National Round Table On The Environment And The Economy Says Delays In Carbon Rules Mean Canada Is Locking In Emissions

CP  |  By Posted: Updated: 05/18/2012 8:05 am

Round Table On Environment
The new research comes from the soon-to-be-defunct National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy, the federally funded advisory group formed to give advice and research on sustainable development. (CP/Alamy)

OTTAWA - Delays in regulating greenhouse gas emissions mean Canada is quickly locking in old-fashioned infrastructure that will fill the air with carbon for decades to come, new research shows.

The longer the federal government waits to clamp down on emissions and business continues as usual, the more difficult and costly it becomes to meet environmental targets, the research concludes.

The new research comes from the soon-to-be-defunct National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy, the federally funded advisory group formed to give advice and research on sustainable development.

The Harper government is in the process of abolishing the agency.

It's likely the first time analysts have measured the country's shrinking room to manoeuvre as a result of investments made while businesses wait for governments to crack down on emissions.

The research also shows that electricity could be the salvation, as long as that sector can attract huge investment.

The research will be included in one of the advisory body's final reports to be published in a few weeks, but was presented by the round table's president, David McLaughlin, at a conference earlier this month. His slide presentation was obtained by The Canadian Press.

"We have said consistently that delay is costly," McLaughlin said.

Now, he says, the research shows just how costly.

His charts and graphs show that as Ottawa waits to implement regulations on emitters, investment in coal, oil, gas, electricity and buildings will be guided by the high-emission standards which have been the norm.

The effects could be felt for decades, since the life-span of much infrastructure is about 40 years — compounding the stock of emissions already in the atmosphere.

So any infrastructure built after the new regulations eventually come into place will have to be extra-efficient in order to make up for the delays of the past, McLaughlin said.

"The more and more of those (locked-in) investments that are made, the less and less options they (governments) have for actually finding emissions reductions in the economy," explained Alex Wood, senior director at Sustainable Prosperity, the think-tank that hosted the conference where McLaughlin presented his findings.

"And with less and less options available, they become more expensive."

The International Energy Agency has been sounding the alarm about locked-in global emissions for months now. In its November report, the IEA warned that on world scale, it will be impossible to meet climate-change targets unless radical changes are undertaken in the next five years.

The IEA said the world has a difficult task in limiting global warming to two degrees Celsius because existing infrastructure already produces 80 per cent of the carbon that would be consistent with such a target. That leaves little room to do anything else.

Canada faces a similar conundrum, the Round Table research shows.

There is a growing consensus that Ottawa's regulatory approach is moving too slowly to meet the government's 2020 target to reduce emissions to 17 per cent below 2005 levels. Last week, the federal environment commissioner's audit of the government's regulations confirmed that reaching the target would be "unlikely."

So far, Ottawa's regulations have tackled just one sector out of eight.

So the Round Table research focuses on how Canada can meet its 2050 targets instead. Canada and other G8 countries have committed to cutting emissions to 65 per cent below 2005 levels by that year.

It's possible that Canada could meet this target, McLaughlin said, but the longer Ottawa waits to put a clear price on carbon, the harder and more costly it will be.

The lack of clear details on what the federal government will expect has already caused casualties, added Wood.

Two major, emissions-friendly developments have recently collapsed, mainly because Ottawa has not put forward enough information about how its carbon regime will function, Wood said.

Investors pulled out of the Pioneer carbon-capture and storage project in Alberta, despite having $779 million in federal and provincial subsidies. Ottawa-based Iogen cancelled plans for a biofuel plant in Manitoba.

McLaughlin sees hope in electricity.

He says his research shows it will take massive investment — up to $16 billion annually — to meet the 2050 target. That money would be in addition to what is already invested in the carbon-producing sectors of Canada's economy.

Most of that would have to be in electricity, especially in hydro. His presentation showed that to meet the 2050 target, current investment of $12 billion a year in electricity would have to double.

But in order to attract that kind of money, McLaughlin said governments need to issue "strong, sustained, properly oriented price signals" that give policy certainty to investors.

Related on HuffPost:

FOLLOW CANADA POLITICS

Filed by Michael Bolen  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 19
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Donna Meness
www.findmaisyandshannon.com
Donna Meness
www.findmaisyandshannon.com
09:25 AM on 05/17/2012
Our Nuclear Energy:

In 2007 the Harper government entered into a controversial nuclear partnership with the United States and then resources minister, Gary Lunn boasted: "It is great news for Canada to be part of this partnership, the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP) without public debate or a vote in the house of Commons."

Boasting that it was done "without public debate or a vote in the house of Commons" is worth repeating.

The partnership, first pitched early in 2006 by U.S. President George W. Bush, proposes expanding and promoting nuclear energy worldwide by developing a new and unproven breed of "fast reactors" that can burn nuclear waste ....

But the plan is highly controversial because it proposes re-using nuclear waste, a practice effectively banned in Canada and the United States since the 1970s for security reasons. Moreover, the original GNEP concept proposed that all used nuclear fuel be repatriated to the original uranium-exporting country for disposal. As the world's largest uranium exporter, Canada could be taking on a huge responsibility to deal with nuclear waste from around the world. (7)

Casualties: Our safety

Victory: Stephen Harper and the USA

pushedleft.blogspot.ca/2010/09/has-john-turners-premonition-come-true.html
Donna Meness
www.findmaisyandshannon.com
09:24 AM on 05/17/2012
Our Natural Resources:

Turns out he was in the United States protecting the 'proportionality' clause in the NAFTA agreement. This clause is good for the U.S. but could be devastating to Canada. According to the Parkland Institute:

This obscure-sounding clause essentially states that, when it comes to energy, no Canadian government can take any action which would reduce the proportion of our total energy supply which we make available to the United States from the average proportion over the last 36 months.

