Dion Porposes Hard Caps

[jdobbin]

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/070316/...rals_carbon_cap

At the heart of Dion's plan for large industrial emitters are so-called green investment accounts.

Companies in high-polluting sectors would be forced to pay into the account when they exceed their emissions targets - or so-called "hard caps" - but could also make withdrawals for new green projects.

The oil industry immediately expressed concern that it would suffer a major economic impact because of the plan's targets, which are modelled on the Kyoto accord.

But environmentalists praised the announcement from Dion, who cast climate change as a political challenge similar to the massive federal budget deficit that the Liberals erased in the 1990s.

Conservatives are calling it a tax but it looks like the money flows back to business.

Environmentalist groups are liking it. Oil industry is leery.

The big question is whether the electorate will believe that Dion will carry it out if he becomes prime minister.

[Martin Chriton]

I don't really understand this hard cap vs. intensity cap debate. Intensity targets seem like the clear winner to me.

If economic growth is perfectly predictable, say you choose X as your hard cap. Your intensity target would just be I=X/# of units. Both schemes here result in the same outcome.

When economic growth isn't predictable it gets tricky. Say technologically you can only produce units this year at intensity minimum Imin. Now you are given a hard cap, which prevents you from making more than Hard cap/Imin units even though your intensity may be lower than another producer elsewhere in the world that we end up having to import from because you were forced to shut down.

It seems to me hard cap proponents are more concerned with optics than with results.

[Argus]

Hard caps work this way. Your hard cap target is 100, and you make 100 widgets a year. You want to expand and build 200 widgets a year. Your hard cap for emissions, though, does not rise to 200 in recognition of this. It stays where it is. Therefore, you will have to pay a tax on your increased emissions. If you churn out 300... 400... 500 widgets in the following years, your tax grows ever higher.

So you build a new plant to build those extra widgets in New York, or Mexico.

[jdobbin]

It seems to me hard cap proponents are more concerned with optics than with results.

It is probably because intensity based caps resulted in increased emissions.

Now that Dion has made his proposal though, he should be diversify into economics and taxes more. His proposals on taxes were well received. He has yet to ascribe an economic policy or strategy.

[B. Max]

I don't really understand this hard cap vs. intensity cap debate. Intensity targets seem like the clear winner to me.

It doesn't really matter. Both will eat the food off your table and consume a mortgage payment. These back door taxes won't stop at the pumps, they will work their way through the entire economy bankrupting people and business and making the country less competitive. Every time one of these idiot politicians threatens the oil companies the price of gas goes up while oil prices stay reasonably steady. My guess is there are plenty of companies these days making contingency plans for moving out of the country if in fact they haven't all ready made them, and are just sitting back waiting to see what happens. This country is poised to go into self destruct mode.

[B. Max]

So you build a new plant to build those extra widgets in New York, or Mexico.

and close the one in this country.

[willy]

“It is probably because intensity based caps resulted in increased emissions.”

Intensity based is an efficiency cap. For instance if they improve the emissions from cars the result would be better intensity. A target then would be to reduce each cars emissions by how much.

If next year you sold more cars your absolute emissions may go up but each car would have lower emissions.

Industry prefers this method because while they improve they can still grow. Most public businesses are founded on the principle of sustained growth. If you can not provide growth markets react badly.

If they move to a hard cap system, the cost of production because of the levy would go up and the investment climate would cool.

If you have a chance to manage cash flow in a business, you realize what Dion did today might as well be a tax. If you remove cash from a business for two years it can cripple their ability to invest and grow.

Not good. Duffy mentioned some steel companies in the Red, many pulp mills are in the red and if they take cash out of these companies it may act like a dominos and put them out of business.

For those that don’t like the electric bill. This is also an external tax to coal burning power plants. Yes, the cost is passed on to more business and our homes. This is an inflationary measure and will have a very negative impact on our economy.

[Keepitsimple]

Hard caps mean nothing until you know what the caps are. Set them too high and the industry will be slow to improve - business more or less as usual. Set them too agressive and it puts a drag on the economy. It's almost impossible to really understand what the "right" caps should be....and if you put hard caps on an industry that is fighting for it's life - they won't have the money to pay the penalties - so they lay off workers or move the jobs offshore or close up shop. Our manufacturing sector is already bleeding.

Their "policy" is supposedly modelled to achieve Kyoto targets. If so, it means that the Liberals are going to make industry pay for all the years that Chretien, Martin and Dion did nothing. Any sound policy has to start with the fact that Kyoto is now unachievable. Only an idiot would believe otherwise. Sorry, bit there is no other expression that fits.

