Alberta to talk about 'consistent' carbon price in Lima
 

Alberta to talk about ‘consistent’ carbon price in Lima

Alberta’s environment minister says the province plans to use the upcoming climate change conference in Peru to discuss a uniform price for carbon


 

EDMONTON – Alberta’s environment minister says the province plans to use the upcoming climate change conference in Peru to discuss a uniform price for carbon across Canada and the rest of the continent.

“We would like to work with the rest of Canada – and by extension the rest of North America – on trying to establish the consistent, fair price on carbon,” Kyle Fawcett told The Canadian Press in an interview before he headed to Lima for the UN-sponsored conference.

“I know that’s not going to be an easy thing, but it’s something we want to be leaders in, and that will take engaging some of the other jurisdictions in this country to begin with.”

Fawcett said any agreement would have to be applied equally across borders and across economies, despite the inevitable attempts to include exemptions and special breaks for favoured industries.

Fawcett acknowledged that would put pressure on Alberta’s current carbon tax, which applies only to major emitters and only on greenhouse gas emissions above a government-mandated level. Most carbon tax models, such as British Columbia’s, apply much more broadly.

As well, Alberta’s $15-dollar-a-tonne price is considered too low to achieve actual reductions in emissions. Fawcett said the government understands that to get a consistent price across jurisdictions, it may have to be higher.

“We’re well aware of that and that’s part of ongoing discussions,” he said.

“There hasn’t been any decisions (about a higher price). I’m not willing to comment on whether there will be increased costs or no increased costs until we’ve made those final decisions.”

Some of those decisions will be reflected in the province’s new environment strategy, which Fawcett said should be released before the end of the year. He hinted it will go beyond industry.

“Each and every individual has a role to play in emissions management and I think that’s going to be very clear as we roll out our emissions plans.”

Industry has been involved in developing those plans, he said.

Although Fawcett suggested Alberta has “a good story to tell” on the environment, the province is often painted as a ecological villain. Its greenhouse gas emissions continue to rise, new information is being released on toxins released by the oilsands and concerns keep growing about the energy industry’s impact on the environment.

He acknowledged Alberta has a ways to go in convincing a skeptical world at conferences such as the one in Lima that the province is serious about improving its environmental record.

“We know that we haven’t necessarily been on track there. That means we have to redouble our efforts and think smarter about what it’s going to take to get there.

“We know that when we make commitments to the world, that there’s a trust factor there, and when you make those commitments you’re expected to meet those.”

Fawcett said it’s still possible for Alberta to do its share to meet announced federal targets that would bring greenhouse gas emissions 17 per cent below 2005 levels by 2020.

“It’s not going to be an easy task, but it is a possible one. There’s a lot of discussion that needs to happen on how to make that work.

“We’re past the point where there’s any debate around the science of climate change.”


 

Alberta to talk about ‘consistent’ carbon price in Lima

  1. Glo-Bull Warming is the biggest fraud ever perpetrated in human history.

    CO2 is not a pollutant.

    Without CO2 there would be no photosynthesis, no plants, no oxygen, no life.

    Water vapour is the most abundant greenhouse gas.

    The climate is always in a state of change.

    The suns solar radiation has more effect on earths climate than any other factor.

    One large volcanic eruption puts more gases and particulates into the atmosphere than human kind has since walking upright.

    For those who are convinced that CO2 is bad, just stop exhaling.

    • You should send this note to the people in the Philippines, expecting yet another massive storm this weekend. Not only has the storm track changed in the last decade, as predicted, but the frequency and intensity also jibes with predicted warming. It’s weird how predictive success and repeatability works in scientific predictions, and how naive falsification, as with your argument, doesn’t.

      • Although always a staple of global warming advocacy, climate activists have turned up the rhetorical heat on extreme weather in recent years. The reasons aren’t hard to fathom. The 15-year pause in global warming makes it harder to scare people about warming itself. The two greatest terrors featured in An Inconvenient Truth — rapid ice sheet disintegration leading to catastrophic sea-level rise and ocean circulation shutdown precipitating a new ice age – have no credibility. Nobody takes seriously the prospect of warming-induced malaria epidemics either. If you want to scare people, extreme weather is the only card left in the climate alarm deck.

        In addition, a rationally-ignorant public can easily be fooled into confusing climate change risk with plain old climate risk (the nasty surprises Mother Nature generates all on her own). Part of the reason is psychological. Due to their sheer magnitude and terror, natural catastrophes have an almost supernatural aspect. People are naturally inclined to imagine that natural disasters have non-natural causes. Thus, each time disaster strikes, pundits, especially those with scientific credentials, can plausibly blame fossil fuels — just as in earlier ages political or religious authorities blamed “sinners” (i.e., their adversaries) for floods, plagues, crop failures, and the like.

