U.S. urges Canada to act on climate change


mentalfloss
+1
#1
Times have changed folks.


U.S. urges Canada to act on climate change

As President Barack Obama unveiled the first major regulations to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions in the United States, his ambassador in Ottawa urged Canada to do the same and take action to combat climate change.

It is a reminder to Prime Minister Stephen Harper of the political challenge he now faces: His chief climate-change policy has been to match U.S. action, but now the Americans are getting more aggressive, and publicly suggesting Canada act too.

U.S. Ambassador to Canada Bruce Heyman, in his first speech since taking office in April, noted the U.S. move unveiled Monday to cut emissions from coal plants by 30 per cent by 2030. And then he called for more action, including on Canada’s fastest-growing source of emissions, oil production.

“We need to continue that work together moving toward a low-carbon future, with alternative energy choices, with greater energy efficiency, and sustainable extraction of our oil and gas reserves,” Mr. Heyman said.

He challenged Canada to join with the U.S. to combat climate change, and said North America’s “newfound energy abundance should not distract us from the need to improve efficiency and combat climate change.

“This is not a task that we can take on individually. It can only be successfully ‎challenged together.”

The message came with no overt linkage to Canadian projects such as the proposed Keystone XL pipeline. Officially, that pipeline is to be judged on whether it would have a net impact on North American emissions. But Mr. Obama has delayed it twice, as activists make it a symbol for the climate impact of Alberta’s oil sands.

Whether they affect Keystone or not, Mr. Obama’s new regulations on coal in the United States are likely to have an impact in Canada.

They could place new cross-border pressure on Canada to cut emissions here, in a crucial sector – oil production.

Mr. Harper has for years pledged to steer Canada’s greenhouse-gas policy close to that of the United States. He has argued that Canada cannot act alone because its economy is closely integrated with that of the United States.

Now, Mr. Obama has put forward a coal proposal that would cut U.S. emissions by about 10 per cent by 2030 – an amount equivalent to all of Canada’s emissions.

In the Commons on Monday, Mr. Harper sought to ensure the comparison between the two countries is about how each treats coal-fired power plants, rather than how each is dealing with greenhouse-gas emissions.

He noted that Canada has already adopted regulations for power plants, and said Mr. Obama is “acting two years after this government acted and taking actions that do not go nearly as far as this government went.”

But coal is not the same thing on either side of the border, noted University of British Columbia professor Kathryn Harrison, an expert on climate policies around the world.

In the United States, “king coal” is the biggest source of emissions. In Canada, coal’s impact is much smaller, and the fastest-growing source of emissions is oil production, notably from Alberta’s oil sands, which will account for 80 per cent of the growth from now to 2020.

The United States is already far ahead of Canada in meeting its emissions targets.

Both Canada and the United States have committed to reducing emissions to 17 per cent below their 2005 levels by 2020. Even before the new coal policy was announced, the United States was on track for a 7.5-per-cent reduction.

“These regulations won’t get it the rest of the way there, but it will close that gap significantly,” Ms. Harrison said. Canada, however, lags. “We’re projecting emissions are going to go up.”

The Conservative government has pledged since 2006 to issue regulations for Canada’s oil sector, but it has repeatedly delayed them – most recently last December, when Mr. Harper said they would take a few more years.

Now that the Obama administration is acting on coal, it will likely take a more aggressive attitude to new international climate negotiations to be held in Paris next year. And as it attempts to push major emerging economies such as China and India to further action, it could press Canada to do more, too.

At the moment, however, it appears that, apart from possible additional delays for approving the Keystone pipeline, any pressure from Washington is likely to be political, rather than economic.

U.S. urges Canada to act on climate change - The Globe and Mail
 
Walter
+4
#2  Top Rated Post
Such fools who think that humans can control the weather and climate.
 
mentalfloss
#3
Quote: Originally Posted by WalterView Post

Such fools who think that humans can control the weather and climate.

What you don't support weather modification?
 
DaSleeper
+2
#4
And they say that old people's conversation always returns to climate......


Flossy must be damn old......


