This presentation will address the central role that government can play in and inducing individuals to reduce or increase their carbon emissions. By using the Swedish example, I will demonstrate that reducing carbon emissions does necessarily damage the economy. Rather, I will argue that effective environmental and economic policy are not at odds with one another, and that well-crafted policy can encourage economic development and climate protection.
The result of this game is representative of the performance of both countries on climate change.
I feel that it is fair to make comparisons between Sweden and Southern Ontario and Québec , as they share fairly similar climates, resource structures, geographies, population sizes… and yet Southern Ontario emits more than twice as much as per person (6.9 t/person CO 2 e in Sweden vs. 15.4 t/person CO 2 e in Ontario and 11.1 t/person CO 2 e in Qu ébec ). A lot of this is because of Sweden’ s power sector and power consumption – which is roughly evenly split between hydro ( 43%) and nuclear (47%); of the remainder, biomass (5%), wind (0.7%) and waste (1.1%) provide much of the rest. Only 3% of electricity is provided by fossil fuels. It’s also worth mentioning that, according to the IEA, in 2006, Canada relied on fossil fuels for about 73% of its primary energy. Sweden, though it is an energy-intensive economy, also has the lowest share of fossil fuels (35%) in its primary energy supply among IEA members. No other OECD country is below 50% (France is closest at 52%). It should be noted that the majority of the population lives, unsurprisingly, in the southern part of the country, below the 60 th parallel (which runs just north of Uppsala). Growth between 1990 and 2008 was around 45% in terms of real GDP (almost zero growth in 2008). Compare that to the 11% reduction in GHGs. Note that 2009 figures should be extremely interesting – the Swedish economy contracted 5% that year – what will the result be in terms of GHGs? In Canada, there was a 2.6% decline in the GDP in 2009.
Source of Data – Statistics Sweden and Naturv årdsverket. Sweden ’ s 2020 target of 40% below 1990 emissions from non-ETS sectors can be compared with the similar targets of the UK (34% by 2020) and Germany (40% by 2020) – though it may even be more impressive, given that progress is occurring, and that Sweden didn ’ t have the extra help that the UK did through its Dash for Gas, or Germany did through reunification and the shuttering of polluting plants in Eastern Germany.
Sources of Data – Statistics Canada and Environment Canada The 2020 target is 17% below 2005 levels, the target Canada submitted to Appendix I of the Copenhagen Accord; it is in line with the US target as expressed in the Waxman-Markey Bill. It is a weaker target than Canada ’ s pre-Copenhagen target (20% below 2006 by 2020, which equated to a 3% decrease from 1990).
I think this graphic is rather telling. As Swedes are emitting significantly less on a per capita basis (about 20% less), Canadians emit more than they did in the early 1990s. Why is this the case, and moreover, how did it happen?
The first three of these measures are things that the EU has set as targets. The last three are Swedish targets. Note – the ETS covers about 11,000 facilities throughout Europe, of which over 700 are in Sweden. The ETS covers the following sectors and installations: Energy activities - Combustion installations with a rated thermal input exceeding 20 MW (excepting hazardous or municipal waste installations). Mineral oil refineries and coke ovens. Ferrous metals production - Installations for the production of pig iron or steel (primary or secondary fusion) including continuous casting, with a capacity exceeding 2.5 tonnes per hour. Cement and lime - Installations for the production of cement clinker in rotary kilns with a production capacity exceeding 500 tonnes per day or lime in rotary kilns with a production capacity exceeding 50 tonnes per day or in other furnaces with a production capacity exceeding 50 tonnes per day. Ceramics, bricks - Installations for the manufacture of ceramic products by firing, in particular roofing tiles, bricks, refractory bricks, tiles, stoneware or porcelain, with a production capacity exceeding 75 tonnes per day, and/or with a kiln capacity exceeding 4 m3 and with a setting density per kiln exceeding 300 kg/m3. Glass - Installations for the manufacture of glass including glass fibre with a melting capacity exceeding 20 tonnes per day. Pulp and paper - Industrial plants for the production of (a) pulp from timber or other fibrous materials (b) paper and board with a production capacity exceeding 20 tonnes per day.
