Canada dropping intensity targets?

The Canadian Government is adjusting its climate plans to more closely resemble those proposed in the US.  This summer Environment Canada is conducting a series of consultations with respect to its greenhouse gas emissions policies for heavy polluting industries and an announcement is expected in the fall outlining the new regulations. 

Climatico has learned from confidential sources that changes are likely to include a turn-around on ‘intensity targets’ which the Conservative Government has been promoting since 2007 in its widely-panned ‘Turning the Corner’ climate plan.  This reflects the US direction towards ‘cap and trade’ plans envisioned by the Waxman-Markey Bill  and now being discussed separately in the US Senate.

According to the leaked information provided to Climatico, changes in the Canadian plan are likely to include hard emissions caps for the power and oil & gas sector (a change from previously announced intensity targets, levels not yet determined).   Hard emissions caps also being discussed for the utility & electricity sector as well as the ‘EITE’ group (energy intensive, trade exposed) which includes aluminum, cement, chemicals, iron & steel, lime, gas transmission, base metal smelting, iron ore pelletizing, pulp & paper, and potash companies.

While hard emissions caps represents a welcome shift in policy away from intensity targets, what still remains unclear is how the Government will allocate pollution permits under the proposed system, and what the actual cap will be.  Information leaked to Climatico indicates that EITE industries will likely receive their permits free instead of through an auction therefore weakening the incentives to reduce emissions.   

Critically, changes to the Canadian plan will not include an adjustment of the overall ambition of emissions reductions.  Canada’s 2020 target will remain 20% reductions from 2006 levels – a target that has received substantial criticism for not reflecting the levels suggested by scientists of the IPCC for developed countries.

Furthermore, sources indicate that the proposed changes are likely to include plenty of loopholes allowing industry to weaken the climate-impact of the measures.  For example, compliance with the emissions cap could be achieved through payment into a ‘technology fund’ instead of implementing emissions reduction measures.  The level of inter-firm trading, as well as domestic and international offsets that would be allowed has also not been determined and the government is seeking input from industry on these matters.  It also remains unclear who else, aside from those being regulated will be consulted regarding these proposed changes.

With multiple meetings scheduled between Prime Minister and President Obama in the fall, the renewed discussion of a possible fall election, and the pivotal UN climate meeting in Copenhagen this December it appears the Canadian Government is trying to get its house in order on the climate front. The proposed changes to the ‘Turning the Corner’ plan start to fill the void in Canadian climate policy, but they still have a long way to go.

Last week, Ontario announced new plans to offer rebates on the purchase of electric cars purchased after July 1^st 2010. The long term aim of the Ontario government is to have 1 in 20 cars by 2020 electric, as part of a move to encourage greener transport policies. The law would allow rebates of “$4,000 and $10,00” for hybrid and plug in electric cars – making the vehicle prices closer to normal car prices of around $30,000.

The move is the latest by Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty, who continues to lead his state on a remarkable path towards a more sustainable state, making Ontario a leader among states and provinces in North America. The move fits into a broader pattern of environmental legislation with an economic underpinning. One of Ontario’s most far-reaching laws included the “right to connect”, legislation that means any renewable energy supplier has to be hooked up to the main grid, in a push to encourage decentralised renewable energy growth in the state. Ontario does not see this simply as an environmental objective, with state legislators, aiming to push their province to the forefront of renewable technology in research and supply as the world slowly turns towards low carbon future. The latest push is not without some direct self-interest, as Ontario owns 3.9% of General motors, with it’s Chevy Volt due to come onto the market in 2010.

In keeping with their broader attempt to create a more holistic sustainable approach, the law also allows for electric cars to use High occupancy vehicle lanes even if only one person is driving in them. The report behind the new law also suggested an expansion of electric car provisions across the state. How effective the scheme will be naturally depends on Canada’s wider economic fortunes; nevertheless its the cumulative impact of Onatario’s legislation that makes the province a leader in environmental legislation.

