Tag Archives: federal

Some Countries Commit, Others Deflect as White House Pushes for Faster Carbon Cuts

The Biden-Harris Leaders’ Summit on Climate was scheduled to open with statements from leaders of more than two dozen countries, in what the White House signposted as “an opportunity for leaders to highlight the climate-related challenges their countries face and the efforts they are undertaking”.

Here’s a run-down of the day’s commitments.

United States: 50 to 52% emissions reduction below 2005 levels by 2030 and restrictions on financing of overseas fossil fuel projects.

Canada: 40 to 45% emissions reduction below 2005 levels by 2030, with additional measures to meet net-zero by 2050.

United Kingdom: 78% emissions reduction below 1990 levels by 2035, including a Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC) under the 2015 Paris Agreement that includes emissions from international shipping and aviation for the first time. The UK supports ending support for fossil fuels overseas and doubling international climate finance.

“If we actually want to stop climate change, then this must be the year in which we get serious about doing so. Because the 2020s will be remembered either as the decade in which world leaders united to turn the tide, or as a failure,” said Prime Minister Boris Johnson, based on his prepared remarks for the summit. “Let the history books show that it was this generation of leaders that possessed the will to preserve our planet for generations to come,” added Johnson, whose updated NDC was described earlier this week as “a bit of a Boris blunderbuss”.

European Union: The EU confirmed a 55% emissions reduction below 1990 levels by 2030 and a target of “climate neutrality” by 2050, a week after seven European countries agreed to put an end to export financing for fossil fuels. While politicians in Germany welcomed the EU deal, Clean Energy Wire says EU member states remain divided on its implementation, while The Guardian has environmental groups declaring the new target a failure.

European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said the 55% goal, an improvement over the continent’s previous 40% threshold, will “put the EU on a green path for a generation”. But European parliamentarians had sought a 60% commitment. “The ‘at least 55% emission reduction target for 2030’ is not in line with the Paris agreement’s ambition to limit temperature rise to 1.5°C by the end of the century,” said Climate Action Network-Europe Director Wendel Trio. “Today’s agreement is not a victory for climate action, it’s a farce,” agreed Barbara Mariani, senior policy officer for climate and energy with the European Environmental Bureau.

Germany: 55% emissions reduction below 1990 by 2030, coal-fired electricity phaseout by 2030, and further investments in renewable energy.

Italy: The country has made climate one of the main priorities for its year in the G20 presidency. Italy will devote 10% of its budget to green infrastructure, circular economy, and sustainable mobility.

Japan: The country almost doubled its emissions reduction target to 46% below 2013 levels, with “neutrality” by 2050, after adopting a two-page partnership with the U.S. on “ambition, decarbonization, and clean energy”. The Japan Climate Initiative said the target was just 1% higher than its 291 members had asked for. No Coal Japan welcomed the Japan-U.S. commitment to align public finance with a 2050 target for net-zero emissions, but pressed the country to withdraw financing from two coal projects.

“Japan deserves recognition for adopting a new climate target that is a significant and important improvement over the very weak one that it submitted a year ago,” said Helen Mountford, vice president, climate and economics at the World Resources Institute. “Given the sharp decline in the price of renewables and electric vehicles over the last five years and strong business support for bold action, Japan should aim to cut emissions by 50%, as Prime Minister Suga said the government will strive to do. This will be important so that Japan does not lag behind its peers as the world races towards a clean energy future, or lose out on the economic opportunities from a cleaner, healthier, low-carbon economy.”

China: The country will strive to peak emissions before 2030 and reach carbon neutrality by 2060. Pledged strict controls on coal-fired power plant construction over the next five years, with a phasedown of coal consumption in the next five-year plan. (The current one was just announced last month.) China also issued a joint statement with the U.S. last week, undertaking to address the climate crisis with seriousness and urgency.

The South China Morning Post says the U.S. and the EU have been pressuring China for a more aggressive climate pledge and an earlier target year for peak emissions, and most experts agree the earlier target is doable. The Guardian says Chinese President Xi Jinping “is likely to push back” against Biden’s claim to global leadership, but veteran China-based climate analyst Lauri Myllyvirta argues a healthy competition between the two superpowers can actually spur faster, deeper carbon cuts.

