Today begins a series on how the province's carbon reduction plans are working, or not.
[Editor's note: Four years ago, B.C. dazzled the world with a daring new plan to drive down carbon emissions. Well, the world has moved on since 2007 -- through a global financial crisis into a new era of pinched economies and a deepening divide between the economic have-it-alls and the have-lesses (and less and less with each passing year), as expressed in the Occupy movement. Meanwhile, the political leader who gave B.C. its carbon strategy has also moved on. His Liberal successor, Premier Christy Clark, and her equally untested rival, NDP Opposition Leader Adrian Dix, must face British Columbia voters in a general election in May 2013. For both, the millions of dollars in government revenue, public spending, and future tax hikes and disbursements at stake in B.C.'s climate strategy present irresistible, or perhaps inescapable, targets to define their opposing campaigns.
Before the partisan framing sets in, the Tyee Solutions Society thought it might be useful to stand back and consider just what the Climate Action Plan has and hasn't accomplished so far -- what's been learned from its successes and lapses, what informed observers say deserves rethinking and what the rival suitors for our support in the coming election have revealed about which elements of the pioneering plan to zero out B.C.'s carbon footprint they may scrap or enhance.
In this first instalment of a series, Christopher Pollon recaps how we got here. Future instalments will measure partisan support for the Carbon Action Plan; look in on how our unique-in-North-America carbon tax is working out; pull back the curtain on the mysterious world of carbon "offsets"; and more.]
BC's CLIMATE CAMPAIGN: TIMELINE
October 2006
- UK Stern Report released discussing the effects of climate change on the world economy.
February 2007
- IPCC published Fourth Assessment Report.
- Speech from the throne commits actions to tackle climate change, including setting greenhouse gas emission reduction targets and carbon neutral government; $4 million for Climate Action Secretariat included in budget.
- Energy Plan released.
April 2007
- B.C. joins the Western Climate Initiative.
May 2007
- Climate Action Secretariat established.
- B.C. joins the Climate Action Registry.
August 2007
- Western Climate Initiative members agree to a 15 per cent regional GHG emission reduction goal.
- Key staff at Climate Action Secretariat hired.
September 2007
- B.C. communities commit to carbon neutrality by 2012 by signing the Climate Action Charter.
October 2007
- B.C. joins the International Carbon Action Partnership (ICAP).
November 2007
- Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reductions Target Act passed setting a 33 per cent reduction target by 2020 and 80 per cent by 2050, carbon neutral government legislated.
- Climate Action Team announced consisting of 15 members including business, local government, academic, NGO and energy leaders.
December 2007
- Call for proposals issued for the Innovative Clean Energy Fund.
January 2008
- $14 billion transportation plan announced.
February 2008
- Budget includes over $1 billion in spending for climate action.
- Revenue neutral carbon tax announced starting at $5/tonne.
- LiveSmart B.C. incentives announced.
Spring 2008
- Government passes climate action legislation to enable the carbon tax, cap and trade, vehicle emissions standards, renewable and low carbon fuel requirements, green community development and low-carbon energy production.
June 2008
- Government releases the Climate Action Plan. Includes modelling by Mark Jaccard and associates estimating that the policies in the plan get the province 73 per cent of the way to their 2020 target.
- LiveSmart B.C. website launched.
- Carbon tax comes into effect.
August 2008
- Climate Action Team releases report recommending interim GHG emission reduction targets, additional policy measures to meet 2020 reduction targets and advice on how to achieve carbon neutral government.
September 2008
- Citizens' Conservation Councils launched consisting of seven councils with 70 participants.
- WCI partners release a proposed design for comprehensive regional cap and trade.
October 2008
- Low income families receive low income climate action tax credit
November 2008
- Government sets GHG targets for 2012 and 2016.
April 2009
- Pacific Carbon Trust buys first set of emissions offsets.
July 2009
- Release of B.C. Greenhouse Gas Inventory Report 2007 -- sets the emission baseline for provincial targets.
- The Province and the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP) sign a Memorandum of Understanding on energy efficiency.
November 2009
- Reporting regulation requires facilities emitting 10,000 tonnes of greenhouse gas and above annually to report their emissions.
March 2010
- Zero Net Deforestation Act passed.
April 2010
- Clean Energy Act is introduced.
May 2010
- The province returns nearly $2.9 million in carbon-tax dollars to local governments who are committed to becoming carbon neutral by 2012.
