OECD - We Need a "Big, Fat Price on Carbon"

The organization representing the industrialized, First World, isn't pulling any punches on climate change.  OECD Secretary-General, Angel Gurria, maintains we need to decarbonize by mid-century.

“We need to achieve zero emissions from fossil-fuel sources by the second half of the century,” Gurria told reporters at a briefing in London.

“That doesn’t mean by 2050 exactly but it means by that time we need to be pretty much on the way to achieving it,” he said.

“This is worse than a debt because there is no bailout and if you have two or three good budget years a debt can be reduced, but emissions hang around for 100 years,” he said.

[Gurria] said there needed to be a “big, fat price on carbon” – either through carbon taxes or emissions-trading schemes which send out consistent and clear price signals.

 Many countries already have national policies in place to lower emissions over the next decade or more. Governments are also working to get a global deal to cut emissions signed by 2015, to come into force by 2020.

However, a lot more progress needed to be made to cut emissions immediately, not after 2020, Gurria said.

A "big, fat price on carbon" would probably be the tipping point for expensive, high-carbon fossil fuels such as Athabasca bitumen.   We are loathe to acknowledge it in Canada.  Certainly none of our political leaders has the courage to say it.  That doesn't change the fact that the future is terrible for unconventional, dirty fossil fuels.

Chicken Licken and Carbon Tariffs

Business doesn't like the idea of carbon tariffs. So, what else is new? That didn't stop the National Spot from heralding the warning of falling skies received by the OECD from... why, from 36 business associations.

The Stain gleefully points out, in the first sentence, that carbon tariffs are favoured by the Libs in their Green Shift plan.

Apparently citing no particular evidence for the claim, Big Biz nevertheless warns that imposition of carbon tariffs aimed at punishing (make that "reforming") big emitters like China could lead to trade wars. Not quite the same sort of wars predicted by the Pentagon and British Ministry of Defence should global warming not be stopped but at least some sort of war, almost, - war by the seller against the buyer. Think that one through for a minute.

Now in the Fantasyland of globalization, the new home of Big Biz and the National Spot, the distinction between land of the buyer and land of the seller is heavily blurred. Vast confusion and boundless uncertainty. In the real world we know this is so much bunkum.

Carbon tariffs might just create jobs back at home again, levelling the playing field for domestic industries. Who knows, they might just compel countries like China, with their gigantic sovereign wealth funds, to invest a portion of their windfall on cleaning up their own industries.

Naturally, neither the one-dimensional business associations nor the equally one-dimensional National Stain championed any other means to achieve the same objective targeted by carbon tariffs. What they want is no action at all. Nothing that might impede the free flow of profit regardless of lasting environmental impact.

Dion is essentially right on the Green Shift and carbon pricing/carbon tariffs. It's too bad he's done such a lacklustre job of explaining and selling the policy that he's left it vulnerable to agitprop from second-rate outfits like the National Spot.

Canada Lags on Fighting Corruption

Transparency International reports that 18 of 34 OECD countries get failing grades on enforcement of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development's 2007 Anti-Bribery Convention.

Countries cited for having "little or no enforcement" of the convention included Britain, Japan and Canada. From The Guardian:

The UK and Japan were two of three G7 countries "showing a lack of sufficient commitment". The third was Canada.

TI said Canada had an "inadequate definition of foreign bribery". It recommended "greater efforts within government agencies involved in foreign countries or with foreign trade initiatives to report up the line and ultimately to enforcement agencies about allegations of bribery".

The full list of countries showing little or no enforcement was: Austria, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, Chile, Czech Republic, Estonia, Greece, Ireland, Japan, Mexico, New Zealand, Poland, Portugal, Slovakia, Slovenia, Turkey and the United Kingdom."

Back To the Basics - We're Filthy

Here are a few timely facts that should help you evaluate our furious leader's position(s) on global warming.

Let's begin with the OECD, the Organization of Economic Co-operation and Development. The OECD represents the wealthiest nations on the planet, no need to sully yourself with those impoverished sub-Saharans. This the the club of the "Haves."

So, compared to the Have Nations, how does Canada stack up on greenhouse gas emissions? Not so good.

On a per capita basis, Joe Canuck comes in 27th out of 29. But, hey, we're a huge country with a small population. Most of those other OECD countries have a lot more people, so, in the overall scheme of things, we're small potatoes, right?

Wrong. In total CO2 emissions, Canada came 25th out of 29. Only the US, Germany, Japan and the UK put out more. Not so neat, eh?

Canada puts out in excess of half a trillion tonnes of GHGs every year and we're still trending upward, fast.