WARNOCK: (SK) NDP’s Climate Change Plan: Political Greenwash

WARNOCK: (SK) NDP’s Climate Change Plan: Political Greenwash

Postby Oscar » Tue Jul 17, 2007 5:28 pm

The NDP’s Climate Change Plan: Political Greenwash

by John W. Warnock
July 17, 2007

http://www.actupinsask.org

In June 2007 Saskatchewan’s NDP government released its Energy and Climate Change Plan. The goals set out were far reaching, given the history of this provincial government on the issue. Greenhouse gas emissions would be stabilized by 2010. By 2020 the province would see a 32 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. By 2050 greenhouse gas emissions would be reduced by 80 percent from current levels. (1) If implemented, this would be an astonishing reversal of policy.

Past NDP policy

Grant Devine’s Tory government created the Saskatchewan Energy Conservation and Development Authority (SEDCA) which produced excellent reports on the abundance of alternative energy sources and the advantages of energy conservation and demand management. In 1995 Roy Romanow’s NDP government abolished the agency, and its reports gathered dust on the shelves.

When the UN Conference on Environment and Development met in Kyoto in 1997, the NDP government introduced a resolution in the legislature, backed by the opposition Saskatchewan Party and Liberal Party, denouncing the meeting and then rejecting the Kyoto Protocol on Climate Change. The major parties have strongly opposed the goals of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). There was no recognition of any problem created by human increases in greenhouse gas emissions. The major parties agreed that Saskatchewan’s government would oppose regulations requiring industry or Crown corporations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Only voluntary guidelines were acceptable. (2)

Goals of the Kyoto Protocol

The goal of the Kyoto Protocol of 1997 was that by 2012 all the industrialized countries would reduce greenhouse gas emissions by five percent below their level of emissions in 1990. The Canadian government agreed that we would reduce our emissions by six percent. This would be a minimal first step. The IPCC scientists argue that we need a 70 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions if we are to stabilize the levels of carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, methane and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. This is necessary to avoid the “dangerous anthropogenic interference”, the tipping point when global warming would feed off itself and become an irreversible process. The business as usual approach, adopted by the Saskatchewan government, meant that by 2007 the greenhouse gas emissions for the province were already 62% above the 1990 levels, the highest increase of any province in Canada, and were the highest of any province on a per GDP basis. (3)

Why the change in policy direction?

So why has the NDP government of Lorne Calvert suddenly changed directions? First, it is simply not credible any longer to deny the overall consensus among scientists that greenhouse gas emissions from human activity are promoting climate change. There is a mountain of evidence of the adverse effects, even in Saskatchewan. Secondly, public opinion polls consistently show that over 70 percent of Canadians believe that this is a serious problem and that governments should take action. Third, public opinion polls and two provincial by-elections indicate that the electorate in the province is very unsatisfied with the policies of the NDP government and are ready to toss them out of office – and in a very big way.

Something had to be done to try to reverse these trends. The result was the sketchy climate change plan, a 20-page document that anyone familiar with the issue in Saskatchewan could have easily written in a week. Compared to the serious plans put forth by a number of foundations and think tanks, it is totally inadequate. (4)

The scope of the problem

What are the major sources of greenhouse gas emission in Saskatchewan? These are listed by the provincial report:

Oil and Gas Production - 33%

Electricity Production - 24%

Transportation - 16%

Agriculture - 14%

Other Industry - 6%

Commercial Heating - 3%

Residential Heating - 3%

Other - 1%


With only three percent of Canada’s population, Saskatchewan produces nine percent of the country’s greenhouse gas emissions. As can be seen from the above figures, the most serious problem is presented by the large industrial greenhouse gas emitters. Across Canada, the top 300 individual emitters account for 50 percent of all greenhouse gas emissions. Without programs that force the major emitters to change their ways, it is highly unlikely that the government can require individuals to adjust their commitments to consumerism. There is no discussion in the NDP’s paper of how the government in going to mandate reductions to large emitters. There is no discussion in this report of imposing a carbon tax on any of the large emitters, even as this is the policy most commonly proposed. (5)

The general criticism of the Calvert government’s climate change plan is that it produces bold targets but is very short on how they are going to be achieved. Furthermore, there is no indication of the actual role of the government in setting and enforcing regulations or in financing programs. The NDP plan calls for a reduction of our greenhouse gas emissions through a series of five components or “wedges”.