- The province has released the Community Energy and Emissions Inventory (CEEI) reports for all B.C. local governments, a North American first.
June 2010
- $25 million for Public Sector Energy Conservation Agreement projects goes to public sector organizations for energy retrofits.
September 2010
- "Apps 4 Climate Action" contest winners are announced.
- B.C. Releases its second Greenhouse Gas Inventory Report.
October 2010
- Beginning of formal public consultations on cap and trade regulations.
February 2011
- B.C. and Washington State sign Climate Action Partnerships
March 2011
- Facilities report greenhouse gas emissions to B.C. for the first time through the one-window reporting system with Environment Canada.
April 2011
- Extension of LiveSmart B.C. home energy retrofit program.
June 2011
- B.C. becomes North America's first carbon neutral public sector.
July 2011
- B.C. raises carbon tax to $25/tonne.
Quebec tables regulations for its participation in the California-led cap and trade system -- with legal obligations for industries and enforcement commencing in 2013.
October 2011
- California approves its final cap and trade regulations, which will create the second largest carbon market in the world beginning in 2013.
(SOURCE: B.C. Ministry of Environment, CP)
Political observers still can't explain Gordon Campbell's 2007 transformation from eco-villain to trail-blazing climate activist. While other North American politicians stood slack-jawed on the sidelines, British Columbia's then-premier, an avowed enemy of environmentalists, launched the continent's boldest experiment to fight climate change.
Over about a year, Campbell's Liberal government tabled 10 pieces of legislation to enable British Columbia's Climate Action Plan. At its heart was a legally binding requirement to slash B.C.'s greenhouse gas emissions by one-third from 2007 levels by 2020, and 80 per cent by 2050.
Many doubted Campbell's sincerity. Six years earlier, the former Vancouver mayor had terminated his predecessor's climate change program within months of taking power, created a tax loophole for gas-guzzling luxury vehicles and reduced provincial fuel taxes. He joined the premier of oil-producing Alberta in opposing ratification of the Kyoto protocol.
It seemed a stunning reversal when his government's February 2007 speech from the throne declared a four-part war on climate change to include North America's first broad-based revenue-neutral carbon tax, mandatory public sector carbon neutrality and plans for participation in a regional cap and trade system.
The boldness of B.C.'s climate plan continues to astonish international politicians and business leaders. "They're all dumbfounded," said Mark Jaccard, an environmental economist at British Columbia's Simon Fraser University, International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) co-author and one of the experts recruited late in 2007 to help the province meet its ambitious 2020 targets. "They're like, 'You did that? What political leader would have done that? This is crazy!' "
Crisis = opportunity
What appears to have inspired Campbell's conversion was a combination of global theory and painful local experience -- and a pragmatic conclusion that global climate crisis would yield vast economic opportunities for the province.
Known as a policy wonk, Campbell was profoundly affected by the 2006 Stern Review, which warned that 20 per cent of global gross domestic product (GDP) could be lost by climate inaction. The cost of action was, by contrast, estimated at just one to two per cent of the global GDP. "The economic benefits opened up by transitioning to a low-carbon economy are real and substantial," Campbell's "Climate Action Team" wrote of the Stern Review.
Sobering realities on the ground bolstered the resolve to act. By 2007, it was difficult to deny the role of warmer winter temperatures in a mountain pine beetle epidemic that had already killed at least 530 million cubic metres of interior lodge-pole pine, with no end in sight. In the space of a generation, a province dependent on the flow of its great rivers for electricity had lost up to half of its snowpack.
At the time -- with the fourth report from the IPCC being widely reported, former U.S. vice-president Al Gore's Inconvenient Truth in theatres and the Great Recession still to come -- public concern was also ascendant. An Ipsos-Reid poll three months before the launch of the climate plan showed the issue eclipsing even health care as a concern for Canadians.
The making of a plan
By all accounts, B.C.'s climate strategy was devised and implemented quickly, vetted only by a small circle of people close to the premier and the finance and environment ministries. Outsiders who provided advice included Jaccard and another IPCC co-author, Andrew Weaver, climate scientist at the University of Victoria. (Weaver gained notoriety last year when he sued several climate-change-skeptical Canadian columnists who had publicly questioned his professionalism.)
British Columbia's emissions targets became law in November 2007, followed seven months later by the release of a Climate Action Plan to achieve them. (See a more detailed timeline in the fact box to the right of the story.)