Keyword(s): climate; Threads Started By: mentalfloss


Showing results 1 to 50 of 227
 
darkbeaver
Republican
+2
#5
The political circle jerk of the 21st century, Climate Change. Mentalflush you might consider purchasing Climate Change for Dummies, subtitled, herding the mentally challenged into new improved socially responsible tax slavery.
Of course the tome will avoid definition of climate, which for the purpose means reduction of numbers of useless CO2 spewing eaters thereby improving the climate for the perpetual human crust. You are the climate they want cleaned up.
 
mentalfloss
#6
It's okay guys. Take solace in the fact that we put all our eggs in one basket.

At the heart of the gap between the two countries is a hard economic reality for Canada: it’s likely to be much more expensive to reduce emissions here than in the U.S. Mostly this is due to the fact that our fastest-growing source of emissions—the oil sands of Alberta—are expected to continue to grow and are of significant economic importance to the country. Meanwhile, the most emissions-intensive sector in the U.S.—coal—is already declining, even without Obama’s coming policy intervention. American coal-power emissions dropped 14 per cent from 2005 to 2011 and are expected to decline another seven per cent by 2020. This has come thanks to the availability of cheap natural gas, which produces much less carbon when burned, along with reductions in total electricity demand and the impact of existing regulations targeting mercury emissions from coal-fired power. For the U.S. to meet its 2020 commitments, it will need to accelerate trends already in progress—reductions in emissions from power generation—by moving itself from coal to cheaper natural gas more quickly. For Canada to meet its targets, it will need to reverse trends in oil sands emissions growth.

Obama's climate fix: How Canada became the new climate change villain
 
DaSleeper
+1
#7
Quote: Originally Posted by mentalflossView Post

It's okay guys. Take solace in the fact that we put all our eggs in one basket.

Best news I've heard all day.....so...if you should happen to err.....you give the mods permission to merge all future threads with this one?.....
 
darkbeaver
Republican
+2
#8
Quote: Originally Posted by DaSleeperView Post

Best news I've heard all day.....so...if you should happen to err.....you give the mods permission to merge all future threads with this one?.....

I agree the climate change threads should be merged and moved to the humour section, where they properly belong, beside the alien invasions and zombie apocolypsesises.
 
mentalfloss
#9
Harper's failed attempt at dodging the issue.

“To correct the leader of the NDP … we actually announced the regulation of this sector two years ago,” Mr. Harper explained. “Not only have we already been acting, but under the regulations this government has already brought forward, we will have 150% larger reduction than those in the United States.”

No doubt, the Prime Minister’s writers were excited when they realized this line.

It would seem to have the benefit of being basically true, even if it is apparently besides the point. While Canada’s regulations do take a harder stance on our domestic coal industry, it seems our dependence on coal is about a third of theirs—13% of our electricity is generated by coal compared to 37% in the United States.

A more useful comparison thus might be of the U.S. coal industry to the Canadian oil industry—their largest source of emissions versus ours. On that count, the United States now has a proposed set of regulations. And the Harper government has, for now, two missed deadlines and perhaps a hope that this won’t matter in 2015.

That emissions have been reduced already doesn’t have much of anything to do with what the Harper government has so far done. That emissions in the future will be much less than they might have been depends on comparing the current course with the worst case scenario. That the Harper government is apparently still committed to achieving its Copenhagen targets for GHG emissions is of questionable utility until the Harper government presents a plan that gets the country anywhere close to doing so. And if it is the government’s contention now that it simply can’t act on the oil and gas sector until the United States is ready to do likewise, it might at least explain why that is a necessary prerequisite.


Climate change: What if we just say everything is a carbon tax? - Macleans.ca
 
captain morgan
Bloc Québécois
+1
#10
Looks like this will seal the approval on the 3 Canadian pipelines
 
mentalfloss
#11
Quote: Originally Posted by captain morganView Post

Looks like this will seal the approval on the 3 Canadian pipelines

It will seal the deal on Harper's exit if he continues to pretend like this isn't an issue.
 
taxslave
No Party Affiliation
+1
#12
Quote: Originally Posted by mentalflossView Post

It will seal the deal on Harper's exit if he continues to pretend like this isn't an issue.

i thinkHarper is serious at dealing with the anti everything crowd that seek only to destroy our economy. Especially the ones financed by US corporate interests.
The real problem is that every time obummer does something dumb like this he opens the door a little wider for a real looneytunes republican to become the next prez.
 
mentalfloss
-1
#13
Quote: Originally Posted by taxslaveView Post

i thinkHarper is serious at dealing with the anti everything crowd that seek only to destroy our economy. Especially the ones financed by US corporate interests.
The real problem is that every time obummer does something dumb like this he opens the door a little wider for a real looneytunes republican to become the next prez.

