News

Libs Relent, Open Carbon Trading to Public View

Bills still let govt. 'hand industry a blank cheque,' say critics.

By Tom Barrett, 22 Apr 2008, TheTyee.ca

Smokestack spelling CO2

Cap and trade: How will it work?

Text size:

Rate this:

Login/Register

The B.C. government is dropping controversial secrecy provisions from its climate change legislation.

But opponents of the legislation say it still allows the government to design a key piece of its climate change strategy in secret.

Last week, in a little-noticed move, the government announced amendments to climate change Bills 16 and 18. The bills had been criticized for creating what one group called "a wall of secrecy" around corporate greenhouse gas emissions.

B.C.'s information and privacy commissioner David Loukidelis wrote to two cabinet ministers earlier this month, complaining that parts of the two bills represent "a significant encroachment" on freedom of information provisions.

Confidentiality provisions in the two bills, which would have kept information provided by corporations secret, were a "matter of significant concern," the commissioner wrote.

The government amendments replace the confidentiality sections with standard government freedom of information language, said Darrell Evans, of the Campaign for Open Government.

Evans called the move a major reversal.

"They climbed down," Evans told The Tyee.

"It looks like us, with the Opposition, the commissioner, and [Liberal MLA] Blair Lekstrom all seemed to have an effect. Which is great."

Bill still flawed say critics

In terms of the battle for freedom of information, the government's decision "is just a matter of holding ground," Evans said. "It's not progress. Holding ground is progress in FOI, believe me.

"Unfortunately, that's the way it is. Governments just continually reassert [secrecy] and bureaucrats even more than politicians tend to want to keep secrets.

"It's a knee-jerk thing."

Wilderness Committee executive director Andrea Reimer and New Democratic Party environment critic Shane Simpson both welcomed the amendments, but argued that there are still serious flaws in Bill 18, which sets up a cap and trade system.

The bill, Reimer told The Tyee, "hands government a blank cheque to hand industry a blank cheque."

The bill creates the framework for a system that would regulate the carbon emissions of big polluters, but doesn't give any details on how the system will work.

The details will be set by regulation, which means they are left to the B.C. cabinet to work out in secret.

Complex system, huge money at stake

In general terms, the cap and trade system will set an overall limit, or cap, on GHG emissions. Polluters would have to obtain permits to emit; a company that emitted less than its limit could sell its excess credits to companies that go over their target.

Such systems are highly complex and there are many questions around issues such as the level of the cap, which types and size of polluters are covered and whether it is best to auction the permits or give them away.

These and other issues are being thrashed out by the Western Climate Initiative, a body that includes B.C., Manitoba, Arizona, California, Montana, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah and Washington. (Quebec announced last week that it is joining, as well.)

The WCI is expected to come up with detailed recommendations in August that will reflect the input of governments, industry and environmental groups.

Bill crafted too soon?

Reimer said the government should wait until the WCI recommendations are released before bringing in cap and trade legislation.

"The fair way to do it is to pull the bill off the table, which is what the NDP has been asking for, and wait until we see what the law around actual cap and trade is going to be -- whatever comes out of the WCI," she said.

That way it would be possible to have a public debate around the design of the system rather than leave it to cabinet, Reimer said.

"Why pass legislation to hand government the ability to create legislation in secret?" she asked. "Especially on something like this. Not all cap and trades are created equally. You want to know that the way it's being created is fair."

"The way to deal with it is just simply to wait until WCI is done and then legislate it in the fall session. That would be the obvious, logical, fair, publicly accountable way to do this."

Polluter influence questioned

By leaving the details to regulation, rather than legislation, the government is "circumventing legislative traditions that are hundreds of years old in our parliamentary system," she said. "I find it very concerning."

Both Reimer and the NDP's Simpson noted that the governing Liberal party has received substantial donations from big polluters.

Simpson said the public doesn't know what influence these companies are having on Liberal climate change policy. The process should be as open as possible to ensure it is fair, he said.

He said the government should send a legislative committee out to hold hearings on cap and trade, the carbon tax and the recommendations of the government's climate action team. The committee could report back in the fall and the legislature could spend some time discussing its findings, he said.