Regardless of how quick the uptake is, the move is hardly without a rational basis, with Toyota set to prepare for mass production of the Prius in 2012, Honda and Nissan also in production of the electric car, it may not be unreasonable to suggest a tipping point in the electric car market. If the opportunity of a new market was not enough perhaps the more sinister implications of oil-shocks, may motivate those buying at the pump to save money by investing in ever more fuel-efficient vehicles. In either case, Ontario’s early provisions of plug-in stations will once again have put its citizens in a strong position to capitalise on changing markets through incremental legislation towards a sustainable state.

This week WWF-Allianz released their annual scorecard in advance of the G8 negotiations in L’Aquila. Canada came 8^th, under-performing both Russia and perhaps more embarrassingly, the US. The report cited increased efforts by the US such as Obama placing high priority on stopping climate change, and Russia’s recent moves to come to the negotiating table as an example of how Canada was now the bottom placed country.

Continue reading…

President Obama, in close discussions with Energy Secretary Stephen Chu and Alberta Premier Ed Stelmach is to give the green light for US consumption of oil sand oil, or rather the import of fuels considered among the “dirtiest” in the fuel market. In a meeting last week, President Obama decided that the Canada’s oil sands represented an important part of national security supplies for petroleum in America’s near future.

The move is not without immediate precedent, as Francois Cardinal at cybercress.ca notes, both Hillary Clinton had offered support for oil sands at a recent conference on energy security, and Obama’s national Security adviser General Jim Jones was similarly adamant that the US would be foolish to reject the possibility of a stable source from a close partner in Canada.

The move will disappoint many in the green movement, given Obama has previously been less supportive of oil sands, noting that the Us needed to ween itself off dirty and dangerous oil supplies. In particular at a recent summit with Canada, President Obama described US coal as equivalent to Alberta’s oil sands, given environmentalists hope that the US would take a tough line demanding far reaching cleanup efforts if the oil sands were ever to be imported.

Speaking at a recent energy conference the Calgary Herald noted Energy Secretary’s Chu’s position

“This is energy that one hopes to develop in a clean way, and so that you can decrease the environmental footprint, both in the energy invested in order to recover it and on the local environmental issues,” Chu said Monday in response to a Herald query.

“There are also environmental issues having to do with the recovery of the oil sands, the very tarry stuff that’s left behind, the residues. There haven’t been solutions to that yet,” added Chu, who met privately with Premier Ed Stelmach on Monday for about 30 minutes”

How far the environmental issues are pushed depends on a large number of factors, in terms of Canada’ s federal Climate policy projects such as oil sands are only required to reduce the intensity of their energy consumption in order to keep with Canada’s GHG targets, in short allowing growth in absolute Carbon emissions. Worse, of the projects designed to reduce emissions from critical polluting sectors, most of Canada’s research investment is going to “clean coal” rather than oil sands:

“Alberta Minister of Environment Rob Renner said Tuesday that the lion’s share of $ 2 billion planned for the burial of carbon was destined for the coal industry”

However, environmental movements within Canada, have made strong progress in other states such as British Columbia, Ontario and Quebec which could increase the pressure on states such as Alberta to set more ambitious reduction targets and forcing them to channel greater investment into cleaning up the oil sands. Furthermore, the role of California the US’s biggest car using state has effectively banned Alberta oil unless it cleans up, through regional Environmental alliances such as the WCI such policy could be diffused throughout other key states, potentially even within Canada.

In summary, oil sands as noted previously now look set for a stable future, one albeit without the much feared spectacular growth that marked environmentalists concerns prior to the recession and one in which increasing pressure will probably be put on the oil sands to reduce their environmental impact, but in terms of derailment, the oil sands appear to have escaped that pitfall.

As highlighted by Reuters, Canada’s “dirty secret” is making a comeback, amidst predictions of rising oil prices, as the global recession appears to be bottoming out. This is a classic two sides of the coin issue for those in the environmental movement. The global downturn meant a contraction in emissions but also an excuse for political inaction, the upturn could finally see renewable investment get back on track but could also see the rise of oil sands.