Climate vulnerable countries attending the Summit pushed developed countries for increased finance, particularly for climate adaptation], and for debt relief, WRI reports. The vulnerable countries attending the summit include Antigua and Barbuda, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Gabon, Jamaica, Kenya, and the Marshall Islands.

Australia: Avidly pro-coal Prime Minister Scott Morrison entered the summit with a new technology roadmap that called for A$540 million in new carbon capture and hydrogen spending, while critics described his government as “increasingly isolated due to a lack of climate ambition,” The Guardian reports. Morrison reportedly planned to use the summit as an opportunity to troll for international partners for the plan. The Biden-Harris administration pressed Australia for faster, deeper carbon cuts, and nearly a dozen environmental and humanitarian groups from the Pacific region urged the country to reduce its emissions 50% by 2030.

Brazil: President Jair Bolsonaro offered up carbon neutrality by 2050 under pressure from the Biden-Harris administration, promised to double funding for environmental enforcement, and maintained a past target of zero illegal deforestation by 2030. But Inside Climate News says the U.S. is already looking past Brazil to Colombia to find a climate leader in the region, and Reuters writes that Brazilian environmentalists are skeptical of Bolsonaro’s sudden policy shift. “The government makes totally empty promises,” said Climate Observatory Executive Secretary Marcio Astrini.

“Bolsonaro has paid lip service to the U.S. demands, sending Biden a seven-page letter which includes figures and claims that Brazilian environmentalists say are distorted and even false,” adds Climate News Network. “But 15 U.S. Democratic senators, apparently worried that Biden might be taken in by Bolsonaro’s message, have sent him a letter of their own, asking him to link any support for Brazil to progressive reductions in deforestation.” In a post yesterday in The Guardian, two former Brazilian environment ministers say billions of dollars in new U.S. funding won’t stop the country’s “ruinous government” from “destroying the Amazon rainforest”.

India: The country announced the launch of a U.S.-India climate and energy partnership to help it reach 450 gigawatts of renewable energy capacity by 2030. India, which ranks 87th in the World Economic Forum’s Energy Transition Index, may still be planning a new generation of coal-fired power plants, according to a draft electricity policy reported in an exclusive by Reuters.

South Korea: The country committed to end public financing of overseas fossil projects. “I applaud South Korea for halting financing for new overseas coal plants,” Mountford said. “This is a historic step, as South Korea was one of the three biggest financial backers for coal plant construction. The announcement sends a strong signal that the era of dirty fossil fuels is coming to a close. Japan and China should quickly follow South Korea’s example and reorient their own overseas funding away from coal to clean sources of energy.”

South Africa: The country said its emissions will begin falling in 2025, a decade ahead of its previous schedule.

Russia: President Vladimir Putin said his country’s “cumulative net emissions” over the next three decades should be less than the European Union’s. “It wasn’t immediately clear how the target would be achieved in the country where fossil fuel production is the single-biggest source of budget revenue,” Bloomberg writes. But the remarks “mark a sharp turnaround from Putin’s past rhetoric on climate action, which typically includes mocking statements about renewable energy. Russia’s current commitment under the Paris Agreement implies a small increase in emissions from current levels because it uses the highly-polluting Soviet Union as its baseline.”

The Washington Post points to climate diplomacy as one area of common ground between Putin and Biden amid a mounting pile of “stress points”.

(h/t to Climate Action Network-Canada for the Day One summit summary that supplied the skeleton for this report.)

Reprinted withe permission from The Energy Mix

Reference re Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act

Leave a reply

The Supreme Court of Canada rules the federal carbon pricing law is constitutional.

Parliament passed the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act in 2018, based on the consensus that greenhouse gas emissions contribute to global climate change. Countries around the world committed to drastically reduce their greenhouse gas emissions under the 2015 Paris Agreement. In Canada, the federal government passed the Act to implement its commitments.

Specifically, the law required provinces and territories to implement carbon gas pricing systems by January 1, 2019 or adopt one imposed by the federal government.

Why is the federal Act constitutional?

