Answers Still Needed for Appropriate Assessment of Cliffs Chromite Project

I read with interest today a number of news reports related to the announcement that  Cliffs Natural Resources will be investing approximately $3.3 billion in Ontario, to build a chromite mine in the Ring of Fire, and a ferrochrome processing facility in my city, the City of Greater Sudbury.  That Cliffs has been pushing ahead with developing the Black Thor deposit in the Ring of Fire has been no secret.  What was up in the air, however, was the selection of a community to host the prized ferrochrome processing facility (smelter), which is expected to generate approximately 400 operational jobs, and an additional 400 construction jobs.

Today’s announcement identifying the Moose Mountain site outside of the Capreol community in the City of Greater Sudbury as the new home for the smelter was one of the worst-kept secrets in Northern Ontario.  While the communities of Greenstone, Thunder Bay and Timmins were also in the running, Cliffs has been proceeding since the fall of 2011 with an Environmental Assessment process based on a “base case scenario” which identified Moose Mountain as the site of the smelter, and media has since reported that Cliffs has actually purchased the Moose Mountain site.

Still, today’s announcement brings some additional certainty to the environmental assessment process.

However, the announcement appears to have been structured in a way which suggests that the Cliffs Chromite Project is a “done deal”, and that only the specifics now need to be worked out.  This, to me, seems incredibly premature, given that the environmental assessment process, flawed as it is, is just getting underway.  Wouldn’t it be more astute to wait for that process to unfold before assuming that the project is viable?

Or is the environmental assessment process really just window-dressing? 

A B.C. Comparison

A few weeks ago, the British Columbia provincial NDP made national headlines when it was revealed that they had written to the National Energy Board on the proposed Northern Gateway Pipeline, which is intended to transport bitumen from the Alberta tar sands to the port of Kitimat on the B.C. coast.  The BC NDP took a position that it did not support the proposed pipeline.  At the time, B.C. Liberal Premier Christy Clark took some heat because her government hasn’t taken a position on the pipeline.  Clark maintained that it would be premature for her government to take a position one way or the other until all of the technical information has been produced and made available to the public for review.

Clark’s position with Northern Gateway was echoed today by Bill Boor, Cliffs’ Senior Vice President.  The Northern Life reports that Boor indicated that objecting to the Ring of Fire development on environmental grounds is “premature”, since the project is only now moving into the feasibility and environmental assessment phase (see: “First Nations fumingover smelter decision”, The Northern Life, May 9 2012). 

I believe that Boor is correct: without all of the facts available (because they are still being assembled), it really is premature to simply oppose this project over environmental concerns, because we just don’t have answers to all of the questions yet.  However, I have to acknowledge that there are likely other valid reasons for some to find themselves opposing this project at this time.  I have been asked a number of times now what my own position is on the project, and I have caused some a considerable degree of discomfort when I have stated that I’m not ready to take a position yet, precisely for the reason which Boor has identified.

With respect, although Boor does not say this, I believe that it is also premature for decision-makers to support this project until such a time that all feasibility and environmental assessment work has been completed.  It only makes sense that decision-makers wait for assessment processes to be completed, and to then use actual information and data to make an informed decision.  That’s the way things should work, if the environmental assessment process is to be taken seriously.

Roles in Decision-Making Processes

However, with Cliffs, it appears that some of our elected officials have taken a different approach than the one B.C.’s Premier has taken on Northern Gateway.  I guess I shouldn’t be surprised, given that during the 2011 Ontario provincial election, Progressive Conservatives, Liberals and NDP candidates for Sudbury and Nickel Belt all offered their unabashed support for Cliffs building a smelter in Greater Sudbury, even before the environmental assessment process – which is intended to inform decision-makers – had even started.

This may have been good politics, but it was also certainly premature, given that these candidates were vying for positions in government.  And to me, it spoke volumes about these three political party’s commitments to issues related to public health and the natural environment, and to their desire to take action on climate change.

It may sometimes be necessary to adopt a position when your role in the decision-making process is one which is limited to influencing outcomes.  It’s often difficult to exert much in the way of influence at all until a clearly articulated position has been taken.  But when you are a public decision-maker, and when the decision is one which you are going to wear, it really makes sense that you wait until all of the information is available, so that you can adequately balance competing interests based on real data, and not simply on perception.  That’s why I think that the approaches adopted by both the BC NDP and the BC government of Premier Clark were the right decisions to take, given their respective roles in the decision-making process.

Increasingly, we are seeing decisions made by our governments based not on science and information, but for ideological reasons.  If anything, these decisions are being made in the absence of data which might assess a complete range of impacts.  In the year 2012, our elected officials should know better, as we have accumulated considerable knowledge now which suggests that we end up with negative impacts and paying more when decisions are made which do not address a complete range of issues.  With this knowledge, it’s almost as if our decision makers must wilfully blind themselves when making a decision in absence of facts and data pertaining to anything beyond their very narrow definition of economic benefit.

Triple-Bottom Line Analysis

Frankly, I’m growing extremely weary of the attitude taken by many of our elected officials that we must prostrate ourselves at the shrine of economic growth, potentially sacrificing concerns about health and environment in the process.   Again, we are offered a false choice between the “economy” and the “environment”, one where the economy must win out every time. 

This approach doesn’t even make sense to me from an economic perspective, as we’ve seen time and again.  We need look no further than to yesterday’s federal Environmental Commissioner’s report, which once again highlighted the price tag taxpayers must pay to remediate environmental hazards created by for-profit private enterprises (estimated by Environmental Commissioner Scott Vaughan to be $7.7 billion for about 13,000 known contaminated sites). 

Yes, it’s true that the rules have changed since many of those sites were abandoned by industry, and it’s also true that development within the Ring of Fire today would not likely find itself in a similar circumstance regarding remediation when mines are closed.  But it’s also true that not all environmental costs have been internalized through legislative processes.  Taxpayers continue to pay significantly for damage done to our health and to our natural environment by industries which are making profits extracting and processing our resources.  In Canada, we continue to privatize profits and socialize losses.  And that’s simply not a sustainable approach to resource management.

It’s past time that our decision-makers apply a triple bottom line analysis to the development of all new projects.  A triple bottom line analysis will assess economic, social and environmental impacts, positive and negative.  It would also determine the value of all costs, so that if taxpayers are asked to pick up the tab for some of the costs, at least it will happen with the knowledge that full costs have been assessed.

Cliffs Chromite Project – Unknown Costs

What potential costs might taxpayers be on the hook for paying for with the Cliffs Chromite Project?  There are several which we need to know more about.  One of my personal concerns has to do with the minimization of climate change-causing greenhouse gases, as climate change adaptation is estimated to cost Canadians an additional $7 billion dollars by the year 2020.  The longer we wait to take action to transition to a low carbon economy, the greater we are going to have to pay for it later (or more precisely, the greater the bill will be that we pass along to our children, since many of today’s decision-makers won’t be around in a couple of decades when we’ve passed the tipping point of two degrees Celsius and have to deal with runaway global warming).  Greenhouse gas emissions represent real costs to taxpayers, as currently emitters are not required to pay for the pollution emitted.

