Significant Canadian report on emission reduction

From Cap and Share Wiki

The National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy (http://www.nrtee-trnee.ca/eng/index-eng.html) in Canada released its report to the government about long term reductions in greenhouse gases. The full report, entitled Getting to 2050: Canada's Transition to a Low-emission Future, can be downloaded from http://www.nrtee-trnee.ca/eng/publications/getting-to-2050/Getting-to-2050-low-res-eng.pdf or the executive summary can be viewed http://www.nrtee-trnee.ca/eng/publications/getting-to-2050/exec-summ-getting-to-2050-eng.html.

The NRTEE is a federally appointed body with the mission "to generate and promote innovative ways to advance Canada’s environmental and economic interests in combination, rather than in isolation." This is a highly respected advisory council whose recommendations should be taken seriously by the government (although the current conservative government has rejected the idea of a tax on emissions). The diverse membership "are distinguished leaders in business and labour, universities, environmental organizations, Aboriginal communities and municipalities" This is a fairly conservative group with a significant focus on business and political interests. It is not a radical environmental group.

The report contains a few important recommendations that are very supportive of the Cap and Share proposal including:

"Implement a strong, clear, consistent and certain GHG emission price signal across the entire Canadian economy as soon as possible."

"Institute a market-based policy that takes the form of an emission tax or a cap-and-trade system or a combination of the two."

"Develop complementary regulatory policies, in conjunction with the emission price signal, to address sectors of the Canadian economy that do not respond effectively to such a price signal or where market failures exist." {i.e. deal with emissions first then deal with the subsequent problems with other tools}

It also sets out "five enabling conditions" for any policy framework to work including the requirement for "Policy certainty - beyond the short term".

The report also presents investigations into the likely success of various pricing scenarios and the resulting emission price trajectories.

Although the report does not include recommendations for a specific emission price mechanism, it includes an assessment of:

1. An economy-wide emission tax;

2. A downstream cap-and-trade system; and

3. An upstream cap-and-trade system.

It concludes that "broadly applied carbon price polices – starting with a modest price signal that will predictably escalate over time – all have the potential to deliver cost-effective and deep emission reductions."

Although the report does not mention a policy comparable to cap-and-share, many of the recommendations can lead to it. From their descriptions, cap-and-share seems to be a merge between the economy wide emission tax and the upstream cap-and-trade system.

This report is a very positive step towards real greenhouse gas emission reduction in Canada, which has been supported by most environmental NGOs in Canada, and my reading is that it can lead to a mechanism similar to cap-and-trade. We can also use many of the recommendations and investigations to support our argument for cap-and-share in other countries.

Bruce Darrell

Further Note

Philip is correct. The report is pathetic in the way that it suggests that reductions imposed by the cap in emissions can be dealt with. It suggests that efficiency will form only a very small percentage of the total reduction in emissions and relies primarily on Carbon Capture and Storage (which it sees as an untested but likely technology) and energy switching including a significant reliance on biofuels and nuclear. In this aspect, the report is environmentally suspect and follows the business-as-usual model. But, to be fair, this part of the report presents one way that the economy could adapt to the reduced emissions. The primary recommendations of the report mention nothing about nuclear power, biofuels or CCS.

In my original comments above, I focussed entirely on the position of the report that a consistent, economy wide price on emissions was the first and primary step, either through a cap or a tax. I should have been more clear about that. Canadian environmental organizations such as the http://www.davidsuzuki.org/latestnews/dsfnews01070801.asp and http://www.sierraclub.ca/national/media/item.shtml?x=1442 support this primary recommendation of the report.

Bruce