Climate change: Where the parties stand

Last Updated Sept. 7, 2008

CBC News

Cap-and-trade or carbon tax? Green shift or green shaft?

The politics of global warming have their own lingo and rhetoric, language that could leave Canadians wondering just where the major parties really stand on the issue of global warming. Among the five parties, there are at least five different timetables and plans to deal with Canada's Kyoto commitment to reduce climate-changing greenhouse gas emissions.

There are also at least a dozen different approaches being put forward. That is what happens when an issue like global warming suddenly leaps to the top of the political agenda.

In fact, the main difference between this election campaign and the one in 2006 is that this time there are no hardcore skeptics among the mainstream parties on the climate change front.

"The environment as a central issue ... that's something we haven't seen in Canada yet," says Mark Winfield, a political scientist and professor of environmental studies at York University in Toronto.

Going into the campaign, much attention is focussed on Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion's Green Shift plan, a carbon tax proposal he says is good for the environment and also "good for the wallet," but which Prime Minister Stephen Harper and the Conservatives have attacked as nothing more than a "green shaft" and a tax grab.

"Clearly the Conservative strategy is to reduce this to a simple conversation about a carbon tax," says Winfield.

There is nothing simple about the issue of climate change, however. And there is nothing simple about any of the climate change proposals the parties will put to voters.

The Conservatives still don't believe the Kyoto targets can be met by the 2008-2012 compliance period without, Environment Minister John Baird says, triggering a recession.

After a few months in power, the Harper government did come around considerably on the global warming file and put forward its own solutions in a proposed new Clean Air Act. However, it is still largely operating with one foot on the brake.

In a nutshell, the NDP and Bloc Québécois still believe, at least publicly, that Canada can reach its Kyoto target (563 million tonnes annual emissions) by 2012 or thereabouts, which would require a reduction of approximately 30 per cent from current GHG emissions of just over 740 MT.

Under the Green Shift plan, the Liberals want to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 20 per cent below 1990 levels by 2020, with an increase to at least 25 per cent if other countries take on comparable efforts.

The Conservatives want to reduce emissions by 20 per cent below 2006 levels by 2020. Their big cuts would not take place for another 10 or 20 years, when the first set of "hard caps" under their proposed legislation would kick in.

The rhetoric

As the parties unveil their plans in detail, voters will have to ask themselves how reasonable these seem, what affect they might have on their daily lives, what timetables are involved and how the parties expect to achieve the cuts they are proposing.

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 the cost of fossil fuels such as coal and oil more expensive.

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.

Another way of changing behaviour is through regulations, which the Conservatives say they are considering for the auto industry, or incentives, like tax breaks to invest in more efficient motors or solar energy or the like.

Voters might want to ask, though, whether these plans will amount to real reductions in the amount of carbon dioxide or other greenhouse gases that get released into the atmosphere, or merely a reduction in the "intensity" of the emissions, which means that overall emissions can still grow even as users get more efficient energy bang for the output.

Another slippery concept is that of "offsets." Will Canadian companies be allowed to offset their own GHG emissions by investing in energy-saving projects elsewhere, possibly in developing economies like China?

There are many facets to this debate. This is what we know so far.

Targets and timetables

Kyoto requires a reduction of six per cent from 1990 levels of, in Canada's case, 599 MT by 2012, which is a target of 563 MT. Further reductions under the UN-based treaty are then to be negotiated. The European Union, for example, has committed itself to further reducing emissions to 20 per cent under 1990 levels by 2020. The Canadian equivalent of that would be a target of 479 MT.

The Conservatives' goal had been to reduce GHG by between 45 and 65 per cent from 2003 levels by 2050. At 45 per cent, that would translate to 407 MT. In the throne speech on Oct. 16, 2007, they offered new targets — 20 per cent by 2020 and 60 to 70 per cent by 2050.

The Liberals' new Green Shift plan talks of aiming to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 20 per cent below 1990 levels by 2020. The party wants that to rise to at least 25 per cent if other countries take on comparable efforts.

The NDP wants the Kyoto targets met by 2012; it also wants a further 25 per cent cut in emissions over the 1990 baseline by 2020 (449 MT); and it is proposing what it calls a science-based target of 80 per cent below 1990 levels by 2050.