One of the arguments put forth by Canadians is that Canada is big. It is a big landmass. But very few people live on most of it; about 90% of Canadians live within 160 km of the U.S. border. The Windsor-Québec City corridor, which is smaller than Sweden, contains more than 18 million people – twice the population of Sweden. So Canada has much greater population density than we tend to think, when it comes to the populated areas... However, a lot of the populated areas are outside of Southern Ontario and Quebec are often separated by large distances. And getting between them is MUCH more difficult than in Sweden if you don’t have a car. One thing Sweden has always done very well is connecting its cities by rail – there are few places you cannot get to in Sweden without public transit.
Between 1990 and 2007, in 1990 US dollars, Sweden has witnessed slightly slower growth than Canada, at about 48% compared to 60%. However, on a per capita basis, the growth has actually been higher – 38% compared to 34%. Canada’s population grew 19% during this period, while Sweden’s grew 7%. It’s interesting to note that this occurred on a backdrop of a 26% increase in Canadian emissions and a 9% decrease in Swedish emissions. I’m cautious to say that it is similar to Ontario and Quebec. It cannot and probably should not be compared to Western Canada, particularly Alberta, as there are different circumstances there. There may be some relevance to B.C., as we’ll see later on. I say milder in winter – right now, because of the really strong Arctic Oscillation that has been affecting Northern Europe, Sweden has been much colder in 2010 than in 2009 – however, on the average, winters are milder.
In Sweden, municipal taxes ranges between 28 and 35%, depending on the municipality, and is levied on the first SEK308,800 in income. Typically, the municipal tax rate is 30%; 2/3 goes to the municipalities, while the other third goes to the counties (l än). NB – the first SEK17,000 is non taxable. Between SEK308,800 and SEK458,300 taxes are municipal plus state (20%); above this level, state taxes are 25%. Source: www.swedishbulletin.se/sb/articles/0403-expats-tax.shtml. In Canada, municipalities are only able to fund themselves through property taxes; there are very few municipal taxes, and they are reliant on transfers from the federal and provincial governments. In Sweden, property tax revenues do not go to municipalities, they go to the state instead. Sales tax - Moms ( mervärdesskatt, formerly meromsättningskatt - 25%; 12% on groceries and hotels, 6% on domestic passenger transport, cultural services/events, and printed matter). Sales taxes in Canada range between 5 and 15.5%, and is around 12-13% for most of the country. Public transportation will be taxed by twice as much in Ontario as it is in Sweden come July 1. Public education, health and dental care are not taxed (private education is taxed). In 2007, Canada’s tax revenue was 33.3% of GDP, while Sweden’s was 48.2% (second only to Denmark (48.9%) amongst OECD countries. I want to come back to this afterwards, because I think the issue of accountability in taxation is incredibly important across the board.
The effect, ecologically, psychologically, and economically, cannot be underestimated. With the inclusion of the currently economically recoverable portion of the oil sands, Canada has the second largest recoverable reserves of oil in the world. Add in a neighbour with whom we have a free-trade agreement (which includes a proportionality clause), who is very thirsty for oil, that has quite a bit of economic clout, and has fairly well-known issues of energy security (that they ’ d prefer to supply their way out of rather than curb demand), and the threat of climate change has proven no match for the desire to continue with business-as-usual. There is a lot of clout amongst those seeking to promote exploitation of the oil sands. With the oil sands, we are net petroleum exporters. Canada produces 3.5 million barrels a day, and consumes 2.2 million barrels a day. We currently produce about 1.3 million barrels per day from the oil sands (source of data?). It should be noted that the IEA ’ s World Energy Outlook report in 2009 stated that the financial crisis sidelined or postponed over 1.8 million barrels per day of projected oil sands production, due to the collapse in oil prices. Much of this was scheduled to come online by 2012; perhaps the financial crisis will have long-term positive climate benefits?
This is an important point to make. Canada is far less of a unitary nation that Sweden, or in fact any EU country – the only developed country with more power devolved to the provinces (or rather, in its case, the cantons) is Switzerland. For example, municipalities and urban planning fall much more under the purview of the provinces, as does resource stewardship. This can in part explain some of the significant differences between provinces in GHG emissions. A lack of integration in the grid can also explain some of the significant differences in emissions factors from electricity in the provinces, as does geography. Québec, British Columbia, Newfoundland and Labrador and Manitoba are blessed with hydroelectric resources, and have the lowest climate impact electricity production in the country. Prince Edward Island imports much of its electricity from Québec; what it doesn’t import, it produces for the most part from wind. Sources of data – Environment Canada (Canada’s National GHG Inventory 1990-2007) and Statistics Canada.
