Lawyers in Canada: Davis LLP - Legal Advisors Since 1892

Tales from Copenhagen - Part 3 - Police All Over the Place

It's snowing again today - lovely December day in very pretty Copenhagen. The snow and the Christmas decorations make it look like something from a fairy tale. Fairy tale is not, however, what I would use to describe the atmosphere inside the Bella Centre today.

There is MUCH more security here for one. They shut down the Metro Station that stops at the Bella Centre entirely and, unless you're accredited, registered and have a secondary card, you're not getting within 200 metres of this place today. I walked from the Metro station beyond the Centre. There are police all over the place. You had to produce your badge to get past about three sets of them even before you set foot on Bella Centre premises.

One of the officers told me it's because they were expecting a large scale demonstration today, but my guess is that there are some big dogs here and that's why. Senator John Kerry is speaking today - I'll probably listen to what he has to say, but I'm not sure that he's the reason for the major police presence. Security was heightened everywhere - we even saw police standing on hills about a km from the Bella Centre keeping an eye on things. I wondered where they're all coming from. There are regular police, swat teams (multiple), army and independent security firms. Can Denmark possibly have this many police? They're either coming from every place around the country or else they've imported them from the rest of Scandanavia. I also wonder how many people wandering around in here are undercover?

If it's this tight now, I can't imagine what it's going to be like when the President arrives. I'm not going to be able to see it first hand either - they are only letting 90 NGO representatives into the Bella Center when he's here on Friday. That's 90 people, not 90 NGOs. By comparison, there are 7000 of us today and that's a 40% reduction from Monday when there were close to 10,000.

In other news, Canada continues to be in the Climate Change Doghouse, but as the Globe and Mail reported , this morning we can spend our way out. Why people are forgetting that Canada's target is nearly identical to the U.S. target and the U.S. seems considerably better received - it's helped by the fact that their Nobel Peace Prize winning President, who is very popular internationally, is arriving shortly, I think. What I also don't understand is why China isn't more of a target? Their emissions are the highest in the world and they are steadfastly refusing to be bound by any sort of emissions reduction framework. I checked out the Fossil of they Day Award chart this morning and China's not even ON it. We're in first place.

Anyhow, I will explore these thoughts further later. For now, I'm going to wander around, check out some pavillions and keep my ear to the ground.

Over and out.

Copenhagen - December 15 - China Still Not on Board

When we were in the line-up for registration this morning, someone remarked to us "if climate change isn't real, why are all these people here".

Good question.

That climate change exists is certainly not in not in dispute at COP 15. What is in dispute is how the world is going to manage it. A couple of big names spoke today - Secretary-General of the UN, Bai Ki-moon and the Governor of California, Arnold Schwarzenegger both gave speeches.

Today marked the formal opening of the final high-level stage of the conference. All the world leaders who are attending the conference will be arriving in the next day or two.

Secretary General Bai Ki-moon said "[w]e know what we must do. We know what the world expects. Our job here and now is to seal the deal, a deal in our common interest," adding that the world's leaders face "a defining moment in history". The Secretary-General also said that "three years of effort have come down to three days of action. Let us not falter in the home stretch. No one will get everything they want in this negotiation". He labelled these negotiations as the "most complex and ambitious ever to be undertaken by the world community". If the attendance alone is any indicator, he's probably right.

What's interesting is that there is an expectation on the world leaders and national governments to solve the issue by themselves - legislate emissions reduction requirements, come to some sort of agreement by which each nation will have to abide. What about on a smaller scale? This was the focus of the speech Governor Schwarenegger gave today.

"The world's governments alone cannot make the kind of progress needed on global climate change, they need everyone working. They need the cities, the states, the provinces and the regions. They need the corporations, the scientists, the individuals to create the determination and action for movement".

"I believe technology and economic focus will overtake the politics and regulatory efforts of national governments," he said. "We are beginning on a historic great transformation, a new economic foundation for the 21st Century and beyond". He also commented that the conference was in danger of "talking grandly" but failing - but even if national governments fail to agree, he said the rest of the world must take action at a "sub-national level".

The foundation of these comments is that it's not just world governments which have resonsibility for addressing climate change - it's everyone. What are we doing at the provincial level in Canada for example? What are you doing in your own home?

So what are the negotiations really going to accomplish? We have three days left - the American President and the Canadian Prime Minister both arrive on Thursday for the last two days of the conference. Canada's positoin here continues to be a tough one and Canada was awarded another "Fossil of the Day" awards this evening for something or other. Canada is definitely not the belle of the climate change ball here.

In any event, is Bai Ki-moon's request going to be granted? Will the world leaders be able to "seal the deal". The Wall Street Journal doesn't seem to think that the chances of a new climate accord are "particularly good". It reported today:

"That's brought home by the latest draft agreement, which leaves for later pretty much everything that's controversial: How much to cut greenhouse-gas emissions globally and in each country; who will pay for all that and how much; how to verify what other countries are doing on emissions; how to square the climate deal with international trade agreements, and more. At the same time, the sniping among countries has gotten more intense. Developing countries such as China and India have long taken shots at the U.S. position on climate change. But instead of finding common ground, U.S. and Chinese negotiators have been trading barbs".

It still looks like China is not on board with the idea of being accountable for its emissions. I am going to start sounding like a broken record, but in order for any international agreement to be meaningful, China, India and the other developing nations must be accountable. Todd Stern, the U.S. Climate Change Envoy took aim at China's reluctance: "If we are going to have an international agreement, as opposed to a bunch of individual countries doing their own domestic thing, but an international agreement where countries come together to work together, then they [China] have got to be prepared to put what they are doing into that international agreement." That doesn't sound like the words of someone who's optimistic about finding a solution in the last three days of Copenhagen.

There's still a question of whether the Kyoto Accord will be ditched entirely or extended, there's still a question of what the international emissions target should be and there's still a quesiton of who is going to be held accountable. Is all that going to get sorted out in the next 72 hours?

Hmmm.

So, it's going to be an interesting next three days. Lots going on tomorrow. Keep checking in.

And by the way, no, I did not meet The Terminator.

Copenhagen - What Happened Today

It's really nothing new.

The talks in Copenhagen seem to be confirming the status quo. Developing countries are still looking for someone to pay for climate change so they can continue growth. They are looking to the developed world to do this. Today some African nations walked out of the talks in protest over discussions to let the Kyoto Protocol expire and begin with a new treaty, one to which all countries are bound.

What does it really mean? It has to do with money.

Under Kyoto developing nations have no emissions reduction requirements. Countries to the Kyoto Protocol are to reduce their emissions or purchase international offsets if they don't (clearly it's not entirely this simple, but those are the basics). The purchase of these offsets (which for most industrialized nations are necessary in order to get their emissions below the cap) essentially amount to financial assistance by the developed to the developing world.

The developing nations are not accountable for emissions under Kyoto, nor is the United States, which neither signed nor ratified the treaty. If a new treaty is made, then most developed nations argue that in order to be effective and to involve the U.S., it must also bind the developing world. The developing world isn't particularly keen on this (see our previous blogs commenting on India and China). It would also mean that the financial assistance would stop.

The United States is very clear - for them to buy in, all nations must participate. Canada agrees. However, despite that Canada contributes only about 2% of global emissions, it appears to becoming an international climate change target. Today Canada received two fossil awards (the presentation was shown on the big screen outside the Bella Centre to the amassed crowd of registants) and was the subject of a climate change "hoax" where Canada's emissions reduction goals were falsely identified in a phony news release.

It's not productive. Minister Prentice's Communications director pointed out as much to the press when asked to comment on the incident today. And Canada's reduction target continues to align with that of the United States. The Minister has been saying this for months.

Needless to say, it's still not clear what will come from these negotiations at this point. The Americans know that a binding international treaty will require them to walk a fine line between committing resources to finance the low carbon economy - both domestically and internationally - and what Congress has an appetite for.

Whether the negotiations result in an extension of Kyoto, the favoured option of developing nations, or an entirely new agreement, the favoured option of Canada remains to be seen. We'll know more in the next few days of "Hopenhagen", as they're calling it around here.

Scenes from Copenhagen - Part 1

I thought I'd divide the blogs into two sections. One section devoted to the "experience" of being in Copenhagen, and one about what the Conference is doing. For those of you not interested in hearing about the former, skip to the next blog. For those of you who want a little bit of what it's like to be on the ground, read on.

Today is our first full day in Copenhagen. We arrived last night to a crowded airport and a city fully ready for Christmas - hardly a storefront is not done up with garland (the real stuff), fairy lights and tasteful ornaments. Climate change is a big deal here, but clearly so is Christmas. It's very pretty.

The Conference is being held at Copenhagen's Bella Conference Centre. In order to gain access to to the Centre, you have to be (a) accredited by the UNFCCC and (b) registered. Accreditation happened before the Conference began. Registration for accredited individuals this morning was an absolute zoo. Thousands (and I truly mean thousands, see attached picture) of people queued (which would seem to suggest it was relatively orderly - it was only for a while) to gain access to the registration tables. Most people in the queue are not part of official government delegations, but are rather here as conference observers through various NGOs.

There were activists hanging climate change banners, others handing out flyers and a few wandering through the crowd speaking to anyone who would listen to them about a multitude of different sins humankind has committed against Mother Earth. The "livestock is causing climate change - become a vegan" signage was particularly....interesting. Some had erected "art" devoted to climate change. A couple of enterprising individuals were serving americano coffees at points along the line up. One activist group was giving it away for free, provided you took the proffered flyer.

It was freezing out; not quite the same as it has been in Edmonton the last few days (where apparently the International Airport was the coldest place on the PLANET on Sunday night), but still mighty cold if you're lined-up waiting for access to the Conference. Did I mention that it's a "wet" cold? I saw one girl take off her leather boots and wrap newspapers around her calves and feet and then slip her boots back on. It was not warm. The poor girl from Equador standing in front of us (who had left her hostel with wet hair of all things), could hardly believe her bad luck.

It was pretty calm, cool and collected at the Bella Centre. Not so in a downtown Copenhagen Street later in the day. There are meetings within the Bella Centre and a number of other activities going on in other locations. We were downtown and happened upon a street which was being blocked by police to traffic. The cross street was a pedestrian only thoroughfare and people were being held back and prevented from crossing. I thought something really interesting was going to happen - like someone's motorcade was going to pass by (the helicopter hoving above the street was curious) until I heard beating drums coming from around the corner and a full scale protest/demonstation materialized.

The protesters were all 20-somethings who were protesting capitalism. They were linked arm and arm chanting something I couldn't understand, beating drums, dancing around and generally making it difficult to cross the street! The press were everywhere and there were a huge number people in the demonstration, but what they are really accomplishing, I do not know.

Back to the Bella Centre tomorrow and more from there.

And the Fossil of the Day goes to...

Canada, Canada, and Canada, which has managed a hat trick in the first three days of COP 15 in Copenhagen.

The Climate Action Network, a coalition of over 450 NGOs worldwide dedicated to limiting climate change to sustainable levels, regularly judges and presents three 'Fossil of The Day' awards to the countries who perform the worst during the past day's negotiations at UN climate change conferences.

While Canada has shared the podium with other countries, it has also climbed the rankings from third place to first:

• Day 1: Third Place, for federal Environment Minister Jim Prentice proclaiming that his nation "won't be swayed" by Copenhagen "hype." Minister Prentice's statement is if nothing else consistent, as he had previously said "if the price of having strong, capable, tough negotiators at the table is being singled out and given 'fossil of the year' awards, then so be it. Bring it on."
• Day 2: Second Place, as part of the "Umbrella Group" (which also includes Iceland, Japan, Kazakhstan, New Zealand, Norway, Russian Federation, Ukraine, United States and Australia), for advocating that carbon capture and sequestration projects should be eligible under the Clean Development Mechanism, which environmentalists feel could actually promote emissions-intensive and fossil-fuel dependent industries (like coal-fired power) in developing countries. Canada has a clear interest in developing the CCS market, as CCS is intended to play a pivotal role in managing major emissions sources in Canada.
• Day 3: First Place, tied with Croatia, for pushing in a Kyoto Protocol contact group against the 1990 base year. The US is rumoured to have taken the same position, which makes sense if the magnitude of each country's obligations is to be proportionate to the magnitude of its emissions in the base year, particularly given the emissions ascendency of China since 1990. However, the position becomes more dubious when Canada's proposed target of 20% below 2006 levels by 2020 results in higher emissions that Canada's Kyoto Target of 6% below 1990 levels by 2020 (see Environment Canada emissions data).

Canada has long been a favourite target for Fossil of the Day awards. Hopefully we will be able to break our "winning" streak before the end of the Copenhagen negotiations.

Countdown to Copenhagen: Feds bid adieu to intensity-based targets

Finally.

