I would like to start by thanking the Golden and District Air Quality Committee (GDAQC) for their
presentation and for all the work they have done in the past 20 years and I
pledge my support for all the work they continue to do. The GDAQC have done
more in the past 10 years to improve the quality of the air we breathe in
Golden than any other group.
The BC Climate Action Charter on the other hand has done
nothing to improve the quality of the air we breathe and is a complete waste of
tax payer’s money.
The UBCM Comment on Fiscal Management in British Columbia’s
Municipalities dated May 2011 states;
“The fiscal impact -
potential and actual – of downloading on municipalities is more considerable as
it relates to ever-increasing senior government environmental regulations,
particularly those that are introduced to address greenhouse gas emissions… In
some municipalities, cost impacts have been significant”
Not only are the costs significant but the staff time to
implement the programs is also significant.
Participation in the BC Climate Action Charter was voluntary
and neither a statutory nor regulatory requirement. This would be more
accurately described as voluntary uploading and not senior government
downloading and results in significant discretionary spending on behalf of the
taxpayers.
If the town continues
involvement in the BC Climate Action Charter town staff estimate that Golden taxpayers
will need to buy $14,000 of carbon offsets in 2013 from the Pacific Carbon
Trust.
The January 14th Maclean's Magazine has an article titled:
99 Stupid Things Government Did with Your Money Last Year. Number 61 is
the Pacific Carbon Trust. Let me quote:
"The B.C. Pacific
Carbon Trust was set up in 2008 to buy and sell carbon credits with the aim of
reducing carbon emissions, but critics say it has mostly served to transfer
taxpayer money from schools and hospitals to corporations. Over a year
virtually all $14 million worth of credits were purchased by school boards,
health authorities and other public agencies. (Agencies like BC Hydro)
Yet as the Canadian Taxpayers Federation noted, huge companies like Encana,
Canfor and Lafarge received an estimated $3 million by reducing carbon
emissions and selling credits to the trust."
The cost of electricity from BC Hydro has also been
escalating in part due to the carbon emission reduction initiatives such as the
IPP.
On the world stage cap-and-trade schemes have failed; The
Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) set up under the Kyoto protocol has been an
unmitigated economic disaster. The CDM was established to facilitate trading in
carbon offsets. The trouble is that the supply of credits has far outstripped
demand. CDM have accumulated billions of dollars of carbon credits but there is
no one to buy them.
The largest carbon emitters either did not ratify the Kyoto
protocol (America), were not obliged to cut emissions (China and India),or have
now withdraw (Japan, Canada, and Russia).
Consequently carbon prices have collapsed, falling from $20
per tonne established as the benchmark in August 2008 to below $5 at the end of
2012. Some economists have stated that for the CDM to function as anticipated,
carbon prices would have to be over $350 per tonne.
The Pacific Carbon Trust is British Columbia’s version of
the CDM. It too is doomed to fail and should be closed. An oversupply of carbon
offset (permits to pollute) will require government subsidies to function at a
time when the money would be much more effectively spent helping BC families
endure this economic downturn.
The irony of course is that America, whose is not a
signatory to the Kyoto protocol, has done more to reduce its reliance on coal,
whereas Europe, which likes to see itself as a world leader on climate change,
is burning more and more coal.
The following was extracted from a briefing article in The
Economist January 5th 2013.
“At its peak, in 1988, coal provided 60% of America’s
electricity. By 2010, when the shale-gas boom was well underway, it accounted
for 42%, and in 2012 coal accounted for only 33% of power generation.
In Europe, the amount of electricity generated from coal is
rising at annualized rates of as much as 50% in some European countries. This
is making a mockery of European environmental aspirations! But why did it
happen?
As American utilities shifted into gas, American coal miners
had to look for new markets at the same time that slowing Chinese demand was
pushing down world coal prices. Low coal prices make European utilities willing
buyers. European purchases of American coal rose by a third in the first six
months of 2012. Compared to the rock-bottom price of gas in America, coal is a
bargain compared to the price of gas in Europe. In the summer of 2012, gas
prices in Europe were more than three times the American gas price and more
expensive than coal.
Germany has an ambitious plan to shift from fossil fuels and
nuclear power to renewable like solar and wind. Electricity from renewable gets
priority on the grid. That has allowed wind and solar to grab market share from
fossil fuels during the most profitable times of the day. By displacing
conventional forms of energy this way, renewable has undermined utilities
finances. In response, utility companies are switching from gas to coal as fast
as they can, so the renewable are in fact displacing gas but not coal.
Germany needs new capacity because it is closing down its
nuclear plants and is building several new coal-fired power stations. Even in
countries that are not building new coal-fired power stations, the amount of
coal burned is going up. In April 2012 coal took over from gas as Britain’s
dominant fuel for electricity for the first time since 2007.
This coal surge is making nonsense of the EU environmental
policies, which politicians like to claim are a model for the rest of the
world. European countries had hoped gradually to squeeze dirty coal out of
electricity generation. Instead its market share is growing.
In theory, Europe’s carbon price, provided by a
cap-and-trade system, the emissions trading scheme (ETS), should have stopped
all this from happening. However, EU energy policy is boosting usage of coal,
the most polluting fuel, increasing carbon emissions, damaging the
creditworthiness of utilities and diverting investment into energy projects
elsewhere.”
It’s time to UNLOAD the BC Climate Action Charter.
The BC Climate Action Charter was signed voluntarily and as emphasized in clause 9 of the charter “This Charter is not intended to be
legally binding or impose legal obligations on any Party and will have no legal
effect”.
Far more value to the Golden community would be derived by
granting the $14,000 to the GDAQC for the wood stove exchange program. Removing
old wood-burning stoves not only reduces carbon emissions but also improves the
quality of the air we breathe by lowering particulate matter in Golden.
Reducing carbon emissions wherever economically feasible is
a sensible endeavour. The replacement of the swimming pool boiler is a classic
example of how replacing a piece of equipment at the end of its useful life
with a new high efficiency boiler consequently reduced the town’s carbon
footprint. The carbon emission reduction was a consequence of good financial
and engineering practice and not the driving force behind the boiler
replacement.
Proposed resolutions;
1.
That the town withdraw from the BC Climate
Action Charter;
2.
That the town withdraw from the Carbon Neutral
Kootenay project;
3.
That the Select Committee on Community-wide
Energy and Emissions Reduction be disbanded;
4.
That no funds are to be used to purchase carbon
offsets;
5.
That the
Golden & District Air Quality Committee (GDAQC)be recognised as a community
liaison committee with one councillor appointed and;
6.
That the town grant the GDAQC with $14,000 in
2013 in support of the woodstove exchange program.
Keith W Hern, Councillor
2013.01.22
The town receives 100% refund of the carbon taxes the town
pays (CAIRP rebates) which was reported to be $25,190 from 2008-2011 ($6,297.50
per year) in the staff report dated 2012.08.24 from Mr Love. Hence the town
would be $8000 per year better off to forgo the carbon tax refund and not have
to purchase carbon offsets.
