a continental basis if one half of the continent, namely the United States, hasn't yet made that choice."

Environmentalists are discouraged by the move.

"What this government is saying now is that they intend to do nothing until the U.S. government forces them to take action which is an incredible abdication of responsibility, not to mention sovereignty," said Graham Saul of the Climate Action Network Canada.

John Bennett of the Sierra Club said the only plan the government has to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is a communication strategy.

The Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers called the 17-per-cent target "very ambitious" for a geographically expansive country with a cold climate.

"The challenge for policy makers is to arrive at the appropriate and achievable balance between environmental and economic performance and continued supply of stable and secure energy," said spokesman Travis Davies.

Opposition critics were perturbed by Ottawa's move.

"We are way beyond needing a plan. We need to be finding caps and targets for the sectors," said Linda Duncan, the environment critic for the federal New Democrats.

David McGuinty, the Liberal environment critic, said that, if the Waxman-Markey bill does not get passed in the Senate, Canada will be left with no real targets.

And even if the bill passes, said Mr. McGuinty, "I can absolutely assure you that the Americans would never design a climate-change response, a sovereign national response, to the benefit of anything but the United States economy."

[trueviking]

i cant believe that this story is getting so little press....for me this is one of the most disturbing political issues to come along since the sponsorship scandal.

not only has parliament been prorogued so no debate can happen on this key issue, but slyly, the announcement was made on a saturday afternoon when the media is less likely to pick up on it...

it is very sad that canada has yet again chosen to reduce its already very low emissions targets...we can debate that at length.....but that is really only part of this incredible action.

by saying this: Canada's goal will "be aligned with the final economy-wide emission target in the United States in enacted legislation,"....the conservatives are leaving one of the most important decisions facing our country to another government....

the americans will make their laws to suit their own needs....do the conservatives believe that the things that drive our economy are the same as those in the states?....are they assuming that without debate canadians have the same social commitment as americans on any issue, no matter what they decide?......should we not come up with our own plan that is tailored to our unique economic criteria?...its not like they even know what the americans will do and they have studied the plan and agree with it....the conservatives have said they will blindly match whatever plan the americans come up with no matter what it is.

this decision will have a huge effect on our economy and on our country as a whole for the next decade and more....its impact will be felt by every single canadian.....how can that decision be left to the americans to make?

it is truly unbelievable that any sovereign nation would defer such a major political decision that will affect all facets of its economy, to another government.....it is an embarassment that we are so far from taking a leadership role globally on this issue that our government has chosen to not even take a leadership role inside our own nation.....the american congress will set canada's environmental goals for the next decade!.....

obviously its easy to hide behind a difficult decision, leaving it to another group so you can avoid taking criticism for your own plans, but that is incredibly irresponsible government.

even if you do not believe at all in the environment issue, you have to be outraged that our government is allowing another sovereign state to dictate our national policy, without even knowing what that policy will be.

[Aylmer]

Here, here. One day, we will look back on this time and laugh. Or cry. Or just wonder what the hell we were smoking.

:(

[Jamaican-Phoenix]

Here, here. One day, we will look back on this time and laugh. Or cry. Or just wonder what the hell we were smoking.

:(

Some incredibly good BC Bud.

[shreddog]

...
by saying this: Canada's goal will "be aligned with the final economy-wide emission target in the United States in enacted legislation,"....the conservatives are leaving one of the most important decisions facing our country to another government....

...do the conservatives believe that the things that drive our economy are the same as those in the states?....

...should we not come up with our own plan that is tailored to our unique economic criteria?...

...the conservatives have said they will blindly match whatever plan the americans come up with no matter what it is.

this decision will have a huge effect on our economy and on our country as a whole for the next decade and more....its impact will be felt by every single canadian.....how can that decision be left to the americans to make?

Funnily enough, I can replace "americans/states" in your rant with "UN/IPCC" and it would still be relavant. Not saying anything, but ...

