This is a guest post by Mark Jaccard, professor of sustainable energy at Simon Fraser University. 

In 2007, Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s government asked me and four other economists if we agreed with its study showing huge costs for Canada to meet its Kyoto commitment to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 2010. We all publicly agreed, much to the chagrin of the Liberals, NDP and Greens, who argued that Kyoto was still achievable without crashing the economy. It wasn’t.

As economists, we knew that the Liberal government of Jean Chrétien should have implemented effective policies right after signing Kyoto in 1997. It takes at least a decade to significantly reduce emissions via energy efficiency, switching to renewables, and perhaps capturing carbon dioxide from coal plants and oilsands. Each year of delay jacks up costs.

Mr. Harper’s government knew this too. Years later, when environment minister Peter Kent formally withdrew Canada from Kyoto, he charged the previous Liberal government with “incompetence” for not enacting necessary policies in time to meet their target.

With the excuse that Kyoto was too expensive, Mr. Harper replaced it with his own emission target for 2020, which he presented in his 2007 policy statement, “Turning the Corner.” Two years later, he reconfirmed it alongside U.S. President Barack Obama and other world leaders at the Copenhagen climate conference.

Just like Mr. Chrétien, however, Mr. Harper failed to immediately implement the necessary policies. Canadian emissions have declined slightly, for which he tries to take credit. But analysts agree that the main causes are the 2008 recession, some decline of heavy industry, Ontario’s reduction of coal-fired power, and climate policies in British Columbia and Quebec. Mr. Harper’s adoption of U.S. vehicle regulations will have a small effect by 2020, not his coal regulations.

Like what you're reading? Help us bring you more. Click here to support DeSmog Canada's Kickstarter campaign to clean up the climate and energy debate in Canada.

But instead of honestly admitting that it won’t achieve the 2020 target, the Harper government still pretends that it will. And it won’t admit that its vigorous promotion of oilsands and new pipelines, such as Keystone XL and Northern Gateway, is a key factor in Environment Canada’s prediction that Canadian emissions in 2020 will exceed the target by at least 20 per cent.

Growth in oilsands emissions alone will account for half the overshoot.

Meanwhile, the U.S. will meet a similar 2020 target. And California, with the same population as Canada, will meet a tougher target.

This time, the Harper government has not asked me to comment on the cost of trying at this late date to keep its promise. I doubt it will – at least not before the 2015 election. But as a helpful gesture, I’ve done the analysis anyway, with a model like Environment Canada’s.

My analysis shows that if Mr. Harper had “competently” enacted in 2007 the regulations he promised, the effective price on carbon would have started around $15 per tonne of CO2 in 2008, reaching $100 in 2020. This would not have harmed the Canadian economy. It would have phased-out most coal plants, as Ontario has done. It would have shifted transportation toward natural gas, biofuels and electricity, as is occurring in California. It would have substantially slowed the growth of oilsands, and led to investments in carbon capture, as in Norway. Oilsands jobs would not have grown as rapidly, but would not have declined. And job creation in alternative energy would be substantial, as has occurred with renewables in B.C. and Ontario. There would be no Keystone XL, no Northern Gateway.

My analysis further shows that were Mr. Harper now to seriously pursue his 2020 promise, he would crash the economy. His frantic regulations would be equivalent to shocking the economy with a CO2 price that quickly escalates to $200 – increasing the price of gasoline by 50 cents a litre. Industrial jobs would be lost. Oilsands production would decrease.

Mr. Harper has admitted that he will do nothing for the climate that might slow the growth of oilsands jobs, as he recently confirmed during the visit of Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott.

Yet he won’t admit that this makes his 2020 climate promise false.

Isn’t it time we had some honesty in Canada? Climate change is one of the defining issues of our time. We are being horribly let down by the Harper government.

Mark Jaccard is one of eight scientists who published a commentary in Nature in June calling for a moratorium on oilsands development. Follow him on twitter: @MarkJaccard

Image Credit: Kris Krug.