Related Tyee stories:

[Tyee]

Tom Barrett is a contributing editor to The Tyee with a focus on global warming policy and politics. You can reach him here.

13 Comments:

Login or register to post comments

  • Peter Dimitrov

    3 years ago

    The Best Democracy Money Can Buy

    An excellent expose, thank you to the author and the Tyee. So the Liberals have lifted the veil of secrecy - let that be a slippery slope--and let us, the public see the contractual terms of reference with Accenture, lets us see the energy purchase contracts between BC Hydro and our goody-two shoes private energy corps, lets have some oxygen open the pages of those 'private placement agreements' and 'banking contracts' that fund the private energy projects. Dear God, lets not get in the way of a 'good thing happening' again, and again....and if there are any off-shore bank accounts -well let the light shine on- may my eyes be opened!

    Seriously, it is a wee late in the day for after-the fact transparency, what good is public participation & consultation when we are so far down the line to implementing the carbon cap & trade system? Nonethless, let the good times roll, open up those EPA's, all of them, especially the one between Alcan and BC Hydro. Reading the donation list to the Liberal Party- tells me that they are expecting the next election to be an 'auction', well I don't know about you, but it is time we organize ourselves well enough to insure it will be an election. Speaking of elections, I have received notice that the BC Liberal are planning legislation to regulate/diminish the capacity of labor unions and municipalities to do 'third party' advertising for the next BC election--lets shine some light on that legislative deal in the works.

  • Luke Skywalker

    3 years ago

    Peter...

    Quote:
    I have received notice that the BC Liberal are planning legislation to regulate/diminish the capacity of labor unions and municipalities to do 'third party' advertising for the next BC election--lets shine some light on that legislative deal in the works.

    Municipalities don't engage in any third party advertising. You are a lawyer, you oughtta know that.

    As for unions, corporations, and other interest groups participating in third party advertising who cares if they do or don't?

    BTW, what is the legislation that you refer to??

  • brian gough

    3 years ago

    they just moved the goal posts

    before you all jump for joy. the bc liberals had no plan! this whole greenhouse reduction -33% by 2020 is a load of bull! let me give you some facts --75 % of bc emissions come from transportation (cars -trucks-trains -ships-etc etc etc ) if industry went to 0 % emissions tommorrow, they still couldn`t reach these targets! everyday theres more cars and trucks on the road--and if a million more people come here (which the state is going to happen) everyone is bringing a carbon footprint------heres another one--the gargler campbell states we are going to reduce 33% of 2007 emissions by 2020-----we won`t have the 2007 emission levels until the middle of 2009---then he will give his climate action team another year to figure out where we can reduce! now we are in 2010--the ndp asked campbell to use 2005 levels,that way campbell could of set targets last year----( it takes a couple of years after each year to figure out emission levels ) and the reason campbell did not want to use 2005 emission levels is---because hes got NOTHING i repeat NOTHING--now plan no ideas nothing-----thats why hes bribing us with a hundred bucks!------THIS IS THE BIGGEST FRAUD EVER PERPETRATED UPON THE PEOPLE OF BC----our emissions went up in 2006-2007-2008 -and they will go up in 2009-2010=2011-2012--I am all for reducing but campbell is a fraud---so all campbell has done with bill 16 and bill 18 is move the goal posts

  • brian gough

    3 years ago

    my mistake-the gargler has a couple of ideas

    #1 campbell will make fuel more and more and more expensive! ---------#2 campbell wants to plant trees --trees in parking lots-on roofs-in the forest--thats it,thats all he has----but theres a proposal for developement on burke mountain in coquitlam--they will have to cut down 16000 trees---natural grasslands store more carbon than trees,the grasses put the carbon in the soil!--burns bog is north americas largest urban carbon sink--campbell will destroy it--and considering that campbell has let the forestry companies off the hook from planting tens of millions of trees(that their obligated to plant) and considering we are losing billions of trees to the pine beetle--the bottom line is gordon (the gargler )campbell thought he could --baffle us with bullshit

  • mopled

    3 years ago

    Drinking the KoolAid

    You get to squabble over being shafted by the corporations and play out a whole Left/Right puppet show about a scam.

    Even Cardinal George Pell, Roman Catholic Archbishop of Sydney says the warming is over.