Currently, we don’t know anything about who is going to pay to build and maintain new transportation infrastructure in Northwestern Ontario.  Cliffs is proposing to transport materials from the Black Thor deposit to a railhead near Nakina, where it will be loaded onto an existing rail line for transport to Capreol.  To do this, Trunk Highway 643 will need to be extended 260 km through the boreal forest and boggy James Bay lowlands.  When production at Black Thor is up and running, Cliffs estimates that between 50 and 100 transport trucks a day will use this road.  Cliffs points out that other communities along the route will also benefit from increased accessibility, and therefore the cost of this infrastructure should be shared.

Road Vs. Rail – What are the Costs?

Truck traffic is a significant contributor to greenhouse gas emissions.  A more efficient and sustainable transportation option would appear to be a rail corridor to the existing rail line, approximately 300km from Black Thor.  A rail corridor may have higher upfront costs, but maintenance may actually be lower over the long term, as the corridor itself would not need to be as wide as would a corridor for a highway (a physically narrower corridor would also benefit wildlife which may have to cross it).  Transporting materials by rail will cut down greenhouse gas emissions.

Interestingly, Noront Resources, which is also proposing to develop a chromite mine in the Ring of Fire not far from Cliffs Black Thor, is proposing to transport ore by rail through a different corridor.  However, there is no co-ordination at all occurring between Cliffs and Noront, and our existing environmental assessment process does not require that there be any co-ordination, as absurd as that sounds.  Ontario taxpayers might end up on the hook financing both a road and rail corridor to remote locations within hiking distance of one another.

Back to Cliffs proposal, though.  Would a rail corridor be cheaper than a road?  The truth is, I don’t know if a rail corridor would be less costly than a road, or what the total tonnage of carbon emissions saved might be.  But I’m not the expert here; nor am I trying to demonstrate that a significant industrial project is viable, and will profit my shareholders.  I’m not the person who should be looking into having these questions answered.  Cliffs should be doing that, and our governments should be requiring that they do so.

Instead, with today’s announcement, it appears that our elected officials have embraced the concept of building a new road – without even looking at whether rail might actually make more sense and be less expensive to taxpayers over the long term, or how taxpayers might benefit by requiring co-ordination with Noront.  And there was no discussion at all about reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

Embracing the road concept over rail appears to me to be putting the cart before the horse.  Why not wait for Cliffs to provide real answers to the road vs. rail questions, which one would think they ought to be doing through the environmental assessment process.

Well, actually, it’s not clear from the paper-based environmental assessment process that transportation alternatives are actually going to be looked at.  Right now, our federal government is in the process of repealing the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, and replacing it with a watered down version which may not actually require that alternatives be looked at when new industrial projects are proposed.  And since it’s not clear whether Cliffs will be proceeding based on the existing legislation or the new legislation, it remains to be seen whether the EA process will even ask the question, “What makes more sense from an economic/social/environmental perspective, road or rail?”

Energy Costs

Other questions remain regarding greenhouse gas emissions, particularly as they relate to Ontario’s energy needs.  The ferrochrome production facility to be built at Moose Mountain near Capreol is estimated by Cliffs to require as much energy needed to power a City of 300,000 people.  Along with a lack of information related to emissions, questions remain as to just who is going to pay for this electricity?  Is Cliffs going to be expected to pay market prices for their electrical needs, or will there be subsidies (meaning, will taxpayers be on the hook for socializing costs while Cliffs pockets the profits?)

Air and Water Quality

The ferrochrome production facility will be located to the west of Lake Wanapitei, one of the sources of Greater Sudbury’s drinking water, however the site itself is located within the Vermillion River watershed.  It’s not unreasonable to be concerned about air quality issues related to precipitate arising from industrial smelting processes, and whether air-borne precipitate might nevertheless end up Lake Wanapitei.  I understand that Cliffs will be looking at these air-shed issues as part of the EA.

Chromium 6 – Hexavalent Chromium

One of the big environmental concerns with chromite mining and smelting has to do with the presence of hexavalent chromium (Chromium 6), which can get into surface and groundwater sources.  Very small amounts of this extremely toxic substance can contaminate large areas.  And since hexavalent chromium is very stable in water and air, it will accumulate locally over time, especially in acidic environments like those found in Greater Sudbury.  Hexavalent chromium is very carcinogenic and is known to create multiple health risks.

Two words: Erin Brokovich.  If you haven’t heard of hexavalent chromium, you’ve probably heard of Ms. Brokovich or are at least aware that Julia Roberts played her in a movie by the same name.  The substance which was contaminating the water in Erin Brokovich’s community was hexavalent chromium.  The California Environmental Protection Agency suggests that acceptable levels of hexavalent chromium in drinking water should be 0.02 parts per billion, which itself is estimated to create 1 additional cancer patient a year.  What level of exposure can we expect in Greater Sudbury?

What are the potential health risks Greater Sudburians can expect if the ferrochrome processing facility is built?  Will some Greater Sudburians be at higher risk than others, due to geographic proximity, or being downwind or downstream from the facility?  Again, these questions have yet to be answered.  And again, the lack of answers here hasn’t prevented our elected officials from trumpeting the selection of Greater Sudbury to be the home to the smelter.

Done Deal

Many questions remain to be answered.  I hope that the on-going environmental assessment process will answer all of these questions, but from what I’ve seen, it’s quite likely that the flawed assessment process won’t address at least some of these concerns (especially related to electricity pricing and greenhouse gas emissions).  Until all of the technical studies have been done, and the data has been made available to experts and to the public for review, it seems to me that it is premature to determine whether Cliffs’ investment in my community will be a positive or a negative for Greater Sudburians.  A real triple bottom line analysis is needed.  But I’m not optimistic that we’ll end up getting one, given that it appears that the project may already be a “done deal”.  Concerns about social, environmental and First Nations issues may have to take a back seat again to a short-sighted definition of “economic benefit”.

(opinions expressed in this blog are my own and should not considered consistent with those of the Green Party of Canada)

Bruce Hyer and the Values of Political Parties

“Instead of cooperation and compromise, voters often see mindless solidarity, where political parties are always right and voters are always wrong. … And on climate change, parties are hopelessly locked to Cap and Trade or outright inaction, making compromise to achieve even piecemeal progress impossible.”

-Bruce Hyer, Member of Parliament, Thunder Bay-Superior North, from his April 23 2012 press release explaining why he will sit as an Independent MP

“People are also disillusioned with MPs’ allegiance to parties instead of constituents, government inefficiency and wasteful spending, and the failure of government to address critical issues like the climate crisis.”

-Green Party of Canada, Vision Green 2011, Part 6: Good Government (page 125)

Last week, Member of Parliament for the Northern Ontario riding of Thunder Bay-Superior North, Bruce Hyer, announced that he was leaving the New Democratic Party’s caucus over what appear to be irreconcilable differences between himself and the direction which NDP Leader Tom Mulcair wants to take on the long gun registry. Hyer also cited intransigence with party’s positions on climate change action, and significant concerns about the democratic deficit within parliament (especially those related to “whipped” votes).

