BP: Beyond Petroleum

With approximately 1 million litres of oil spilling into the ecologically sensitive waters of the Gulf Coast, BP has a responsibility to re-think its traditional model in order to move Beyond Petroleum. Even the ultra-conservative Terence Corcoran believes that BP should be paying the full cost of the clean-up.
As Prime Minister Stephen Harper is in the EU, he will be meeting with EU leaders who will no doubt chastize him for Canada's inaction on climate change. Canada is sourly missing an opportunity to formulate a "Made in Canada" climate change plan that reflects our northern reality and vast landscape. This wat-and-see-what-the-Americans-will-do position is sure to hamper our competitiveness in the medium to long term. As the Globe and Mail reported, even China and the United States are aggressively moving to lower their emissions.
Governor Schwerzenegger recently took bold steps in not supporting offshore drilling as he does not want to put the environment at risk. This reflects the state of California's electorate who, as the fifth largest economy in the world, tend to be more forward-looking than their neighbours.
Isn't there a message for Canada in all of this?

Climate Change Adaptation

The impact of climate change is being felt in disparate regions across the globe. As the City of Montreal today experiences 9 degrees Celsius and rain in January, the high price of gold draws thousands of miners to a region of south-east Peru where deforestation and the high levels of mercury used in mining has led to fears of an imminent ecological disaster, as Dan Collyns reports. How are poor communities to adapt to climate change, especially in countries where basic needs are not met?

Communities and industry need to start examining more closely adaptation strategies in order to respond to climate change challenges, especially in northern Canada, low-lying countries and regions subject to storms and hurricanes (severe weather). In Canada, the thawing of ice roads disrupts mining activities and adds additional costs to fly-in material and resources. On the social side, communities are being displaced due to changing habitat and biodiversity.

How should governments respond? And industry? Should adpatation to climate change be seen as the next emerging issue? Or shall we wait until disaster has struck? NRCan has a program underway but perhaps the government would be better to tackle the issue head-on instead. Makes sense?

Embarrassment for Canada: Hoax at Copenhagen

The Yes Men have once again struck a hoax and this time their victim was the Canadian Government. At yesterday's Copenhagen summit, a number of fake press releases were circulated which stated that Canada will make drastic GHG emissions cut.

Greenpeace accuses Canada for derailing the negotiations, playing-off richer and poorer countries, and hiring lobbyists in Washington to support the tar sands.

Canadians do not have a cultural attachment to the tar sands as compared to forestry and the seal hunt. We have tremendous natural resources and yet our government continues to derail international negotiations.

Mikhail Gorbachev and former Canadian PM Kim Campbell, along with other prominent individuals, to urge the Canadian government to take the lead on climate change.

Canada's position is being exposed and this will make the Canadian government more vulnerable. Over 74 percent of Canadians want action on climate change. There will be a political cost if Canada does not act now.

In the meantime, uncertainty continues to prevail for many industrial and manufacturing sectors in Canada as clear targets have not yet been established.

The Story of Cap and Trade

Two years ago, Annie Leonard released The Story of Stuff, an educational on-line video about rampant consumerism. Now she has done it again. Her latest release, The Story of Cap and Trade, will surely raise some questions as it criticizes how cap and trade functions.

She begins with a refreshing demonstration of enthusiasm for the upcoming conference in Copenhagen, expressing that the fact that world leaders are getting together to talk about climate solutions is a huge triumph and potentially an important step in right direction. But she harshly warns that cap and trade should not be the only solution considered. Cap and trade has been strongly promoted by many well-intention people, but its designers comprise a surprising amount of Enron and Goldman Sachs representatives who have essentially created a carbon stock market. While this may sound disconcerting, it can also be argued that because cap and trade is supported by those who actually have wealth and power, it stands a better chance of being pushed through.

Ideally, this market will be capped such that each country gets a certain number of pollution permits. Each year such permits will become fewer and so more expensive. Those who do not need them will sell to those who do and therefore total emissions will remain under the cap. According to Leonard, “the devil is in the details.”

Detail number one is that initial permits will be free in what is more accurately a “cap and giveaway” system. The more an individual company has historically polluted, the more permits they will receive. Europe has tried this, and according to Leonard it resulted in unstable permit prices, higher gas prices, increased emissions, and the polluters made money. This can be disputed from all angles but for more information on the EU ETS, check out their site.

Rather than creating a system in which polluters profit, Leonard advocates that funds instead be used to promote a clean energy economy, provide dividends for citizens to afford energy while transitioning to new fuel sources, and to compensate for ecological debt, which mainly occurs as first world countries benefit at the expense of environmental degradation in the third world. While these solutions certainly sound good, they are a bit too vague to provide a clear view of realistic alternatives to investing in cap and trade.

The second “devilish” detail is in the concept of offsetting. It is very difficult to guarantee that offsets are truly serving their vital function. For example, Indonesian indigenous forests have been cut down and replaced with palm oil trees, and somehow this destruction has been valued as a false offset. Additionally, some companies can receive credit for offsetting simply by not expanding as much as they claimed they had planned to. Expanding less certainly does not actually offset any carbon emissions.

