Alberta Climate Change Strategy

[jpinkster]

So...what do we all think?

 

http://calgaryherald.com/news/local-news/alberta-unveils-details-of-its-climate-plan

 

The fact that this government was able to introduce something that is receiving positive reviews from industry and environmental groups is pretty impressive. I see a lot of merit in a carbon tax scheme, but I would personally prefer a cap and trade scheme. Cap and trade gives economic incentive for lowering a carbon footprint instead of just the introduction of a tax for going over.

 

I suggested that I was comfortable with this new direction on my FB wall last night. I was almost instantly lambasted by a bunch of oil patch guys that are outlining this as the undoing of our economy as we know it. There are carbon tax schemes around the world, and they have proven effective in most jurisdictions. Surely the sky isn't falling.

 

The comment that our economy is bad so we can't focus on the environment is a cheap cop out. If we continue to make excuses for not acting on the enviro file, it will never be properly addressed. This entire scheme is inclusive as it will impact corporations and individuals. If this new strategy forces Albertans to make more environmentally sound decisions on a daily basis, that is a huge win. A recent polled showed that an overwhelming majority of Albertans are in favour of measures that would protect our natural areas. It's time for us to start putting our money where our mouths are.

[bcubed]

Not looking forward to the increase in heating costs, let alone that no one seems to be mentioning that going to Natural Gas and 'renewable' is also going to increase electricity prices. Hard to support it when I know hundreds of people who have been recently laid off. Good ideas, but poor timing.

 

How long till we start pushing more hydropower as a solution...?

[murray]

The various governments have wanted to put a sales tax/carbon tax/gas tax on Albertans for years. In my opinion, now that it's here, it will never go away. Prepare to pay more for everything we use, from electricity to fuel to groceries. Everyone's cost has just been increased dramatically. However, my and every retired person along with the unemployed, remain at a fixed level of income. Seriously, I may have to go back to working well into my seventies simply to continue to live in Calgary.

For those that complain about what deregulation did to your power bill, think what eliminating 60 percent of the generation in this province will do to your power bill. Prior to deregulation, Transalta coal generation cost 2 cents per KW, Atco cost was 5 cents per KW. This is all coal fired generation. Edmonton was natural gas fired generation and their cost was in the 7 cent range. Then along comes Wind Power, the government required all of the other generation companies to purchase all wind generated power at a cost of 15 cents per KW. The difference in the costs per KW are primarily due to the cost of the fuel. Wind power has no fuel cost but the technology is expensive.

These figures are not exact but they are close. I am sure that some efficiencies have been developed over the years for wind generation, but then inflation would have to be taken in to account as well. The fuel cost for TA's coal was fixed due to long term contracts that were signed in the early 1900's. I do not know about ATCO's fuel costs.

[albertatrout]

I think this is crazy and Albertan's should stand up against it. Without a 6 billion dollar corresponding cut to other taxes (income tax particularly) this is nothing but a massive tax increase. In addition, half of this money will be going back to industry to subsidize the carbon costs over the next few years. If the PC's had announced this, people on the left would have been screaming at the top of their lungs about "big oil" running our province. I also see it has the support of first nations, what does that have to do with anything? Are they getting a cut as well, or will they be subject to the increased costs of living as well? It stinks to high heavens if you ask me...

[murray]

In my opinion, this whole carbon tax is aimed at offsetting the reduced revenue due to the oil price crash.

[TroutPanther]

I don't think going into debt is a sustainable strategy, so increased revenue might not be a bad move... Particularly a carbon tax like this that will make it more expensive to consume things... Provided those on fixed or low incomes get a fair refund.

Smaller cars, homes, etc are probably in everyone's best interest. Industry is onside, which is huge and somewhat surprising. I don't think it can hurt Alberta reputationally either. However, I would have liked to see an honest attempt to cut spending, and I seriously doubt this party will ever do that. Our gov spend per capita is way out of whack here, and for a govt that preaches sustainability, they sure don't seem to care about financial sustainability...

[jpinkster]

I don't think going into debt is a sustainable strategy, so increased revenue might not be a bad move... Particularly a carbon tax like this that will make it more expensive to consume things... Provided those on fixed or low incomes get a fair refund.

Smaller cars, homes, etc are probably in everyone's best interest. Industry is onside, which is huge and somewhat surprising. I don't think it can hurt Alberta reputationally either. However, I would have liked to see an honest attempt to cut spending, and I seriously doubt this party will ever do that. Our gov spend per capita is way out of whack here, and for a govt that preaches sustainability, they sure don't seem to care about financial sustainability...

"Right to operate" is a phrase that comes to mind. Industry buy-in with this program will greatly bolster their social-licence on resource extraction.

[bcubed]

will it? I doubt that anyone from the anti-keystone would care if they were saving one baby seal per barrel of oil that is being shipped. Really doubt it.

[albertatrout]

I don't think going into debt is a sustainable strategy, so increased revenue might not be a bad move... Particularly a carbon tax like this that will make it more expensive to consume things... Provided those on fixed or low incomes get a fair refund.

Smaller cars, homes, etc are probably in everyone's best interest. Industry is onside, which is huge and somewhat surprising. I don't think it can hurt Alberta reputationally either. However, I would have liked to see an honest attempt to cut spending, and I seriously doubt this party will ever do that. Our gov spend per capita is way out of whack here, and for a govt that preaches sustainability, they sure don't seem to care about financial sustainability...