Hyer, along with NDP MP John Rafferty (Thunder Bay-Rainy River) was previously sanctioned by the NDP’s former interim Leader, Nycole Turmel, for voting with the Conservatives to repeal legislation related to the long gun registry. Turmel had indicated to the NDP caucus that they would be participating in a whipped vote in an attempt to preserve the registry. Previously, some NDP MP’s had voted with the Conservatives to send the bill to dismantle the registry to committee, ostensibly so that the bill could be amended to change the registry, rather than kill it outright.

Ultimately, the Conservatives did not allow any amendments, and opposition MP’s were left with the choice of voting to save the registry as-is, or ending it. The Liberal Party and NDP whipped their caucuses to support saving the registry, which led to (in my opinion, unwarranted) accusations that some NDP MP’s such as Sudbury’s Glenn Thibeault had “flip flopped” on their positions regarding the registry. However, with a Conservative majority government, the writing had been on the wall all along to kill the registry. Hyer and Rafferty’s votes, frankly, did not matter one way or the other in terms of saving or dismantling the long gun registry.

But what Hyer and Rafferty did was to place what they perceived to be the interests of their constituents over the interests of their Party, and in this era of ultra-partisanship on Parliament Hill, that’s one of the biggest no-no’s that an MP can commit. By putting the interests of their voters ahead of the interests of the New Democratic Party, Hyer and Rafferty received the punishment of being turned into non-entities in the House by Turmel, who removed their ability to ask questions in the House, which is really one of the most important roles that an MP can perform on behalf of their constituents.

When Tom Mulcair became the Leader of the Party, Hyer and Rafferty’s punishment was lifted. However, in resigning from the NDP caucus, Hyer cited Mulcair’s desire to re-instate the long gun registry when the NDP forms government, through a whipped vote, as one of the major reasons for his departure. It seems that Hyer, who appears to want to hang around as an elected MP past 2015, did not want to find himself back in the same place he just emerged from – punished for voting on behalf of his constituents instead of following the Party whip.

So now, Hyer has been banished to the nether-regions of the backbenches, where he’ll sit with other House “Independents”, such as those MP’s elected under the banners of the Bloc Quebecois and the Green Party. Hyer is likely already on a first-name basis with these MP’s, many of whom participate in the all-parties climate caucus, initiated by Elizabeth May, MP for Saanich-Gulf Islands.

Bruce Hyer

Hyer came to politics with a background in ecology, forestry and tourism. A successful local business person, Hyer was a community leader on issues related to the natural environment before deciding to pursue politics. He ran for the NDP in two elections, paying his political dues before finally being elected as MP in 2008.

Aside from his recent renown related to the long gun registry, Hyer is probably best known for introducing Bill C-311, the Climate Change Accountability Act, a private member’s bill which was passed by the House under the Conservative’s minority government (it received support from the Liberals and Bloc Quebecois, along with the NDP). Despite its democratic passage in the House of Commons, the bill was ultimately killed by Canada’s unelected senate, on the direction of Prime Minister Stephen Harper.

I’ve been watching Hyer’s career for some time now, given that he represents a Northern Ontario riding, and has a keen interest in taking action on climate change. While I did not personally support Hyer’s vote to dismantle the long gun registry, I have supported his decision to put what he perceived to be the interests of his constituents ahead of the interests of his Party. I certainly share Hyer’s frustrations with partisanship and the diminished roles which our elected officials appear to be playing in decision-making.

Hyer seems to be concerned with the direction that Tom Mulcair wants to take the NDP. When Mulcair became the NDP’s Leader, Liberal interim Leader Bob Rae suggested that Mulcair was a “mini-Harper” due to Mulcair’s desire to micro-manage the NDP’s messaging and policy, which will no doubt further add to the democratic deficit in parliament. The NDP has always had a bit of an independent streak, but over the past decade, through the heavy-handed use of the Party whip, and with the Conservative Party as its role model, what we’ve seen is the evolution of the NDP towards a more carefully stage-managed party which values the consistency of its message over exercising its principles. This will likely prove to be a recipe for electoral success for Tom Mulcair, but it’s sure to rub many within the NDP the wrong way.

Hyer rightly points out that, as an Independent, he’ll be able to vote his conscience on an issues-by-issues basis. However, as an Independent, Hyer is going to face some unique challenges with Canada’s democratic system, which is sorely in need of reform.

Re-Election

By leaving the NDP caucus, Hyer has likely left behind a healthy Electoral District Association, which amongst other roles, acts as a fundraiser for candidates between elections. Only registered political parties are entitled to have these associations (known as “EDA’s” or “riding associations”); independents can’t set them up, and therefore can’t engage in fundraising between elections. Should Hyer wish to run again in the next federal election (and given his concerns about a future Mulcair government, it seems that Hyer is interested in doing so), fundraising is going to be an issue, although I suspect that with Hyer’s local popularity, there’s a good chance that many NDP members in Thunder Bay-Superior North will likely rally around him now, rather than the NDP, especially given Mulcair’s stated position that he wants to bring the long gun registry back.

If Hyer is serious about wanting to remain an MP after the next election, he’s going to have to think about money. In 2008 (the last election year for which information is currently available), Hyer and the NDP spent about $70,000 on the local campaign. It’s likely that he spent as much, or more, in 2011, and who knows how much the NDP EDA spent pre-election, or how much the EDA contributed to his campaign. As an Independent, Hyer is going to be on the hook to raise all that money himself, and he’s going to have to do it all during the 35-day writ period. Of course, he might not need to spend as much to win next time around, relying instead on name recognition. Although with the likelihood being very high that the NDP will be running a candidate against him, I would think that if he’s serious, he’s going to have to spend some serious dollars, as one of the dirty little secrets of Canadian democracy is that, for the most part, successful local campaigns are those campaigns which are nearly or completely fully funded. Generally speaking, if you don’t pony up the money, you’re likely not going to get elected.

The Long Gun Registry

In rural Northern Ontario, there’s not a lot of support for the long gun registry. I’ve generally avoided writing about the registry altogether, as I’ve found it to be more of an emotional touchstone issue than anything else. For me, it was a well-intentioned but poorly implemented public policy. My Party does not have any member-approved policy on the registry, likely because the Green Party has seen the whole debate about the registry as a distraction from getting down to work on more serious issues related to gun control. In the vote in 2011 to dismantle the registry, Green MP Elizabeth May voted with the NDP, Liberals and Bloc to save the registry, but made it very clear that it would have been her preference to make some significant changes to it, rather than be forced to simply vote for it or against it. But the Conservatives left all MP’s no choice in the matter.

In absence of member-approved policies, I’ve no doubt that May based her vote to save the registry on the Green Party’s values and the wishes of her constituents in Saanich-Gulf Islands. Vision Green 2011, the Party’s comprehensive position document, speaks to the need to reform the registry, making it “free” and “fair”. Actually, the Green Party’s emphasis on firearms policy has little to do with the registry, and much more to do with preventing illegal hand guns from entering Canada (and giving our border security the tools they need to do the job, which I note now at a time when the Conservatives have decided to cut front line border guards, despite their stated “law and order” agenda).

