by Ciara Bracken-Roche
Research Analyst, The Public Policy Research Initiative 
The Canadian government’s approach to climate change has neither been pragmatic nor opportunistic. In fact, despite ratifying the Kyoto Protocol, Canada has not taken any considerable action on the issue of climate change. The current environmental policy regarding climate change is ambiguous at best; the goals are weak and unclear. In order to take action against climate change, the government must acknowledge that climate change poses a legitimate risk to all Canadians. Furthermore, the government must also recognize the risks that climate change poses to the economy, the environment, and to intergovernmental relations. Currently, the Canadian government is failing to follow its obligations under the Kyoto Protocol, and the Harper government’s new “Turning the Corner” plan sets weak targets for combating Greenhouse Gas Emissions (GHGs). The plan only aims to reduce 1990 levels by 3% in 2020, while Kyoto would have obliged Canada to reduce 1990 levels by 6% for 2012. The Canadian government’s policy appears to be reactive, waiting to align with the policies of the Obama administration. Canada should be a leader and establish policies at home that will be an example for other countries.
Stephen Harper’s government believes that attempting to reach the targets set out in the Kyoto Protocol would cause irreparable damage to the Canadian economy. Canada’s reluctance to take action has been excused by Harper as a cost issue, believing that even if Canada were to reduce emissions, the costs would be astronomical because there are still other nations who are not attempting to decrease their emissions (Cobb, 2009). While this is a legitimate concern, it does not excuse Canada’s total lack of leadership on the issue of climate change, especially as the Copenhagen Summit begins. Former World Bank Chief Economist Nicholas Stern estimated that the overall costs associated with climate change will be the equivalent to losing at least 5% of global GDP each year, and if a wider range of risks and impacts were taken into account, this number could reach 20% of global GDP or more. More importantly, the cost of immediate action to reduce GHGs, and avoid the worst impacts of climate change, could be limited to only 1% of global GDP each year (Stern, 2006).
The Canadian government’s best efforts at preventing climate change involve intensity-based targets for Greenhouse Gas emissions (GHGs), and a cap-and-trade system that would exclude Alberta’s tar sands. The first issue with this is that intensity-based reductions cannot be integrated into carbon markets because carbon markets are set up to buy and sell true reductions. Intensity-based targets are not necessarily true reductions because if production increases over a certain amount, then emissions will increase as well. Using these intensity-based targets will prevent Canada from joining the EU emission trading system, or any international carbon market. Nationally, intensity-based targets are equally questionable. Using intensity-based targets would require companies to disclose production data, but in ongoing discussions (since 2004), industry representatives have argued that production data is confidential, and therefore, they would not be willing to release the data (Marshall, 2007). Environment Minister Jim Prentice said a U.S. cap-and-trade system could coexist with a Canadian intensity-based system (Ljunggren, 2008). However, many academics and environmentalists believe that Canada will simply be forced to go along with whatever policy the US administration adopts as their economies are so heavily intertwined. The Harper government has adopted a wait-and-see approach to implementing any serious system that would regulate GHGs and carbon pricing, hoping that the Obama administration will do most of the work for them (Hampson, 2009). If the US government goes ahead with the American Clean Energy and Security Act, introducing a cap-and-trade system amongst other things, Canada will follow their guidelines, targets, and their industry exclusions. Canada is a signatory on the Kyoto Protocol, and the US is not, so only Canada will suffer the shame of breaking an internationally binding agreement. Canada could easily set up its own cap-and-trade system, setting guidelines within the framework of the Kyoto Protocol that would work with the US system, regardless of US emissions targets.