In other words, if over the last 36 months we have exported just under 50 per cent of our available oil (including domestic production and imports) to the United States—and we have—then no government in Canada can do anything which would result in us making less than two thirds of our total oil supply available to the US....this clause seriously jeopardizes our own energy security in this country, and severely hampers our government’s ability to set our own energy policies. ...

For example, if a natural disaster were to hit eastern Canada tomorrow, our government could not say that we will cut oil or gas exports to the US by 10 per cent in order to increase the oil and gas available for disaster relief in Canada. (10)

http://parklandinstitute.ca/research/summary/over_a_barrel/
Donna Meness
www.findmaisyandshannon.com
09:22 AM on 05/17/2012
DRAINING OUR ENERGY

Harper wimped out on energy, too, by signing a benign-sounding “agreement for cooperation in energy and technology.” It is essentially a political pitch for work already being carried out through the North American Energy Working Group, which has so far produced a continental natural gas vision – what’s ours is Bush’s – and endorsed a fivefold increase in tar sands production, all for export to the United States.

From previous political pitches, it’s clear that this agreement is also mostly about acceding to Bush’s energy vision for the continent.

Almost in lockstep with Bush, Harper has chosen to stall real change on the energy and environment fronts in order to boost the most unsustainable industries out there: biofuels that require vast tracts of intensive agriculture to grow; so-called clean coal that doesn’t exactly remove pollutants so much as displace them and dangerous liquefied natural gas plants where highly flammable liquid gas from overseas is re-gasified in Canada to be piped to the U.S. market.

Harper says that all this will make Canada a “clean energy superpower,” but what kind of superpower writes energy policy based not on national needs but on priorities set by the White House?

One especially contentious aspect of Harper’s “clean” agenda is his love affair with nuclear power, particularly its role in the Alberta tar sands.

http://www.canadians.org/publications/CP/2007/autumn/summit.html
10:26 AM on 05/16/2012
There hasn't been a federal Prime Minister who has put teeth into environmental regulation. Stephane Dion was for a carbon tax and look what happened to him. At least, Jean Chretien did nothing. Harper is going backwards. We are in serious trouble and almost everyone is fiddling while the planet burns.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
PAKALOLO
Hendrix deus est
10:22 AM on 05/16/2012
The conservatives do not govern for all Canadians, only their supporters. Shame on them. Shame on us for being coerced into giving them a Majority of Ridings, so that they could bring their brand of totalitarianism.
08:16 AM on 05/16/2012
James Lovelock is the godfather of global warming the most honoured scientists and environmentalists in the world. His “Gaia theory ” that the Earth operates as a single, living organism created the new field of Earth science. . He admitted two weeks ago he has been unduly “alarmist” about climate change "quote"

“The world has not warmed up very much since the millennium. Twelve years is a reasonable time … it (the temperature) has stayed almost constant, whereas it should have been rising — carbon dioxide is rising. “The problem is we don’t know what the climate is doing,” Lovelock said. “We thought we knew 20 years ago.

His yet to be release book will outline ways in which he believes mankind can help regulate the Earth’s natural systems. Sensible approaches.. I think I am going with Lovelock he’s the smarter guy in the room.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
10:45 PM on 05/15/2012
Canada is locked in viscous stupidity thanks to bunch of Jesus freaks who viscerally hate science and reason.
09:59 PM on 05/15/2012
If Koyota hadnt been canceled we would need to shut down Ontario, no power, no cars, no nothing to meet it. Of course the other option was send billions to swiss bank accounts, its all about the money folks, the whole Global Warming Hoax is a farce, the emperor has no cloths and just wants your money.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
TwoZeroOZ
11:40 PM on 05/15/2012
Kyoto*
Cancelled*
to send*
it's*

Maybe we should stop being so simple.
photo
NTodd
Aude Sapere
01:11 AM on 05/16/2012
You forgot
clothes*
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
canuckhoser
Don't mind the man behind the curtain
12:38 AM on 05/16/2012
That is quite a substantial amount of fear-mongering there simpleton
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Doogs62
To see by faith is to shut the eye of reason
07:08 PM on 05/15/2012
It will be just a matter of time before the Cons announce they can't meet any targets and they will need to ramp up resource development in order to inject sufficient capitol for environmental projects. A snake eating it's tail!

Curious about what the NRTEE is and what they do? Want to see what the Harper Government™ isn't telling you.

http://nrtee-trnee.ca/
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
FearlessFreep
A radical leftist with a JS Woodsworth avatar.
05:49 PM on 05/15/2012
Thank you, Jean Chretien. (He dithered for five years before ratifying the Kyoto Accord, by which time it was too late to take action.)
09:40 PM on 05/15/2012
You're blaming kyoto's failure on Chretien?

That is about as far detached from reality as one could possibly get on this issue.
TheRenaissanceMan
A starry-eyed idealist with too much time
05:34 PM on 05/15/2012
Our collective Achilles heel is the fact that humans are very bad at taking short-term pain for long-term gain and instead opt for short-term gain for long-term pain. You can't upset the equilibrium for long without a radical change happening down the road...
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
canuckhoser
Don't mind the man behind the curtain
12:42 AM on 05/16/2012
It really isn't that bad. It is simply the entrenched dirty power has such iron control over the tories/reform/cons. Corps in BC like the revenue neutral carbon tax, it actually saves them money and increases their efficiency and uhoh! lowers emissions...the tories new motto is, if it works...break it