Thirdly, Leonard portrays cap and trade as a dangerous distraction. She argues that people are eager to accept whatever is proposed and so are neglecting alternative solutions that exist. Leonard claims that it weakens our ability to effectively utilize strong laws like the Clean Air Act, which already lists carbon dioxide a pollutant that can be regulated by the EPA. Cap and trade does more to protect business as usual than it does to demand solid caps, strong laws, citizen action, or carbon fees – all of which offer truer solutions to climate change. Basically, its creators want to sacrifice nothing, get rich, and save the planet if possible. Leonard admits that cap and trade may serve as an important first step and it is certainly better than nothing, but she insists that we cannot solve the climate change problem with the same mindset that got us into this mess. She has indeed raised some valid concerns about cap and trade; however, Leonard fails to provide adequate arguments in favour of other solutions. She does not explain with any degree of detail how a carbon tax would work. Carbon taxing, like cap and trade, has several benefits but also its own set of faults and imperfections.

Please see the Western Climate Initiative's (WCI) section on cap and trade which can provide you with a introductory background on how cap and trade works.

Adapted from Strategic Sustainability Consulting - http://www.linkedin.com/news?viewArticle=&articleID=92183403&gid=983557&articleURL=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Esustainabilityconsulting%2Ecom%2Fblog%2F2009%2F12%2F7%2Freview-annie-leonards-the-story-of-cap-and-trade%2Ehtml&urlhash=uL5C&trk=news_discuss

Climate Change Host Denmark Proposes Ambitious Targets

Reuters reported today that Denmark, the host country for the upcoming climate change summit in Copenhagen, is proposing that global greenhouse gas emissions should be cut by 50 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. A draft of the text states that to meet the 2050 target, industrialized nations will have to slash emissions by 80 percent over the next 40 years.

Danish Prime Minister Rasmussen stated that he hopes the 192 nations attended the climate summit will approve a five-to-eight page "politically binding" agreement that spells out emissions reduction commitments for each nations.

US President Obama will have the opportunity to speak at the conference where he will announce his country's climate change commitments: reducing carbon dioxide emissions by 17 percent below 2005 levels by 2020 and by 83 percent by 2050. Developing countries have criticized these targets as too low, particularly since the baseline is 2005, rather than 1990.

China has stated it will reduce its "carbon intensity" --emissions per unit of GDP --by 40 to 45 percent below 2005 levels by 2020. But even with these cuts, China's overall emissions are projected to double by 2030 given its accelerating growth.

Are Quebec's Climate Change Targets Ambitious? Est-ce que les cibles Québécois sur les changements climatiques ambitieux?

Now that the dust has settled after Jean Charest's fiery speech at CORIM (see blogpost dated 23 November) where he announced that Quebec will reduce its greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 20% between now and 2020, many are asking whether this target was the easy way out. After all, Quebec is "blessed" with abundant hydroelectric power and therefore a target of -20% reduction is not such a big effort. As well, the Kyoto targets which calls for a 6% GHG emissions reduction between 2008 and 2012 (1990 baseline) has not been achieved in Quebec (except as projected for 2012). Some achievement.

The problem is that many people living in urban centres, where the majority of the population resides, do not visually see or feel the impact that climate change is having on their daily lives. But the reality is that record floods, record fires, loss of evergreen forests in Western United States, people living in low-lying countries/regions, such as in Bangladesh who are already moving more inland, and pine beetle impacts due to the warmer climate in Western Canada which is devastating forest cover, are real examples which demonstrate that a threat to the future of civilization is already occurring. How can the population at large be forced to change their behaviour which is to reduce their consumption of fossil fuel? Do cities and municipalities have a large-scale plan to tap into geothermal energy and build smart grids which would truly drive sustainability? It is important to change the light bulbs but what is much more important is to change the laws and policies which, compared to other Western industrialized countries have gone way further than where Quebec stands at this point (Sweden -40%; Norway -30%; United Kingdom -34%; Japan -25%; Germany -25%). The key players at the summit have also agreed to arrive with targets and timetables.

Over the last few years, several countries have witnessed the emergence of innovative new business groupings to offer support for a progressive public policy agenda on climate change. These include the Corporate Leaders Group in the UK and EU, the US Climate Action Partnership (US CAP) and Business for Innovative Climate and Energy Policy (BICEP) in the US, Empresas pelo Clima (EPC) in Brazil and Climate Change Business Forum (CCBF) in Hong Kong. The debate that will undoubtedly emerge in the next few weeks is what the public policy priorities should be, post-Copenhagen, to speed delivery of the low-carbon economy. In Quebec, the it appears that the business community, led by the CPEQ, was misquoted in Le Devoir (see 23 November blogpost) as they do not endorse any targets for Quebec. The Quebec Minister of the Environment, Line Beauchamp, endorsed Quebec's position in Poznan last year, as supporting a global target based on scientific consensus which demands that the international community control a temperature rise by 2 degrees Celsius and therefore supports a global target of -25% (IPCC). So it begs the question: how did Quebec come up with its -20% target? Based on what? What would happen if the target were -40%? Is the CPEQ showing sufficient leadership? Any leads to solving these mystery questions is requested!

