8 responses to “My latest Economy Lab Post: Emissions: Peter Kent’s 178 millon-ton challenge”

  1. Michel Murray

    Your piece concisely encapsulated the problem: the proposed targets are from another, imaginary planet, and have no relation to the reality of life on this one, in this country, now or in the foreseeable future. Nor should we have a cow about this. We shall continue to heat our homes, drive our vehicles, and power our places of work in the most energy efficient manner reasonably accessible, upgrading where and when we can do so in a practical way. As for subscribing to some sort of self-serving, smoke and mirrors EU or UN plan — that’s about as extra-planetary as the current proposals, which you have just so properly exposed.

  2. Rundle

    Evidently this board is becoming nothing more than a rant page for Albertan gripes about the EU and the UN. I would have hoped it was about policy and economics, instead.

    C’mon — Give the Europeans some credit — they’ve spent the money — they’ve capped emissions, they’ve promoted fuel switch to nat gas, they’ve assisted developing countries through a healthy use of carbon offsets under the Clean Development Mechanism, and they’ve invested heavily in renewable energy to help scale those technologies and drive their costs down.

    Given Canada (and Alberta’s) record on climate, you are not on solid ground to be bashing the Europeans. Period.

  3. Rundle

    Andrew is a dissapointing man. If a comment doesn’t support Albertan climate theology, he won’t publish it on his board. This is a scam. The Globe should stop publishing his biased musings.

  4. Deep Climate

    Your piece seems to imply that the coal-fired electricty and transportation regulations would be included in meeting the 178 Mt gap, not in the 65 Mt projected reduction (relative to BAU) to be achieved from actions “already taken”.

    If so, this is a significant error. The 65 Mt includes all measures already *announced* including the above mentioned. See p. 3-4 of the May 2011 Kyoto report.

    “Under Canada’s plan to address climate change, actions have *already been taken* regarding two of the largest sources of GHG emissions: the electricity and transportation sectors. Together, these sectors accounted for 39% of national emissions in 2005 and addressing them will yield important results and move Canada closer to meeting its 2020 target. Overall, the actions that have been *taken or announced* by the federal and provincial governments are projected to reduce emissions by about 65 Mt by 2020, bringing Canada one quarter of the way to meeting its 2020 target level of 607 Mt.”

    http://www.climatechange.gc.ca/Content/4/0/4/4044AEA7-3ED0-4897-A73E-D11C62D954FD/COM1410_KPIA%202011_e%20-%20May%2031%20v2.pdf

    You also state that oil sands GHG emissions were about 30MT in 2008 and will rise only 20-25MT further (i.e. to 50-55MT) by 2020 under BAU. This is almost certainly wrong, as oil sands emissions were at 45MT in 2009, and are rising at about 4-5 Mt per year, reaching a projected level of 92 Mt in 2020.

    See table 5 at p. 25 of July 2010 emissions trend report:

    http://www.ec.gc.ca/Publications/E197D5E7-1AE3-4A06-B4FC-CB74EAAAA60F/CanadasEmissionsTrends.pdf

    Also see my “Canada after Kyoto” piece for a more cogent analysis of Canada’s certain failure to meet its stated 2020 and 2050 targets, if we stay on our current path.

    http://deepclimate.org/2012/01/06/canada-after-kyoto/

Leave a Reply