The federal government has announced that its much anticipated climate change program will not be based on emissions intensity targets. Responding to a question from question from Bloc Quebecois MP Bernard Bigras, Environment Minister Jim Prentice said, "we are talking about a cap-and-trade system, a continental cap-and-trade system that involves absolute emission reductions, not intensity targets." The change is a welcome one for both the environmental and business communities. It is also well timed, given Canada's declared strategy for the negotiations in Copenhagen.

Ever since tabling its Turning the Corner plan, the Conservative party has been under fire for proposing to limit emissions per unit of production instead of absolute emissions. Environmentalists feared that even if the targets were met, Canada's total emissions could rise as productive output grew. In contrast, a cap based on absolute targets provides direct control over total emissions, regardless of economic growth, and is thus a more certain way to address climate change.

The business community will also be relieved by the change. The costs of complying with a cap-and-trade system depend significantly on the size of the market in which carbon credits can be traded. Bigger and more diverse markets tend to result in lower compliance costs. A critical feature of Canada's plan is therefore to ensure that our cap-and-trade market is integrated with that of the U.S. However, there was significant doubt that intensity-based carbon credits would have been recognized in the U.S. The move to a regime based on absolute targets should help ensure that homegrown carbon credits are fungible and tradable with those used south of the border.

It is the need to integrate with the U.S. that most likely drove the Conservatives to change their tune. The timing of the announcement, just a few days before the opening of COP 15 in Copenhagen, is certainly intended to reinforce our solidarity with the U.S., whose lead Canada has consistently said it would follow in the negotiations.

World's first concept tires made of renewable biomass arrive in Copenhagen in time for United Nations Climate Change Conference

The world's first concept demonstration tires made with BioIsoprene technology, a breakthrough alternative which aims to replace a petrochemically produced ingredient in the manufacture of synthetic rubber with renewable biomass, made their debut in Copenhagen, Denmark, this week. One tire will make appearances at several special events during the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen (COP 15), while the other tire will be on display at a lounge in the common departure area at the Copenhagen International Airport throughout December 21.

The tires made with BioIsoprene are the result of a collaboration between Genencor, a world leader in industrial biotechnology and a pioneer in enzyme innovation and division of Danisco A/S, and Goodyear, one of the world's largest and well known tire companies.

Beyond tires, BioIsoprene offers a huge potential in all kinds of other applications where petroleum-based rubber products and adhesives. The market for isoprene could reach up to 11 billion pounds per year by 2012. Genencor plans to bring the technology to pilot stage within two years, followed by commercial production.

Philippe Lavielle, Executive VP of Business Development for Genencor declared: "We're building advanced biorefineries of the future through strategic collaborations, such as our work with Goodyear and our joint venture DuPont Danisco Cellulosic Ethanol, as well as public-private partnerships. By joining forces with other industry leaders and leveraging our cutting edge biotech capabilities, we're able to accelerate development and deployment of breakthrough technologies like BioIsoprene."

The development by Goodyear of its first concept tire manufactured using a bio-based alternative to the petroleum-derived raw material isoprene is a good example of how traditional industry has taken notice of the consumer's pursuit for more environmentally friendly products and of the growing importance of corporate social responsibility, a part of which results from lessening one's impact on the environment.

Tonight's Munk Debates tackles one of the great public policy questions of our time: how should the world respond to climate change?

Days before the United Nation's historic Copenhagen summit, the esteemed Munk Debates will tackle one of the great public policy questions of our time: how should the world respond to climate change? Tonight's debate is set as follows: C02 levels in the atmosphere are climbing steadily higher. Some believe this is having a devastating effect on humans and nature, while others argue that the threat has been overstated. Is this the moment for a bold international treaty to curb carbon emissions? Or, are the social and economic costs of reducing C02 emissions too high in world where a billion people live on a dollar or less a day?

The event begins at 6:45 p.m. eastern time with a vote by the audience on the resolution being debated, tonight's being: Be it resolved Climate change is Mankind's defining crisis, and commands a commensurate response. The debaters then provide opening arguments and cross-examine each other. A question and answer period with the audience follows. A well-known moderator keeps the proceedings orderly. The debate wraps up with a summation by each debater and a second vote by the audience on the resolution. The final vote is tallied and the winning side announced at 9:00 p.m. eastern time.

Of the view that Climate Change is indeed mankind's defining crisis and therefore debating the PRO side are Elizabeth May, leader of the Green Party of Canada, environmentalist, writer, activist and lawyer active in the environmental movement since 1970, as well as George Monbiot, author of the best selling books Heat: how to stop the planet burning; The Age of Consent: a manifesto for a new world order and Captive State: the corporate takeover of Britain; as well as the investigative travel books Poisoned Arrows, Amazon Watershed and No Man's Land. George also writes a weekly column for the Guardian newspaper.

On the CON side and of the opinion that the Climate Change threat has been overstated is Bjørn Lomborg, who Time magazine named one of the world's 100 most influential people in 2004, the UK Guardian "one of the 50 people who could save the planet" in 2008 and Esquire, "one of the world's 75 most influential people of the 21st century". Lomborg is currently adjunct professor at the Copenhagen Business School and is the organizer of the Copenhagen Consensus Center, which brings together some of the world's top economists to set priorities for the world. Lomborg is also author of the best-selling The Skeptical Environmentalist and Cool It' in which he challenged mainstream concerns about the environment and argued that we need to focus attention on the most important problems first. Joining him will be Lord Nigel Lawson, Baron Lawson of Blaby, who was Chancellor of the Exchequer between June 1983 and October 1989. Lord Lawson is currently Chairman of Oxford Investment Partners and also of Central Europe Trust. He is the immediate past President of the British Institute of Energy Economics. Most recently his major interest has been the economics and politics of global warming, about which he has written a best-selling book, An Appeal to Reason: A Cool Look at Global Warming, which has made him a prominent and high profile climate change sceptic.

The Munk Debates are open to the public. CBC Radio's Ideas, The Globe and Mail and CPAC take each event's discussion to the larger public and tonight's debate can also be viewed via live webstream.

Québec announces its GHG reduction target: 20% below 1990 levels by 2020

Last week, Québec Premier Jean Charest and Minister of Sustainable Development, Environment and Parks, Line Beauchamp, unveiled the province's target to reduce greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) by 20% below 1990 levels by the year 2020. Seeking to be recognized as a Canadian leader against climate change, Québec has decided to set an objective similar to that established by the European Union.

In making the announcement, Premier Charest acknowledged that the province's target is very ambitious, especially given that 48% of its total energy requirements are currently satisfied by renewable energy sources. At approximately 11 tons per capita, or half the Canadian average, Québec already currently holds the best GHG emissions record in Canada. If it can achieve its 20% reduction target by 2020, the province would have the lowest level of emissions per capita in North America.

In announcing its target, the government stated that the proposed measures to be taken would show flexibility from one economic activity sector to another, notably by taking into account each one's overall reduction potential, international competitiveness, available technology and required transition measures. As an illustration of one particular sector's progress to date and to demonstrate that climate change does not necessarily have to come at the expense of economic growth, the Premier noted that the province's industrial sector had already achieved emissions reductions of over 7% in 2006, as compared to 1990 levels, despite the fact that Québec's GDP had increased by 41% over that same period.

As transportation accounts for 40% of Québec's GHG emissions, the government stated that it would be paying particular attention to that sector. In order to achieve the 2020 target, the government expects to make major investments in mass transit options and will take measures to encourage the increased use of intermodal transportation of goods. It also plans to introduce a GHG emission standard for light-duty vehicles equivalent to that in California. Also, as Québec-based corporations have demonstrated expertise in electric vehicle technologies, the government will encourage the development of that industry, as well as the use of such vehicles.

Lastly, through its participation in the Western Climate Initiative, the province will contribute to implementing the largest GHG cap and trade system in North America in 2012. The government expects that these actions will set the stage for a flourishing green economy by the year 2020 and will gradually reduce Québec's economic dependence on foreign oil. It will also lessen the economic impact of the anticipated oil crisis in the decades to come and improve Québec's trade balance.

With less than a week to go before the December 2009 climate conference in Copenhagen, the province of Québec has now clearly announced where it stands on climate change. In a statement aimed at her federal counterpart, Minster Beauchamp declared that "Through this ambitious target, Québec is showing its partners and the international community that it is fully committed to assuming its share of responsibility. By continuing to demonstrate strong leadership, we hope to change the position of the federal government leading up to the Copenhagen Conference."

Countdown to Copenhagen: Canada's reputation called into question

Canada's reputation is taking a bit of a pounding in the final weeks before the climate change negotiations in Copenhagen. While that reputation may not prove to be particularly material in the coming weeks, it may again be relevant in future negotiations.

In its analysis of countries to watch at the negotiating table, the UK's Guardian newspaper said yesterday, "in stark contrast to its cuddly international image, Canada is the dirty old man of the climate world." George Monbiot, an outspoken climate change activist and columnist for the Guardian, followed up by saying that Canada "is now to climate what Japan is to whaling."

Similarly, a coalition of scientists and environmentalists from developing countries petitioned to have Canada suspended from the Commonwealth, on the basis that "countries that fail to help [tackle global warming] should be suspended from membership, as are those that breach human rights" (Pakistan, Zimbabwe, Nigeria and South Africa have all been suspended in the past for electoral or human rights reasons). However, there have been no reports of the petition having been accepted at the meeting of the Commonwealth last weekend.

Even the Edmonton Journal conceded that, "the Guardian's article might be a simplified view of Canada's record on the climate change portfolio but it is also a measure of how far Canada's reputation has fallen in the eyes of the world, especially to those who look to us for leadership."

Overcoming this new reputation may a high hurdle for Canada in Copenhagen. However, if the Canadian government is able to execute its strategy of following the lead of the U.S., Canada's reputation in the next couple of weeks may be of relatively minor importance compared to that of President Obama. Nevertheless, it would be in Canada's interest to take every opportunity in Copenhagen to restore its once sterling reputation, as it may be relevant in future international negotiations where Canada has to "go it alone."

Countdown to Copenhagen: Danish draft calls for 50% reductions by 2050

Reuters reports that Denmark, host country for the climate change talks that begin next week, has released a draft proposal for Copenhagen. The draft calls for 50% emissions reductions from 1990 levels by 2050. The draft would require rich nations to make 80% of the required reductions.

Reaction to the draft has been, and likely will continue to be, poor. India has sounded off on behalf of developing nations, saying that the negotiations in Copenhagen would quickly reach a "dead end" if the Danish proposal was the basis for discussion. As we reported this morning, India, China, Brazil, South Africa and others have prepared their own negotiating draft for Copenhagen. "That draft meets our expectations and concerns," said India's Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh, emphasizing however that the developing countries' proposal contains "many non-negotiables that the Danish draft does not consider." These "non-negotiables" likely include finance and technology transfer from rich countries to help developing countries combat climate change.

Developed nations are also likely to oppose the Danish draft. The United States, for example, has already announced a target of 17% reductions from 2005 levels by 2020, but has not set a goal for 2050. Similarly Canada's Prime Minister wants to focus on short term goals, having set a target of 20% reductions from 2006 by 2020. However, the Danish draft does not set any numerical targets for 2020, other than to have global emissions peak in that year. Nothing suggests that the U.S. and others would be prepared to set a target for 2050, particularly if rich nations are to be responsible for 80% of reductions by that date.

Countdown to Copenhagen: targets announced, coalitions formed and sabres rattled

Only a week remains before the opening of the much anticipated climate change negotiations in Copenhagen. While hope for a binding agreement has waned in recent weeks, a series of announcements in the past week suggest that countries are positioning themselves for an intense round of negotiations in the coming weeks.

Top emitters announce targets

Last week, the world's two largest emitters announced the emissions reductions targets they will adopt. The U.S. intends to propose absolute reductions of 17% from 2005 levels by 2020. For reference, Canada's target is 20% from 2006 levels by 2020. Prime Minister Harper describes Canada's target as "virtually identical" to the U.S. target, but may be subject to "some minor adjustments." The Prime Minister is adamant that Canada will not adopt "blue sky" targets (an unfortunate analogy), but will instead focus on "modest, achievable targets - particularly in the short term."

China, on the other hand, has committed to reduce the intensity of carbon dioxide emissions per unit of gross domestic product in 2020 by 40 to 45 per cent from 2005 levels. While the announcement was a major step forward for China, which had previously refused to commit to targets, it comes as somewhat of a disappointment for many environmentalists. China's target is based not on absolute emissions, but on emissions intensity. Under such targets, if a country's economy grows, its total emissions may also grow, even if the intensity target is achieved. Canada's Turning the Corner plan has long been criticized for relying on intenisty based targets, particularly in light of the projected grow in the oil sands.

The setting of final targets will obviously remain a very contentious issue in Copenhagen. However, that the Chinese and Americans are willing to entertain any type of binding target is encouraging.

Emerging economies form negotiating coalition

China, India, Brazil and South Africa have reportedly negotiated a collective negotiating strategy for Copenhagen. Leaders from the emerging economies met for two days in Beijing last week to discuss their shared interests. According to a prepared statement, "the purpose of the meeting was to prepare for and contribute to a positive, ambitious and equitable outcome in Copenhagen."