Hitting those carbon goals would, however, as Campbell's advisors warned, require nothing short of a revolution in thinking: "What we are driving... is perhaps the largest and most significant shift in public attitudes ever," the Climate Action Team wrote in 2008. "We are attempting to alter, in the span of just a few years, behaviours that in many cases have been entrenched for generations."
Four pillars
To achieve its revolution, B.C.'s Climate Action Plan, released in June 2008, relied on four pillars:
A carbon tax. The carbon tax put a dollar price on carbon emissions. Starting in July 2008, that price was C$10 per tonne of CO2 equivalent emissions, designed to increase by C$5/tonne annually until 2012, when it will hit C$30/tonne. The tax is applied and collected at the wholesale level in the same way as most motor fuel taxes and was designed to be "revenue neutral" -- almost all of the revenue collected is offset as tax cuts. By raising the cost of fossil fuels, the tax is intended to provide an incentive to find less carbon-intensive energy and transportation alternatives. Emissions from certain industrial processes, like gas flaring and certain aspects of aluminum and concrete production, remain exempted from the carbon tax.
A low-carbon fuel standard. Legislation mandated a 10 per cent reduction in the "average carbon intensity" of fuels used in B.C. by 2020. To make this happen, fuel distributors are required to calculate the average "global warming intensity" of their products -- including emission-creating activities during their production (such as refining and stack flaring) -- and reduce it over time.
Public sector carbon neutrality. In another continental first, all activities in British Columbia's public sector -- a category that includes government offices, provincial jails and public schools, as well as hospitals and Crown corporations (of which the biggest is BC Hydro with C$4 billion in revenues last year) -- were ordered to become "carbon neutral" by 2010. How? A covered entity such as a Crown corporation had first to calculate its total business-as-usual greenhouse gas emissions, then reduce those as much as possible. And emissions that remain must be "offset" by the purchase of carbon-reduction credits from the Pacific Carbon Trust, a new Crown corporation created specifically to acquire and sell a portfolio of "made-in-B.C." carbon offsets. In 2010 alone, the provincial public sector spent C$18.2 million annually to offset 730,000 tonnes of greenhouse emissions.
Regional cap and trade. B.C. was the first province to fully partner in North America's Western Climate Initiative (WCI), which is designing a regional cap and trade system to be formally launched in January 2012. Such a system imposes a limit or "cap" on the total emissions for participants in the system, lowering the cap over time with the goal of meeting an overarching reduction target. Individual emitters are issued credits equal to the amount of emissions allowed under the cap. If a participant cannot meet their own emissions limit, they must either purchase additional credits from participants that are successful in meeting their emissions target, or invest in emissions-reducing projects.
The Western Climate Initiative got a critical boost in October when California approved its final cap and trade regulations which will enable the trade of emission credits by 2013. Quebec is firmly committed to participate as well. Just last week, however, WCI took a hit when six American states pulled out of the program.
Uncertain future
Nearly five years after it began, B.C.'s bold experiment in change is at a crossroads. Campbell has gone off to a plum diplomatic posting in London.
His successor, Premier Christy Clark, is struggling to solidify her leadership in the lead-up to an election prescribed by law for May 2013. She has made the family her policy priority ahead of the environment, and counts among her closest advisers the founding CEO of one of the continent's largest natural gas producers.
Clark's opposition in the B.C. legislature is under new leadership of its own, as Adrian Dix aims to place his stamp on New Democratic Party policy before the province votes.
Staying the present course is not an option for either leader. Round one of actions under the Climate Action Plan was never designed to take us more than about 75 per cent of the way toward our 2020 emissions reduction target. The plan contemplated a second round, kicking in sometime around now, to take us the rest of the way. Round two would include:
- Possible increases to the carbon tax after 2012 if required to achieve emissions targets.
- Expanding the carbon tax to include all greenhouse gas emissions generated in B.C., or capturing these "fugitive" industrial emissions as part of a future cap and trade system.
- Increasing the carbon fuel standard to 15 from 10 per cent by 2020.
- Capturing emissions from air travel in the new cap and trade system after 2012 -- or, barring that, "mandatory carbon credit payments" charged at points of air travel.
How many of those will survive the politicking to come? Or will British Columbia follow other jurisdictions and retreat back to the sidelines? Perhaps the most important questions of all: Which parts of B.C.'s pioneering climate plan are actually delivering reduced carbon emissions? And which, if any, are not?
