20-20
It's been widely reported that the new Tory environmental plan (brought to you by the Liberal Party of Canada!) calls for a 20% reduction in GHG emissions by 2020 -- as in 20% below current levels. I'm not so sure. Here's what Baird says... in his speech today:
Once greenhouse gases have stopped rising, we will begin to reduce them, so that by 2020, Canada will have cut its greenhouse gas emissions by 150 million tonnes. This is 20% of our total emissions today.Note: 20% "of", not 20% "from". I'll check, but I think he means that in 2020, emissions will be 150 Mt lower than they otherwise would have been.
But emissions would be likely to rise by at least that amount between now and then, probably more, in a business-as-usual scenario. For example, Baird's paper last week on the costs of Bill C-288 projected emissions for 2012 at 850 Mt, which is 80 Mt more than they are now. So I think the implication is that emissions will in fact be higher in 2020 than they are now.
Incidentally, how much of a rush job was this? Another passage from Baird's speech:This is an ambitious plan -- one that will require resolve, and one that comes with some costs. Part of these costs will be paid by individual Canadians and their families. The costs are real but they are manageable.$XX per Canadian? My God. At one point in the speech he says "we will begin to turn back the hands of time," but I didn't know we were going to have to go back to using Roman numerals. Perhaps they're banning calculators as well?When fully mature, by 2020, total costs will be in the range of $XX per Canadian in today’s dollars...
4/25/2007
related
Keep bookmarked posts here.
50 Comments
I'm reading that as 2020 C02 = .8 * 2007 C02. Wed's unspoken speech was to be followed by Thursday's set of formal documents, so unless the latter are mis-faxed today, you'll have confirmation tomorrow.
The paragraph with the $xx does not appear at all in version sent to Canwest.
"Winter is disappearing as we know it"
GAG.
Checked the calendar and it's also received wisdom that it will return in six months.
If we assume Baird meant we'd reduce our emissions to 20% below current levels by 2020, that would mean our emissions would be down to 600Mt by 2020 (750-150).
Kyoto's target is to have our emissions 6% below 1990 levels over the average of 2008-2012 (though let's just say 563 by 2012, which is higher than what the target is technically, but I think no one would really argue much with) which makes the target 563Mt by 2012.
So (and I don't mean this judgementally) the Tories have committed (if Andrew is wrong) to getting us to 600Mt by 2020, and the opposition parties claim (through their stated commitment to Kyoto) to commit to have us to 600Mt by 2012.
It would be nice if we could use those two benchmarks (600 by 2020 and 563 by 2012) and actually see all parties come up with plans that would actually get us there (or at least would be LIKELY to get us there). Then at least we could make informed choices.
As it is, whether it's the Tories saying 600Mt by 2020, or the opposition saying 563Mt by 2012 my gut tells me it's all hot air.
Then again, if Andrew is right, that's a whole other kettle of fish. Then we'd have opposition parties claiming to plan on reducing emissions to 563Mt by 2012, and the Tories claiming that emissions will be higher under their plan in 2020 than they are now (at 750+X). I doubt it can be so, as I just can't see Baird announcing a 20% "reduction" which actually translates into higher GHG emissions in 2020 than we're putting out today.
If Andrew's right though, I think that would be a problem for the Tories. Sure, actions speak louder than words, so in a sense Dion can say whatever he likes and he still needs to put his reductions where his mouth is. However the Tories haven't reduced emissions either (not their fault of course, they're new) so they have only marginally more credibility on the file, having not failed as the Liberals have. So, a part of me says "OK, if you can actually show some steady progress towards actually getting us to 600Mt by 2020, maybe I should give you a chance. If their plan involves no actual reduction from today's level though, and the possibility that emissions will be HIGHER in 2020, then I don't see why I should.
I'm willing to support (maybe) a plan that doesn't reach the goal I want, but has a goal that is similar, if there is real concrete movement towards that goal. I don't see how I can support a plan that actually has a goal BEHIND where I want to get to (especially if the plan is worded to make an increase sound like a reduction, which is kinda slimy).
I just can't imagine the Tories would try to pull what Andrew's suggesting though.
...later in some places. 30 minutes earlier in Nfld.
Good catch AC.
He is saying that the cuts will amount to 20% of today's levels... from the projected levels for 2020.
I don't think this was intentional. It's likely that they are using wording that is meant to put a positive spin on it. So they measure the percentage as a percentage of today's level, to get a bigger number.
