New York, N.Y., April 15, 2005

The Canadian government has released April 13, 2005, a new set of
policies
regarding Canada’s intent on Kyoto called “Moving Forward on Climate
Change”; now when there could be serious talk in the budding election
campaign but, surprisingly, some of the opposition parties have made
moves
to decrease the attention to this issue in the election debate.
ClimateWire
of April 15, 2005, is nearly completely about the news from Canada.

The April 13 program calls for the spending of $10 billion (Canadian),
which
is $8 billion US, over the next seven years.

Canada Newswire (www.newswire.ca/en/) writes - the “Federal Climate
Change
Plan Advances Canada on to a More Sustainable Economy” according to
“Sustainable Development Technology Canada” (www.sdtc.ca), a foundation
created by the Government of Canada that operates a $550 million fund
to
support the development and demonstration of clean technologies which
provide solutions that address issues of climate change, clean air,
water
and soil quality to deliver environmental, economic and health benefits
to
Canadians.

According to Industry Minister David Emerson, the old plan, presented
in
2002, asked some heavy emitters, like oil and mining companies, and
steelmakers, to reduce GHGs by unreasonable amounts that would have put
them
on a competitive disadvantage, so the new program will rely on groups
like
communities and farmers to take financial incentives in return for
cutting
their own GHG emissions i.e. if a farmer does not plow, or if a town
switches its fleet of vehicles to hybrids - the government will pay
$15/tonne of GHG saved - that money will come from a $1 billion
“climate
fund”.

Further there will be a $250 million “partnership fund” towards large
scale
projects like phasing out coal-fired power plants.

Above two funds, called the “Project Green” hope to make up for the
brake
given to the large heavy emitters. Even so, these large entities will
be
able to buy emission credits from other Canadian companies or from
overseas.
Also, they can invest in a federal government administered fund to
improve
emissions technology down the road. Will this lead indeed to improved
conditions in Canada proper?

The Pembina Institute (www.pembina.org) reminds us that Canada has an
obligation under the Kyoto Protocol to reduce greenhouse gases
emissions to
6% below the 1990 level during 2008-12. Pembina finds that in the new
policy, the amount of mandatory reductions by industrial large final
emitters (LFEs) - which produce 50% of Canada’s GHGs - are so limited
that
it places an impossible large burden on the rest of the plan. The
Atlantic
chapter of the Sierra Club puts the part of the LFEs in the program
only at
14% mandatory commitments rather the actual 50% - the program’s
weakness.
The Sierra Club is in favor of the $200 million program for wind
energy.
David Runails, president of the International Institute for Sustainable
Development Questions the figures for CO2 emission reduction and does
not
see how they came about.

The Toronto Star of April 13 and April 14, 2005, is filled articles on
the
subject - interestingly one article, tongue-in-cheek complains that
there is
need of clean air rather then hot air. The editorial states flatly:
“to help meet Canada’s target, Ottawa will pay other countries for the
right
to claim some of the emissions cuts they achieve. It is akin to
someone
paying an Olympic sprinter $1 million for his gold medal without even
running the race”. The editorial calls for investing in
emissions-reducing
mass transit, on helping LFEs achieve as much as they can, and on
helping
build a cross-country grid to bring hydroelectric power to Ontario from
Manitoba and Quebec. Further, the Star finds that the 700 LFEs are
called
to provide only 13% of the emissions reduction or reducing by 36
megatonnes
GHG/year, during 2008-2012, out of the total needed which is 270
megatonnes
GHG/year.

Talking politics, the Star also points out that the Conservatives have
turned around and embraced Kyoto - thus, with the new program, the
subject
was practically taken out from the campaign. Some extremists see in
the
conservatives position a “flip-flop”. What is important here, is that
whatever the election results, Canada’s continuing pro-Kyoto stand is
not in
doubt, though the discussion on how to go about implementing Kyoto will
continue. Today, the Torry and Liberal positions are practically
identical.

Also, when looking at the essence of the program - it seems to have
moved
Canada to a position of offering incentives for voluntary programs of
GHG
emissions-reduction like what is being only talked about yet in
Washington;
as Canada has ratified the KP, it also aims at a larger roofing-frame
because of specific national targets. That target seems to be
attainable,
like targets in many European countries, only by implementing
international
sustainable development mechanisms that came along with the KP. This
last
aspect, though received negatively by the Canadian environmentalists,
can
nevertheless, if done right, help in the global activities needed to
combat
the global problem of climate change. This part should be of interest
in
the larger developing countries i.e. Brazil, China, etc. Nevertheless,
it
is worth mentioning that Canada has allowed also for a smaller degree
of
mandatory means when looking at the LFEs - so it will not be all
voluntary.
Will this program get attention also in the US as a potential example
of
bridging the needs of the environment with the shores of opposition
from the
large industrial corporations?

Will a modicum of combining incentives for voluntary activities with
some
mandatory regulation, under a larger Kyoto-like roofing-frame, work
also
for the US? We shall see how this long awaited Canadian program will
be
viewed not only in Canada but also by the US.

We can rest assured now, that coming November 2005, at the Montreal
Conference of the Parties of the UNFCCC, Canada will display to all to
see
this program, that has been just presented, and which seems to be
agreed to
also by the present major Canadian opposition party - making it a
genuine
national program.