Harper needs to take a reality pill.

Are Harper’s dreams of Canada as energy superpower going up in smoke?

Are Prime Minister Harper’s dreams of Canada becoming an energy superpower going up in smoke? In the last decade, his Conservative government has done everything but roll out the red carpet for the energy sector. Whether it’s multi-million dollar advertising campaigns in the United States, gold-plated junkets to foreign energy markets, or muzzling opposition from domestic environmentalists, never before have we seen Ottawa shill so unabashedly for a single industry.

Such unbridled support is more than a little ironic. In theory, Harper’s brand of free market conservatism should have him recoiling at the thought of a government trying to pick winners. Either that or the rest of us just missed the chapter in the Wealth of Nations that made an exception for Big Oil. Ideology, I suppose, is great until it becomes inconvenient.

Unfortunately for Canadians, it’s becoming clear that despite the Prime Minister’s best attempts at economic intervention, their government is playing a losing hand. While everyone from poker players to fund managers can tell you that sometimes you need to cut bait on a bad position that’s not what’s happening here. Even as the rest of the world is realizing that it must wean itself off fossil fuels, the Harper government wants to double down on the resource.

Canadians have been force-fed the idea that the energy sector is the engine of economic growth for the nation. But take a look around. Whether it’s British Columbia’s hopes for liquefied natural gas, Alberta’s for the oil sands or the country’s struggling coal mines, the news is hardly encouraging.

A newly minted gas accord between Russia and China has all but taken the wheels off B.C.’s plans to become a major LNG exporter. Natural gas from eastern Siberia will be supplied at a cost that’s 30 to 40 per cent less than what Asia currently pays for LNG shipments.


Canadian coal producers are facing a similar story. As China continues to choke on its own emissions, the country is starting to pump the brakes on what was once considered an insatiable appetite for coal-fired power. The resulting plunge in coal prices has turned into hard times for global coal miners. Canadian mining giant Teck Resources, for instance, recently shelved plans to revive its Quintette coal mine, while Walter Energy decided to close its Wolverine mine near Tumbler Ridge, B.C.

The latest piece of bad news for the energy sector comes from the oil sands, the resource Harper touts as being the crown jewel of Canada’s natural resource assets.

The owners of the $11-billion Joslyn North oil sands mine are putting the project on ice indefinitely. Total E&P Canada, the Canadian arm of French oil giant Total SA, along with its partners–Suncor Energy, Occidental Petroleum and Japan’s Inpex–said they’ve been unable to find a formula under which the mega-project makes economic sense.

The cancellation of the Joslyn project, which was supposed to scoop out 100,000 barrels a day of bitumen, follows a decision by Royal Dutch Shell four months ago to halt work on its Pierre River mine. Shell said it doesn’t have any idea when it might revive plans for the 200,000 barrel-a-day project.


High cost projects, like those in the oil sands, are exactly the ones that are most at risk as global governments begin to get more serious about restraining carbon emissions.

Ottawa may consider climate change to be a hoax, but the rest of the world doesn’t. Economic giants such as the US and China are already moving to cut back on their combustion of fossil fuels. As demand from those countries goes lower, so too will prices.

It seems a safe bet that Total’s Joslyn North mine won’t be the last cancelled oil sands venture that we hear about. If such projects don’t make sense with today’s oil prices, how good can the economics possibly look once the world gets even more serious about carbon emissions down the road?

Maybe it’s time the Harper government started thinking about Plan B.

Jeff Rubin is the former chief economist of CIBC World Markets and the author of the award-winning Why Your World Is About To Get A Whole Lot Smaller. His recent best seller is The End of Growth .

Are Harper’s dreams of Canada as energy superpower going up in smoke? - The Globe and Mail
 
taxslave
No Party Affiliation
+2
#14
Plan B is natural gas. Like the oil lines it is happening with or without support of the NIMBYs and NOPES. We are not about to let Canada become a third world country manufacturing cheap trinkets and selling popcorn to tourists from first world countries.
Anyone not liking this reality should dust off their passports.
 
captain morgan
Bloc Québécois
+1
#15
Quote: Originally Posted by mentalflossView Post

It will seal the deal on Harper's exit if he continues to pretend like this isn't an issue.