But they probably did not anticipate that so many would misunderstand what was actually said.
LKO: Just for clarity, I believe what the opposition parties are asking for is adherence to the Kyoto goals, for an average emission record over the five protocol years (2008-2012) of 572Mt. Thus, it would be more accurate to characterize their demands that we hit the average reduction (assuming a constant linear reduction of emissions) by the midpoint of the span, or July 1, 2010. A small difference, but given the proximity of the dates, a not insignificant one.
Boy, you're generous, Sean.
"Good catch AC. He is saying that the cuts will amount to 20% of today's levels... from the projected levels for 2020".
Still think it's actually 20% FROM today's level TO the new target for 2020. You'll all know post-lockup tomorrow.
if AC is correct, the tories have lost the environment as an issue. if, however, baird is refering to a 20% reduction from 2006 levels by 2020, then they have likely won the debate amongst centrist canadians. if AC is correct, i need to go take another shower, cause these guys are so dirty i shudder to think we share the same gene pool (thankfully, intelligent design "scientists" have shown that there is no scientific consensus in darwinian evolution and we all floated around in a boat with noah as he dropped off animals throughout the world...while god buried those pesky dinosaur bones to test our faith...god, you crazy trickster: gotta love his/her sense of humour though "i was just fuckin' with you man...testing your faith and shit" ;-).
The Tory's voted for a bloc motion with absolute cuts (amount and date unspecified) just a few days ago.
Plug in 20% and 2020 and that's what you'll see tomorrow. From today through to 2020. No strange parsings.
I think Canuckistan is right. If Baird is saying the plan is to be 150Mt in emissions below, not current levels, but what levels are projected to be in 2020 (and projected by whom, I hasten to add) then no one's going to take that plan seriously. As AC points out, that would almost certainly mean emissions in 2020 would be HIGHER than emissions are today. No one's going to swallow a "cut", with a benchmark 13 years in the future, that leads to an INCREASE in emissions 13 years from now relative to today's levels.
I can't imagine someone arguing, with a straight face, that it's consistent to pledge that Canada will (by 2020) "have cut its greenhouse gas emissions by 150 million tonnes" when what you really meant was that emissions would rise, and be HIGHER in the future, but by 150Mt less than if you had done nothing.
I can't believe Sean thinks the Tories "did not anticipate" that people would think a 20% reduction meant, you know, a 20% REDUCTION! As though it shopuld be obvious to all that a 20% reduction by 2020, means a 20% reduction from the projected level of emissions in 2020, NOT a 20% reduction in emissions. Is there something twistier than a pretzel? 'Cause I don't know how to refer to that kind of reasoning.
I simply can't fathom that's what happening here though. I don't often give Tories much credit, but still. They're not COMPLETE idiots.
1. Forbes has noticed the similiarity to Europe's 20% to 2020.
Canuckistan is right about who wins here.
Europe round 1: Target met.
Europe next round. Another 20% by
2020.
Harper: 20% by 2020 from today.
Chretien/Martin 1: 30% over target
Dion: 30% by 2009-2012 from today
Those numbers voiced over by Iggy will be devastating.
2. Forbes also notes that Europe has offered to go to 30% if the US etc. is on board.
If we consider the possibility of adding the same caveat down the road (which would take us to the full 2012 goal at 2020) the following comment from Baird becomes interesting as trading with the US would count:
"We will explore domestic trading as well as future linkages with emissions trading systems in the U.S., and possibly Mexico. Our one test for any emissions trading system will be that it is first and foremost in the best interest of Canada".
The reference to Forbes was incorrect. Actually it was Bloomberg:
Canada Plans to Curb Gas Emissions 20 Percent by 2020 (Update5)
April 25 (Bloomberg) -- Canada promised to curb its output of greenhouse gases 20 percent by 2020, a timeline that matches the European Union's while missing earlier targets in the Kyoto treaty on global warming.
Canada Plans to Curb Gas Emissions 20 Percent by 2020 (Update6)
April 25 (Bloomberg) -- Canada, which sits on the biggest oil reserves outside the Middle East, promised to cut greenhouse-gas emissions 20 percent by 2020 in a bid by the government to improve a plan that rival parties rejected.
"I think Canuckistan is right. If Baird is saying the plan is to be 150Mt in emissions below, not current levels, but what levels are projected to be in 2020 (and projected by whom, I hasten to add) then no one's going to take that plan seriously."
