Click on the headline (link) for the full text.
Many more articles are available through the Energy Bulletin homepage
Premier’s Shaky Global Warming Pitch
His targets are bold, but aim seems wobbly.
Mitchell Anderson, The Tyee
Will he or won’t he? That was the question on the minds of many British Columbians this week as Gordon Campbell prepared to release the throne speech and announce whether B.C. was really going to follow the lead of California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and bring in mandatory caps on carbon emissions.
The verdict? Nice wrapping, but not much inside yet.
First, the good news. While some North American governments are still questioning the science behind climate change, that time has now thankfully passed in B.C. Campbell has gone on record as stating this is an urgent problem requiring serious action.
…The other significant point about yesterday’s announcement is that the B.C. government is for the first time committing to hard caps on carbon emissions. Specially, Campbell committed B.C. to reducing reduce carbon emissions 10 per cent below 1990 levels by 2020. While that is more than Arnold Schwarzenegger announced last August, 2020 is long way off and it remains very unclear how (and if) we are going to get there.
On the bright side, Campbell has let the carbon cap genie out of the bottle and it will be very difficult to put it back in. That milestone, no matter how mushy at present, should be applauded.
…But before we get too giddy, let’s have a hard look at the details — or in this case, the lack thereof.
The major concern is timing. Governments are inclined to make sweeping announcements that come into effect only after their current term in office expires. This announcement is no exception.
Of all the initiatives announced yesterday, only two have any immediate impact. First, all new vehicles bought or leased by the B.C. government will be hybrids.
Big deal.
More importantly, Victoria will now begin requiring all new coal-fired generating plants to sequester 100 per cent of their carbon emissions. This new requirement may well kill the two proposed coal plants planned for the B.C. Interior. That would be significant, but time will tell what actually happens.
(14 Feb 2007)
Province’s natural resources will help meet green goals, energy experts say
Dirk Meissner, Canadian Press
VICTORIA — British Columbia has the natural tools in its rivers, forests and windswept fields to reach its target of clean electricity easily by 2016, energy experts say.
However, the province’s energy minister said yesterday that B.C. will partly achieve its goal of slashing its greenhouse-gas emissions by relying on its forests to scrub clean much of its carbon pollution.
Guy Dauncey, president of the B.C. Sustainable Energy Association, said he couldn’t help but cheer on the government’s energy initiative announced in Tuesday’s throne speech.
But he’s appalled the government might use so-called carbon sinks to offset the pollutants the province is generating, rather than taking action to ensure the emissions aren’t released into the atmosphere in the first place.
(15 Feb 2007)
Greening of BC Insincere, Impotent after April 1
Jan Steinman, Energy Bulletin
British Columbia goes green, but with fingers crossed, held behind back — the “Trade, Investment and Labour Mobility Agreement” (TILMA) will overrule.
—-
I am dubious of the Throne speech’s claims for British Columbia.
For one thing, “sequestration” isn’t defined. Gordy could pay some corrupt dictator in some third-world country to promise to plant more trees, under one loose definition of “sequestration.”
It’s all very sketchy and rushed feeling, as though it’s insincere public posturing. After all, no matter what Gordy says today, there’s always TILMA to contend with.
If you haven’t heard of TILMA, it’s to BC what Measure 37 was to Oregon — in effect, a “harmonization” of regulations between BC and Alberta, primarily concerned with “property rights” of big businesses. But unlike Measure 37, it was made law without any public or legislative input. At least the citizens of Oregon got suckered by an expensive, big-business initiative campaign, instead of quietly ignored, as with TILMA!
I imagine that once TILMA quietly goes into effect on (you ready for this?) April Fools Day, the two proposed coal-fired power plants will be revived, with the BC government saying, “Sorry, our hands are tied by this here piece of paper!”
So I’m rather cynical about this rushed, new-found greenness.
(15 Feb 2007)
Author Jan Steinman has a website: Bytesmiths.
Nonetheless, British Columbia’s southern neighbors are envious. (See next story.) -BA
Campbell’s souped-up climate initiative
Clark Williams-Derry , Gristmill
…As far as I can tell, Campbell’s government looked at each of the recent advances in Gov. Ahnold’s climate policy in California — the emission goals, the broad authority to develop a cap and trade system, the vehicle emission standards, policies on electric power — and tried to take each one a step further.
Take, for example, the issue of coal-fired power plants. California has vowed new electricity sources must be at least as climate-friendly as the most efficient natural gas generators — a standard that no coal plant can now meet. In effect, California is saying no to new coal-fired power plants — a major step in a continent awash in cheap coal.
But B.C. leaves that in the dust. According to the new plan, “all new and existing electricity produced in B.C. will be required to have net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2016.” Now, given B.C.’s current electricity generation portfolio (mostly hydroelectric), this isn’t a huge stretch; but it probably puts the kibosh on two proposed coal-fired power projects in the province. Overall the policy winds up being a darnsight more effective than California’s policy, which only applies to new power sources.
And boy, what a difference from Washington State’s “let’s study the heck out of this before we act” approach. In Campbell’s words, B.C.’s policy “leaves no room for procrastination.” But the conventional wisdom in Washington — expressed pretty clearly in this Seattle Times editorial — is that hesitation is the height of prudence.
Now, obviously, I’m not in favor of rushing willy-nilly into things before they’re thought through. But by calling delay “insightful,” the Times is calling the recent progress in the rest of the West Coast, in a nutshell, ill-considered. To which I’d respond — no, at this point, failing to seize the political momentum to tackle one of the globe’s most pressing problems isn’t at all insightful. In fact, it’s a bit cowardly.
(15 Feb 2007)
Links at original.
