Yet the last Conservative budget ioriginally ncluded more than $1 billion for renewable power, but our PM and Industry Minister Environment Minister grabbed that money for carbon capture projects in Alberta. According to Lisa Raitt’s now infamous tapes.

Finally, a huge chunk of Albert’a electricity comes from burning coal.

In terms of electricity – the only area that still gets most of its electricity from coal is the Maritimes (PEI, Nova Scotia, etc). Coastal areas tend to have a lot of wind, and they can also use tidal power. Hydro provides most of Canada’s electricity, so they can always import hydro from inland if they need it.

I don’t think we even really need to increase our use of hydro. We could just become far more efficient (Joe Romm’s strategy of efficiency and cogeneration is brilliant, read about it in his book Hell and High Water) and that would offset decreases in coal electricity and potentially power electric cars instead of using gasoline from the tar sands.

In the central and coastal united States, they can use renewable wind energy.

In Canada, there are very few consistently sunny areas, and few major population centres nearby to take advantage of that power. This is unlike the US.

In Canada, while we could use wind energy in a few areas, many areas are far from population centres, treed, and infrastructureless. This is unlike many dry, windy areas in the United States. Wind works best when there is already power infrastructure and populations nearby to use it: that’s a lot of the US, but very little of Canada. Wind energy in Canada may be good for some number of remote, small communities. But it’s pretty odd to think that large cities, like Vancouver or Toronto, could ever be served by a high proportion of wind power (or any renewable power). In the United States, I would say the opposite however.

In the United States, over the medium term, its level of industrialisation and settlement would permit it to support huge grids bringing (for example) wind energy and solar energy from the central interior to its coasts or its industrialized north. In the Canada, I cannot see this occurring.

Quite honestly, the opportunity to use renewable energy on a very large scale is possible in the US. It is not advisable, if possible, in Canada (except for some increase in hydro). In my opinion, nuclear energy built close to population centers, and a few large hydro energy projects are the only method of getting canadian green house gasses significantly reduced.

So why would a Canadian ghg reduction bill look anything like the US?

Richard is on the right track here – it’s all about the tar sands. The Canadian government plan had been based on “intensity” targets, not hard caps, with some further loopholes for energy producers, if I recall correctly.

This is not going to be compatible with the U.S. system as it stands, and so the focus has shifted to try and sell tar sands oil as a necessary component of U.S. “energy security”.

I’ve seen a couple of announcements in the Canada Gazette, e.g. proposed regulations on vehicles and offset program for small emitters and individuals, but nothing concrete on regulation of large emitters.

http://www.gazette.gc.ca/rp-pr/p1/2009/2009-04-04/html/notice-avis-eng.html

http://www.gazette.gc.ca/rp-pr/p1/2009/2009-06-13/html/notice-avis-eng.html

I’ve been writing about Canadian policies for sometime… most are just looking at the climate news of the day, which I follow in my day job.

http://one-blue-marble.com/blog/category/canada/

It seems as if the Harper government is constantly going to bat for the Alberta Tar Sands, and seeking exemptions and delays. And the 20% reduction by 2020 doesn’t look so good as a 2.7% reduction by 2020 — if you use 1990 figures. And my understanding is that there’s no way we can meet that.

I like the Pembina Institute for more about Canadian policy.

There is one area Harper has made his opinions clear and appears to be making policy on — arctic sovereignty.

The reason this is an issue in Canada is because the Arctic Ocean is becoming transportable due to shrinking ice.

Can someone who has better knowledge of Canada’s policy systems (i.e. what you’d need to look up policy history) look at arctic sovereignty movements? I suspect we’ll see definitive “adapt, not mitigate” evidence there, to confirm what we’re all suspecting.