Canada’s federal government does not have a cohesive plan of action for climate change, while some provinces have already set their own guidelines and targets to deal with GHGs and low-carbon technology investments. Canada’s current target under the “Turning the Corner” plan, calls for a 20% reduction on 2006 levels by 2020, this would equate to about 3% reduction on 1990 (Environment Canada, 2008). The federal plan on climate change should be a model to which all provinces aspire; it should be a beacon of progressiveness. Currently, however, many provinces are outdoing the federal governments in their policies and targets. Four provinces have already joined the International Carbon Action Partnership set up by the European Union, and the Western Climate Initiative. By 2012, Manitoba and Quebec aim to meet their share of Canada’s Kyoto Protocol agreement, while 6 provinces aim for better targets than the federal government’s by 2020 (Marshall, 2007). The two provinces who continue to lag in their initiatives are Saskatchewan and Alberta. Harper calls on all nations to fight climate change together, with equal effort and resources, while his lack of governance allows an uneven effort amongst provinces. Furthermore, Environment Minister Jim Prentice has already hinted at exclusions from cap-and-trade system regulations for Alberta’s Tar Sands (Rennie, 2009). Prior to the November 2008 election in the United States, Prime Minister Harper called for a North American cap-and-trade system that would exclude the tar sands, while current projections estimate that the production in the tar sands will increase by 300% by 2020 (McCarthy & Clark, 2008). This exclusion would make a mockery out of the entire (proposed) cap-and-trade system, and would be unfair to other industries and provinces.
Canada can make a comeback but this will only happen if the Harper government creates clear and strict policies that outline Canada’s targets and methods to deal with climate change. A national system for pricing carbon, using a tax, trade or regulatory system must be put into place. A conference with premiers may be appropriate to consider the goals and obstacles faced across the nation. A cap-and-trade system would be ideal for Canada, with aggressive caps aiming towards a national reduction target. Penalties for failing to comply with targets should be enforced to deter industry for ignoring their GHG limits. Funding support for green technology and innovation should take a primary role in Canada’s climate change policy. This will have two positive results: home-grown technology will not need to relocate to other countries, and a low-carbon industry will create more jobs and boost the economy. The last step is education. The government must educate businesses, and the public about what they can do to respond to climate change. Education programs and advertising would ensure that people are informed and can do their bit for the environment; and people would be more accepting of higher prices, and increased taxes, if they know the money is supporting Canada’s initiative against climate change. Aggressive policies against climate change may cost industry and the public in the short term but it is better for Canada to create policies that fight climate change now, instead of dealing with the higher costs in the long term.
References
1. Cobb, C. (2009, November 29th). Canada offers ‘minor adjustment’ to fight climate change. Ottawa Citizen, Canwest News Service. Retrieved December 15th, 2009 from http://www.canada.com/technology/Canada+offers+minor+adjustments+fight+climate+change/2282866/story.html.
2. Stern, N. (2006, October 30th). Stern review on the economics of climate change. Retrieved December 15th, 2009 from http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/sternreview_index.htm.
3. Marshall, D. (2007, February 26th). Intensity-based targets not the solution to climate change. Retreived December 16th, 2009 from http://www.davidsuzuki.org/files/climate/Intensity_Targets_Not_The_Solution.pdf.
4. Ljunggren, D. (2008, November 19th). Canada wants North-American cap-and-trade system. Reuters, Ottawa. Retrieved December 16th from http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE4AI70120081119.
5. Hampson, F.O., and W. Zartman. (2009, December 12th). How to break the climate impasse. The Globe and Mail. Retrieved December 15th, 2009 from http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/how-to-break-the-climate-impasse/article1396354/.
6. Environment Canada. (2008, May 21). Turning the corner. Retrieved December 15th, 2009 from http://www.ec.gc.ca/EnviroZine/default.asp?lang=En&n=9A8BA8EA-1.
7. Rennie, S. (2009, December 16th). Tar sands to get emission break. The Toronto Star. Retrieved December 17th, 2009 from http://www.thestar.com/news/sciencetech/environment/copenhagensummit/article/739429–tar-sands-to-get-emissions-break.
8. McCarthy, S., and C. Clark. (2008, November 5th). Ottawa swoops in with climate change offer. The Globe and Mail. Retrieved December 17th, 2009 from http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/article721236.ece.