The countries have allegedly agreed on several key issues, including the need for developed countries to provide financing and technology to help developing countries combat climate change. It is also expected that they will take the position that the post-Kyoto regime should either be an extension of the Kyoto Protocol, or something substantially similar. Many developed nations, including Canada, want to scrap the Kyoto Protocol and start from scratch.

China's participation in the strategy session was perhaps most significant. Observers hoped that China and the U.S. would have reached a common position when President Obama visited Beijing the other week. While the two countries released a joint statement, it fell short of a clear and common vision for the post-Kyoto regime. As Copenhagen is shaping up to be a clash of interests between developed and developing nations, Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao's participation in the strategy session suggests that the U.S. may still face some hard bargaining with China in Copenhagen.

France pushes for E.U. carbon tariff

The French government has recently advocated for a carbon tax on imports from countries that have "low environmental standards." The tax, more properly called a carbon tariff, would be intended to level the playing field between industry in the E.U., wish incurs significant costs in complying with the E.U.'s cap and trade system, and industry in nations that do not face similar regulatory burdens. There are some reports of an emerging consensus in the E.U. for France's proposal.

India, France's largest trading partner, reacted particularly harshly to the suggestion, calling it a protectionist measure. That carbon tariffs may be on the negotiating table highlights again how Copenhagen is a much a trade negotiation as it is an environmental one.

Harper to attend Copenhagen

As recently as this morning, the Toronto Star reported that Prime Minister Stephen Harper would not attend the global climate change negotiations in Copenhagen next month. Later in the day, Dimitri Soudas, a spokesman for Harper, told reporters in Ottawa that Harper will be travelling to Copenhagen in December. The Prime Minister's change of heart was no doubt prompted significantly by the White House's announcement yesterday that President Obama would be attending the talks.

That the Prime Minister decided to attend after learning that the President would be there is consistent with Ottawa's strategy of sticking close to the US in the negotiations. In a comment posted this morning by the National Post, federal Environment Minister Jim Prentice again emphasized that "we will do exactly what we have consistently said we would do: We will match U.S. efforts." In Minister Prentice's assessment, the President's recently announced intention to pledge to reduce his country's carbon emissions to 17 per cent below 2005 levels by 2020 is essentially the same as Canada's Turning the Corner commitment to reduce emissions to 20% below 2006 levels by 2020.

Notwithstanding any alignment with US goals, some people still feel that Canada should be committing to deeper cuts at Copenhagen. Such was the message of protesters that staged a sit-in at Minister Prentice's Calgary constituency office earlier this week. Some provincial leaders would agree: BC, Ontario and Quebec have recently set more ambitous reduction targets.

While prospects for finalizing a comprehensive post-Kyoto agreement this year remain virtually non-existent, it is very encouraging that national leaders like Prime Minister Harper and President Obama will make appearances in Copenhagen. Hopefully, their presence will help negotiators forge what Minister Prentice describes as "a political agreement that can generate the momentum required to forge a broader, more specific and comprehensive document over the course of 2010."

A question of sequencing and strategy

What came first, the chicken or the egg? Observers on the various fronts of climate change policy development may have been pondering a similar conundrum in the run-up to Copenhagen. What should come first, domestic legislation or international agreement? For better or worse, a consensus appears to have been reached.

Earlier in the year, many expected that countries that were serious about reaching an international climate change agreement in Copenhagen would pass meaningful domestic climate change legislation before December. The theory was that demonstrating a commitment to addressing climate change at home would translate into negotiating leverage abroad. Many hoped that the Obama administration in particular would provide leadership in this regard.

That hope has been largely dashed, the US clearly signalled this week that the U.S. would not pass the climate change bill that is currently mired in the Senate. PointCarbon reported that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said the full Senate may vote on climate legislation "some time in the spring." President Obama has been widely quoted as saying that he now expects Copenhagen to produce an agreement that "covers all of the issues in the negotiations, and one that has immediate operational effect" , but that falls short of a binding climate change treaty. What was supposed to produce a successor to the Kyoto Protocol may now produce little more than a successor to the Bali Roadmap.

Instead of seeking international leverage through domestic action, countries now appear to be taking the position that domestic action is too risky before an international framework has been established. Particularly in the wake of the financial crisis, protectionist and nationalist sentiments are running high. Leaders are therefore unwilling to move first domestically, worrying that an unequal carbon playing field abroad will give foreigners an unfair competitive advantage over domestic industries.

In Canada, the federal government's current position appears to be that the chicken and the egg must both come first before Canada will act domestically. Environment Minister Jim Prentice told the CBC that "it is in our interest as Canadians to ensure that we know what the international framework is going to look like. Our continental framework needs to be consistent with that. And our domestic policies need to be consistent with that." In other words, the world must act first, then the US, and only then will Canada enact domestic regulations. Canada's strategy is clearly echoed in the Prime Minister's response to the UN Secretary General's request for world leaders to attend Copenhagen. The Vancouver Sun reports that Stephen Harper's aides say he will attend a key climate change summit in Copenhagen next month - but only if it appears that other world leaders plan to show up.

Minister Prentice Talks Climate Change; PM Says He'll Go to Denmark

Minister Prentice believes that in order for the international community to reach a new framework to deal with climate change, the U.S. must "get on board".

Speaking to a packed room on November 13 in Edmonton, the Minister spoke about climate change on the global stage and about the road to the UNFCCC Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen, which begins in less than a month. The Minister's key message during the speech was that in order for Copenhagen, the "mother of all negotiations" to result in a meaningful frameworks to address the stabilizing of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, the United States has to "make a substantial effort going forward".

The Minister's other key message hit a bit closer to home:

"If the US does not make a substantial effort going forward, there is nothing Canada can do. Our own mitigation efforts will be futile - as a practical matter, we should probably focus on adaptation.

If we do more than the US, we will suffer economic pain for no real environmental gain - economic pain that could impede our ability to invest in new clean technologies.

But if we do less, we will risk facing new border barriers into the American market.

In short, we need a substantial effort from the United States; and a comparable effort from Canada, so we can create an effective North American climate change regime with national policies that are harmonized, consistent and free from conflict. A continental system composed of national policies and regulations that are equal in value and of similar effect, so we foster fair competition and maintain free trade in the integrated North American market".

The crux of his comments? That a harmonized (although not identical) climate change framework is absolutely crucial for Canada and for the U.S.

Why?

1. We share a common environment;

2. Our economies are integrated. The Minister remarked, "many firms in such key sectors as aerospace and automotive do not so much compete with each other as cooperate, being suppliers to, and customers of each other, somewhere on complex supply chains"

3. Canada's energy supply = security of energy for the United States - "[w]e are not just the single largest supplier to the American market of oil, natural gas, hydroelectricity and uranium - we are an indispensable supplier to the land-locked northern tier states"

4. Our pipelines and power grids transcend the border.

The Minister also pointed to a number of cross border harmonization initiatives, such as identical tail pipe emissions standards, the fact that both countries are busy preparing national cap and trade systems, and commitments on both sides of the border to clean energy technology.

But ultimately, his remarks confirmed that both Canada and the United States, while committed to addressing the effects of climate change, will not do so at the expense of the economy. The Minister's philosophy and one that is shared by his U.S. counterparts is to "do no harm - to avoid measures, no matter how well-intentioned, that would cause Canadian firms to be not just down in 2009, but out by 2010". What does this mean in terms of reductions? The American Clean Energy and Security Act has passed the House, and the Kerry/Boxer legislation has now commenced its journey through the Senate. The former sets the target of 17% less than 2005 levels by 2020; the latter currently talks of 20%. The Minister confirmed "[t]hat Both are similar to our own 2020 target of 20% less than 2006 levels".

Those dectractors who assert that Canada should be reducing its emissions by 25-40% less than 1990 levels are not focused on the economic consequences to our country. Minister Prentice addressed these critics and said "to say the least, reducing 2020 emissions in Canada by 25-40% from 1990 levels is easier said than done. The impact on the overall economy would be dire. In economic context, reductions of that magnitude equal an amount far in excess of all the emissions generated from all transportation sources in Canada".

Are the critics prepared to put away not only their own cars, but the cars of their relatives and everyone else they know, for good? To stop flying anywhere? Stop taking the bus? Probably not. And if the solution is to purchase international offsets to meet our emissions targets, are they comfortable with billions and billions leaving the country every year? We have to have a reasonable response to climate change in Canada - and it is reasonable that our system be consistent with that of our largest trading partner and not cause economic hardship to a nation of 35 million people.

So what will happen in Copenhagen? Canada's position is pretty clear. The United States' position is also increasingly clear - everyone, not just the developed nations, has to be a party to an international convention. That includes China and India, whose positions have really not shifted in the months leading up to the conference. Small concessions have been made, but really, the message is still "we're going to do what we want".

But, as Copenhagen draws ever closer, it appears that the international community is taking it more and more seriously. This morning the Edmonton Journal reported that there is increasing pressure on world leaders, including the U.S. President, to attend the conference. Prime Minister Stephen Harper's aides confirmed that if others are there, he'll likely attend as well.

With all these variables, the conference is December is shaping up to be very interesting. Stay tuned for on the ground coverage from Denmark.

International Energy Agency launches World Energy Outlook 2009 in London

The International Energy Agency>International Energy Agency ("IEA") today launched its annual flagship publication in London. The World Energy Outlook 2009 (WEO 2009) looks at the impact of the economic downturn on energy use, CO2 emissions and energy investment and what will be required at the UN climate conference in Copenhagen to put together an agreement that stops global temperatures rising at a price that is affordable. The WEO 2009 also focuses on the natural gas resource base, current trends and the role gas will play in the future energy mix. Finally, the publication includes a review of energy in Southeast Asia, looking at that fast-growing region and its implications for global energy markets.

The IEA's Executive Director, Mr. Nobuo Tanaka declared that "World leaders gathering in Copenhagen next month for the UN Climate summit have a historic opportunity to avert the worst effects of climate change. The World Energy Outlook 2009 seeks to add momentum to their negotiations at this crucial stage by detailing the practical steps needed for a sustainable energy future as part of a global climate deal" and added that "WEO 2009 provides both a caution and grounds for optimism. Caution, because a continuation of current trends in energy use puts the world on track for a rise in temperature of up to 6°C and poses serious threats to global energy security. Optimism, because there are cost-effective solutions to avoid severe climate change while also enhancing energy security - and these are within reach as the new Outlook shows".

In conjunction with the WEO 2009, the IEA has also released an Executive Summary which provides an overview of the publication's key findings and topics, as well as a Fact Sheet, which provides data in a bullet-point format on the following questions and issues: (1) The sustainability of our current energy pathway; (2) The Impact of the financial crisis on Energy Investment (3) Natural gas' role in the global energy mix; (4) What a low-carbon energy future might look like; (5) The impact of the financial crisis on the outlook for CO2 emissions and global climate; (6) Assumptions on Energy Prices, volatility and the future of cheap energy.

Copies of the World Energy Outlook 2009 can be ordered from the IEA Bookshop.

223 Proponents Apply for CCEMC Funding

The Climate Change and Emissions Management (CCEMC) Corporation ("CCEMC") issued its 2009 Call for Proposals: Initial Expression of Interest Stage (the "EOI") on August 5, 2009. The response to the EOI has been, to say the least, overwhelming. According to the CCEMC website, 223 proponents have requested funding from the CCEMC for a total ask of $1.6 Billion Dollars.

This is astounding news. Why you ask? Keep reading.

What Does It Mean?

1. The response to the EOI has been overwhelming. Remember that the CCEMC was only incorporated in February. The Climate Change and Emissions Management Fund Administration Regulation, which delegates the powers, duties and functions of the Minister of Environment (Alberta) to the CCEMC was only enacted in May, 2009. That in less than a year the CCEMC has been able to request EOIs and receive responses from 223 proponents is staggering.

2. The sheer number of proponents and amount of the ask demonstrates how interested Albertans and Industry in Alberta are in climate change technology and initiatives. There's a lot going on in Alberta right now in the area of climate change initiatives as evidenced by the fact 223 proponents have applied for funding.

3. The number of proponents and the success of this first EOI shows that Alberta Environment and the Government of Alberta were absolutely right in anticipating and recognizing the importance of establishing a climate change technology fund and the structure of the CCEMC. (For more information on the importance and uniqueness of the Climate Change and Emissions Management Fund, click here.

4. The CCEMC has up to $120 million for project funding for the 2009 Call for Proposals. Up to 50 percent of monies will be invested in green energy production, 20 percent in energy conservation and energy efficiency and 30 percent in implementing carbon capture and storage. Although there is only $120 Million available at this time, there will be further rounds of calls for proposals as more funds are received from the current and future compliance years. The CCEMC will consider the EOIs and the funding envelopes outlined above and select the very best for the full proposal stage.

