Scott Vaughan, Environment Watchdog, Says There's No Federal Plan To Cut Greenhouse Gas

CP  |  By Posted: 05/08/2012 10:09 am Updated: 05/09/2012 5:28 pm

Scott Vaughn Environment Report
The federal environment auditor Scott Vaughan says Ottawa still has no solid plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and now it's almost certainly too late for the government to recover in time to reach its 2020 targets. (CP)

OTTAWA - The federal government still has no solid plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and it’s almost certainly too late for it to recover in time to reach its 2020 goals, says a new environmental audit.

"Although the federal government has begun to lower greenhouse gas emissions, right now the reductions are not happening fast enough to meet the 2020 target," Environment Commissioner Scott Vaughan said in a report tabled in the House of Commons on Tuesday.

Federal officials have a few new regulatory packages in the works, Vaughan said. But only one in eight targeted sectors has been given new rules so far. Plus, the regulations take years to develop, and even longer to implement.

"Given that an additional 178 million tonnes in reductions are needed to meet the 2020 target, it is unlikely that enough time is left to develop and establish regulations that together will contribute sufficient GHG reductions to meet the 2020 target."

Vaughan chastised the government for doing little analysis on the costs of implementing emissions regulations and paying little attention to whether measures from different governmental departments and different levels of government may clash.

Since Canada has opted for a sector-by-sector regulatory approach to reducing greenhouse gases, officials need to pay close attention to how the rules will affect not just the targeted sectors, but other economic activity linked to those sectors, Vaughan says.

"This makes it vital to have a coherent game plan ensuring that policies do not operate at cross purposes and instead work to reach least-cost emissions reductions,” he said in an essay that prefaced the report.

Environment Minister Peter Kent immediately fired back with a news release, saying his government has done far better than previous administrations in producing concrete plans to reduce emissions.

He said his government is making "significant progress" in meeting its emissions targets and is in talks with the provinces to make sure everyone works together to that end.

"Our government is committed to ensuring an environment that is clean, safe, and sustainable for all Canadians, while creating jobs and promoting economic growth," Kent said in his statement.

The audit found that top officials recently created a couple of committees that could lead to better co-ordination, but they are so new that they could not be assessed.

The report said there was little analysis of how much of the emissions burden each sector would be expected to carry, or how specific industries within in each sector would have to respond.

"Without clarifying these elements of its approach, Environment Canada cannot reasonably determine whether Canada will meet the 2020 target and how much it will cost to do so," the audit said.

Vaughan pointed out that the Harper government pulled out of the Kyoto Protocol because it said the cost to the economy would be too high.

So it should be able to show that its plan to regulate by sector would be cheaper.

But no. Vaughan found that analysis has not been done.

"The result is that Parliament lacks a full picture of the combined costs of reaching the 2020 target."

Kent was ready with a retort for this as well. Through a spokesman, he said the costing of the regulations is part of negotiations with the provinces and industry.

"Asking for costing in advance of consultations with industry and the provinces would be premature and speculative," spokesman Adam Sweet said in an email.

He said claims that the government itself has admitted it won't reach its targets are off-base and taken out of context.

But at a news conference, Vaughan said the gap between what the government has accomplished so far and what it aims to accomplish, is "huge."

Even as new regulations come into force, "it doesn't look like they're going to get from here to there because the numbers don't add up," Vaughan said.

Businesses cannot plan without knowing federal expectations, the audit warned.

"Without an implementation plan, industry, consumers and other levels of government lack a solid basis for knowing how to adjust technology and make formal investment decisions."

He recommended that Environment Canada start producing detailed and specific plans on how it will reach its emissions targets. He also wants Ottawa to explain how it will align its measures with the United States, something the federal government says is vital.

Environment Canada responded by saying it agreed in principle with that recommendation, but argued that it already has the reporting mechanisms in place.

Plus, Kent is committed to regularly publishing a report on the country's emission trends — a federal and provincial accounting of emissions that Vaughan praised as reliable.

Related on HuffPost:

FOLLOW CANADA POLITICS

Filed by Michael Bolen  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 119
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3  Next ›  Last »  (3 total)
05:44 AM on 05/09/2012
Destroying the environment for the sake of profit is not an argument, yet one that is made again and again by CON voters.. Well, I will just take my small piece here and soak it in oil, for it is just a small part, just don't go or step there and like dogshit, I warn you. The defenders of the CONS cannot seem to associate themselves to their small part. The sum of all these voters cause the most destructive policies ever. History will reward us (our kids) with what is deserved, there is no hiding from it.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
north of 60
Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati
08:56 PM on 05/08/2012
Canadians produce 5% of the world's human caused GHGs. Most of the GHGs in Canada come from the big cities and the power plants which make electricity for the cities. About One Tenth of one percent [0.1%] of the worlds GHGs comes from the Canadian petroleum industry.

