On April 1, Tokyo’s Metropolitan Government (TMG) started a cap and trade system, which was the first attempt by a metropolitan area in the world. Further, at the national level, the current administration, led by a coalition composed by the Democratic Party of Japan, the People’s New Party and the Social Democratic Party, proposes a cap and trade system in its bill on the basic law for prevention of global warming (Ondanka Taisaku Kihon Hoan) and the Diet started deliberating the bill on April 20. Though a cap and trade system is going to be carried out at the national level, its structure has not been clear, and METI and businesses very actively seek to make the structure of a Japanese cap and trade system preferable or acceptable for them. As environmental NGOs propose different ideas concerning a Japanese cap and trade system from those of METI, the battle between green NGOs and METI over significant aspects of a cap and trade system has been fiercely happening. Especially, whether a Japanese cap and trade system should adopt an absolute target or an intensity target is one of the most controversial issues.

While METI strongly insists on the adoption of an intensive target, environmental NGOs are strongly pushing for the adoption of an intensity target. Environmental NGOs favour an absolute target mainly because an intensity target is supposed to promote increase in production for targeted industries. Indeed, because it is supposed that an absolute target is superior to an intensity target for CO2 reductions, TMG’s cap and trade system uses an absolute target. However, METI in its report, ‘Haishutsuryo Torihikiseido ni Tsuite’ (Concerning a cap and trade system), published on April 7, eloquently proposes an intensity target and justifies its adoption in the basic law.

Concerning the argument that an intensity target would promote increase in production, METI in its report suggests that increase in production is good for the Japanese economy and especially development of stable companies which achieve highest energy efficiency is beneficial for the whole nation and should be supported. Further, METI proposes that an intensity target would encourage businesses to achieve highest energy efficiency in the world. It is, according to METI, also possible to consider separately various adjustment mechanisms in order not to increase total CO2 emissions where a company achieves an intensity target but increase emissions because of increasing production.

In order to justify these arguments,  the report cites comments of Professor Gwyn Prins at London School of Economics in an article of Montel Powernews, “Japanese industry has shown real efficiency gains, reduced emissions and increased profits at the same time.” However, it is difficult to say that METI’s arguments can be justified by the comments. Indeed, in his two main articles as well as the article mentioned above, How to Get Climate Policy Back on Course and The Wrong Trousers: Radically Thinking Climate Policy, Professor Prins does not suggest that production should be increased. Either, he does not propose the adoption of an intensity target in a cap and trade system though he strongly emphasizes the necessity for reduction of the carbon intensity of an economy through increasing energy efficiency and deploying low-carbon technologies. Although he points out some deficiencies in the current cap and trade system and proposes its improvements in the latter article, he does not specify the adoption of an intensity target as its improvements at all.

In the very near future, it will be determined whether Japan’s cap and trade will adopt an absolute target or an intensity target. It is actually very difficult to determine which target should be adopted because both targets have pros and cons. As discussed above, however, it is inappropriate to adopt an intensity target because of the METI’s report as Professor Prins proposes neither an intensity target nor an increase in production and METI’s arguments are not supported by him, that is the report is misleading.

Australia’s cap and trade system, the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS), is being reintroduced into Parliament this week, after two rejections in 2009 (see here and here). However, it is almost certain that it will fail again, following decreasing public support for the policy after the Copenhagen conference and Tony Abbott’s ascension to the opposition leadership.

To start with, public support for Prime minister Kevin Rudd’s flagship policy has dived 10 points from 66 to 56 per cent according to the latest Herald/Nielsen poll, while opposition to the trading scheme has risen 4 points from 25 to 29 per cent. While there has always been a high level of confusion in the electorate about climate change policy, and in particular about the CPRS, the failure of the Copenhagen conference shifted to a certain extent the public sentiment about climate change. In particular, extensive media coverage of a series of ‘scandals’ linked to the IPCC’s work has opened new windows for the numerous Australian and international climate sceptics (see for example Lord Monckton).

