Home > News > 2007 > Backgrounder

January 9, 2007

A Seven Point Strategy

• On January 4, 2007:
  Prime Minister Stephen Harper said: "We recognize that, particularly when it comes to clean air and climate change, that Canadians expect a lot more.”
  
  
• On January 5, 2007:
  Newly appointed Minister of the Environment John Baird told Canada AM that on global warming: “I think Canadians expect us to do more. This is a big priority for Canadians.”
  
  

The Climate Action Network agrees that a lot more needs to be done about Canadians’ biggest priority – the environment. We offer this seven-point strategy to help Prime Minister Steven Harper and his newly appointed Environment Minister define “doing more” when it comes to climate change, Canada’s most profound environmental challenge.

• Make an unequivocal recommitment to meeting ALL our obligations under the Kyoto Protocol. Canadians want the federal government to meet our international commitments, not run from them. For the longer term, the government must put forward clear science- based targets to reduce Canada’s greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to at least 25 percent below 1990 levels by 2020 and at least 80% below 1990 levels by 2050.
  
  The Government can demonstrate its commitment to Canadians by finalizing, in the near term, a climate plan that effectively reduces all major Canadian sources of GHGs and accounts for meeting all our Kyoto Protocol obligations. The plan should be submitted to the United Nations at the earliest opportunity. A range of options is available to Canada under the Kyoto Protocol for managing its obligations, including funding emission reduction projects in poorer countries. Restoring Canada’s international credibility will be critical as the world negotiates further GHG reduction targets under future phases of Kyoto.
  
  Canada can show good faith by moving immediately to implement a series of measures in line with those taken by other developed nations. These include:
  
  
• Preparing regulations that set absolute emission targets for the biggest industrial polluters and apply no later than 2008. Energy efficiency regulations for appliance and equipment manufacturers and others must be aggressively strengthened in the same timeframe. Heavy industry accounts for close to half of Canada’s GHG emissions and its contribution to the effort should be in line with its contribution to the problem. Mandatory GHG reductions by industry must be a fair share of the reductions that Canada as a whole has to make by 2012 under the Kyoto Protocol.
  
  
• For the automotive sector, regulating GHGs in a manner at least as stringent as California’s regulation, which begins to apply in 2009. It should be noted that Europe’s, Japan’s and China’s auto sector targets for carbon dioxide are more stringent than California’s, and that to remain competitive internationally, Canada must keep pace with fuel efficiency and GHG standards around the world. Canada’s fleet is currently more energy efficient than California’s (a 2004 analysis by the California Air Resources Board calculates the Canadian fleet is about 9 percent more efficient than the California average) and so it can meet the objective more easily and at a cost per vehicle about half of that expected in California. These costs would in turn be more than offset by consumer savings in fuel costs.
  
  
• Announcing aggressive national objectives and adequate supporting funds for the deployment of low-impact renewable energy for the electricity, heating and transportation sectors. Doing more for Canadians requires an INCREASE in commitment to renewable energy technologies, including green power, solar thermal, geothermal and biofuels. Previous federal commitments of 5,500 MW in green power by 2009–2010 should be extended and increased to 12,000 MW by 2013. Consumer programs targeting solar thermal, solar photovoltaic and geothermal should be established in partnership with provinces, territories and municipal governments. A phase out of the estimated $1.4 billion a year in subsidies and tax advantages to the oil and gas sector would provide funds for this effort.
  
  
• Restoring and expanding the EnerGuide for Houses grant program and make an equivalent effort in the commercial sector.
  
  
• Increasing investment in research on climate impacts and adaptation to better understand the costs and risks of climate change to Canada’s economy, quality of life and environment. The Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences has outlined appropriate funding levels for this effort. The newly created Environment and Energy Security Committee of Cabinet should immediately engage the Council of Canadian Academies, whose mandate is to provide independent, expert assessment of the science underlying pressing national issues. The Council should be asked to complete a Canadian version of the UK government’s recent Stern Review of the economics of climate change, to quantify the security risks of global warming and a changing climate. The cabinet committee should also immediately seek a full briefing on the soon-to-be released Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
  
  
• Investing in effective programs to educate Canadians about climate change and engage them in solutions.