The UK for example, has recently come out with a committment to reduce their GHG by 60% below 1990 by the year 2050 (does that year sound familiar?). This is viewed as agressive and an "example" to other countries. When you examine further, you realize that due to previous action, the UK is already 15% below 1990. That means they only have to reduce 45% more by 2050. Canada has to forget about what we haven't accomplished and get on with what we can do. Our targets should start from now. If you'll remember, the Clean Air Act called for reductions of 45-60% by 2050 from a baseline of 2003. That's even more than what the UK is proposing. We have to get out of this Kyoto/1990 mindset and get on with the job.

[geoffrey]

Intensity targets are much more reasonable. Lowers emissions per unit of consumption, and still allows for unimpeded economic growth. The oil industry is the leader on intensity emissions (especially Shell), but definitely a loser in a hard cap scheme that is overly oppressive to growth.

I support a hard cap system, but based on a reasonable economic growth rate. 100 tonnes this year, 120 next year. Whatever. Not such evidence is in the Liberal plan.

The underlying element is that the Liberal still want to meet Kyoto, and I still maintain the cost is simply too great.

[hiti]

Gordon Lambert, vice-president for sustainable development at Suncor, said his company has already made investments to green its operations and improve efficiency without any devastating consequences.

"We don't predict job losses or impact on the economy (because) of meeting Kyoto," Lambert said, after appearing at a Commons committee studying the government's environmental legislation. "We're focussed on what we can do as a company about the problem."

Under the plan, companies in the oilsands could meet the Kyoto targets at a cost of between 58 cents US and $1.16 US per barrel, said Matthew Bramley, climate-change director at the Pembina Institute, an Alberta-based environmental think-tank. "The folks from the oil and gas industry today had ample opportunity to contest that number, and did not do so," said Bramley. "It's a reliable number." -end quote

http://www.canada.com/topics/news/story.ht...ec-3293d071340d

Steve's warnings that meeting the Kyoto targets will devastate our economy is being contradicted by oil executives. It is a well known fact in the industry that Kyoto targets can be met through existing technologies that are available now and country's are doing just that. In 2005 the federal government adopted a plan that envisioned spending about $10 billion to meet the Kyoto target to cut emissions to six per cent below 1990 levels by 2012. Steve canceled all these programs just so he could say he was right and Canada would not meet the Kyoto targets.

The US developed a sulfur dioxide trading system which allows companies to buy and sell sulfur dioxide reduction credits to meet clean air requirements under the Acid Rain agreement with steady reductions being achieved since 1985 . The same policies can be used for carbon trading.

[Canuck E Stan]

Why wait til 2008, push the deadline to tomorrow, who cares.

Those that are brain dead and think this idea will solve the CO2 problem in a hurry will see the out come when Industry doesn't meet the deadlines.

If Industry doesn't get it done guess who pays the penalties for not meeting the target?

Do you think it's going to come out of their profits?

Not a chance,it always the consumer that pays,always.

Expect your gas,electricity and just about everything else that will be affected by the rise in these costs to go up,way up.

There's a price to pay for moving this along too quickly and be prepared to see a big hole burning in your pocket for a long time.

And as been stated those Industries that can, and will, move their business outside of Canada.Those that have to pay penalties, will only pass the bill on to you and I.

What a great solution from the GreenDion.

[willy]

"Sure we would," said Hans Konow, president of the Canadian Electricity Association. "This is added cost that would be passed through."

Mr. Konow said Canadians will have to pay for whatever solution government comes up with, but had particular concerns over the aggressive and short-term nature of the Liberal plan. "Our capital stock turns over in 40-year chunks, so this would just be a financial exercise

to cope with whatever requirements." He prefers a 15- to 20-year horizon that would allow companies time to bring on alternative energy sources and develop new technologies. "If we spend a lot of time on short-term compliance, we may slow down our investment," he said.

This may sound like foot-dragging, but the plan's devotion to Kyoto may well mean it does not produce real reductions.

John Ivison, National Post points out a few key things:

These costs will be passed through to the consumer. Higher power bills.

The short term nature of the cost may cause nothing more than a cash drain from energy companies.

CEOs will be less likely to invest in Canadian operations because their will be a tax on growth.

[Canuck E Stan]

Liberals propose "absolute cap" on pollution

What happened to the trendy terms like "global warming" and "climate change", now Dion and the Liberals are referring it as "pollution".