From an investment perspective, climate change may also present opportunities. Investors are starting to look more closely at companies in order to ensure that they have clear strategies for responding to climate change and reporting on risk assessment processes. Investors are also playing a much more proactive role in public policy debates on adaptation to the effects of climate change, highlighting a need to develop long-term policies which enable companies to plan and invest appropriately.

It is expected that many world leaders will be attending the Copenhagen summit to negotiate a new deal. So what needs to happen for success? Expectations have been scaled down, not surprising, due to the challenging situation, feet-dragging and inertia. A likely scenario is that near-term reductions and simultaneous instructions to country negotiators to complete a new deal will be handed out in Copenhagen for final completion at the next meeting which will take place in Germany in March 2010.

News has it that Obama will attend the summit and that he will further put a reduction number on the table. And both India and China have recently accepted to commit to binding targets.

Back on the farm, Canada continues to not take this issue seriously and, as a result, it affects our country enormously. The Canadian government has been so focused on the economy that it has practically shunned the environment debate. It doesn't hurt to remind our federal leaders that Kyoto is an international law that is binding on all signatory countries, including Canada. But the federal government continues to believe that efforts to reduce GHG emissions will destroy the economy. It is many years since Sweden has implemented its carbon tax and their economy is thriving. And they stand at 8% below 1990 levels!

Under international and US pressure, Prime Minister Harper has agreed last week to attend the Summit. PM Harper needs to provide moral leadership. This is what distinguishes Canada from a host of other countries. What is at stake is not just our global reputation (let alone our national symbol, the red maple leaf) but also our economic prosperity (France has indicated that it will penalize Canadian products due to carbon dumping). We have brought the Montreal Protocol and UN Peacekeeping to the international fora. The trade-off between short term profits (i.e.: the tar sands) and the risk factors to a dire crisis is not a suitable trade-off. In Al Gore's new book, Our Choice: A Plan to Solve the Climate Crisis, he noted that gas derived from tar sands gives the Toyota Prius the environmental footprint of a Hummer. And the risks to Canada's North has already begun (see Globe and Mail, 28 Nov 2009, A10).

We need to deal with this problem now as the consequences, as predicted by all the top scientists, will be dire. If we fail, the problem will be handed over to the next generation to solve.

Let's start by tackling the root case: our excessive use of fossil fuel. We have the opportunity to embark on a truly sustainable path and personally, I believe in human ingenuity and resilience. How will you act?

Quebec and Greenhouse Gas Emissions reduction target/ Québec et la réduction des émissions de Gaz à effet de serre

On Saturday 21 November, Louis-Gilles Francoeur published in Le Devoir an article where he stated that the CPEQ (Quebec Environment Chamber of Commerce) and the NGO Equitere propose a GHG emissions reduction target of 25% compared to 1990 levels. This proposal took the form of a joint letter signed by the CPEQ and Equiterre and, according to the journalist, further endorsed by Quebec's Environment Minister Line Beauchamp. This position is forward-looking and ambitious.

As I am writing this blogpost, Quebec's Premier Jean Charest, is speaking at a luncheon at CORIM where he will officially announce Quebec's GHG emissions reduction targets. You can bet that the Harper Conservatives are watching closely!

Climate Change and Canadian Mining: Opportunities for Adaptation

Tristan Pearce from the University of Guelph provided the EIA Concordia students a formidable opportunity to discuss how climate change is impacting Canada's north: impacts on communities (food shortages), impacts landscape (i.e.: loss of ice roads), and impacts on mining activities (i.e.: increased storm activities) through the report published for the David Suzuki Foundation.

The report highlighted many important issues but I was struck by the fact the perception gap that exists within many Canadian mining companies: only 25% of senior executives and management viewed climate change as a problem in contrast, 100% of day-to-day workers in those same companies perceived climate change as a threat. If you are obviously sitting in a Toronto corporate office and have very little contact with operating facilities (apart from the occasional site visit), then you do not readily "see" the changes which are occurring.

Should the Canadian mining industry ramp-up its efforts to better adapt to climate change? If so, what should some of those methods be? (i.e.: alternative routes?).

Thanks once again to Tristan Pearce, Maude Beaumier and James Ford for this great presentation and stunning visuals!

Climate Change Radio Interview

I was interviewed, along with environmental journalist Felix Von Geyser, on Mark Brooks' show Off the Hour, CKUT 90.3 FM in Montreal on the topic of climate change.

Download: MP3 / FLAC / Ogg Vorbis or Stream

Play:

Climate Change Nuisance Claims

In late September 2009, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that U.S. federal courts can decide common law actions that allege private emitters of greenhouse gases (GHGs) are liable for creating a public nuisance. This landmark decision, State of Connecticut v. American Electric Power Company Inc., overturns an earlier 2005 judgment, which had dismissed the case on the grounds that it presented a non- justiciable political question – in other words, a question that politicians rather than the courts should decide. This decision suggests a greater willingness by a least one U.S. court to consider common law climate change claims and could therefore result in an increase of public nuisance claims against large emitters of GHGs.

