Prices up at French Pumps in 2010?

A government panel has suggested that France should aim to tax greenhouse gas emissions by 2010. This tax is lauded as a mechanism to encourage clean and greener habits among the French population. But the big questions remain: how effective will the tax be and who will it affect?

The panel concluded that: “carbon dioxide emissions are a threat to life on this planet…among the many necessary responses, a significant tax on carbon dioxide emissions is one of the most pertinent and efficient.”

France aims to divide its greenhouse gas emissions by 4 by 2050; a tax seems enviable to achieve this level of reduction. Economy Minister, Christine Lagarde, sees implementation of such a tax as “the beginning of a wider process of reflection and consultation [on climate change].”

The carbon tax plan would see France bill 32 € (~$46US) for every ton of carbon dioxide emitted in 2010. The levy would be raised progressively on a yearly basis until it reaches 100 € in 2030. Effectively, this regulation would add 7-8 cents to the cost of a liter of fuel. The tax is proposed to apply to all sectors that are not part of existing emissions trading programs.

The plan is drawing hot opposition from intensive fuel users, especially small-scale farmers and fishers. “We haven’t received any objection to the tax in principle, but there will be lots of fighting over the details of course,” said the Panel’s head, Michel Rocard, on France Info Radio.

Under the proposal, the extra cost per household would be around 300 € per year. There is a strong debate concerning how to compensate low income households; such as those that qualify as “fuel poor.” Rocard recognizes that, “there are whole jobs, farming, fishing, and taxi drivers where we need to find ways to make the jobs economically possible in spite of this tax.”

A key part of the debate is how to compensate poorer households, workers in certain sectors, and those for whom driving is a necessity because they work odd hours or live in rural areas. The small business union, CGPME, said in a statement that “for [the tax] to be accepted by households and companies…it must be compensated by an equivalent fall in taxes elsewhere.” The Panel did suggest that extra costs would vary according to household size and location.

Sweden, which is the current EU presidency, does have a carbon tax in place, as do Denmark and Norway.

The Panel’s report will provide the basis for legislation, due to be debated after the French parliament’s summer break.

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 UK Minister for Energy, Ed Milliband announces new plans to build a coal fuelled power station in the UK, global protesters are calling the government a “climate criminal”, accusing the new plans to be a death trap for the planet.

A joint protest from over 40 deveoping countries, are challenging Ed Millibands plans, and strongly advising him that these actions will result in the UK’s weakening position in international climate change negotiations, thus damaging the reputation and position that the UK has.  Protesters believe that the UK will not be in a position to persuade developing economies to cut their emissions.

The proposed plant is the dirtiest of fossil fuels, and according to the Clean Air Task Force (CATF) based in the USA, each new conventional coal plant threatens to create a 60-year stream of new carbon dioxide, as well as a multi-decade stream of toxic waste.  Coal-fired electric generating plants are the USA’s largest industrial source of harmful air pollution.   From lung damage to asthma attacks to acid rain, haze, and global warming, no economic sector has a greater impact on our environment.  

On th flip side, the coal industry is facing significant industry challenges; demand is falling as global industry, including demand from China in particular has fallen; material costs are uncertain and over the future hangs the worrying spectre of expensive and uncertain carbon capture and storage, international carbon markets and whatever else an anxious world may decide to do about climate change.

For some, the coal plant presents a new industry opportunity, but for others, this is a stark reality of future doom and gloom, and a highlight of how UK government has lost significant support from the public, environmental organisations and its political counterparts.  Surely the governments financial backing of various ‘green refurb’s', the availability of £9 million of funds for the generation of new, micro generation technologies are all geared towards developing clean teachnologies and lowering emissions?  It must be questioned, where or if this new plant fits in to the UKs long term strategic plan.

The 27 groups of protestors to the UK plans, including campaigners from India, Brazil, Indonesia, the Philippines and Uganda, say they are “alarmed” that the UK government is considering  allowing new coal plants to be built, including one at Kingsnorth in Kent.   They blame emissions from rich countries for causing global warming and the “increased  floods, droughts, sea-levels and disease” that threaten the livelihoods of “hundreds of millions of people” (Source: The Observer)