The Canadian boreal forest absorbs all the GHGs Canadians produce and a lot more from the rest of the world. The more CO2 there is in the boreal forest, the faster it grows.

China produces about 1/4 [~25%] of the world's human caused GHGs, most of those GHGs are also mixed with toxic pollution from coal burning power plants. America produces about 1/5 [20%] of the world's human caused GHGs, about half of those GHGs are also mixed with toxic pollution from coal burning power plants.

As a Canadian, if you want to make the smallest Eco-footprint with your energy/pollution choices then DON'T buy anything from China, and very little from America.

If you can grasp the big picture globally, you will realize that buying fuel made from Canadian petroleum has less negative impact than a whole lot of other options including cheap solar panels made in China.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
canuckhoser
Don't mind the man behind the curtain
12:19 AM on 05/09/2012
Can you cite those numbers...and back up your claim that the carbon produced by "most of the GHG's" come from big cities and power plants. Also cite the study that says the boreal forest absorbs *ALL* the GHG's...

Thanks
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
north of 60
Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati
05:41 PM on 05/11/2012
Can you use Google?  Confirm or refute whatever you want to and post your factual rebuttal.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
4evercanadian
Still my guitar gently weeps
01:35 AM on 05/09/2012
According to Green Peace the single largest contributor is the tar sands development: http://www.greenpeace.org/canada/en/campaigns/Energy/tarsands/archive/threats/climatechange/

"Tar sands development is the single largest contributor to the increase in climate change in Canada, as it accounts for 40 million tonnes of CO2 emissions per year, and means that thousands of hectares of ancient Boreal Forest are clearcut and destroyed. These numbers are increasing: by 2011 it is expected that the tar sands will emit 80 million tonnes of CO2 emissions. Please note that these numbers only take into account the production of oil from the tar sands. Once tar sands oil is burned as fuel, it does create further "end-use" emissions."
07:36 PM on 05/08/2012
" Kent is committed to regularly publishing a report on the country's emission trends — a federal and provincial accounting of emissions..."

-Peter Kent , Harpo's Environment Minister

The HarpCONS seem to have the same rap. It's like Oda's Hotel and orange juice ( Oh- limos too). It's OK until someone points it out! Then we'll do something (Maybe)! If you believe the World ends in Dec. 2012, God Bless you. They won't change - turf them.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
TwoZeroOZ
06:02 PM on 05/08/2012
Isn't Canada a world leader in CCS technology? Wouldn't our heavy investment in that pay off big time?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Warren Yuill
Jesus Built My Hot-Rod
05:53 PM on 05/08/2012
The only time Canada has effectivly reduced its greenhouse gas emmisions was during 2008-2009.
And we would have still been reguired to pay a14 billion dollar penalty to Al Gore and Maurice Strong at the Chicago Climate Exchange according to the Koyoto Protocol.
As it turns out Nobody did.
And the Chicago Climate Exchange no longer exists.
And we continue to muddle along somehow.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
canuckhoser
Don't mind the man behind the curtain
07:34 PM on 05/08/2012
"effectively reduced"...so now a slowdown in the economy due to a global recession is now defined as "effectively reducing" GHG's...?

And that 14 billion is a completely made up number...by Kent...parrot much?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Warren Yuill
Jesus Built My Hot-Rod
08:26 PM on 05/08/2012
14 billion thats the number.
And in case it hasn't occured to you, that down-turn in the economy was the only time since we coined the phrase GHG's that we've seen any reduction whatsoever.
Rather telling isn't it.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Greg YanickThompson
05:47 PM on 05/08/2012
whether man made co2 is the cause is debatable!!! fact is could be something else , who the hell cares ,Its happening anyway what ever label you put on it ..this idea that some neocon folks have is !! lets strip all or most environmental reforms put in place by more enlightened governments !! and this just so you can have a job is insane....this is not just a war on nature ,its a war on your,s and my children as they will inherit our greed and selfishness just a few years down the road .. I have 5 kids and its 2012 guys ..we have the technology and rich resources ..It does not have to be this way , all for profit , number,s in a computer .. As a group we sure have become a selfish and greedy bunch ...
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
north of 60
Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati
09:01 PM on 05/08/2012
"I have 5 kids and its 2012 guys"

The biggest single problem facing the planet is overpopulation. Some people are contributing more than their fair share.
05:49 AM on 05/09/2012
All those kids in our so-called Western civilization have an effect. That same number in a third world country do not.