The public nuisance action was brought by two groups of plaintiffs: eight U.S. states and the City of New York (the States) and three land trusts (the Trusts), against six electric power companies that own and operate fossil-fired plants in 20 U.S. states (the Defendants). At the time the action was filed, the Defendants were responsible for approximately 25% of the U.S. power sector’s carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions and 10% of all annual CO2 emissions from human activities in the U.S. To mitigate this impact, the action seeks to hold Defendants jointly and severally liable for creating, contributing to or maintaining the alleged public nuisance of climate change. The State plaintiffs seeks action from each Defendant to abate the nuisance by having them cap their CO2 emissions and then by reducing these emissions by a specified percentage each year for a minimum of 10 years.

Although plaintiffs will be challenged to prove that the emitting companies caused the alleged public nuisance, it nonetheless further opens the floodgates within the sphere of climate change and liability.

In Canada, a court recently found that the system of parliamentary accountability established by the federal Kyoto Protocol Implementation Act, which requires that the Minister of the Environment prepare and implement an annual Climate Change Plan, was not open to judicial review.

It ain't over 'til the fat lady sings.

Carbon Markets - Marchés du Carbone

The development of the Canadian carbon market is slowly starting to take shape albeit at a different paces depending on the provinces. In Alberta, the land of the Canadian Prime Minister Harper, the situation appears to be troubling as was recently reported in the Calgary Herald (Carbon trading market pays off for Alberta farmers, October 19, 2009). The system appears to be questionable since farmers are receiving lots of money simply for not tilling their land. Is a similar Canada-wide system in the cards?

Then you have the black liquor subsidy in the U.S. which can potentially dole out millions of dollars to pulp and paper mills to continue polluting at the expense of Canadian producers.

Let's not forget the series of ecological disasters, such as the under-reported oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico where two oil tankers collided. The result: 20,000 gallons (approx. 75,000 litres) of bunker fuel (No. 6) oozing in the Gulf of Mexico.

It is difficult not to be cynical when these types of developments occur. Whether we are on the right trajectory remains to be seen (hopefully in Copenhagen).

New Book - Climate Cover-Up

Starting in the early 1990s, three large American industry groups set to work on strategies to cast doubt on the science of climate change. Even though the oil industry’s own scientists had declared, as early as 1995, that human-induced climate change was undeniable, the American Petroleum Institute, the Western Fuels Association (a coal-fired electrical industry consortium) and a Philip Morris-sponsored anti-science group called TASSC all drafted and promoted campaigns of climate change disinformation.

The success of those plans is self-evident. A Yale/George Mason University poll taken late in 2008 showed that — 20 years after President George H.W. Bush promised to beat the greenhouse effect with the “White House effect” — a clear majority of Americans still say they either doubt the science of climate change or they just don’t know. Climate Cover-Up explains why they don’t know. Tracking the global warming denial movement from its inception, public relations advisor James Hoggan (working with journalist Richard Littlemore), reveals the details of those early plans and then tracks their execution, naming names and exposing tactics in what has become a full-blown attack on the integrity of the public conversation.

Leveraging four years of original research conducted through Hoggan’s website, DeSmogBlog.com, Hoggan and Littlemore documented the participation of lapsed scientists and ExxonMobil-funded think tanks. Then they analyzed and explained how mainstream media stood by — or in some cases colluded — while deniers turned a clear issue of science (and an issue for public safety) into a partisan argument that no one could win.

This book will open your eyes, it will raise your ire and, most especially, it will inspire you to take back the truth — to end the Climate Cover-up.

ACES: Implications for Business in Canada and Quebec -PROJET DE LOI Waxman-Markey: les conséquences sur l’industrie canadienne et quebecoise

The American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACES) HR 2454 or the Waxman-Markey bill, named after its two major supporters Henry A. Waxman and Edward J. Markey of the Energy and Commerce Committee, was passed in the US House of Representatives on 27 June 2009 and is now being considered by the Senate. Its major mandate is a cap and trade system though it does have other green practices scattered throughout (Clean Energy, Energy Efficiency and Transitioning to a Clean Energy economy).

Recent discussion on the viability of a cap and trade system in the U.S. has increased dramatically and, after more than one month of analysis, debates etc. since it was first introduced, the purpose of this blog is to take a somber second glance and offer some advice to our Canadian (and provincial) policy-makers.

With the future of the planet hanging in the balance, with the world watching for what the United States will do, and with Congressional action likely to have a major influence on whether we’ll see a global climate agreement at Copenhagen, this is probably the most important exam the current members of Congress will ever take.

The basics of a cap and trade are fairly simple. It is a way to limit emissions through a credit system. Every business acquires a certain amount of credits; depending on the type of system these credits are either auctioned off or given away by the government. These credits represent the amount of carbon that businesses can emit. If the business cannot adhere to the limit of emissions their credits allow, they must buy credits from companies who are below their cap. Thus the companies who are responsible and limit their emissions are rewarded and those who are not as environmentally friendly are punished.

Power plants, factories and other major emitters would need to obtain permits for their emissions or invest in “offsets”, such as newly planted trees or local CDM projects, which reduce the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

One point that I would like to raise — the claim that carbon taxes are better than cap and trade — is, in my view, just wrong. In principle, emission taxes and tradable emission permits are equally effective at limiting pollution. In practice, cap and trade has some major advantages, especially for achieving effective international cooperation. Any further thoughts on this are welcome (I still will not be convinced).

