* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Download NGO Perspectives on Canadian Climate Change Policy
Stern Review wikipedia , lookup
ExxonMobil climate change controversy wikipedia , lookup
Effects of global warming on human health wikipedia , lookup
Global warming controversy wikipedia , lookup
Fred Singer wikipedia , lookup
General circulation model wikipedia , lookup
Emissions trading wikipedia , lookup
Climate change in Tuvalu wikipedia , lookup
Attribution of recent climate change wikipedia , lookup
Media coverage of global warming wikipedia , lookup
Climate change and agriculture wikipedia , lookup
Kyoto Protocol wikipedia , lookup
Scientific opinion on climate change wikipedia , lookup
Global warming wikipedia , lookup
Effects of global warming on humans wikipedia , lookup
Climate change, industry and society wikipedia , lookup
Climate change adaptation wikipedia , lookup
Climate engineering wikipedia , lookup
Climate governance wikipedia , lookup
Solar radiation management wikipedia , lookup
Surveys of scientists' views on climate change wikipedia , lookup
Climate change mitigation wikipedia , lookup
Paris Agreement wikipedia , lookup
Public opinion on global warming wikipedia , lookup
Effects of global warming on Australia wikipedia , lookup
Climate change feedback wikipedia , lookup
Economics of global warming wikipedia , lookup
Climate change in New Zealand wikipedia , lookup
Climate change and poverty wikipedia , lookup
Carbon governance in England wikipedia , lookup
Low-carbon economy wikipedia , lookup
Climate change in the United States wikipedia , lookup
2009 United Nations Climate Change Conference wikipedia , lookup
German Climate Action Plan 2050 wikipedia , lookup
Citizens' Climate Lobby wikipedia , lookup
Views on the Kyoto Protocol wikipedia , lookup
Politics of global warming wikipedia , lookup
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change wikipedia , lookup
Carbon emission trading wikipedia , lookup
Economics of climate change mitigation wikipedia , lookup
Mitigation of global warming in Australia wikipedia , lookup
Business action on climate change wikipedia , lookup
NGO Perspectives on Canadian Climate Change Policy Contents: 1. Summary analysis 2. Summary of comprehensive proposals 3. More detailed analysis – key points and prescriptions 4. References 5. Summary table 1. Summary analysis Between 2004 and 2007, various NGOs published reports on climate change generally and on Canadian policy responses in particular. This examination includes 54 reports from 24 organizations, as listed in the References section. Policy proposals range from the extremely general (i.e. philosophical statements about general approaches) to the highly specific (i.e. suggestions for emission offset standards for small electricity generators). As such, they are often not directly comparable. Major areas of agreement include the reality of the climate change problem and the need for strong government action in response, the importance of both mitigation and adaptation, and the central role of carbon pricing in the development of environmentally effective policy. Most reports also highlight the special vulnerability of the Arctic region. Major areas of debate include the feasibility and desirability of Canada meeting its Kyoto Protocol reduction target, the relative merits of absolute emissions targets compared with those that are intensity based, the relative appeal of different forms of electrical generation, and the degree to which climate change mitigation or adaptation should be the focus of policy. The relative appeal of cap and trade schemes and carbon taxes for emission reduction are also under discussion. NGOs also offer contrasting perspectives on post-2012 climate policy planning, the relationship between Canadian policy and international efforts to address climate change, and the development of the tar sands and nuclear power as energy options. Some recent reports have commented directly upon the Regulatory Framework for Air Emissions. Most NGOs writing about Canadian climate change policy consider both past and present policy frameworks inadequate to address the problem, though they recognize the value of progress towards mandatory emissions regulation. i. Climatic science Almost without exception, NGOs accept the consensus achieved in the third and fourth assessment reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The soundness of the Stern Review’s economic elaboration of the IPCC findings is also broadly affirmed. NGOs concur that climate change is taking place and involves significant risks to humanity. The magnitude and immediacy of those risks, however, remains a subject of debate. Also disputed is the degree to which Canada will be positively and negatively affected by different degrees of climatic change, though there is broad consensus that climate change is a major threat to the people and ecosystems in the Arctic. i ii. Adaptation and mitigation costs A range of assessments exist with regard to the economic costs of mitigating