Category Archives: Aldyen Donnelly

The President’s Strategy, Revealed

The K-B bill is seriously lacking and it would not be normal for a US Senate to pass anything that looks like this through 3rd reading. A number of telephone conversations I have completed with Washington insiders suggest that the President has asked Democratic senators to do what it takes to pass K-B in or before December 2009. 

Continue reading →

I recently blogged about the fact that EU member states have not agreed to binding national or EU-wide greenhouse gas emission limits for 2020—in spite of frequent reports otherwise. The member state have agreed to implement a series of important product standards, compliance with which could (but might not) achieve the European Commission’s "goal" of cutting EU-wide Greenhouse Gases (GHGs) 20% below 1990 levels by 2020.
Continue reading →

Europe’s climate change commitments credits the EU with having adopted legally binding GHG emission limits for 2020 and beyond. This is not the case.

While EU member states have agreed to implement a series of 4 legally binding standards for Greenhouse gas (GHG) emission limits—two of which are intensity-based. But there are no legally binding national or EU-wide GHG limits in the Climate Change Action Plan that the members of the EU voted to endorse in April, 2009.
Continue reading →

Before I talk about the oil sands, I would like to describe how the UK and European "Cap and Trade" allocations have been subsidizing European oil-producer GHG increases by hitting residential electricity consumers with substantial rate increases
Continue reading →

If the Conservatives can get their Communications Machine working, the "Intensity" versus "Absolute" facility level cap on emissions would be a major loser for the Liberals as a campaign issue.
Continue reading →

If the premiers of Ontario and Quebec come out swinging against a federal plant to hit the oil sands facilities with "intensity" targets while they hit manufacturing industries with absolute targets they will look very, very foolish in the not-to-distant future.  It is time to distinguish between what you need to rebuild your economies as provinces and anti-Conservative politicking (says she, a Lbieral).
Continue reading →

On the Status of Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiatives and the Western Climate Initiative

The Waxman-Markey (W-M) Bill proposes to exchange Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) allowances for US federal Greenhouse Gas (GHG) allowances at a large RGGI allowance discount. The result of the W-M bill is that RGGI allowance market prices have fallen to US$2.50 to $2.90/TCO2e.  Note that CCX carbon financial instruments are trading at US$0.30 to $).40/TCO2e—well below last year’s peak of US$7.50.
  Continue reading →

In his May 18 summary of the amendments to the Waxman-Markey climate change bill ("ACES"), David Doniger at the Natural Resources Defence Council ("NRDC") accurately reports that the federal Low carbon fuel standard. ("LCFS") that was incorporated in the March 31 draft has been dropped from the bill. Doniger goes on to suggest that the LCFS would have limited US oil companies’ consumption of feedstock originating in Alberta’s oilsands. Continue reading →

The New York Times reported yesterday that the Waxman-Markey bill will go to vote and be passed by the House tomorrow. In order to get the required votes, the bill drafters have made a number of major compromises with moderate Democrats. Continue reading →

I believe there is at least one policy/regulatory response that the government of Canada and provinces must mobilize as both an offence and defence against the US measures I outline below.  But I have not seen–to date–evidence that the officials in Environment Canada or most of the provinces understand these issues or the need for a strategic Canadian response.

Continue reading →