    "Canada has just experienced the coldest winter and the heaviest snowfalls since 1970-1, which was called a once in a thousand years event. Another 18 centimetres of snow would set an all time record. A Kingston newspaper had a marvellous cartoon of a tough old Canadian, rugged up against the cold and hacking the ice off the windscreen of his car. The caption read "Global warming my a."!

    In China the Chinese New Year coincided with a fierce cold snap and snow storms which prevented many city workers returning to their villages for the celebrations. Police had to deal with the ensuing riots. London has just experienced snow at Easter.

    The world is much bigger than both China and Canada combined, which might be the exceptions to the new rule of man-made global warming, but they are inconvenient facts for the climate change bandwagon. And it is an intolerant bandwagon with loud exaggerated claims that the issue is settled and that an unchallenged consensus among scientists confirms the hypothesis of dangerous humanly caused global warming. In fact the issue is far from settled. Politicians sceptical of these claims would need unusual courage to resist the strong tides of public opinion. However the rest of us are not so constrained and we should consider all the available information. Three points are of some significance.

    Last December more than 100 prominent international scientists, some of them members of the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, warned the U.N. that attempting to control the earth's climate was "ultimately futile". So did 500 experts in Manhattan in March. Fighting climate change was distracting governments from helping the most vulnerable citizens adapt to the threat of inevitable natural climate changes, whatever they might prove to be. Futile attempts to prevent global climate change would be a tragic misallocation of resources, they claimed.

  • mopled

    3 years ago

    the rest of the reality

    cont'd
    Secondly none of the natural changes observed with glaciers, sea-levels and species migration is outside the bounds of known variability, including the warming of 0.1 to 0.2 degrees Celsius per decade in the late twentieth century. But the 1930s decade was warmer than the 1990s. Most importantly the global temperature has not increased since 2001. Global warming has ceased (New Statesman 19/12/2007). This finding invalidates the global warming hypotheses because the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere continues to increase and the temperature should be increasing too. It isn't.

    The last point to be acknowledged is that today's computer models cannot predict climate over long periods because there are too many unknowns and variables. We should never forget that while computers are miracles of human ingenuity, able to assimilate extraordinary amounts of information in the briefest time, they are also limited, cannot think for themselves and are totally obedient to their last human master. More than this is needed to predict the future.

  • Dungeness_Crab

    3 years ago

    Global warming doesn't mean

    Global warming doesn't mean that the entire Earth becomes warmer at every point, but that increased thermal energy trapped by CO2 in the atmosphere will energize more dramatic climate events.

    These include bizarre changes in temperature, such as colder temps in some places, among other things.

    But then who am I to argue climate science with an expert, namely the good Archbishop? ;)

  • pender paul

    3 years ago

    let's apply the same principles

    We live on an eleven acre plot of land that is, for the most part, heavily forested. The trees are sucking up carbon at a great rate. Therefore, we should be able to sell the difference between what we produce by breathing and what our trees consume--and we should be able to do it on an annual basis. Likewise anybody with a few garden shrubs. Additionally, one of the reasons folks come to the Gulf Islands is to enjoy its scenic beauty--we should be able to write off the scenic value of our property against our property taxes. Fair is fair, Mr. Campbell--you've set the standard with all this nonsense about carbon trading. And one last thought; while Mr. Campbell trots around the province in his green cape, green hat and green shoes--what about the investments held by the British Columbia Investment Management Corporation--you know Gordo, the one you direct through Ministry of Finance appointments--the portfolio contains some of the most disreputable and filthy polluters on the face of the earth.

  • brian gough

    3 years ago

    the biggesr fraud ever perpetrated upon the people of bc

    the fraud that I am talking about is not global warming----the fraud is gordon campbells plan! the only reason campbell jumped on this platform is because hes behind in the (real) polls. gargler campbell read a book on a plane to maui about how people are concerned about global warming. so this scheme of campbell is merely to get re-elected. for goodness sakes the gargler put it in a bill (bc is mandated by LAW to reduce 33% by 2020) he wanted to WOW everyone, wow 33% boy is he serious. and what the hell has he done--a gas tax(how original)----tree planting(how original)----gordon(the gargler) campbell--is the biggest liar bc has ever seen!-----cap and trade is bullshit---give money to some shell company in new zealand that doesn`t pollute --or charge money to a company that pollutes. who the hell is going pay that money THE CONSUMER. and by the way campbell gave big business the heads up about cap and trade a year ago--so the big polluters fudged their emissions upward! in fact a pulp mill in howe sound switched fron natural gas to coal,they almost doubled their emissions-----and when they switch back to natural gas they will get a bunch of carbon credits! what a load of bull.

