The Paris Climate Agreement will enter into force on November 4, 2016, now that 73 nations accounting for nearly 57% of GHG emissions have formally ratified it: most recently, India, the European Union and Canada. According to an October 5 article in The Guardian, even if Donald Trump were to win the U.S. presidency, the U.S. would be locked into the commitment for four years at least. See also “The Paris Climate Agreement is entering into force. Now comes the hard part ” from the Washington Post (Oct. 4). Next step: the COP 22 meetings scheduled for Marrakesh, Morocco from November 7 – 18, which will include the first meeting of the Parties to the Paris Agreement (CMA 1).
In Canada, Members of Parliament voted by a margin of 207 to 81 to approve the Paris Agreement on October 5 – see the brief government press release, or read the CBC report; or coverage at the National Observer , or the Globe and Mail . Transcripts of the debates in the House of Commons are here, for October 3 (Trudeau’s carbon pricing speech) , October 4 and October 5 (when the vote was held) .
Leading up to the Paris vote, in what has been called a “bombshell”, “ultimatum”, and “his government’s most consequential and surprising day to date” , Prime Minister Trudeau announced the “Pan-Canadian Approach on Pricing Carbon Pollution” in the House on October 3, requiring that provinces implement either a carbon tax (at a minimum price of $10 a tonne in 2018, rising each year to $50 a tonne by 2022) or a cap and trade system. “If neither price nor cap and trade is in place by 2018, the government of Canada will implement a price in that jurisdiction” . Provinces will retain revenues from whichever system they choose to implement.
An article at the CBC states that, “Trudeau’s pre-emptive announcement landed like a grenade” in the midst of the the Canadian Council of Environment Ministers’ meeting in Montreal, being chaired by Environment and Climate Change Minister McKenna. Delegates from Saskatchewan, Newfoundland and Nova Scotia walked out of the room. For a summary of the political fight, see “Premiers draw battle lines as Trudeau seeks support for carbon-pricing plan” in the Globe and Mail (Oct. 4). And see the Alberta government press release of October 3, which states , “Alberta will not be supporting this proposal absent serious concurrent progress on energy infrastructure, to ensure we have the economic means to fund these policies…..Albertans have contributed very generously for many years to national initiatives designed to help other regions address economic challenges. What we are asking for now is that our landlock be broken, in one direction or another, so that we can get back on our feet.” A tough demand to meet, according to David Hughes’ report in June “Can Canada Expand Oil and Gas Production, Build Pipelines and Keep Its Climate Change Commitments?” .
Some reactions to the federal carbon pricing announcement: From the Canadian Labour Congress: “The CLC applauds carbon pricing targets …. “As a next step, the CLC calls for a federal strategy to guarantee new opportunities for workers and communities impacted by the transition to a low-carbon economy.” From the Climate Action Network ; from the Pembina Institute (“Pan-Canadian carbon price is big, positive news for economy and environment” ); from DeSmog Canada (The Good, bad and the ugly) . Generally supportive reaction also came from Smart Prosperity, a group composed of twenty-two prominent business and civil society leaders (including WWF, Broadbent Institute, Clean Energy Canada, and the Pembina Institute) . Yet Marc Lee of the Canadian Centre for Policy Analysis nails it in “A Reality Check on a national carbon price” ( October 4) : “It’s good news that Canada is starting to listen to climate science, but we are still left with a problem around the climate math” – which requires no new fossil fuel infrastructure. Bill McKibben, populizer of the term “climate math”, also panned the Trudeau announcement in the National Observer on Oct. 3. Read McKibben’s article “Recalculating the Climate Math: The numbers on global warming are even scarier than we thought” in the New Republic (September 22),which updates his earlier, frequently cited piece.
A useful overview to understand the Canadian situation: Race to the Front, released by the Pembina Institute on September 28, with recommendations for the politicians and policy-makers in their Fall working meetings to finalize a “Pan Canadian” policy. Race to the Front summarizes Canada’s progress at reducing carbon pollution over the last decade, evaluates trends in Canada’s greenhouse gas emissions inventory, and summarizes existing national and provincial climate policy .