Chief Justice Richard Wagner wrote for the majority of the judges, which found the Act to be constitutional. They noted that global warming causes harm beyond provincial boundaries and that it is a matter of national concern under the “peace, order and good government” clause of the Constitution.

The majority noted the Act would only apply where provincial or territorial pricing systems are not strict enough to reduce global warming.

A rarely applied doctrine of Canadian constitutional law

The majority noted that national concern is a well-established but rarely applied doctrine of Canadian constitutional law. The application of this doctrine is strictly limited in order to maintain the autonomy of the provinces and respect the diversity of confederation. However, the federal government has the authority to act in appropriate cases, where there is a matter of genuine national concern and where the recognition of that matter is consistent with the division of powers.

Federalism

The Constitution divides federal and provincial powers. The majority of judges observed that Canada, which has a federal system of governance, requires a balance between federal and provincial powers. They recalled that this concept, known as federalism, is a foundational principle of Canada’s Constitution.

Not a tax

The majority noted that the term “carbon tax” is often used to describe the pricing of carbon emissions. However, they said this has nothing to do with the concept of taxation, as understood in the constitutional context. As such, they also concluded that the fuel and excess emission charges imposed by the Act were constitutionally valid regulatory charges and not taxes.

How did the case get to the Supreme Court?

Three provinces – Saskatchewan, Ontario and Alberta – challenged the constitutionality of the Act by referring the legislation to their respective courts of appeal. The courts of appeal for Saskatchewan and Ontario found the Act constitutional, while the Alberta Court of Appeal found it unconstitutional.

The question for the Supreme Court was whether the federal government had the authority to pass such a law that puts a price on carbon.

What were the main arguments?

The provinces said they had their own climate policies, tailored to their own circumstances. They also argued that they have jurisdiction over natural resources.

For its part, the federal government argued that it has the authority to address issues that are national in scope. It also maintained that the law was a backstop (or safety net) to ensure minimum carbon pricing standards across the country.

Climate change is real

The Supreme Court also pointed out that all of the parties agree that global climate change is real. It’s caused by greenhouse gas emissions resulting from human activities and it poses a grave threat to the future of humanity.

Cases in Brief are prepared by communications staff of the Supreme Court of Canada to help the public better understand Court decisions. They do not form part of the Court’s reasons for judgment and are not for use in legal proceedings.

Pandemic increased direct aid to fossil fuel producers, new study shows

Leave a reply

Erin O’Toole’s Promises Austerity Budgets For Ten Years

Leave a reply

A poll by Abacus Survey, February 5, gives the Liberals 32 percent support, with the Conservatives polling at 31 percent. Given that Erin O’Toole was recently elected Conservative Party Leader, support seems high considering most of Canada doesn’t know who he is.

A look at his new website shows he will fight for all the forgotten, those people who get up early to feed their families. The men and women who work hard and are proud to work.” He assures his supporters they can count on him.

Billing himself as the best defender of Harper’s legacy of austerity, reaction, and militarism, he hopes to gather more support. No doubt, he isn’t in a position to win if an election were called, but his support is strengthening, even without his claims being tested.

Photos Andre Forget / OLO

It would appear he is borrowing a page from former party leader Andrew Sheer, who billed himself as the common man; the average guy. The Conservative party and the public were quick to dismiss this notion when they discovered he was sending his children to private school on the public dime. The “common man” isn’t able to do that.

Harper was known for his attacks on unions, reductions in social spending and maintaining a running fight with war veterans. Defending Harper’s legacy and representing the working families across the country seems ambiguous, to say the least.

UNIFOR, the largest private sector union in Canada, evaluated Canada’s economic record under the Harper government. In their overall evaluation they said:

Of the 16 economic indicators reported above, the Harper government ranked last (or tiedfor last) among the postwar Prime Ministers in almost half (seven) of the cases. The Harper government ranked second worst in six more of the cases, and no higher than sixth out of nine postwar Prime Ministers in the remaining three cases. In not one of the indicators did the Harper government rank any better than sixth.

This statistical review confirms that it is far-fetched to suggest that Canada’s economy has been well-managed during the Harper government’s time in office. To the contrary, there is no other time in Canada’s postwar economic history in which Canada’s performance has performed worse than it did under the Harper government.