5. The fact that the CCEMC is through the first stage in its process for calling for projects is a first in Canada and is clearly the most significant event in the world of climate change innovation in this country. The model for climate change funding in Alberta is working to create action.

The evaluation of the EOIs received by the CCEMC is currently in progress. Proponents whose projects are being selected to submit full project proposals will be notified by November 13, 2009. An annoucement of those selected to submit full project proposals will be made shortly thereafter....just in time for the UNFCCC Conference of Parties in Copenhagen in December. Alberta will truly have the technology fund showpiece at the conference and has much to be proud of.

Canadian Ambassador to US: Oilsands Get Disproportionate Amount of Criticism

Canada's Ambassador to the United States, Gary Doer, who is a former NDP Premier of Manitoba, stated yesterday that the oilsands are facing a disproportionate amount of criticism in the climate change debate. Mr. Doer argues that North America is missing the big picture on global warming if Canada is singled out as the chief emissions culprit, the Montreal Gazette reported this morning.

"One of the concerns that I have is that it represents so little of the emissions in North America. It's getting a disproportionate amount of chatter," Gary Doer said in an interview yesterday with Canwest News Service. "The question is: How much do the oilsands represent as a percentage of emissions in North America? It's a very small amount. If we don't deal with all sources of emissions, we are not going to have a solution that's comprehensive."

Exactly.

The oilsands are much maligned. Greenpeace is up there trying to block production (and recently got sued by Suncor for its efforts), activists are tying themselves to machines, and natural gas lobbyist groups in the US are pointing their fingers at the oilsands. But do you know what the chief source of carbon emissions in North America is? It's not oilsands. It's not SUVs and trucks, tailpipes or dryer vents.

It's coal.

What are we doing about it? If you've been following our blogs, you'll see that Alberta and Canada have just made a $769 million pledge to a carbon capture and storage project for a coal thermal plant - the technology used at the plant will be the first of its kind in the world. The US is presently conducting a $14 million study to see if they should spend $1 billion on CCS for coal thermal plants in the US. It's a step in the right direction. Emissions from coal thermal plants in North America are about sixty times higher than the emisisons from the oilsands and coal is the fastest growing fossil fuel being produced (World Watch Institute, October 15, 2009). According to the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, the oilsands only account for about five per cent of Canada's overall greenhouse gas emissions - a much smaller number when all of North America is taken into account.

David Jacobsen, the new US Ambassador to Canada, met with Ambassador Doer in Winnipeg on Monday, after a trip through the oilsands last week. Ambassador Jacobsen, who called Canada "a pillar in the energy security of the United States" , acknowledges that the oilsands must be part of the equation. Canada's new US Ambassador seems to agree, stating "[y]ou've got to look at everything. How do you reduce emissions from coal? How do you increase the use of renewables? How do you have the increase in energy efficiency?" All of these items have to be on the agenda. The fact that one project (oilsands) is discussed means that we've missed the big picture".

Big picture indeed. The big picture actually includes China and India, particularly if Copenhagen is really going to amount to a meaningful climate change treaty. China is constructing coal plants at a frentic pace and has the world's third largest coal reserves, after the US and Russia. Because China now uses more coal than the United States, Europe and Japan combined, it the world's largest emitter of gases that are warming the planet. Why is everyone so concerned with the oilsands, when the real question is - what is China going to do about climate change?

China has a script they stick to which basically goes something like this - the rest of you got to do it, now it's our turn - too bad if you don't like it. China is setting its self up as the advocate of the developing world (intensity targets tied to GNP), but meanwhile as China points fingers and constructs power plants, the Maldives, the lowest country in the world, could wind up entirely underwater.

Shouldn't Greenpeace be more worried about that?

Another $769 Million in CCS Funding Announced

Like Alberta, Canada is putting its money where it's mouth is. On October 14, 2009 Prime Minister Stephen Harper traveled to Wabamun, Alberta, the site of the Keephills Power Plant, to announce $769 in funding for carbon capture and storage. The pledge will retrofit Keephills, a thermal coal power plant on the shores of one of the Edmonton areas largest lakes. Alberta will spend $436 million over the next 15 years on the project, with most of the money coming from its $2-billion Carbon Capture and Storage Fund. Ottawa is kicking in $343 million from its Clean Energy Fund.

"Our government is determined that Canada remain a world leader in in the use of this state-of-the-art technology," the Prime Minister said, adding "Carbon capture and storage could not only drastically reduce our emissions but by exporting it to other countries we could also make a major contribution to the reduction of global emissions".

The announcement comes on the heels of last week's Alberta/Canada announcment that the governments were spending $865 million on the Shell Quest project. The October 14 annoucement relates to a letter of intent the Alberta government has signed with Transalta Utitlities, who owns Keephills, to build a pioneer project, which Premier Ed Stelmach says will be the first of its kind in the world. The Premier remarked "[i]t'll be the first major CCS project to involve coal-fired power generation and the potential for such a project is enormous. Coal is the most abundant fossil fuel and the most commonly used source of electricity in the world". Alberta gets about 2/3 of its power from coal fired sources - about 6400 megawatts. The technology developed in the Keephills project has the potential to be used to retrofit other coal fired plants around the world.

Clearly both the Alberta and Canadian governments recognize that the time for action is now. With Copenhagen in a couple of very short months, Canada will have many good news stories to share with the world. With last week's major CCS announcement, the CCEMC and its administration of Alberta's Climate Change Emissions Management Fund and now this additional commitment, Canada and Alberta have demonstrated a huge financial and strategic commitment to addressing climate change (more so than the US?).

What will others be bringing to the table in December?

$865 MILLION in CCS Funding Announced Today

The Alberta and Federal Governments formally announced $865 of funding for a commercial carbon capture and storage project today. Shell Canada was "first out of the gate in the carbon capture effort [today], winning pledges of $865 million in provincial and federal aid for its Quest pilot project", the Edmonton Journal reports. The funding was announced by Alberta Energy Minister Mel Knight and federal Natural Resources Minister Lisa Raitt who said "the most viable emissions-reducing technology for fossil fuels is carbon capture and storage. The government of Canada is delivering results by supporting new, clean technology innovation, positioning Canada as a leader in this technology development and resulting in significant benefits for our environment".

We've blogged a number of times that Alberta, with its small population of 3.6 million, is leading the way, certainly within Canada, but perhaps in North America, in directing funds to address climate change. The announcment today is the first "spend" from Alberta's $2 billion CCS Fund. The federal government has a $1 billion Clean Energy Fund. $850 million of the Clean Energy Fund can be used to developing commercially viable technologies including CCS.

Alberta has signed a letter of intent with Shell to contribute $745 million in funding for the Quest CCS project over the next 15 years. Ottawa kicked in an additional $120 million through the Clean Energy Fund.

Shell Canada spokesman Graham Boje praised the province and federal government "for their leadership and vision on advancing the deployment of CCS...finding ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is one of the most important challenges facing society, and developing a substantial CCS capability with governments and key stakeholders is one of our greatest priorities".

Shell Quest aims to store up to 1.2 million tonnes of CO2 per year from its current upgrader in Fort Saskatchewan and that upgrader's expansion, which is under construction. The existing upgrader produces 155,000 barrells of synthetic oil per day and 1.5 million tonnes of CO2 per year. The expansion will produce an additional 100,000 barrells per day with proportionate CO2 emissions.

It's October. It can't be a coincidence that this annoucement comes a mere 59 days before the Conference of the Parties starts in Copenhagen, Denmark. Right now, CCS is one of Canada's good news climate change stories. But if you're thinking that CCS is the only thing in Alberta's bag of climate change tricks, think again.

Don't forget that Alberta has this unique creature called the Climate Change and Emissions Management Fund, which is administered by the CCEMC. The CCEMC closed its 2009 Call for Proposals: Initial Expression of Interest Stage on September 30. Stayed tuned in the next few days to learn more about the EOI process.

The Clean Energy Dialogue Continues...

Energy/Environment High on Priority List for New US Ambassador to Canada

We have blogged many times about the Clean Energy Dialogue between Canada and the United States, which was begun when the U.S. President made his first official vist to Canada back in February. Looks like the Clean Energy Dialogue continues. Barack Obama's new envoy to Canada, US Ambassador David Jacobson, who officially started his term on Friday, said energy and environment issues are high on the agenda in discussions between the two countries.

After a ceremony at Rideau Hall with Governor General Michaele Jean where his credentials were formally accepted, the US Ambassador said "I also believe that the issues that predominate in the relationship between the United States and Canada are the kind of issues that I have spent a lifetime dealing with".

Canada A Pillar of Energy Security

In his remarks, Mr. Jacobsen acknowledged that U.S. and Canadian energy security and environmental concerns would be closely linked and up for discussion in the near future.

While U.S. lawmakers released a cap and trade bill into the Senate last week which includes measures smacking of protectionism, Mr. Jacobsen indicated he would soon start to participate in ongoing discussions about these measures, although added that he believed the talks have so far been constructive and cordial.

"Canada is a pillar in the energy security of the United States," he said. "There are also environmental issues that we all know about that are getting more and more important every day, and I expect that I will spend a lot of time dealing with those."

Another Chicago Connection

Mr. Jacobson is a former lawyer, who, like John Podesta, an influential member of the President's transition team and advocate of cap and trade, is also from the President's hometown of Chicago. Mr. Jacobson had been serving in the White House as an advisor on diplomatic postings.

What Does It Mean?

With China on the hunt to buy into Alberta's oilsands, which, let's face it, are the key to energy security for both Canada and the United States in the decades to come, and with the appointment of David Jacobsen, who seems to realize this, it is certainly a very interesting time to be in Ottawa! Perhaps protectionism may have to take a back seat to ensuring Americans have a safe and secure supply of energy.

We'll see. It may all become more clear in December when the world convenes in Denmark.

Chinese Launch Voluntary Carbon Standard

We have blogged a number of times that if the world is going to make meaningful inroads to the global reduction of emissions, the discussions at Copenhagen in December will have to include real contribution from developing nations, specifically India and China.

China had an interesting announcement today. The Chinese government announced that China will launch a framework for voluntary emissions trading in the global voluntary carbon market. The China-Bejing Environmental Exchange will be a government backed platform for trading carbon in the Chinese voluntary carbon market.

China is the world's top producer of greenhouse gas emissions, in terms of total emissions, although its per capita emissions are far below that of the United States. In previous months, China has been pretty steadfast in its opposition to a global cap on greenhouse gas emissions, excusing itself in the name of opportunity and advancement, much like India has done. Nevertheless, voluntary carbon standards are a step in the right general direction.

According to Reuters, "[t]rade in the global voluntary market, mostly driven by companies looking to reduce their carbon footprints ahead of expected emissions rules, more than doubled last year to more than $700 million". Voluntary carbon standards provide a framework for polluters to get emissions cuts verified and for the creation of credits that can be sold in voluntary carbon markets.

The announcement today comes on the heels of China's assertion on September 22 that it would tie emisions reductions to economic growth. Given these recent announcements and the fact that China seems to be ramping UP to Copenhagen and not down, we'll have to keep a close eye on Chinese climate change policy in the coming months to see how their policy might drive how Copenhagen discussions unfold. More importantly, are these Chinese announcements the real thing or is the Great Wall really just a Great Hype? More tomorrow.

Government of Australia to accept long-term CO2 sequestration risk on $37B Gorgon LNG Project

A recent Bloomberg article highlights a basic yet key legal consideration related to CO2 capture and sequestration that major corporations are looking into when deciding on what projects to invest in: long-term liability related to CO2 sequestration.

The article relates how following the Australian government's acceptance of long term liability linked to the potential escape from sequestration of carbon dioxide captured from the project, partners Chevron Corp., Exxon Mobil Corp. and Royal Dutch Shell Plc gave the green light to a joint $37 billion investment in the Gorgon liquefied natural gas development project off the northwest coast of Australia.

The Gorgon project, which calls for the development of Australia's largest natural gas discoveries to date, represents the continent's single most important resources project and investment. The project includes the construction of a liquefied natural gas facility with an annual capacity of around 15 million tonnes per year on Barrow Island and incorporates stringent environmental standards designed to protect the island's natural heritage. Plans also call for development facilities installed directly on the ocean floor, in water close to 1.5 km deep. Two subsea pipelines with a combined length of 240 kilometres will carry the gas to facilities on Barrow Island.

Inclusion of CO2 capture and sequestration facilities in the project design stem from Australia's planned introduction of a carbon trading and pollution reduction system in 2011. The planned facilities will capture the naturally occurring carbon dioxide extracted during the liquefaction process and inject it into porous rock more than 2 km beneath Barrow Island. The CO2 capture and sequestration component will cut the project's emissions by an estimated 40 percent.

The project will start exporting gas in 2014 and have a lifespan of at least 40 years. The project partners have entered into LNG supply agreements with companies in China, India, Japan and South Korea.

