It turns out that promise-keeping is not Environment Minister Jim Prentice’s forté. Despite saying in early September that his ministry would “ensure that all of our domestic climate change policies are clearly enunciated to the Canadian public by the time we get to Copenhagen”, the minister said on November 2nd that GHG regulations would not be announced before December’s international climate change conference.
Instead, Prentice is changing tack by focusing on clean air regulations rather than greenhouse gas regulations. Examples of substances that would fall under clean air legislation include Criteria Air Contaminants such as small particulate matter, acid rain-causing emissions like sulphur dioxide, and volatile organic compounds (VOCs), while substances that would fall under climate change legislation include the six major global warming gases (carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, sulphur hexafluoride, hydroflurocarbons, and perflurocarbons).
In dealing with clean air legislation, the government has re-engaged with a “tripartite group” of representatives on health and the environment, hailing from industry, NGOs, and the provincial governments. The group submitted a draft proposal to the federal government in February called the Comprehensive Air Management System (CAMS), which was supposed to be “an alternative to the government’s 2007 Turning the Corner Plan.” The draft, however, contains no reference to greenhouse gases, which was one of the main purposes of Turning the Corner.
Within CAMS is a working group called the Base Level Industrial Emissions Requirements (BLIERS) “What” group. The BLIERS “What” group is charged with developing base level emissions requirements for 11 industry-specific sub-groups. The group seeks to build on already-established work, such as the Turning the Corner Plan, national voluntary frameworks, and anything else deemed relevant to managing air emissions. It should be reiterated that no mention of greenhouse gases were in the CAMS draft proposal, so the work coming from the BLIERS “What” group will most likely relate to clean air rather than climate change.
One reason for this change in focus is because the federal government does not want to advance Canadian climate legislation in the absence of American rules. Under draft US legislation, “border adjustments” or carbon tariffs could be slapped on imports from countries without equivalent climate rules in order to protect American firms from unfair competition from jurisdictions with less stringent (and therefore less costly) rules. Without knowing what the final US legislation will be, the government is nervous about exposing domestic industries to border adjustments should Canada’s legislation end up being too weak, and is likewise reluctant to unfairly penalize domestic industry with legislation that is too stringent. It therefore seems likely that the government will wait until US rules are passed, and then harmonize with them.
Another reason for the change in position stems from a general reluctance on the part of the government to make serious advances on the climate file because of a lingering belief that the returns from investing in climate protection do not outweigh the costs. Minister Prentice reiterated this belief in late September when he said that “if you want to reduce your carbon emissions, there’s a very easy way of doing it. You move yourself down the standard of living index.”
Overall, it seems that Canadian legislators are set to follow the United States’ lead on climate change legislation, and it is highly unlikely that the US will have legislation passed before December’s meeting in Copenhagen. Canada will likely have to endure more international scorn for its waffling position at the international negotiations, but sources indicate that the government is willing to shoulder the criticism and deflect some of it by pointing to its advancing clean air regulations. Since clean air regulations and greenhouse gas regulations elicit similar imagery like smokestacks and tailpipes, there is a healthy chance that public confusion over the difference between clean air and greenhouse gases will soften the public’s perceptions of the domestic and international criticism directed at the government over its climate change position.
By Jeff Beyer .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)