The Tyndall Centre used published tarsands growth and greenhouse gas mitigation scenarios to assess the impact of the government’s proposed intensity-based regulation for Large Final Emitters, a key element of Canada’s current climate change plan. Key findings include:
- The government’s proposed requirements dampen
but don’t reduce global warming pollution
from the tarsands; emissions will grow
between 112 per cent and 219 per cent by 2015
- The proposed slowing in emissions growth is
in line with or less than what is expected in
the absence of these government requirements
and in some instances less than what has
already been voluntarily committed to by
industry
- The ability for companies to sell extra
greenhouse gas reductions as carbon credits
under the government’s proposed plan means
that the windfall profit for tarsands
companies could be in the order of $30 – $700
million, according to the report
- The cost of compliance with the government’s
proposed requirements is expected to be
minimal for tarsands companies, ranging from
zero to a maximum eight cents per barrel
“This is a plan in which it pays to pollute. Handing a cash bonus through carbon credits to the companies responsible for the fastest growing source of global warming pollution in Canada does not make sense for the health of the planet, or for Canada’s credibility on the world stage,” said Mike Russill, President & CEO of WWF-Canada and former oil industry executive.
The funniest conclusion, market forces, if left alone, who actually achieve more than the government's initiatives. The sinister part, the more you study the various conclusions, from what now amounts to a mountain of reference, the more you realize that Baird's supposed aggressive approach, is nothing more than projection of pre-existing realities at best, a hinderance at worst.
This week alone, the United Nations criticized Canada for moving the goalposts to create false progress, the CIBC questioned the wisdom of intensity targets, and now we have the above. How can these people talk with a straight face?
2 comments:
Excellent post FW! Kudos
Well I think market forces would be better than the government too. But my definition of 'market forces' is probably quite different than these guys.
I would, for instance, insist that all government corporate subsidies to polluting industries cease (oil and gas has gotten $1.5 billion per year since about 97, while making record profits). I would insist that cartelizing regulations that restrict consumer choice be removed, allowing me, for instance to by a Quebec-made electric car in Canada. Or to allow me to install wind turbines and solar cells on my house (currently against Ottawa bylaws). Or allow me to file a lawsuit against polluters so they can't externalize the cost of dumping toxins or C02 into the air and water.
But of course, that isn't what these crony-capitalists mean by 'market forces' - for them its still government regulations, laws and subsidies, just those that favour them and their profit making rather than real consumer choice and real 'free trade'.
Post a Comment