The Progressive Conservatives were in power from 1984 to 1993. During their mandate, they played host to the Montréal Protocol (which is coincidentally the most successful treaty in reducing GHG emissions that’s been devised so far). They were the first western government to endorse the Brundtland Commission, and hosted the Toronto Conference on the Changing Atmosphere. They developed a Green Plan to review the environmental impact of government initiatives. They took the climate issue seriously, and Brian Mulroney was voted as Canada’s Greenest Prime Minister. They were able to engage the US to sign the UNFCCC at Rio, and were the first western government to sign the biodiversity accord. However, at the end of their mandate in 1993, they were not loved by Canadians – their reputation was hurt badly by the recession, free trade and the goods and services tax. They went from a parliamentary majority to two seats (thanks to Canada’s first-past-the-post system). Per capita emissions even declined between 1990 and 1993, though this may be because of the recession. From 1993 to 2006, the Liberal party governed Canada, for the first 10 years under Jean Chrétien, and for the last 2 ½ years under Paul Martin. While the Liberals are remembered for eliminating Canada’s deficit and keeping Canada out of the Iraq war, they were not the most successful environmental stewards. Canada’s emissions target at Kyoto (6% below 1990 levels) had little basis in reality, and was established by the desire of Canadian leadership to best the Americans. Emissions increased by 137 Mt between 1993 and 2004, twice Sweden’s 2007 emissions. However, towards the end of their mandate, emissions had begun to decrease during a period of economic growth; they peaked at 741 Mt in 2004 and declined to 717 Mt in 2006. A scandal lead to the loss of confidence in the Liberals, and the end of the Liberal mandate in early 2006 (an election was called due to a vote of no-confidence on the first day of COP11 in Montréal). Under the Conservatives, funding for climate change programming was virtually halted in 2006 (I can discuss what it was like). Many programs were cut by 35-40%, and others were put into limbo or ended. Some were reinstated under the ecoENERGY title in 2007 (e.g. ecoENERGY for Homes, which was changed so that the audits were no longer covered). Others, like the One-Tonne Challenge, were simply cut, and Canadians were no longer encouraged by the federal government to cut their personal emissions. As well, funding for climate change research is in the news in Canada, as the recent budget has not offered any new money to the Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences. Funding for this program is expected to dry up at the end of 2010. One of the most successful programs, EcoEnergy Retrofit – Homes, was also not renewed and can no longer be subscribed to. Désirée McGraw, Co-founder of Liberal Renaissance, wrote in The Toronto Star on January 21, 2010 that “ It is now an accepted fact here in Canada and around the world that our country has gone from being an environmental leader under former prime minister Brian Mulroney to a laggard under the Liberals – and now a pariah under the Stephen Harper government.”
The change in target brings Canada ’ s 2020 target from 3% below 1990 levels to 2.5% above 1990 levels. A little bit less ambitious than Sweden ’ s target of 40% below 1990 emissions, and its actions... Companies, instead of meeting their emission reduction targets, could instead pay into a technology fund (at $15/tonne in the beginning, up to $20/tonne by 2013 and rising by inflation afterwards) for a portion of the difference between their target and their business as usual emissions, starting at 70% and declining afterwards. The technology fund was originally to be phased out by 2017, and so more stringent caps would have been placed on businesses, afterwards, which could have enabled Canada to meet its 2020 target – had this been implemented. The new version has not been released; I can ’ t speak to it here, due to confidentiality issues, but to say that there when I saw a presentation on it, my colleagues and I were less than impressed. Kind of changes the conservative economist language of the cap-and-tax to ’ tax-and-don ’ t-cap ’ . Canada is very keen on offset systems, where domestic offsets could be purchased by large final emitters (once called large industrial emitters – but they didn ’ t like that acronym). The biggest challenge is that Canada has a government that, unlike Swedish governments of all political stripes, sees the economy and the environment as a zero-sum game. To them, economy always wins. A quote from Jim Prentice from Nov. 2008: ” We will not - and let me be clear on this - aggravate an already weakening economy in the name of environmental progress..&quot; Bill C-474 - The Government of Canada accepts the basic principle that sustainable development is based on an ecologically efficient use of natural, social and economic resources and acknowledges the need to integrate environmental, economic and social factors in the making of all decisions by government. Note that, in the 2010 budget, there was no new funding for the Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences, which funds climate research, and expects to exhaust its funding at the end of 2010. This may seriously hamper Canadian researchers in this field. EcoENERGY for Houses – Retrofit also wasn ’t renewed. This is symbolic – it was one of the few programs that was engaging Canadians on climate change action.