Flossy.. I don't think you're stupid - quite the opposite actually.

Take a look at the current scenario:

The US power Gen (coal) facilities are very old (read:ancient). These facilities will require billions to upgrade, etc. The Obama admin realizes that this is an excellent opportunity to convert to NatGas that is a far superior source to generate power.

Smart move.

That said, this entire exercise is nothing more than a PR campaign to divert attention from one 'thing' to another.... It's called a bait-and-switch.... Turn the attention from heavy reliance on (dirty) coal to "but Canada produces oil that we use"

Dumb move and hugely transparent
 
taxslave
No Party Affiliation
#16
Quote: Originally Posted by captain morganView Post

Flossy.. I don't think you're stupid - quite the opposite actually.

Take a look at the current scenario:

The US power Gen (coal) facilities are very old (read:ancient). These facilities will require billions to upgrade, etc. The Obama admin realizes that this is an excellent opportunity to convert to NatGas that is a far superior source to generate power.

Smart move.

That said, this entire exercise is nothing more than a PR campaign to divert attention from one 'thing' to another.... It's called a bait-and-switch.... Turn the attention from heavy reliance on (dirty) coal to "but Canada produces oil that we use"

Dumb move and hugely transparent

I view it more as a dog&pony show.
 
EagleSmack
+2
#17
Stay strong Canada. Don't give in!

Quote: Originally Posted by taxslaveView Post

The real problem is that every time obummer does something dumb like this he opens the door a little wider for a real looneytunes republican to become the next prez.

And he or she will probably do their best to stop this alarmist nonsense.
 
captain morgan
Bloc Québécois
+2
#18
Quote: Originally Posted by EagleSmackView Post

Stay strong Canada. Don't give in!

Fortunately, in Canada, resource development is the sole responsibility of the Provinces.

The Feds can piss and moan all they like... Won't change a thing

Quote: Originally Posted by EagleSmackView Post

And he or she will probably do their best to stop this alarmist nonsense.

With any luck, that will be the case
 
EagleSmack
#19
Quote: Originally Posted by captain morganView Post

Fortunately, in Canada, resource development is the sole responsibility of the Provinces.

The Feds can piss and moan all they like... Won't change a thing



With any luck, that will be the case

Like you actually have checks and balances?!

We used to have that... now we have an Emperor with a "pen and phone".
 
captain morgan
Bloc Québécois
+3
#20
Regrettable that is the case.

Some much for Hope and Change
 
Zipperfish
No Party Affiliation
#21
Quote: Originally Posted by captain morganView Post

Fortunately, in Canada, resource development is the sole responsibility of the Provinces.

The Feds can piss and moan all they like... Won't change a thing



With any luck, that will be the case

Great! You mean BC can tell Enbridge to shove the pipeline?
 
petros
#22
Quote: Originally Posted by WalterView Post

Such fools who think that humans can control the weather and climate.

Ohhhhhh we can control the weather. I'd love to shake the hands of the pilots the dive bomb thunderheads to abate hail.

One of the coolest things I've ever seen.
 
BaalsTears
#23
Do Canadians bow and scrape as directed by Americans? Are Canadians lickspittles? I hope not, but the world will be informed by whether Canadians comply with the Obama's orders.
 
Colpy
Conservative
+1
#24
Quote: Originally Posted by mentalflossView Post

Times have changed folks.


U.S. urges Canada to act on climate change

As President Barack Obama unveiled the first major regulations to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions in the United States, his ambassador in Ottawa urged Canada to do the same and take action to combat climate change.

It is a reminder to Prime Minister Stephen Harper of the political challenge he now faces: His chief climate-change policy has been to match U.S. action, but now the Americans are getting more aggressive, and publicly suggesting Canada act too.

U.S. Ambassador to Canada Bruce Heyman, in his first speech since taking office in April, noted the U.S. move unveiled Monday to cut emissions from coal plants by 30 per cent by 2030. And then he called for more action, including on Canada’s fastest-growing source of emissions, oil production.

“We need to continue that work together moving toward a low-carbon future, with alternative energy choices, with greater energy efficiency, and sustainable extraction of our oil and gas reserves,” Mr. Heyman said.

He challenged Canada to join with the U.S. to combat climate change, and said North America’s “newfound energy abundance should not distract us from the need to improve efficiency and combat climate change.

“This is not a task that we can take on individually. It can only be successfully ‎challenged together.”

