Feds follow Ontario…
Canada’s federal Conservative government has decided to ban inefficient lighting by 2012, following in the footsteps of a similar ban announced last week in Ontario. (See references in speech from Environment Minister John Baird). The feds also says they support a domestic cap-and-trade system and will be exploring expanding that to the United States and even Mexico — again, following in the path of Ontario, which announced earlier this month it was also exploring joining regional cap-and-trade initiatives in the U.S. east and west. Perhaps Ontario was simply scooping an announcement that was already going to be made by the feds, or perhaps the feds are reacting to pressure imposed by Ontario. Either way, we’re heading in the right direction, even if you question the motives of the Harper goverment — which many understandably do.
Tyler Hamilton is editor-in-chief of Corporate Knights magazine and a business columnist for the Toronto Star, Canada's largest daily newspaper. In addition to this Clean Break blog, Tyler writes a weekly column of the same name that discusses trends, happenings and innovators in the clean technology and green energy market. This blog is a personal project started in April 2005. It is not an official blog of the newspaper.
April 25th, 2007 at 10:41 am
I’m not sure I question the motives per se of the Harper Government, so much as their motivation. I think that one can “believe in” the problems posed by climate change, and believe that the federal govt has at least a leadership role to play, while being ideologically conflicted enough not to be able to produce the clear leadership required.
That being said, these announcements show leadership. I’m glad they’ve stopped talking about halting trains and grounding planes, and started moving forward on climate change. Even if we can’t meet our Kyoto targets, we can at least have a clear and viable “Plan B”.
April 25th, 2007 at 2:37 pm
I may be ‘flogging a dead horse’ with this comment, but I remain befuddled by the continued support by governments and especially some environmental organizations, for a Cap-and-Trade policy. I understand that many feel that a carbon tax would not be politically saleable, but there is a growing body of evidence out of Europe that strongly suggests that a cap-and-trade policy will fail. Moreover, I can imagine simpler mechanisms to implement a revenue neutral carbon tax than to implement all aspects of a cap-and-trade regime. If it were indeed revenue neutral, that would take most of the political sting out of a Carbon Tax.
Those who suggest that Cap-and-Trade is superior to a carbon tax, in that it lets market forces drive solutions more efficiently, are simply blowing smoke. A Carbon Tax would raise the price of consuming and producing emissions to a level approaching their real costs to the economy, and would thus encourage a rapid market response in the desired direction. It would not take money out of the economy, as long as governments ensure that the tax is revenue neutral, and reduce, for example; personal income taxes.
A Cap-and-Trade policy will necessitate a good deal of additional overhead in order to administer it, and will be vulnerable to manipulation and profiteering. The only definite outcome is that we will have introduced another type of financial market, and made more financial intermediaries rich in the process.