Generally, when I start to read an article where the first paragraph or two is made up of personal attacks and negative tone, I have a good idea of what to expect next. Chris Nelson’s column “Gambling on Pipelines and Carbon Tax” followed through as advertised. There were no hard facts or substantial arguments made.
Some good sources to gain a better understanding on the effects of global warming can be found at such sites as NASA (highly accurate ice core samples representative of 800,000 years of methane), United Nations (CO2 current reductions and actions of countries) or the Brookings Institute (for a reputable think tank of research and opinion).
Alberta, by the way, has had an Emissions Reduction program since 2007. It’s called the Climate Change and Emissions Management Fund. How does this program work and what has it accomplished? Well, there are four compliance options that industrial facilities can utilize: improve the GHG intensity of their operations; buy emissions performance credits from other regulated facilities that achieve reductions beyond their requirement; buy Alberta-based offsets; or pay $15 per ton of CO2 equivalent (to be increased to $30 per ton in 2017) to the Climate Change and Emissions Management Fund.
This fourth option is interesting in that it has generated over $500 million into a fund that has come from companies paying financial penalties as emitters. These same companies can apply for a grant from this fund to implement technology to reduce their emissions. For example, say Encana (natural gas wells throughout the province) has an idea on how to reduce emissions at all of their gas compressor stations across the province. They can apply for a grant from the fund to pay for this. How cool is that?
The choice between a carbon tax or a cap and trade program is available to each province. A carbon tax option tends to be the best option for a resource based province like B.C., Alberta and Saskatchewan.
The argument that “Trump isn’t going to play fair when it comes to emissions reductions so why should we?” is akin to when my children would come to me with a similar argument of “no one else has to do it.” It’s the same answer. We need to stand for principle and do our very best to help others. In this case the others are our future generations. This is hardly a “single minded rush” to do our part. Have a look at the list of countries throughout the world that already have either a carbon tax or cap and trade program (see IEA). Canada is lagging behind the EU, Scandinavian and even some eastern European countries.
Finally, your references to our premier as “playing nice” and being “accommodating” is not only off base, but also misogynistic. Along with former premier Alison Redford, these two women have championed Alberta’s need for pipelines and at the same time recognized the national concern for action on climate change. It is this difficult balance that a resource based economy must achieve.
Mike Dutcher, St. Albert