The message came with no overt linkage to Canadian projects such as the proposed Keystone XL pipeline. Officially, that pipeline is to be judged on whether it would have a net impact on North American emissions. But Mr. Obama has delayed it twice, as activists make it a symbol for the climate impact of Alberta’s oil sands.

Whether they affect Keystone or not, Mr. Obama’s new regulations on coal in the United States are likely to have an impact in Canada.

They could place new cross-border pressure on Canada to cut emissions here, in a crucial sector – oil production.

Mr. Harper has for years pledged to steer Canada’s greenhouse-gas policy close to that of the United States. He has argued that Canada cannot act alone because its economy is closely integrated with that of the United States.

Now, Mr. Obama has put forward a coal proposal that would cut U.S. emissions by about 10 per cent by 2030 – an amount equivalent to all of Canada’s emissions.

In the Commons on Monday, Mr. Harper sought to ensure the comparison between the two countries is about how each treats coal-fired power plants, rather than how each is dealing with greenhouse-gas emissions.

He noted that Canada has already adopted regulations for power plants, and said Mr. Obama is “acting two years after this government acted and taking actions that do not go nearly as far as this government went.”

But coal is not the same thing on either side of the border, noted University of British Columbia professor Kathryn Harrison, an expert on climate policies around the world.

In the United States, “king coal” is the biggest source of emissions. In Canada, coal’s impact is much smaller, and the fastest-growing source of emissions is oil production, notably from Alberta’s oil sands, which will account for 80 per cent of the growth from now to 2020.

The United States is already far ahead of Canada in meeting its emissions targets.

Both Canada and the United States have committed to reducing emissions to 17 per cent below their 2005 levels by 2020. Even before the new coal policy was announced, the United States was on track for a 7.5-per-cent reduction.

“These regulations won’t get it the rest of the way there, but it will close that gap significantly,” Ms. Harrison said. Canada, however, lags. “We’re projecting emissions are going to go up.”

The Conservative government has pledged since 2006 to issue regulations for Canada’s oil sector, but it has repeatedly delayed them – most recently last December, when Mr. Harper said they would take a few more years.

Now that the Obama administration is acting on coal, it will likely take a more aggressive attitude to new international climate negotiations to be held in Paris next year. And as it attempts to push major emerging economies such as China and India to further action, it could press Canada to do more, too.

At the moment, however, it appears that, apart from possible additional delays for approving the Keystone pipeline, any pressure from Washington is likely to be political, rather than economic.

U.S. urges Canada to act on climate change - The Globe and Mail

The USA generates 40% of its power from coal.

Canada generates 11% of its power from coal.

The USA needs to STFU.
 
EagleSmack
+1
#25
Quote: Originally Posted by ColpyView Post

The USA generates 40% of its power from coal.

Canada generates 11% of its power from coal.

The USA needs to STFU.

Yes we do. Canada and Australia seems to be the only ones taking a stand.
 
mentalfloss
#26
New Obama Climate Regulations Could Help U.S. Pressure China - TIME
 
petros
#27
Quote: Originally Posted by ColpyView Post

The USA generates 40% of its power from coal.

Canada generates 11% of its power from coal.

The USA needs to STFU.

USA buys our coal power. LOTS of it.

Yes GE needs more access to the Chinese market.
 
BaalsTears
#28
China can no longer be pressured by America. The USA is a laughingstock in China.
 
Tonington
+1
#29
Quote: Originally Posted by ColpyView Post

The USA generates 40% of its power from coal.

Canada generates 11% of its power from coal.

The USA needs to STFU.

Why quote something you didn't read? It's pretty clear that the US is tackling their largest source of emissions, while we are not. It's all through that text you quoted.

Imagine that the story is about cutting government spending. The US cuts spending in a program that generates 40% of their government's costs. Why would you compare cost cutting measures in Canada to the same program that only accounts for 11% of our costs? Cut both of those programs by 30% each, doesn't achieve the same thing does it? That is not apples to apples.

Illogical.
 
BaalsTears
#30
Canadians need to bend over for Uncle Sam. Do what we Americans tell you to do and STFU. Seems like that works for lots of Canadians.
 

Similar Threads

3
54
Climate Change and forestry in Canada
by beaker | May 24th, 2014
164
Climate Change report on Canada
by mentalfloss | Apr 11th, 2014
no new posts