News   May 03, 2024
 973     1 
News   May 03, 2024
 596     0 
News   May 03, 2024
 287     0 

Ottawa warming to Alberta views on climate change,

A

Are Be

Guest
Ottawa warming to Alberta views on climate change, says provincial minister
DARCY HENTON



EDMONTON (CP) - Ottawa is beginning to warm to Alberta's position on global warming and the Kyoto accord, says the province's environment minister.

Lorne Taylor said Monday that he sensed a change after receiving a letter from federal officials Friday promising co-operation with the province in setting standards for emission reporting.

He said the letter gives him optimism that the two governments can work together to draft a plan that will be effective in reducing greenhouse gas emissions in Canada.

"If they are prepared to work on this issue - on governance and what governance should look like . . . then that's a positive sign we can work with them on other issues as well," Taylor said. "I think it's a very positive step."

Federal Environment Minister David Anderson could not be reached for comment.

Taylor said he favours a multilateral approach, even if Russia elects not to ratify the accord.

Russia could still ratify am amended accord, the country's ambassador, Georgiy Mamedov, said after meeting Alberta Premier Ralph Klein on Monday.

"If we can come up with a program that will guarantee our economic growth simultaneously with protecting the environment and fighting global warming with other countries, I think we will do it," said Mamedov, who said he personally supports Kyoto.

Taylor, who released a thin brochure documenting Alberta's actions to date on addressing climate change, boasted that his government is leading the way on reducing greenhouse gas emissions linked to global warming.

Alberta has North America's largest "green power" contract, with the province committed to using 90 per cent power generated from renewable energy sources, such as wind and solar, in its facilities, he said.

The province has also made $100 million available in interest-free loans to municipalities to assist them with energy efficiency initiatives and has committed $30 million for energy efficiency technology.

Taylor repeatedly accused Ottawa of not having a plan for greenhouse gas emissions and said that's why he expects Alberta's ideas to be incorporated into the federal strategy.

But the Pembina Institute for Appropriate Development, an environmental oilpatch think tank, noted that anyone can read the federal government's greenhouse gas plan on the Internet.

Matthew Bramley said the difference between the federal plan and Alberta's plan is that the federal one reduces emissions while the Alberta plan would actually allow emissions to increase 39 per cent above 1990 levels by 2010.

"I think that's simply not acceptable for a jurisdiction that already has some of the highest per capita emissions in the world," Bramley said.

He agreed there are signs that Ottawa has softened its position on emissions as a result of Alberta's complaints.

Environmental activist Martha Kostuch said Taylor is right when he says Alberta is a leader in addressing greenhouse gas emissions, but the province is also the leading emitter.

The rapidly expanding oilsands are responsible for most of those emissions, but Alberta has no plan to regulate them, she said. At the same time the province is subsidizing the oilsands to the tune of billions of dollars, it won't even match federal funds for an oversubscribed home furnace rebate program, said the veterinarian from Rocky Mountain House, Alta.

Oilsands companies pay royalties of only one per cent - rather than the 30 per cent standard royalty - until they pay off their plants and turn a profit, she explained.

"We're giving them the resources until the whole project is paid off," she said.

The federal government is looking at four options to meet Canada's target under the Kyoto accord, which is to reduce domestic greenhouse gas emissions to six per cent below 1990 levels by 2012.

Alberta wants a longer timeline, especially for its energy industry, to develop improved pollution-control technology and increase conservation. But under its proposal, as long as more energy is produced, there would be no guarantee of overall net emissions reductions.

© The Canadian Press, 2004
 
This is a mistake...

I always thought the best plan to implement emission controls would be for the Federal government to sell 'emission credits' which grant the right to burn fossil fuels. It would hardly be difficult to implement, either. Build it in to the cost of natural gas, gasoline, diesel and coal by making fuel retailers buy credits on a commodity market proportionate to the amount of fossil fuel they sell. Also, oil companies who burn off excess gas and the like would also have to buy credits. Energy products for export would be exempt, so it would hardly kill the oilpatch, for that matter (ie, they could sell their product on the world market for the going rate).

The federal government could issue new supply as market prices and our plan for emissions reductions dictate (ie, don't cut supply if the price is already higher than a certain target). This would provide the federal government with billions in new revenues that could be used to cut other taxes which inhibit the productive capacity of our economy (taxes on capital improvements or capital gains) or to fund new spending initiatives. I would encourage the former, myself, while diverting a smallish portion to infrastructure and the like.
 

Back
Top