Other than the state and federal government's confidence in the existing sequestration technology associated with the project, it's importance in creating wealth, jobs and investment justified government acceptance of liability. It is believed that Gorgon may generate A$300 billion in sales in its first 20 years of operations.

The Australian government's decision to cover long-term-liability will certainly set a precedent in the resource-rich nation and most likely beyond its borders as well. Although the specifics of the agreement have not all been made public, the project partners are said to retain liability for carbon storage during the project's construction and operation phases and for at least 15 years after its closure. The government's liability, triggered in 2069, would then be assumed in an 80-20 percent proportion between the Commonwealth and state governments.

This recent development highlights the crucial importance that climate change, carbon regulation and the resulting development and implementation of carbon capture and sequestration technologies are playing in major fossil energy project investment decisions. Likewise, when attracting such investment and negotiating with project sponsors, governments in jurisdictions around the world will now need to carefully consider the serious legal implications of long-term liability related to such technologies.

U.S. - Canada Clean Energy Dialogue - First Report

Yesterday Canadian Environment Minister Jim Prentice and U.S. Energy Secretary Steven Chu delivered an update on the two nations' clean energy dialogue (CED), which was first announced when President Obama met with Prime Minister Stephen Harper in Ottawa this past February. The release of the report coincided with Prime Minister Harper's meeting in Washington D.C. with President Obama at which energy was on the agenda and after which Harper reminded the U.S. at a press briefing that: "[...] Canada is by far the largest supplier of energy to the United States. And [it is] determined to be a continental partner in dealing with the [...] linked problems of climate change and energy security [...]".

The three key areas on which Harper and Obama had asked their respective delegates to work together on under the auspices of the CED were: (1) The development and deployment of clean energy technology; (2) the building of a more efficient energy grid, based on clean and renewable generation; and (3) expanding R&D into clean energy.

As part of the countries' collaboration on carbon capture and sequestration (CCS), the report states that the countries will expand on existing collaboration in CO2 injection and storage testing, share information from large-scale CCS demonstration projects such as the Weyburn-Midale project in Saskatchewan, in which carbon dioxide is piped from the Great Plains Synfuels plant in North Dakota to an oilfield operated by EnCana and injected for use in enhanced oil recovery. The report goes on to insist on working towards a consistent regulatory framework between the countries, which would include compatible CCS project rules, standards, and monitoring, as well as verification and accounting principles. Bilateral meetings between Canadian and American CCS experts are planned in mid-2010 and 2011 to share best practices and provide updates on joint activities. The two nations intend to form the "Canada-U.S. CCS Collaboration" under the existing Trilateral Energy Science and Technology Agreement, which also includes Mexico and hope to formalize the arrangement through an implementation agreement by the end of 2009.

As a result of the continued growth in electricity demand, collaboration between the two nations regarding the North American power grid will focus on the open exchange of information and electricity research, development and deployment (RD&D), reliability standards, cyber security and interoperability guidelines. Upgrades to the electric power grid will aim to increase its efficiency and promote connection to clean energy sources, as well as the use of clean energy technologies.

Joint commitments regarding Clean Energy RD&D are meant to boost economic opportunities for the CED partners and the two are to develop a "Clean Energy RD&D Collaboration Framework" and a technology roadmap which would allow both nations to meet their respective 2050 greenhouse gas reduction targets. The Framework and Roadmap would notably foster a unique North American market through common codes, standards and incentives, along with collaborative research and development, sharing of information , facilities and scientific infrastructure.

The Canadian Environment Minister and U.S. Energy Secretary are expected to release the next CED report in the spring of 2010, ahead of the next bilateral meetings.

Western Premiers Sign MOU on CCS Technology and Policy

The Premiers of Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba held a joint cabinet meeting in Calgary on September 11, 2009. During the meetings, the provinces signed two key agreements, including a Memorandum of Understanding on Carbon Capture and Storage Technology and Policy, which "focuses on advancing co-operation on energy research and technology". Also highlighted were the concepts of "strengthening internal trade, innovation and international marketing, further developing Canada-U.S. relations and committing to improvin pension coverage for workers".

Of the MOU, Premier Stelmach remarked "collaboration in the West has best positioned our provinces to lead Canada both economically and in the development of clean energy technologies such as carbon capture and storage. By joining forces with B.C. and Saskatchewan, we can better develop and deploy this innovative technology, helping to meet climate change objectives and making us international leaders in this technology".

The second key agreement, the "Western Economic Partnership" is an interprovincial trade agreement designed to be the largest barrier-free trade and investement market in Canada.

The CCS MOU is the next in a series of steps Alberta has taken to advance CCS technology and deployment. Alberta announced its $2 billion CCS fund in 2008. The monies in the CCS fund are in addition to monies in the province's Climate Change and Emissions Management Fund, which is administered by the CCEMC. For the 2009 Call for Proposals, 30% of available funds may be used to advance CCS technologies and innovation.

When Canada goes to Copenhagen in a few months, this newest announcement by the Western provinces will be another point of climate change achievement.

We will continue to keep you posted about the Memorandum of Understanding among the three provinces. Stay tuned!

Cleantech revolution or international trade war?

McKinsey & Company, a consultancy, recently released a report calling on China and the US to work together to create new cleantech industries that will help address climate change. Given the scale of investment, infrastructure and research that will be required, the report warns that the two countries will not be able to "achieve separately what they could jointly." However, recent events suggest that both China and the US (as well as Canada and some European cleantech leaders) are not in the mood to cooperate, choosing instead to protect their domestic industries. If the trend continues, trade wars could erupt and critical climate change negotiations could be compromised.

Signs of Chinese protectionism

China has attracted significant media intention in recent months for a series of potentially trade-distorting measures. A pattern of behaviour may be emerging that suggests both private industry and the state are determined to give every advantage possible to China's domestic cleantech sector. The following are examples:

• Alleged dumping: The CEO of Suntech, a Chinese company that is the world's second largest manufacturer of solar panels, recently told the New York Times that his company is selling products in the U.S. at below marginal cost. He later clarified that the pricing was set to gain market share, but U.S. producers were already characterizing the practice as dumping. As reported in the NY Times, U.S. trade lawyer Alan Wolff (perhaps eagerly?) predicts that such behaviour could eventually trigger a WTO dispute. He noted, "antidumping cases against products from China have to date largely covered traditional, basic products such as chemicals and steel. A case against solar panels from China would be a landmark case."
• Domestic content requirements: China has also been widely criticized for recently enacting Buy Chinese provisions that require companies applying for stimulus money for renewable power and low carbon projects to apply for government permission to source parts and equipment abroad. As discussed by the Financial Times, China enacted these provisions just months after railing against Buy American provisions.
• Preferential treatment for domestic project developers: The Buy Chinese provisions were also enacted in the wake of a series of procurement decisions in which established foreign players like Vestas were shut out of projects in China. See this Financial Times article for more background.
• Import restrictions: China is reported to have recently banned the import of scrap polysilicon into the country. The scrap is a by-products of chip manufacturing that is suitable for making solar panels. Given the current glut of polysilicon on the global market, the ban is seen by some analysts as a move to protect China's domestic polysilicon manufacturers. China characterizes the ban as a move to protect the environment given that the scrap may have come into contact with toxic chemicals. The environmental justification of trade measures has been one of the more intensely litigated issues under the WTO.
• Proposed export bans: According to Business Green, a draft report released in July by the Chinese Ministry of Industry and Information Technology suggests a total ban on the export of terbium, dysprosium, yttrium, thulium and lutetium and a export quota on neodymium, europium, cerium and lanthanum. These minerals and rare earth metals are critical in the manufacture of hybrid cars and wind turbines. Some suspect that China wants to protect supply for its domestic cleantech manufacturers. The report was released after the U.S. and Europe filed a complaint at the WTO in June regarding Chinese export limits on bauxite, coke, magnesium, manganese, silicon metal and zinc.

U.S. also looking inward

The US is by no means innocent. It received its share of criticism for proposed Buy American restrictions on stimulus money. The Obama administration continues to face lots of pressure from powerful groups to make sure that stimulus money and climate/energy policy is crafted to create jobs in the US (see e.g., Big Labor's Made in America Tour), as blogged about recently.

Already, the U.S. has enacted some dubious measures in the name of cleantech, a particularly notorious example being a biofuel tax incentive that turned black liquor into liquid gold for failing pulp producers. The incentive was another blow to the beleaguered Canadian pulp industry. Ottawa responded with a similar, although somewhat more environmentally focused, incentive.

The US is also trying to draw in short term investment in renewable power by transforming a former tax incentive into a grant for up to 30% of the cost of qualifying projects.

Perhaps most tellingly, the draft Waxman-Markey climate bill includes provisions regarding a "border adjustment" mechanism that could be used to impose what amount to carbon tariffs on imports from countries that have less rigorous climate change legislation.

Chinese companies like Suntech see the writing on the wall and are moving to open manufacturing facilities in the US.

Protectionist trend extends to Europe and Canada

Last week, Business Green ran a good piece on cleantech protectionism. While the article points to China as the most notorious culprit, China is not the only country singled out for criticism. Germany and Spain are also accused of providing trade-distorting "soft loans" to domestic producers, as well as of favouring domestic proponents in renewable power RFPs.

Here in Ontario, industry players are anxiously awaiting the release of domestic content requirements under the Green Energy Act. These requirements will require project proponents who wish to participate in the potentially lucrative feed-in tariff regime to source some portion of their components, labour and/or capital in Ontario. The domestic content requirements are a bit of a hot potato for Minister Smitherman who simultaneously wants to declare Ontario's renewable sector to be open for business while making good on his promise to create 50,000 new green collar jobs in the province.

Implications

If the protectionist trend continues, the cleantech revolution could spark a cleantech trade war. Protectionism tends to beget protectionism: protectionist measures in countries like China will be used to justify the imposition of protectionist measures in other countries (and vice versa). While the WTO provides a forum for resolving such disputes, the process is long and the results not always certain (particularly where protectionist measures are draped in environmental justifications).

Perhaps the most disturbing part of the emerging protectionist trend is that it is occurring before the successor treaty to Kyoto or the U.S. cap-and-trade legislation have been finalized. Trade issues are informing the negotiation of both instruments. The protectionist stances taken by key global trading players today may make it harder to conclude either negotiations and may lead to compromises that are not in the world's best economic or environmental interests.

The cleantech "revolution" makes twin promises: that green jobs are the cure to the past year's financial crisis and that technology can solve the climate change problem. China, the U.S., Europe, and Canada all seem to be keying more strongly on the first promise. However, it is not in the world's best interest to create domestic cleantech industries that are premised on government protection. This is particularly the case in light of McKinsey & Company's observation that the scale of the climate change problem demands a cooperative solution.

India announces energy efficiency "cap-and-trade" initiative

India's Prime Minister, Dr. Manmohan Singh, announced an ambitious new energy efficiency initiative for his country. The "National Mission on Enhanced Energy Efficiency" is intended to cut energy consumption by 5% and greenhouse gas emissions by 100 megatonnes by 2015.

The Mission comprises several complementary initiatives:

• a cap-and-trade system for energy efficiency allowances;
• expanded use of the global carbon markets, particularly the Kyoto Clean Development Mechanism, to fund energy efficiency projects;
• the creation of two new funds, one to provide guarantees to banks for loans to energy-efficiency projects and the other to support investment in the manufacturing of energy-efficient products and provision of energy-efficiency services; and
• the promotion of Energy Service Company ("ESCO") based upgrades to energy systems in buildings, municipalities and agricultural operations.

Of these initiatives, the proposed cap-and-trade system has attracted the most media attention (see Environmental Finance and Reuters). The Prime Minister's announcement describes it as a "Perform, Achieve and Trade" scheme whereby the government will assign energy efficiency improvement targets to businesses in energy-intensive sectors (the cap). Businesses that beat their targets will generate Energy Savings Certificates that can be sold to businesses that miss their targets (the trade).

The Prime Minister anticipates that the Mission will result in $15 billion of energy efficiency transactions, although it is unclear if these comprise only trades of Energy Savings Certificates or also other economic activity under the Mission.

The proposed system is squarely aimed at energy efficiency and does not provide for any direct regulation of greenhouse gas emissions. Nevertheless, it is suspected that the announcement was purposefully made in the run-up to the Copenhagen negotiations. India has steadfastly refused to agree to binding emissions reduction targets under the successor to Kyoto. The proposed energy efficiency scheme, which has the potential to reduce the country's emissions, will likely be held up at Copenhagen as evidence that India is willing to address climate change - but on its own terms.

A Changing Climate Position in China?

A couple of weeks ago, we reported that a number of US Senators had written a letter to President Obama urging (insisting?) that U.S. climate legislation include a "border adjustment mechanism". In an article for Point Carbon , we also noted that China and India, both of which are classified by the UN as developing nations, were not going to be especially pleased with what really amounts to a US tariff on imports. We also predicted that if one country was to eventually capitulate to international pressure on its climate change policy, it would be China.