[agrant]

i cant believe that this story is getting so little press....for me this is one of the most disturbing political issues to come along since the sponsorship scandal.

not only has parliament been prorogued so no debate can happen on this key issue, but slyly, the announcement was made on a saturday afternoon when the media is less likely to pick up on it...

it is very sad that canada has yet again chosen to reduce its already very low emissions targets...we can debate that at length.....but that is really only part of this incredible action.

by saying this: Canada's goal will "be aligned with the final economy-wide emission target in the United States in enacted legislation,"....the conservatives are leaving one of the most important decisions facing our country to another government....

the americans will make their laws to suit their own needs....do the conservatives believe that the things that drive our economy are the same as those in the states?....are they assuming that without debate canadians have the same social commitment as americans on any issue, no matter what they decide?......should we not come up with our own plan that is tailored to our unique economic criteria?...its not like they even know what the americans will do and they have studied the plan and agree with it....the conservatives have said they will blindly match whatever plan the americans come up with no matter what it is.

this decision will have a huge effect on our economy and on our country as a whole for the next decade and more....its impact will be felt by every single canadian.....how can that decision be left to the americans to make?

it is truly unbelievable that any sovereign nation would defer such a major political decision that will affect all facets of its economy, to another government.....it is an embarassment that we are so far from taking a leadership role globally on this issue that our government has chosen to not even take a leadership role inside our own nation.....the american congress will set canada's environmental goals for the next decade!.....

obviously its easy to hide behind a difficult decision, leaving it to another group so you can avoid taking criticism for your own plans, but that is incredibly irresponsible government.

even if you do not believe at all in the environment issue, you have to be outraged that our government is allowing another sovereign state to dictate our national policy, without even knowing what that policy will be.Totally agree. Sort of makes one think about the direction this country is going. We're basically riding the back of the big bear to the south of us. But haven't we been doing that from the beginning?

[Yume-sama]

See, this allows everybody to just do nothing, as has been the case all along for pretty much the entire World when it comes to this. Canada won't do it unless USA does it, but the USA won't do it unless China and India do it, and neither of them particularly want to do it. Then at least they can play the "we're concerned with the environment" card, but not actually have to do it, because they can blame the actual important Countries in the World who can actually have an effect, for doing nothing :D Nobody loses! Unless you're China. But they don't care, it's somewhat unlikely to hurt them in the polls ;) If only the UN was actually capable of passing a resolution...

There really is no point in harming the Canadian economy thinking our tiny little Country (both in people and on the World stage) can save the World, by itself.

[trueviking]

Funnily enough, I can replace "americans/states" in your rant with "UN/IPCC" and it would still be relavant. Not saying anything, but ...

i dont recall any canadian government saying that we would sign on to anything the UN wants us to without being a participant in the debate about what that would be...

[shreddog]

i dont recall any canadian government saying that we would sign on to anything the UN wants us to without being a participant in the debate about what that would be...
Hmmmm, I guess Jean forget to send me my invite to the debate on Canada signing Kyoto .... when was that held again???

[shreddog]

^^ Anyway, I don't want to get into a debate on this as all political parties are opportunistic wrt GHG and AGW. I'm just saying that zealots will always find fault with the other side. The US is our largest trading partner and disadvantaging Cdn industry for the sale of the UN may not be the best approach going forward.

Remember, every month China spits out more GHG than Canada does in a year - and it's getting much worse before it will/may ever get better. Also, in Canada that great pariah, the Oil and Gas Industry pays more taxes than any other sector - in fact in 2008 it paid more than 50% of ALL CORPORATE taxes collected in Canada. So perhaps crippling it may not be the best strategy.

[Doug]

by saying this: Canada's goal will "be aligned with the final economy-wide emission target in the United States in enacted legislation,"....the conservatives are leaving one of the most important decisions facing our country to another government....

The reality is that Canada's reductions can be no more than those of the US given how easy it is for capital and therefore economic activity to move across the border. Aligning with the American strategy is risky because achieving even the same reductions will be far more difficult due to Canada's climate, geographic dispersion and reliance on resource extraction. Still, the American target is going to be the most important benchmark.

