Canada passes climate change bill
 

Climate Change Act passes final vote :: The Hook

Canada has become the first nation to pass legislation for specific emissions reductions in a post-Kyoto environment.

The Climate Change Accountability Act (Bill C-311) was tabled in 2006 by the NDP, Canada's social democratic party.

This finally puts Canada back on track as a nation that values environmental practices. Lately we have had a poor track record despite our traditional reputation for being a "green" nation. Although this is just one piece of the puzzle, I think this is a great step toward realigning our efforts to fit our principles.

I think, and hope, that more and more Canadians are realizing that we must start at home to tackle the problems arising from our degradation of the environment. We must take care of what we have, because there are no alternatives.

What do you think about this and the big picture? Do you suppose other nations will look to this legislation as a model? Do you think it's a bad idea? Do you think it goes far enough, or is it too one-dimensional?

It is my understanding that the EU already has a strong focus on climate change, so maybe this bill is just something overly officious and rather anticlimactic. However, if you consider the growing problems with the G-2 and with developing nations with high growth, anything that can act as a model or inspiration must be a good thing.

Is your government doing enough? What do you think the consensus is in your society?

Wouldn't it have been easier to just add "The Sun" to Canada's Not Welcome List?

Do you really want to lay this sort of burden on your taxpayers during an extremely anemic economic recovery? Even if Canada manages to reduce their emissions, the population of Canada is too small to have any real effect on World levels. I don't mean that as a slight, it's just simple mathematics.

As I believe the entire climate change thing is so tainted with politics, I wouldn't be willing to make such massive changes based on the current information we have. I know "the debate is settled" and all that, but I'm too skeptical of the messengers to turn over my economy to them.

Our recovery isn't anemic. Actually, the central bank is considering raising rates (the first amongst the G8) to keep inflation and economic growth in check, and this could happen as soon as June 1st.

As an industrialized nation with a vast geographic area and relatively sparse population, we have emissions levels disproportionate to much of the rest of the world. The ecological footprint of the average Canadian is well above the global average.

And I'm of the opinion that it's more about doing your part, rather than seeing what your overall impact is. Not even the U.S. can fix the world's problems on its own. Not by a long shot. It could barely make a dent.

You know, if you guys weren't so gassy from all that Moosehead drinking, it could help.

I would agree that, if the US would stop fixing other countries' problems, our climate footprint could be reduced (as well as our spending). Of course, that doesn't just mean wars - it means all problems like Haiti, Darfur, Samalia, Indonesia, Mexico, etc. Shipping all that food to Haiti is causing a tremendous carbon footprint. :P

Way to lead by example Canada. I hope you can show the rest of the world that it is possible to reduce your carbon footprint without bringing the end of days as is believed in here in the US.

It's not a bad idea to lead by example and I think that it is important to be good global citizens when it comes to managing the environment. This all good. All motherhood etc etc.

I am certain that: we we have emissions levels disproportionate to much of the rest of the world. The ecological footprint of the average Canadian is well above the global average. BECAUSE we are an industrialized nation with a vast geographic area and relatively sparse population. Out situation is rather unique, and so is our carbon footprint. Makes the idea of charging carbon points to the end of the supply chain, rather than the beginning, more realistic.

Don't expect the Central bank to be doing anything to interest rates any time soon with European economies in turmoil and investers ironicly fleeing to the US Dollar.

Evey time I turn the problem of climate change around in my mind (and this is speaking from my perspective with a climatology concentration in my undergrad) i am conflicted with what I have learned and with the politics of the situation. The entire green movement to me smells of McCarthyistic, or Soviet tactics when it comes to debate and dissent, yet sounds to be morally superior. This combination immediately makes me sceptical. Especially when you throw political and financial motives into the mix.

However, I do think it is a good idea to keep your yard clean and neat, much like the anit-litter campaign of the '70's taught us to do, on a larger, more expensive scale. Maybe there will business cases for appropriate technologies now, which will redistribute resources and improve the economy in areas that are lagging or non-existant now.

And how is the government going to magically get to 25% below 1990 levels, in a decade? What magic bullet do the NDP, or Liberals, have that they're not sharing? Will the Liberals uphold this bill if they get back to the government side of the house?

I don't know if anyone said anything about using magic. I think the idea is to use research, technology, and specific development practices.

The Germans are committed to reducing theirs by 40% in the same time frame, and they currently have more than double the emissions than Canada. They're really aggressive on this, and I don't think it's even legislated. If anyone is a role model right now, it's the Germans—Passivhaus and all that.

Consider how things have changed since the 1990s with regard to how the increased efficiency of automobiles. Now consider how much more room for improvement there is, and also consider the room for improvement with such things as public transit and civil engineering (and re-engineering) of large cities and small cities alike (read: Jane Jacobs).

Now also consider that buildings make up for a huge proportion of emissions. This is where we should focus. This is where the Germans are focusing. The way we design and build buildings, especially office towers, is absolutely ridiculous. Most office buildings built recently (and currently) are essentially hermetically sealed heatsinks. We need to rethink how we build things. We have the technology; now we need the will.

Lofty goals for everyone. But nearly no one has achieved the goals of the Kyoto protocol. And certainly no-one has achieved it by purposeful design, instead by the accident of history.

Setting goals as such with no political or social commitment to their fulfillment does not result in any change. The opposition parties have not provided tools of compliance for government and industry. Personally and professionally, I opposed best development practices. The government cannot successfully predict the future best practices for pollution reduction. We recognized this in the Montreal Protocol for reduction of ozone-depleting substances, and that was very successful.

The best tools in my opinion, are regulate market cap-and-trade programs FOR ALL POLLUTANTS, or alternatively, pollutants taxed on a volume basis. The Liberals royally fucked the latter as a possibility for sometime. The electorate could not trust them to make it revenue neutral, and their timing was horrible.

Just requiring geo-thermal heating on new construction would probably do a lot to get them to their goals.

And these things may cost a little more up-front, but the long-term costs are lower overall. And it will probably create local jobs currently.

I'd figure Canada would welcome warmer weather.

are you kidding? Just this year, by March, it was hard to find any skiing in Southern Ontario.

In my view there is no need for alarm and taking drastic measures. All nations should take incremental, measured and thoughtful steps in reducing CO2. In the US the trend in the past 20 years is that our economy grows at a faster rate than the growth in CO2 emissions. In fact there is evidence that CO2 emissions has peaked given the changing nature of our economy and changes already in the works.

http://247wallst.files.wordpress.com...pg?w=666&h=486

And it is interesting given the recession and changes in our economy we have seen a record decline in CO2 emissions without a "climate change bill":

Carbon Emissions Take Record Drop In The US – 24/7 Wall St.

The chart from the same source.

It would be nice to reduce pollution and CO2 emmisions while having a 'good' unemployment and underemployment level. I'm sure taking millions of cars off the roads because people didn't need to comute to work helped some. And since factories slowed down production that reduced emmisions as well.

Based on your premise, CO2 hasn't peaked, it's just on a downward trend because the economy is in the dumps. As soon as the economy starts growing again CO2 emissions will start going up again.

Looking at the graph and other information my interpretation differs from yours. In the chart, I see a near peak in 2000, 2004, 2005 and an actual peak in 2007. In the 10 years following 2000, our economy has been changing becoming less relent on smoke stack industrial production. Also during that period vehicle emission standards and results have improved and older high emission vehicles have been removed from service. I think these changes will have a relative positive impact off-setting future economic growth which has been the trend over the past 20 years. I could be wrong, I doubt it and if I am I won't be off by much.