See Section 4.11.7, Gun Control and Ownership Rights, of Vision Green 2011 for the Green Party’s positions on firearms.

With the lack of member-approved policy on the registry, and the lack of opportunity for a political compromise to be found which would have brought fulsome changes to the registry, it’s quite likely that if the Green Party had another elected MP in Ottawa, that Green MP may have used the interests of their constituents as guidance for their vote. The Party’s Green Values of participatory democracy and respect for diversity would have also guided this hypothetical MP’s vote. Given these circumstances, it’s quite possible that another Green MP in parliament would have voted with Hyer and the Conservatives to dismantle the registry.

That hypothetical MP’s punishment for voting to dismantle the registry, contrary to our Leader’s vote would have been…well, nothing at all. Such a vote could very well be considered to be in keeping with the values of the Green Party of Canada. The vote would not have been whipped, and any elected MP would have been able to vote as they determined to be best.

Bottom-Up Decision Making

Like Bruce Hyer, the Green Party wants to do politics differently. One of the compelling reasons which members often cite for joining the Green Party is that we’re not really much of a “party” at all. By that I mean the Green Party of Canada is probably the least partisan national political party currently operating on the North American continent. Besides being a “big tent” party which has welcomed members who once belonged to the NDP, Progressive Conservatives or, like me, the Liberal Party (along with members who have never been involved in party politics), the Green Party’s emphasis on grassroots decision-making based on shared values permeates throughout the structure of the Party. While the NDP, Liberals, Conservatives and Bloc are all leader-driven parties, the role of the Leader of the Green Party is extremely limited. Our Leader can’t create policy or overturn member-approved policy in the same way that Tom Mulcair seems to want to run roughshod over some of his Party’s policies.

When Elizabeth May decided that she wanted to represent the Green Party in Saanich-Gulf Islands, an almost unheard of situation in Canadian party politics occurred: another member of the Green Party actually challenged our Leader for the nomination to represent the riding! May had to fight a nomination contest. This is illustrative of the significant independent streak which exists within the Green Party. In short, the Green Party can in no way be considered “disciplined” in the same way that the Conservatives, Liberals and NDP can. And we thrive on our ability to publicly disagree with one another on matters of policy and politics. That party members can do so without the fear of reprisal is simply staggering. Please take my word for this, as I have some considerable personal experience for publicly disagreeing with members of my Party, including our Leader, on issues of importance. I can tell you at no time has anyone, including Elizabeth May, ever asked me to keep quiet or to even tone down how I’ve expressed my opinion. I’m sure I’ve irritated some Party members along the way, but we all understand that we’re in this together, and that we belong to a Party which encourages dissent, because dissent leads to critical analysis and discussion, and ultimately to better public policy. That’s what bottom-up decision making is all about.

Certainly, The Green Party’s lack of partisan focus has created some significant challenges for the Party. It might be a safer electoral strategy to mimic the Conservatives and NDP and stick to focus-group developed talking points in order to best articulate the Party’s messaging. But to do so would run counter to just about everything which the Green Party stands for in terms of participatory democracy.

And the Green Party has been thinking ahead to a time when answering the question about having a party whip becomes more than an academic exercise. With only one MP in the House right now, there is no need for a party whip. But, it seems to me that based on the Party’s grassroots approach to decision-making, our shared value of participatory democracy, and a reluctance to impose top-down control in just about everything we do, I just can’t see the Party ever successfully using a whip.

Here’s what Green Party Leader Elizabeth May had to say about her experiences in parliament, and about the future of the Party with a larger caucus:

“The single most empowering benefit of being a Green MP is that I am not oppressed by the top down system of all the other parties. Every day the pages deliver to every desk (except mine) the instructions from that party’s whip: Vote yes, vote no. Complete instructions. No individual thinking or action is allowed by any of the other parties. It has been a far greater level of control than I had expected to see.


Of course, some might say that as a caucus of one and as leader, of course, no one is telling me what to do. But the reality is, we will have a bigger caucus – a far bigger caucus – and it will never involve top-down control.”

-Elizabeth May, Message to B.C. Greens

Contrast May’s approach to party politics with that of NDP Leader Tom Mulcair, who spoke about Hyer’s resignation from caucus: “In the Canadian parliamentary system, there is a caucus system. You vote with your party and you vote with your caucus and there will come times when you have to impose that.” (see: “I’m not whipable: Ontario MP quits NDP caucus over gun registry”, the Globe and Mail, April 13 2012). I guess party politics is all very black and white for Tom Mulcair, and given his past experience with the Liberal Party in Quebec and his current experience with the federal NDP, that stands to reason. But what Mulcair seems to refuse to want to acknowledge is that it doesn’t have to be that way, and in fact, for one national political party (the Green Party of Canada), it’s not that way.

As Tom Mulcair continues to build on the NDP’s record of silencing independent-thinking candidates like Hyer and whipping all of his MP’s into the voting equivalent of bleating sheep rather than allowing them to truly represent the constituents who elected them, it’s clear to me that the NDP can not help stem the erosion of Canadian democracy. In short, they are a significant part of the problem.

Does anybody really think that Prime Minister Mulcair is going to exercise less control over his cabinet and caucus than Prime Minister Harper currently does?

Climate Change

So, to recap, Hyer left the NDP caucus over concerns about Mulcair’s desire to reinstate the long gun registry, and over the NDP’s continued shift towards command and control top-down politics. That alone would be reason enough for Hyer to leave the NDP caucus, given the recent ostracism he experienced related to his vote to dismantle the long gun registry, and his concerns about Mulcair’s stated desire to whip future votes on a resurrected registry. Those connections are very clear, and Hyer has also suggested that he felt that being overlooked by Mulcair for the NDP’s shadow cabinet was also problematic, given his previously role in shadow cabinet.

So, why then Hyer’s remark about climate change?

Needless to say, I found Hyer’s concerns very interesting indeed. I can only speculate that Hyer is expressing his concerns over the entrenched position of the NDP to continue to sideline a sensible carbon tax policy in preference to Cap and Trade, championed by Tom Mulcair, despite the growing evidence which suggests that Cap and Trade will be a massive boondoggle and may not actually lead to reducing emissions. I think that Hyer might share my own fears that politics is getting in the way of taking meaningful action to address the climate crisis, and he couldn’t help but note this when he chose to leave caucus.

With the Liberal Party having abandoned Stephane Dion’s carbon tax policy wholesale after 2008, Hyer is going to find himself sitting near the only MP in parliament who belongs to a Party which unequivocally campaigned in 2011 on the imposition of a revenue neutral carbon tax. Of course, that’s Green Party Leader Elizabeth May, who along with Hyer, understands that there’s a bit of urgency around the need to take action on climate change.