The First Wedge: Conservation and Efficiency

The quickest and cheapest way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is through conservation and efficiency. Given this reality, the Saskatchewan proposals are totally inadequate. Any serious plan would include significant government grants and low interest loans to encourage businesses and residences to introduce conservation measures. We have had much better programs in the past than the current one. Other jurisdictions around the world are making great strides in this area. There is no program, for example, to renovate and retrofit older homes and homes in remote areas. There are no programs to assist low income Canadians to reduce their use of power and energy.

Dodging demand management

The report states that the province will develop a demand management program. But this is the kind of program that can be implemented almost immediately, as it was in California in the summer of 2001 during the rolling blackouts. The government mandated utilities to introduce progressive steps in energy pricing: the more a business or residence uses, they more they pay. In addition, those who cut their electricity use by 20 percent received a 20 percent rebate on their bill. Power consumption was cut dramatically in just a few weeks. Many jurisdictions around the world have such programs. (6)

The province states that it will “begin a transition to smart meters.” Again, if the province were serious about reducing greenhouse gas emissions, it would move to adopt such meters right now. It could borrow the money to purchase and install them. They are essential for introducing policies to promote the expansion of renewable energy on the local level.

There has never been any interest by Saskatchewan governments in implementing a broad energy conservation and efficiency program because Sask Power would a face decline in sales and revenues. A good net metering program, as in Germany, would lead to widespread local household and business green energy production and encourage the development of “distributed generation.” The alternative of local self reliance is a major threat to centralized power production and distribution, seen as the best system by both Sask Power and our political leaders.

The minimal policies outlined here can’t possible meet the reduction of 30,000 kilotonnes of carbon dioxide emissions projected by 2050.

The Second Wedge: Carbon Capture and Storage in the Oil and Gas and Electricity Sectors

The NDP government has heavily subsidized the development of the technology to capture carbon dioxide from the burning of coal and pumping it deep into the ground for storage. The Weyburn operation by EnCana uses this process for enhanced oil recovery, a policy strongly supported and subsidized by the provincial government. But as many have observed, this process has nothing to do with greenhouse gas emissions, for its purpose is to extract and burn even more fossil fuels.

“Clean coal” is a very expensive approach

There is also a government commitment to develop “clean coal” production in the province for electricity. However, the process is very expensive and very energy inefficient, as one third of the energy produced is used to extract and concentrate the carbon dioxide and pump it into the ground. The IPCC identifies this as one approach to the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. Because of the costs, and the questions about the technology, the IPCC sees this as only a very marginal source of reduction of greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. In contrast, the province projects that the use of carbon sequestering will reduce greenhouse gas emissions by around 12,000 kilotonnes by 2050. (7)

There is no indication of how the province intends to convince the fertilizer industry and heavy oil upgraders to implement this technology. There is no indication how the province will convince the oil and gas industry that they should adopt this process. As for electricity production, there are much better and cheaper ways for Sask Power to significantly cut back on its greenhouse gas emissions. One goal should be to phase out coal burning power plants. They are by far the largest contributors to greenhouse gas emissions.

The Third Wedge: Increase the Use of Renewable Energy

The NDP government notes that “few, if any, North American jurisdictions have the wealth of renewable energy options available to them as does Saskatchewan.” This has been well known in the province since the 1970s. What is most notable is how little they have been developed. Wind power generation lags well behind that of the United States and far behind that of Europe. The potential for solar development, clearly the best in Canada, has been completely ignored. Biomass energy and small hydro development for the North were jettisoned in favour of building power and natural gas lines from the South.

Transportation produces 16 percent of our greenhouse gas emissions. But there is no discussion what so ever of the need for the expansion of railways, bus services, and the alternatives to urban sprawl development. There is no discussion of the policies now in place in other countries to discourage individuals from purchasing cars and trucks which are heavy consumers of fossil fuels.