and adapting to climate change. While these costs are not always explicitly put forward, various proposed policy responses assume differing degrees of economic sacrifice required. Cost projections similar to those of the Stern Review – which anticipates costs of approximately 1% of GDP – are most common, though projected costs for very rapid mitigation efforts are higher. Some optimistic assessments project that the opportunities and benefits attending mitigation activities will lead to net economic gains; most analyses, however, project that significant costs will be associated with the reduction of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The general consensus is that these costs – while potentially substantial – would be significantly smaller than those associated with unchecked climate change.1 iii. Emissions trading Most NGO reports endorse efforts to use market mechanisms to achieve GHG reductions. Generally, market mechanisms are seen as more environmentally effective than voluntary measures, as well as being of comparable expense to information and subsidy programs. While some groups explicitly favour cap and trade schemes, most are more concerned with the pricing of carbon emissions than with the mechanism used to achieve that end. Generally, there is a belief that a cap and trade scheme would be more politically feasible to establish. Many NGO reports express concern about “hot air” and the potential purchasing of emissions credits that do not represent real reductions in emissions.2 While a handful of reports implicitly endorse such purchases as a means of meeting Canada’s Kyoto target, the majority concur with the Suzuki Foundation in asserting that “Canada should only purchase credits that correspond to genuine emission reductions.” Organizations disagree on the relative merits of reducing emissions in Canada (which may be more verifiable and will produce investment in Canadian infrastructure and technologies) and reducing them wherever it is least costly to do so (quite possibly in developing states, through the Clean Development Mechanism). iv. Energy sources and policy Four major areas of controversy exist under this heading: 1. 2. 3. 4. coal-fired electricity, oil sands development, nuclear power, and large-scale hydroelectricity. Some environmental groups energetically oppose all four energy sources, while some pro-business groups support policies to encourage them all. The balance of opinion is hostile to coal-fired electricity, sceptical about nuclear and the oil sands, and mildly supportive on hydro (especially where it can serve as energy storage for renewables, like wind and solar). According to the Stern Review: “The benefits of strong, early action on climate change outweigh the costs.” “Hot air” refers to surplus tradable emission reductions related to the decline in industrial output after the collapse of the Soviet Union. 1 2 ii Opposition to coal-based electrical generation is universal among environmental NGOs, though many are willing to consider it in combination with carbon capture and storage technology. In general, strong support is expressed for the Ontario government’s initiative to phase out coal-fired generation. On the matter of the oil sands, the most common suggestion is to expand research into carbon capture and sequestration technology. Some groups identify carbon capture and storage as a climate related business opportunity for Canadian firms. Reports disagree about the existing level of development of such technologies, with some stressing their established usage in enhanced oil extraction and others highlighting the absence of commercial carbon capture operations. Policy options include: (a) encouraging development through voluntary measures, (b) encouraging development through carbon pricing, and (c) simply mandating the use of carbon capture technology in oil sands extraction. Organizations more sceptical about carbon capture technology are more likely to endorse restrictions on oil sands development. The viability of many of the GHG emission reduction plans presented would be fatally undermined if carbon capture and storage does not prove to be a feasible technology. The positions taken on large scale hydroelectricity and nuclear power differ, especially between environmental groups. The two broad positions endorsed are (a) that the level of non-climatic ecological harm caused by these technologies makes them unacceptable for use in climate change mitigation or (b) that the seriousness of the climate change problem warrants the use of such technologies, despite their flaws. Anecdotal evidence suggests rising support for the latter view, as climate change becomes a more prominent environmental issue. v. Mitigation and adaptation None of the reports examined provide a quantitative breakdown of how spending should be prioritized between mitigation and adaptation. There is a strong consensus that both approaches will be required, though there is also a strong sense that additional study of the main areas of vulnerability