We'll be examining those questions over the days and weeks ahead in this special series of reports on B.C.'s embattled commitment to carbon cutting.
Tomorrow: Tom Barrett takes the measure of Carbon Plan support -- or not -- in today's post-Gordon Campbell politics.
[Tags: Environment, Energy, Politics.] ![[Tyee]](http://thetyee.cachefly.net/ui/img/ico_fishie.png)
Christopher Pollon is a widely published freelance journalist and Tyee contributing editor. His website is here.
This series was produced by Tyee Solutions Society (TSS) in collaboration with Tides Canada Initiatives Society. Funding for this series was provided by the Bullitt Foundation and Hospital Employees' Union. All funders sign releases guaranteeing TSS full editorial autonomy. TSS funders and Tides Canada Initiatives neither influence nor endorse the particular content of TSS' reporting. To republish articles from this series, please contact TSS editor Chris Wood here.
21
Login or register to post comments
jimmy_laroux
1 year ago
Campbell's transformation...
It's called greenwashing.
Christophe
1 year ago
Timely topic; pray continue
The best bit was the quote on Campbelll's flip-flop:
"They're all dumbfounded," said Mark Jaccard, an environmental economist at British Columbia's Simon Fraser University, International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) co-author and one of the experts recruited late in 2007 to help the province meet its ambitious 2020 targets. They're like, "What political leader would have done that? This is crazy!"
Well, we knew that, but it is always good to get a second opinion on a psyche case. In retrospect, Campbell's climate change change was the best - and possibly the only good thing - he ever did. Besides going to Londinium, that is.
The cap-and-trade system has already sprung major leaks as CEO's find ways to keep burning carbon even faster and trading tokens to the natives. It is also true that the natives are buying big trucks in ever greater numbers, as status symbols, so we are the problem, not the oil itself.
danneau
1 year ago
Games
I loved the Carbon Tax gambit, obviously ineffective as a scheme to reduce carbon emissions, but a clever political trap for Carole James. Campbell was no greener than friend and mentor Arnold of Sacramental, but the press loves to hang these tags on villainous rogues. Failing a serious attitude adjustment and some serious changes in behaviour, we're all cooked: thus sayeth even the International Energy Agency (finally). Let's all wish ourselves good luck with this business.
dave49
1 year ago
Public sector carbon neutrality is a sham
Public sector carbon neutrality amounts to a disguised budget cut for health care and education. The money goes into that mysterious black hole known as the Pacific Carbon Trust who give it to big industry to make them energy-efficient. How are hospitals and schools supposed to invest in making their facilities more energy-efficient?
It's a sham and a shame that the BC public has not demanded this change.
seth
1 year ago
Useful idiots
Unfortunately BC's, media, environmental movement, and the politicians that direct BCHydro are pretty 100% composed of folks with biology and liberal arts diplomas none of whom could change a tire to save their lives.
Idiots like Morton, Jaccard, Suzuki, Berman, Pembina are often paraded out on the 6 o clock or on Bill Good making stupid pronouncements about how wonderful a world of green taxes, hydro power, wind and solar will be while the IEA tells we are two years away from being too late to stop a civilization ending climate cascade.
These same actually got the odious Black tar enemy of Gaia elected by telling us that the difference between a carbon tax and cap n'trade was worth electing a fascist government despite Nobel Prize winning economist Paul Krugman telling us that the Cap m t was superior.
Currently with BC getting 70% of its total energy needs from fossil fuels there are no green alternatives that any sort of cap n' trade or carbon tax would make more than marginally attractive. Big Oil has added a 100% carbon tax on petrol and yet we don't any significant increase in transit use or reductions in petrol consumption.
There is one and one only road that can divert us from this disastrous path in any time to make a difference warts and all and that is nuclear power.
If the $45B in contracts at an enormous environmental cost the Campelloni's have already signed with Fascist cronies in the stockbroker power industry as that same bunch above recommended had be used to buy zero environmental footprint nuke power instead, BC would already be net GHG free with BCHydro's clean power capacity more than tripled.
Instead of BC's third rate economic and climate advisers let's listen instead to Nobel Prize winners like Paul Krugman and the world's foremost climatologist James Hansen speaking here directly to the BC environmental movement.
