Conservatives Against Trading Emissions Credits

[Hank C]

http://start.shaw.ca/start/enCA/News/NationalNewsArticle.htm?&src=n021583A.xml

Canada's new environment minister says no to trading emissions credits
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

EDMONTON (CP) - Canada's new environment minister says she won't support trading emissions credits with other nations or any other international deal that does not have a "direct environmental benefit to Canadians."

Rona Ambrose said she does not see the trading of emissions credits with other countries as being a high priority in her mandate of "cleaning up the air Canadians breathe."

"On Kyoto, I will say that our government will not be shipping hot air credits overseas. Our focus is on a domestic solution," Ambrose told reporters Wednesday following a one-hour meeting with Alberta Environment Minister Guy Boutilier.

"We draw the line at ensuring that there's a direct benefit to any of the legislative mechanisms or any of the international agreements that we are presently engaged in and that we will become engaged in in the future."

But Ambrose refused to discuss specifics of what will happen to the Kyoto accord or whether the Conservative government will scrap the deal to reduce Canada's emissions.

Details of her position on Kyoto must first be discussed with other members of the new federal cabinet and the Conservative caucus, she said.

Ambrose would only say that clean air is the mandate she has been given by Prime Minister Stephen Harper and she will use any mechanism at her disposal to do that.

But she also said her government's opposition to the trading emissions credits should come as no surprise to Canadians.

"There's pretty wide consensus now from environmental groups and from industry that that's something that isn't an advantage to Canada and to the environment," she said.

"That is something that will not happen under a Conservative government. The prime minister has been clear about that."

The whole concept of trading emissions credits was set up under a global trading arrangement to help countries meet their targets under the deal to reduce greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming.

Countries unable to meet their targets would purchase carbon credits from countries that had exceeded their targets.

Ambrose, an Edmonton MP, did policy work for the Alberta government on the Kyoto issue before she ran for office.

Although Alberta has always had a firm stance against the accord, Ambrose said Wednesday that she was not directly involved in drafting any of the province's anti-Kyoto positions.

Alberta was Ambrose's first stop on a tour of the country to meet with her provincial counterparts to discuss environmental issues, including the Kyoto accord.

©The Canadian Press, 2006

 

[FiveParadox]

Before I begin, let me be clear that I support the Kyoto Accord.

That being said, however, if the Conservative Ministry opposes the Accord, then the issue should be discussed at length in the House of Commons in relation to out withdrawal from the program; if, after doing so, a motion to remove ourselves from the Accord passes, then I would respect the decision to do so.

That too being said, if the House of Commons determines that it should retain the Accord, and the Honourable Rona Ambrose attempts to breach its provisions by ignoring the penalties for failure to comply, then I would no longer have confidence in the Government.

 

[the caracal kid]

RE: Conservatives Against

clean air: this is a global issue and hence needs involvement of all. It will be interesting to see what comes of Harper's ideology.

 

[Hank C]

I don't understand why its necessary to send taxpayer money overseas, when we can use it here at home to reduce our emissions. Whats the point in sending billions to China and Russia so they can continue to use their dirty energy?

 

[FiveParadox]

Perhaps I misunderstand the Accord; I was under the impression that a nation would buy credits from another in order to be authorized to stop short of their target.

For example, if Canada were unable to meet its targets, it would purchase credits from another nation who had exceeded its target already.

Let's say the U.K. beat its targets outright, but Canada's emissions are still 20% above target. Canada could purchase credits from the United Kingdom in order to ensure that the international total under the Accord is not breached.

 

[the caracal kid]

RE: Conservatives Against

the point is that no matter how much canada cleans up, it won't account for a true improvement in global air quality if other nations don't act to reduce emissions. Even worse, what if there is a "they are generating less so we can generate more" attitude? We need everybody to work together to reduce emissions globally.

 

[MMMike]

Re: RE: Conservatives Against Trading Emissions Credits

Before I begin, let me be clear that I support the Kyoto Accord.

That being said, however, if the Conservative Ministry opposes the Accord, then the issue should be discussed at length in the House of Commons in relation to out withdrawal from the program; if, after doing so, a motion to remove ourselves from the Accord passes, then I would respect the decision to do so.

That too being said, if the House of Commons determines that it should retain the Accord, and the Honourable Rona Ambrose attempts to breach its provisions by ignoring the penalties for failure to comply, then I would no longer have confidence in the Government.

I agree 100% Five... I can't imagine the Conservatives with a minority would be successful in withdrawing from Kyoto. So they are bound to try to meet our obligations. It's too bad the Liberals have done less than nothing over the past 12 years on Kyoto... it's hard to see how any government could turn the ship around now.

 

[MMMike]

Re: RE: Conservatives Against Trading Emissions Credits

I don't understand why its necessary to send taxpayer money overseas, when we can use it here at home to reduce our emissions. Whats the point in sending billions to China and Russia so they can continue to use their dirty energy?

That's because you don't understand the whole concept behind emissions credit trading. First of all, we (Canadians) the worst polluters on the entire planet. We are not in a position to point fingers at anyone. Second of all, we're trying to combat a global problem; it doesn't matter if we cut emissions here or abroad: it has the same effect.

There is some excess emissions credits available now in some countries simply because of the benchmark used (mostly Russia - because their economy and with it their emissions plunged after the signing of Kyoto) so there will be a period where credits can be bought without any real reduction in pollution. But this is only temporary and a one time phenomenom.

When the system is up and running, companies or countries can earn credits for reducing emissions. It may be cheaper for them to go overseas and invest in technology to reduce pollution elsewhere. The value of these credits decreases with time so total pollution will decrease as well.

This will have the effect of finally putting a price on ghg emissions. Any supporter of free enterprise should recognize that once you put a cost to it, it sets up the business case for reductions and investments in cleaner technology.

 

[Jersay]

Clean air like Caracel Kid said is a global effort. If you don't have global pressure of some kind nothing will ever get done. Besides, we can clean up all the air we want in Canada, but we got a good friend to the south where with air currents and such, their pollution comes up to Canada.

So it is a global effort, and I hope the Conservatives can't get out of the accord as a minority.

 

[Jay]

You just got finished saying it is a global effort, so why would we continue with something that the 3 major polluters aren't going to adopt? It's another feel good agenda by UNers that amounts to slowing down the industry, and slowing down the productivity of the West.

 

[The Gunslinger]

I support the whole green movement thing here, but I think Kyoto is a really damned stupid way to go about doing. I don't know if it's true, but I've heard a lot of people say that it was impossible from the get go. Plus, how is supposed to work if India, China, and the USA aren't involved in it?

Wouldn't it make more sense to scrap the thing a nd make a new one where the three largest polluters can enter?

 

[Jersay]

Because China and India are getting into the fold after 2012. That is only six years from now.

However, I don't know what to do with the U.S