[trueviking]

Hmmmm, I guess Jean forget to send me my invite to the debate on Canada signing Kyoto .... when was that held again???

it was in 1997...canada had a large delegation and was very much part of the debate...Paul Heinbecker was canada's lead negotiator....just because you are not him, doesnt mean that canada was not part of the negotiations.


in 2008 it paid more than 50% of ALL CORPORATE taxes collected in Canada. So perhaps crippling it may not be the best strategy.

i agree....exactly why our environmental strategy should come from our government and not the american one.


every month China spits out more GHG than Canada does in a year

the point isnt really to debate global warming, but your logic is essentially saying a murderer who kills only two people should be forgiven because there are other murderers who have killed 10.....

per capita our emissions are four times higher than china's.

[trueviking]

The reality is that Canada's reductions can be no more than those of the US given how easy it is for capital and therefore economic activity to move across the border. Aligning with the American strategy is risky because achieving even the same reductions will be far more difficult due to Canada's climate, geographic dispersion and reliance on resource extraction. Still, the American target is going to be the most important benchmark.

The US is our largest trading partner and disadvantaging Cdn industry for the sale of the UN may not be the best approach going forward.

that's crap....your argument is a stereotype and not based on the facts.

the top 5 polluters in canada are companies that use coal to produce electricity for our own market....1/5 of our total emissions are from electricity created by coal, 1/4 from automobiles and 1/3 from buildings....none of those can hide behind the veil of trade with america....that is almost 3/4 of our total emissions that have absolutely nothing to do with trade or canadian industry.....reducing emissions from those sources only requires political will....it has little to do with geographic dispersion, crippling the coveted oil and gas industry or our reliance on resource extraction.

the entire oil and gas industry accounts for only 1/5th of our emissions

there is a lot we can do to reduce our emissions...the fact is that there is no political will to do so....as evidenced by this recent plan.

ontario is committed to closing all of its coal plants by 2025, what about alberta and saskatchewan?....why isnt the government investing in public transit (a $10 rebate on your monthly bus pass is not investing in transit), alternative fuels, legislating mileage standards and automobile emissions....california is a state that does it and they certainly have trade with the rest of their country....how about investing in green building technologies and incentives....offset the capital costs for geothermal.....use creative taxation like frontage tax to reduce urban sprawl....the ideas are endless and have nothing to do with 'disadvantaging canadian industry'.

european countries have drastically reduced their emissions from three sources that create 75% of our pollutants...so, why cant we?....yes we have resource extraction and they dont, but if we can reduce our emissions from electricity, cars and buildings like they have, our targets could be easily reached without damaging our economy at all....

in germany very high level sustainable design is part of their building code...it is no more optional than the number of washrooms a building has or the height of a handrail.....why cant we do that?...what does that have to do with trade?


none of this excuses the canadian government for not developing an environmental strategy that responds to the canadian economy, social and political reality....

[Yume-sama]

per capita our emissions are four times higher than china's.

I suppose you would be fine with living like the majority of Chinese do? I'm sure you'll be comfortable if you dress warm, cuz you're not gonna get heat :D

Or hot water, if you get running water at all.

[sammo]

essentially, another man-made-global-warming thread. :rolleyes:

why not a "Where have all the leprechauns gone?" thread? something more credible, something science can buttress.
-haven't seen or heard from little green 'papa dwarf' al goreky in a while...

[Doug]

ontario is committed to closing all of its coal plants by 2025, what about alberta and saskatchewan?....why isnt the government investing in public transit (a $10 rebate on your monthly bus pass is not investing in transit), alternative fuels, legislating mileage standards and automobile emissions....california is a state that does it and they certainly have trade with the rest of their country....how about investing in green building technologies and incentives....offset the capital costs for geothermal.....use creative taxation like frontage tax to reduce urban sprawl....the ideas are endless and have nothing to do with 'disadvantaging canadian industry'.

european countries have drastically reduced their emissions from three sources that create 75% of our pollutants...so, why cant we?....yes we have resource extraction and they dont, but if we can reduce our emissions from electricity, cars and buildings like they have, our targets could be easily reached without damaging our economy at all....