On wind and solar:
"Wind and solar are like believing in the Easter Bunny and the Tooth fairy"
On Greenpeace's massive monetary support from Big Oil
'The insightful cynic will note: “Now I understand all the fossil fuel ads with windmills and solar panels – fossil fuel moguls know that renewables are no threat to the fossil fuel business.” The tragedy is that many environmentalists line up on the side of the fossil fuel industry, advocating renewables as if they, plus energy efficiency, would solve the global climate change matter.'
On the Green Koolaid Greenpeace dispenses:
http://bravenewclimate.com/2011/08/05/hansen-energy-kool-aid
worried
1 year ago
Green Campbell?
After watching Campbell slash funding for the environmental protection agencies assigned to oversee Forestry, Mining and Oil companies and telling the public he thought it was a good idea to let corporations using up our natural resources police themselves, I was very cynical about his carbon tax. After watching him gut regulatory bodies for fisheries and give huge support to salmon farms I was very cynical about his carbon tax. After watching him sell off 800 wilderness rivers to Private Power companies, including multinationals, I was very cynical about his carbon tax. After taking away local municipalities right to protest these same river sell-offs I was very cynical about his carbon tax. After he gutted the B.C. Utilities ability to oversee the running of our B.C. Hydro I was cynical. After seeing all the ex-Liberal cabinet ministers on the boards of these private power companies I was cynical. After he gave huge subsidies to the oil and gas companies I was cynical. When Mark Jaccard jumped from the NDP advisory board on Climate Change to the winning Liberals, I was cynical about him too. When T. Berman started promoting the "damning" of wilderness rivers for power we don't need I was cynical.When Campbell forced hospitals and schools to become carbon neutral after cutting their funding I was cynical. When he lied and sold off the greenest transportation in the world (B.C. Rail) and then championed new mega freeways into Vancouver I was cynical.....And when Harper presented him with one of cushiest positions for sycophants in the nation it made perfect sense given their shared values. So I'm very interested to see what sources and analysis is used to sum up the Gordon Campbell Effect on B.C.'s current carbon footprint.
mopled
1 year ago
What's not to like?
It is a perfect Bankster plan. It transfers money from the poor to the rich while pretending it will do something to change climate.
PROBLEM:
The pretense that human generated CO2 is changing climate.
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2011/03/geophysicist-explains-how-sun-controls.html
REACTION:
Years of propaganda on an international level by foundations and NGOs using tax money and support by the same taxpayers of a very dodgy organization, the IPCC from whence came the excuse for our legislation establishing open and hidden taxation.
http://nofrakkingconsensus.com
SOLUTION:
Taxation of and more control over the population.In Australia, free speech just got whacked.
http://joannenova.com.au/2011/10/canada-6b-to-cut-global-temps-by-0-0007°c-just-84trillion-per-degree/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+JoNova+(JoNova)
The Government’s carbon cops are censors, too
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/the_governments_carbon_cops_are_censors_too/
Why did Campbell cooperate with this Hegelian operation you ask? http://www.timescolonist.com/news/Leyne+Campbell+honours+just+beginning/5363268/story.html
mopled
1 year ago
What's not to like?
It is a perfect Bankster plan. It transfers money from the poor to the rich while pretending it will do something to change climate.
PROBLEM:
The pretense that human generated CO2 is changing climate.
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2011/03/geophysicist-explains-how-sun-controls.html
REACTION:
Years of propaganda on an international level by foundations and NGOs using tax money and support by the same taxpayers of a very dodgy organization, the IPCC from whence came the excuse for our legislation establishing open and hidden taxation.
http://nofrakkingconsensus.com
SOLUTION:
Taxation of and more control over the population.In Australia, free speech just got whacked.
http://joannenova.com.au/2011/10/canada-6b-to-cut-global-temps-by-0-0007°c-just-84trillion-per-degree/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+JoNova+(JoNova)
The Government’s carbon cops are censors, too
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/the_governments_carbon_cops_are_censors_too/
Why did Campbell cooperate with this Hegelian operation you ask? http://www.timescolonist.com/news/Leyne+Campbell+honours+just+beginning/5363268/story.html
Sask Resident
1 year ago
Not a Carbon Reduction Plan, but a Fossil Fuel Reduction Plan
B.C. didn't introduce a daring new plan to drive down carbon emissions but a plan to tax and maybe reduce the use of fossil fuels. Since everything tied to life as we know it is based on carbon, reducing carbon use and emissions would mean putting everyone on a diet. Carbon stored for the short term, like wood, was also exempt or ignored.