Dion said he will no longer argue there is no need for a Clean Air Act, as he has said in the past on grounds action could be taken under the former Liberal government's Environmental Protection Act.

Flip-flopping once again....

Contrary to predictions of economic disruption and job losses predicted by the Conservative government if Canada tries to meet Kyoto targets, Dion said the plan will mean "creation of jobs and good ones" as companies become greener, more efficient and more productive.

Which will be greater..the jobs lost or the jobs created? And which will happen quickest?

"You will always have some (companies) that are not willing to do anything but many industries and CEOs are very progressive in Canada," he added. "What they want is certainty and this plan will give them certainty."

Yes, of course. Every Industry and CEO wants certainty, certainty of making money and profits, not creating more expenditures and red tape.

What a plan, all on the backs of the taxpayers of Canada.

[jdobbin]

Flip-flopping once again....

I think as far as flip flops go, Harper has some whoppers. Income trusts, Iraq. Need I go on.

And now he is going to outdo the Liberals on the environment as it pertains to Kyoto? Flip flop. Wasn't he going to kill it based on the science? Flip flop.

Harper's plan is likely going to cost a bundle.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2007/03/17/g8-climate.html

"Canada will probably be going further in the next five years than any country in the world," Baird said at the end of the three-day meeting in Potsdam, on the outskirts of Berlin.

Just how do you think that is going to be achieved? Through the power of positive thinking?

[geoffrey]

Just how do you think that is going to be achieved? Through the power of positive thinking?

The steps we've seen with biofuels, public transit, shutting down the biggest polluters in Canada (Ontario coal plants) and the steps of the Stelmach government announcing they will limit CO2 emissions from the oil sands is a step.

Anything further than that is reckless.

What happened in the previous 10 or so years that we were under Kyoto?

[jdobbin]

The steps we've seen with biofuels, public transit, shutting down the biggest polluters in Canada (Ontario coal plants) and the steps of the Stelmach government announcing they will limit CO2 emissions from the oil sands is a step.

Anything further than that is reckless.

What happened in the previous 10 or so years that we were under Kyoto?

I've never tooted the horn on the Liberals belated and failed Kyoto policy.

However, the idea that the Tories policy is not going to cost anything is disingenuous.

[Canuck E Stan]

Just how do you think that is going to be achieved? Through the power of positive thinking?

That seemed to be the Liberal method of doing thing during their mandate. It worked for them for 13 years. I guess Dion will carry on the great Liberal tradition.

[jdobbin]

That seemed to be the Liberal method of doing thing during their mandate. It worked for them for 13 years. I guess Dion will carry on the great Liberal tradition.

And now Harper is going to use the same thing when it comes to the budget in hoping it doesn't cost anything?

[Michael Bluth]

And now Harper is going to use the same thing when it comes to the budget in hoping it doesn't cost anything?

Far from it.

Harper has done more in the last year on climate change than the Liberals did in 13 years.

Intensity based emissions reductions is the way to go. Hard caps kill growth.

If the Liberals had only had the gumption to put a realistic plan into place, rather than signing Kyoto with no intention of implementing it, then we wouldn't be in this mess today.

More unrealistic and economy killing plans that will never be implemented are not the answer.

[willy]

Baird comment is true but also clever. He said we will do more over then next five years than any other country. Most countries started a number of years ago. We didn't. Baird carefully was referring to progress based on todays numbers not based on the benchmark of 1990. Our benchmark is probably going to be 2003.

This is how he can be aggressive but yet responsible. It is not responsible to suggest we will meet the 1990 target in four years.

[hiti]

And now Harper is going to use the same thing when it comes to the budget in hoping it doesn't cost anything?

Far from it.

Harper has done more in the last year on climate change than the Liberals did in 13 years.

Intensity based emissions reductions is the way to go. Hard caps kill growth.

If the Liberals had only had the gumption to put a realistic plan into place, rather than signing Kyoto with no intention of implementing it, then we wouldn't be in this mess today.

More unrealistic and economy killing plans that will never be implemented are not the answer.

Actually the reason that Dion has rejected intensity targets because he knows through experience that they don't work. Canada’s greenhouse gas intensity decreased by 14 per cent between 1990 and 2004 while in absolute terms, greenhouse gas emission have increased 27 per cent. http://www.ec.gc.ca/pdb/ghg/ghg_home_e.cfm

The Harper government is spreading misinformation (lying) about the Liberal environmental record. It’s time to clear the air.

