Home > News >   2002 | 2003 | 2004 | 2005 | 2006 | 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010

News - 2004

News Releases and Open Letters

Emissions Trading Workshop Letter, April 2004

Letter to Premier Dalton McGuinty Concerning Nuclear Power, February 2004

Press Release - The Minister of Natural Resources and federal environment policy, January 2004

Letter to the Prime Minister regarding GHGs, January 2004

Emissions Trading Workshop Letter, April 2004


Letter to Mr. Howard Brown

To: Howard Brown, Assistant Deputy Minister - Natural Resources Canada
From: Climate Action Network Canada
Subject: Follow-up to Emissions Trading Workshop March 22, 2004
Date: Tuesday, April 06, 2004

The Climate Action Network would like to thank the Large Final Emitters Group for providing the opportunity to participate in the Emissions Trading Workshop. The Climate Action Network, in consultation with its representatives at the March 22, 2004 Emissions Trading Workshop, would like to provide the following comments:

1) Environmental Integrity

As ADM Brown said at the close of the meeting our greatest concern is with the environmental integrity of the emissions trading scheme. Many environmentalists are skeptical of emissions trading in general but are willing to be convinced that Canada’s emissions trading scheme will deliver what it promises. Much of the workshop discussions centred on design features that could threaten the environmental integrity of the scheme by creating loopholes and the possibility of double counting.

In a meeting with CAN about a year ago, ADM Brown said the large industrial emitters were going to be required to deliver 55 megatonnes at their expense. This is a relatively modest target for a sector that pro-duces half of Canada’s emissions. Nothing in the design of the program should effectively reduce this commitment or allow industry to claim credit for actions undertaken or financed by governments.

2) Transparency

The people of Canada have provided industry with an intensity based target (at its request) creating a liability for Canada if production growth exceeds BAU estimates. It is not acceptable that any of the information on allocation and compliance not be publicly available and verifiable. CAN recognizes that in very few cases there might be an argument for confidentiality. CEPA has rules and guidelines on confidentiality that stipulate full disclosure unless a convincing argument for confidentiality is provided to the responsible minister.

3) Research and Development

Canada has the best tax treatment of Research and Development in the G7, has invested $500 million in the sustainable technology fund and has numerous other supports for research and development available. This already constitutes significant recognition of R&D in complying with the Kyoto target. There can be no provision in the emissions trading scheme for credit for R&D without weakening the 55 megatonne target.

4) Clean Energy and DSM

Although CAN is an enthusiastic supporter of clean energy and demand side management there is no logical role for them to play in an intensity-based trading scheme. The Climate Change Plan for Canada (November 02) commits to implement a number of targeted measures to assist in this area. Granting credit in the trading scheme would almost inevitably lead to double counting and a weakening of the plan. Investments in internal DSM and clean power that reduce emissions from final emitters are already eligible for credit in the scheme and will assist large emitters in improving their intensity.

Note: The Climate Change Plan for Canada significantly underestimates the potential reductions available from clean energy and demand side management. CAN has provided two papers, Kyoto and Beyond and a commentary on the differences between it and the federal plan. To date, there has been no consultation on the overall Climate Change Plan for Canada. Nor has CAN or the author of K&B been approached by NRCan to discuss our very different conclusions.CAN notes that significant numbers of federal and provincial officials have downloaded Kyoto and Beyond. This key area of Canada’s response to climate change should be the subject of consultation and discus-sion.

5) Vagueness does not lead to clarity

CAN notes that it is very difficult to continue discussing the emissions trading scheme under a veil of secrecy. The only relevant numbers shared by NRCan, except for the proposed targets for the electricity sector and Dupont Canada, are 15%, $15 and 55 megatonnes. Even freedom of information requests for the numbers behind the BAU projection underlying the Climate Change Plan for Canada came back with basic information blacked out. Effective discussion of the design of the emissions trading scheme or contemplation of the adjustment sought by industry is impossible without at least a rudimentary breakdown of the different sectors and subsectors.

6) Consultation

Ongoing meaningful consultation on the development of the emissions trading scheme is of demon-strable value. CAN suggests that the Treasury Board guidelines which urge all departments to establish meaningful and timely consultation processes be used to create more formal consulting relations with all stakeholders. The Treasury Board urges departments to “Consider providing resources to groups and individuals to enable their participation, particularly if they might otherwise be under represented.”

The Climate Action Network Canada would like to meet with you and other stakeholders to establish the most appropriate ongoing consultation process for Large Final Emitters.





Letter to Premier Dalton McGuinty Concerning Nuclear Power

February 5, 2004

Letter to Premier Dalton McGuinty

Dalton McGuinty
Premier
Province of Ontario

May I begin by congratulating you on becoming Premier of Ontario and wish you the greatest success.

I am writing on behalf of the more than 100 member groups of Climate Action Network - Canada to raise concernsabout your government’s consideration of nuclear power. Our query is prompted by your recent comments:

“I won’t rule out nuclear power. I’d love to be able to say we’re going to harness the wind/solarpower, we’re going to get some hydorelectric from (other provinces), and that’ll be the end of it. But that would be irresponsible.” (Toronto Star Jan. 31).

