In the annual Greenhouse Gas Reduction Progress Report for 2018, titled Climate Action in Ontario: what’s next? , the Environmental Commissioner of Ontario has published a blunt critique of the Conservative government’s actions to date.
As was widely reported, the government in Ontario (among other actions) tried to dismantle the province’s cap and trade program after its election, introducing Bill 4, the Cap and Trade Cancellation Act, 2018 on July 25 . The Environmental Commissioner wrote:
“Unfortunately, cap and trade was both complex and poorly communicated; for some, its costs were more obvious than its benefits. Today, cap and trade, the low-carbon programs that it funded, and 752 renewable energy projects have all been swept away, with nothing in their place. The government’s proposed replacement, the Cap and Trade Cancellation Act (Bill 4), currently lacks most of the features of a good climate law.…. There is no perfect answer, but the best international model for long-term consistency is the United Kingdom’s Climate Change Act. The U.K. Parliament sets legally binding long-term emission limits, plus five-year carbon budgets 12 years in advance, based on non-partisan, expert advice and reporting. Ontario should do the same.”
The Commissioner’s report includes appendices, including Appendix B: Revenue from cap and trade: What was it used for?
On September 11, environmental activists filed a lawsuit against Bill 4, alleging that it violates the Ontario Environmental Bill of Rights because no public consultations were held on the matter. On the same day, a notice appeared in the Environmental Registry, allowing for comments online or in writing, until October 11. EcoJustice, one of the groups behind the lawsuit, (along with Greenpeace and the University of Ottawa) has posted a summary of all these developments on September 25 in “Let Premier Ford know where you stand on climate action”, urging comments.
Jumping in to this debate: Canadians for Clean Prosperity, which commissioned a study to examine the costs and benefits of carbon “costs” (e.g. fuel and household heating) in Ontario, Saskatchewan, and Alberta, in the event that the federal carbon price backstop is triggered in 2019. The author, Dave Sawyer of EnviroEconomics, concludes that most households, regardless of income, would receive more money through rebates than they would pay out through a carbon price, assuming that all fees are rebated to consumers. The report summary is here ; the formal report is Federal Carbon Price Impacts on Households in Alberta, Saskatchewan and Ontario . An economist’s (Brendan Frank) explanation of the EnviroEconomics report appears in an EcoFiscal Commission blog “How carbon dividends affect incentives (hint: they don’t)” (Sept. 26).