With this particular cap and trade system only 28% of the credits would be auctioned off over the next ten years. The other 72% will be given away for free, especially to heavy users of coal and other fossil fuels to help them cope with the change. The auctioning of the 28% will generate an estimated $276 billion, which will be distributed to a range of places. Low and middle income families will receive money to help them deal with the increases prices passed down as a result. Big carbon emitters will also receive money on top of getting a good chunk of the free credits. The proposed bill would essentially let polluters buy huge amounts of offsets rather than actually cutting their emissions – up to 2 billion tons of emissions annually, close to a quarter of all U.S. emissions.

The bill also includes strict energy efficiency standards and requirements for wind, solar and other renewable sources. The opportunities in this realm are tremendous and we are already seeing banks and venture capitalists jumping on this new green bandwagon.

Unfortunately, one of the provisions which were inserted late in the House debate seeks to penalize imports from nations that fail to cut their emissions in step with the United States. This can be a blow for China and India in particular. But it will encourage Canada to step up to the plate and take action.

The bill contains other provisions to defend U.S. manufacturers and their employees from lower-cost foreign competition -- including free emissions permits for energy intensive industries vulnerable to foreign trade, such as steel and aluminum.

Then there are the freebies:

• The bill as it stands rights now gives away 35% of the allowances to the electricity industry every year for the first decade – that's about 90 percent of the credits they would need. Even if the energy source for the electricity generated is coal or heavy fuel. To try to avoid the sort of windfall that dragged down the EU’s carbon trading system, the bill would require U.S. utilities to pass the savings on to consumers, according to a summary of the bill’s allocations segment, and the freebies would be phased out between 2025 and 2030.
• Manufacturers in steel, cement, aluminum and other energy-intensive, trade-sensitive industries would get 15% of the allowances for free for the first 10 years.
• Natural gas distributors would get 9% for free for the first five years, and would also have to pass the savings on to consumers.
• The auto industry would get 3% for free for the first five years.
• Oil refiners would get 2% for free for the first 10 years.

Of the remaining allowances, 15% would be auctioned from the start with the proceeds going to help low- and middle-income families, according to the summary of the bill's proposed allocations.

Lawmakers have indicated that more giveaways are to come. For example, utilities that in the future are able to make use of so far unproven carbon capture and storage technology could get up to $100 billion in bonus pollution permits.

The bill’s renewable electricity standard (RES) also took a serious whack to the knees. Some of the swing Democrats complained the RES wouldn’t be fair to states that lack the wind power of Texas and the sunshine of California. The original draft of the bill called for utilities to provide 25% of their power from renewable sources by 2025. The compromise cuts that to 15% by 2020 and as little as 12% if the state make up the difference with energy efficiencies.

A recent analysis concluded that the U.S. climate bill would give states that are heavily reliant on greenhouse-gas emitting fuels, like coal, more carbon credits on a per capita basis than those that use clean fuels. This will undoubtedly influence the final outcome of the bill.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) suggested that industrial economies would have to reduce emissions 25-40 percent below 1990 levels by 2020 to keep warming to 2 degrees. The bill’s greenhouse gas reduction targets already falls short of what the IPCC recommends and now it falls even shorter: Emissions would be cut to 17 percent below 2005 levels by 2020 (the initial goal was 20 percent); 42 percent below 2005 levels by 2030 and 83 percent below 2005 levels by 2050. Considering the mandates being implemented in California and 21 other states (for instance, buildings will use net zero energy or have net zero carbon emissions by 2030), these reductions do not seem extreme. Waxman-Markey caps emissions at only 3.6 percent below 1990 levels by 2020 –pitifully short of what the scientific community say is necessary.

Earlier this year, Sen. Barbara Boxer, chair of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, announced several principles she said are necessary in acceptable climate legislation. Among them are “certain and enforceable” short-term and long-term emission targets and a “transparent and accountable market-based system” for cutting emissions.

Waxman-Markey falls short here, too. “Transparent” is an adjective no one can honestly apply to the House bill with its complex trading system, allowance allocations, exemptions and other machinery. The emission reductions contemplated outside the cap are not “certain”.

International Dimension

Climate change is a global problem that requires a global solution. With little more than three months left before the international community convenes in Copenhagen, however, there has been little apparent progress. At the last G8 meeting in Italy, the 17 biggest economies failed again to agree on specific targets and timetables for emissions reductions.

The European Union today remains the most advanced region in the world when it comes to environmental protection. Not only has the EU signed-on to the Kyoto Protocol, they have also implemented strict green building standards, emissions limits for cars, and the EU Emissions Trading Scheme (existing cap and trade system in place). Interestingly, they implemented all of these environment-saving standards with their economies intact…

The US has always lagged behind Europe and other developed nations when it comes to environmental conservation measures. Though this bill is flawed it is a positive step forward in its intent and power to reduce emissions. Nation-wide opinions need to change on the role of sustainability in the U.S. (and Canadian) society and hopefully the success of this bill can be the catalyst.

The Obama administration is working on several fronts to demonstrate U.S. leadership, including its ongoing attempt to reach a bilateral agreement with China, EPA’s decision to regulate greenhouse gas emissions, and its endorsement of carbon emission standards for vehicles. But nothing President Obama can do between now and December will have the political power of strong climate legislation from Congress. Climate stabilization and the clean energy economic necessary to achieve it must become the law of the land.