We applaud the government’s commitment to phasing out coal fired electricity generation. This initiative will bring about major health and environmental benefits as well as contributing greatly to Canada’s Kyoto Protocolcommitments. It also provides an opportunity for the province to re-examine its electricity system and makefundamental changes that will ensure a safe, reliable supply of electricity for Ontarians.

Reliance on nuclear power is both fiscally imprudent and environmentally irresponsible. Nuclear power is the single largest reason for the electricity predicament your government is facing. The existing CANDU fleet has proven to be expensive and unreliable. All attempts to prolong reactor life have resulted in huge cost overruns and technical failures. The nuclear industry is making great promises for the future but potential new designs are years from completion. Investment in nuclear energy is inconsistent with what needs to be done and would compound the errors of the past.

Ontario must focus on demand side management, cogeneration and the rapid deployment of renewable energy. The estimated cost of renewing the Pickering reactors alone could yield 3000 megawatts of wind generation, creating far more jobs and increased reliability. The perspective of the Climate Action Network is described in our publication “Kyoto and Beyond”. We note Liberal Party’s election platform has a similar perspective specifically, the 5% (1,350 MW) energy conservation and the 4,100MW Industrial Cogeneration targets. It is time to take a bold step and make a departure from the mistakes of previous governments. It is time to put coal and nuclear behind us.

Sincerely,
John Bennett
Executive Director





The Minister of Natural Resources and federal environment policy


CANet Press Release

Clarification Demanded

(Ottawa) The Climate Action Network of Canada has written to Prime Minister Paul Martin (see below) asking for a clarification of recent remarks by Natural Resources Ministers John Efford. The organization of more than 100 member groups from ten provinces and two territories is concerned about statements to the media and the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers by Mr. Efford.

The letter asks, “Do Mr. Efford’s comments reflect the policy of the government of Canada?”

“If what the Minister (Natural Resources Ministers John Efford) is saying is new policy, Canada is not only turning away from the Kyoto Protocol it is abandoning environmental regulation and common sense,” said John Bennett Executive, Director of the Climate Action Network.

Referring to recent media reports the letter points out that Mr. Efford has:

• undermined and prejudged the outcome of the public review of offshore oil development in British Columbia;
  
• undermined and brought into question the objectivity of any future hearings on the Mackenzie Valley pipeline;
  
• backed the use of nuclear power despite its track record of unreliability, unsustainable costs and huge environmental risks;
  
• suggested the federal government is abandoning the user pay principle for contaminated sites;
  
• and undermined Canada’s commitment to reducing greenhouse gas emissions by advocating expanding the production of fossils fuels;
  
• offered to provide more concessions to the oil and gas industry that has already been accommodated at the expense of Canadian taxpayers.
  

“Mr. Efford appears to be put shipping oil and gas to the US ahead of protecting present and future Canadians from air pollution and climate change,” Mr. Bennett added.

“We want the prime minister — a former environment critic — to clarify his government’s position because we need strong leadership from the top if Canada is going to meet its international commitments under the Kyoto Protocol and protect our environment,” he continued. The Climate Action Network - Canada was founded in 1990 to work for action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions its members include large and small organization from across Canada.

For more information:

Letter to the Prime Minister regarding GHGs

Letter to Right Honourable Paul Martin

By John Bennett, Executive Director, CANet
January 19, 2004

Prime Minister,

May I begin by congratulating you on becoming Prime Minister of Canada and wish you the greatest success.

I am writing on behalf of the more than 100 member groups of Climate Action Network - Canada to seek clarification of your government’s position on reducing greenhouse gas emissions, the Kyoto Protocol, respect for the Environmental Assessment Act and other scientific or environmental reviews.

Our query is prompted by recent comments by Natural Resources Minister John Efford. His statements have caused a great deal of concern and our attempts to meet with him and/or his staff to discuss them have been unsuccessful.

It is our understanding that Ministers of the Crown have a responsibility to uphold and respect the regulatory process and Canada’s international commitments. Yet, in only one month, according to press reports, the Natural Resources Minister has:

• undermined and prejudged the outcome of the public review of offshore oil development in British Columbia;
• undermined and brought into question the objectivity of any future hearings on the Mackenzie Valley pipeline and environmental regulations, in general, suggesting they are “red tape”;
• backed the use of nuclear power despite its track record of unreliability, unsustainable costs and huge environmental risks;
• suggested the federal government is abandoning the user pay principle for contaminated sites; and,
• undermined Canada’s commitment to reducing greenhouse gas emissions by advocating the expansion of fossils fuel production and offered to provide even greater concessions to the oil and gas industry that has already been accommodated at the expense of Canadian taxpayers.
  

Do Mr. Efford’s comments reflect the policy of the government of Canada?

We applaud your commitment to implementing the Kyoto Protocol and your recognition that the Kyoto targets are just a first step as reflected in your remarks to the Montreal Board of Trade last September. However, implementation of Kyoto requires clear leadership from the top. Mr. Efford’s quotes and the corresponding spin placed on your comments in early December are contributing to the unraveling of efforts in Canada.

Our members would very much like to work with your government and its innovation agenda to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and meet our international commitments. As you said in Montreal, addressing environmental issues leads to a more efficient economy as well new opportunities.

Thank you for taking the time to review our concerns. We ask for a speedy reply.

Sincerely,

John Bennett
Executive Director

CC
Honourable John Efford Minister of Natural Resources
Honourable David Anderson Minister of Environment