The Bloc wants Kyoto met as well and notes that Quebec, with its huge hydroelectricity infrastructure, is only eight per cent above the Kyoto target at the moment.

The Green party has argued for a 30 per cent reduction over the 1990 baseline by 2020 and an 80 per cent reduction by 2050.

How is this to be achieved?

The Harper plan, unveiled in the clean air bill in October 2006, pledges to impose intensity-based regulations on automakers and big emitters over the next five years and extending to 2020. At that point, hard caps would be set on large emitters such as power companies, energy producers and big manufacturers.

It 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.

The Alberta government has said, for example, that it would like to use much of its share of the Eco-Trust fund to pay for a carbon dioxide pipeline to take the unwanted gas to underground storage facilities or turn it into something useful. Manitoba and Ontario have discussed using their money to extend Manitoba's electricity grid to energy-hungry Ontario.

The Conservatives also seem willing now to allow Canadian companies to buy carbon credits under the Kyoto agreement's clean-energy mechanism in developing countries, something they used to criticize the former Liberal government for contemplating.

The Liberals' new Green Shift plan proposes an estimated $15 billion in broad-based income tax cuts to Canadians facing higher energy and goods prices as a result of new taxes on Canadian industries that produce high carbon emissions. Dion has promised that the federal auditor general will examine the books each year to ensure the program remains revenue neutral.

Four days before the expected election call, Dion announced changes to the plan and insisted he wasn't backpedalling on his proposal. The new measures, worth about $900 million, were aimed at helping farmers, truckers and fishermen adapt to the Green Shift.

The Liberal plan would initially peg the price of emissions from fossil fuels such as coal, oil and gas at $10 per tonne of carbon dioxide, rising to $40 per tonne in the fourth year. By the fourth year, the increased cost to an average home would be $225 to $250 per year.

The document outlines a one percentage point reduction in the general corporate tax rate (to 14 per cent from 15) and the small business income tax rate (to 10 per cent from 11). The plan also offers personal income tax cuts in compensation as people pay more for heating costs, food and other items:

• A 1.5 percentage point rate reduction for the lowest tax bracket (the first $37,885 of taxable income), to 13.5 per cent from 15.
• A one percentage point rate reduction for the second-lowest tax bracket ($37,885-$75,769), to 21 per cent from 22.
• A one percentage point rate reduction for the bracket between $75,769 and $123,184, to 25 per cent from 26.

By the fourth year, the plan would include a new refundable child tax credit worth $350 per child per year. The Liberals would also introduce a new guaranteed family supplement that would provide $1,225 to low-income families with children under 18.

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

It 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 NDP plan 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 also calling for a carbon tax, in this case what the party 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 consumers, 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.

Questions to ask

The Conservatives. If a 30 per cent cut to GHG emissions to meet Kyoto is too difficult to do now, how will it be easier to make a much larger cut if emissions are allowed to rise over a longer period of time?

The Liberals. Will a carbon tax lead businesses to move to cleaner energy, or will they just pass extra carbon costs on to consumers?

The NDP. Is spending money retrofitting government buildings the best use of green funds? And why not insist on the highest energy standards for all new buildings, not just government ones?

The Greens. Couldn't a carbon tax lead to job losses in transportation and manufacturing, based as it is on just-in-time delivery?

How much will climate change matter in the voting booth?

While much political attention is focusing on climate change, the degree to which it will dominate the campaign and resonate with voters remains to be seen.

"Political campaigns have lives of their own," says Winfield, noting that as the signals of a pending election grew stronger, it looked "as if Mr. Dion's Green Shift proposal will be the defining issue."

When it comes to voters marking ballots in October, another political scientist doubts it will be the most important motivating factor, particularly if Canadians think efforts to combat climate change might hit their own wallets.

"People would like to have a ballot issue," says the University of Toronto's Nelson Wiseman, who predicts climate change and environmental issues will get a lot of attention, along with "a lot of good lip service," just as health care has in the past.

But for anyone wanting to make the election about the environment, Wiseman's assessment is simple: "It isn't good enough to win."