It’s one thing to defend Harper’s legacy as long as he doesn’t copy it. It’s another thing to follow his lead. When his government was stressed by the recession, there were asset sell-offs, major public services cuts, layoffs and left more than 2 million Canadian workers (11.5 per cent) remain unemployed or underemployed. The Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives (CCPA) reported these cutbacks as the poor and the middle class paying the price of deficit reduction via social program cuts and continued high unemployment. They are collateral damage while the perpetrators get back to business as usual.

His election campaign spoke of “fiscal prudence” and a Fiscal Stability Plan. He wants to wind down emergency benefits and get the country on track to balance the budget in 10 years.

Albertans have been witnessing how a Conservative austerity budget works as implemented by Alberta Premier, Jason Kenney. Reducing business tax to create jobs hasn’t worked in Alberta and O’Toole should be looking at the ways Kenney has handled some of these issues that haven’t worked out the way he planned. Program cuts by the provincial government as well as a federal government, would be devastating to Alberta citizens.

5 ways Norway leads and Canada lags on climate action

Leave a reply

Norway’s Prime Minister Erna Solberg greets Prime Minister Justin Trudeau at the G7 leaders summit in La Malbaie, Que., in June 2018. THE CANADIAN PRESS/Justin Tang

Bruce Campbell, York University, Canada

As major oil and gas producers and exporters, Norway and Canada share a particular responsibility for confronting the planet’s existential climate threat. However, their different political, economic and cultural features have resulted in major differences in their climate policy track records.

Overall, Norway is a leader on climate change performance and Canada is a laggard. The 2021 Climate Change Performance Index ranks 61 countries on their progress in reducing greenhouse gas emissions, energy consumption, renewable energies and climate policy. Norway ranked eighth overall, while Canada was near the bottom in 58th place.

Both countries face epic challenges in weaning themselves from petroleum dependence — and putting an end to exporting carbon emissions. Canada is a long way from winding down the oil and gas industry and implementing a green and inclusive recovery.

One of the advantages Norway holds is the high degree of equality and inclusivity in the policy process, which translates into a healthier democracy than Canada’s. This is something Canada can learn from and improve upon.

Our way or the Norway

Canada produces 4.7 million barrels of oil per day — 80 per cent of it from Alberta — and exports 79 per cent to the United States. The carbon emissions from the consumption of those fossil fuel exports are almost four times greater than the emissions produced in their extraction and processing. These emissions aren’t attributed to Canada, even though it’s responsible for making them available.

Norway produces 1.7 million barrels of oil daily and, since the country runs mainly on hydroelectricity, exports almost all of it, largely to Western Europe. Norway exports 10 times more emissions than it produces domestically.

Norway’s exit ramp from oil dependence is bumpy. Despite some contradictory climate actions, Norway’s progress exceeds that of virtually all petro-states, with Canada trailing behind.

Norway has committed to reducing its greenhouse gas emissions by 50-55 per cent compared to 1990s levels by 2030, largely through domestic actions. Norway is the world leader in electric vehicle sales; by 2025, all new cars sold will be zero-emission vehicles. Only 3.3 per cent of passenger vehicles sold in Canada during the first half of 2020 were electric.

A satirical GM Super Bowl commercial recognizes Norway’s leadership in electric vehicle sales.

Norway participates in the European Union’s Emissions Trading System, the world’s largest carbon market, and has spent billions on international offsets in developing countries through its REDD+ program to maintain and expand their forests as carbon sinks.

Canada recently introduced legislation to meet or exceed a 30 per cent reduction in carbon emissions by 2030 compared to 2005, in part by boosting its carbon tax, but continues to heavily subsidize fossil fuel production. Since early 2020, Canada has allocated US$14.6 billion to support fossil fuel energy and an equivalent amount on clean energy.

Norway also spends a lot on its fossil fuel industry — at least US$11.76 billion since 2020. And with an economy that runs largely on renewable energy, it allocated only US$382 million to renewables.

