Jim Prentice, Former Environment Minister, Pushed Alberta Towards Cap-And-Trade

Jim Prentice Cap Trade

First Posted: 08/14/11 05:00 AM ET Updated: 10/13/11 06:12 AM ET

TORONTO - A former Conservative cabinet minister attempted to convince Alberta politicians to accept a more stringent regulatory approach to curbing climate change in 2009, newly released documents show.

Then-federal Environment Minister Jim Prentice met with Alberta Premier Ed Stelmach and provincial Environment Minister Rob Renner in Calgary on Sept. 11, 2009 to discuss the idea of getting the province involved in a national system.

"I think you would agree with me that encouraging businesses and individuals to change behaviour requires appropriate price signals," a briefing note, which outlines "points to register" with the Alberta government, reads.

"We believe that a carefully designed cap-and-trade system will send the appropriate price signals to encourage changes and ultimately help reduce emissions."

Cap-and-trade is designed to force businesses that produce greenhouse gas-causing emissions to find efficiencies.

The system would put limits on the amount companies are able to pollute. Those that are over the limit would then have to buy credits from those who are under.

The documents were prepared by bureaucrats with Environment Canada, the federal department responsible for climate change policy, and obtained by The Canadian Press under the Access to Information Act.

The federal Conservatives once supported a national cap-and-trade system but have since taken a different tack.

"Canada's climate change plan is to reduce emissions through a sector-by-sector regulatory approach, not through cap-and-trade," Environment Canada spokesman Mark Johnson said in an email.

This sector-by-sector approach includes working towards bringing in "tighter standards" for cars and light trucks manufactured after 2017 and regulating coal-fired electricity generation, he said.

Johnson did not directly respond to questions about the 2009 meeting and declined a request for an interview.

Prentice evidently failed to convince the Alberta government to participate, as it has yet to agree to a national cap-and-trade system.

Stelmach has long been an opponent of adopting such a scheme nationally.

"A national policy that achieves desired emissions reductions needs to be flexible enough to account for the different economies, emission profiles and reduction challenges of each province," Cameron Traynor, a spokesman for the premier, said in an email.

The Alberta government was also opposed to cap-and-trade when the meeting took place in 2009, said Traynor.

The federal government would need to get Alberta on side before it could implement a regulatory approach to reducing emissions on a national scale, said Sierra Club executive director and environmentalist John Bennett.

Prentice "would need the support of Alberta to go back to cabinet and say 'We can have a cap-and-trade system in Canada,'" he said.

"Without them, no way would the rest of the cabinet do anything that would affect the oil sands."

Alberta industry members are the largest emitters, he said, meaning they would need to buy credits from those who emit less.

That would likely result in "significant" money being transferred from Alberta to other parts of the country, a 2007 report by CIBC World Markets showed.

The Alberta government would react negatively to any regulatory structure that transfers wealth from one region to another, said Traynor.

Bureaucrats were optimistic Prentice would be able to convince Alberta to sign on to the federal government's regulatory agenda in 2009, the documents show.

Alberta previously opposed a cap-and-trade system "for potentially limiting growth in the oil and gas sector and resulting in the transfer of wealth to other provinces," the briefing notes said.

"However they have recently indicated greater support for a cap."

In November 2010, a little over a year after the meeting took place, Prentice announced that he would be resigning from government to take a job with CIBC.

He declined any further comment on the matter Friday through a spokesman.

Prentice was meeting with the Alberta politicians to "identify synergies" between the approaches of the two levels of government to combating climate change, the notes said.

They were also going to discuss Canada's preparations for an international conference on climate change negotiations.

Representatives from countries around the world gathered in Copenhagen in December 2009 to try to reach an international agreement that would cut down on greenhouse gas emissions.

Prentice faced criticism from environmentalists at the conference who believed the Conservatives failed to play a meaningful role in developing global reduction targets.

Environmentalists gave Canada the dubious ''Fossil of the Day'' distinction on more than one occasion during the conference.

Ontario and Quebec criticized Alberta during the talks for being unwilling to shoulder its share of the burden in reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

The federal government previously said it is going to wait for the United States to adopt a national regulatory regime that would combat climate change and then harmonize Canada's system with what lawmakers south of the border decide.

That doesn't appear to be happening any time soon, though.

U.S. President Barack Obama has put his environmental agenda on hold for the moment, claiming he doesn't have enough support in Congress for it to pass. He says he would prefer to implement a cap-and-trade system.

The Canadian government will only align with the United States "where appropriate," said Environment Canada's Johnson.

Prentice expressed frustration with Alberta's attitude toward reducing greenhouse gas emissions in October 2009 — about a month after the meeting with Stelmach took place.

The minister told U.S. Ambassador David Jacobson he was prepared to unilaterally impose regulations on the province, said a cable to Washington released by Wikileaks in December 2010.