Are we going to start to see signs of that?

Back on August 5, China's Climate Change Ambassador (seems like everyone has one of these positions now), Yu Qingtai, said that China is looking to halt its emissions as soon as possible, although not at the expense of pulling its tens of millions of people out of poverty. If this seems like a similar tune the Indian government has been singing, that's because it is. You'll recall that the Indian Environment Minister said basically the same thing on July 31.

However, the Chinese position may be slightly softer. According to Reuters, Yu Qingtai also said that "China was willing to thrash out emissions-cutting targets for rich nations at U.N.-led talks later this year, dropping an earlier demand for a reduction of at least 40 percent". Although China is one of the nations advocating for climate funds from developed nations, according to Yu Qingtai, "there is no one in the world who is more keen than us to see China reach its emissions peak as early as possible".

Last week, a study published by some of China's top climate policy advisors concluded that it was feasible for China to peak its emissions by 2030. Although the report does not represent official Chinese policy, it is among several reports out of China which estimate emissions reductions in China in the next 20 years. An article from the Centre for American Progress, the D.C. based think tank headed by John Podesta is optimistic that China's position on climate change is moving in the general direction of the developed world.

Julian Wong from the CAP, reports:

China may announce its next five-year plan as early as this year, and many expect that it will contain even stronger commitments and perhaps incorporate some measure of carbon reductions in the form of benchmarks for reducing carbon intensity. China's State Council, led by Premier Wen Jiabao, last week laid down the objective of incorporating climate change considerations into "the medium and long-term development strategies and plans of government at every level." Also, Sun Qin, the vice chief of the National Energy Administration said he expects the government to complete a comprehensive plan for new and low-carbon energy development by the end of the year. A low-carbon strategy will be a central thread in China's ongoing economic development strategy.

China is also hinting at increased flexibility in the negotiation process. Su Wei, director-general of the climate change office within the National Development and Reform Commission, China's main economic planning agency, has signaled a change in tone, saying, "China will not continue growing emissions without limit or insist that all nations must have the same per-capita emissions. If we did that, this earth would be ruined." China maintains its hard line that developed countries are historically responsible for climate change, but climate envoy Yu has also backed off somewhat from China's previous demands that all developed countries commit to 40 percent reductions in carbon emissions by 2020, saying that, "[a] concrete figure has to be decided by the negotiations; we will get a result in Copenhagen."

This doesn't mean that China is all of a sudden going to abandon its domestic policy and international position on emissions reductions, but it does seem to signal that China may be more flexible than other developing nations. With the world's second highest greenhouse gas emissions, it should be.

International Climate Funds Disburse Billions?

With Copenhagen just around the corner, developing governments are expressing an urgent need for greater financial contributions from industrialised nations. And how are industrialised nations going to help? One way is climate change funds. Most developing nations, (see our article on India and US protectionism) believe that the industrialised world should pay for their efforts to cope with and adapt to climate change.

It's an expensive proposition.

The world will need a "phenomenal amount of money" to change its energy supply from fossil fuels to cleaner sources and to adapt to climate change, states Yvo de Boer, head of the UN Climate Change Secretariat. Mr. de Boer estimates that beginning in 2020, the cost of reducing greenhouse gas emissions will be $200 billion a year with an additional $100 billion required for adaptation measures. (Adapation refers to people and business adapting to the effects of climate change in order to deliver a sustainable economy vs. mitigation, which is the reaction to rising emissions in order to limit future climate change - most regulatory frameworks address mitigation).

Hundreds of Billions? That's big money.

One of the topics of discussion at Copenhagen in December, will be which countries are going to contribute to climate funds to help developing countries address climate change and to what extent (ie.: how much) are they going to do that.
According to Point Carbon Data collected by the UK's Overseas Development Institute (ODI), has showed that six international multilateral and bilateral funds are responsible for approximately $3 billion in disbursements to more than 830 projects in the developing world which are aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

The largest contributor is the Global Environment Facility's (GEF) Trust Fund as it relates to Climate Change. The GEF is responsible for nearly $2.4 billion in disbursements to 591 programs. From its inception in 1994, the GEF has supported programs that minimize climate change damage by reducing the risk, or the adverse effects of climate change. On average 32 to 36 countries have contributed, and in its last replenishment in 2006, Canada contributed $131 million, making it the 6th largest contributing nation.

The German Government administered International Climate Change Initiative has disbursed $347 million to 128 international projects supporting climate change mitigation, adaptation and biodiversity projects with climate relevance. The fund intends to focus on countries with a high potential for emissions reduction in view of their significant and rising greenhouse gas emissions.

The Least Developed Countries Fund is managed by the GEF with an aim to address the special needs of the Least Developed Countries. From its inception in 2002, the Fund has aided the 48 Least Developed Countries through disbursements totalled at $47.5 million to over 60 programs. As of May 2009, 19 contributing nations have contributed to the Fund, with Canada being the 10th largest contributor.

The MDG Achievment Fund was established by the Government of Spain and the United Nations Development Programme and made operational in 2007. It has since disbursed $85.5 million to 16 programs aimed at reducing poverty and vulnerability in eligible countries by supporting improvements to environmental management and enhanced climate change adaptation. As of now, Spain and the US are the only two contributing nations to the Fund.

Mexico, Canada's partner in NAFTA, has proposed an "imaginative" climate fund, which aims to bridge the gap between developing and wealthier nations. We previously reported that the Mexican model proposes that countries pay into and are able to receive monies from a fund that may amount to $10 billion a year to help everyone, not just the developing world, adapt to the effects of global warming. Mexico, classified as a developing country by the UN, has suggested that all countries pay into the fund based on that country's economic output, population and fossil-fuel output. Not a bad idea. But still one which is probably subject to governmental budgetary restrictions.

Maybe a better way is the Alberta model. We've told you before about Alberta's climate fund initiative, the Climate Change and Emissions Management Fund (the "Alberta Fund"). The Alberta Fund is a different sort of animal from the aforementioned funds. Why? The Alberta fund, as we've mentioned before, is very unique. The funds mentioned above are funded by government. Because of a link with the compliance mechanism, the Alberta solution is an industry based and funded model. Once the money is paid into the Alberta Fund, the money is segregated and not subject to government allocation processes, unlike the international funds.

The Alberta Fund may only be used for purposes related to reducing emissions of greenhouse gases or improving Alberta's ability to adapt to climate change. Mr. de Boer says that the world is going to need a "phenomenal amount of money" to address climate change globally. The Alberta Fund will, over time, amount to a phenomenal amount - just think - in only one and a half years of compliance, contributions to the Alberta Fund are $122.4 million, with future yearly contributions anticipated to be as high as $100 million. If every jurisdiction had fund like that, imagine the dollars flowing into combating climate change!

And while the objects of the Alberta Fund are different than those international funds listed above, everyone's ultimate goal is the same. Implement effective solutions, bend the emissions curve and ultimately find an answer.

U.S. Senators Pen Letter of Warning on American Climate Bill

Ten Democratic Senators sent a letter to President Barack Obama on Thursday last week (August 6) advising that they would not support a climate bill which did not contain provisions to maintain a level playing field for American manufacturing.

Does the letter call the potential success of the U.S. climate bill into question?

The Senators represent midwestern coal producing states. According to the New York Times, without the support of these Democratic Senators, "it is unlikely that the Senate can pass a major climate change bill". As we've reported to you before, the American climate change bill narrowly passed through the U.S. House of Representatives at the end of June. The bill is now moving slowly through the Senate, which is also preoccupied with debates about health reform.

The Senators, Evan Bayh of Indiana; Sherrod Brown of Ohio; Robert C. Byrd and John D. Rockefeller IV of West Virginia; Bob Casey and Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania; Russ Feingold of Wisconsin; Al Franken of Minnesota; and Carl Levin and Debbie Stabenow of Michigan, warn:

"It is essential that any clean energy legislation not only address the crisis of climate change, but include strong provisions to ensure the strength and viability of domestic manufacturing. Further, any climate change legislation must prevent the export of jobs and related greenhouse gas emissions to countries that fail to take actions to combat the threat of global warming comparable to those taken by the United States....In addition a longer term border adjustment mechanism is a vital part of this package to prevent the relocation of carbon emissions and industries if other major emitting carbon countries fail to commit to an international agreement requiring commensurate action on climate change. "

The letter continues to focus on the "border adjustment mechanism" (read: tariff) and suggests that the mechanism could spur countries to reach a global accord in Copenhagen in December "by eliminating the competitive benefit of not acting to address this global problem". The letter concludes "[w]e would find it extremely difficult to support a final measure that does not effectively deal with these important measures. We look forward to working with you and your Administration to ensure that climate change legislation does not produce an international race to the bottom".

Does this letter spell p-r-o-t-e-c-t-i-o-n-i-s-m? Certainly sounds like it. In fact, President Obama confirmed that he was concerned about the letter, calling the tariff provision "potentially protectionist".

This is a serious situation for the President, who has pleged to lead the world to a new treaty in Copenhagen. The newly elected President shot out of the proverbial climate change gate early in his term passing energy efficency and conservation reforms and promising aggressive domestic legislation. The problem is "to get the legislation passed will require compromises aimed at protecting the economies of manufacturing and coal states".

Are countries, such as India and China, faced with a "border measurement adjustment" going to be in a negotiating mood in Copenhagen? Can't imagine they will. Will other Senators whose interests differ from those 10 who penned the letter have their own demands? Can't imagine they won't.

How does this affect Canada?

We know that the Canadian federal government is already closely monitoring the progress of the U.S. climate bill for evidence of protectionist policy. Canada has vowed that its climate change policy will align (although not mirror) that of its largest trading partner. If these Senators have their way and protectionism of the nature they are suggesting is introduced into the U.S. climate bill, Canada's response is going to have to be carefully crafted.

Stay tuned. We'll keep you posted.

Clean Energy Dialogue Roundtable Meeting Concludes

The Clean Energy Dialogue between Canada and the United States continued this week as meetings between the two nations wrapped up in Washington.

The public-private meeting, held June 29-30 at the Department of Energy Headquarters in Washington, DC, brought together industry and government leaders to expand bilateral clean energy cooperation.

US Energy Secretary Steven Chu expressed optimism following the talks, stating that "by working together to develop clean energy technologies and combat climate change, the United States and Canada can spark an economic recovery that will benefit both of our nations."

The Clean Energy Dialogue was announced in February 2009 following the first meeting between Prime Minister Stephen Harper and President Barack Obama in Ottawa. Established with the intention of expanding clean energy research and development in the United States and Canada, the Clean Energy Dialogue strives to develop and deploy clean energy technology; and build a more efficient energy grid based on clean and renewable energy in an effort to reduce greenhouse gases and combat climate change.

The meeting marks a significant advancement in implementing Canada's Climate Change Plan and Economic Action Plan, both aimed at supporting a cleaner more sustainable environment. Through promised collaboration on specific areas such as biofuels, clean engines, and energy efficiency, the Clean Energy Dialogue will help Canada meet its greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets and aid its commitment to ensure that 90 percent of electricity be provided by non-emitting sources by 2020.

Discussions at the Roundtable meeting involved the initial development of an Action Plan to be presented to Minister Prentice and Secretary Chu in mid-July. The expected deadline to present a finalized joint Action Plan on Clean Energy to Prime Minister Harper and President Obama is August 2009. Consultation with the provinces and private sector leaders will continue over the next few months to achieve such goal. If all of these milestones are met, momentum towards Copenhagen in December will be at an all time high.

We will continue to monitor the Clean Energy Dialogue and will report back to you regarding the Action Plan and provincial consultations as information becomes available.

With assitance from Corie Flett, Summer Student.

US Congress Passes Climate Change Bill

The U.S. House of Representatives passed what is being called "historic" climate change legislation on Friday. The Waxman-Markey bill passed through Congress by a vote of 219-212. Eight Republicans voted in favour of the bill; forty-four Democrats voted against it.

The Waxman-Markey bill went through countless revisions before it was passed on Friday. In its final form in Congress, the Bill contained over 1300 pages and according to the New York Times, "the bill's sponsors were making deals on the House floor right up until the time of the vote".

Proponents of the bill are hearlding its passage as "a staggering achievement" and one which will pave the way for "an international deal in Copenhagen this December - as well as a bilateral deal with China, hopefully sooner". Detractors on the other hand, called the bill "a national energy tax and predicted that those who voted for the measure would pay a heavy price at the polls next year".

At the heart of the bill is a cap and trade system which sets an overall limit on greenhouse gas emissions, but allows industry to trade emissions permits among themselves. The cap would grow tighter over the years, pushing up the price of emissions and ideally, driving industry to renewable and other clean sources of energy.