is necessary before adaptation spending can be well directed. Most reports comment on the special vulnerability of the Arctic and the high probability that specific adaptation measures will need to be undertaken there, even on the basis of inevitable warming from past emissions. vi. Targets Various groups have proposed a number of different emission reduction targets. Targets are expressed in several different ways: (a) as stabilization levels for atmospheric GHGs, measured in CO2 equivalent, (b) as emission reductions as compared to a base year, (c) as a level of acceptable global warming expressed in degrees Celsius, or (d) in terms of other metrics, such as prices per tonne of carbon at a specific date. Targets for other climate relevant policies – such as percentage targets for the use of renewable energy sources – are also advocated by some groups. While concentrations and emission reductions are relatively easily comparable, comparisons between those and other possible measures are not straightforward. The table below sets out those targets that have been explicitly stated: iii Organization David Suzuki Foundation European Union Green Budget Coalition Greenpeace Pembina Institute Pollution Probe Stern Review WWF Canada Target 3 Concentration: 400 ppm of CO2 equivalent Emissions: 25-30% below 1990 levels by 2020, 30-50% below 1990 levels by 2050 Temperature: less than 2°C of mean global warming Carbon prices: $30 per tonne by 2009, $50 by 2020 Concentration: 400 ppm of CO2 equivalent Temperature: less than 2°C of mean global warming Emissions: reduced to 80% below 1990 levels by 2050 Emissions: reduced to 80% below 1990 levels by 2050 Emissions: 20-30% below 1990 levels by 2020 Concentration: 500 to 550 ppm CO2 equivalent Temperature: less than 2°C of mean global warming. Several reports explicitly endorse the principle of “contraction and convergence,” which calls for total world emissions to fall significantly, with those of developed countries falling even further to compensate for growth in the developing world. The contraction is necessary to stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations at a safe level; the convergence is largely motivated by pragmatic, ethical, and political considerations. Moral justifications are often based on the need to alleviate poverty and large present disparities in per-capita emissions. Adhering to this principle would require significantly deeper cuts in Canadian emissions than stabilization based on maintaining the present per-capita distribution, though the latter is likely to be politically impossible.4 vii. Post-2012 NGO prescriptions on post-2012 climate negotiations tend to be the least specific and concrete among all the proposals examined. Generally, they express principles (such as ‘polluter pays’) rather than specific objectives or strategies. Near-total agreement exists that Canada’s ability to credibly and effectively participate in post-2012 international climate negotiations depends on the success of domestic mitigation efforts. In particular, reports cite the difficulty of convincing large developing states to accept mandatory caps when Canada and other developed states have not achieved the targets they chose for themselves under the Kyoto Protocol. Most NGOs cite Canada’s historical contribution to the problem of climate change, high per-capita emissions, and high ability to pay as reasons for which Canada should reduce emissions to a greater extent than the mean, in order to allow space for developing states to achieve more equitable percapita emissions. ix. Conclusion To summarize in a single paragraph: The consensus view among NGOs accepts the science of the IPCC's Fourth Assessment and the economics of the Stern Review. NGOs accept the need to stabilize global greenhouse gas concentrations at a level between 400 and 550 parts per million of Note: The Regulatory Framework for Air Emissions is based on intensity targets, but aims to produce “absolute reductions in emissions of greenhouse gasses from industry as early as 2010 and no later than 2012.” 4 Note: Canadian per-capita emissions per capita were 17.9 tonnes, in 2003.That compares with 19.8 tonnes in the United States, 18.0 tonnes in Australia, 3.2 tonnes in China, and 1.19 tonnes in India. 3 iv carbon dioxide equivalent. They further accept that international equity requires that the relative emissions of developing states rise, requiring deeper cuts from developed states. Both mitigation and adaptation strategies are necessary, and the costs of undertaking both are tolerable and distinctly smaller than the costs of unchecked climate change. Canada should shift the energy basis of the economy away from fossil fuels and towards renewables and perhaps increased use of nuclear fission. Equally importantly, Canada should create a price for greenhouse gas emissions, probably through the use of a cap-and-trade scheme. Canadian credibility in the negotiation of a post-2012 climate change agreement depends upon successful mitigation efforts domestically. v