The Reminder is making its archives back to 2003 available on our website. Please note that, due to technical limitations, archive articles are presented without the usual formatting.
Drastic reductions in so-called greenhouse gas emissions proposed by the federal government would, if enacted, cost Canadians $60 billion in coming years Ñ at a minimum. A review of the presumed costs and benefits reveals that this massive regulatory scheme is unjustified on both scientific and economic grounds. First proposed a year ago, OttawaÕs Òaction planÓ calls for a whopping 20 per cent overall reduction in greenhouse gas emissions (from 2006 levels) by 2020 Ñ a volume the government claims is equal to the combined greenhouse gas emissions of Alberta, Quebec, and Newfoundland and Labrador. Unfortunately, the economic models used to calculate the costs are easily manipulated to obtain prescribed outcomes. For example, itÕs unlikely to be sheer coincidence that, by regulatorsÕ reckoning, the costs and benefits of more stringent controls on industrial emissions just happen to be equivalent Ñ about $6 billion annually, on average. The proposed plan calls for heavy industry to reduce emissions Òintensity,Ó i.e., the level of emissions per unit of production, by 18 per cent by 2010, and two per cent annually thereafter. In addition, all coal-fired power plants that go online in 2012 or later would be required to install Òcapture-and-storageÓ systems by which carbon emissions would be trapped and moved to an underground storage facility. In many cases, compliance would require replacement of machinery without regard for depreciation schedules. Some manufacturing processes likewise would require reconfiguration. The loss of output and more costly production would likely raise the prices of a variety of goods and services, all of which could be expected to undermine economic growth, job creation and living standards. Moreover, there exists considerable uncertainty about the interplay between greenhouse gas emissions and climate change. Consequently, the government could only evaluate the benefits of air quality improvements, but not the extent to which the regulations would (or would not) mitigate climate change. Simply put, the government intends to impose on citizens the worldÕs toughest greenhouse gas regulations without an accurate accounting of either the costs or benefits, and with the knowledge that the regulations would have little impact on climate change but a dramatic impact on the economy.
