Environmental Law

In a September 25 poll on its website, the Globe and Mail asked Canadians: “In terms of global warming, what approach do you favour? Strict adherence to the Kyoto Protocol? The 'more flexible' approach suggested by Prime Minister Harper? A compromise between those two positions? No action is needed because global warming is not happening?” The about 86000 respondents were almost equally divided between the first three options, with only 5 % opting for “no action.”

But are politicians and media providing the information that would allow Canadians to make these judgments?  Kyoto-bashing has become something of a national sport, a sport that Canadian media have fallen for hook, line and sinker.  The same goes for political slogans touting the need for a “made in Canada solution” or a “balanced approach” to climate change.  Why indeed favour a “flawed treaty”? And why resist such reasonableness as home-made balance?

The world appears to have arrived, grudgingly in some cases, at a consensus that climate change is a serious environmental threat.  The global policy-making machine has slowly creaked into gear.  Indeed, various initiatives are now picking up speed on multiple tracks.

On track 1, discussions about new commitments to follow Kyoto post-2012 are taking place under the auspices of the 1992 UN Climate Convention.  On track 2, this year’s G8 Summit saw the leading industrialized states endorse the idea of 50% cuts in greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.  On track 3, the Asia-Pacific Climate Partnership, which Canada has now joined, is chugging along towards technological cooperation and an “aspirational” emissions target.  On track 4, US President Bush’s climate initiative wants to bring the 15 countries, including China and India, that emit 80% of global greenhouse gases on board.  Here too the destination is a “flexible” long-term target.

According to UN secretary-general, Ban Ki- Moon, the most recent findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) suggest that the impacts of climate change will be “so severe and so sweeping that only urgent, global action will do.”

The challenge at the pending UN meetings in Bali will be to set the tracks for just that: a regime that includes all major greenhouse gas (ghg) emitters and imposes meaningful emission reduction targets on them.

Canada’s Environment Minister, John Baird, has called the IPCC findings “powerful” and “overwhelming.”  Assuming, then, that Canada’s goal is to promote urgent and global action, what of its negotiating strategy for Bali?

There is something surreal about the current climate talks in Bali. Think about it this way…

Life is good in the penthouse suites.  The open and airy lofts boast the latest in sleek Italian furniture, the ultimate in German kitchen design, and screening rooms with state of the art plasma screens and surround sound systems.

Money is no object. The owners are, well, “financially comfortable” (some would say plain rich).  They enjoy the best wines from around the world, champagne from France, beef from Japan (sometimes Argentina), caviar from Russia and bottled mineral water from the finest springs.

Only one thing is puzzling about the penthouse suites. The blinds are drawn. And the air-conditioning is running in the winter.  Delivery staff rushes in and out, leaving sooty clothes and oxygen tanks at the door.  Because, you see, there is trouble in penthouse paradise. It sits atop a building that is now surrounded by fire and is beginning to smolder.

On February 23, 2009, the Minister of Energy and Infrastructure introduced the Green Energy and Green Economy Act, 2009 for first reading in the Ontario Legislature.  The Green Energy Act has broad policy implications for energy and environmental policy.  The attached commentary addresses the impact of the Act on public utility regulation in Ontario.  The author looks forward to feedback on this commentary and also encourages comments on other impacts of the Green Energy Act.

Download Green Energy Unbounded

This commentary was first published in the Financial Post on April 9, 2009.

There is no evidence that industrial wind power is likely to have a significant impact on carbon emissions. The European experience is instructive. Denmark, the world's most wind-intensive nation, with more than 6,000 turbines generating 19% of its electricity, has yet to close a single fossil-fuel plant. It requires 50% more coal-generated electricity to cover wind power's unpredictability, and pollution and carbon dioxide emissions have risen (by 36% in 2006 alone).

Flemming Nissen, the head of development at West Danish generating company ELSAM (one of Denmark's largest energy utilities) tells us that "wind turbines do not reduce carbon dioxide emissions." The German experience is no different. Der Spiegel reports that "Germany's CO2 emissions haven't been reduced by even a single gram," and additional coal-and gas-fired plants have been constructed to ensure reliable delivery.