However the biggest challenge faced today by the government is without doubt the unexpected come back of the opposition (the Liberals) in the climate debate. The previous opposition leader, Malcolm Turnbull, is a supporter of the scheme, which had greatly divided his party over the climate issue, to the benefit of the government. Yet Turnbull has recently been ousted by Tony Abbott, a strong opponent of cap and trade and climate policy in general, not to say a climate sceptic. The change here is that Abbott has come forward with an alternative to the governmental policy. The Coalition’s (Liberals+Nationals) “Direct action plan on the environment and climate change” would create an AUS$2.5bn fund to provide incentives for industry and farmers to reduce emissions through measures such as storing carbon in soil. The plan also includes the planting of 20 million trees by 2020 and would provide $1000 rebates to home owners for solar cells. The plan has immediately been slashed by environmentalists, Greens and the Labour Party as been unable to lead the country to a minimum 5 per cent cut in emissions by 2020 compared to 2005 levels, as Australia pledged in Copenhagen. While Kevin Rudd has ridiculed the direct-action plan as “a climate con job”, most business groups have backed the plan, agreeing with the opposition Leader’s assertion it is “cheaper, simpler and more cost-effective” than Labour’s proposed carbon emissions trading scheme.

With a now clear opposition to the scheme, the government’s CPRS is very likely to be rejected by the Senate this week. The government would then again have the possibility to trigger an early election, though it would be very unlikely since the next general election will take place this year. In the most optimistic scenario, a cap and trade system would therefore not be voted for another year. Kevin Rudd’s approval rating is still way ahead from his potential challenger, though Abbott’s popularity is rising. But it is surprising that Rudd is not working to rally public opinion: he has not made a speech about climate change in the past weeks and is, instead, trying to change the subject. It is time now for Prime minister Rudd to start campaigning for his cap and trade scheme and explain to people why Australia should be moving when things look bleak internationally.

Last week the US state department approved an oil pipeline which will carry tar sands oil from Alberta across Canada down to Wisconsin. The move follows long term plans between the US and Canada over energy deals, with tar sands already a key part of the US’s current oil provider. For environmentalists the move is a major setback, with tar sands, considered the dirtiest of all oils permanently and visibility crossing the boundary of the two countries.

Environmentalists both sides of the border and around the world can only greet this with disappointment. It had been thought during the Obama campaign that his rhetoric of “dirty oil” would restrict the development of tar sands to its most likely consumer, the US. However, what now appears likely is that the US has given tacit International approval to the oil sands by creating a permanent pipeline.

Continue reading…

Following on from Derek Piper’s article on Canada’s proposed Cap and Trade system for this fall, environmentalists and policy makers will be left to wonder at whether Prime Minister Harper’s effort is part of a more serious effort to tackle green house gas emissions or simply keeping up with Jones’.

Some of the most far-reaching efforts have been initiated in Canada’s provinces: from British Columbia’s carbon tax to Ontario’s Premier McGuinty’s push for a transformation of domestic energy suppliers as renewable base. These efforts on the one hand, provide an idea on Canada’s potential to act as leader in climate change issues and, in stark contrast on the other hand, show the lack of leadership at federal level. The efforts of provincial leaders mean that the vast majority of Canada’s population and a majority of its economy are located in areas that face significant climate legislation. In addition, the British Columbia election, has shown that environmental legislation can endure beyond an electoral term. To put it plainly, Harper need only coordinate provincial efforts to turn Canada into a global leader for Climate Change policies.

Harper’s efforts however, have always been to manouvre Canada to around the middle of the developed countries pack. Harper has two rationales and if nothing else he has always been consistent with regards to climate change policy. His first rationale is that Canadian economic development is his primary aim and climate change targets will only be implemented where they don’t conflict with existing industries; particularly the EITE group industries “(energy intensive, trade exposed) which includes aluminium, cement, chemicals, iron & steel, lime, gas transmission, base metal smelting, iron ore pelletizing, pulp & paper, and potash companies”. The EITE industries are core areas of the Canadian export economy, and as might be expected have concomitant environmental impacts.

