Pembina Channels:             |    Print    |    Send    |    Resize: A A A
 

Pembina Institute

 

Government takes undue credit for drop in emissions

Well folks, the numbers are in and it's a blow out! In 2008, Canada's emissions dropped 2.1 per cent from their all-time high of 750 million tonnes the year before. Fantastic news! And, if you believe last week's press release from Environment Minister Jim Prentice, we have mostly the federal government's clever policies to thank.

The release attributes the decline in emissions to "Canada's efforts to use greater amounts of clean energy power generation, which is part of the Government's efforts to target greenhouse gas production."

Sounds great, but a few key details are missing from that picture. For instance, the increase in hydro use came primarily because of increased rainfall, not federal support for large-scale hydro. A decline in Ontario's coal use is also partly to thank, as a result of its nuclear plants being more reliable than in 2007, paired with its commitment to phase out coal-fired generation by 2014. And then (as the release does mention), there was the start of the recession, which led to an overall decline in energy use in Canada. It's also worth mentioning that the pervious year's high of 750 million tonnes resulted from a whopping 4.5 per cent jump in 2007.

Unfortunately, it's much harder to pinpoint any federal government-led efforts that may have contributed to the drop.

But who wants to let details get in the way of an opportunity to make the government look good? The release also states that, "The Government of Canada is a strong supporter of renewable energy technologies." Yet this is the same government that failed to renew the funding in its last budget for the main federal program supporting renewable electricity — one reason why the U.S. federal government is set to outspend ours nearly 18:1 per capita on new renewable energy investments in 2010.

Photo: Courtesy MP James Bezan

Still, some government members have not been shy to take credit for the recent decline. In the days immediately following the announcement, several Conservative MPs raised the issue in the House of Commons, claiming government action had led to the drop.

MP Mark Warawa, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment, claimed, "In a short four years emissions have stopped growing and are actually going down. We are getting it done."

MP Blaine Calkins called on NDP MP Linda Duncan to "congratulate the government for getting greenhouse gas emissions down with all the investments that we put into the budgets previous to budget 2010."

MP James Bezan, chair of the House of Commons Environment committee, called the decline "an incredible achievement in just a few short years in government," and added, "Our government has acted on climate change and has got results."

If these results were actually policy-driven, then surely they would have been predicted by Environment Canada. Last spring, considering the impacts of all of its policies — including, charitably, the now-defunct Turning the Corner regulatory framework — the government anticipated that it would reduce emissions by one million tonnes in 2008. Instead, emissions actually fell by 16 million tonnes. So either this government's less-is-more approach is wildly more successful than even it anticipated, or there was some other cause for the bulk of the emissions drop.

Now, if we accept the former explanation, we shall also have to bow to the climate policy superheroes of the Bush Administration, who clearly out-policied us with a three per cent drop in emissions in 2008 (compared to our 2.1 per cent).

Or we just might have to give credit where credit is really due.

The summary of the new emissions inventory by Environment Canada staff finds that the decline in emissions can be attributed largely to factors we mention above.  No mention, sadly, of any federal government policies.

It's worth noting that in the absence of major new government policies, the underlying trend in Canada's emissions (setting aside the occasional fluctuations caused by the economy or the weather) is one of continued, indefinite increases. 

Expect the spin to follow similar trends. 

Learn more about Climate Change.

Read more blogs relating to Climate Change, Federal Action.

Claude Boucher — Apr 20, 2010 - 02:11 PM MT

Fuel prices had a much larger impact in 2008 than anything the Con government did (or didn't do).

According to annex 15 of Canada's submission to the UNFCCC (volume 3, pp. 100-128), electricity sector emissions dropped by 6 megatonnes -- bolstered by reductions of 4.6 Mt in Ontario, 1.6 Mt in Quebec and 0.8 in New Brunswick-- because McGuinty ordered OPG the Nanticoke and Lambton generation stations, because Hydro-Québec closed the Becancour CCGT due to surpluses and new hydro generation coming on stream (+800 MW in 2008, with no federal contribution whatsoever) and New Brunswick because of a huge drop in demand.