All those kids are born out of sentiment not self preservation.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Greg YanickThompson
04:09 PM on 05/09/2012
sorry bro ,1. overpopulation is not the  problem , our economic system is .. we can feed ,cloth educate and house every single person on the planet just with the 14 trillion we all gave the virus banks ,mathmatical fact .. 2 .. I adopted my kids but one !!
05:44 PM on 05/08/2012
/angry...how can we allow this for much more?
05:27 PM on 05/08/2012
the fact that anyone believes that man made CO2 is producing any change boggles my mind, its a huge scam folks and it is all about the money. Billions have already flown into swiss bank accts, thankfully we have someone with brains running the country
05:51 PM on 05/08/2012
Back to the PMO cave with you!
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
TwoZeroOZ
06:01 PM on 05/08/2012
The fact that anyone can still deny the irrefutable evidence of climate change boggles not only my mind, but the utterly vast majority of all the world's intelligent people.

Then again, some people still refuse to believe that tobacco causes cancer... Or that we landed on the moon... I guess every generation has its oddities.
08:55 PM on 05/08/2012
Climate change, yes, that happens. Man made climate change is actually looking like it doesn't exist, and if it does, it is insignificant. Lovelock himself is now doubting the effects of man made climate change. You people are brilliant. Let's waste money, hurt the economy, because evidence is suggesting man made climate change does NOT exist, and if so, is insignificant. Try using logic, it helps. Someone's getting rich off of everyone, and no one seems to have the brains to know it.
01:12 AM on 05/09/2012
Actually 1000's of scientists know it is hogwash, the ones sucking the Global Warming teat are the believers and the naive public.
Here are a few who recently came forward despite the risk and accusations they face.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/10/hansen-and-schmidt-of-nasa-giss-under-fire-engineers-scientists-astronauts-ask-nasa-administration-to-look-at-emprical-evidence-rather-than-climate-models/
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Capital Ottawa
05:15 PM on 05/08/2012
Not only do the Conservatives not have a plan, they are burying environmental law changes in bill C-38, the federal budget. These changes which will compound the problem, in the end it will be taxpayers not corporations who will foot the bill to clean up the environment. This government is not working for the long term interest of Canadians.
04:59 PM on 05/08/2012
... i dont know, i dont work for you.

zing!
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Carlyn Craig
Post Hypnotic Press Audiobooks
04:32 PM on 05/08/2012
"In keeping with the culture of control they were bringing to the capital, the Tories sought to minimize access on the environment file. They shut down the federal website on climate change, directing people to other sites where information on the perils of global warming was scant. Opposition critics alleged that the Tories were following the advice of a well-known Republican strategist, Frank Luntz, who came to Ottawa in the spring of 2006 for strategy sessions with Harper’s team. In the U.S., Luntz had advised Republicans to keep the public confused about the state of climate science." Lawrence Martin, "Harperland: The Politics of Control
http://www.posthypnoticpress.com/pages/on-sale-now-item?r=JU1VOI1DP5&send_to=%2F
photo
Felix99
Born to be mild!!!!
04:25 PM on 05/08/2012
"There's No Federal Plan To Cut Greenhouse Gas." Gee, under the bright lights running the country now, could anyone have expected anything different?
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Carlyn Craig
Post Hypnotic Press Audiobooks
04:36 PM on 05/08/2012
Gutting our environmental policy was surely a hint, too!
photo
Felix99
Born to be mild!!!!
04:44 PM on 05/08/2012
Thanks Carlyn, well said, and only too true!!! Fan.
photo
Charles Howarth
“I became insane, with long intervals of horribl
04:11 PM on 05/08/2012
It simply goes to prove that big business drives Canadian policy on many things, the environment included. Reducing green house gases means those businesses affected will have to retool and rework their processes to be considered 'green'. Will this ever happen? Not as long as money is the driving factor. When the environment and whats best for Canadians becomes the forefront issue as opposed to the almighty dollar, then will issues such as greenhouse gas emissions and other considerable issues be addressed. To expect anything less is futile.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Glass Cannon
Let every eye negotiate for itself.
03:36 PM on 05/08/2012
Danielle Smith of the Wildrose Party in Alberta doesn't believe in climate change either. If you could ever have a truthful conversation with Harper about what he believed in I would bet he agrees with Danielle Smith.

More difficult to understand is that, if you take climate change off the table when talking about the environment, there is a also complete lack of understanding or care about the fact that industrial pollution cause tremendous illness, death, and genetic defects in humans and animals. This has been proven over and over.

So the point is if you don't care about climate change, how can you then also dodge the responsibility for regular old toxic waste and filthy air?
compro01
Conservatism : Policy-based evidence making
03:11 PM on 05/08/2012
Why would they have a plan to cut greenhouse gas emissions?

It would directly conflict with their long standing plans to increase greenhouse gas emissions.
03:34 PM on 05/08/2012
We also simply do not have the technology to do that, as Harper has said.
04:18 PM on 05/08/2012
No need for a technological fix. Increase energy efficiency everywhere, switch to renewables, and let nature soak up the excess.