The maths is quite simple: oil sands are not cheap or accessible sources of energy. Quite the opposite, defined as “extra-heavy” the oil is difficult to extract requiring large quantities of energy and a pre-processing stage, before the substance can be sent to a refinery to be converted into petrol. Unsurprising, this process makes oil sands very expensive to produce and they require a large amount of upfront investment before they can begin to yield the profits. The effects are slightly paradoxical; many environmentalists are hopeful of a return to rising oil prices in the hope that it will stimulate demand for fuel efficiency, cleaner vehicles and renewable energy as oil is increasingly seen as a volatile fuel that economies depend upon at their own risk. That scenario is still the most likely, as McKinsey’s report outlines, however it’s not simply that oil prices could dramatically begin to rise by the beginning or end of 2010 (depending on the pace of economic recovery) but that their prices will be volatile, an investors nightmare. This is all well and good for environmental causes, however in the interim, the market will be even keener for stable oil suppliers, making Canada’s oil sands an ever more viable solution.

Green Inc, New York Times blog on green business, recently commented that although the recession has set the oil sands industry back from the steep growth forecasts predicted in 2007, the industry instead consolidated into a steady “sustainable” growth pattern. Most worryingly, is the lack of any political pressure from the main parties to halt the oil sands or force it into a  much more environmentally friendly industry. Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff, as keen a supporter as Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper, sees the oil sands as a tragain a more equal status with the US. Ignatieff has made remarks that the oil sands need to be cleaned up, but unless there is very serious movement with regards to public opinion on acceptable pollution levels, no Government is likely to consider forcing the oil sands industry into reducing their environmental impact.

As Green Inc notes however, there could be one flaw  to oil sands unstoppable growth, a regional Cap and Trade. As it stands, this appears unlikely. When Obama visited Canada earlier this year, Climatico analyst, Derek noted how one of the critical negotiating issues was ensuring the US market remained open to Canada’s oil sands, despite campaign rhetoric from the Obama camp on restricting “dirty oil imports”. Problematically, Obama described the dual problems, America’s coal industry and Canada’s oil sands. Given the US is now likely to pursue clean coal, this is probably assurance enough that the oil sands, possibly with some restrictions will be given the green light as well.

Is there a silver-lining? Actually there could be, as seems to be the case with North American politics, to solely follow federal decisions is misleading. In April, I covered, a move by California to regulate the type of fuels allowed to be used, that bill passed and in theory would prohibit the use of oil sand fuel in California. There are two problems, firstly California is the biggest automobile user in the US and secondly, it often causes a domino effect in other states.

How quickly Climate Change debate moves could be the key. At worst, the oil-sands will have to undergo cleaning adjustments to reduce their pollution use, a compromise for entry, at best California is a bell-weather for future policy and oil sands may never make the major leap and become only a moderately developed source of energy.

Uploaded on November 1, 2007 by Stuck in Customs

Canada, has announced that it is beginning to formulate its own Cap and Trade system this week, to continue the trend of North American policy convergence on Climate Change issues.

Fresh off the press (from Treehugger),it has been reported that what many Environmental proponents have long hoped for In Canada, could soon become a reality as serious federal policy is being formulated. Here’s the scoop:

“Canada has just announced that it will likely follow suit and move towards carbon cutting measures of its own. … And what’s more, Canada has said the two trading systems could later be linked”

More from Bloomberg, Canadian Environmental Minister Jim Prentice noted:

“We’re watching very closely what the U.S. is doing,” Prentice said. “We’re working on the broad-brush issues at the moment.” He declined to say when Canada might implement its own carbon-trading system . . . “There are still some continental issues that need to be worked out, but I’m in Washington regularly” to follow the issue.”

As Treehugger goes on to note, this could even reinforce efforts in the US, as legislators can now see a wider scope for a Cap and Trade system and if the systems were integrated it would allay to some extent fears that the US would be jeopardising its economic competitiveness.

The idea of a Northern American integrated Carbon Market might at once seem radical but in fact follows a well trodden path of economic policy convergence between these two countries that has been pursued for over two decades. The first agreement in 1988, the Canada-United States Free Trade Agreement, marked the beginning of the end of protectionist fears between two countries who already shared strong economic links. The treaty was soon replaced by the far-reaching NAFTA act, signed in 1994. Despite considerable anxiety about further economic integration, NAFTA created further standardisation of trading and worker movement, including the first such major economic deal which included a developing country in Mexico.