Myth

The Liberals signed the Kyoto Protocol and then spent a decade doing nothing to reduce greenhouse gases or protect Canada’s environment.

Facts

Canada formally ratified the Kyoto Protocol on December 17, 2002. Since that time the Liberal government took a number of measures to meet our Kyoto targets.

•Even before Canada signed the Kyoto Protocol, the Liberal government was addressing the issue of climate change. Budget 2000 included $625 million for programs to accelerate climate change research and science and reduce Canada's GHG emissions. In 2000, the Liberal government announced its five-year Action Plan with some $500 million towards concrete measures to reduce greenhouse gases by about 65 megatonnes each year.

•In 2002, the Liberal government introduced Canada’s first climate change strategy, reflecting the principles proposed by Canada’s environment and energy ministers and responding to key concerns raised by industry and business.

•Budget 2003 allocated $3 billion in new funding for environmental priorities, including $2 billion in new climate change funding over five years to enable the government to implement the Climate Change Plan for Canada.

•Budget 2004 committed $15 million over two years to develop and report on better environmental indicators on clean air, water and greenhouse gas emissions. In March 2004, it became mandatory for Canada’s large emitters to report their GHG emissions.

•Budget 2005 was the greenest budget in Canadian history, combining smart economic policy with smart environmental policy. It introduced new market mechanisms, tax measures and incentives for business to spur innovation in Canada to create a more environmentally sustainable economy.

•Budget 2005 invested in initiatives to clean up the environment, protect wildlife and natural habitats, improve our National Parks and conserve our resources. It also advanced the development of environmental technologies and the use of greener practices and technologies such as renewable energies.

•Budget 2005 also allocated the transfer of $5 billion in gas tax revenue to municipalities, in addition to the $800 million from Bill C-48, to support environmentally sustainable infrastructure projects.

•In April 2005, Stéphane Dion launched Project Green, an innovative plan for a healthy environment and a competitive economy. The plan harnessed the power of the market to integrate climate change considerations into the day-to-day decisions of Canadians. It also safeguarded our health by cutting emissions of smog-creating pollutants, making our communities greener, protecting wild spaces and boosting our economic competitiveness.

•Under Stéphane Dion’s leadership at the UN Conference on Climate Change in 2005, the global community broke five years of absolute deadlock, and finally agreed on the Montreal Action Plan to facilitate the implementation of the Kyoto Protocol. The agreement committed to holding a dialogue on approaches for long-term, global action on climate change and was a huge achievement in terms of welcoming all countries back into the tent.

Another Steve/Baird lie is that the Liberals had the worst environment record.

In fact, when comparable figures are used, pollution in Canada in 2002 actually decreased 13 per cent from 1998 levels. Emissions of sulphur oxides, which cause acid rain and smog decreased by 50 per cent. Emissions from toxic substances lead, mercury, cadmium and dioxins and furans dropped by 65 to 75 per cent from 1990 to 2003. In the chemical sector, annual releases of toxic substances have been reduced by two thirds since 1992, down to 1,100 tonnes from 3,400 tonnes. Since the 1970s Canada has reduced its mercury release by 90 per cent and more reductions are expected.

According to internal government documents, had the Conservatives not scrapped Project Green, Canada would have met 80 per cent of its Kyoto targets two years before the deadline.

[geoffrey]

However, the idea that the Tories policy is not going to cost anything is disingenuous.

I'm uncomfortable with the Tory plan due to the cost. It's the lesser of the evils presented IMO.

I don't like any of the plans, I'm not being a partisan here. My vote will not be cast on the environment at all, I think they all have it horribly wrong.

Myth

The Liberals signed the Kyoto Protocol and then spent a decade doing nothing to reduce greenhouse gases or protect Canada’s environment.

Facts

Canada formally ratified the Kyoto Protocol on December 17, 2002. Since that time the Liberal government took a number of measures to meet our Kyoto targets.

Definitely a partisan hack in the least, a hired guerillla marketing campaigner (overpaid IMO) at worst.

•Even before Canada signed the Kyoto Protocol, the Liberal government was addressing the issue of climate change. Budget 2000 included $625 million for programs to accelerate climate change research and science and reduce Canada's GHG emissions. In 2000, the Liberal government announced its five-year Action Plan with some $500 million towards concrete measures to reduce greenhouse gases by about 65 megatonnes each year.

What were the results? Concrete measures my ass! If we had concrete measures we would have gotten concrete results! As Iggy said best, "we didn't get the job done!"