I'd say industry is onside because it is already paying a carbon tax and will receive about 3 billion dollars in subsidies from this fund which means us taxpayers will be footing the bill. Also, the NDP killing the coal industry means a boom for natural gas which = more money in the bank for the big oil and gas companies. This is a wealth redistribution scheme and nothing more. Less and less taxpayers and more and more taxes, it's just not sustainable.

[TroutPanther]

Sidebar: I always like hearing the perspectives of people on this forum - good points on all sides of the issues. Way better than Facebook or the comments you see on news articles online...

[Ricinus]

What, natural gas price going to rise? Time to buy more Encana..

 

Mike

[murray]

I wonder how all those people that work for Transalta, Atco And Edmonton Power feel about losing their jobs over this.

 

[MattyTaylor]

I get the "increased social license" hope but at the end of the day, will this move the dial significantly for external stakeholders given their other concerns or just the plain fact that they don't want our energy produced no matter what we do? Will BC now be in favour of Gateway? Will Obama now reverse his KXL decision? My hunch is no. These opposed groups will just amplify other grievances or find new ones. On the flip side of this, oil is a commodity for foreign consumers of energy. I don't think China or refineries in India will care either way. It's the price as the bottom line and that's it - if we can get it in ships, they'll take it regardless of what we do.

 

My main concern with the global climate change policies is ensuring action is taken across the board. We're a small contributor at the end of the day and if all the other producers/nations keep the status quo while we're trying to appease an international audience (with no certainty of outcome) with domestic cuts, we're ultimately managing to harm ourselves (and kids) in the short-term while still having global mid and long term challenges ahead as well.

[jpinkster]

^Good points here.

I just don't think it is responsible to point to places like China and India and say "they are way worse than we are, so why should we be punished?". This could be an opportunity to take a leadership position and set the standards for some of those other jurisdictions.

I really do wish that Neil Young and Al Gore would spend more time hammering on China and India. The reality is simple; we get hammered on this stuff because we actually give a crap about these issue. The same can't be said for some of those developing markets.

[MattyTaylor]

I agree Jordan, and it can even be taken further by asking whether it's fair for China and India to be "punished" just because they are industrializing later than the West did. My big hope is that at the end of the day, everyone pulls their fair share. The skeptic in me worries we're too focused on what others think of us as a nation and that a lot of major emitting nations have bigger worries than climate conferences and carbon goals.

 

I think Neil Young and Al Gore (and all the others) focus on us because we're a friendly, democratic energy producing country that's safe to protest against. I welcome them to try that in Russia, Iran, Libya, Saudi Arabia etc. The irony is that a lot of citizens get behind this "anti" sentiment because it's easy and hip to complain about oil and gas while driving an SUV to a 3,000 square foot house with four laptops and three other cars in the garage. There's a certain irony in the fact that when everyone has it so good, they forget about the conditions that enabled that prosperity. If we nail our energy industries too hard, money will go elsewhere as it always does. Hunger pains won't feel any better if we're righteously unemployed.

[vhawk12]

I do believe that we do need to be stewards of the environment for all generations that are to follow us. However, I also believe that the science of climate change is flawed and massively sensationalized by media and enviro-radicals. If you are in the camp that believes in anthropogenic warming, where did you get your infomation? From media or from scientific journals? I encourage you to watch the link below, I think he makes some pretty strong arguments. If nothing else, I hope it makes you question the validity of current climate models.

 

 

As far as timing, I think the policies and actions by the NDP during this downturn in Alberta show they are out of touch with the Province. We are approaching levels of inactivity and unemployment that have not been seen since the early 80s. If oil was in the $80-$90 range, I don't think that their actions would be as big of a deal. Having said that, I think that people have forgotten how bad things got back then, the industry is taken for granted in this Province and many of us have been persuaded into hating the very industry that has made us so prosperous. Should the industry do it's best to minimize impact on the environment? Of course, and I think there has been a changing of the guard downtown in that respect. The catch is that companies are still responsible to the shareholders and they also need to maximize profits. If you put a choke-hold on that, adding insult to injury the way the NDP has, they lay everyone off here, pick up their toys and find another sandbox. It's happening already and I don't think even $60 oil is going to change things very quickly. The cap on oilsands development at 100 Megatonnes actually allows for quite a bit of growth really being that we're at 70 now and development is slowing waaaay down from what it was. So the optimist in me is saying maybe this is an attempt at looking like we're 'taking action on climate change' to the global community to help kickstart investment/buy-in for the oilsands and convince the Eastern Provinces that a pipeline carrying Canadian oil extracted by Canadian workers to be refined in Canadian refineries is better than them sourcing their oil from the Middle East....just a thought.

[myles]

What do I think?

 

Thing #1: It's getting expensive to live in Alberta. Trudeau and Notley both increased personal income taxes and now Iveson wants to increase municipal taxes in Edmonton. It's hard seeing the Alberta Advantage anymore.

 

Thing #2: I agree doing something with the environmental portfolio was needed to get a social license for pipelines but wind power can never be 'base load capacity' because it is inherently unreliable. If the energy mix becomes 70//20/10 nat gas/renewables/coal by 2030, that might work. We should just be careful to recognize what energy mix will allow Alberta to hit carbon reduction targets with resources we have in abundance that are suitable to providing affordable, reliable electricity. If we start forcing things with massive subsidies to renewables I can see us going down the same path as Ontario where we've spent a bunch of money converting a grid that now doesn't work and need to buy power outside the province.

 

Thing 3#: I'm not sure how I feel yet about driving down HWY 22 and seeing windmills on every hill. I like wind power but not when it ruins something special like that.