by Aldyen Donnelly

What I find bizarre is the language that is repeated throughout the draft Copenhagen agreement that says the purpose of the agreement is to compel the nations that are most responsible for existing GHG concentrations (i.e. the nations most responsible for 1990 to 2000 GHG discharges) to compensate the developing nations for GHG impacts.

As you saw in one of my prior postings, if we just consider energy-related discharges since 1990, China, Russia and India are among the top 6 nations responsible for current GHG concentrations in the atmosphere.  I have not replicated other estimates of national discharges since 1900, because in most cases they are at best guesses.  But while %s may change, it is unlikely that more than one or two of the rankings of the 30 countries listed below would change if we had good data back to 1900.

What does this mean?  It means that the commitments outlined in the draft Copenhagen agreement are largely inconsistent with the objectives of the agreement, as they are stated in the agreement. I do not intend to suggest that the developed world should not act unless/until at least the developing nations listed below also commit to caps.  As I wrote previously, it is essential that the international negotiations drop the quota-based supply management market control strategy ("cap and trade") and introduce a new GHG treaty that relies on product standards (as outlined below), which is much more consistent with the very successful Montreal Protocol model

United States, 23.4%;
China, 13%;
Russia, 9.8%;
Japan, 4.8%;
Germany, 3.6%;
India, 3.4%;
United Kingdom, 2.6%;
Canada, 2.3%;
Ukraine, 2%;
Italy,1.8%;
France, 1.8%;
Poland, 1.6%;
South Africa, 1.5%;
Mexico, 1.5%
South Korea, 1.4%;
Australia, 1.3%;
Brazil, 1.2%;
Spain, 1.2%;
Iran, 1.2%;
Saudi Arabia, 1.1%.

This list of 20 nations accounts for 80% of anthropogenic discharges of GHGs to the atmosphere over the 27 year period ending in 2007. Obviously, the top 5 listed nations account for over 50% of atmospheric GHG concentrations.

To get anywhere, the US has to drop its desire to impose a quota-based carbon supply management regime ("cap and trade" on the world.  Quota-based supply management always delivers unprecedented market power to incumbents, which market power the incumbents use the quota regime to secure in perpetuity.  It is obvious why a global GHG quota regime advantages the US and the consolidates EU and Japan vis-a-vis the rest of the world.  It is equally obvious why newer economies, including Canada, should never accept such a proposal.

We did not need to introduce global quota allocations to reduce sulphur levels in diesel, lead in gasoline, PCBs in electricity supply systems, lead in paint, etc.  We achieved these objectives by adopting product standards that regulated limits to pollutants and/or pollutant precursors in the products that we allow to be sold in our nations (as opposed to regulating domestic production and introducing tariffs on imports of those products).  If/when we regulate fossil carbon content limits that decline over time for all electricity, petroleum product, cement, aluminum, iron & steel, pulp and paper, wood product and glass sales in the "C5", let alone the "C20" nations, as long as we rule that any combination of regulated product distributors can "comply jointly" and any entity that over-complies with their annual fossil carbon content limit (on an overall sales portfolio average basis) can bank that over-compliance for future use, then a simple set of fewer than 10 international product standards is all we need to convert our 2020 and 2050 GHG reduction objectives into reality.

For a model for product performance standard regulatory language, simply download Canada’s PCB regulation from:
http://www.ec.gc.ca/CEPARegistry/regulations/DetailReg.cfm?intReg=105

Note, in particular:

"Application 2. (1) These Regulations apply to PCBs [insert "greenhouse gases"] and to any products containing PCBs [insert "fossil-based carbon"]."

Most of the issues blocking any kind of international or domestic consensus on GHG mitigation derive from the fact that in the international and domestic contexts we are addressing only production-level GHGs and failing to address the sale products the consumption of which results in the discharge of GHGs.  In every Canadian pollutant regulatory precedent we clearly understood that we cannot regulate domestic production pollutant discharge unless/until we are also prepared to regulate the sale of products that contain the target pollutant or pollution precursors. 

I am at a loss to explain how we managed to completely forget all of our prior regulatory experience when it came to GHGs.

"PROHIBITIONS Release into the environment 5. (1) No person shall release PCBs [insert "GHGs"] into the environment, other than from the equipment referred to in subsection (2), in a concentration of (a) 2 mg/kg or more for a liquid containing PCBs [insert   fossil-based carbon"] ; or (b) 50 mg/kg or more for a solid containing PCBs [insert "fossil-based carbon"]."

What should the allowable GHG intensity limits be for fossil-based carbon-containing products for: (1) 2013-2017, (2) 2018-2022, (3) 2023-2027, etc?  For example, Canadian and US Renewable Fuel Standards that oblige distributors to acheive 5% biofuel conent targets (% total weight of liquid fuels) will likely prove highly inefficient regulatory measures.  However, a regulation that caps fossil carbon content in liquid fuels at a kg/kg level that equates to 95% of baseline average carbon content for those fuels will likely prove an highly efficient regulatory measure.

"Prohibited activities 6. Except as provided in these Regulations, no person shall (a) manufacture, export or import PCBs or a product containing PCBs [insert "fossil-based carbon"] in a concentration of 2 mg/kg ["??? kg/kg"] or more; (b) offer for sale or sell PCBs or a product containing PCBs [insert "fossil-based carbon"] in a concentration of 50 mg/kg  ["??? kg/kg"] or more; or (c) process or use PCBs or a product containing PCBs [insert "fossil-based carbon in a concentration of 50 mg/kg  [??? kg/kg] or more."]

Note that for any such regulation, not just GHG regulation, it is essential to address all of the following activities: a) manufacture, export or import… (b) offer for sale or sell..(c) process or use…

Of course, much in the PCB regulation does not apply in the GHG context or required radical modification to address the GHG context.  But I find it is still a very, very good exercise to start with this or a similar Canadian pollutant regulation when you are attempting to draft regulations that will work for GHGs.