Comments due by April 25, 2015
Canada's provinces are taking command of the nation's battle against climate change, seizing the initiative from a reluctant federal government as the clock ticks down to a crucial international climate agreement later this year.
Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne on Monday signed a historic deal to join Quebec's cap-and-trade system for carbon emissions, while British Columbia Premier Christy Clark was invited to promote her province's carbon tax at the World Bank – an honour not usually accorded to a provincial leader.
And on Tuesday, Quebec Premier Philippe Couillard will play host to a meeting of provincial and territorial leaders to start crafting a national strategy to co-ordinate further climate action across the country.
"Climate change is one of the greatest challenges humankind has ever faced. This is about preserving a world for our children and our grandchildren," Ms. Wynne told reporters after meeting Mr. Couillard in his office near the National Assembly. "We cannot wait for a particular moment when the federal government decides it is going to engage."
Many of the details in Ontario's cap-and-trade system still have to be worked out over the next six months, but it is likely to look similar to the joint system run by Quebec and California. In that model, the government sets a cap on emissions and hands out some permits to industry for free while auctioning others off. The proceeds are then plowed back into other green programs, such as public transit.
Once Ontario's system is operating, 62 per cent of Canada's population and more than half its economy will be under the same carbon market. Including B.C., which uses a carbon tax instead, some three quarters of Canadians will be covered by provincial-level carbon pricing.
Ms. Clark on Monday said her message to leaders at the World Bank, which she will address Friday in Washington, will be to match B.C.'s success in slashing emissions through the tax: "The climate action challenge we're making to other governments is clear and simple: meet it or beat it."
While the federal government is moving forward with some climate-change measures – such as new regulations to make trucks more fuel efficient, and a plan to phase out coal-fired power generation – Ottawa has adamantly refused to support carbon pricing.
"We are very clear we don't want ... what is effectively a tax on carbon which would increase the cost for consumers and on taxpayers – the cost of electricity, of gasoline, of groceries," Finance Minister Joe Oliver told reporters Monday in response to Ontario and Quebec's deal. "We think this would be negative for the economy; it would be negative for consumers and for taxpayers. And that's why we oppose it."
The federal government is also leaving it up to the provinces to set their own emissions targets and report them to Ottawa, rather than attempting to forge a national strategy.
Mr. Couillard lamented this Monday, arguing that the federal government should negotiate with the provinces to set a clear plan that spells out exactly how much each province will cut in terms of emissions, and what each will do to achieve these targets.
The government must table its emission-reduction targets ahead of the UN climate summit in Paris in December, which will pull together an international accord for cutting greenhouse gas emissions.
"[The federal government should help with] getting to Paris with a common, well-documented position, which would include the global target for Canada and the allocation for different regions," Mr. Couillard said.
In the absence of the federal government, the provinces will be attempting to co-ordinate this themselves Tuesday.
But a spokesman for Environment Minister Leona Aglukkaq said Ottawa is attempting to work with the provinces and has received little feedback.
Ms. Aglukkaq has sent two letters to her provincial counterparts – one in November and another on Sunday – asking them to lay out their targets and plans beyond 2020. She told her colleagues the federal government will use that information, plus its own plans to regulate, to build a national submission for Paris.
However, Ottawa has rejected calls to lead a national negotiation on climate and energy policies and regional burden-sharing.
There are still major hurdles. Oil-rich Alberta, whose emissions are growing by leaps and bounds, must take tougher action to cut carbon if Canada is to achieve a net reduction over all. But Premier Jim Prentice, in the middle of a provincial election campaign, is skipping the Quebec meeting, leaving his province's plans up in the air.
Ms. Wynne, meanwhile, took a drubbing from the provincial opposition over her plan. Progressive Conservative environment critic Lisa Thompson argued that all cap-and-trade will do is make life more expensive for consumers in order to direct money into the treasury; she declared the plan a "new revenue tool to cover their wasteful spending."
Ms. Wynne appeared to anticipate this argument, and hit back at it as she unveiled the cap-and-trade plan at ecobee, a green-tech company in downtown Toronto, before flying to Quebec for her meeting with Mr. Couillard.
"When my granddaughter, Olivia, looks at me and says 'Grandma, what did you do [on climate change], I am not going to say to her 'I put my head in the sand because I was worried that maybe there would be a cost somewhere that I couldn't explain,'" she said. "I'm not going to do that."