From Impacts to Adaptation demonstrates that many in the bureaucracy have a strong understanding of the climate change issue. It was coordinated jointly by Natural Resources Canada and Environment Canada, and prepared in a fashion similar to the IPCC (over 140 authors). And I would like to, at this point, stand up for my colleagues working within the bureaucracy. Many of them are trying to push things, but feel they have no support. The ICSPs have been a requirement for municipalities to receive their portion of the gasoline tax (which is about $0.10/L plus 5% of the total cost). This funding totals $2 billion per year.
Current performance by these three provinces: Québec – emissions up 3 Mt (4%) between 1990 and 2007. Ontario – emissions up 23 Mt (13%) between 1990 and 2007. British Columbia – emissions up 14 Mt (28%) between 1990 and 2007. Québec, given its large hydropower resource and low per capita emissions (and poor urban planning in many of its newer suburbs), may have the most difficult time reducing its emissions. 40% of Québec’s emissions come from transportation, and it is the only sector where there has been growth in emissions; metal production and the forestry sectors, for different reasons, have witnessed a decline. Ontario’s (and probably Canada’s) biggest GHG reduction measure is to phase out coal-fired power by 2014. Coal power generated 35 MT CO 2 e in 2003, and has dropped to 23 Mt in 2008. Some of this will be replaced by natural gas, some by the renewable energy encouraged through the feed-in tariff, and some by using biomass in coal-fired generators (to provide peak power). British Columbia has witnessed notable devastation from the mountain pine beetle, such that its ‘Liberal’ government (which is the conservative option) recognizes the damage from climate change and has implemented the first strong carbon tax, starting at $10/tonne in July 2008, ramping up $5/tonne each year to 2012 (at which point it will be $30/tonne). All three provinces, as well as Manitoba, are part of the Western Climate Initiative lead by California.
This is the First Light solar power plant, the first multi-MW solar plant in Canada. It ’ s about 7 km from my parents ’ home in Napanee. It has a peak capacity of 9.1 MW, and has over 126,000 solar cells on 36 ha. It was the biggest one when it went online in October of last year... Now it ’ s been trumped by the one in Arnprior! A quote from the Construction Manager, Michael Henderson: “For all the trades, all the guys involved with this, it was a badge of honour to work it.&quot;
Sweden has shown that you can do well by doing good – emissions are down over 10% during a period of per capita economic growth greater than in Canada. Canada doesn ’ t have a centralized agency for urban planning. It is devolved to the provinces and municipalities. However, an agency such as Boverket could help Canada get further along in the urban planning side, reducing transport energy demand and perhaps building energy demand. We do have a Model National Energy Code for Buildings, developed in 1997. It was developed by the Federal Government without much consultation with provinces, and so it was not implemented well. It is currently being updated in a more consultative process, and the new code will be released in 2011.
