All Over the Map 2012 A COMPARISON OF PROVINCIAL CLIMATE CHANGE PLANS ALL OVER THE MAP 2012 A comparison of provincial climate change plans March 2012 Written by Miranda Holmes, with contributions from Paul Lingl, Dale Marshall, Ian Bruce, Morag Carter and Faisal Moola ISBN 978-1-897375-45-7 Canadian cataloguing in Publications Data for this book is available through the National Library of Canada Special thanks to the Bronfman Foundation This report can be downloaded free of charge at www.davidsuzuki.org Ce rapport est disponible en français http://www.davidsuzuki.org/fr/ Graphic design by Nadene Rehnby and Pete Tuepah handsonpublications.com The greenhouse gas emissions from the production of the paper used in this publication have been offset through investments in renewable energy projects. Suite 219, 2211 West 4th Avenue, Vancouver, B.C. V6K 4S2 T: 604.732.4228 F: 604.732.4228 Toll free: 1-800-453-1533 E: [email protected] www.davidsuzuki.org Contents IntrodUction ............................................................................................................................5 British ColUmbia....................................................................................................................15 Alberta ................................................................................................................................... 22 Saskatchewan .......................................................................................................................32 Manitoba ..................................................................................................................................39 Ontario ................................................................................................................................... 46 QUebec ....................................................................................................................................55 New BRUnswick ......................................................................................................................62 Prince Edward Island ......................................................................................................... 68 Nova Scotia ..............................................................................................................................75 NewfoUndland AND Labrador ...........................................................................................82 YUkon ................................................................................................................................... 89 Northwest Territories ....................................................................................................... 94 NUnavUT .................................................................................................................................. 99 Acknowledgements Provincial Power Play BREAKING AWAY FROM F EDERAL I NACTION ON C LIMATE C HANGE This report was written by Miranda Holmes, with contributions from Paul Lingl, Dale Marshall, Ian Bruce, Morag Carter and Faisal Moola. The authors wish to thank David Coon, Ann Coxworth, Clare Demerse, Steven Guilbeault, Brendan Haley, Winnie Hwo, Harpreet Johal, Karel Mayrand, Leslie Malone, Anne Middler, Guillaume Plamondon, Doug Ritchie, Keith Stewart, Jean-Patrick Toussaint, Piotr Trela, This work builds on and Brennan Vogel, Gaile Whelan Enns, Simon Dyer, Ian Hanington, updates the 2008 report Tyler Bryant, Gillian McEachern, Ryan Kadowaki, Peggy Cameron Provincial Power Play: and Patrick Bonin. Breaking Away From Federal Inaction on Climate Change. The report found that in the absence of effective policies from Canada’s federal government to tackle global warming, many provinces had stepped up to implement their own plans and policies. Provincial Power Play documented this shift, assessing each province’s climate change plans and programs and comparing the relative merits of each. This report updates the status of each province’s efforts, and provides analysis for moving forward. Introduction CLIMATE CHANGE: Fate of ecosystems and global economy depends on choices we make today THE SCIENCE OF CLIMATE CHANGE is becoming clearer and starker. In just over four years — since the UN’s Considering the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s last assessment report — scientists have concluded that the urgency of climate climate is more sensitive than previously thought, that the risks are greater and more costly (both economically change, it should be and in human lives), and that quick and more dramatic reductions to heat-trapping emissions are needed to encouraging that all sustain the health of ecosystems and the global economy. Canadian provinces Throughout 2011 Canada and the United States — both disproportionately large per capita emitters of and territories have greenhouse gases — have seen increasing numbers of extreme weather events (e.g., floods, tornadoes and recently reduced GHG hailstorms across the Prairies; flooding in Quebec, Ontario and Nova Scotia). Increasingly, scientists are able emissions. However, to measurably demonstrate that particular extreme weather events would not have been as severe without in the majority of human-induced climate change.1 cases this decrease A peaking of global emissions by 2015 at the latest, with sharp declines thereafter, is what is most likely is associated with the required to keep average global warming below 2 °C, the level that has been used as a threshold for avoiding economic downturn of dangerous impacts of climate change. Groups of countries such as the Alliance of Small Island States and the Africa Group, which represent the most vulnerable to climate change impacts, are now calling for the threshold 2009 rather than policy to be lowered to 1.5 °C. This is because these countries are already experiencing devastating consequences and investments, like sea level rise associated with temperature increases. and is therefore An IPCC report outlining the level of effort for an effective global response to climate change suggests that likely to reverse with industrialized countries like Canada should take responsible action and cut emissions in the range of 25 to 40 economic recovery. per cent below 1990 levels by 2020. 2 This target range is seen by many, including most developing countries and the Climate Action Network International, as a minimum target. And given the improved understanding of climate science, reductions greater than 40 per cent in the next decade are being called for.3 1 “Extreme Weather Is a Product of Climate Change”, Scientific American, 28 June 2011. www.scientificamerican.com/ article.cfm?id=extreme-weather-caused-by-climate-change 2 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2007. Fourth Assessment Report, Working Group III, Table 13.7. 3 See for example Climate Action Network International. 2009. “Fair Ambitious & Binding: Essentials for a Successful Climate Deal.” Available at www.climatenetwork.org/sites/default/files/CAN_FAB_Essentials_1.pdf DAVID SUZUKI FOUNDATION PAGE 5 Considering this urgency, it should be encouraging that all Canadian provinces and territories have recently reduced greenhouse gas emissions (according to the most recent figures available from Environment Canada4). Unfortunately, this decrease in emissions in the majority of cases is not because of policy or a decision to invest in clean energy but is rather associated with the economic downturn of 2009 and is therefore illusory and likely to reverse with the economic recovery. Canada could be making a positive contribution in the fight against climate change. Environmental factors notwithstanding, there is an economic impetus. The best research shows strong action that dramatically reduces Canada’s emissions while preserving a strong economy and strong job growth is possible.5 And, as the Stern Review6 shows, the economic costs of inaction are much greater than the economic costs of tackling the challenge head on. Weak federal programs Despite the strong evidence for the serious impacts of climate change and the economic data that show action is possible and warranted, the Canadian government continues to abandon its responsibility on climate change action. Its refusal to regulate industrial pollution until U.S. legislation is in place is just the latest excuse for delay. Its “on again, off again” approach to the home energy-efficiency retrofit program and its decision to not replenish the now-empty fund for clean energy means that, in most cases, federal programs, even when they exist, are ineffective and getting weaker. In an October 2011 review by the Office of the Auditor General of Canada, the Environment Commissioner reported that the federal government’s strategy is “disjointed, confused and non-transparent”7 and that overall the government’s policies are now projected to be 90 per cent weaker than they were in 2007.8 Canada suffered a further loss of credibility when the federal government continuously undermined progress at a gathering of world leaders for the UN climate change summit in Durban, South Africa, in December 2011. Canada was identified by countries like South Africa, Brazil and India as a barrier to working out an effective response to global warming.9 The Canadian government even went so far as to threaten developing countries with pulling their international development assistance if they did not support the Canadian government’s anti-Kyoto stance and its weak position on a second legally binding international