Defending the ethanol industry

Instead, the NDP’s energy plan actively promotes the development of agro-fuels as a way of lowering emissions. These industries receive federal and provincial government subsidies. But many new studies have exposed this new industry as a general fraud when it comes to the issue of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Furthermore, there is no recognition that the shift from producing food for people to corporate agribusiness producing fibre for fuel for cars is environmentally destructive and creating food shortages around the world. (8)

A real shift to alternative energy could easily reduce our greenhouse gas emissions by the 20,000 kilotonnes projected. But there is no indication in the government’s paper how this would be accomplished. One way would be to actively encourage individuals, businesses and communities to develop local wind, solar and biomass energy and feed the excess green power into the provincial grid. This is now widely done even in the United States. A serious policy, such as exists in Germany, pays local green power developers a bonus price well above the existing consumer price. The German experience has been an outstanding success. (9)


The Fourth Wedge: Promote the Creation of Natural Carbon Sinks

The government’s climate change paper argues that a change in agricultural practices, such as zero till production, can create agricultural soil sinks which would absorb 25,000 kilotonnes of carbon dioxide by 2012 and 37,000 kilotonnes by 2050. It also argues that reforestation of the 20,000 hectares of “not sufficiently regenerated land” in the province would sequester around 4,900 kilotonnes of carbon dioxide in new forest plantations.

This argument has long been advanced by the NDP government. They have argued that with our forests and agriculture capturing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, and an international emissions credit trading system, we would not have to seriously cut our greenhouse gas emissions.

Understanding the carbon cycle

However, this policy position suggests that they do not understand the basic carbon cycle. The carbon sequestered by this process might recapture some of the carbon that was released from past forestry and agricultural processes. Furthermore, the carbon captured and stored through such activities by humans today can only be a temporary process; the carbon would be released again with future agricultural cultivation or the destruction of the trees planted through fire, harvesting, pest infestations, or natural decay. In contrast, carbon stored in fossil fuels is permanently sequestered until extracted by humans. It is the fossil fuel emissions which are the problem. (10)

Agricultural practices can reduce greenhouse gas emissions, particularly a move away from large corporate energy intensive farms. The first step towards reducing greenhouse gas emissions from forests is to ban clear cut logging. Many believe that the NDP should move in this direction, but it would involve a reversal of past policies and programs. Even if it adopted new policies in agriculture and forestry, they would be no answer to the problem of carbon dioxide emissions through the extraction and consumption of fossil fuels.

The Fifth Wedge: Reduce Methane and Other Emissions from our Oil, Gas and Agricultural Sectors

Around 14 percent of our greenhouse gas emissions come from the agricultural sector. The central problem here is methane gas produced by the livestock industry, particularly cattle and hogs. Methane gas is 21 times more potent as a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. Nitrous oxide, another greenhouse gas, is released through the production and application of nitrogen based fertilizers. The province has now set a goal of reducing methane emissions by 20 percent per animal and per acre by 2030. But there is no indication in the plan of how this will be achieved. Who will take the lead? Individual farmers?

Methane gas is also produced in the extraction of oil and natural gas, which is normally just flared or vented into the atmosphere. The government promises to come up with a plan by 2008 on how to mitigate this problem. It is not at all clear how the government will accomplish its goal of removing 10,000 kilotonnes of these greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.

The Non-Renewable Resource Sector

Saskatchewan benefits from the extraction of oil, natural gas and coal. Our government stresses that we use only 11 percent of the energy we produce. But while we want the economic benefits from the extraction of these fossil fuel resources, there is a reluctance to accept the responsibility for the very extensive damage they do to the environment and human health. If natural resources were owned by the federal government, then Saskatchewan could with justification call on the federal government to undertake the costs associated with the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions from these fossil fuels. But the province cannot have it both ways.

Promoting the nuclear industry

Here, and elsewhere, the NDP government insists that the extraction of uranium, its processing, and its use in nuclear plants to produce electricity is a green strategy. They argue that “Saskatchewan uranium significantly reduces the world’s greenhouse gas emissions by supporting nuclear power generation that displaces coal, oil and natural gas fired generation.” This paper supports the NDP government’s commitment to the expansion of uranium mining, the development of a uranium refining capability in the province, and the further development of nuclear power.

Yet nuclear power is one of the most expensive sources of energy. It could not exist without heavy government subsidies through direct grants, fuel waste management, the cost of decommissioning old nuclear power plants, the provision of accident insurance, and the covering of all environmental health costs to workers and people living close to these operations. (11)

The costs of uranium mining

As usual , the provincial government, and the opposition parties, refuse to acknowledge the use of Saskatchewan uranium in the production of nuclear weapons and depleted uranium warheads used in all the wars by the United States and the United Kingdom since 1991. Surely, the fact that nuclear power production creates less greenhouse gas emissions than coal fired plants is outweighed by the other enormous social, environmental, health and safety costs of this industry. How does one measure, for example, the cost of the epidemic of leukemia among children in Iraq as a result of exposure to radiation from the use of weapons with depleted uranium?