..

Stagnation and deindustrialization of the East cut European emissions, not political will.

You don't honestly believe that Ontario will actually close its coal plants?

AB and SK have few alternatives to coal fired generation. Conservation and wind power will help, but the absolute reality is that nothing can replace coal for large scale generation.

Global warming should not be used as an excuse to force AB and SK into becoming customers for the white elephant, publically owned utilities and nuclear industry out East. Nor should it be yet another attempt by bloated governments to increase their role in the economy.

I still think the best solutions would be a $1/litre tax on gas and a 33% surtax on all utilities all designed to be revenue neutral and with exporters being able to claim the taxes back. The key difference between this approach and the often discussed carbon tax is that it would hit end consumers.

[SteelTown]

The government is closing down parts of the Nanticoke coal plant this year. In 2014 the plant is suppose to shut down completely.

http://www.thespec.com/article/628290

[vid]

You don't honestly believe that Ontario will actually close its coal plants?

Yes, I do. Why else is OPG spending so much to convert Atikokan GS and Thunder Bay GS to burn wood pellets and biomass waste from forestry operations? Aside from this cutting down immensely on pollution, a significant number of pellet producing companies, many based on and operated by First Nations communities, have been created, employing several hundred across the region. We currently import coal from West Virginia.

[Doug]

Yes, I do. Why else is OPG spending so much to convert Atikokan GS and Thunder Bay GS to burn wood pellets and biomass waste from forestry operations? Aside from this cutting down immensely on pollution, a significant number of pellet producing companies, many based on and operated by First Nations communities, have been created, employing several hundred across the region. We currently import coal from West Virginia.


Those are small coal plants. The big joke there is that burning biomass is as bad as coal from a CO2 perspective.

There is still no firm plan to replace the power generation from Nanticoke. The Adam Beck expansion will help but the bulk of the gap will be closed through out of province power purchases. Ontario's power consumption has likely been hit hard by recession, making that gap appear smaller than what it will be once the economy hits a steady state.

[WhipperSnapper]

I agree with Doug. The industry is only fulfilling a service to its consumers. It's the end users that should be seeing taxation and incentives.

[boden]

that's crap....your argument is a stereotype and not based on the facts.

the top 5 polluters in canada are companies that use coal to produce electricity for our own market....1/5 of our total emissions are from electricity created by coal, 1/4 from automobiles and 1/3 from buildings....none of those can hide behind the veil of trade with america....that is almost 3/4 of our total emissions that have absolutely nothing to do with trade or canadian industry.....reducing emissions from those sources only requires political will....it has little to do with geographic dispersion, crippling the coveted oil and gas industry or our reliance on resource extraction.

the entire oil and gas industry accounts for only 1/5th of our emissions

there is a lot we can do to reduce our emissions...the fact is that there is no political will to do so....as evidenced by this recent plan.

ontario is committed to closing all of its coal plants by 2025, what about alberta and saskatchewan?....why isnt the government investing in public transit (a $10 rebate on your monthly bus pass is not investing in transit), alternative fuels, legislating mileage standards and automobile emissions....california is a state that does it and they certainly have trade with the rest of their country....how about investing in green building technologies and incentives....offset the capital costs for geothermal.....use creative taxation like frontage tax to reduce urban sprawl....the ideas are endless and have nothing to do with 'disadvantaging canadian industry'.

european countries have drastically reduced their emissions from three sources that create 75% of our pollutants...so, why cant we?....yes we have resource extraction and they dont, but if we can reduce our emissions from electricity, cars and buildings like they have, our targets could be easily reached without damaging our economy at all....

in germany very high level sustainable design is part of their building code...it is no more optional than the number of washrooms a building has or the height of a handrail.....why cant we do that?...what does that have to do with trade?


none of this excuses the canadian government for not developing an environmental strategy that responds to the canadian economy, social and political reality....

Well said. All too often when this topic is broached Canadians start talking about the US. Incredible.