Action

North America looks to be moving to make up some of the lost ground in addressing greenhouse gas emissions in the region. A major step in addressing large final emitters (LFE) - namely cap and trade systems - look to be finally gaining momentum. Once implemented this has the potential to reduce a significant amount of the CO2 produced in North America.

While this is great, we wonder if there is a fundamental design flaw in regard to sourcing carbon credits. The Western Climate Initiative has proposed that credits must be sourced in Canada, America or Mexico (download Draft Recommendations). Due to regional political considerations, it is likely that other cap and trade systems in the continent will follow the same design.

Unlike the EU, cap and trade systems that are currently being proposed by governments across North America will not recognize credits from carbon reducing initiatives in China, India or other places that are producing a lot of carbon as they go through their industrial revolutions. As carbon doesn’t obey national or continental boundaries we wonder if only allowing North American LFEs to source carbon credits from North America is the right way to go. At the same time, last we checked we are producing a lot of carbon too, so what is the right way to go on this?

Adam Johnson is a Principal with the Earnscliffe Strategy Group, one of the oldest independent public policy strategy firms in Canada, and a leader in government affairs and strategic communications.

Randyn Seibold, from Renewable Energy World, details his opinion on the Canadian government's questionable support for renewable energy. As Seibold writes:

"Since the election of Canada's Conservative government in 2006, criticism of its approach to environmental protection has been fairly sustained. Its former and present environment ministers were lambasted for stalling the process at climate change conferences in Nigeria and Bali. Conservatives also cut funding for renewables put in place by the previous government, and then re-instated it with new limitations, rankling clean energy supporters."

Critics content Canada spends millions of dollars on subsidizing oil and gas industries, and very little on green alternatives when the majority of Canadians want action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. As Seibold concludes:

"Rich in resources both renewable and non-renewable, Canada is in a position to build a renewable energy infrastructure while at the same time reducing the environmental fallout and ensuring the competitiveness of its vast hydrocarbon assets. Its current path appears to be a work in progress towards finding both economic and political balances between these related yet conflicting opportunities. How supportive of renewable energy this balancing act will be over the long term is yet to be demonstrated."

Read the full article here

With the ever increasing chance governments in North America will be implementing various forms of carbon taxes – we want to get your thoughts on what role offsets should play in a world were there is a price on carbon.

While we agree that putting a price on carbon should help make people think twice about how much gas they use to heat their homes or what kind of transportation they choose to use – these choices still lead to the burning of fossil fuels.

Leading climate scientists argue that we need to reduce global GHG emissions by 50 to 80 percent. To reach that target we believe individuals should think about taking the extra step of going carbon neutral or even carbon positive by purchasing offsets. To encourage more people to offset their carbon, do you think people should be rewarded for this behaviour by being able to write-off offsets on their taxes?

Adam Johnson is a Principal with the Earnscliffe Strategy Group, one of the oldest independent public policy strategy firms in Canada, and a leader in government affairs and strategic communications.

The 2008 Goldman Environmental Prize winners were announced earlier this month, and the recipients represent a wide range of countries and issues, from land renewal in Mexico to protecting water sources in Russia. Now in its 19th year, the Goldman Prize is awarded annually to grassroots environmental heroes from each of the world’s inhabited continental regions. This year's recipients of the $150,000 prize are:

Jesús León Santos of Mexico, for his "unprecedented land renewal and economic development program that employs ancient indigenous agricultural practices to transform this barren, highly eroded area into rich, arable land."

Feliciano dos Santos of Mozambique, for "using music to spread the message of ecological sanitation to the most remote corners" of the country, and "empowering villagers to participate in sustainable development and rise up from poverty."

Marina Rikhvanova of Russia, for "successfully campaigning to reroute a destructive petroleum pipeline from the watershed" of Lake Baikal, "one of the most important bodies of fresh water in the world," and for "working to prevent the construction of a uranium enrichment facility in the region."

Pablo Fajardo Mendoza and Luis Yanza of Ecuador, for "leading an unprecedented community-driven legal battle against a global oil giant" and "demanding justice for the massive petroleum pollution in the region."

Ignace Schops of Belgium, for leading the effort to "establish Belgium’s first and only national park," which has "created 400 jobs for the local community and has conserved nature and brought economic revenue to the region."

Rosa Hilda Ramos of Puerto Rico for leading a movement "to permanently protect the Las Cucharillas Marsh, one of the last open spaces in the area and one of the largest wetlands ecosystems in the region," and for convincing the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to "direct millions of dollars in pollution fines to establish long term protection of the Las Cucharillas Marsh."