However, the plan has been a waste of time and effort, mainly because the politicians and their minions have little feel for science and reality. More trees have been cut and methane produced by poorly thought out so-called run-of-the-river power plants with most politically connected not technically or economically efficient. Fossil fuel has also gone up in the last 4 years not fallen yet prices have risen. Plus smoke, particulates and toxins have risen in the local atmosphere as more wood is burned in inefficient fireplaces and old furnaces.
Christophe
1 year ago
Reducing fossil fuel consumption is a good idea.
Forget all the AGW denials and the political spins, Campbell did good deed when he introduced the carbon tax. Of course, the government already already puts a huge tax on gasoline, but the extra 1-2 cents per litre was a good move.
If only nuclear power were a viable option, I would support it wholeheartedly, but it isn't. We need to conserve what we have, use less electricity and stop behaving like The Spoiled Brats of Planet Earth that we are.
If you want a good belly-laugh at Campbell's expense, rag on him for declaring with Aarnold, "The Hydrogen Highway" between BC and California. That was The Terminator of his poilitical credibility, but he got away with it.
We are at a crossroads in BC, and we always will be. We always have the option of selling gigatons of coal to China, so they can blow it back across the Pacific as smoke. As a member of my local sustainability committee, I can tell you that we are making plans for climate change, because, regardless of the cause, it is coming. We don't stand a hope in hell of matching the set reduction taget of 30% by 2020, nor the long term goal of 80% by 2050, but we just might curb the increase if we work at it.
The world is maybe big enough for seven billion, but not for nine billion or more. We can't continue to burn fossil carbon at the present rate without choking ourselves.
I have very little confidence in our ability to change things at all, but we have to try.
mopled
1 year ago
It's very clear faith caused you to bypass the links above Chris
or you should have been dropped in your tracks by the numbers re Environment Canada's plan:
"The cost of abating global warming as cost-ineffectively as the regulations would be 8 to 18 times the cost of damage from inaction.
The present value of the global cost of climate-related damage arising from failure to act on CO2 emissions is little more than 0.2% of global GDP.
If the proposed regulations were brought into full effect, only 0.03% of global CO2 emissions would be abated over the 16-year term of the regulations.
CO2 concentration, projected at 389.2 ppmv in 2014, would rise to 437.676 ppmv by 2030 without the regulations, and to 437.664 ppmv with them.
16 years of regulation would abate only 0.012 ppmv of CO2 concentration, representing just 0.002% of the projected CO2 concentration in 2030.
The regulations would abate 0.00015 W m–2 of CO2 forcing & 0.00007 C° of global warming – a little above 1/14,000 C°, or less than 1/700 of the threshold below which no change in global temperature can be detected.
Warming abated would be 0.03% of the projected 0.25 C° warming to 2030.
The CO2-mitigation cost-effectiveness of the regulations, expressed in dollars per C° of global warming abated, would be $92 trillion/C°.
The global cost of abating all of the 0.25 C° warming projected from 2015-2030 by methods of equivalent cost-effectiveness would be $29.4 trillion.
This global abatement cost would represent $4200 per capita of global population, or 3.9% of global GDP over the 16-year regulatory period.
For many reasons, it is very likely that the above figures make the proposed regulations seem very much more cost-effective than they are.
The regulatory impact statement is silent on the CO2 concentration, CO2 radiative forcing and global warming the regulations are expected to abate.
Environment Canada’s use of “the social cost of carbon [dioxide]” rather than of a scientific measure of the cost of climate inaction is inappropriate.
The “social cost of CO2” is an inappropriate metric, in that its fixed price fails to represent the logarithmic decline in CO2 forcing as concentration rises.
Environment Canada uses a 3% pure rate-of-time-preference discount rate for costing the regulations, but the minimum market discount rate is 5%.
The low discount rate unduly favours action over inaction, yet it would still be many times as costly to implement the regulations as to do nothing.
Environment Canada has not made explicit its discount rate for the cost of inaction, which appears to be different from its rate for the cost of action.
The cash “benefits” of the regulations are wrongly calculated and exaggerated.
Since the cost of taking action under the regulations exceeds that of inaction 8 to 18 times over, the regulations should be abandoned.