(The Globe and Mail April 12, 2015)
Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne on Monday signed a historic deal to join Quebec's cap-and-trade system for carbon emissions, while British Columbia Premier Christy Clark was invited to promote her province's carbon tax at the World Bank – an honour not usually accorded to a provincial leader.
And on Tuesday, Quebec Premier Philippe Couillard will play host to a meeting of provincial and territorial leaders to start crafting a national strategy to co-ordinate further climate action across the country.
"Climate change is one of the greatest challenges humankind has ever faced. This is about preserving a world for our children and our grandchildren," Ms. Wynne told reporters after meeting Mr. Couillard in his office near the National Assembly. "We cannot wait for a particular moment when the federal government decides it is going to engage."
Many of the details in Ontario's cap-and-trade system still have to be worked out over the next six months, but it is likely to look similar to the joint system run by Quebec and California. In that model, the government sets a cap on emissions and hands out some permits to industry for free while auctioning others off. The proceeds are then plowed back into other green programs, such as public transit.
Once Ontario's system is operating, 62 per cent of Canada's population and more than half its economy will be under the same carbon market. Including B.C., which uses a carbon tax instead, some three quarters of Canadians will be covered by provincial-level carbon pricing.
Ms. Clark on Monday said her message to leaders at the World Bank, which she will address Friday in Washington, will be to match B.C.'s success in slashing emissions through the tax: "The climate action challenge we're making to other governments is clear and simple: meet it or beat it."
While the federal government is moving forward with some climate-change measures – such as new regulations to make trucks more fuel efficient, and a plan to phase out coal-fired power generation – Ottawa has adamantly refused to support carbon pricing.
"We are very clear we don't want ... what is effectively a tax on carbon which would increase the cost for consumers and on taxpayers – the cost of electricity, of gasoline, of groceries," Finance Minister Joe Oliver told reporters Monday in response to Ontario and Quebec's deal. "We think this would be negative for the economy; it would be negative for consumers and for taxpayers. And that's why we oppose it."
The federal government is also leaving it up to the provinces to set their own emissions targets and report them to Ottawa, rather than attempting to forge a national strategy.
Mr. Couillard lamented this Monday, arguing that the federal government should negotiate with the provinces to set a clear plan that spells out exactly how much each province will cut in terms of emissions, and what each will do to achieve these targets.
The government must table its emission-reduction targets ahead of the UN climate summit in Paris in December, which will pull together an international accord for cutting greenhouse gas emissions.
"[The federal government should help with] getting to Paris with a common, well-documented position, which would include the global target for Canada and the allocation for different regions," Mr. Couillard said.
In the absence of the federal government, the provinces will be attempting to co-ordinate this themselves Tuesday.
But a spokesman for Environment Minister Leona Aglukkaq said Ottawa is attempting to work with the provinces and has received little feedback.
Ms. Aglukkaq has sent two letters to her provincial counterparts – one in November and another on Sunday – asking them to lay out their targets and plans beyond 2020. She told her colleagues the federal government will use that information, plus its own plans to regulate, to build a national submission for Paris.
However, Ottawa has rejected calls to lead a national negotiation on climate and energy policies and regional burden-sharing.
There are still major hurdles. Oil-rich Alberta, whose emissions are growing by leaps and bounds, must take tougher action to cut carbon if Canada is to achieve a net reduction over all. But Premier Jim Prentice, in the middle of a provincial election campaign, is skipping the Quebec meeting, leaving his province's plans up in the air.
Ms. Wynne, meanwhile, took a drubbing from the provincial opposition over her plan. Progressive Conservative environment critic Lisa Thompson argued that all cap-and-trade will do is make life more expensive for consumers in order to direct money into the treasury; she declared the plan a "new revenue tool to cover their wasteful spending."
Ms. Wynne appeared to anticipate this argument, and hit back at it as she unveiled the cap-and-trade plan at ecobee, a green-tech company in downtown Toronto, before flying to Quebec for her meeting with Mr. Couillard.
"When my granddaughter, Olivia, looks at me and says 'Grandma, what did you do [on climate change], I am not going to say to her 'I put my head in the sand because I was worried that maybe there would be a cost somewhere that I couldn't explain,'" she said. "I'm not going to do that."
