Canada targets cutting GHGs 30% below 2005 levels by 2030; new regulations for oil and gas, power, petrochemicals
15 May 2015
Canada Environment Minister Leona Aglukkaq announced that Canada plans to reduce its greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 30% below 2005 levels by 2030. Canada formally submitted its target, referred to as an Intended Nationally Determined Contribution (INDC), to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Canada will continue to take cooperative action with its continental trading partners, particularly the United States, in integrated sectors of the economy, including energy and transportation.
Minister Aglukkaq also announced the Government’s intention to develop new regulatory measures under its sector-by-sector approach that would build on actions already taken on two of Canada’s largest sector sources of GHG emissions: transportation and electricity. The new regulations include:
Regulations aligned with recently proposed actions in the United States to reduce GHG methane from the oil-and-gas sector.
Regulations for natural gas-fired electricity, which would build on Canada’s existing coal-fired electricity regulations. Canada already has 79% non-emitting electricity generation. The G7 average is 38%; the G20 average is 31%.
Regulations for the production of chemicals and nitrogen fertilizers, which would reduce the growth of GHGs from two of the largest sources of emissions in Canada’s manufacturing sector.
|
|
Canada has invested more than $10 billion in technologies to promote innovation and emissions reductions. To build on this, Canada will focus domestic climate-related investments in innovative technologies to continue to drive further improvements in environmental performance in the oil sands and other growing sectors.
Canada projects that its 2020 GHG emissions will be 130 megatonnes (Mt) lower than if no action was taken—an amount roughly equivalent to one year’s worth of GHG emissions from all of Canada’s road transportation.
In 2013, Canada's GHG emissions were 3.1% lower than 2005 levels while the economy grew by 12.9% over the same time period. Canada’s per capita GHG emissions have fallen to their lowest levels since tracking began.
The new proposed regulatory actions are in addition to recently announced regulations establishing more stringent standards for cars, light trucks, and heavy-duty vehicles, as well as Canada’s intent to regulate hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs).
Don't be fooled. This Conservative government has closed every environmental program and fired every environmental scientist they could find. The only reason the vehicle standards were changed was to match the U.S. standards. It's automatic and rubber stamped.
The gains that have been made were made by the provinces without the help of this oil backed federal government. When the time comes they will find a way to do nothing.
Posted by: Paroway | 15 May 2015 at 03:39 PM
@ Paroway
You said it! But I would like to add: 2030? Wasn't the agreement in Copenhagen for a 2020 target?
Posted by: ai_vin | 16 May 2015 at 07:52 AM
It's an old trick, to look better, by using the worst year (2005) as a starting point.
The truth is that Canada has done very badly, with a huge rise in emissions for the past period (1990 to 2007/8) and it is doubtful that it will do much better for the next period (2005 to 2030). It is already above target for 2014.
Huge SUVs, Pick-ups, diesel city buses, cargo trucks and diesel locomotives running on low cost gasoline and/or diesel from tar sands does not help.
Exporting (by rail) oil extracted from tar sands is also a large contributor.
Transport vehicles electrification together with modified oil extraction methods (in situ etc) and/or higher fuel carbon/pollution taxes are required to lower emissions.
Posted by: HarveyD | 16 May 2015 at 08:21 AM
so far our strategy of sitting on our thumbs to reduce anthropomorphic methane releases has served us well. I expect it's gonna be more of the same. That and pray that some scientist discredits the global warming theory before electric cars get so competitive the decision to buy electric will be a "no brainer".
Posted by: Calgarygary | 16 May 2015 at 09:45 AM
Too bad these excellent comments you guys are writing are not published in the Canadian papers where they could reach the people who could make a difference, the Canadian voter. We preach a lot to the choir here.
I post in my local paper and in some that are in the heart of oil country trying to get voters to think about clean energy issues. I wish more people would do this to counter the many lies the oil politicians produce and to educate the Public.
Posted by: Lad | 16 May 2015 at 09:55 AM
What can I say,
Australian commentators rate our efforts below Canada.
The renewable energy target backed by REC's renewable energy credits, has shifted from the original target of x? % at the time of announcement down to the same %age of the current use which is substantially less being down by ~10%.
To add the neanderthals insult to injury burning of "wood waste" from native forests is set to take another 15% from the R.E. target.
Our R.E. companies are then left with the govt insisting on the changes, the opposition rejecting the lower target as sought and opposing the burning of biomass for energy.
R.E. Co's just want certainty and most of our R.E. Co's are stalled and hibernating.
Meanwhile Hanson continues to insist that the global 2o target at best offers the lower end of survivability.
There are supposed to be new cameras available fast enough to catch politicians when they are being truthfull.
Posted by: Arnold | 16 May 2015 at 03:52 PM
It's the old story, kick the can far enough down the road and it becomes somebody else's problem.
Posted by: ai_vin | 19 May 2015 at 07:15 AM