The first district heating system installed in Sweden was used to heat the Sabbatsberg hospital in Stockholm in 1878. The first municipal district heating system was installed in Karlstad, about 300 km west of Stockholm, on the northern shore of Vänern (a large lake) in 1948. Further district heating systems were started at Norrköping and Malmö in 1951, Göteborg, Sundbyberg, and Stockholm in 1953, Linköping and Västerås in 1954, Örebro in 1956, and Borås in 1959. The district heating system in Karlskrona has only been around since 1990. It includes two heating plants, located at Gullberna Park (the one pictured here) and V äster Udd . The redundancy allows for one plant to The hot water generated there is distributed throughout Karlskrona using a 112 km network of piping. Water is pressurized and heated to 120 o C, but due to the pressure does not vapourize. This is mixed with some of the return water from the district heating system, and water leaves the plant for the district heating system at between 75 and 90 o C. It is then distributed in a closed loop using 600 mm diameter pipes (with 200 mm polyurethane foam (PUF) annular insulation) through the city. This heat is delivered from the district heating loop to BTH via a 60 mm pipe with 100 mm PUF insulation. Water distributed throughout the city returns to the plant at 60 o C. Affärsverken combusts about 500 m 3 of wood chips daily in winter (sourced from Blekinge and Småland, the two closest counties) to meet its heating demand, and wood chips and pellets provide over 80% of the energy consumed at the heating plant. On top of that, 4% of the energy input into the system is met through landfill gas, while the system has also been adapted for the use of bio-oils. 13% of energy input is from fossil fuels, to meet peak demand in winter. A new plant is being built at the Bubbetorp landfill just north of Karlskrona that will be a cogeneration plant. This should be operational by the end of 2010 or in early 2011. It should be able to provide 38 MW of heating and 12 MW of electricity; the current system only provides the heating.
Let’s move away from Karlskrona, because for all that you’ve seen so far, it’s not that far along compared to other cities. In 1996, V äxjö, a city 115 km northwest of Karlskrona, set a really ambitious target to reduce its GHG emissions per capita by 50% between 1993 and 2010. It had gotten as far as 32% by 2007. That is largely due to this largely biomass-fired congeneration facility, which provides heat for most of the city. Of the 800+ GWh of heat it generated in 2006, only about 40 GWh came from oil. In 2001, 2002 and 2005, it was as low as 20 GWh. 66 MW h + 38 MW e = 104 MW t Their reasons? The oil crisis in the 70 ’ s, access to a local and reliable fuel supply, local job creation, income for local forest owners, sawmills and contractors, and tax income to the municipality.
Gudrun was a massive storm that hit Southern Sweden just over 5 years ago (on Jan. 8, 2005). It wasn’t really a hurricane – but it was an extremely powerful, hurricane-like storm with winds up to 160 km/h. It flattened huge sections of the forest in Southern Sweden. It took almost 5 years to process all of the trees knocked over and damaged by the storm (they finished them up in Dec. 2009). The trees were used both for heating and for the pulp and paper industries. This could, to an extent, be compared to the climate change-related devastation of British Columbia’s forests by the mountain pine beetle, though that could be a risky comparison.
The wood piles in Sweden from Gudrun and Per look awfully familiar – Similar damage has been done – this time, by climate change – to the forests of British Columbia. B.C. could choose to harvest some of this for energy. However, if B.C. does choose to make use of its dead forests for power, it should to make sure to limit the other impacts of tree removal (notably, they shouldn’t be clear-cut, because of the other services these forests could provide, e.g. erosion control).
This is the largest wind installation in Sweden. It was commissioned in June 2008, and has a peak capacity of 110 MW. The location averages wind speeds of 8 to 10 m/s. Sweden has 1560 MW of wind capacity – a little bit behind its western neighbour, Denmark, which has a wind production capacity of 3450 MW.
Hammarby Sjöstad was first conceived in conjunction with Stockholm ’ s bid for the 2004 Summer Olympics. Even though the bid wasn ’ t successful, Stockholm went ahead with the development. Right now, Hammarby Sjöstad has a population of about 10,000. It ’ s only partially developed; it ’ s meant to have a population of 25,000. Stockholm is using it as a model for future developments – it wants to do better than it has at Hammarby Sjöstad. The image, which I ’ ve passed around, includes the flow of energy, materials and water. Wastewater is digested to provide fuel for fleets and for cooking. Organic waste is used to provide fuel for the heat and power plant.
This is a model of the neighbourhood, part of a model of Stockholm and its current and planned developments, that can be found in the Kulturhuset, next to the Central Station.
So people deposit the waste in each of the three chutes – one for organics (people would get bags at the Glashus Ett building), one for plastics and metals, and one for paper products. The waste is then sucked down the chutes to the waste management centre, once every hour, rotating between different waste streams.
The waste is sucked once every hour from one of the receptacle streams.