The sum of Harper’s latest move as Derek highlights, is keeping up appearances, with the US having passed the Waxman-Markey bill, (although probably not voting on it now until late Autumn and possibly watered down) and in the face of upcoming talks with the US and in Copenhagen in December. Canada will have little clout to influence the direction of global talks with its current policy widely derided as insufficient. The current proposal of Cap and Trade with plenty of opt outs allows for a generous fig leaf cover when going into negotiations. Harper has aided the undermining of Obama’s climate leadership from both stiff resistance from industrial lobbyists in the US and Republican opposition in Congress.

Where does this leave us? Harper’s efforts should not be taken entirely negatively; an actual Cap and Trade is still an improvement on the intensity based targets, although it will still fall short of the requirement that Canada cut its emissions by far more than 20% on 2006, the current emissions targets for 2020. Going into Copenhagen, Harper has left Canada positioned to be neither praised nor censured, perfect positioning for Harper, but woefully short of what a country of Canada’s wealth and status is capable of.

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.

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.

The American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009, commonly referred to as the Waxman-Markey Bill, is moving through the U.S. House of Representatives, after passing a vote in the House Energy and Commerce Committee 33 to 25 in late May. 

It must pass through a series of difficult legislative hurdles before a final vote in the House—approval here will enable the bill to move forward to the Senate, which may prove to be an even more challenging feat.

But if this first “victory” is to be any indication of what is to come, it might be fair to speculate that the Waxman-Markey Bill will clear its hurdles by incrementally lowering the bar.  Early review of the most recent version of the bill reveal the compromises made to move the bill forward: a diluted midterm reductions target, from a 20% reduction from 2005 levels by 2020 to a 17% reduction; an altered distribution of allowances, initially proposed by the White House to be fully auctioned, now moved to 85% allocation.  Furthermore, the role of offsets has been significantly increased.  Waxman-Markey includes provisions for offsets of 2 billion tons of CO2/yr, of which up to 1.5 billion may come from international sources.  A proposed 1.25:1 offsets to allowances ratio has been softened to a 1:1 ratio until 2017.  This decreases the maximum number of international credits that the use could absorb from 1.875bn to 1.650bn tCO2/y.  Although this sounds small, when you consider that there have only been 289m credits issued under the CDM to date, the cut of 225m comes into perspective. Defining the criteria for which offset programs will be considered appropriate also appears to have been broadened.

In an interview on Monday, Steven Chu acknowledged the draft legislation fell short of White House aspirations, but went on to recognize the role of the climate change bill as a positive step in the right direction.  As reported by Reuters, “This is the really the arc of what really can be done,” Chu said. “I personally believe strongly that we have to get started and so a comprehensive energy and climate change change bill, which has to recognize certain compromises, is really the issue.”

One might consider Chu’s remarks and the revision to the bill thus far in the context of an axiom of political compromise—to not let the perfect be the enemy of the good.  But the nature of climate change and climate change policy means that there are limits to this conventional political wisdom, for two important reasons: without sufficiently robust targets, the effectiveness of the legislation in resulting in emissions reductions is severely compromised, and, perhaps of more immediate relevance, so too is the ability of the United States to play a strategic role in international negotiations on climate change.  A watered down U.S. domestic policy will dramatically constrain the U.S. position in both Bonn and Copenhagen, to the potential outcome of lowering the bar at the international level as well.  The EU has promised to commit to a 30% in reductions by 2020 from 1990 levels, rather than a guaranteed 20%, provided other key players play ball.  Comparing like for like, US reductions of 17% by 2020 from 2005 levels equate to merely a 3% reduction from 1990 levels. A question remains as to how the EU will respond to such levels.

The Waxman-Markey Bill, diluted at present, will surely be subject to further compromise as it makes its arduous journey through the U.S. Congress.  Will the (hopeful) resulting legislation suffice as evidence to the EU that the U.S. is indeed playing ball?  Will it signal to non-Annex 1 emitters, such as China and India, that they will need to consider significant reductions in emissions?  While it is true that the U.S. indeed must act quickly to rectify the delay in legislation on climate change of the past 8 years, it must do so with the understanding that the outcome of this legislation stands to shape the trajectory for climate change action at the international scale as well.  In doing so, the U.S. should calibrate the height of this bar very, very carefully. 

Simon Billett also contributed to this post.

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.