Alberta has had a cap-and-trade system in place for a few years now but environmentalists complain it is not reducing emissions enough to make a substantial difference in curbing climate change.

It's in place provincially, however, so industry members transfer wealth only within the province. Companies can also choose to pay into a fund that provides money to help develop more environmentally friendly technology that they can later use.

The system is also based on the intensity of emissions, meaning that as businesses expand, their emissions can continue to grow.

FOLLOW HUFFPOST CANADA BUSINESS

TORONTO - A former Conservative cabinet minister attempted to convince Alberta politicians to accept a more stringent regulatory approach to curbing climate change in 2009, newly released documents sh...
TORONTO - A former Conservative cabinet minister attempted to convince Alberta politicians to accept a more stringent regulatory approach to curbing climate change in 2009, newly released documents sh...
Filed by Daniel Tencer  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 30
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
07:48 AM on 08/15/2011
With Harpo's pathetic record regarding the environment, that would have to be one VERY secret environmentalist.
12:18 AM on 08/15/2011
This blog is amazing. One man in the Harper entourage who had ethics. But you can't believe everything you read.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
piceaglauca
The picture says it all....
11:15 PM on 08/14/2011
I wonder if politicians read posts from this paper?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
piceaglauca
The picture says it all....
11:15 PM on 08/14/2011
I wonder if politicians read comments from the Huffington Post?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
piceaglauca
The picture says it all....
11:13 PM on 08/14/2011
As the environment collapses around us there will never be enough time left on this planet to resolve the problems we will face in the next 100 years and you don't need some science buff to tell us that. The government keeps hedging their reponsibility nationally and internationally they also have been abyssmal in meeting standards. For what this country stands for in the eyes of the world we should be leaders but unfortunately we fly with our pants down.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
MyTake
Release the Hydrogen Economy now!
05:52 PM on 08/14/2011
Ah, thanks for the opportunity to debate.

Why would you care if it took more energy to produce Hydrogen gas from the water molecule? Imagine the reduction in cost to health care alone if all cities converted to hydrogen fuel cell electric transport and hydrogen fuel cell generated electricity for homes and buildings tomorrow.

A small amount of water vapor coming from tail pipe of a car, truck or bus is not going to do damage to your lungs.

And all those Corporations (Ebay, Adobe, Google, Walmart, SIM, AT*T, FedEx, Staples, CocaCola,
and others) are silently installing Bloom Energy Fuel Cell Servers to reduce their carbon footprint as noted here: http://www.bloomenergy.com/customers/ (click on each to see the scale and carbon reduction amounts for each).

Daimler and Honda have Hydrogen Fuel Cell electric cars production ready but the Oil Cartel are not installing hydrogen gas pumps on their service stations lots.

Mercedes Benz fuel cell cars just drove the length and breadth of each continent this year without failure (Hydrogen tanker truck followed them around).

So, I believe you are the victim of disinformation and the Hydrogen bubble is not bursting.
10:36 PM on 08/14/2011
From what I understand, the only way to produce hydrogen is by running a large electrical current through H20. As this electricity is currently (pun intended) most likely to be produced by coal-powered plants, a hydrogen-based economy is definitely not the solution to anthropogenic climate change.

Lets work on switching the grid to renewables first, improving mass transit, removing fossil fuel subsidies, and taxing industrial carbon emissions.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
MyTake
Release the Hydrogen Economy now!
01:57 PM on 08/14/2011
Attn: HuffPo Management. Please don't publish Canadian Press articles unless you publish the name(s) of the media reporter(s) that penned the article.

This article is a Krock of Krap.

Cap and Trade is a House of Bilderberg sponsored initiative to get the Nations to accept global taxation as a lead in to a singular World Government.

Goldman Sacks and Al Gore's Corporation were the lead ground floor INVESTORS in the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX) which were to handle Cap and Trade stock market trading transactions. Gore used his name to SCARE up business from the global warming charade.

When CCX topped out and went flat, Goldman and Gore pulled a CAP & RUN and CCX was sold to the IntercontinentalExchange Inc. this year for $603 million. Both scored a few million in profit.

And Gore had 3 Ex Goldman Exec's on his board of directors which should tell you something.

Since THE HYDROGEN ECONOMY is a go, which yields ZERO Environmental pollution, and the fact that the Conservatives DARE NOT UTTER THIS PHRASE, proves that all environmental government initiatives is a SCAM.
yer
Stop the Alberta Taliban
05:01 PM on 08/14/2011
Sorry to burst your bubble but in this case the hydrogen economy is also a scam financed and brought to you by the same company shills that need people to keep propping up their stocks. Thankfully there have been many articles showing how silly it is.

The Myth of the Hydrogen Economy http://www.energybulletin.net/node/11963

quote "Basic chemistry tells us that it requires more energy to break a hydrogen bond than to form one. This is due to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, and there is no getting around it."

