The New York Times is reporting that "the International Energy Agency is now projecting that China's emissions of energy-related greenhouse gases will grow more than the rest of the world's combined increase by 2020. China, with one-fifth of the world's population, is now on track to represent more than a quarter of humanity's energy-related greenhouse-gas emissions."
The reason?
Chinese consumers are on a roll, and their energy use and carbon emissions are not being offset by the fact that China has shut down more than a thousand older coal-fired power plants, leads the world in wind turbines and clean energy technology and has set tough standards for lighting and automobile mileage.
Meanwhile, here in the Great White North, the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources tabled its 7th interim report on June 29 - a report that went largely unnoticed until it was picked up in today's edition of Le Devoir.
The committee, which is chaired by Senator David Angus and has a Conservative majority, does not put forward any recommendations. However, the interim report - entitled "Attention Canada! Preparing for our Energy Future" - does contain a few surprisingly clear paragraphs that should bring a smile to the face of former Liberal leader Stéphane Dion:
"The committee found near unanimity among witnesses - from the petroleum industry to environmental organizations - that supported pricing carbon as the most efficient way to reduce emissions. Given the choice, most witnesses favoured carbon taxes over cap-and-trade but both are market-based approaches for pricing carbon and both can be levied at different stages along the fossil fuel supply chain.
Generally, witnesses stated that a carbon tax would be more economically efficient and less complex to administer than a cap-and-trade system. For either method, it was stressed that carbon pricing should be applied broadly and uniformly throughout the economy and across Canada.
In most carbon pricing schemes, the revenue generated is recycled into the economy by reducing income or payroll taxes or by funding technology research or other incentives that promote sustainable energy technologies.
Because each province and territory's energy circumstances are different, national carbon pricing would have uneven impacts across Canada. These differences would have to be accounted for, perhaps, by ensuring that revenues are returned to the provinces/territories or by applying different rules for high growth regions.
The federal government's position is that it will adopt a cap-and-trade system if the US government proceeds with cap-and-trade legislation. There is a concern with proceeding unilaterally with carbon pricing because it would place trade exposed energy intensive industries at a competitive disadvantage.
Some witnesses agreed that Canada should align with the US so as to not harm Canada's competiveness. However, there was concern that 1) the United States due to the nature of its legislative process may be slow in introducing emission reduction legislation; 2) if or when the United States does introduce legislation it would be tailored to fit their energy and political circumstances and not those of Canada."