Canadian Cabinet okays plan to fight global warming
Copyright 1999 Globe Information Services
Wednesday, December 15, 1999
ANNE McILROY and MARK MacKINNON
Ottawa-- The fight against global warming is the most profound economic challenge facing the country since the Second World War, says a secret cabinet document that outlines a $1.6-billion, five-year plan to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases Canadians pump into the atmosphere.
The scale of change to the Canadian economy will be far greater than the oil shocks of the 1970s or free trade, it says, but it also notes that dealing with global warming will create economic opportunities if the government acts now.
The document obtained by The Globe and Mail outlines a presentation to cabinet made by Environment Minister David Anderson and Natural Resources Minister Ralph Goodale in November.
Government sources say the plan has been approved in principle by the cabinet, but that doesn't mean it will be implemented.
Many memorandums that obtain cabinet approval get no financing in the budget because the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance deem their priority low. Government sources say a scaled-down version has also been prepared in case Finance balks at the cost.
Greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide trap heat in the atmosphere. They are largely produced when oil, coal and gas are burned. Reducing emissions will require dramatic gains in energy efficiency over the next 10 years, the document says.
A separate briefing note suggests Mr. Anderson and Mr. Goodale may have difficulty getting some of their cabinet colleagues to agree on the need for immediate action and notes that Industry Minister John Manley "has not been an evident supporter to date."
In December, 1997, Canada signed the Kyoto Protocol and agreed to cut greenhouse-gas emissions 6 per cent from 1990 levels by 2012. In real terms, that means a reduction of 26 per cent because of the rise in emissions since 1990.
It outlines the proposed federal strategy to achieve that goal, which includes spending $955-million on measures to reduce emissions, but doesn't go into specifics of how the money would be spent. Some of the possibilities being bandied about are said to include incentives to businesses that meet emission-cut targets and efforts to improve energy efficiency. A "carbon tax" on emissions has been ruled out.
Another $235-million would go toward improving Canada's scientific capability to understand what is happening to the world's climate and what those changes could mean, and $110-million would go toward figuring out how best to adapt to higher temperatures and the storms and erratic weather that would result.
In addition, $335-million was approved in principle in June for an international strategy.
Environmentalists who have read the document say it is a strong first step and a sign that Ottawa is taking global warming seriously. But they worried it will lose out to tax cuts or other spending priorities in the February budget.
"We are concerned that it will fall through the cracks," said John Bennett of the Sierra Club of Canada.
The document makes it clear that those pushing the climate-change issue are frustrated with the lack of progress made so far. In addition to the cabinet infighting, there's a concern the tripartite alliance between government, industry and environmentalists -- who are working together on a series of reports on the country's options for meeting its Kyoto commitments -- might crumble if Ottawa doesn't take a stronger stand on the issue.
Provinces and industry are just coming on board, according to the document, with Alberta, Quebec and Nova Scotia taking the most progressive approaches. Ottawa must, it says, be a leader.
"Support is fragile. . . . Most need a clear signal that government is serious before committing to action. Without this signal we lose momentum."
The cabinet was also warned that Canada is already falling behind competitors who are making concrete steps to tackle climate change.
The European Union has implemented energy-use taxes (which are offset by declines in payroll taxes) and voluntary efficiency-improvement measures for automobiles.
Even the United States and Australia, two notorious laggards in recognizing the need for action, have outdone Canada so far. The U.S. is spending $1.4-billion and Australia $1-billion on renewable-energy and energy-efficiency initiatives, the document says.
But domestic measures will not be enough to meet the Kyoto target. The document suggests any hope Canada has of meeting its Kyoto target relies heavily on being allowed to buy emission credits from developing countries.
Whether or not emissions trading, and other measures that would allow Canada to skirt its own emissions cap, will be allowed under the Kyoto Protocol has yet to be determined. Canada is expected to push hard for such mechanisms at a meeting next fall in The Hague.
Canada's greenhouse-gas emissions -- which the government has committed itself to cut drastically -- have risen every year in the 1990s, a new report shows.
Environment Canada's latest study of gases believed to be the root cause of global warming shows emissions levels were 13 per cent higher in 1997 than in 1990.
Environmentalists say that increase shows the government has done nothing concrete to tackle emissions in this country despite giving the climate-change issue plenty of lip service.
"This is no surprise -- and those numbers are two years ago. Imagine where we are today," said Steven Guilbeault, a climate-change specialist with Greenpeace. "We haven't put into place any measure of consequence to fight greenhouse gases.
"The federal government has to show some leadership on this issue."
In the United States, over the same period, emissions increased 11 per cent, Environment Canada said.
In Canada, it is estimated that 682 million tonnes of carbon dioxide and equivalent gases were pumped into air in 1997, up from 601 million tonnes at the start of the decade.
The primary culprits were increased fossil-fuel production (largely for export), and increases in transportation consumption by Canadians.
There may be some good news, though. The rate of increase in greenhouse-gas emissions slowed slightly. Total emissions were up 1.5 per cent from 1996 to 1997, after increasing 2.8 per cent the previous year.
Art Jaques, a specialist on greenhouse-gas data with Environment Canada, said even that might not be an indicator of anything. The U.S. showed a similar trend that year and attributed it to a warm winter.
Mr. Jaques said the numbers show how much work there is to do in educating the public about the issue. Mark MacKinnon