It's an energy loser. Hydrogen is thus a battery, not a power source. And not a very good battery at that, as you also lose energy again when you convert it for use.

quote " it makes more sense—and will always make more sense—to buy a more efficient car, ride public transport, bicycle or walk."

Good comparison points

Here's another article with a big simple graphic at the top for anyone to see showing the difference in energy losses http://www.physorg.com/news85074285.html "Why a hydrogen economy doesn't make sense"

Google this for yourself. And then read for yourself. Then make conclusions based on comparisons and reason and your education to see if it makes sense. I believe the conclusions will be the antithesis of your post, and you'll feel the better for it, knowing that you can see an issue quite clearly instead of being a victim of it.

Peace
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
MyTake
Release the Hydrogen Economy now!
01:06 AM on 08/15/2011
Gee, what would you have done had there been NO OIL or GAS on Earth. Just use Horses and water, I guess.

What you have quoted is well educated PhD's paid for by the Oil Cartel to write disinformation articles in order to protect the profits of that Cartel.

How is it Linde Engineering can build $250 million hydrogen gas plants for the Oil Cartel which provides Hydrogen Gas that is piped to the refineries and used to reduce the highly polluting coking process in refining oil.

How can there is a 900 mile Hydrogen Gas pipeline in the Gulf States linking to the refineries? How can the Alberta tar sands have two of these Linde plants?

Yet, none of the big cities are building these plants to provide hydrogen gas to the transportation industry.

So I dismiss your references as I know how The Pratt House (NY) through the use of Foundation's control the 3 big private Universities along with the "best and brightest" students that go through them.

Since 90% of the global population lives within 100 miles of an ocean coastline, don't you think we should have solar, wind, wave and tidal energy producing hydrogen gas and running it to the shoreline for compression and distribution.

And oh, what a catastrophe when the hydrogen gas pipeline breaks in ocean water compared to the BP catastrophe!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Whistlejackett
Hey stop doing that
01:23 PM on 08/14/2011
Huffpost seems to forget that Canada has at least 5 political parties, HUFF POST editors listen up?
Canada has at least 5 political parties,
Canada has at least 5 political parties,
Canada has at least 5 political parties,
Canada has at least 5 political parties,
12:35 PM on 08/14/2011
The Cons are totally anti-environmental at all levels of govt. They serve their Big Oil masters well.
11:36 AM on 08/14/2011
alberta doesnt mind sharing their pollution with the rest of the country

but they will be da@@@mned before they surrender a nickle
photo
Daniel Kilgallon
Calgary Heavy Oil
03:14 PM on 08/14/2011
You mean like how we gave Quebec $5 billion last year.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Whistlejackett
Hey stop doing that
11:28 AM on 08/14/2011
Well of course he did. The Canamex Corridor will be finished soon. That is the same as the NAFTA Corridor.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
Exusian
Nature bats last
11:18 AM on 08/14/2011
I thought something like this might be behind Prentice's departure from the Harper government, although I don't know what made him think he could ever get the rest of the Harper cabinet and Alberta on board.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
GreenCanadian
is mixing the new record
11:44 AM on 08/14/2011
That would be exactly the case. The ways that Calgarians can rationalize the tar sands impact seems boundless, and usually comes back to the liberals being corrupt. If they cannot find a way to dismiss or rationalize, the argument turns to asking for a one step solution that will fix everything. I've heard denial after denial regarding the subsidies to oil companies, I've heard the cyclical climate change denial of responsibility more times than I can count in my 4 years living in Calgary.

The modern conservati­ve is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy­; that is, the search for a superior moral justificat­ion for selfishnes­s.
-John Kenneth Galbraith

I have started calling this city Calgreedy, it fits in too many cases.
12:21 PM on 08/14/2011
You are right, there are some very horrible problems with the tar sands, however it as time goes on it looks like all of this "CO2 is heating up the earth" talk is slowly being proven wrong. One of the newer and more plausable theories to global warming is that sun activity is increasing the temperature of the earth (we just had a couple of decades of high sun activity). Please do some searches on google for "sun activity heating up the earth" and if you still think it's C02 let me know and tell me why and I will look into it.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
Exusian
Nature bats last
12:39 PM on 08/14/2011
Ah, no, 'it's the sun' is one of the oldest global warming/climate change denial talking points, and one of the easiest to debunk since the data shows the exact opposite of your assertion:

http://skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htm
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
canuckhoser
Don't mind the man behind the curtain
11:07 AM on 08/14/2011
"The system is also based on the *intensity* of emissions, meaning that as businesses expand, their emissions can continue to grow"

"Intensity"...heh. Right the "made in the U..oops, made in Canada" approach...

I find it interesting how the media has adopted the framing of this as a left and right issue, taken on the rights narrative as if this is somehow antithetical to conservatism....

when it's a conservative plan....proof again, how entrenched the money is in politics/media