Canadians can be forgiven for wondering where exactly the Conservative government and the main opposition parties stand on the important issue of global warming.

Among the parties, there are at least five different timetables for meeting — or not — Canada's Kyoto commitment to reduce climate-changing greenhouse gas emissions to below 1990 levels.

There are also at least a dozen different approaches being put forward, and a welter of conflicting numbers and target dates being thrown around. That is what happens when an issue like global warming suddenly leaps to the top of the political agenda and takes on an electoral urgency that few could have predicted even a year ago.

The main difference between now and, say, the last election campaign just over a year ago is that the Stephen Harper Conservatives have swung around mightily on the climate-change issue, though they are still operating with one big heavy foot on the brake.

The government's latest detailed plan, released earlier this week by Environment Minister John Baird, is a case in point. It goes a little further than the Conservatives' previous clean-air initiative, introduced last fall. But it would still not see GHG emissions stabilize until 2010 or more likely 2012 — the deadline by which Canada was to have met its Kyoto commitment.

What's more, the government's plan sets out a new baseline as its target — the 2006 emissions year rather than the 1990 Kyoto target year — and, it appears, a new target: Ottawa is committing itself to reducing absolute GHG emissions by 20 per cent of 2006 levels by 2020.

This target puts Canada directly at odds with most of Europe, which has just voted to go beyond its initial Kyoto commitment and reduce GHG emissions by 20 per cent of 1990 levels by 2020.

Given that Canada's 2006 emission levels will likely be about 770 megatonnes a year (we only know the 2004 contributions today, and these emissions have been increasing at an annual rate of almost two per cent), this means the Conservatives are committing Canada to a GHG goal of 616 MT by 2020.

By contrast, the Liberals, NDP and Bloc Québécois still believe Canada can reach its Kyoto target of 563 MT annual emissions by 2012 or thereabouts — which is quite a gap.

Reaching it would require a reduction of approximately 30 per cent from current (2004) GHG emissions of just over 740 MT a year.

Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion, mind you, has been leaving the door open for a later timetable, blaming the Conservatives for delaying the initiative. The NDP and the Green party are both on record advocating further cuts of 25 per cent and 30 per cent, respectively, by 2020.

Both also want Canada's greenhouse gas emissions to be down to 80 per cent of 1990 levels by 2050.

How to achieve

There are only so-many tools available to change human behaviour and a country's energy choices. One is some kind of carbon tax for making more expensive the cost of fossil fuels such as coal and oil.

Another is a so-called cap-and-trade system in which polluters are given a quota (a cap) on what they can release into the atmosphere. For anything above that, they must pay a fine (some countries have suggested $30 a tonne) or buy credits from another firm, possibly a competitor, to stay within the limit.

This latest Harper plan pledges to impose what it calls intensity-based regulations on big emitters beginning in 2010 and extending to at least 2017. The plan calls for a six per cent improvement each year, over a three-year period, in the "intensity" of a designated firm's carbon dioxide emissions.

An intensity-based regime, however, means that overall emissions can still rise as long as a producer is getting more energy-efficient use out of, say, a barrel of oil or a combustion engine.

The first Conservative plan back in October would have put a hard cap on the amount of greenhouse gases that big emitters such as power companies, energy producers and big manufacturers would have been allowed to produce, beginning in 2020. This one doesn't. (It also gives a three-year grace period and other breaks to oilsands startups.)

Only smog-causing air pollutants, a different category from greenhouse gas emissions, will now face a hard cap or absolute limit on what can be released into the atmosphere.

Companies that can't meet their intensity targets will be able to buy credits from those that can, or buy their way out of a penalty by contributing to a green technology fund, which is similar to something the Liberals have already proposed.

The government will also allow GHG emitters to invest in Kyoto-sponsored clean-energy projects in developing countries, something the Conservatives used to criticize the former Liberal government for considering.

The Conservative plan is also relying heavily on incentives. The government set out $230 million as an inducement to companies to adopt clean-energy technologies, which the Liberals claim is a direct lift from one of their programs, and it created a $1.5-billion Eco-Trust fund with the provinces. The Conservatives are hoping that carbon sequestration processes will be ready for use in the oil patch and for coal-fired generating stations.

Opposition plans

For their part, the Liberals Green Project would introduce an absolute hard cap on three key sectors — electricity generation, oil and gas development, and energy intensive industries such as mining and manufacturing — that would be equivalent to the Kyoto goal of 1990 emissions less six per cent for these emitters.

According to the Edmonton-based Pembina Institute, this would require emission reductions of approximately 36, 46 and 11 per cent, respectively, for these sectors, under current projections, something it has estimated would add just over $1 to a barrel of oil.

Companies that don't meet their GHG budget under the allocation will have to pay $20 a tonne (rising to $30 a tonne by 2011) into their own separate Green Investment Account. The account will be administered by an independent board and the companies will have the opportunity to their money back if they invest in emission abatement equipment.

Companies will also be able to buy offset credits in projects in developing countries that are certified under Kyoto, and companies that don't fill their carbon quotas will be able to trade their unused portions with other Canadian firms.

The Liberals' Project Green, however, only deals with the country's 700 largest GHG emitters, which together account for just 50 per cent of Canada's total emissions. It doesn't offer a detailed plan yet for ordinary Canadians or small business.

The NDP would legislate short, medium, and long-term regulations on GHG emissions from the industrial sector beginning in 2008 that would require overall reductions from that sector of at least 45 MT a year.

It would also legislate new fuel-efficiency standards for Canadian autos beginning in 2008 that would match "the highest U.S. standards," presumably those that California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger is proposing. The Conservative government is negotiating common new standards with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency that some observers have suggested wouldn't be quite so stringent.

The NDP plan would also allow for a cap and trade carbon market. And it would retrofit 75 per cent of federal government and Crown corporation facilities to most recent standards, and require solar heating and highest possible energy standards in all new government facilities.

The party says it would help underwrite 10,000 megawatts of wind power by 2010.

The Bloc wants to concentrate on mandating and helping automakers produce more fuel-efficient vehicles. It would offer rebates to consumers who bought energy-saving cars and it is in favour of tax credits for mass transit users, an initiative the Conservatives brought in.

The Bloc also wants government incentives to encourage alternative energy, wind power in particular.

The Greens are the only party to call directly for a carbon tax, in this case what it calls a graduated carbon tax that would impose a higher cost on the "dirtier" fossil fuels such as coal and less on natural gas.

Unlike Quebec, which imposed a carbon tax in 2006, the Green party's plan would encourage industry to pass the higher costs on to the consumer, in an attempt to change behaviour. But the carbon tax would also be part of what Green party Leader Elizabeth May calls tax shifting: The party would reduce payroll and income taxes even as it imposes a carbon tax on anything to do with fossil fuels.

The Green party also favours a carbon cap and trade system, as well as more energy- efficient rules for cars and trucks, and commercial and residential housing.

[an error occurred while processing this directive]