Look, we can’t continue to let politics get in the way of doing something to begin the process of decarbonising our economy. For far too long we’ve put off doing what we know we should be doing to reduce our fossil fuel consumption. As a result, we’ve been digging a massive hole for children to climb out of in the future. With the anticipated effects of climate change expected to cost the Canadian economy over $6 billion dollars in 2020 (and rising every year thereafter), our lack of foresight and planning and, let’s be honest, our complete disregard to this pressing issue has left Canada economically disadvantaged. Other countries are embracing the green economy of the twenty-first century; Canada under the Liberals and Conservatives seems content to continue being wed to the brown economy of the 19th century.

I know Hyer understands this. In fact, I think the NDP understands it too. But the NDP has been far more focused on saying the right things to get elected, rather than developing sensible public policy. It must be very frustrating to be a supporter of the NDP, given that party’s record for abandoning its principles in pursuit of electoral success. And the NDP will certainly be doing more of that in the future, under Tom Mulcair, as Mulcair takes his party further down the road of populist boutique policy development.

Party Politics

I’ve got a lot of respect for Bruce Hyer to stand up for the things which he believes in. As an elected MP, I’m sure his decision to leave his caucus was not an easy one to make, given his long history with the New Democratic Party. However, I think that Hyer sees that the NDP of today isn’t quite the same as the NDP he joined years ago, or that it at least hasn’t lived up to expectations, despite its recent electoral success.

Politics does not always have to be about the pursuit of power. Politicians often lose sight of the fact that they are elected as public servants; they are put into power to do public good, and not simply to figure out a way to gain or hold onto power. The pursuit of power alone can not and should not justify decision-making. The NDP used to understand this, but over the past decade, there has been a drift. Over the next decade, under the leadership of Tom Mulcair, I expect that drift to continue, especially if it brings the sort of electoral success which I suspect it might.

Where, then, does that leave principled politicians like Hyer, who want to continue to represent their constituents without slavishly following partisan political doctrine? The Conservatives, Liberals and New Democrats would suggest that it should leave MP’s like Hyer on the sidelines, or better yet, not see them elected in the first place. However, I suspect that like Hyer, most Canadians are fed up with ultra-partisanship of the three big national parties, and in the process, condemn all party politicking.

Yet, until real reform is brought to our electoral system, political parties will continue to thrive, because only political parties can raise the kind of money needed to win elections. That’s our current electoral reality, and I despise it, as I think it’s an absolute affront to democracy. But given the reality in which we find ourselves, it’s necessary to dwell within the system for now, with the goal of bringing about real and meaningful change from the inside.

It would be a shame to lose a strong and sensible voice like Bruce Hyer’s from our parliament, and not just for the good people of Thunder Bay-Superior North. All Canadians should take pride in elected public servants like Hyer. I only hope that Hyer might come to a different conclusion about party politics in the near future, and discover that his own values appear to be extremely well-suited to the values which many of my friends hold dear.

Something to think about, Mr. Hyer.

(opinions expressed in this blog are my own and should not be considered consistent with those of the Green Party of Canada)

Mining and Climate Change, Part 4: The NDP and the Wrong Carbon Pricing Policy

Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition, the New Democratic Party, should they form Canada’s next government (and let’s be frank here: there’s a very good chance that they will do just that), if it follows through on its policy (always a big “if” for the NDP), will establish a Cap and Trade emissions trading scheme which will see the sale of carbon offsets between various industrial emitters. Such a Cap and Trade scheme could conceivably involve about half of Canada’s emitters, in an effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Carbon Trading

The Cap and Trade approach to carbon pricing will prove to be very problematic for business and industry, and for all Canadians. With their advocacy to implement carbon trading, the NDP may have struck upon a better policy than the Conservative’s regulatory approach, but with so many uncertainties and the opportunity for exemption and fraud in new carbon market, it’s far from the best option on the table if the goal is to reduce emissions. I've previously blogged about my concerns with Cap and Trade, so I'll not go into significant detail here, as I've done so elsewhere (see: "Cap and Trade: Is this the Best that We can Come Up With?", January 15,2010)

Right away, one glaring issue with Cap and Trade becomes apparent: it does not involve all emitters. And it can’t, because a significant portion of emissions come from very small-scale sources, including agriculture, home heating and personal transportation.

But, conceivably, even with just the biggest emitters in play, Cap and Trade could still do some good to actually reduce emissions. As long as the emissions cap is set low enough, and offset purchases are going towards projects which demonstrably reduce greenhouse gases, it’s possible that it might do some good. In Europe, however, where there has been an emissions trading scheme in place since 2005, and for a host of reasons, it’s been a white elephant. It’s not even clear that emissions have actually been reduced, but what we have seen is a lot corruption and swindling, particularly through price manipulation and questionable offsets mechanisms.

Better Policy: A Carbon Tax

A carbon tax, on the other hand, is a lot less complicated to implement than establishing a Cap and Trade scheme. Our governments are pretty good at taxing things; a carbon tax is really just another form of consumption tax. It’s implementation would be relatively straight-forward, and could occur very quickly.

Here in Ontario, our provincial government has been participating in something called the Western Climate Initiative (WCI) for many years now. The WCI came out of the western United States, when states like California, Oregon and Washington got together and decided that they were going to look into establishing a common carbon market and use Cap and Trade to reduce emissions. Eventually, other jurisdictions joined, including B.C., Ontario and Quebec. Today, despite years of involvement, there remains no plan to actually get a Cap and Trade scheme up and running, at least not in Ontario. And given the urgency of the climate crisis, that’s just unacceptable.

For the mining sector, and for businesses of all sizes, a carbon tax actually represents a much lower-risk public policy, than does Cap and Trade, due to the inherent volatility of trading markets. Businesses would be able to engage in longer term planning with predictable price knowledge. While larger businesses might be ok to weather the storm of Cap and Trade market volatility, smaller businesses could be hit fairly hard, especially those businesses which are more intensive consumers of energy, such as junior miners.

A carbon tax can also be applied equitably, dependent upon emissions. This is important to the mining sector: a direct consumption tax, if implemented across the board, would not play favourites in the same way that intensity targets established through regulations would. Under a carbon tax, each industrial sector would be paying its fair share for the emissions it produces.

Reducing Personal Income Tax Contributions and Carbon Emissions

A carbon tax, if applied in the way which the Green Party of Canada currently advocates (and which the Liberals under Stephane Dion had previously contemplated), would be “revenue neutral”. Now, that doesn’t mean that it would be revenue neutral for everybody, just for government. One of the big ideas around the introduction of a carbon tax is that it can only be done if you also figure out a way to allow people to hold onto more of their own wealth. As a carbon tax is going to make a lot of things more expensive, it’s imperative that people be able to keep more of their own money. In British Columbia, when the carbon tax was introduced by the provincial Liberals, there was a corresponding reduction to personal income tax contributions. This is known as “progressive tax-shifting”, and it places the tax burden on goods and services which are more problematic for society (those with higher carbon-intensities) while removing the tax burden from those things which are good for society (personal productivity through hard work).

But there are other ways of giving people back their money. In the United States, it’s been proposed that almost all of the revenues collected by government through the imposition of a carbon tax be returned to citizens by mailing them out a cheque. This is known as “carbon fee and dividend”, and essentially it makes all citizens shareholders in the successful implementation of carbon fee collection.