From the standpoint of the rest of the world, particularly developing nations, the U.S. is the country most responsible for the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere today. The U.S., Canada and the other industrialized economies have exhausted the environment’s capacity to tolerate the fossil fuels that developing countries hoped to use to lift their people from poverty. The standard by which much of the rest of the world will grade the outcome is whether the U.S. will meet its moral obligation to cut greenhouse gas emissions and find adequate sources of clean energy.

The Waxman-Markey bill fails this test. China wants developed economies to cut their emissions in the 30-40 percent range by 2020, a level it feels is justified since the industrial nations’ unbridled greenhouse gas emissions over the past 200 years have brought-on this crisis. The European Union has committed to a 20 percent reduction from 1990 levels by 2020. The Waxman-Markey cap doesn’t come close.

While Waxman-Markey sets the stage for additional emission reductions through carbon offsets and other measures outside the cap, those cuts are not mandatory. It’s the mandatory reductions under the cap that are likely to count most. America’s climate goals will set the bar for other countries, especially in Canada. So what are the chances that we will inherit a watered-down version of the Waxman-Markey Bill?

Extending the Reach to other sectors: Transport, Homes, Agriculture... Canada and Quebec: Please Take Note

In the United Kingdom, a July 15 White Paper, the Department of Energy and Climate Change rolled out a raft of policies making up the UK's Low Carbon Transition Plan — an economy-wide strategy aiming to slash emissions and help the UK meet its five-year carbon budgets, goals it set in last year's Climate Change Act.

So how does the newest plan from across the pond stack up to the U.S. climate legislation currently before the Senate?

In the UK, the power and heavy industry sectors, which account for a full 50% of emissions, have been subject to carbon caps under the EU ETS since 2005. But up to now, no umbrella policy has explained how the UK will reduce emissions and increase efficiency in non-traded sectors that together generate the other half of UK emissions: transportation, homes, workplaces and agriculture.

The new low-carbon transition plan closes the gap, extending low-carbon policies to cover the entire scope of the UK economy. That includes a stronger push for home energy efficiency and small-scale renewable power production; tighter vehicle emission standards and investments in developing low-carbon cars; and support for sustainable agricultural practices.

Likewise, Waxman-Markey bill/ ACES seek to provide a comprehensive framework for jump-starting the U.S. transition to a clean energy economy. It too shoots for energy efficiency in homes, buildings, transportation and agriculture.

The differences between the two are often stark, though, starting with the very goals they’re seeking to achieve: ACES aims to cut emissions by 17% below 2005 levels by 2020 — a far less demanding baseline and target than the UK’s 34% below 1990 levels.

Improving the energy efficiency of buildings is a key element of both plans. In the UK, building codes will contribute to emissions cuts under a regulation requiring that homes built after 2015 meet a standard of zero net emissions. Similar provisions in ACES set a target for buildings to use 30% less energy, working up to 50% less by 2015.

If the bill is about promoting renewable energy, it is even more about catalyzing energy efficiency, a goal likely to save companies far more money than cap-and-trade will cost them. If ACES makes a kilowatt-hour cost more, it also offers ways for companies to use fewer of them. So, while electricity rates may increase modestly, the actual bills that businesses pay will go down.

For most companies outside the manufacturing sector, the majority of electricity used comes from the facilities they own and lease: Heating, ventilation, air conditioning, lighting, computers and other machines in buildings are collectively responsible for nearly 40 percent of all energy use and a similar percentage of total greenhouse gas emissions in the United States. In some U.S. cities, buildings are responsible for three-quarters of all emissions.

Energy use can be significantly reduced in commercial buildings with little or no upfront cost.

The bill establishes a national building code mandating energy improvements for new and substantially renovated buildings (Section 201), and it creates a Retrofit for Energy and Environmental Performance (REEP) program for upgrading existing buildings with energy improvements (Section 202).

REEP creates mechanisms for public funding, loan guarantees, interest subsidies and other credit support to help owners make energy improvements. Requiring owners to enhance efficiency while providing the means to do so represents a balanced solution that will put a big dent in greenhouse gas emissions.

Meanwhile, information technology industry groups are pushing for a LEED standard for data centers, the country’s most energy-hungry buildings. The market took a high-profile leap forward recently when Yahoo! announced that it was shifting its climate strategy from buying offset to investing in data center energy efficiency. The company's new goal: reduce its data centers' carbon intensity by at least 40% by 2014.

In the transportation sector, the UK pledges government support for green vehicles, and it mandates that cars sold in the UK after 2020 emit 40% less carbon dioxide per kilometer than cars did in 2007. ACES complements Obama's tough new fuel economy standards — fleets must average 35.5 miles per gallon by 2016, cutting emissions 30% — by laying preliminary groundwork for more transportation efficiency, through investments in plug-in hybrid electric vehicle (PHEV) production and support for electric vehicle infrastructure.

Agriculture provisions are sparse in both plans, since the sector is responsible for only about 6-7% of emissions in each nation.

