Prime Minister Stephen Harper announced in Vancouver today that next week he’ll announced what’s in his governnment’s Clean Air Act.
There were few details in today’s speech. But, in a question period with reporters after the speech, Harper said his government would introduce emission reduction targets based on energy intensity — a fancy phrase which refers to the amount of energy consumed per unit of economic output. The Kyoto Protocol – an international treaty to which Canada is a signatory — says nothing about emission targets based on “energy intensity” targets. Kyoto calls for absolute reductions.
“We will produce intensity targets over the short, medium, and long-term, and they will cover a range of emissions” Harper said in response to a question from a reporter.
“The only specifics we heard was “intensity targets”,” said John Bennett, the executive director of the Canada Climate Action Network, at a press conference in Ottawa. “And that means we've abandoned the Kyoto protocol. Because the Kyoto Protocol requires us to reduce emissions absolutely, to bring our emissions below 1990 levels. We can't do that if we only slightly improve on the ratio of emissions to our economic output. It just means we destroy the planet a little slower.
In other words, in a world where targets are keyed to energy intensity, a car manufacturer could become more energy efficient by reducing the amount of greenhouse gases produced in the making of one car by, say, 10 per cent. But if that manufacturer increased the number of units produced by 10 per cent, then the absolute amount of greenhouse gases have not been reduced even though the individual manufacturer is more efficient. If the number of units rises over time by, say, 40 per cent, then greenhouse gas emissions have actually risen. Again: Kyoto says overall greenhouse gas emissions must fall, no matter how many cars you produce.
“Now the one thing that the Prime Minister did say was that the new system would be based on intensity — on intensity-based targets. This gurantees that emissions will continue to rise. This is not what we need,” said Dale Marshall of the Suzuki Foundation.
Liberal environment critic John Godfrey said Harper’s move to energy-intensity targets is shocking: “… those ominous weasel words — energy-intensive targets which doesn't mean you are going to absolutely reduce the amount of greenhouse gases produced in this country, it means the rate of emission growth will slow but that will not solve our problem.”
Bennett said that while last year's Liberal government deserved criticism, at least it recognized climate change was a problem and wanted to do something about it. The Harper government, today, appeared to reject climate change as the most significant global environmental problem.
“We've taken a giant step backwards. A year ago, we had a government that at least conceded that climate change was a critical problem and we needed action. Now we have a government that has actually rejected climate change as a problem,” Bennett said.
The Sierra Club’s Stephen Hazell said Harper’s Green Plan was deeply disappointing: “The Prime Minister's main announcement was that there would be a Clean Air Act introduced in the House of Commons. The Clean Air Act is a Hot Air Act.”
Harper also tried to sell his plan as a “Made-in-Canada” plan. He’s trying to contrast his plan with the Kyoto Protocol, an international treaty to which Canada is a signatory.
Here’s what Harper said about his plan: “It’s a serious, Made-In-Canada plan that will deliver real results, over the long term.
Liberal environment critic John Godfrey says this is not a made-in-Canada plan, it’s a Made-in-the USA plan: “Intensity-based targets still allow Canada to put out more greenhouse gases. What we need are absolute targets, not ones based on energy intensity. Those are words that are used by George Bush and the Republicans to describe what they want.”
