|
Canada’s government: After you, U.S.A. Environment Minister Prentice says regulations need to be harmonized; backs off having regs by fall with 2010 implementation date Gary Park For Petroleum News
Forget about “Made in Canada.” Let’s go with “Made in the U.S.A.”
That seems to be the thinking of Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s Canadian government as it ponders delaying implementation of rules limiting greenhouse gas emissions by six years until 2016 to match a proposed U.S. timetable.
Environment Minister Jim Prentice indicated to reporters in a conference call May 28 that Canada has effectively abandoned its earlier commitment to develop regulations by the fall of 2008 and enforce them on Jan. 1, 2010, which calls into question Harper’s stated goal of lowering GHGs by 20 percent from 2006 levels by 2020, although Prentice insists that target is unchanged.
“In terms of our industrial competitiveness — protecting jobs, investments — we will need to ensure that the application dates for Canadian climate change policies are harmonized with the United States, or at least that we give close consideration to how and when individual sectors of the American economy will be regulated,” he said.
Prentice said that will affect the “pure industrial sector,” which represents about 30 percent of total Canadian emissions.
“The actual effective dates of those regulations will be subject to the discussions we are having with our international and continental partners,” he said.
Part of plan for Copenhagen The adjusted timeline is also intended to be part of whatever plan Canada takes to Copenhagen this December when the world is supposed to agree on a joint strategy for tackling climate change to succeed the Kyoto Protocol which expires in 2012.
All of which undermines one of the government’s proudest boasts that it was showing the way to the United States and that it would develop a “Made in Canada” strategy.
Prentice said Canada plans to arrive at Copenhagen with policies that relate to all sources of GHGs in Canada, which “will be tabled sequentially, once I am satisfied they represent what’s in the best interests of our country.”
“In the case of any regulations we bring into law in Canada, we will ensure that careful attention is paid to what our major trading partner (the U.S.) is doing, what their regulations are and when their regulations come into law,” Prentice said. “And at this point what’s under discussion in the United States starts in 2012” and will be phased in over four years.
Decisions to vary by sector The decisions to harmonize regulations with those of the U.S. will vary by economic sector, he said, noting Canada’s electrical industry is already much cleaner than that of the U.S., while the auto industry is completely integrated, so it makes sense to have the same rules for fuel-economy or tailpipe-emissions standards.
Defending the proposed delay, Prentice said the issues are “very complex and it will take us through 2010 to develop the regulatory framework we’re talking about. So 2012 is not that far away.”
He said that while drafters of Canada’s legislation are “mindful” of the current economic and budget challenges that did not have a direct impact on their work because the concerns relating to climate change regulations extend over a much longer timeframe.
Critics say failure to move costing Canada influence on US The Alberta-based Pembina Institute said Canada “must develop and implement regulations urgently if we are to have a chance of influencing U.S. decisions, ending uncertainty that is bad for business and meeting emissions reduction targets that are aligned with science.”
Matthew Bramley, the director of Pembina’s climate change program, said it is obvious federal officials have no understanding of the threat or the urgency of global warming.
He said Canada has had four different plans in the past decade, but never adopted the actual implementation regulations.
“Canada’s reputation is going to remain stuck at rock bottom,” he said.
Graham Saul, executive director of Climate Action Network Canada said “absolutely nothing” has happened in the two years since the government released a plan and indicated that regulatory actions was imminent.
Alberta endorses shift Alberta Premier Ed Stelmach endorsed the shift in strategy, arguing Canada was moving “very fast” in adopting more aggressive environmental standards.
He said the delay will provide Alberta with the time it needs to get carbon capture and storage projects up and running.
Stelmach said he would like to shift the environmental focus off the oil sands to coal-fired electricity generation, which is the largest source of Alberta’s GHGs.
“We will do our part through carbon capture, but allow us to put projects in place so that we can get the amount of carbon down.”
Alberta has earmarked C$2 billion in seed money to help finance the development of CCS technology through research and pilot projects.
| 