(The Globe and Mail April 12, 2015)
Generally, federal government is making climate-change regulations to improve overall sustainability. According to the readings, there are plans being made to phase out coal-fired power generation. Places such as Ottawa refuses to set carbon pricing because it interferes with economic growth. The federal government is leaving it up to the providences of Canada to set their own emissions target and report back to Ottawa. I believe that this could be a mistake. Federal government should have everything regulated for the providence through negotiation; therefore they have a goal to obtain. Knowing that the federal government, and supervisors are not stressing carbon emission regulation affects everyone else in the world, and adds to our downfall.
ReplyDeleteOur current goal should be as “green” as possible. Federal government from every country should be doing more, and could be doing more. It is clear that economic growth and stability are the top priority even if it increases greenhouse gases. We need to find ways were we could become sustainable, and promote economic growth.
The world is over using resources and fossil fuels, but more than a billion people cannot fulfill or have a reach of basic needs of food, water, sanitation, health-care, housing and education. This is another problem, but developing countries with fast growing population are encouraged to use and adopt with cleaner technologies, and environment degradation. Using effective technology, made affordable can decrease emissions. Greenhouse emissions are supposed to triple within the next 20 years, this could reduce the growth of emission. Promoting something this adds to a positive impact.
Even though it is unfortunate that Canada’s government doesn’t feel a need to fight against climate change, it is good to hear that its provinces are taking command of the nation's battle. Considering that fact climate change is one of the greatest challenges mankind had even faced, it is difficult to understand how anyone does not feel the need to take action and fight against this. If the provinces wait until their government takes a stand that may never happen. Yes, understandably, what Finance Minister Joe Oliver stated that this would be negative for the economy, consumers, and taxpayers, may be true. I believe it is important to look at the overall picture in order to make a decision. What may be “negative” to one may not be negative to another. In addition, if this system is based off of Quebec and California’s model that the government sets a cap on emissions, hands out some permits to industry for free while auctioning others off and the proceeds are then plowed back into other green programs, such as public transit than there’s higher chances of it working.
ReplyDeleteIn understanding why Ottawa disagreed on Carbon Tax, the Canadian government needs to implement such laws as a country. A Carbon Tax law across the country will result in changes to the economy that will allow a new balance to the economic system, but if Carbon Tax is only implemented in certain states, the Canadian people will obviously have the issue in having to pay a lot more in tax dollars.
ReplyDeleteThe federal government is doing a great job in finding that goal to cut down on carbon and greenhouse gases, understandably its more difficult without punishing citizens in the process but it must be done for a greener and healthier future.
The federal government can first answer the question about Ottawa, is it developing a large amount of greenhouse gases that the full extent of the law needs to be enforced? Or is their a way to negotiate terms with Ontario and the Ottawa people?
When it comes to the cap and trade plan, there is a lot of work to do regarding implementation. The cap-and-trade systems are limited to a small number of large emitters; many emissions in the province will be missed. Narrow coverage tends to be less effective at reducing overall emissions and also, because it places the burden on a small number of emitters, it tends to be more costly than necessary.
ReplyDeleteIn addition, leaving some sectors outside of the system is needlessly divisive. In order to improve cost-effectiveness, and also to encourage all Ontarians to recognize that they are joined in a common project, the system should be designed with the widest possible coverage. Quebec’s system covers roughly 85 per cent of its emissions; Ontario should aim to match that coverage.
I think that it is great that Ontario is able to generate roughly $1-2 billion dollars in revenue per year. The government plans to reinvest the proceeds raised through cap-and-trade into projects that reduce greenhouse gas emissions. These include projects aimed at reducing household energy consumption, building more public transit and assisting factories and businesses in reducing their environmental footprint. The people need to hold their provincial government to account for developing a transparent system of recycling the revenues in a way that generates genuine economic benefits for them.
Ontario signed a historic deal to join Quebec's cap-and-trade system for carbon emissions, Quebec will host a meeting of provincial and territorial leaders to start crafting a national strategy to co-ordinate further climate action across the country. The cap-and-trade system is efficiently for reducing carbon emissions, which can reach the goal of reducing carbon emissions.
ReplyDeleteUnder this system, each firm must have permits to generate emissions. Each permit specifies the number of units of emissions that the firm is allowed to put out. Any firm that generates emissions not allowed by the permit is subject to substantial monetary sanctions. Permits are allocated among firms, with the total number of permits chose to achieve the desired maximum level of emissions. Permits are marketable: They can be bought and sold. Under the permit system, the firms least able to reduce emissions are those that purchase permits. Although the cap-and-trade system is still some hurdles in Canada, it has loomed some provinces and territories, helped Canada to achieve a net reduction over all. Climate change is one of the greatest challenges humankind has ever faced, if Canada can build the whole cap-and-trade system, it can develop the same carbon market, meet its carbon emission-reduction targets in the world.