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Australian Prime Mininster Tony Abbott took turns Monday criticizing efforts by governments to make polluters pay for greenhouse gas emissions.

Abbott, who is visiting North America, and Harper, both said their respective governments weren’t trying to avoid dealing with the problem, but suggested they were trying to avoid damaging the economy.

The comments were immediately challenged by one of the Harper government’s former political advisers, David McLaughlin, who headed a panel that warned Canada would pay an economic price by not taking action to address climate change.

McLaughlin wrote on his Twitter account that the message from Harper and Abbott was reinforcing a “meme” that dealing with the environment, comes at the expense of the economy.

‘Either/or’ construct on combatting climate change heard today reinforces meme that dealing with environment comes at expense of economy.

— David McLaughlin (@DavidMcLA) June 9, 2014

@mikedesouza Economic impacts on Canada from NOT arresting climate change. Other side of coin we heard today in Ottawa. #cdnpoli

— David McLaughlin (@DavidMcLA) June 9, 2014

McLaughlin, a former chief of staff to the finance minister, is now a strategic advisor on sustainability at Waterloo University’s Faculty of Environment.

Harper’s government abolished the panel headed by McLaughlin, the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy, in its 2012 budget, stating that it no longer needed its advice since it believed it could find the expertise elsewhere. The cut was projected to generate savings of about $5 million per year.

The government later deleted the panel’s website, but moved its reports and research over to a website hosted by Library and Archives Canada.

Harper also said that President Barack Obama’s proposal last week to limit carbon pollution from coal-fired power plants “do not go nearly as far” as actions already proposed by Canada in the electricity sector.

Coal plants are one of the most challenging and significant sources of carbon pollution in the U.S. economy.

Harper’s government hasn’t yet taken action to address carbon emissions from the oil and gas industry, including in the oilsands which are the fastest growing source of heat-trapping greenhouse gases in the country.

Here’s a transcript (edited for grammar) of the comments by Abbott and Harper at a joint news conference in Ottawa in response to a question from an Australian reporter who asked whether Obama’s recent announcement to crack down on carbon pollution from coal plants was putting pressure on their own governments to do more to fight climate change:

Tony Abbott:

“As you know, the Australian government believes in strong action to deal with climate change. We think that climate change is a significant problem. It’s not the only, or even the most important problem that the world faces. But it is a significant problem and it’s important that every country should take the action that it thinks is best to reduce emissions because we should rest lightly on the planet.”

“I am encouraged that President Obama is taking what I would regard as direct action measures to reduce emissions. This is very similar to the actions that my government proposes to take in Australia. We should do what we reasonably can to limit emissions and avoid climate change – man-made climate change. But we shouldn’t clobber the economy and that’s why I’ve always been against a carbon tax or an emissions trading scheme because it harms our economy, without necessarily helping the environment.”

Stephen Harper:

“Look, I don’t feel any additional pressure other than the pressure we all feel to make progress on this important issue. I think it’s important to lay out the facts here and certainly our officials can give you more of the facts. The measures outlined by President Obama, as important as they are, do not go nearly as far, in the electricity sector, as the actions Canada has already taken, ahead of the United States, in that particular sector. Now that particular sector is obviously, and the effects of climate change regulations in that particular sector in the United States, are obviously more sensitive to the overall American economy than they are in Canada. The reason I mention these things, is just to make the point that, as I think Tony has also made, that it’s not that we don’t seek to deal with climate change. But we seek to deal with it in a way that will protect and enhance our ability to create jobs and growth, not destroy jobs and growth in our countries. And frankly, every single country in the world: This is their position.”

“No country is going to undertake actions on climate change, no matter what they say, no country is going to [take] actions that are going to deliberately destroy jobs and growth in their country. We are just a little more frank about that, but that is the approach that every country is seeking.”

This article originally appeared on mikedesouza.com and was republished here with permission.

Image Credit: Prime Ministers Stephen Harper and Tony Abbott via Twitter

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.