RickW
1 year ago
Quote: Political observers
And audiences everywhere couldn't explain Harry Houdini's slight-of-hand either. But as every magician (and charlatan) knows, distraction is essential for the trick to succeed. And Campbell's trick (to put more money into the treasury) succeeded all too well - and the "audience" (the taxpayers/voters) will, in 2013, shout "Encore! Encore!" whether it is from the Liberals, or the NDP.
seth
1 year ago
cost of regulation
Actually depends how you do it.
If the regulation requires all fossil fuels to be replaced with nuclear the GDP gets paid back at a rate of over 40% per annum. Best investment available to the country
Works even for deniers.
And yes Chris it is not only a viable option, it is the only one we have.
Christophe
1 year ago
Moped: your sources suck.
Quote whoever you wish, you are quoting bullsh*t. Quoting Hegel is the depth of self-gratifying indulgence. I don't know if you are being ironic or moronic.
mopled
1 year ago
Touched a nerve, did I?
I didn't quote Hegel, I just showed how AGW fits the model. Sorry you don't like revealing quotes since this one should make your head explode, you Poor Benighted True Believer:
"We redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy...Basically it's a big mistake to discuss climate policy separately from the major themes of globalization...One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore."
Quote by Ottmar Edenhoffer, high level UN-IPCC official
http://www.c3headlines.com/global-warming-quotes-climate-change-quotes.html
I like this next one especially, because it is so concise:
"Global warming can mean colder, it can mean drier, it can mean wetter."
Quote by Steven Guilbeault, Canadian environemental journalist and Greenpeace member
http://www.c3headlines.com/global-warming-quotes-climate-change-quotes.html
So, if "Global Warming" can mean whatever is convenient at the moment........?
Christophe
1 year ago
Riding a moped is OK until your friends see you
Moped;
You are an over-educated twit. You and your ilk are purveyors of mis-information and you deserve all the contempt that you get. Furtermore, you are all lackeys of the Exxon cartel. May the masses micturate on you and you think it is raining.
mopled
1 year ago
How charmingly naive you are in still thinking that
the evil oil companies are engaged in a conspiracy against upright scientists just trying to save us all from burning up.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/18/dr-james-hansens-growing-financial-scandal-now-over-a-million-dollars-of-outside-income/
Oil companies BP and Shell gave the money to establish the Climategate goings on at CRU. Exxon gave money to Stanford for climate research and says they want a carbon tax:
http://news.stanford.edu/news/2009/february25/exxon-022509.html
The oil companies are owned by the far more evil banks which would have been the real winners if the climate thingy kept going as intended.
http://www.foei.org/en/media/archive/2008/world-bank-unfit-to-manage-climate-funds
The Stern report was written by a former World Bank economist, by the way, and was never peer-reviewed.
The winds of contempt are blowing down the artificial construct that is Man-Made-Global-Warming.
Christophe
1 year ago
Moped: You cannot argue that CO2 levels in the atmosphere...
...have increased from 285 ppm in 1850 to almost 400 ppm today. Neither can you argue that ocean pH has fallen from about 8.21 to 8.05 in the same time. These are profound changes with no other explanation than our own industrial output.
All your conversations are about who said what and when, and who read this or that report. You are blowing smoke. The chemistry is above human politics and the chemistry is bad news. Shove your reports and conspiracies where the sun don't shine. I don't believe any of them completely, but I do know that we are indulging in a huge experiment with our own planet, one that could very well spell the end of our uncontrolled colonisation of every square metre of it.
The lengths AGW deniers go to in rationalising the data is the best proof there is that it is all too real. Centuries ago, the clerics used to argue how many angels could dance on the head of a pin. Your baffle-gab is more of that and you stretch intellectual credibility beyond the breaking strain. I just wish there were some way to shut you up.
RickW
1 year ago
mopled.....
...thinks we could live in an atmosphere with some 16x the CO2 we have now and be perfectly fine.......
zalm
1 year ago
mopled
"Since the cost of taking action under the regulations exceeds that of inaction 8 to 18 times over, the regulations should be abandoned."
That's the rapist's advice to the woman - "Lie back and take it or I'll hurt you worse." Doesn't make it right.
You need to read a bit more on utilitarianism and ethics, especially Pete Singer who does a really good job on exactly the abysmal illogic you just spouted.
sdgreen
1 year ago
Total Failure
The entire carbon reduction measures have been a total failure and completely unjustified. The entire program should be abolished.