The sustainability is important and federal government is expected to make changes on it because the environment is damaged negatively and carbon emissions harm the whole society and environment. Some locations like Ottawa reject carbon pricing because it affects the economic growth. Personally, I did not like the idea of leaving the decision to the providences of Canada because federal government should regulate for the providence. It should be known that carbon emissions have general effect on the world and people. It is important to find ways of becoming as green as possible. It is easy to realize that countries take the economic growth as priority but they completely forget about the sustainability and the current problems emerging from gases. It will be good to create ways of being more sustainable. We should save the world. The economic growth can be promoted through sustainability as well.
ReplyDeleteThere is overuse of resources but there are still some people who cannot meet their basic demands like food and water. There are still people in Africa who cannot reach to education and housing opportunities but it is realized that developing countries use more sustainable ways while improving their technologies. The use of better technology makes the world a better place to live.
Its interesting to read about the struggle between the Province and Federal governments in Canada. In the United States, we face the exact opposite problem; States are resisting the Federal governments push for carbon cuts. In Canada, this offers a very interesting perspective on combating climate change. Within their provinces, much can be done to cut carbon emissions, such as cap and trade systems. On the international stage, not to much can be accomplished without the Federal government. If Canada will reach its goals of cutting carbon emissions, then they will need the support of the Federal government to negotiate with other nations.
ReplyDeleteAs we now, the main goal in different nations is to get the most environmental friendly we can. Having a green economy means an improvement in almost every part of the economy and a complete change in our lives. After taking a look to this reading, I think the federal government is making a progress. Yes, it will be harder for citizens for a period of time, but this means a change to a healthier leaving an much better future. If the idea of the government trying to have new goals related with the greenhouse gases emission will be, as I said before, the planning of a new "cleaner" future. Why do Ottawa disagrees with the Carbon tax? well simple because they think this will cut the economic growth. But at least, this regulations are still a debate, so the hope of Canada working for a better future is still on board.
ReplyDeleteIt was very interesting to read this article. I didn't know before reading it how challenging it could be for federal nation to change things in favor of the environment. Most countries can change things pretty easily if they want to. The central government just need to vote some laws. however, in feral countries states the federal government needs to negotiate with the states in order to make change. And its seems to be the biggest problem of Canada today. Moreover Canada has to fight with powerful lobbies.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion a carbon tax is the best decision because it is fare. Industries that are deteriorating the environment must pay for their impact on nature. Meanwhile clean industries that can't touch by deterioration can be supported by the money they receive from this tax. The tax has many advantages, the carbon tax encourages a decrease of energy consumption and therefore our emissions of greenhouse gases.
- Implement the carbon tax would anticipate the post-oil and prevent an impending energy crisis
- It is an economic development opportunity for sustainable sectors (clean cars, green jobs ... )
- The state could save money by reducing energy imports
- The carbon tax would reduce the household energy bills , if they play the game.
Now, I hope the federal and the local government need to agree on this question.
Throughout all of my blogs and writings during this course, I have continuously emphasized the importance of policies and regulations by government in order to achieve sustainable changes. However, this last article together with the “Green Cities” chapter reading, led me towards a different path. Certainly, Canada’s government has taken a laizze-faire approach to the climate change issues. However, we must bear in mind that not all cities are alike. What may work in one province may not work in another. There exists different measures of population, levels of pollution and carbon emissions, energy and water consumption, water quality, waste volumes, recycling methods and forestation. In addition, one city’s infrastructure may differ from the next. The foregoing factors contribute to fluctuating levels of consumption, waste and equity. The Canadian Premiers should meet and strategize different methods of reaching greener cities. Each province should then put into practice within their own city what they preach and then be able to measure within specified time-periods any sustainable achievements and/or changes. Comparing results between the provinces ensures progress or lack thereof. It is of utmost important that local leaders educate themselves before imposing taxes on measures that may or may not bring about a greener environment. Possibly the Canadian Government is right in taking a "hands off" approach. Actions speak louder than words. If local cities are able to deliver evidence of sustainable changes within their municipalities, then the Federal Government can determine what is needed to obtain social, ecological and economic sustainable changes on a national level without having to spend useless time and money.
