Lawyers in Canada: Davis LLP - Legal Advisors Since 1892

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.

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.

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.

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.

The Harmonization of Climate Change

Since you've been waiting with bated breath to find out what we had to say next about the federal and provincial climate change policies, we didn't want to keep you in suspense. We blogged on Monday that the provinces are throwing together climate change legislation faster than you can say "greenhouse gases".

In related news, yesterday the Globe and Mail reported that the Alberta Conservatives are taking their federal counterparts to task over energy and environment, treatment of the oil sands and other federal government policies. The controversy arises after speaking notes prepared for Conservative MLAs to raise with federal MPs in their home ridings found their way into media hands.

A significant bone of contention for Alberta's governing party appears to be with respect to the federal government's climate change policies as they relate to coal-fired electricity. In a meeting with media on April 29, Minister Prentice was asked about what types of regulations Canada would be rolling out with respect to climate change, and specifically what its policy around thermal-coal would be. The Minister replied that any new coal-fired plants will have to be neutral in terms of emissions, (which means they must have the ability to inject the carbon dioxide at the source underground). He also indicated that once coal-fired electricity plants that have come to the end of their useful lives, and have been fully depreciated, they will be decommissioned and replaced with more environmentally friendly options.

Unfortunately, the announcement appears to have been the first time the information was relayed to Alberta. Why is this so significant for Alberta in particular? Alberta relies on coal for electricity. Virtually all of the country's 27 coal plants are here. We do not have hydro in Alberta and we rely only minimally on renewables, so thermal coal is rather important for keeping the lights on. A policy such as the one outlined by the Minister means that Alberta may "shoulder the biggest burden in complying with these regulations - and depending on how they are formulated, they could have a significant impact on the health of the provincial economy". Premier Stelmach may agree. He was quoted in the Globe article as saying "You cannot ask Albertans to carry the burden of equalization, and then also penalize them for producing the wealth that allows us to make such a massive contribution to the programs that Canadians enjoy".

While the Globe story points to the issue as being one of a frayed relationship between Alberta and Ottawa, really the problem is one of harmony of regulation, not relationship.

As Canadians, we are seeking solutions to climate change at the provincial level - this is good. But it's also challenging. Each province's emissions profile is different from the next and given its industry, Alberta's situation is particularly hard to address. Intraprovincial carbon trading, for example, is a desirable mechanism, but regulations in BC are so vastly different from those in Alberta or Ontario that they will be difficult to align. You could be trading apples for oranges. The longer the provinces have to grow and develop their own programs, the harder it's going to be to allow the various systems to operate in concert.

What will drive harmonization? Probably not climate change, but rather industry (national corporations are the same whether they are operating in PEI or Saskatchewan after all) and intra-provincial trade. Degrees of harmony have to be created.

We're just beginning to explore this topic here on the blog. Stay tuned to see our thoughts on how harmony will be achieved and how the constitutional issue will be addressed.

Carbon markets boom

Posted by Andrew Lord

The voluntary market for carbon credits more than tripled in 2007 to USD $331 million, while the much larger regulated market more than doubled to USD $64 billion. Those are the conclusions of two significant carbon reports released last week.

Ecosystem Marketplace and New Carbon Finance released State of the Voluntary Carbon Markets 2008 last week. The report notes that the volume of credits traded increased from 25 million tonnes CO2 equivalent (tCO2e) in 2006 to 65 million tCO2e in 2007. The average price of a tonne of CO2 jumped by $2 to $6.10. However the price remained very volatile in 2007, ranging from $1.62 per tCO2e to about $300 per tCO2e. That volatility is a reflection of the perceived problems with the quality of some credits, a perception that the market tried to address by introducing a number of voluntary credit standards during the year.

Also released last week was the World Bank's State and Trends of the Carbon Market 2008. This report focuses on the regulated carbon market, particularly the allowance market under the EU Emissions Trading Scheme and the project market under the Kyoto flexibility mechansms (Clean Development Mechanism and Joint Implementation). The value EU ETS trades, which comprised 78% of the overall regulated market, more than doubled to $50.4 billion, with the average price creeping up from just over $22 per tCO2e in 2006 to around $24.30 in 2007. In the project market, the big story in 2007 was the emergence of a strong secondary market for CERs. The value of trades in the secondary market increased by a factor of over 10 to $7.4 billion. The secondary market was largely occupied by aggregators who purchased a portfolio of CERs and sold guaranteed CERs backed by the portfolio and, in some case, credit-enhanced through the aggregators' banks. At about 28%, growth in the value of trades in the primary CDM market was strong, but not as vibrant as that in the secondary market.