That's only one third of the drop. The next big drop comes from the industrial sector (-6 Mt). We don't have the emissions breakdown for sub-sectors of the manufacturing sector as far as the provincial tally goes, but at the Canadian level, the highest drop came from the pulp and paper sector.

However, we do have an interesting breakdown by province and industry in the Report on Energy Supply and Demand (RESD, Statistics Canada, catalog number 57-003-X). A lot of the reduction can be explained by prices, and in certain cases by fuel switching and efficiency. In Quebec's P&P sector, refined petroleum products (RPP) decreased almost by half, natural gas grew by 40% and electricity used dropped by 7% The drop in electricity use can be explained by the reduced demand worldwide, but but the switch from RPPs to gas has probably more to do with fuel switching prompted by high prices in the first half of the year. Demand destruction and fuel switching also played a role in the 500 kt reductions in the residential sector (2008 was slightly milder (2%) than the year before). the breakdown by energy source for this sector shows a 15-20% drop in fuel oil use and a 1.5% increase in electricity. I haven't cross-checked all sectors for all provinces, but there was quite a bit of change in the energy pattens of households and businesses in 2008.

Claude Boucher — Apr 20, 2010 - 02:16 PM MT

For those interested in the provincial emission tables I mentioned above, I've extracted the data from the PDF and placed it in a Google Docs spreadsheet at the following address:

http://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0AoV1ndElzkiVdDA4OEZBRVZ1UEFHVEdm...

Barry — Apr 20, 2010 - 03:50 AM MT

intensity that "tend to drop over time" is largely due to structural changes in the economy (ag.->industrialisation->services) which i assume is what you meant. none of these structural shifts are likely to have occurred in the short period you have commented in in your blog post, invalidating your reply. true that manufacturing collapsed, but the downturn was fairly evenly distributed over the major sources of national emissions.

cheers

Adrian Mohareb — Apr 19, 2010 - 01:08 PM MT

Good post.

Wouldn't it be fairest to compare emissions in 2008 to 2006 - the baseline year the Conservatives were most comfortable using until January, and the last year with the effects of Liberal government policies? In that case, emissions have gone up by 16 Mt, or 2%.

I would also suggest that the rapidly increasing price of oil in the first half of 2008 had a significant influence on emissions, prior to the start of the recession. I wonder how one could disaggregate all of these confounding influences (price, recession, high rainfall, more production from Ontario's nuclear reactors and shift from coal, etc.)

P.J. Partington — Apr 19, 2010 - 03:02 PM MT

Thanks Adrian. That's an interesting point regarding the 2006 baseline. Even using 2005 (their latest choice), there's a slight increase (0.4%). To your question at the end, the National Inventory Report itself is now available (click 'NIR' under Canada at this link: http://unfccc.int/national_reports/annex_i_ghg_inventories/national_inve...) and would likely contain many of the answers. However, it's many hundreds of pages long and would take quite some time to wade through. There's definitely some interesting stuff in there, though! :)

Greg — Apr 19, 2010 - 01:08 PM MT

One can only assume that this message from the federal Conservatives means they are taking credit for the recession as well. Strange that they haven't issued that press release yet...

Barry — Apr 19, 2010 - 10:31 AM MT

"tonnes" not "tones" . and it is undoubted that the recession caused emissions to drop, so instead why not talk about emissions intensity, which is likely a more relevant indicator of progress in emissions reductions in these wacky financial times.

Feds will not do this because it does not support their press release, places like Pembina should do it, as talking points with empirics always have more weight than rhetoric alone.

P.J. Partington — Apr 19, 2010 - 03:09 PM MT

Thanks for picking up that typo, Barry. You're right that emissions intensity is also an important indicator, especially when the economic is fluctuating. But it's quite tricky to separate policy effects as emissions intensity tends to drop naturally over time. I just had a look at the numbers and Canada's emissions intensity did go down as well in 2008, back to 2006 levels after a rare jump upwards in 2007.

P.J. Partington — Apr 19, 2010 - 03:19 PM MT

(and by "economic" I meant "economy." Typo number two)

Post new comment

We will not publish or share your email address.
CAPTCHA
In an effort to reduce spam abuse, we ask that you type the characters that you see below.
Image CAPTCHA
Enter the characters shown in the image.