While NAFTA further opened up the North American continent in many respects it reflected pre-existing trade relations with Canada being the US’s largest trading partner. The integration of the continent and perhaps the lack of a linguistic barrier with Canada has also been reflected in contemporary policy, especially with regards to Climate Change. This shouldn’t be surprising the two countries share strong economic ties over resources that directly impact on Climate Change such as their energy markets. The most notable example of Climate policy convergence is in the WCI, which includes most of the major Canadian states as well as several US states including its founder, California. Notably the majority of observer states to the WCI are from Mexico (6 in total), underlining North America as a platform for policy convergence.

The convergence does not stop at state level. Federal policy on the environment has been a recurrent theme in recent years. Canada has three reasons for this: Firstly, given the integration of the two countries economically, a change in one would precipitate a change in the latter anyway, so they may as well follow suite, the example can be seen when Canada recently announced it will standardise its fuel standards with the US, reflecting the overlap of the two countries’ automobile markets. Secondly, and because of the first, any undue burden Canada on its economy, could directly reduce its competitive in some areas with the US. Finally, Prime Minister Harper, long reluctant to pursue Climate Change policy, could follow the US under President Bush, safe in the knowledge that Canada would then have to do very little.

While no one expected the status quo to stay the same after the 2008 election, with both Presidential candidates supporting action against Climate Change, and a widely tipped increase in the Democrats’ control of congress, few could have expected the Obama administration and congress to move so quickly on Climate Change. Although many of the measures have received individual criticism for a lack of strength, consider that since coming to power: the US has funded billion to green projects through the stimulus, seen a Cap and Trade bill, unthinkable under Bush, emerge out of the House energy committee and a fuel standard passed, 4 years earlier than expected aim for standards far higher than expected, and that has just been the first 4 months. 

In reality, what we’ve seen is a paradigm shift in the US that has seen the Climate Change debate move from its existence to debating its solution, from an “economic burden” to an essential tool for recovery through millions of green jobs and from a fringe liberal idea, to one that is central the US’ geo-political security

The pace of change has left the Harper government playing catch up, when before even its meagre efforts could make it seem like the leader in North America. Prentice’s latest statement underlines two factors; that Canada cannot afford to be left behind on the green market (something most major Canadian states have long recognised), nor isolated internationally as the US sets a positive tone for UN discussions later this year.

A Canadian Cap and Trade has obvious benefits, in that it would link in with the current state systems, such as those proposed by Quebec and Ontario, as well as bringing in to play albeit with concessions, heavy polluting states such as Alberta. Bringing in states such as Alberta is critical, to re-aligning polluting industry with Climate goals. The simple fact is that as long as carbon has a price, even if heavily polluting developments such as tar-sands continue, investment in cleaner technology for them will become a necessity. Furthermore, Cap and Trade on a federal level create a stable investment climate for renewable technology whose value can only rise as carbon prices increase.

The same can be said of a North American wide system. By creating a single market, it effectively allows pooled investment in renewable technology regardless of the geography. This makes eminent sense in North America, as in Europe, where crucially energy resources are already shared across the border and set to expand further.

A further strength of the system is that once initiated, it would be difficult to alter it, as it would be shared across two political systems, while this can work both ways a crucial element of Climate Change policy has to be that it can be sustained across political changes. Canada has seen such turbulence, when the former liberal government ratified Kyoto, only for the Harper government to declare that ratification was invalid because it was undertaken prior to Harper’s own government.

I can only see the move to federal and hopefully regional Cap and Trade policy as a net positive. If it goes ahead, and I suspect in the medium term it will, then we will have two regional blocs integrating Climate Change policy, the EU and the US. Not only could this set a trend for other regional blocs (and if in Climate Change why not in other areas) but it also paves the way in the long term for inter-regional integration of Carbon markets, given how much simpler policy alignment would be if regions are already integrated. I’m getting ahead of myself, but one can’t help but feel positive that at the start of the 21st century, it is a promising that a global problem is beginning to be met by global solutions.

In a state not short of green ideas, British Columbia once again looks forward to displaying its green credentials but this time on the international stage. The Vancouver 2010 winter Olympic organisers aim to make the 2010 Winter Olympics a showcase of the state and city’s progress in embracing sustainable eco-values.

