Economists Denounce Harper "Climate Plan"

authordefault
on

Conservative policy โ€œhighly likelyโ€ to fail

Three top economists, led by Dr. Mark Jaccard of Simon Fraser University in Vancouver, have released an analysis (attached) of the Conservative government’s climate policy, saying that, as designed, the might make no headway whatever in reducing Canadian CO2ย emissions.

Jaccard and fellow economists Nic Rivers and Jotham Peters, say the Stephen Harper plan is particularly faulty on two counts: it sets โ€œintensity targetsโ€ that allow allow absolute emissions to continue going up, and it allows companies to purchase โ€œoffsetโ€ that completely absolve the firm of making any CO2 reductions itself. Both of these policies are proven failures in actually limiting or reducing the total emission of CO2.

The report, entitled โ€œAssessing Canadaโ€™s 2008 Climate Policy,โ€ also calls into question the value of โ€œemission targetsโ€ that are not linked to firmย caps.

โ€œEmission targets are meaningless by themselves and often a red herring. Some
environmentalists have applauded politicians for setting aggressive targets for GHG
reduction (called โ€œstretch targetsโ€ or โ€œaspirational targetsโ€) and the media tends to focus
on these. As a consequence, many politicians select ambitious targets even while their
actual policies have negligible likelihood of achievingย them.โ€

In the current circumstances, all five Canadian political leaders have set emission targets for 2020 – calling for reduction of CO2 emissions of between 20 and 30 perย cent.

But while the Liberals, the NDP, the Bloc Quebecois and the Green Party have all accepted the international benchmark date of 1990, the Conservatives have chosen a baseline of 2006. Because Canadian emissions rose between 1990 and 2006 by nearly one-third, that means that – even if successful – the Harper Conservatives would reduce emissions by only three per cent from 1990ย levels.

Even that, however, is too optimistic, according to the Jaccard report’sย conclusioin:

โ€œโ€ฆ it is highly unlikely that the policies of the government of Canada will achieve the target of reducing national emissions 20% below 2006 levels by 2020. The lack of an economy-wide emissions price and the allowance for 100% offsets for industrial emitters make it highly likely that emissions will be significantly higher than target levels in 2020 and indeed might even be close to todayโ€™s levels. Since the government claims that it is intent on achieving its 2020 emissions reduction target, it is difficult to understand why it does not immediately convert the intensity cap to an absolute cap and eliminate or severely reduce the offset provision. It also needs to extend its cap to cover all emissions in theย economy.โ€

Related Posts

on

Is the Gulf of Mexico the "single best opportunity" to store climate-warming gas โ€” or an existential threat to wildlife and people?

Is the Gulf of Mexico the "single best opportunity" to store climate-warming gas โ€” or an existential threat to wildlife and people?
on

DeSmog reflects on some of the major moments in U.S. LNG policy, the courts, and protest in a turbulent year for this fossil fuel.

DeSmog reflects on some of the major moments in U.S. LNG policy, the courts, and protest in a turbulent year for this fossil fuel.
Analysis
on

Our editors and reporters weigh in on a year of seismic political events, and what theyโ€™re paying close attention to in 2025.

Our editors and reporters weigh in on a year of seismic political events, and what theyโ€™re paying close attention to in 2025.
on

A new lawsuit alleges toxic, radioactive waste leaked into a PA familyโ€™s water well, uncovering a regulatory abyss for miles of fracking pipelines in the state.

A new lawsuit alleges toxic, radioactive waste leaked into a PA familyโ€™s water well, uncovering a regulatory abyss for miles of fracking pipelines in the state.