ReplyDeleteFrom reading past blog posts, it is evident that climate change initiatives is highly debated among government officials in different countries. Carbon pricing is an effort to reduce global warming emissions. There is a charge for those who emit carbon dioxide for their emissions. The carbon price is the amount that must be made for the fight to emit carbon dioxide in the air. Ottawa a refused to support any type of carbon pricing, while the federal government is introducing new regulations to make trucks more fuel efficient and plans to eliminate coal-fired power. However, Ontario plans to participate along with Quebec and California in a cap and trade system. Ottawa does not want to participate because they believe that governments place taxes on carbon just to have more tax revenue in their pocket and that there is no benefit from carbon pricing. Ottawa will begin to look for other ways to reduce carbon dioxide levels without effecting growth.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading the above post, it is clear that the Federal Government should be doing more in order to reach the goal of improved sustainability. With the federal government not being in control of the regulation of emissions, the progress towards a more sustainable economy is hindered.
ReplyDeleteThrough the words of Minister Joe Oliver, one can see that specific areas are strongly against deals made that are similar to those that Ontario and Quebec are involved in. Those areas see deals like those as only an increase of costs on consumers, which is against the goals of those seeking a greener economy.
In order for our goals to be met, federal governments must be more involved in the regulations of emissions, as the rate of green house emissions are expected to triple within the next twenty years.
It is encouraging to see the federal government of Canada take steps moving forward to climate-changing measures. Although regulations to make automobiles more fuel efficient and planning to phase out a coal-fired generation will be costly, it is clear shot-callers are making a statement by their actions. The relation of how a tax on carbon pricing would increase costs of electricity, gasoline, and groceries is interesting. The fact that they opposed it says they do want to maintain consumer spending within the economy. I believe in the long run they will benefit from their actions.
ReplyDeleteWhile we want to do everything we can to make sure that regulations are in place to curb climate control now and in the future, we have to make sure it does not hurt the economy now. It's a classic case of the right balance which is incredibly tough to achieve. I believe that a national policy would be more effective than a local by local strategy, all reporting to one person.
ReplyDeleteOttawa says that carbon pricing would have a negative effect on customers, taxpayers, and the economy as a whole. This is short term thinking but needs to be thought about when discussing longer term plans as well. Overall, federal governments must work in unison to make sure that plans can be implemented on a global level.
One of the only things that the world understands and agrees on is the importance of money. The problem is not everyone really sees these issues as important. Somehow if possible there needs to be some universal plan that everyone agrees to follow. I like the idea of charging those that go over their carbon emissions because that may be the only way to get the message across. Like I said, some people only care about or understand money, and losing it may be the only way to get a company to seriously consider making changes that better our environment and future. It may hit the economy at first but like everything else, to reach your goals often takes sacrifice.
ReplyDeleteCap and trade is the most environmentally and economically sensible approach to controlling greenhouse gas emissions. The cap sets a limit on the amount of CO2 emissions; the government issues permits to companies that emit CO2 emissions of 25,000 or more and they specify how much carbon they can burn. If companies are going to being burning more carbon, they have to buy permits at government auctions. The trade creates a market for carbon allowances. If companies exceed their allowed pollution amount, they are fined by the government. This is really the only sure way we can lower CO2 emissions, the leading cause of global warming. It is also an opportunity for companies because trading allows companies to buy and sell emission allowances and an incentive to invest in cleaner technology. Help from the federal government is imperative to the success of the cap and trade system. Government backing will help to accomplish the goals of the cap and trade system including greater environmental protection at lower cost and lower global emissions.
ReplyDeleteControlling greenhouse emissions seems to be an issue that governments can't seem to agree on. Capping the amount of CO2 emissions will allow for an economic and environmentally friendly answer to the problem of greenhouse gas emissions. Also, trading creates a market for extra carbon allowances. Companies that exceed the pollution will be fined by the government. I believe that by making companies financially responsible for their CO2 emissions will slowly decrease the amount of emissions that each company expels. Trading will give companies who need more emission allowance will be able to get it from other companies who won't be using their emission allowances.
ReplyDeleteClimate Change. As we know it is the single contributing factor in Planet Earths Future, the question is are we going to control and acknowledge this fact? This is going to determine whether or not all we worked for to make this planet Economically beneficent. Plato's that once upon a time it was thought that they were never going to be reached, it would be a shame to throw everything away because of ignorance or lack of due diligence. Earths tomorrow and the lives of our children and great grand children are is in our hands and we need to take action now to preserve tomorrow!
ReplyDeleteBy:Yeison Gomezzarzuela