Historically, Olympics have not necessarily focused on a legacy being the event itself, as recently as the 2004 Athens 2004, where not even the facilities appeared to stay in use afterwards, giving the impression the Olympics was little more than one-use disposable event, use and discard.

Fortunately, organisers have moved towards demanding that the Olympic events are geared towards the long-term benefit of their host city. One of London 2012′s key arguments was its potential to rejuvenate the East end of London, with new transport links, jobs housing and business opportunities. All of this is well and good, except the Olympic games themselves still have smash and grab air to them, fans from across the world come, at large expense, stay in facilities often that fall into disrepair after and leave a trail of environmental destruction in their wake. Vancouver aims to tackle this head on, although the Winter Olympics is much smaller in scale than a summer Olympics, nevertheless British Columbia’s most populous city aims to develop and display its green credentials by creating a sustainable model.

Efforts are numerous, an expansion of the mass transit SkyTrain system, first developed for the world trade fair, will form a centre piece of the project.  The buildings, are a showcase of green development, dual flash toilets (who said green wasn’t glamorous), rain harvesting roofs, and even a site-wide compost. Buildings to house athletes are expected to receive the US green building council’s LEED gold certificate (the highest possible) and not surprising given they will have green roofs of plants to act as insulators in winter and cool temperatures in the summer.

Yet perhaps the boldest innovation comes in the area of recycling, often overlooked by environmentalists because of its truly unglamorous image, recycling can potentially make savings in carbon cycle, not merely the manufacturing but the shipping of the products is all saved. Macleans has the story:

“diverting 85 per cent of all its solid waste from landfills, starting this fall through next May. That’s no small challenge. The diversion rate in Toronto, where residents fill green bins with food scraps, blue boxes with other recyclables, and pay for what they throw away, is 44 per cent. In the environmentally conscious metro Vancouver area, the rate is 52 per cent. Halifax, which has been running its green bin program for a decade, is only now getting close to its 60 per cent target.”

Whether the ambitious targets for companies working on the 2010 games is more debateable:

“To date, the only corporate sponsor that has unveiled a fully formed waste-reduction plan is Coca-Cola. The beverage giant is vowing to collect 100 per cent of the containers it distributes at the Olympics”

Yet, whether or not the goals are fully realised,   the shift towards sustainability in events which symbolised the disposable culture is a welcome one, putting increasing responsibility on organisers to reduce environmental impact and creating a culture among corporate providers, such as Coca-Cola bodes well not just for future events but in raising expectations in the public sphere of what to expect from governments and business alike in a more environmentally conscious age.

Quebec is in the process of taking a bold step towards North America’s first Cap and Trade system.  Bill 42, tabled recentlyis designed to bring in a mandatory Cap and Trade system to Quebec, in line with the WCI, of which Quebec is a key member along with Ontario and British Columbia and California among others. The bill aims to be passed by fall of this year ready to come into action for 2012. The Globe and Mail has the details:

“The first emission caps will be issued between 2012 and 2015, targeting only electricity-producing companies and major industries that emit more than 25,000 tonnes a year of greenhouse gases. After 2015, the second phase will target, among other sectors, transportation as well as home and commercial heating companies.”

As with all Cap and Trade systems, companies that can make reductions will be the beneficiaries as they sell their Carbon Credits to larger polluters.  In effect putting a price on pollutions and benefitting those within an industry who can undercut the industry average, profiting from their competitors failures. As the number of credits is contracted over time, companies have the choice of bearing the cost, keeping up with the contraction or best of all, aiming to beat the contraction and gain financial advantage by reducing carbon emissions so as to be able to sell their carbon credits. Part of the beauty of Cap and Trade is that  the internal competition between similar industries, in the electricity sector this is most evident, where cap and trade will directly feed down to customers, the designers hope that consumers will favour the cheaper which will in theory become synonymous with lower emitting companies.

Quebec’s move is not just symptomatic of state level leadership in Climate Change but also of what direction Climate Change policy in North America may be taking. Although Quebec has a carbon tax

“Quebec became the first province to create a carbon tax, collecting just under one cent per litre of fuel products from petroleum companies; the aim is to raise about 0 million a year to pay for energy-saving initiatives”

Cap and Trade through the WCI appears be gaining momentum as the favoured form, despite British Columbia’s recent election where the pro-Carbon tax incumbents stayed on. The reasons are numerous but the fundamental issues appears to be the reluctance of politicians to impose anything that would directly tax citizens from the state ( or even has the word in it), Cap and Trade will raise prices for consumers, particularly in electricity, consumers will in theory be able to choose.