While the UK plan sets no hard mandates for farmers, the government will encourage them to undertake voluntary efforts for reducing emissions through more efficient use of fertilizer, better management of livestock and manure, and reduced energy use. In ACES, few provisions address emissions reductions from farming and land use, except with regard to funding for emissions-reducing agricultural practices financed by domestic offsets under the ACES cap and trade program.

Leadership

There were many reasons that 212 House members voted against the Waxman-Markey American Clean Energy and Security (ACES) bill. Some members are climate deniers. Some wanted a stronger bill. Some simply don’t want to give President Obama a victory. But others, including some of the 44 Democrats who voted “no”, did so because they were worried about re-election.

That’s no surprise, of course. The Center for Public Integrity counted 2,340 lobbyists from 770 companies trying to influence the climate bill last year. But the fact that some freshmen Democrats hid in the bushes on this vote left idealists like me wondering what’s happened to the idea of leadership.

The standard that will determine whether a climate bill passes the leadership test is whether it truly serves the public interest as well as, and if necessary rather than, the collection of special interests. Waxman-Markey shows too much deference to the coal lobby, the farm lobby and the big polluters who would like to see EPA’s regulatory authority rolled back.

On climate change – the mother of all environmental, economic, energy, public health, national security and international relations issues – responsible members of both parties need a gut check. They need to man-up. They need to inoculate their constituents against flat-earthers and demagogues by educating the voters about why climate action is so urgent an issue, why it’s time for the United States to seize the opportunity of a clean energy economy, and why every American, present and future, stands to benefit from the change.

None of this is meant to argue the House should not have approved Waxman-Markey. It was the first carbon pricing proposal to pass either house in Congress. That significantly increases the chance a bill will reach the President before Copenhagen. It lays the foundation for firmer action. But firmer action cannot be years away. It must be taken now, by the Senate.

Whether the bill meets the standard of climate science, is strong enough to trigger an international deal, prescribes goals that will be enforced and met, and shows that courage still resides in Congress – those are the standards by which we should judge success.

Congress is writing not only climate legislation. It is writing the latest and most important chapter in the history of the relationship between human civilizations and the natural environment. It is being asked to reaffirm the obligation of each generation to those that follow, to demonstrate the willingness of the world’s richest nations to protect opportunity for the poorest, and to prove that the species that claims to be the most intelligent has the common sense to care for the life-support systems on which decent lives depend.

Republicans and climate change deniers’ answer to energy security is to produce more oil, coal and gas in the U.S. and they claim “we have ample supplies”. The “drill baby drill” policy was a prominent plank at the Republican National Convention and its still being used, most recently by Wyoming Republican John Barrasso in a Senate Environment and Public Works Committee hearing.

The real question today isn’t how much carbon we have left in the ground; it’s how much we can put into the sky. The answer is: No more.

As a former Saudi oil minister said, “The stone age didn’t end because we ran out of stones.” It ended because we found a better way to do things. There is no mandate that we must extract all the fossil fuels we find and burn all the fossil fuels we can extract. However, there is definitely a limit on how much we can burn – and we have reached it.

If fiscal conservatives would like to make the marketplace even more efficient, they should repeal all subsidies for fossil and nuclear energy (subsidizing mature industries is corporate welfare) and give the money back to consumers to help them adjust to carbon pricing.

Opportunities for renewable power generators

The minimum renewable content requirements will drive a substantial increase in demand for hydroelectricity.

The U.S. Department of Energy estimated that there are up to 30,000 megawatts of potential energy at 5,677 undeveloped sites across the nation, more than half of which already have dams.

Newly added to the equation is the emerging market for so-called carbon credits. The credits are part of a strategy to place “caps” on damaging greenhouse gas emissions while allowing companies that can’t meet the restriction to buy credits from ones that achieve significant savings. The cap would be gradually lowered to reduce overall emission levels.

Hydroelectric power is a prime candidate to sell credits because it is largely emission-free. The credits typically would be granted only for new or additional power.

The market for the credits is tiny now but legislation is moving forward that would create caps and a national market that could ultimately reach $120 billion a year.

Even without a national cap-and-trade law, markets such as the Chicago Climate Exchange now allow companies to voluntarily limit their carbon emissions and lower their carbon footprint by purchasing credits, traded on the market like stock.

This added incentive has made building or upgrading hydroelectric facilities a more alluring prospect. And the potential benefits for Hydro-Quebec and BC Hydro, with the right vision and attitude, can be unparalleled for both the company and society.

Rising Insurance

In March this year, the Association of British Insurers claimed that estimates of climate change-related damage are too low and need to be updated in line with recent scientific predictions that temperatures could rise by between four and six degrees by the end of the century. Premiums for businesses and householders in areas that see increased risks of flooding as a result of climate change could more than double. These developments are not just occurring in the UK but in the U.S. http://www.businessgreen.com/business-green/news/2238829/insurers-forced-disclose and other regions as well.

Yesterday’s tornado activity in Mont Laurier is a taste of the forthcoming challenge. Man-up Canada, man-up.

(large chunk of source: http://solveclimate.com/ - thanks!)

