[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[crazy canuck]

Well no - the real "meat" of the plan is that they are requiring major emitters of over 40kT of CO2 per year to decrease their emissions.  This is where the bulk of the actual CO2 reductions would come from.  They don't spell out the mechanism of how this will work - I'm assuming it's some form of cap-and-trade.

Why would you make that assumption?

Maybe they are just going to ask nicely and suggest taking advantage of the green patent.

[Malthus]

Well no - the real "meat" of the plan is that they are requiring major emitters of over 40kT of CO2 per year to decrease their emissions.  This is where the bulk of the actual CO2 reductions would come from.  They don't spell out the mechanism of how this will work - I'm assuming it's some form of cap-and-trade.

The plan there appears to be to "set standards for major emitters" (standards to be determined by consultation with provinces and businesses), to change the definition of "major emitters" from 50 kt CO2e to 40 kt CO2e, and to ensure that those who go over must invest "a set amount" in green tech. See p. 20.

This doesn't appear to be cap and trade exactly (there is no mention of "trade"). It is also as you say very light on details - for example, the standards have yet to be established (they require consultation, according to the plan, and so cannot be set yet), nor is the amount of investment if one goes over these yet-to-be-established standards described. 

My post dealt with describing concrete plans - this clearly isn't. Not yet.

[Malthus]

I guess it is better than claiming there is no problem needing to be solved.

Not really.  If they claimed there is no problem, at least they would be being honest and the public can elect someone who does take the problem seriously.  They want to be able to claim there is a plan when there is none and they want to be able to claim that they take climate change seriously when they don't.

Well, I do find it somewhat encouraging that at least they aren't outright denying science. But yeah, I take your point.

[viper37]

I'm not disapointed
I wasn't expecting much from this Conservative Party on environmental issues, and I'm not disapointed.

I agree with Grumbler that cap&trade is a better solution than tax, even if, empirically, they would amount to the same.  But I've discussed that before and been rebuked, no need to rehash.

[crazy canuck]

I agree with Grumbler that cap&trade is a better solution than tax, even if, empirically, they would amount to the same.  But I've discussed that before and been rebuked, no need to rehash.

If they had proposed cap and trade your comment would have more relevance 

[Zoupa]

Scheer said he wants Canada to follow the Paris agreement. This "plan" definitely won't do that.

[viper37]

I agree with Grumbler that cap&trade is a better solution than tax, even if, empirically, they would amount to the same.  But I've discussed that before and been rebuked, no need to rehash.

If they had proposed cap and trade your comment would have more relevance 

Well, hypothetically speaking, of course.  as a principle, I prefer cap&trade than a carbon tax.  But Yi insisted in the past a carbon tax and cap&trade would have the same effect, while I disagree: tax has a direct psychological effect.  And it's easily seen at the pump too: carbon tax: +0,06$/L (and so on).

Talk about cap&trade, the original Kyoto way, and it's harder to "figure" in the mind of consumers.  Even if an oil company would advertize "Kyoto tax" on its pumps, it would be rebuked in popular opinion.  But a tax...  That's a different matter

Quebec is already participating in the carbon exchange with California, and Ontario until Mike Harr Doug Ford was elected, it would have been fairly easy for Canada to rejoin that market, to repair some silly mistake by the Conservatives.

[viper37]

Scheer said he wants Canada to follow the Paris agreement. This "plan" definitely won't do that.

No more, no less than the Liberal plan.

[crazy canuck]

Scheer said he wants Canada to follow the Paris agreement. This "plan" definitely won't do that.

No more, no less than the Liberal plan.

Its the liberal plan minus carbon taxes without anything to replace the carbon tax.

They are both terrible plans if one accepts the scientific estimate that we have little more than a decade before we exceed 1.5C

[Josephus]

Because light on details it does look like the Conservatives are not giving this a lot of thought and are mostly responding to criticism rather than take issue seriously.

Conservatives are never going to win over the environmentalists anyyway ... so lip service is all they need to devote to it.

[crazy canuck]

Because light on details it does look like the Conservatives are not giving this a lot of thought and are mostly responding to criticism rather than take issue seriously.

Conservatives are never going to win over the environmentalists anyyway ... so lip service is all they need to devote to it.

The analysis in the CBC report is to the same effect.  It will be interesting to see if they don't attract enough people like Malthus and I, who might otherwise have given them a shot if this had been a meaningful plan, to make a difference.

[Valmy]

Because light on details it does look like the Conservatives are not giving this a lot of thought and are mostly responding to criticism rather than take issue seriously.

Conservatives are never going to win over the environmentalists anyyway ... so lip service is all they need to devote to it.

Why not? It is not like environmentalism overlaps much with social programs.

[crazy canuck]

Because light on details it does look like the Conservatives are not giving this a lot of thought and are mostly responding to criticism rather than take issue seriously.

Conservatives are never going to win over the environmentalists anyyway ... so lip service is all they need to devote to it.

Why not? It is not like environmentalism overlaps much with social programs.

A good example of that is the provincial liberal party in BC under Premier Bennett.  Despite the party's name the government was fiscally conservative and it introduced the first carbon tax. We still have it today in this province.

[Malthus]

I am convinced that the bundle of attributes we associate with "right" and "left" have little or no internal consistency.

For example: why should environmentalism be seen as "left", or "liberal", rather than "conservative"? In the modern world, environmentalism is, above all, about avoiding radical change (that is, global warming) because it is likely to have bad effects. Avoiding radical changes because they are likely to have bad effects is sometimes seen as a "conservative" trait.

[viper37]

Its the liberal plan minus carbon taxes without anything to replace the carbon tax.

The carbon tax in itself will have little impact on reducing GHG emissions since it isn't hight enough.  You'd need 10x that to have any effect, now.

They are both terrible plans if one accepts the scientific estimate that we have little more than a decade before we exceed 1.5C

I believe these estimates to be on the generous side of things.  We did learn recently that oil&gaz GHG emissions were much, much higher than reported by the industry, and that's the data the scientists used to make their predictions.