(This is Part 5 of "The descent of national politics into irrelevance and insignificance: Can it be reversed?" The previous parts can be found below.)
Canada has had four different climate change plans in the last decade but no progress. And Mr. Harper’s leadership on the issue is anything but bold, transparent or even remotely constructive in bringing Canadians together.
Mr. Harper silenced any intelligent discussion during the last election, producing an anemic plan for intensity targets applicable only to large industrial emitters that allows carbon dioxide emissions to rise with production levels. His recent budget lacked any serious environmental focus, especially with respect to renewable energy and energy efficiency.
Mr. Harper has sat on the sidelines with respect to a carbon tax, lending no support to forward-thinking proposals like those adopted in British Columbia last year – and successfully defended through the recent BC provincial election. In the absence of national leadership, regional tensions, real or imagined, are allowed to simmer – those Canadians who express legitimate concern over the environmental impact of the oil sands development are subtly cast as whiners merely opposed to Alberta’s success in oil and gas. And while Quebec forges ahead with locking in huge exports of hydro-electric power to the United States, there is no national discussion on the feasibility of an east-west smart electricity grid.
The federal government is so missing in action that Ontario and Quebec have now joined Manitoba and British Columbia to extend caps on CO2 emissions beyond large industrial emitters as part of the California-led Western Climate Initiative.
Harper has recently taken minimal steps toward convergence with the Americans – proposing a weak cap-and-trade system that kicks in only in 2011, and comparable fuel economy standards for vehicles. Talk about fiddling while Rome burns. Canada has lost all credibility on climate change not just in North America, but also on the global stage. We simply have nothing convincing to say, even for the vitally important Copenhagen Summit in November.
Ironically, just as we get closer to a cap-and-trade system, both Canadian and international business leaders are realizing how complex the system is, especially when compared to a carbon tax or levy that is efficient and fair – applies to all emitters – and yields substantial revenues to reduce other taxes or fund technologies.
The reality is that a national carbon pricing system is essential if we want to get anywhere near acceptable targets for the reduction of greenhouse gases by mid-century. Leaders in the oil, gas, pipeline, energy, and retail and electricity industries have, from time to time, called on Ottawa to implement a national energy policy – not to be confused with the controversial NEP policy of a quarter-century ago. A national energy policy to meet the climate change challenge means: an unambiguous statement of Canada’s national interests and objectives with respect to energy, clear national regulations, infrastructure investments, and a national strategy to help corporations to map out an energy development agenda and be able to prioritize initiatives including research, development and training.
Business leaders understand the need for strong national initiative in this critical area – not to create new intrusions into provincial jurisdiction, but to ameliorate the incoherence of the patchwork of provincial and federal laws, and ease the costs faced by the companies and the uncertainties faced by their shareholders.
If we finally succeed in having an intelligent debate over a carbon pricing system initiated by the federal government, lessons will be learned. Any system must be fully coordinated with provincial programs like those in B.C. and Quebec, and the revenue raised should be remitted back to the province in which it is generated for other green initiatives and technology investments. (A serious problem with the carbon pricing proposal in the Liberal Party Green Shift of 2008 was its entanglement with an anti-poverty initiative.)
Vigorous national leadership is also needed to assist our cities – which use at least 50% of all energy in Canada – to improve energy efficiency and energy conservation, and to develop integrated energy systems involving on-site renewable energy, district energy and combined heat and power. Related initiatives include massive investments in expanding public transit, rebuilding municipal infrastructure, and finally moving forward on high speed rail links.
To be continued. Part Six will wind up this series with an eclectic discussion of a few more issues in need of bold national leadership.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Jim Prentice, Canada’s Minister of the Environment has said that Canada might not impose limits on greenhouse gas emissions until 2016. This is simply preposterous. It makes a mockery of this government’s pledge to cut emissions to 20% below 2005 levels by 2020. It is also hypocritical. This government argued that they could not meet their Kyoto Protocol targets due to the inaction of their predecessors. They argued that the short time left before the deadline would require them to simply shut down Canadian industry and services to homes. Of course, dallying until 2016 would put whatever government was in charge then in an even tighter bind.
In order to meet this government’s 2020 target, Canadian emissions will need to fall by about 170 million tonnes over the next eleven years: a task equivalent to making the entire province of Alberta carbon neutral. Obviously, waiting until 2016 to begin dooms the project to failure. That ignores the fact that even the 20% target is insufficiently ambitious, when you consider the risks associated with different global emissions pathways and the fact that rich, developed states must lead the way on the transition to low- and zero-carbon sources of energy.
The idea that we could do nothing substantial for another seven years is an affront to ethics, good sense, Canada’s international obligations, and our reputation as good global citizens.
By "climate change" I assume you mean man-made global warming? Then why use manipulative language?
Fact is, that there is no evidence for man-made global warming. None whatsoever. I would like to know which documents you are using to substantiate your claims.
Cap and trade is a phony economy rife with corruption.
Carbon taxes are just Watermelon taxes. Green on the outside, red on the inside. They are just a proxy for wealth redistribution.
"And Mr. Harper’s leadership on the issue is anything but bold"
I disagree. Mr.Harper almost single handedly defeated Kyoto. The Liberals would have eagerly enslaved Canadians to second and third world countries through Kyoto. That's something you can choose to do for yourself, but to force Canadians in general to work their butts off only to have their hard earned money shifted offshore is reprehensible.
"Mr. Harper silenced any intelligent discussion during the last election"
Can you be more specific? How, exactly, did he silence anyone? Was is through intimidation? Or was it that his antagonists lost the argument?
"The federal government is so missing in action that Ontario and Quebec have now joined Manitoba and British Columbia to extend caps on CO2 emissions beyond large industrial emitters as part of the California-led Western Climate Initiative."
In other words, the provinces didn't need outside interference from the Federal Government. The provinces are actually capable of autonomous actions without having their hands held by interfering Federalists.
"Talk about fiddling while Rome burns."
This must be an example of hyperbole?
" Canada has lost all credibility on climate change not just in North America, but also on the global stage."
Harper has been instrumental in developing a consensus that "climate change", to use your misleading phrase, must be a global initiative. He has brought many around to his way of thinking. Hardly the sign of someone who has lost credibility.
"If we finally succeed in having an intelligent debate over a carbon pricing system initiated by the federal government, lessons will be learned"
How can you expect to have an intelligent debate when you've already decided that man-made global warming exists without clear evidence of such? That's where the debate needs to start, otherwise you're just pandering to rent-seeking "green" industries and looting taxpayers.
Post a Comment