The good, the bad and the ugly

Neither Canada nor Norway has achieved absolute emissions reductions. Industry in both countries downplays this reality, choosing to focus instead on their progress in reducing carbon intensity — emissions per barrel of oil.

Neither country has committed to a production endgame either. Denmark is the first major oil-producing country to commit to terminating state-approved oil exploration in the North Sea and ending all oil extraction by 2050.

A chart ranking countries by their performance on addressing climate change, with Canada near the bottom of the list. — Climate change performance index (2021). The first three positions are blank because no country scores high enough. Canada is ranked among the worst performing countries and fell three spots in 2021.
(Germanwatch 2020)

Canadian carbon emissions increased 20.9 per cent between 1990 and 2018, mostly driven in turn by a five-fold expansion of oilsands emissions. Canada’s energy regulator predicts oil production overall will grow 41 per cent from 2018 to 2040.

Norway’s emissions increased three per cent between 1990 and 2018, and it continues to sell oil leases for offshore drilling including in the Barents Sea and the Norwegian Sea. Canada has imposed a moratorium on Arctic offshore drilling.

Divergent paths

Canada and Norway’s paths to carbon zero have, for the most part, diverged, with Canada falling behind badly.

In Norway, the state-controlled company, Equinor, and the government jointly determine climate policy. In Canada, petroleum corporations have more leverage on climate policy because they control their production and investment decisions at home and abroad, and are accountable only to their shareholders.
Norway is a unitary state giving the government uncontested jurisdictional authority over climate policy. As a federal state with divided jurisdictions, the Canadian federal government is in a much weaker policy-making position.
There is a high degree of political stability on climate action in Norway. Even the right-wing Progress Party acknowledges the climate threat and supports the government’s climate plan. In Canada, wide swings on climate policy over the past 40 years have thwarted sustained advances. While a majority of Canadians now support decisive action on climate change, there are splits along party lines and geography, with most Conservative provincial governments opposing a carbon tax.
In Canada, especially under Conservative governments, there has been very little consultation with labour unions and NGOs on climate policy, whereas in Norway these consultations are viewed as essential in shaping policy, regardless of the government in power. Additionally, Norway’s lower levels of economic inequality and stronger social safety net reinforce its robust democracy.
Alberta squandered its oil wealth on low provincial taxes and corporate giveaways. The province created the Alberta Heritage Fund in the 1970s, but it currently contains only US$12 billion. Norway on the other hand, created a sovereign wealth fund in 1996 to retain the bulk of economic rent from the oil and gas extraction. The fund now holds US$1.3 trillion in global investments, which facilitates its climate transition. The fund’s return on these investments in 2019 was US$180 billion, and in 2020 it sold the last of its money-losing investments in foreign fossil fuel companies. The Norwegian government is still highly dependent on the petroleum sector, but fiscal rules allow it to draw up to four per cent annually from the sovereign wealth fund returns if net petroleum transfers fall short of spending requirements.

Political leadership is crucial

There is plenty of room for Canada to increase taxes on the wealthy and corporations. It can also strengthen its public investment banks and expand the Bank of Canada’s “quantitative easing” efforts, namely holding government-issued debt to provide the necessary resources for an equitable and sustainable transition.

Governing the decentralized Canadian federation is complex. This puts more weight on political leadership in all parties, in all regions, to acknowledge the truth about the climate crisis and build the necessary consensus to meet the challenge.

Political leadership is the art of persuasion: learning from the past, building coalitions, taking bold action. As a major carbon emitter, Canada must fulfil its global responsibility in helping to stop this runaway train.

Denial, delay and division are no longer an option. Leadership that fails avoid a cataclysmic future will be judged harshly by our descendents.

Bruce Campbell, Adjunct professor, Faculty of Environmental Studies, York University, Canada

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Steve MacLellan

Ramble On

Tag Archives: federal

Some Countries Commit, Others Deflect as White House Pushes for Faster Carbon Cuts

Reference re Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act

Pandemic increased direct aid to fossil fuel producers, new study shows

Erin O’Toole’s Promises Austerity Budgets For Ten Years

5 ways Norway leads and Canada lags on climate action

Related

Our way or the Norway

The good, the bad and the ugly

Divergent paths

Political leadership is crucial