  • brian gough

    3 years ago

    pender paul

    I love your idea--up in pender harbour where I am at same thing --we got hundreds of trees on our property ,and maybe a legal challenge can made about property taxes and other provincial taxes --we could threaten to cut them down, or maybe I could sell my trees carbon eating ability to fort mcmurray--and of course carbon offsetting revenue should be TAX FREE!---I like the way you think pender paul..............signed pender harbour brian

  • mopled

    3 years ago

    My dear Dungeness

    The Cardinal put it succinctly,and while in this instance he is only a layman, he summarizes the opinion of thousands of scientists (http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm). The recent Manhattan Declaration. http://www.climatescienceinternational.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=49&Itemid=1

    Ottawa, Canada, April 22, 2008 – The International Climate Science Coalition (ICSC) today released the names of over 500 endorsers of the Manhattan Declaration on Climate Change that calls on world leaders to “reject the views expressed by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) as well as popular, but misguided works such as “An Inconvenient Truth”.” All taxes, regulations, and other interventions intended to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) should “be abandoned forthwith”, declaration signatories conclude.

    Included in the endorser list are world leading climate scientists, economists, policymakers, engineers, business leaders, medical doctors, as well as other professionals and concerned citizens from two dozen countries. The complete declaration text, endorser lists and international media contacts for expert commentary, may be viewed at here.

    Perhaps most significant among the declaration’s assertions:

    · “there is no convincing evidence that CO2 emissions from modern industrial activity have in the past, are now, or will in the future cause catastrophic climate change.”

    · “attempts by governments to legislate costly regulations on industry and individual citizens to encourage CO2 reduction will slow development while having no appreciable impact on the future trajectory of global climate change. Such policies will markedly diminish future prosperity and so reduce the ability of societies to adapt to inevitable climate change, thereby increasing, not decreasing human suffering.”

    You have some information to catch up on. May I suggest:
    http://petesplace-peter.blogspot.com/2008/04/peer-reviewed-articles-skeptical-of-man.html
    Peer-Reviewed Articles Skeptical Of Man-Caused Global Warming

  • ME2

    3 years ago

    A War story

    And here we have, folks, now at full center stage (sound the trumpets please) See our new War, The War Against CO2!!!!

    It doesn't matter that like Prohibition, it's a War that cannot be won, or that it too is a War Against Us, "The Enemy Within."

    Like the War Against Drugs, The War Against Terrorism, and the War Against Tobacco, it's a feelgood War in which we can cherrypick the bad guys among us who may or may not be real villians - according to whatever definition is currently in flavour, and we get to choose.

    And we can "get involved" too, like riding a bike or planting carrots in window-boxes. It doesn't matter that whatever we do will have little impact upon the overall situation, what's important is that we "do something", the sine qua non of all grass-roots campaigns.

    And it's tailor made for the institutionalised NGOs too, ain't it?

    And as Van Isle noted on another thread yesterday, the likes of our Boards of Trade don't mind the "War" a bit, since as they do in all Wars, they're lining up at the trough to profit from it.

    So now we'll see an endless procession of govt-funded Commissions, Committees, Climate Consultants, Lobbyists, Scientific Panels, Public Input experts, Regulatory Agencies (privatised, of course), new Ministries, Ministers and Deputy Ministers - not to mention the myriad of upcoming tax-avoidance schemes, subsidies, carbon-trades etc etc. Our neocons are past experts at pork-barreling.

    And guess who they'll try to convince it's well worth paying for it all?

  • brian gough

    3 years ago

    well said ME2

    does gordon (the gargler) campbell think if he puts enough " advisors and experts "front and center at the public trough he can win an election, I believe the gargler campbell knows hes sinking like a stone, so all he can do now is fatten up his corporate freinds wallets!

    • The discussion for this story is closed. No more comments can be added.