      • “More trouble looms for the IPCC. The body may need to revise statements made in its Fourth Assessment Report on hurricanes and global warming. A statistical analysis of the raw data shows that the claims that global hurricane activity has increased cannot be supported…tests six IPCC statements against raw data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric (NOAA) Administration…”When you average the number of storms and their strength, it almost exactly balances.” This isn’t indicative of an increase in atmospheric energy manifesting itself in storms…The IPCC continues: “It is more likely than not (> 50%) that there has been some human contribution to the increases in hurricane intensity.” But, as Hatton points out, that conclusion comes from computer climate models, not from the observational data, which show no increase…”The IPCC goes on to make statements that would never pass peer review,”…”

        And btw, Kevin Trenberth, the major IPCC climate scientist, and also co-author with the notorious Peter Gleick, is the principal player behind the global warming alarmism “science” of hurricanes.

        “The IPCC’s AR4 chapter lead was Kevin Trenberth, who features prominently in the Climategate emails. In 2005, the National Hurricane Center’s chief scientist Chris Landsea resigned his post in protest at the treatment of the subject by Trenberth…”I personally cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound. As the IPCC leadership has seen no wrong in Dr. Trenberth’s actions and have retained him as a Lead Author for the AR4, I have decided to no longer participate in the IPCC AR4.”

        Hmmm…maybe Trenberth’s personna of climate science incompetence is instead an actual embracement of the ‘Peter Gleick’ methodology, no?

        • Boy, it’s a good thing we have you around to clear this up Billy Bob. After the pine beetle epidemic, the drought in the states, the flooding here where I live, the record temperatures in Australia, the receding glaciers, receding Arctic ice…etc… and the fact that we will either tie or have the hottest year on record this year, I might have been duped by those panic prone scientists.

          Those scientists do sure put up a lot of fuss for their mediocre salaries. And to think all of that IPCC nonsense is done on a volunteer basis.

          • By Larry Bell

            Dr. Christian Schlüchter’s discovery of 4,000-year-old chunks of wood at the leading edge of a Swiss glacier was clearly not cheered by many members of the global warming doom-and-gloom science orthodoxy.

            This finding indicated that the Alps were pretty nearly glacier-free at that time, disproving accepted theories that they only began retreating after the end of the little ice age in the mid-19th century. As he concluded, the region had once been much warmer than today, with “a wild landscape and wide flowing river.”

            Dr. Schlüchter’s report might have been more conveniently dismissed by the entrenched global warming establishment were it not for his distinguished reputation as a giant in the field of geology and paleoclimatology who has authored/coauthored more than 250 papers and is a professor emeritus at the University of Bern in Switzerland.

            Then he made himself even more unpopular thanks to a recent interview titled “Our Society is Fundamentally Dishonest” which appeared in the Swiss publication Der Bund where he criticized the U.N.-dominated institutional climate science hierarchy for extreme tunnel vision and political contamination.

            Following the ancient forest evidence discovery Schlüchter became a target of scorn. As he observes in the interview, “I wasn’t supposed to find that chunk of wood because I didn’t belong to the close-knit circle of Holocene and climate researchers. My findings thus caught many experts off guard: Now an ‘amateur’ had found something that the [more recent time-focused] Holocene and climate experts should have found.”

            Other evidence exists that there is really nothing new about dramatic glacier advances and retreats. In fact the Alps were nearly glacier-free again about 2,000 years ago. Schlüchter points out that “the forest line was much higher than it is today; there were hardly any glaciers. Nowhere in the detailed travel accounts from Roman times are glaciers mentioned.”

            Schlüchter criticizes his critics for focusing on a time period which is “indeed too short.” His studies and analyses of a Rhone glacier area reveal that “the rock surface had [previously] been ice-free 5,800 of the last 10,000 years.”

          • There have been droughts, flooding, record highs and record lows, none of it attributable to the “theory” of Glo-Bull Warming.

            Glaciers have receded and advanced throughout the millenia, as has the sea ice extent of both the Arctic and Antarctic.

            Those record temperatures are the result of data manipulation by fraudulent researchers.

            The IPCC is nothing more than a report-writing entity:

            that was created by politicians for use by politicians to achieve an political-agenda-driven goal
            that relies on politician-financed climate models that were designed, and continue to operate, with the single-minded intent of showing bad things will happen in the future if we continue to consume fossil fuels.

            The “asian pine beetle” appeared in BC, arrived in some wood dunnage that an idiot Longshoreman Union member stole from the dock in Prince Rupert to build a garage with.

          • The IPCC process is clearly broken, and I don’t see anything in their recent policies that addresses the problems that Christy raises. The policy makers clearly wrought havoc in context of the AR5 WG3 report; however there is a more insidious problem particularly with the WG1 scientists in terms of conflict of interest and the IPCC Bureau in terms of stacking the deck to produce the results that they want.

            http://judithcurry.com/2014/04/29/ipcc-tar-and-the-hockey-stick/

  2. David Demings’ congressional testimony gives insight into how the CRU/IPCC dealt with problems. It involved the challenge the Medieval Warm Period posed for the IPCC. Deming wrote,

    With the publication of the article in Science [in 1995], I gained significant credibility in the community of scientists working on climate change. They thought I was one of them, someone who would pervert science in the service of social and political causes. So one of them let his guard down. A major person working in the area of climate change and global warming sent me an astonishing email that said “We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period.”