Download NGO Perspectives on Canadian Climate Change Policy

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