Emissions Trading: Unknown Currency

The EU-ETS will expand its coverage by including more industries. It currently applies to power plants, factories making iron and steel, cement, glass, lime, bricks, ceramics, pulp and paper. From 2013 petrochemicals and aluminum will be brought into the scheme. After 2012, more greenhouse gas emissions will be traded – nitrous oxide emissions (from acid production) and perfluorocarbons (from aluminum) will be traded along with carbon dioxide. At the moment, only the Netherlands trades greenhouse gases other than CO2.

From 2012 all planes landing and taking off from EU airports will be part of the trading scheme. Polluters will be able to buy carbon credits to cover up to 50% of their emissions, from projects outside the EU that are dedicated to clean technology.

The European Commission would have preferred all allowances to be auctioned to polluters as a general rule, but governments won exemptions for some power companies in central Europe, as well as for heavy polluting industries. The Commission estimates that roughly half of all allowances will be given away for free in 2013.

Some heavy polluters will be entitled to free allowances if they are deemed likely to lose out to competitors outside Europe. The Commission will publish a list of sectors at competitive risk at the end of the year. Steel, cement and ceramics are likely to be in line for free allowances, rather than having to buy their allowances.

The money raised from selling allowances will go to national governments. But some – 300 million allowances – has been earmarked to help build carbon-capture and storage plants, or “innovative” renewables, such as offshore wind power (source: European Voice).

The United States will soon pass climate change legislation and Canada will follow soon afterwards. The voluntary market is up-and-running and will likely take-off once legislation comes into effect. Other news:

- Federal regulators are preparing to launch "a very serious look" at requiring corporations to assess and reveal the effects of climate change on their financial health, according to a commissioner on the Securities and Exchange Commission

- The oil giant Exxon Mobil, whose chief executive once mocked alternative energy by referring to ethanol as “moonshine,” is about to venture into biofuels

In the meantime, if you would like to learn more on how you can quantify and monetize your carbon, training on carbon markets, how to match it with local (CDM) projects and offsets with renewable technologies, tackling major carbon challenges and other “advantages” that carbon has to offer to your company (i.e.: unknown currency), please call me to arrange a meeting.

Economics and quality of life: beyond ideology

We live in a market economy where spending is an essential feature of our lives and buying "stuff" is an economic indicator which measures progress. But it does not take into account happiness, respect, environmental degradation and poor air quality --just to name a few examples. As such, a team of experts in the United States and France are now working to examine how to expand the GDP concept to calculate these other important indicators. A few months, the International Herald Tribune published an article on this issue. A similar article also appeared in The Times of India. The European Commission, in partnership with its' Directortate-General of the Environment and Statistics, have launched an initiative called Beyond GDP. Having worked in Europe for over ten years, it is obvious that the European continent is light years ahead of North America, and Canada in particular, when it comes to environmental well-being.

If we examine this closer and ask why this is the case, the answer is that in Europe, climate change and environmental issues are not divided along ideology. In North America, climate change is an ideological issue where the right believe that environmental protection equates to increased regulation and government intervention. Furthermore, it is their belief that these concepts are being pushed by the Left/ liberals and therefore have launched a series of campaigns to confuse people on climate change. This is starting to change as people are not only understanding more and more the science, but are also actually seeing the changes occurring in their physical environment. As a result, 85% of Americans now agree that global warming is a problem.

In Europe, the right (Conservatives in the UK, Christian Democrats in Germany) recognize that these are issues to tackle and the sooner, the better. Angela Merkl, the German Chancellor, has aPhD in theoretical physics (therefore understands the science behind climate change) and works closely with the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research to put in place targets for reducing GHG emissions. The Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research was created by Margaret Thatcher's Conservatives.

Back in Canada, there is a feeling that the Conservatives want to use climate change more as a political and military instrument. The rise of Arctic sovereignty issues, as seen during 2007, was a result of the Russians planting a flag on the Arctic seabed. The Danes and the Americans are also getting excited over the Arctic because there is no legal agreement on who owns this territory and hence the natural gas and oil resources which can become more accessible as glaciers and ice melts.

Canada is going about this issue the wrong way. We need to move away from our dependence on fossil fuels and we need to tackle climate change by addressing the causes and putting a plan together to reduce this dependence.

Economic Impact of Climate Change

A couple of interesting things are happening which is signaling that our respective governments are starting to embark on a green "revolution". For one, Environment Canada recently announced a study on the economic impact of climate change --along the lines of the Lord Stern 2006 report. Stern's report essentially stated that we need to invest 1% of GDP per annum to avoid the worst impacts of climate change. If we fail, then much more serious consequences down the road will occur which will drive down GDP by 20% from current levels due to the economic impacts of climate change. Stern's critics assert that the study did not properly use discounting and that the cost of mitigation was overestimated. Stern's book, which is 700 pages in length and outlines the economic impact of climate change, is probably what the Canadian government is looking for but with a Made in Canada sticker.

Last week, President Obama met with a select group of business men who are in the renewable energy field. One of the companies was a Quebec-based (from Bromont) firm called AAER Inc. AAER produces wind turbines and Dave Gagnon, the CEO, is obviously pleased that the new Obama Administration is looking at renewable energy as not only a priority issue but as an integral element of a US economic recovery. Hence the message to our Canadian leaders is: can you please start taking the Renewable Energy sector seriously just as the Americans are doing?