The trams run. The trams were integrated into the design of the neighbourhood, and run through the central part of the neighbourhood. Transit will be stretched out as the neighbourhood grows. This design has lead to 21% use of private vehicles for commuting, compared to 35% in other parts of Stockholm. It should be noted that this is just outside of Stockholm’s congestion tax area. Note - there are no major trucks on this road; they all take a separate service road about 100 m behind where I took this picture from.
At the Statoil station, there are both biogas and ethanol pumps. The biogas comes from the digestion of wastewater.
Some of my classmates were really innovative in how they used the bicycle lanes for transportation.
I didn ’ t get to see this plant myself, but it ’ s an interesting one, and perhaps a bit of a controversial technology. Here ’ s some info: Sysav is permitted to use 550,000 tonnes of waste a year as fuel. The plant produces approximately 1,400,000 MWh of district heating a year, which roughly equates to the district heating of 70,000 small houses – about 60% of the population of Malm ö . The steam boilers produced around 250,000 MWh of electricity a year in total, some of which is used in the plant itself.
I feel this quote summarizes the Conservative position on dealing with climate change – do as little as possible on climate change because it will hurt our economy to act. Never mind the McKinsey curves that I hope they are aware of. Even if they do not pretend to be aware, the civil service is familiar with the work of McKinsey.
Whereas the current Australian leadership position is that climate change will hurt their economy, as will inaction.
Adrian Mohareb presentation - Sweden vs. Canada on Climate Change Mitigation - 2010
1 Oh, Canada… A comparison between Sweden and Canada on mitigating greenhouse gas emissionsAdrian Mohareb2010
2 Outline• Introduction – similarities and differences• Statistical comparison of Canada and Sweden• Swedish climate and taxation policy and its potential application to Canada• The challenges posed by Canada’s political structure• Canada’s history on climate change• What can Canada learn from Sweden?• Conclusions
4 Hockey!2006, Torino – Sweden wins Men’s Hockey Gold Source: media.olympics.com.au
5 Hockey!2010, Vancouver – Canada wins Men’s Hockey Gold Source: ctvolympics.ca/Getty Images
6When it comes to reducing greenhouse gas emissions… Lillehammer, 1994 Men’s Hockey Gold Medal Game Sweden beats Canada Source: goironpigs.com
7Comparing Sweden to (parts of) Canada• Area of 450,000 km2 (more than 3x the size of Southern Ontario)• Population of 9.2 million (c.f. S. Ontario – 12.1 million)• Emissions of 64.0 Mt CO2e in 2008 (down 11% from 1990 levels) ▫ Per capita emissions lower than in any Canadian province• Carbon tax instituted in 1991 – now equal to approximately CDN$150/tonne
10Charting Canadian and Swedish Per Capita GHG Emissions
11 Sweden’s Climate Policy• By 2020: ▫ 50% of energy from renewable sources ▫ 10% renewable energy in the transport sector ▫ 20% greater energy efficiency ▫ 40% reduction in emissions from sectors outside of the Emission Trading Scheme• A vehicle fleet independent of fossil energy by 2030• Zero net GHGs by 2050
12 The Comparability of Canada and Sweden• Sweden can be compared to some of Canada – but not all! ▫ Canada is a varied country geographically ▫ However, Canada’s population is denser than we often think • Some lessons from Sweden can be applied in some of Canada; but not all lessons can be applied everywhere
13How is Sweden relevant to Canada?• Economic growth has been roughly the same between 1990 and 2007 on a per capita basis• Sweden is most similar to Ontario and Quebec ▫ Few domestic energy resources, save hydroelectricity Half of power demand met by nuclear ▫ Similar climate and geography ▫ Excellent wood and mineral resources ▫ Similar population densities
14 A significant difference between Sweden and Canada – taxation• Carbon tax! SEK1010/tonne of CO2• Income taxes ▫ Sweden – first to municipalities and counties, then to national government; equalization ▫ Canada – income taxes to national and provincial governments (each set their own rates)• Sales tax and property taxes to national government in Sweden ▫ in Canada, sales tax is charged by federal and provincial governments; property taxes go to municipalities
15One Difference between Canada and Sweden…Syncrude Oil Sands, Mine and Refinery, Sept. 2001 Source: Greg Smith/Corbis/The Guardian