Either way, though, by allowing people to keep more of their own money, people will be able to make personal choices about the goods and services which they purchase. Less carbon-intensive products will likely cost less money, which will lead to greater competition and innovation in low-carbon goods and services, which are ultimately good for the environment.

By factoring in all real costs into the price of a good or service, it’s quite realistic to expect innovation, which is good for economic activity.

Perceptions and Reality

It simply boggles my mind that the NDP hasn’t embraced the idea of a revenue neutral carbon tax. I’ve often heard the explanation given that the NDP already has a reputation of being the party of higher taxes, so for political reasons, they want to stay away from anything remotely resembling a new tax. But the reality is that those who support the NDP are actually going to be disproportionately disadvantaged should the NDP’s Cap and Trade policy ever be implemented. While Cap and Trade will require only the participation of the big emitters, who do you think the costs of purchasing those offsets are going to be absorbed by? What’s going to happen is that the costs are going to be passed on to consumers. And since the NDP is not recommending the implementation of a carbon dividend or a reduction in personal income taxes, Canadians will be faced with rising prices without the benefit of new personal revenue streams to compensate. In this scenario, it’s the richest amongst us who will be able to weather the storm, while less economically advantaged Canadians will take disproportional hits.

Many business and industry leaders have already accepted the inevitability of carbon pricing, and they’ve been publicly indicating their preference for a carbon tax over Cap and Trade. The conversation about climate change has shifted in the past decade from trying to figure out whether climate change is happening to now figure out what the best mitigation and adaptation strategies are. In 2010, the Canadian Council of Chief Executives, under the leadership of the Honourable John Manley, former Minister of Finance, and former Minister of Industry, released a policy paper, “Clean Growth 2.0: How Canada Can Be a Leader in Energy and Environmental Innovation”, which recommended a coherent national approach to carbon pricing.

Many of our leaders of business and industry are found in North America’s mining sector. There’s a growing agreement that a more direct and transparent, predictable price on carbon will be better for business. There’s also a growing understand that as other nations decide to take action to regulate emissions, that Canadian business and industry could be disadvantaged by the imposition of border adjustment fees (a.k.a. “carbon tariffs”). Canada must start taking a leadership role in addressing climate change, or else we will be placing our own economic health at risk. The implementation of sensible and sound carbon pricing policy at a national scale will demonstrate that Canada is ready to do its part to reduce emissions.

Canada’s mining sector, and those who depend on the success of the mining sector for their livelihoods, should be very wary of the NDP’s Cap and Trade policies. On the campaign trail for the NDP’s leadership, Thomas Mulcair committed himself to implementing a Cap and Trade scheme when he became Prime Minister. Mulcair and the NDP could very easily lead us to a new white elephant boondoggle which ultimately demonstrates only marginal success at reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

The continuing health of the mining sector is important for my community of Sudbury, and indeed for all Canadians. It’s essential that we implement the right public policy to address the very real issues which we are facing. When it comes to taking action on climate change, neither the Conservatives nor the NDP have landed in the right spot. Sudburians, whether directly involved with mining or not, along with all Canadians, should be concerned.

(opinions expressed in this blog are my own, and should not be interpreted as being consistent with the views of the Green Party of Canada)

Mining and Climate Change, Part 3: Multiple Issues with Conservative Party Approaches to Emissions Management

Is it sensible that the Conservative Party, which has embraced cutting environmental regulations and environmental assessment processes in the name of economic growth, could ever be a threat to Canada’s resource sector? On first blush, it would seem highly improbable that would be the case, but keep in mind that for the Conservative Party, not all natural resource sectors are created equally.

The Conservative Party’s policies significantly favour Canada’s fossil fuels sector over all other resource sectors. In fact, Conservative policies will actually jeopardize the important success of Canadian miners over the medium and long term. And it all has to do with carbon pricing (well, maybe not "all", as I can't help but recall the uneven and apparently arbitrary application of the "net benefit" provisions of the Investment Canada Act in the Potash Corp. matter a few years back).

Although the Conservative Party of Canada is not in any way, shape or form considering putting a price on greenhouse gas emissions, the fact of the matter is that it’s the only national political party in Canada which is opposed to carbon pricing. Given that we Canadians tend to change our national governments every so often, it stands to reason that in the near future, Canada will elect a government which finally decides to take real action to address climate change, and which will implement carbon pricing in an effort to reduce emissions.

Right now, it’s in part the Conservative’s lack of consideration for the imminent pricing of carbon emissions which is putting Canada’s mining sector at a disadvantage. The Conservatives are being very short-sighted, and that may disadvantage all industrial sectors.

Canada: On Target for Emissions Reduction?

A report issued earlier this week from Environment Canada, which Conservative Environment Minister Peter Kent has been keen to promote, indicates that Canada’s greenhouse gas emissions are beginning to level out, even as the Canadian economy has been growing. While this may sound like a good news story for those concerned about emissions, it’s really nothing to get all that excited about. If anything, the spin which the Conservatives are putting on this story is problematic, because if they themselves actually believe it, it’s going to continue to lead towards their intransigence to take real action on reducing emissions.

Let’s take a closer look behind the Conservative spin. That Canada’s emissions are “beginning to level off” tells me a couple of things. First, no one should be surprised that this is the case, given the significant efforts which the Province of Ontario has taken to shut down its coal-fired generating stations, and the significant hits taken by Ontario’s manufacturing sector due to the recession and the rising value of Canada’s currency and attendant Dutch Disease. In those respects, Ontario can almost single-handedly claim to be the green engine which has led to this so-called levelling of emissions. But that’s nothing to get excited about. While I suppose there remains room for Ontario to shed a lot more greenhouse gas emitting manufacturing jobs (which would be an absurd thing for anyone to hope for), the closing of coal plants here was a one-time only carbon-reducing gift from Ontario to Canada.

Second, Kent’s continued engagement on the climate change file tells me that the Conservative Party remains onboard at least with the idea that reducing our carbon emissions is a sensible policy objective for Canada to pursue. This may come as a surprise to many Conservative Party supporters who are also in denial about the reality of anthrogenic climate change (many of whom have their own political and economic agendas). The Conservative Party’s continued engagement on emissions reduction also probably comes as a surprise to most Canadians who have witnessed Canada’s actions on the world stage to sabotage international climate change agreements and to influence foreign governments to ramp down efforts to combat climate change. Whether the Conservative’s hearts are in it or not, however, it remains a policy of this government to reduce Canada’s emissions by 17% over 2005 levels by the year 2020.

To do so, the Conservatives have decided to embark on a slow-paced, sector-by-sector review of emissions, and to establish regulations mandating reductions. Last year, they came out with draft regulations which are intended to affect newly-built coal fired generation plants at some point in the future (which led to proposed coal plants rushing through their last planning hurdles, in order to get their plans in under the wire so as not to be affected by the new regulatory environment). This week, additional regulations were filed affecting the transportation sector. The Conservatives have also been planning on looking at the fossil fuels production sector, but this appears to be put off for now, due to aggressive lobbying from oil and gas industries.