The legislation is "a patchwork of compromises" and certainly not what was originally envisaged by its sponsors. In its final form, the bill has a goal of 17% reductions in emissions relative to 2005 levels by 2020 and 83% by 2050. These numbers were loosened in order to woo fence-sitting Representatives in the weeks and days before the vote. In comparison, Canada has set a goal of 20 by 2020 relative to 2006 levels and 60 - 70 by 2050. If the US targets remain the same and the bill becomes law, Canada's targets may eventually align with the US levels.

Interestingly, but perhaps not surprisingly, it appears that the Democrats who voted against the bill were motivated by policy and economics and not by ideology. These representatives are primarily from areas dependent on coal for electricity and heavy industry for jobs and economy. You can see an interative map of the Congressional vote here. In contrast, the Republican supporters of the bill came from California, Delaware, New Jersey and New York.

It looks like the closeness of the vote, with 44 people from the majority Democrats voting AGAINST the bill, means the hard work is really yet to come for the President and the bill's sponsors. It is not certain what the legislation may look like in its final form - if we had a crystal ball, we'd love to be able to tell you. However, what is clear is that the discussion is not over. The bill goes to the Senate next before it lands in its final form on the President's desk.

Watch for our bulletin on the Waxman-Markey bill and our analysis of what the bill may mean for us in Canada in the next day or so.

Dandelions are Springing Up Everywhere

We blogged the other day that Canada is pushing back its target start date for the regulation of emissions at the federal level to align more closely with the American schedule. In a discussion with media from London on May 28, Minister Prentice indicated that the GHG reduction targets would be in effect as late as 2012 in order to ensure they were aligned with the system south of the border. The Turning the Corner Plan called for targets to be developed in 2008 and come into force in 2010.

In a speech to the CD Howe Institute on June 4, the Minister remarked "[w]e will outline the full suite of policies that relate to all major sources of emissions this year, in 2009. I have said this, this will happen time and time again and it will happen by the time we reach the international table at Copenhagen. The process then of drafting the detailed regulations under CEPA will consume much of 2010, the following year. In some cases - the tailpipe emission standards being the obvious illustration - we have already started that process, but 2010 will be the year in which the regulations are drawn together. The regulations will be drafted with a view to an application date of January 1, 2011 and they will be brought into force thereafter on a sector by sector basis. We will make individual decisions on a sector by sector basis in terms of the application date for those".

The critics used to complain that Canada was moving forward without a plan and now they critics bitterly declare that Canada is lagging behind. Isn't that ironic given a year ago we were busily lambasting the U.S. for their lack of climate change initiatives. Canada lagging behind? I don't think so - we're moving forward, just not cohesively.

What is the consequence of Canada pulling back at the federal level (and what, exactly, is the meaning of the blog title), you ask? While the federal government waits for its biggest trading partner to define its domestic targets, regulatory frameworks addressing climate change are springing up all over the place like dandelions on a prairie field.

Alberta's emissions reduction targets were introduced in 2007. BC brought in a carbon tax last year. Ontario passed the Green Energy Act this year and has recently introduced a cap and trade bill (although the implementation date has been pushed back to 2012). So has Quebec. Saskatchewan introduced comprehensive climate change legislation in May. We're expecting that the Maritime provinces and Manitoba, which have established action plans already, will follow suit with regulatory frameworks soon.

All of these provincial frameworks have an opportunity to emerge because the federal framework is being delayed. But are the provinces going to bump into one another? What if you're a corporation operating in B.C., Quebec, Alberta and Ontario - what do you do? Are the provinces on a collision course with the federal government? Where's it all going?

We have some thoughts about that. Stay tuned the next couple of days and we'll explore it.

Minister Prentice Concludes International Climate Change Trip

Environment Minister, Jim Prentice, concluded a series of important international climate change discussions today in London. The Minister participated in the World Business Summit on Climate Change in Copenhagen, the Major Economies Forum in Paris, and a carbon capture and storage conference in Bergen. The Minister ended his trip in London, where he had extensive discussions his UK counterpart, the Rt Hon David Miliband.

All roads continue to lead to Copenhagen, as we've been saying for a number of months (see here, here and in particular here. In a May 24 speech at the World Business Summit, to which he was invited by the Danish Minister, Minister Prentice remarked:

"I think the fundamental question for business leaders here today is how do we build confidence and momentum towards Copenhagen, and in particular for the business leaders and the companies [those business leaders] represent, what responsibility do you have and what role do you play in that process".

The Minister also indicated to that he is optimistic about the prospect of achieving international agreement on climate change strategy in Copenhagen and cautioned leaders about "green protectionism".

The Minister confirmed to media this morning that Canada's climate change policy would be unveiled in advance of Copenhagen and reiterated Canada's commitment to 20% by 2020 relative to 2006 levels. He advised that the specific domestic approach would be tabled first in Canada and then at the international level.

One of the most important points to come out of the discussion this morning, is the continental approach to climate change, which Minister Prentice has previously indicated is so vital.

Canada's trading relationship with the United States is the biggest trading relationship in the world. Clearly any federal climate change strategy must work in concert with the U.S. approach to climate change. Any policies which Canada develops to address climate change must also reflect Canada's national interest. We have blogged many times about meaningfulness of co-operation on both a North American and global basis. In his remarks to the media today, Minister Prentice further reiterated these important points.

However, the Minister also stressed that while Canada's climate policy must be concordant with that of its neighbour to the south, it does not mean that the policies will be exactly the same all the time. Minister Prentice gave fuel economy standards as an example of where it is in Canada's best interest to mirror that of the United States - the auto industry is truly cross border and having identical fuel standards makes sense. But there are other areas, electricity generation, for example he said, where they are not the same. The Minister asserted that while Canada's policies would work on an equivalent basis with those of the U.S., they need not be identical. For the time being, the United States has not yet arrived at a domestic policy or target. As a result, it is difficult for "Canada to define continental solutions".

What Canada's policy will ultimately be is important. But what is truly and fundamentally important is making progress - how will we find real solutions for climate change? The answer: Technology. Transformative change will only be able to occur through investments in technology. In his Copenhagen speech, Minister Prentice emphasized this point:

"[T]he challenge before us is all about technology. That just cannot be overemphasized, because we're talking fundamentally about a transformation of the capital stock, the technological investments in our society. This will take time. It will take massive investments...".

"Massive" investments in technology and transformative change have already started. Canada, and Alberta in particular, has already demonstrated it is serious. The Canadian government has pledged $1 billion to carbon capture and storage technologies. The Alberta government another $2 billion.

Perhaps the most unique sources of funding is the Climate Change and Emissions Management Fund.. The $122.4 million from 2007 and 2008 compliance years will be specifically allocated for purposes related to the reduction of emissions or improving the ability to adapt to climate change. With all these investments in transformative technology, we are leading the way.

Canada Continues to Co-operate on Climate Change

We have blogged many times about Canada's commitment to address climate change both continentally and internationally. Today we explore how the co-operation continues.

May 24, 2009 represented the official commencement of the international energy efficiency framework. Energy leaders from around the world met in Rome for the G-8 Energy Ministers Meeting to launch the International Partnership for Energy Efficiency Cooperation (IPEEC), a high-level forum for facilitating improvements in global energy efficiency and encouraging market implementation of key energy efficiency technologies. The signatories included the entire Group of 8 (G8), which consists of Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom, and the United States, as well as key emerging economies, including Brazil, China, India, Mexico, and the Republic of Korea.

Discussions about IPEEC began in June 2008, when the G8 countries, China, India, South Korea and the European Community decided to establish the International Partnership for Energy Efficiency Cooperation, at the Energy Ministerial meeting hosted by Japan. The signing of the IPEEC terms of reference on May 24, 2009 put the discussions into action.

The purpose of the partnership is to facilitate those actions that yield high energy efficiency gains in recognition that improving energy saving and energy efficiency is one of the quickest, greenest, and most cost-effective ways to address energy security and climate change and ensure economic growth.

IPEEC will provide a forum for discussion, among developing, transitional and industrial nations to engage in consultation and exchange of information on a voluntary basis. It will not develop or adopt standards or efficiency goals for the partners.

It was decided at the May 24, 2009 meeting that the first order of business for IPEEC would be to establish a Sustainable Buildings Network, a compilation and summary of national energy efficiency action plans, an inventory and review of international energy efficiency initiatives and improved methods for measuring and verifying progress towards domestic energy efficiency goals.

The launch of IPEEC comes in response to conclusions at G8 Environment Minister's Meeting that countries begin processes with the ultimate goal of a global platform on low CO2 impact technology.

Canada's participation at the IPEEC meetings is further evidence of its commitment to co-operation on a global level to address climate change. Copenhagen is 6 months away - wonder what impact this co-operation will have by then? We'll keep you posted.

Jennifer Cleall and Corie Flett, Summer Student

G8 Environment Ministers Meeting in Italy - the Agenda

The 2009 G8 Summit will be held on the island of La Maddalena, Italy from July 8 to 10. In the months leading up to the Summit, the host country has organized a series of ministerial meetings, including the G8 Environment Minister's meeting, which is being hosted by the City of Siracusa on the Sicilian coast, from April 22 - 24.

Climate change and the preservation of biodiversity are the two main issues on the agenda in Syracuse. The goal of the Environment Minister's meeting is to "send out an important political message on biodiversity and to facilitate dialogue on the issue of climate change ahead of the Copenhagen conference in December of this year, where the debate is going to focus on the world's "post-Kyoto" setup".

The agenda for the meeting indicates that discussions with respect to new technologies to foster economic recovery and promote clean energy will be paramount. According to the official website, "the discussion is going to focus on how to promote clean energy technology in order to address the dual challenge of climate change and energy security".

In addition to the Ministers from the G8 countries, representatives of Czech Republic, in its capacity as EU duty president, China, India, Brazil, Mexico, Indonesia, South Africa, Australia, the Republic of Korea, Egypt and Denmark have also been invited to attend. Denmark is hosting the 2009 Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen in December.

The meeting will facilitate discussions between Canada, the United States, which has pledged a commitment to international co-operation on climate change, and non-G8 counties, such as India, China and Mexico, all of whom our Environment Minister, Jim Prentice, has indicated must be actively engaged on climate change issues and challenges.

The first round of meetings begins tomorrow. We will be closely monitoring the results of these discussions and will keep you posted.

Alberta Budgets for Climate Change

The Alberta Government announced its 2009 Budget yesterday. Reading through the many pages of the document, it is clear that climate change is a priority for both the Department of Energy and for Alberta Environment. It is no surprise that climate change initiatives are addressed in more than one Ministry - climate change isn't the responsibility of just one area of government - it touches matters for which many are accountable.

Energy

Of the eleven goals outlined in the Energy Business Plan, six of them are related directly to climate change initiatives in the areas of renewable and alternative sources of energy, conservation of energy and carbon capture and storage. In some cases, strategies for meeting these goals are a combination of the above initiatives.

Renewable and Alternative Sources of Energy

A strategy for meeting Goal 4, to encourage value added development in Alberta, includes facilitating the development and utilization of alternative energy resources such as biofuels and waste to energy opportunities.

Goal 5, to make Albertan's aware of and understand existing and emerging trends relating to energy development and use in Alberta relates to renewable and alternative sources of energy, contains strategies to proactively identify, communicate and address emerging issues that face energy and mineral development in Alberta and to enhance provincial, national and international understanding of Alberta's energy resources and work being done to develop these in an environmentally sustainable manner.

Goal 8 is to ensure effective innovation policies and programs to achieve technology and processing improvements in the development of energy and mineral resources. Realizing Alberta's energy vision will include the development of new technologies or the enhanced deployment of already proven technologies, including renewable energy sources. One of the strategies under this goal is to work with other ministries (Environment?), research organizations and industry to develop an integrated, coordinated approach to research that supports environmentally sustainable energy development.

Carbon Capture and Storage

The Department of Energy identifies Carbon Capture and Storage as a significant opportunity for Alberta in two ways:

Value Added - Alberta has a unique opportunity to develop leading industrial and petrochemical upgrading and refining clusters based on transforming raw feedstocks into synthetic gas and gas liquids for petrochemical development. At the same time we can capture and store carbon emissions and produce electricity for the provincial grid.

CCS - CCS in its ultimate role, is an enabler of clean gasification processes and is a key technology component to realizing the commercial viability of clean fossil fuels. The Western Canada Sedimentary Basin is also one of the world's most attractive sites for storing carbon emissions. Ultimately, Alberta's expertise in the science of solutions will be valued and an exportable resource unto itself.

A number of the goals outlined in the Energy Business Plan specifically relate to CCS.

Goal 3 is to ensure energy and mineral resource development occurs in a responsible, environmentally sustainable manner and achieves the Government of Alberta's outcomes. To do so, the Department of Energy will work with other ministries and stakeholders to implement the provincial action plan on climate change and the recommendations from the Carbon Capture and Storage Development Council, in particular the implementation of carbon capture and storage research and demonstration projects.

Goal 7, that Energy infrastructure is built and sustained to support the Government of Alberta's objectives, includes the need to build infrastructure to support CCS.

