Today’s Globe and Mail featured a column by Gary Mason on a world without oil. “If you believe that the economy is structured in such a way that it needs to grow continually in order to survive,” it states, “then it will take an endless supply of energy to feed it. ” The article then raises the question, “How does an economy grow exponentially forever if the one element it needs more than anything to flourish is contracting with time?” This is a common refrain from environmentalists such as David Suzuki (here, here, here and likely a thousand other places): “it’s absurd to rely on economies based on constant growth on a finite planet.” But, is it? I’ll have more on this at Macleans in a couple of days, but this will serve as a technical primer.
climate change
Carbon pricing is not a panacea
Pretty well every economist you talk to will agree; if you want to reduce pollution, carbon or otherwise, the most cost-effective way to do so is with a price on the emissions of that which you seek to reduce. They’ll also tell you that, under some basic assumptions, the cost-effectiveness result holds whether you impose that price through a … Read more
ENMAX solar power – a different definition of affordable
Today, I received a nice offer in my mailbox from utility company ENMAX. These offers often make me angry because I find that they prey on people’s lack of information regarding electricity units and pricing. Today was no exception.
Let’s make the right arguments on the EU FQD
Today, with great praise from industry, a new report, commissioned by the Alberta Government, on oilsands GHG emissions was released. This report, by Jacobs Consultancy, assesses the degree to which oilsands GHG emissions compare to other sources of crude entering the European Union. The results are not particularly surprising, nor are they likely to significantly … Read more
The #climate and GHG question I would have asked
In today’s Edmonton Journal/Calgary Herald on-line leaders debate (a great format, BTW), the leaders were asked the following question:
Do you believe in climate change? What should be the provincial government’s response to climate change, or should the provincial government wait for a plan from the federal government?
Questions I’ll be asking #abvote candidates
What will determine my vote on April 23rd? I suppose it will surprise no one that I will vote based on the energy and environmental policies of the parties. My key issue list includes 5 categories: 1) Savings, transparency, and accountability; 2) Market access; 3) Local environmental management; 4) Global environmental credibility; and 5) Getting the most value for our resources. Here are some of the questions I’ll ask the candidates who visit my house during the campaign, and some context for why I’m asking them. How does your party line up?
An economist pretending to be a geologist
Last night, I wrote a long post on the EU Fuel Quality Directive, on which a vote is expected next week. The Fuel Quality Directive has attracted a great deal of attention here in Canada because it would assign a higher emissions rating to Alberta oilsands than to other sources of crude oil, and I have argued that it will do so despite the fact that some of these other crudes may or may not actually have higher emissions per barrel than oilsands.
The response to the blog post was quick. Naturally, both Government and industry representatives were supportive as it reinforced their positions, while environmental groups were less enthusiastic since it called into question their contention that the FQD would apply to oil other than oilsands, including that produced from Venezuela. Thanks in particular are due to Hannah McKinnon of the Climate Action Network who was most helpful in providing context for her comments which I referenced in my blog.
I’ve spent a lot of time today sorting through reports to either refute or validate my own conclusions about this policy, but I haven’t been able to do either conclusively. At least I have learned a lot about the resource bases in both Canada and Venezuela as a result of this search. Here’s a little of what I’ve discovered.
Some clarification please, Mr. Mulcair.
Yesterday, NDP leadership candidate and environmental hawk Thomas Mulcair announced his intention to implement a, “new comprehensive plan to combat climate change.” According to his press release, “Mulcair’s new plan would still be industry-focused and based on the principle that ‘polluters pay’, but it would expand beyond the 700 largest emitters in Canada to cover all major sources of climate change pollution.” Want to understand what this means? Here are three questions you should ask – Who’s covered? What’s the cap? Who gets the permits?
Globe Article and Reader Comments
Last week, I summarized my two (#1 and #2) posts on Kyoto compliance and withdrawal into a shorter piece on the Globe and Mail’s Economy Lab. One of my regular readers, who unfortunately prefers to remain in anonymity and wrap his/her sometimes insightful comments in insults and derision, points out that there are important differences in timing between the Kyoto compliance period and the period in which penalties for non-compliance would be levied.
Canada’s climate challenge: 1 out of 3 ain’t good enough.
Canada needs to offer up more than easy soundbites and appeals to Nature editorials to move from a climate change laggard to a leader. Today, Canada re-affirmed its position that it would not be signing on to a new commitment period for the Kyoto protocol, and you can count me among those who expect an announcement later this month that Canada is withdrawing from the Kyoto protocol in general. The question which remains is, “what now?”
Today in the House of Commons, Conservative MP after Conservative MP detailed the government’s commitment to putting the policies in place to meet their pledge to reduce emissions to 17% below 2005 levels by 2020. Even if that proves to be the case, I fear it will not be good enough to move Canada from laggard to leader in the eyes of both international observers and more importantly Canadians. In order to do that, I think there are three elements on which Canada needs to deliver, and meeting our targets is just one of the three.