It’s clear that creating a stronger regulatory framework for major emitters can have an impact on reducing greenhouse gases, although critics argue that it’s one of the more expensive choices available for governments to take (but who ever really thought Conservatives were good managers of public money?). There are, however, a couple of big problems with trying to reduce emissions in this way. First, they’re going to add significant costs to industrial operations. Second, given the added costs, industry may have no choice but to turn back to government with its hands out, seeking taxpayer subsidies in order to make the switch to cleaner technologies. That’s already been happening, and it’s leading to the third significant problem: the misallocation of public resources on a grand scale, for investment in an unproven and likely to be unsuccessful new technology: carbon capture and storage (CCS).

The Carbon Capture and Storage Swindle

It’s likely that the Conservative’s regulatory approach for the oil and gas sector is going to lead to an increased reliance on CCS, just as the Conservatives have mandated for coal. CCS is a completely untested technology which is going to have to be built pretty much from the ground up. It also comes with a substantial price tag. In Canada’s case, the Conservative government has already budgeted over $300 million for research and development into this new technology.

Carbon Capture and Storage relies on the idea that emissions can be caught before they leave a smoke stack, and stored underground for…well, maybe for eternity. Technically, it is possible to capture a significant amount of emissions, but it’s the storage aspect which is much more questionable. The spatial requirements for storage alone are significant, as it must either remain in gas form, or be supercooled into a liquid.

But stored carbon dioxide actually has industrial applications: it can be used in place of water to flush out bitumen from tar sands. Which is kind of ironic, in that the whole idea of capturing the stuff in the first place was to help with the overall reduction of emissions. Anyway, those with more technical understanding than me have written about the perils of CCS elsewhere. Suffice it to say that it’s an unproven technology that, based on the best accounts, won’t ever be implemented on a scale where it can actually do significant good.

Anyway, so am I suggesting that the Conservative’s reliance on regulations which lead to CCS is just a bait-and-switch which will cost the taxpayer significant amounts of money for little return? Well, if that’s all that I were suggesting, that would be bad enough. But there’s more to it than that. This is really about how good intentions addressed through bad public policy can lead to expensive white elephants which don’t actually help.

Avoiding White Elephants

We here in Sudbury have a certain familiarity with white elephant projects, just as I’m sure many other Canadians do. "White elephants" in this case refer to the investment of public dollars into projects which never really lived up to their expectations or paid for themselves. Sure, we here in Sudbury don’t have any Olympic Stadiums to brag about like they do in Montreal, but we do have the Highway 69 four-laning which is currently taking place at a cost of hundreds of millions of dollars at a time when personal vehicle travel is anticipated to decrease due to rising fuel prices. I know that may sound heretical to Sudbury’s car-cultured, but it’s the reality. A better choice for the investment of public dollars would have been in regional public transportation, but what we have instead is a provincial government which is keen to spend money on highways while downsizing and privatizing public transit in Northern Ontario.

In this Northern Ontario white elephant example, addressing transportation needs over a vast geography is the good issue, but the bad public policy stems from investment choices which don’t actually take into consideration our likely future circumstance. However, once those costs are sunk into a specific project, it becomes really difficult to turn things around. To now disinvest in four-laning Highway 69, for example, would be a politically difficult decision for a government to make, even armed with all of the data in the world necessary to show the public that the project is not necessary to meet anticipated needs. But, the environmental assessments have been bought and paid for, stretches of the highway are already complete, workers are depending on construction jobs. And the public expects the project to go forward.

Here in Sudbury, the rising price of gas has been a big issue lately. There have been calls for governments to intervene, to figure out a way to make gasoline more affordable. While I empathise with those who are concerned about price gouging on the part of gasoline companies, I’ve long believed that a better approach would have been to insulate ourselves from rising prices by investing in infrastructure which would lead our community to become less dependent on cars. But since we’ve continued to sink public investments into roads, parking lots and four-laning highways, we can continue to expect public policy which makes it easier for us to drive, despite the realities of rising energy prices which we can’t do anything about.

As an aside, the very worst thing that the provincial government could do now would be to try to regulate the price of gasoline, which is what the Ontario NDP has promised to do should they ever form government. Artificially low gasoline prices which enable people to continue to be profligate with scarce natural resources mean that we are less likely to make investments in the things which we need. With white elephants, it’s easy to pile them on top of one another, rather than looking for solutions which are truly sustainable and affordable.

OK, so what does any of this have to do with CCS? Well, CCS, which forms the backbone of the Conservative's coal-fired generating plant regulations, and which is expected to be an integral component in oil and gas sector regulations, is one of those white elephants which may lead to the imposition of even more bad public policies at significant expense to taxpayers and industries. All without any certainty that greenhouse gas emissions will actually be reduced.

As long as the Conservatives want to work with industries to develop CCS as a means of reducing emissions, taking real action on actually reducing emissions is going to be increasingly jeopardized, in spite of mounting evidence which shows CCS simply won’t work. It’s the same with Highway 69: CCS projects undoubtedly will make great photo-ops, but they will prove to be costly white elephants which do limited good.

And all of the money which our government and which private enterprise is pouring into CCS could have been more wisely and easily invested in other projects which have a proven record of actually reducing emissions.

Intensity Targets for the Tar Sands: A Potential Trap for the Mining Sector

The other problem for the mining sector is that since Big Oil appears to be calling the shots in Ottawa, and since the Conservatives have pretty much declared war on anyone and anything which might stand in the way of pedal-to-the-metal tar sands development, if CCS proves to be a flop, that means other industrial sectors are going to have to pick up the emissions reduction slack. Already Big Oil is trying to make the case that they should be exempt from all but the smallest “intensity” reductions (which aren’t actually reductions at all, just the scaling back of the rate of emissions).

Intensity reductions aren’t going to get us to the 17% below 2005 by 2020 target set by the Conservative government, because they’re not actually reductions. Yet that appears to be where Stephen Harper is taking the tar sands. Therefore, other energy-intensive industrial sectors, like the mining sector and the manufacturing sector, might actually have to contribute more than their fair share in an effort to meet reductions targets.

That may not sound like much in a loosey-goosey regulatory environment, but keep in mind that regulations can provide an industrial sector with exemptions. And if the Conservatives decide to pursue intensity reduction targets for the tar sands through regulations, it will be pitting one natural resource sector against all others. The mining industry should be looking over its shoulder right now, making sure that they’re not going to be hit with a disproportional reduction target.

Public Buy-In: Getting the Right Policy

Reducing emissions is important, and that’s why we’ve got to get the policy right. What the Conservatives are promoting in terms of wasting public money on untried technology which can’t be useful on the scale necessary to actually make a dent in emissions is problematic in the extreme. Wasteful policies, or those implemented in ways which aren’t transparent, tend to lack public buy-in, even when they do some good. The debate raging in Australia over the past few years over that government’s carbon tax is illustrative.