17Canada and Climate Change – History• 1988 – Toronto – Conference on the Changing Atmosphere (under Progressive Conservative government)• 1993 – Liberal Party government (until 2006)• Green Plans in Canada under Liberals• WPPI / RPPI; home energy audit/retrofit program; offset, cap and trade system designed (not implemented)• 2006 – Conservative government takes power• Repackaging of Liberal programmes in 2007
18 Currently…• Plans to implement Turning the Corner plan (developed before Copenhagen) ▫ First version of cap-and-trade system would create a technology fund that companies could use to meet up to 70% of their target ▫ Implementation postponed so that Canada can be in line with American regulations• 2020 target of 17% below 2005 levels• Vehicle emission standards harmonized with US ▫ Both light-duty vehicles and heavy-duty trucks• Bill C-474, Federal Sustainable Development Act
19Fortunately, Canadian Policy extends beyond Federal Government Policy• Canada’s policy environment is NOT limited to the political level of the federal government!• NRCan – From Impacts to Adaptation – Canada in a Changing Climate 2007 (released Mar. 2008)• Gas tax – municipalities must prepare an Integrated Community Sustainability Plan in order to access funding• Provinces have also been proposing their own climate change mitigation measures
20 Canadian Provinces• Québec: ▫ 20% below 1990 levels by 2020 ▫ first carbon tax in North America ($0.007/L gasoline)• Ontario: ▫ By 2014, 6% below 1990 GHG levels; 15% by 2020 ▫ Renewable Energy Feed-In Tariff; Green Energy and Green Economy Act in 2009• British Columbia: ▫ 14% below 1990 by 2020 ▫ Strongest carbon tax regime in North America ($30/tonne by 2012)
21 Some Hope for Canada!• First Light solar power plant, Napanee, Ontario ▫ 9 MW peak capacity, on 36 ha of scrubland
22What Can Canada Learn from Sweden?• Moving towards a low-carbon society does not have to hurt the economy! ▫ Lower per capita growth rates in Canada than Sweden• Urban and transport planning and building codes• Policies that drive the shift towards a low-carbon society• Taxation that changes accountability structures and discourages carbon-intense development
23 Conclusions• Sweden has made a commitment to low-carbon energy and mitigating demand ▫ Government policies foster sustainable individual decisions• This commitment is made more possible through a carbon tax and other elements of the taxation system that drive innovative uses of energy and change accountability• Sweden has many key similarities to parts of Canada, though some differences• Canada can learn from the Swedish example
24 Adrian MoharebM.Eng., MSLS, P.Eng. (Ontario), LEED AP
25Relevant Low-Carbon Technologies and Strategies Applied in Sweden
26Biomass District HeatingGullberna Park, Karlskrona
27 Biomass CogenerationVäxjö – district heating for 60,000 plus 38 MW electricity – over 90% wood-fired
39 According to Canada’s Environment Minister, Jim Prentice...“If the US does not make a substantial effort going forward,there is nothing Canada can do. Our own mitigation effortswill be futile – as a practical matter, we should probablyfocus on adaptation.If we do more than the US, we will suffer economic pain forno real environmental gain – economic pain that couldimpede our ability to invest in new clean technologies.But if we do less, we will risk facing new border barriersinto the American market.”•Speech to the Chamber of Commerce, 13 November 2009Source:http://www.ec.gc.ca/default.asp?lang=En&n=6F2DE1CA-1&news=757C0154
40 Compare to Kevin Rudd, former PM, Australia to accept the science but then“… (A) group of climate deniers are those who pretendurge delay because they don’t want their country to be the first to act.…(they) have said wait for Copenhagen and for President Obama’s scheme….It is an endless cycle of delay …. which will be to wait until the next year or the yearafter until all the rest of the world has acted at which time Australia will act.What absolute political cowardice.What an absolute failure of leadership.What an absolute failure of logic.The inescapable logic of this approach is that if every nation makes the decision notto act until others have done so, then no nation will ever act.The immediate and inevitable consequence of this logic – if echoed in othercountries – is that there will be no global deal as each nation says to its domesticconstituencies that they cannot act because others have not acted.The result is a negotiating stalemate. A permanent standoff.And this of course is the consistent ambition of… do-nothing climate changedeniers.”•Speech to the Lowy Institute, 6 November, 2009Source:http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/the-pms-address-to-the-lowy-institute/story-e6frg6nf