Goal 8, ensuring effective innovation policies and programs to achieve technology and processing improvements in the development of energy and mineral resources, specifically mentions the need to develop technologies to realize large scale capture and use of carbon.

Conserving Energy

Goal 6 in Energy's Business Plan is to ensure that industry, citizens, and communities conserve and use energy wisely. Do to so, Energy intends to promote smart metering, smart grids and better consumption measurement; facilitate the reduction of energy intensity through gains in energy effi ciency and demonstrated government leadership; and support the development of an energy effi ciency policy framework and provincial legislation.

Expenditures

The Department of Energy intends to spend wisely in the areas of renewables, conservation and carbon capture and storage. $100 million for CCS alone has been budgeted for 2009/2010. Next year's forcast is triple that number.

Environment

One of the opening statements in Alberta Environment's Business Plan confirms its commitment to addressing climate change:

Leadership is provided to transition Alberta to an outcomes focused environmental cumulative effects management system, implement the provincial Climate Change Strategy, implement the renewed Water for Life strategy, develop all Alberta's energy resources, including the oil sands, in an environmentally sustainable way, and to provide Albertans, stakeholders and industry with information on government's role in ensuring environmental excellence and sustainable development while providing tools to reduce their environmental footprint.

Climate change is specifically identified as a significant opportunity and challenge for Alberta. The Alberta Environment Business Plan summarizes this opportunity and challenge as follows:

Climate change has been described as "the most complex collective action problem in human history". In the United States, President Obama sees climate change as putting "the planet in peril". Global action on this issue continues to build not only from an environmental perspective but in the areas of economics and politics. Albertans and the Ministry are in a unique position of providing global leadership on this issue. The Alberta government's recent announcement of resources towards climate change initiatives including carbon capture and storage is the single largest global expenditure to date. The challenges of managing our global energy resources in an environmentally responsible and economically sound and efficient manner, is creating opportunities for this province to reduce carbon while supporting global energy security.

The budget shows that there is $132 million in the Climate Change and Emissions Management Fund and is projecting another $95 million will be collected next year. March 31 was the date for compliance under the Specified Gas Emitters Regulation and final figures indicating contributions to the Fund should be available from Alberta Environment shortly.

Goal 1, that the cumulative effects of development on land, air, water and climate be managed to achieve Government of Alberta desired environmental outcomes, is the main goal in Alberta Environment's Business Plan which focuses on climate change.

This goal will be addressed using a variety of strategies, including:

• assist in ensuring Alberta's energy resources are developed in an environmentally sustainable way by supporting the Ministry of Energy in the implementation of carbon capture and storage research and demonstration projects
• Continue to implement the Climate Change Strategy through policy, program and infrastructure initiatives and assure appropriate governance of the Climate Change and Emissions Management Fund. This strategy will include programs that promote wise energy use across the province, emissions management, vulnerability assessment and climate change adaptation strategies to reduce Alberta's exposure to climate change risks, development of legislation to drive energy effi ciency and conservation, and support for energy innovation and carbon management initiatives designed to lower greenhouse gas emissions over the long term.
• Complete work with the Clean Air Strategic Alliance (CASA) to update Alberta's Clean Air Strategy and begin implementation of the strategy by applying the revised management framework and renewing the major elements of the provincial air system.

Lessons Learned

This Budget confirms a number of things we have been blogging about:

1. Alberta is a global leader in climate change initatives such as CCS - our government's $2 billion commitment to CCS is the world's largest

2. Cooperation is required - to address climate change domestically, government departments will work together. Both Environment and Energy Business Plans indicate that they will be working with other ministries to address climate change initiatives

3. Addressing climate change is a challenge, but it is also an opportunity for governments

Given the commitments outlined in this budget, Alberta will have much to be proud of at the Copenhagen Climate Conference in December.

An International Climate Forum

Multi-national cooperation with respect to climate change and clean energy is an idea that was recently embraced by Canada and the United States when both countries began the Clean Energy Dialogue.

The idea of an international collaborative approach to climate change is one that is supported not only by the President, the Prime Minister and Canada's Environment Minister, but as the writer blogged last week, the U.S. Energy Secretary, Steven Chu, as well.

President Obama has taken the idea of international cooperation one step further.

On March 28, the President announced the Major Economies Forum on Energy and Climate, with the group's first meeting set in Washington in April, followed by a summit in Italy in July. The leaders of 16 nations, as well as the Secretary-General of the UN have been invited to attend.

The White House commented that the purpose of the forum was to "help generate the political leadership necessary to achieve a successful outcome" at climate change negotiations in Copenhagen in December as well as establish "concrete initiatives and joint ventures that increase the supply of clean energy while cutting greenhouse gas emissions."

Participating nations include: Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, Denmark, the European Union, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Korea, Mexico, Russia, South Africa, the United Kingdom, and the United States.

Canada's participation in the Clean Energy Dialogue and its inclusion in the Forum positions Canada as a leader in the area of international cooperation on climate change. We will be watching for further news of the Forum and for Canadian leaders' comments this week.

Canadian Climate Change Themes

The Clean Energy Dialogue between Canada and the United States was sparked in February after the Prime Minister met with President Obama. The President's Climate Change advisor, Carole Browner, met with the Minister of Environment to discuss Canada's approach to climate change during those meetings. A couple of weeks later, Canadian Ministers, including the Minister of Environment, traveled to Washington to meet with their American Counterparts. Since then, Jim Prentice has been busy speaking about Canada's response to climate change. A number of themes are emerging from the Minister's remarks:

1. Environment Policies are Instruments of Economic Renewal and Security : The Minister confirmed in a speech to the Institute of Corporate Directors on March 6, that Canada's environmental approach is to "make our national environmental policies positive instruments of economic renew and of national development". Environment policy and energy policy are inexorably linked. Canada has a history of environmental stewardship and has a responsibility to maintain that what at the same time creating wealth and building industry. Maintaining environmental integrity while enhancing our North American energy security is going to be a priority for the Federal government. We will start to see more overlap between Energy policy and Environmental policy.

2. Canada/U.S. Co-operation on Climate Change: This is no surprise. Since the President's visit in February, both the Prime Minister and the Environment Minister have said that Canada and the U.S. need to work together closely to address climate change. Minister Prentice has confirmed that Canada and the U.S. must work closely to build a new carbon economy and to ensure that "our policy and regulatory frameworks are coherent and supportive" and has called the relationship with the United States crucial in the context of the transformation to clean energy. There are a number of subthemes:

(a) Cap and trade: In a speech on February 27, Minister Prentice confirmed that Canada has committed to pursue a North-America-wide cap and trade system and that we will "work closely with the new U.S. administration to build the North American low-carbon economy". He is optimistic that Canada and the United States will arrive at a workable solution that defines "common or similar carbon reduction targets, that creates similar mechanisms to allocation emissions and...provides for the trading of credits on a North American basis".

(b) Fuel efficiency: Minister Prentice told the CBC on March 1 that Canada is prepared to go in the same direction as the United States and that he supports one fuel efficiency standard for the two countries.

(c) New technologies: The Minister remarked that Canada and the United States have a strong and shared interest in promoting the development and deployment of clean energy technologies. The Clean Energy Dialogue will include discussions about Carbon Capture and Storage, an interconnected electricity grid, nuclear energy, wind, solar, hydro and other "more remote renewable sources of energy". Canada's action plan has Canada "on course to reduce domestic greenhouse gas emissions by 20% by 2020 and by 60 to 70% by 2050". In order to achieve these goals, Canada must invest in new technologies.

3. Canada Must be a Leader : Canada is one of the top ten energy consumers in the world. Our challenge is to "stand among the world's elite as a clean energy superpower" and to demonstrate that Canada is a user of clean energy. The Minister told his March 6 audience that the government is "committed to ensure that Canada is actively and constructively engaged in the [Clean Energy Dialogue]" and that it "intends to be a leader and a responsible partner in defining the way forward".

4. International Agreement : both the United States and Canada seem to be setting their sights on Copenhagen in December and both countries believe that in order for climate change policies to be effective domestically, international co-operation is required. Canada's climate change policy is "based on a clear desire to include all of the major emitters in the world". Major emitters would include China and India and other developing nations.

5. Climate Change is Everyone's Responsibility : Although the impetus for climate change has to come from government with active participation and engagement of industry, the responsibility extends to all citizens "from all walks of life". Canada's climate change strategy will involve "how we consume and conserve energy in our homes and in our offices". In his February 27 speech, Minister Prentice remarked:

Thirty years ago, drunk driving was tolerable. It's not anymore. Twenty years ago, it was acceptable to drive without a seatbelt. It's not anymore. Up until a few years ago, Canadians could smoke anywhere in public. They can't anymore. Attitudes shifted. Behaviours changed. The same needs to happen with the environment.

Watch for these themes to start emerging in other departments of the federal government. Climate change is one of the most important issues facing governments today. We'll keep you posted on new developments in Canada. Stay tuned.

Canada's Commitment to Climate Change

On January 20, 2009 the Honourable Jim Prentice, Minister of the Environment for Canada, gave a speech in Toronto to the Canadian Council of Chief Executives. The speech focussed on Canada's climate change objectives and policy in 2009 and beyond. The Minister confirmed what many climate change insiders already suspected - that Canada would be evolving from an intensity based performance standard to a cap and trade regulatory regime.

The speech was timely. As Minister Prentice stood before his audience, President Obama's inauguration was taking place in Washington. Cap and Trade, the favoured method for regulating emissions by the new American President, places hard caps on emitters to keep their emissions below specified levels. Minister Prentice clearly recognizes that under the Obama administration, the US is "re-engaging on multilateral climate change negotiations, creating the opportunity for…a North American regulatory regime and a level playing field that will alleviate past concerns about Canadian competiveness”.

How will the Canadian government proceed? Minister Prentice outlined 3 ideas which are at the forefront of the Government's strategy to deal with climate change: (1) endeavour to "do no harm” and avoid measures which would cause Canadian firms to be "not just down by also out”; (2) seek to ensure that federal policies are co-ordinated - climate change regulation would work in tandem with, for example tax policy, tariff policy and technology policy; (3) seek coordination and harmonization between federal and provincial governments and policies.

Minister Prentice also stressed that it is developed nations, like Canada and the United States working together with other developed nations, who will lead the world to cut emissions, with developing nations following suit. Without securing meaningful participation from the Big Five of China, India, Brazil, South Africa and Mexico, efforts of the developed world will be "well-intentioned folly” in the realm of climate change.

To achieve leadership in this area and central to Minister Prentice's speech was his desire to see one shared target between Canada and the United States akin to the collective commitment of the European Union. When President Obama makes his first official state visit to Canada in the upcoming weeks, Minister Prentice hopes that "one of the many points of agreement for action will be commencing a co-operative, bilateral approach to the environment and to energy in ways that spur economic recovery and renewal”.

All roads will lead to the Copenhagen Climate Conference in December, 2009. It's an exciting time. With its natural resources and new technology initiatives in the realm of carbon capture and storage, energy conservation and efficiency and greening energy production, and with Minister Prentice's bright and forward thinking leadership, Canada is poised to be a force to be reckoned with on the world stage.

The full text of the speech is available here: Environment Canada - Media Room

50% reduction by 2050 Climate Change Goal - 'Emerging Nations' Not on Board

At a working session in Toyako, Japan on July 8, 2008, the G-8 leaders met with the leaders from 8 fast-growing, pollution-emitting nations to talk on the topic of global warming. Even though the "Statement on Climate Change" released July 8, and the “Declaration of Leaders Meeting of Major Economies on Energy Security and Climate Change”, released July 9, are full of ambitious and ‘cooperation is key” language, no consensus was reached on the G-8’s climate change goal of reducing emissions 50% by 2050.

China, India, Brazil, Mexico and South Africa, representing 42% of the world’s population, rejected the notion that all should share in the 50% reduction in GHG emissions by 2050 target, on the basis that it is the wealthier countries that have created most of the environmental problem up until now. In a statement, these ‘emerging nations’ commented, "it is essential that developed countries take the lead in achieving ambitious and absolute greenhouse gas emissions reductions.” President Hu Jintao of China is quoted as adding that “developed countries should make explicit commitments to continue to take the lead in emissions reduction.”

This stance on climate change is problematic, in that some developed countries, including Canada, have been taking the opposite approach, saying that major action cannot be taken without these emerging nations on board. This ultimately creates a cycle of “we won’t act unless you are on board, yet you won’t get on board unless we act”. Meanwhile, critics of this cycle point out that this inaction is likely to lead to increased warming of the planet, increased costs in climate change mitigation, and an increase in environmental consequences.

Hopefully the spirit of cooperation will prevail, and, as the Declaration suggests, "launch a comprehensive process to enable the full, effective, and sustained implementation of the Convention through long-term cooperative action, now, up to, and beyond 2012, in order to reach an agreed outcome in December 2009 (Copenhagen Climate Change Conference)."