In Australia, Julia Gillard’s Labor Party campaigned on a platform not to introduce a carbon tax, something her Labor Party predecessor Kevin Rudd wanted to do, which led to his ousting by Gillard. After the election, it turned out that Labor didn’t have enough seats to form government without turning to a couple of independent legislators and a member of the Greens. The price for their co-operation: a revenue-neutral carbon tax. Since then, industry has been up in arms, and Labor’s support in the polls has fallen. People don’t like to feel that they’ve been tricked, and I can understand that. That’s why it’s important that there be transparency, even when the public policy is a good one, such as the imposition of a carbon tax.

For an Ontario example, look no further to how EcoFees were handled. Again, good policy, incredibly poor implementation, with the result being that the policy was scrapped. The same might happen soon to Ontario’s Green Energy and Economy Act, over the way in which the ability for the public to provide input into renewable energy infrastructure projects has largely been scrapped.

Looking Towards Canada's Future

Right now, with regards to CCS, if we continue to follow along the path which the Conservatives have set us on for too much longer, we risk running into a point of no return, where so much money has been sunk into a project that public expectations for its success will require that we continue heading down the road, despite the overwhelming warnings to turn back. While we continue to invest in bad technology, other industrial sectors such as the mining sector, will be called upon to do more than their fair share. They won’t be happy, and rightly so.

The rising level of greenhouse gases in our atmosphere which threaten the globe have been the result of decades of industrialization which have brought prosperity to us and our economy, and which have given us our quality of life. They’ve also shaped our expectations that our energy-intensive lifestyle is somehow normal, which has led to a certain inertia of public opinion on taking action to reduce emissions. Yet we are all culpable as participants in this western society, albeit to varying degrees.

When public opinion catches up to scientific validation, and it becomes apparent that action is necessary, we may be in a position of having to ask those of us who are least responsible for the problem to take the biggest hits, so that the biggest producers can continue to go about their business as usual.

A better approach, in my opinion, would be the application of an equitable and sustainable price on carbon emissions. One which treats all emitters fairly, based on their outputs. Currently, there are two mechanisms for carbon pricing which are often discussed (and which I’m not going to explain to any great degree here, as there are really good explanations available elsewhere on the internet): a Cap and Trade emissions reduction scheme, and a carbon tax. One of these carbon pricing mechanisms is easy to implement and will lead to the reduction of emissions. The other may end up reducing emissions, but more than likely will prove to be a massive white elephant boondoggle. Of course, the NDP is currently the champion of the boondoggle Cap and Trade policy option.

(opinions expressed in this blog are my own, and should not be interpreted as being consistent with the views of the Green Party of Canada)

Mining and Climate Change, Part 2: Canada's Commitment to Reducing Greenhouse Gases

In my previous post, I wrote about the growing importance of the mining sector to Canada’s economy, and about why it’s important for our governments to enact the right carbon pricing policies. In this post, I’m going to talk about Canada's historic commitments to reducing greenhouse gas emissions in an effort to combat climate change, and why Canadians continue to demand action, and how action may impact the mining sector.

The Crises with Our Climate

There is no doubt whatsoever that human industrial activity is causing global climate change to the point that our rapidly changing climate is leading towards a crisis unlike any we have encountered before. This crisis is already having planetary impacts. Coupled with rising prices for non-renewable energy resources, particularly oil, the climate crisis will change not just our physical environment, but our economic circumstance, and social and political institutions as well. These changes are inevitable. That’s why I believe it’s best to plan for them, rather than to let them overtake us.

The mining sector will not be immune from these changes. While a warming planet may bring some opportunities for additional resource development by making currently remote parts of the globe somewhat more accessible, particularly in the extreme north, there are no guarantees that the opportunities will outweigh the challenges.

Canada's Commitment to Reducing Greenhouse Gases

A very real challenge will be the management of greenhouse gas emissions. Whether international processes, including treaties such as the Kyoto Accord, form the backbone of future emissions reduction strategies, it seems inevitable that nations will keep the pressure on one another to reduce emissions. There is an understanding that we’re all in this together, and although progress has so far been slow, the recognition that action is required remains top of mind for most governments. While it may be that we’ll inhabit a future where greenhouse gases will continue to be emitted with impunity, I don’t think that’s going to be our likely future.

Canada has taken a very uneven approach to its commitments to reduce emissions. We were one of the first nations to sign the Kyoto Protocol in 1998, which was later ratified by parliament in 2002. Under Kyoto, Canada committed itself to reducing emissions by 6% below 1990 levels by 2012. Despite this commitment, by 2008 Canada had seen emissions grow by approximately 24% over 1990 levels.

Under Stephen Harper’s Conservative government, Canada has made a few different commitments, despite our current continued obligation under Kyoto (note: Harper has committed to the process for pulling Canada out of the Kyoto Protocol, however at this time, Canada still remains within the framework of the treaty, as that process, which was initiated only in December, 2011, takes a year, and may require the ratification of parliament). First, Harper promised that Canada would reduce emissions by 20% by 2020, from 2006 levels. Later, through the Copenhagen Accord, ostensibly in an effort to harmonize initiatives with the United States, Canada committed to a smaller reduction target of 17% by 2020 from 2005 levels.

Based on data released this week by Environment Canada, Canada appears to be on track to reduce emissions in 2020 by only approximately 5% from 2005 levels, which, for those of you keeping score at home, is only about ¼ of our watered-down Copenhagen commitment (see: “Peter Kent says Tory plan to promote economic growth and protect environment is working”, the Toronto Star, April 13, 2012)

Clearly, Canada’s “plan” isn’t working at all, because Canada, under successive Liberal and Conservative governments, has never had anything resembling a "plan". What we’ve had has consisted mainly of press conferences and photo-ops, coupled with data distortions and muzzled climate scientists at Environment Canada. At some point, however, I have confidence that Canada is going to get serious about reducing emissions.

Canadians Want Action

My confidence is based on what I see happening on the political scene in Canada. In the last federal election, a majority of voting Canadians supported political parties which were campaigning on putting a price on carbon emissions as one of the mechanisms to be used in efforts to reduce those emissions. Almost 60% of Canadians voted for those political parties which were championing carbon pricing (the Green Party, the Liberal Party, the NDP and the Bloc Quebecois). Approximately 40% more voted for a party which proposed to reduce emissions through regulating industry (the Conservative Party). That means almost 100% of Canadians cast their ballots for parties which were actively campaigning on taking action on climate change. All of the major parties agree that taking action to reduce emissions is necessary; it’s only on the finer points of policy that disagreement is to be found.

But oh what disagreement there is!

For Canada’s mining sector, it’s the various political party’s policy proposals related to emissions reduction which are going to create challenges, and depending on the policy, those challenges may be more significant for the mining sector than for other natural resource sectors. The mining industry should be paying close attention to the political debates which are currently raging around these issues.

This then begs the question: which political party’s proposed policies pose the biggest threat to the mining industry? The answer, I believe, is clearly the Conservative Party, but the NDP’s policies are also a threat, albeit in a different way. As for the Liberals, it remains unknown whether their policies will negatively or positively influence the mining sector, as Liberals have the habit of alternatively embracing and abandoning their policies and principles, to the point that figuring out where they stand on anything of substance becomes difficult.

(opinions expressed in this blog are my own, and should not be interpreted as being consistent with the views of the Green Party of Canada)