Conclusion

The Energy and Climate Change Plan produced by Lorne Calvert’s NDP government is completely inadequate. It avoids many of the solutions to the problem advanced by a host of other studies. It seems mainly designed to provide re-enforcement for pet programs of the government, including the ethanol industry, maintaining the coal industry, and assisting the oil and gas industries in the rapid extraction and export of our non-renewable resources. It is also a continuation of the CCF-NDP governments’ strong historic support for the uranium and nuclear industries. It addition, it reflects the commitment of the political elite in this province to a highly centralized and monopolized system of energy production and distribution.

It is hard to see how the goal of an 80 percent reduction of our greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 can be achieved through this plan.

References:

(1) Saskatchewan Energy and Climate Change Plan 2007 at http://www.saskatchewan.ca/green

(2) For more see John W. Warnock, “Kyoto: Politicians are ignoring the facts. We need alternatives now, not more business as ususal.” Briarpatch Magazine, Vol. 31, No. 5, June 2002, pp. 7-9.

(3) See Dale Marshall, All Over the Map; A Comparison of Provincial Climate Change Plans. Vancouver: David Suzuki Foundation, 2005. At: http://www.davidsuzuki.org

(4) For example, see the following studies on how governments should take the lead in meeting our commitment to controlling climate change:

Matther Bramley, “Fair Share, Green Share: A Proposal for regulating greenhouse gases from Canadian Industry.” Pembina Institute, February 20, 2007, presentation to the House of Commons Legislative Committee. At http://www.pembina.org

David R. Boyd, Sustainability within a Generation; A new vision for Canada. Vancouver: The David Suzuki Foundation, 2007. At http://www.davidsuzuki.org

Thomas I.. Gunton and Chris Joseph. Toward a National Sustainable Development Strategy for Canada. Vancouver, David Suzuki Foundation, 2006. At http://www.davidsuzuki.org

Pembina Institute and David Suzuki Foundation. The Case for Deep Reductions: Canada’s Role in Preventing Dangerous Climate Change. 2005. Found on both web sites.

Ralph Torrie. Kyoto and Beyond; The Low Emission Path to Innovation and Efficiency. For the David Suzuki Foundation, 2002. At www.torriesmith.com

The Tellus Institute. The Bottom Line on Kyoto: Economic Benefits of Canadian Action. Prepared for the David Suzuki Foundation and the World Wildlife Fund, 2002. At: http://www.tellus.org

Dale Marshall. Making Kyoto Work: A transition strategy for Canadian energy workers. Ottawa: Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, 2002. At: http://www.policyalternatives.ca

(5) See Environment Canada. Canada’s National Greenhouse Gas Inventory (1990-2004). Ottawa: Government of Canada, 2006. At: http://www.ec.gc.ca/ghg

(6) See D. Bachrach et al. Energy Efficiency Leadership in California: Preventing the Next Crisis. San Francisco: Natural Resources Defense Council, 2003. At: http://www.nrdc.org/air/energy/eecal/eecal.pdf

(7) UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage. Special Report of Working Group III, Montreal, September 24, 2005. At: http://www.ipcc.org

(8) For example, see the special issue of Seedling, Vol 17, No. 2, July 2007, produced by GRAIN. At: http://www.grain.org

(9) For example, see The Joint Global Change Research Institute, Renewable Energy Policy in Germany: An Overview and Assessment, 2004. At: http://www.globalchange.umd.edu/energytrends/germany

(10) For further analysis of this issue, see Jutta Kill and Ben Pearson, Forest Fraud: Say No to Fake Carbon Credits. 2003. At: http://www.sinkswatch.org

(11) See Mark W. Winfield, Clearing the Air About Nuclear Power: Summary Report. Calgary: The Pembina Institute, May 1, 2007. At: http://www.pembina.org

John W. Warnock is a Regina political economist and has been active in the environmental movement for thirty years.

John W. Warnock
2156 Retallack St.
Regina, SK
S4T 2K4
(306) 352-5282
http://www.johnwarnock.ca
Oscar
Site Admin
 
Posts: 9079
Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 3:23 pm

Return to Sustainable Development/Climate Change

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests

cron