•In 2002, the Liberal government introduced Canada’s first climate change strategy, reflecting the principles proposed by Canada’s environment and energy ministers and responding to key concerns raised by industry and business.

Accomplishing? Nothing.

•Budget 2003 allocated $3 billion in new funding for environmental priorities, including $2 billion in new climate change funding over five years to enable the government to implement the Climate Change Plan for Canada.

Ok, so $2b over 5 years... that means that they were in power for 2 of those years... $2b*(2/5).... that's $800,000,000 without ANY results! I smell trouble.

•Budget 2004 committed $15 million over two years to develop and report on better environmental indicators on clean air, water and greenhouse gas emissions. In March 2004, it became mandatory for Canada’s large emitters to report their GHG emissions.

A report? Ugh. Enough reports. I don't need a high paided scientist to tell me nothing has been done.

•Budget 2005 was the greenest budget in Canadian history, combining smart economic policy with smart environmental policy. It introduced new market mechanisms, tax measures and incentives for business to spur innovation in Canada to create a more environmentally sustainable economy.

That will be massively eclipsed Monday. Funny how they wait until they are nearly sure of defeat to actually attempt to try to do something.

•Budget 2005 invested in initiatives to clean up the environment, protect wildlife and natural habitats, improve our National Parks and conserve our resources. It also advanced the development of environmental technologies and the use of greener practices and technologies such as renewable energies.

The Conservatives in less than a year named more national parks and protected more land than the Liberals have since Trudeau.

•Budget 2005 also allocated the transfer of $5 billion in gas tax revenue to municipalities, in addition to the $800 million from Bill C-48, to support environmentally sustainable infrastructure projects.

How is that environmental? Really, it's for building overpasses to encourage more people to drive their SUV's to work. That's what Calgary is spending the money on.

•In April 2005, Stéphane Dion launched Project Green, an innovative plan for a healthy environment and a competitive economy. The plan harnessed the power of the market to integrate climate change considerations into the day-to-day decisions of Canadians. It also safeguarded our health by cutting emissions of smog-creating pollutants, making our communities greener, protecting wild spaces and boosting our economic competitiveness.

A few months before the fall of the government. I wonder why he waited 3 years? It did all of these things, according to you, but really, we never saw ANYTHING AT ALL, come out of it.

•Under Stéphane Dion’s leadership at the UN Conference on Climate Change in 2005, the global community broke five years of absolute deadlock, and finally agreed on the Montreal Action Plan to facilitate the implementation of the Kyoto Protocol. The agreement committed to holding a dialogue on approaches for long-term, global action on climate change and was a huge achievement in terms of welcoming all countries back into the tent.

Congratulations on implementing a document that allows overall emissions to increase and massive sums of money be transfered from countries reducing CO2 to those increasing CO2 (ie. Canada now, to Russia).

Another Steve/Baird lie is that the Liberals had the worst environment record.

Well, until Mulroney, no one really gave a damn about the environment too much... and Mulroney was named Greenest PM by the tree huggers, so ya, I'll say they have a worse environmental record.

In fact, when comparable figures are used, pollution in Canada in 2002 actually decreased 13 per cent from 1998 levels. Emissions of sulphur oxides, which cause acid rain and smog decreased by 50 per cent. Emissions from toxic substances lead, mercury, cadmium and dioxins and furans dropped by 65 to 75 per cent from 1990 to 2003. In the chemical sector, annual releases of toxic substances have been reduced by two thirds since 1992, down to 1,100 tonnes from 3,400 tonnes. Since the 1970s Canada has reduced its mercury release by 90 per cent and more reductions are expected.

Great, and the CO2 record, the thing that Suzuki screams day and night about? Absolutely terrible, far worse than even the Americans without Kyoto.

According to internal government documents, had the Conservatives not scrapped Project Green, Canada would have met 80 per cent of its Kyoto targets two years before the deadline.

Let's see 'em then, or at least a reputable link indicating these things exist. I call bullshit.

[hiti]

According to internal government documents, had the Conservatives not scrapped Project Green, Canada would have met 80 per cent of its Kyoto targets two years before the deadline.

Let's see 'em then, or at least a reputable link indicating these things exist. I call bullshit.

Try your insiders in the environment department. They wouldn't give me a copy but I'll bet you can get one.

I see many comments about the cost of Dion's carbon reduction plan being passed onto the consumer.

At least Dion is making industry pay whereas I'll bet Steve takes taxpayers money and spends it.