The collective approach of the WCI, containing big names such as California, Ontario, Quebec and British Columbia to name a few means that throughout North America, some of the biggest regional economies will be committing to a Cap and Trade system. As far as Canada is concerned AHN news notes this will make up: “80 percent of the nation’s headcount and 75 percent of Canada’s local economy”. The figure is critical on two counts. WCI leaders have been able to show that leadership on Climate Change is possible even in the midst of a recession. Furthermore, strong leadership has kept Climate Change policy in the public domain the in the middle of a global recession.

Where does this leave the Federal Government?

Speaking to the Globe and mail, Quebec’s Environment Minister Line Beauchamp had this to say:

“We hope Quebec’s participation in this common market with Ontario, Manitoba, British Columbia will incite the federal government to co-operate with the provinces to develop a Canadian carbon market compatible with what is taking place elsewhere in the world,”

Jim Prentice, Canadian Environment Minister added his own thoughts:

“I think it is typical of the kinds of efforts that we are making with all of the provinces to harmonize…,” Mr. Prentice said. “And we’ll need to determine the extent to which it’s consistent with what’s been proposed continentally with the United States and also internationally.”

Prentice’s line is symptomatic of the Canadian Government, that of a follower not a leader in Climate Change, despite Harper favouring “intensity based reduction” it appears the clock may be running down as absolute systems as envisaged in Cap and Trade, crop up across North America, partly through the WCI but also through a US federal cap and trade as envisioned in Congressman Waxman’s bill currently trying  to get through congress.  What may prove harder for Harper is the manner in which Climate Change legislation has managed to stay in the limelight in some of Canada’s largest states, indicating that Canadians may be difficult to avoid it in upcoming elections and that many Canadians may not accept Canada as simply a follower when their own states have proven that leadership is possible.

It’s become a recurrent theme when covering Canadian Climate change politics. A population, apparently ready to tackle Climate Change, a majority of parliamentarians agreeing and an impressive array of policies at state level to help tackle Climate Change. Then we get to the Canadian Federal Government. Under Harper, Canada has at a federal level been anything but enthusiastic about tackling Climate Change, has sought to ignore or even join with Sceptics of the value of taking action. It’s why the latest report from Canada’s Environmental Commission is no surprise.

Headed by Scott Vaughan part of the Office of the Auditor General, CBC summarised his findings:

“In looking at Environment Canada’s 2007 and 2008 climate change plans, which included greenhouse gas reduction measures such as incentives to boost the use of renewable fuels, Vaughan found:

• Environment Canada overstated reductions it expects in greenhouse gas emissions between 2008-2012, as those include reductions that are unlikely to occur before 2012. Vaughan blamed the problem on accounting methods, delays in implementing programs and the complicated nature of the calculations.
• The government is unable to monitor actual reductions resulting from some of the measures in its plans, and acknowledges that it lacks such a monitoring system.
• The plans are not fully transparent.
• The plans are missing other information required by the Kyoto Protocol Implementation Act, including how total national greenhouse gas emission levels compare with Canada’s Kyoto target or whether measures under the plan were put in place on time.

Harper’s Government will not be troubled by this, he openly dismissed Canada’s attachment to the Kyoto treaty when the Conservatives came to power in 2006. In 2007, parliamentarians fought back and combined to demand enforcement of the Kyoto protocol but as this latest report indicates the Government has shown how much importance it attaches to the Kyoto protocol.

How is Harper able to do this? It may have something to do with a recent poll, showing that while Liberals were polling better than Conservatives, Harper is personally the more favoured leader.  Right now, with the world economy still in jeopardy that may be enough for Harper and his Conservatives to stay in power, whether Harper will be able to continue to put a brake on Climate Change policy remains to be seen, especially as the Democrats may have achieved a breakthrough in the US, something Harper has indicated he’d be open to.

