|

Not looking good for Canada and Climate Change Policy

Byoliveridley

Meanwhile, the Conservative party received an F+ because it has chosen a "completely inadequate" target for reducing greenhouse gases and because it is relying on intensity targets to meet its goals.

Greens tops, Tories flops in Sierra Club climate-change report card.

So, all the other parties get at least a B grade. The conservatives are relying on so called greenhouse gas intensity targets, or emissions/dollar of GDP, which is a meaningless statistic. As many have pointed out previously, greenhouse gas intensity is a meaningless statistic and decreases naturally as processes grow more efficient and economies transition from a manufacturing to a service oriented economy. The GHG intensity dodge was invented by the Bush administration and the conservatives were happy enough to follow along.

So, as Harper turns his high profile and the utter fragmentation of centre/left of centre vote into an opinion poll lead, a reminder that ever other party in this race has at least a half way realistic climate policy.

Canada can’t really wait too long to get in front of this problem. I believe that the US will have something proposed/in place by 2010 and as Canada’s biggest trading partner, will be in enforce a carbon regime on Canada, so this may be moot.

Similar Posts

  • Climate Change to Hit Poor Hard

    Byoliveridley

    In case you did not know already, the IPCC is very close to releasing its report on climate change impacts.

    BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Climate change ‘to hit poor hard’

    Dr Parry outlined the four areas of the world now thought to be the most vulnerable to climate change. “The arctic, where temperatures are rising fast and ice is melting; sub-Saharan Africa, where dry areas are forecast to get dryer; small islands, because of their inherent lack of capacity to adapt and Asian mega-deltas, where billions of people will be at increased risk of flooding,” he explained. As a result, the most severe impacts will be felt by the world’s poorest countries, the report says. “The poorest of the poor in the world… are going to be the worst hit and are the most vulnerable in terms of impact of climate change,” said IPCC chairman Rajendra Pachauri. Mr Pachauri said those people were also the least equipped to deal with the effects of such changes. Scientists and government officials from more than 100 countries met through the night, trying to agree on the wording of a summary for policy makers. Several delegations, including the US, Saudi Arabia, China and India, had asked for the final version to reflect less certainty than the draft.

    The U.S objected to the contention that climate change would cause severe economic damage in the United States, China wanted to reduce the certainty applied to these changes, and I have no idea what India would object to, since it stands to lose a great deal. But as usual, the  people who have the most to lose are not the ones doing the negotiating, so I guess that is to be expected.

  • Compare and Contrast these two energy stories

    Byoliveridley

    Read both these stories and go bang your head on a wall repeatedly.

    Europe creates attractive clean energy scene – International Herald Tribune

    But a commitment by European governments to budding clean-energy entrepreneurs is creating a more welcoming environment than in America, where erratic support and onerous financial rules have given pause to some start-ups and investors.

    American ‘Coal Rush’ Hits Some Hurdles

    The nation’s demand for electricity is growing, and utilities want to build new power plants to satisfy that appetite. Most of those plants — perhaps as many as 150 — would burn coal.

    Well, at least the coal rush is hitting a few hurdles. But even if half those plants don’t come about, that’s still 70+ coal fired power plants, nice!

    The interesting part of the IHT story to me was this.

    Venture capitalists and private equity investors in North America have been more bullish, providing $3.5 billion to clean-energy developers in 2006, roughly triple the amount raised in Europe, the Middle East and Africa, according to New Energy Finance, a research firm based in London.

    So, if the US had the right incentives, Americans would be investing there, creating jobs there, improving infrastructure there instead of in Europe. I guess those very “patriotic” American lawmakers don’t think that far ahead. Note also that all the tax cuts to wealthy Americans leaves a lot of cash floating around for them to invest in projects in other parts of the world. These are investments the US won’t reap a benefit on as a country, or create jobs for the working proletariat – Nice tax cuts, more patriotism, I guess. Such a poor return on investment on these tax cuts.

  • Climate Deniers Get Top Science Posts

    Byoliveridley

    Seriously, I’ve had enough of Bush North up here in Canada, he has to go and luckily, he’s only running a minority government, so it’s not 4 more years…

    globeandmail.com: Global warming critics appointed to science boards

    Top Canadian scientists are accusing the Harper government of politicizing science funding and jeopardizing climate research by naming global warming critics to key boards that fund science.

    The government’s actions are “dreadful,” said Garry Clarke, a leading international glaciologist at the University of British Columbia, and undercut public pledges to tackle climate change.

    “Their mouths are doing one thing and their hands are doing something different,” Prof. Clarke said.

    Already alarmed over funding cuts to basic research, scientists say two appointments in particular are worrisome. Mark Mullins, the executive director of the conservative-leaning Fraser Institute – and a former adviser to the Canadian Alliance Party – was recently appointed to the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC), which funds university research projects that have included studies on climate change.

    Desmogblog has more, including choice quotes from the economists and oil geologists that run this country’s science.

    Mullins: “It strikes me that the science is not settled,” he said in a 2007
    interview posted at BCbusinessonline. “‘Put caps on global emitters’ is
    not the natural conclusion I would come to.”

    Weissenberger: “To those who doubt the scientific basis of global warming theory, we
    say: Don’t let a cabal of government-funded scientists, environmental
    activists and journalists convince us they’re the mainstream.” — April
    28, 2006″

    These are the people who will be deciding who gets science money in Canada.

    This has probably been the most unscientific administrations in Canada’s recent history.

    I think it is time to throw the bums out, it’s time for another election!

  • Canada's Budget – FAIL on Renewables

    Byoliveridley

    Canada's Conservative government released a federal budget last week that would kill off the country's main program for developing renewables and channel most of the money from a new “Green Infrastructure Fund” into carbon capture and storage CCS technology, or so-called “clean” coal.

    Of course, the carbon capture is not aimed at coal here specifically, but at the oil sands. More bad news –

    The new pro-coal budget effectively killed all support for the nation’s ecoENERGY Program for Renewable Energy (equivalent to America’s Production Tax Credit for renewables). The program was the nation’s main support mechanism for developing renewable energy. The Pembina Institute, a Canada-based sustainable energy think tank, reacts to the budget defeat:

    “The federal government’s failure to renew and expand this program has jeopardized at least 1,500 megawatts of “shovel read” wind energy projects across the country, while putting the brakes on billions of dollars of potential future investment.”

    The renewable energy industry had hoped for a five-year extension of the program in the budget, which would have spurred over $6 billion of private investment in the Canadian economy and created 8,000 jobs, according to the Institute.

    Note that this is not just the Conservatives. The Liberals are supporting this budget, and Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff has spoken glowingly about the oil sands industry.

    At this point, we do not control our own environmental future. The Conservatives are an Alberta centred party and their motivation is not surprising. The Liberals clearly want back in power and do not have the money to fight another election next month. Canadians seem to not favour the most logical option, a coalition government of the left leaning parties which make up a majority of seats and voting percentages in parliament, so the Liberals have to support the Conservative budget or face an election soon.

    With Ignatieff leading the Liberals, they know that all they need a little time to get money and reverse their losses from the previous election. His personal popularity advantage over previous Liberal leader Stephane Dion will most probably lead to better election results, especially if the Canadian economy continues to tank. A Liberal budget would have not killed the renewables, but would have not done anything to make the oil sands projects pay for all their externalities either.

    With the two main parties objectively in favour of unproven boondoggles and greenwashing, only firm decisive action by the US administration to institute some kind of carbon controls will change the game in Canada. My fear is that by killing money support at a critical time, you kill the renewables industry and disperse its people elsewhere, and no reversing course in 3 years will get those people and companies back.