OTTAWA (CP) - No existing jobs would be lost but there could be a small reduction in economic growth, under four scenarios the federal government put forward Wednesday for compliance with the Kyoto climate treaty.
"Nobody loses a job," Environment Minister David Anderson said as he released a discussion paper, which outlines four options for implementing the 1997 treaty. Under the most costly scenario presented, economic growth would be reduced by 1.7 percentage points over the period 2000 to 2012 compared with a business-as-usual scenario.
"None of these (options) have a reduction in existing economic activity in any region of the country," said Anderson. "The expected maximum costs would be two percentage points, that's not exactly overwhelming."
Neither he nor his officials estimated what the costs would be in dollars.
Critics have said meeting the Kyoto requirements could cost the economy more than $20 billion. Under Kyoto, Canada and most other industrialized countries pledged a six per cent cut in greenhouse emissions from 1990 levels.
The discussion paper was welcomed by environmentalists but attacked by the Alberta government, the Canadian Alliance and the Canadian Chamber of Commerce.
"This is still a Kyoto agreement with Kyoto time lines," said Alberta Environment Minister Lorne Taylor. "You cannot meet those Kyoto time lines with technology. And if they try and do that it will be like a death star for the Canadian economy."
He did not say how the economic analysis in the federal paper is flawed, but promised Alberta will present its own plan.
"We want to work in a positive manner with the federal government, present them our plan, because our plan has some combination of those proposals."
John Bennett of the Sierra Club said the federal paper shows compliance costs are insignificant, and could be offset by many benefits such as reduced hospital admissions due to cleaner air.
"The federal government has made a strong argument for staying in the international tent and not abandoning Kyoto," said Bennett. "That's the real positive message."
The four scenarios involve different combinations of measures such as emissions-trading, tax changes and targeted investments in energy-efficiency and clean energy projects.
Only one scenario assumes Canada will get credits for exports of clean energy - natural gas and electricity - to the United States.
Ottawa has been pushing hard to get clean energy credits, despite strong opposition from the European Union. Anderson said Wednesday that the issue is not a deal breaker.
"For us it's important but that's not to say without it we won't ratify," he said.
Greenpeace activist Steven Guilbeault initially denounced the federal paper, assuming that the federal government was counting on clean energy credits, but altered his stance on learning of Anderson's comments.
"There are things we can work with in this plan," he said. "Let's start doing it. Let's ratify and start doing it."
The David Suzuki Foundation said the paper proves Canada can meet its Kyoto commitments without economic pain and without clean-energy credits.
The Canadian Council for Policy Alternatives noted there are economic opportunities in renewable energy, alternative fuels and public transit, all of which are advocated in the federal paper.
But Nancy Hughes of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce said the paper is based on unrealistic assumptions.
"These scenarios also assume that Canada will be able to achieve its Kyoto commitments rather than looking beyond to a made-in-Canada plan to reduce greenhouse emissions."
Anderson said a strictly domestic plan would be more costly because it would eliminate Canada's access to international credits.
Canadian Alliance environment critic Bob Mills said the discussion paper is an attempt by the Liberal government "to ram an ill-founded and unworkable treaty down Canadians' throats."
He said the government should be advocating conservation, alternative fuels and alternative energy. In fact, the discussion paper relies heavily on those elements.
Each of the four scenarios in the federal paper assumes ratification of the Kyoto protocol, suggesting Ottawa is leaning strongly in that direction even though it has not made a final commitment.
Anderson said he looked forward to Alberta's plan and would welcome suggestions from any other quarter as the consultations proceed throughout the summer.
The options in the federal paper are:
Option One: Every industry with greenhouse emissions would be required to enter a "cap-and-trade" emissions-trading system. A cap would be set on total emissions and players could buy and sell emissions credits. This plan would be the cheapest but it would place a disproportionate share of the burden on energy producing provinces, and thus is virtually certain to be rejected.
Option Two: Targeted government actions to cut emissions such as tax incentives, investment in public transit, renewable energy, and projects to reduce emissions in poor countries. This is the costliest option by far.
Option Three: Large emitters such as power plants, refineries and factories would be placed in a trading system to achieve part of the required reductions, while the rest of the cuts would be achieved through targeted measures. This would combine the benefits of the previous two plans, and would be much cheaper than Option Two, but not as cheap as Option One. This appears to be the likeliest option.
Option Four: Similar to Option Three, but with the assumption that Canada will get credit for clean energy exports.
FAIR USE NOTICE: This page contains copyrighted material the use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. NoNonsense English offers this material non-commercially for research and educational purposes. I believe this constitutes a fair use of any such copyrighted material as provided for in 17 U.S.C § 107. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond fair use, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner, i.e. the media service or newspaper which first published the article online and which is indicated at the top of the article unless otherwise specified.