Harper declared back in January that his government’s aim in the long term was towards a North American Cap and Trade, recently it appears Congressman Waxman may have succeeded in at least getting the deal out of Committee, that being the Case a Climate Change bill could be passed this year, which along with International Treaties would surely present insurmountable pressure on Harper’s Government or risk international isolation.

Watching Canadian Climate Change politics is misleading, Federal intransigence masks a hive of activity across the states, it’s a matter of when and not if the Federal Government has to stop dragging its feet, be it under Harper or someone else.

While Manitoba’s efforts are not as expensive or expansive as Ontario’s “right to connect” initiative or as innovative as British Columbia’s carbon tax, Manitoba has been quietly pulling its own weight when it comes to reducing GHG emissions. As it makes clear on its website, while it is by no means a major emitter in Canada, it would still rather be part of the solution than part of the problem.

To this end Manitoba has formed several cooperatives , including New South Wales, but perhaps most importantly with California. In both cases efforts have been made to share knowledge on the application of public policy, share science and technology and to look for opportunities to expand trade where it might help to reduce emissions. Taking top seat, is Manitoba’s partnership with California, bound by not only a specific agreement of cooperation on Climate Change but through the influential WCI Western Climate Initiative, an alliance of some of the biggest states and provinces in North America, committed to emission reductions. It is the WCI which has formed the framework for Manitoba’s Climate Change plans.

Manitoba’s initial plan is to match or exceed the Kyoto protocol targets. That might sound antiquated nowadays but as Manitoba points out in their executive summary, it’s aim to achieve 6% below 1990 levels by 2012, putting Manitoba on course to be the “one of the greenest jurisdictions on the continent”. It also puts them well on course to meet or exceed the WCI’s target of 15% reduction on 2005 levels by 2020.

To put their plan into action Manitoba has a wide range of Carbon reducing or (offsetting in some cases) measures, ranging from planting 5 million trees, improving building energy efficiency standards and funding for renewable energy.  Manitoba has been semi-progressive by putting a tax per tonne of coal, which will begin in 2011, I say “semi-progressive” because, as officials admit, only three companies in Manitoba actually use large amounts of coal:

• Tembec’s pulp and paper mill in Pine Falls, which was built in 1917.
• The Graymont lime plant in Faulkner.
• Manitoba Hydro’s Brandon power plant, which is to be phased out shortly and used only on an emergency basis.

If you thought these measures were not spectacular enough to warrant Manitoba’s claim that it could be one of the greenest jurisdictions in Northern America, you wouldd be right. How is Manitoba able to be so effective?

Assuming their plan succeeds or is close, Manitoba will be helped by their main source of industry coming from transport (compared with some of the heavy industry emissions compared with nearby territories Saskatchewan and of course Alberta. As a result, fuel efficiency standards can and will form the backbone of Manitoba’s efforts and can make serious dents in emissions reductions,, transport accounts for 15% of Manitoba’s GHG emissions. As a January 2009 summary makes clear Manitoba is basing its Vehicle standards on California. While California is still waiting on its waiver to set higher Vehicle standards, if it gets them, Manitoba will follow suite and adopt.

What Manitoba’s vehicle standards will mirror California’s – underlining not only the very real influence of fellow WCI members on each other to share and implement areas of public policy but also the importance California sets at a state-wide level as an alternative to Federal  inaction.  The WCI, covers 25.5 million of Canada’s 33.3 million people underlining the importance of the initiative to Canada and the weight of California’s influence. Last week I looked at how California’s clean fuel laws could undermine Alberta’s oil sands given California’s extensive vehicle ownership. Alberta was understandably concerned at the early closing of a potentially lucrative market, this week in the same vein we see how clear demarcation between leadership and opposition among Canadian states across the North American continent.  Invariably, the WCI among other things represents the political structure of North American states, but also the gap in recent years between Federal and state-wide action on Climate Change. This gap ought not to be ignored because it doesn’t do justice to the efforts at state level to reduce GHG emissions. Yet, these efforts are no means in vain, not only can they be trail blazers for policy ideas to tackle Climate change but they also represent a very large proportion of Canada’s emissions and will undoubtedly put increasing pressure on less enthusiastic states such as Alberta to shoulder some of the burden – but perhaps we shouldn’t hold our breath.