Wait. You actually think any of the Opposition parties and environmental lobby groups is going to take the plan seriously. The Tories could implement Dion's plan (whatever the current version is) verbatim and it would still be condemned.
I suspect that the Tories will bring in the plan you mention, within minutes Dion will denounce it. If he does, I hope we go to the polls. I think it's time for the Canadian people to decide how much we really want to support Kyoto.
The deceptive messaging here is intentional and immoral.
If the Conservative government is against effective action on Climate Change, it should just come out and say so and then let voters decide who best to lead our country.
Good work AC on keeping Harper accountable.
"The deceptive messaging here is intentional and immoral"
Ummm. Line #1 "It's been widely reported that the new Tory environmental plan (brought to you by the Liberal Party of Canada!) calls for a 20% reduction in GHG emissions by 2020 -- as in 20% below current levels. I'm not so sure".
You already know that a) Everyone else reported it wrong b) AC's doubt will be borne out c) They're lying d) They're immoral. All without the plan being released.
Nice work if you can get it.
LKO: Dion is saying "Kyoto", which means 563Mt by 2008, not by 2012. Bill C-288 specifically cites Kyoto Article 3, para 1, which requires the 563Mt average over the five years.
AC raises a very interesting question. And I have no idea what exactly was meant. But other aspects of Baird's speech today suggest the more straightforward interpretation.
"the ... plan will stop the rise in greenhouse gases in 3-5 years"
"Once greenhouse gases have stopped rising, we will begin to reduce them, so that by 2020, Canada will have cut its greenhouse gas emissions by 150 million tonnes. This is 20% of our total emissions today."
I have a very hard time reading that as 20% off of 2020 BAU and an increase over today. It may not be down 150 from today; maybe it's down 150 from 2012 (which might be down only about 70 or 80Mt from today). Tomorrow we'll know more.
Why is everyone excited over this boondoggle? In five years this craze will have passed and another panic will take its place. The world's average temperature hasn't changed one iota since 1998. In the meantime, if the environmental/social engineers have their way, we'll be reduced to freezing/starving to death in the dark.
With every new Suzuki doomsday announcement I go out to my barn and start three chainsaws, an ATV, a snow blower, a tractor, a rototiller, a lawn tractor and a water pump.
That's what I think of this environmental bullshine.
I think paul has it right. They intend to lower GHG by 150 tonnes by 2020 from the point that they stop increasing (3-5 yrs. or 2012).
Having said that, stopping the growth of GHG in 4 years seems pretty agressive. However,all opposition parties will trash the numbers regardless of what they are.
Only a drunk partisan truly believes that Kyoto targets are achievable.That debate is insulting.
Well Paul,
Technically, "Kyoto" DOESN'T mean 563 by 2008, it means an average of 563 over the five years, not that absolute beginning in 2008. One could begin above 563, and be above 563 for, say 2008 and 2009, if you were sufficiently below 563 in 2010-2012, such that your 2010-2012 numbers, combined with your 2008-2009 numbers averaged to 563 or less. (Here's some totally unrealistic numbers but if you were at 700 in 2008, 650 in 2009, 550 in 2010, 450 in 2011 and 400 in 2012 you'd beat the Kyoto target by 13 Mt).
I did concede above that saying "563 in 2012" doesn't actually meet Kyoto, which would realistically be a lower target given the averaging, but it's a lot easier for comparison's sake to say X in 2012 compared to Y in 2020, and really, who in Canada's really gonna complain if we were to hit 563 in 2012 that we didn't do enough because we missed Kyoto by a bit?
563 by 2012 does fall short of Kyoto, it's true. But not by as much as 600 by 2020 does.
The solution to all this mess:
http://vhemt.org/
LKO, reasonable points. This is interesting: "563 by 2012 does fall short of Kyoto, it's true. But not by as much as 600 by 2020 does." For the record and without qualifiers, would you be willing to state that you believe in your heart that which number we are at will make a difference in earth's climate?
LKO, "it means an average of 563 over the five years"
I believe that's exactly what I said as well. But I also pointed out that Dion has not been suggesting that his plan would exceed Kyoto targets in 2013 (which would be the case if we're significantly under 563 in 2012). And if he meant to meet the average by cutting deeper by 2012, I can't believe he'd be silent about that.
And that it would seem very disingenuous for anyone to suggest that Dion really means something other than what he has been explicitly saying. If he only meant 563 by 2012, he could not have voted in favour of C-288 in good faith. He could not in good faith claim that his plan would meet Kyoto requirements.
I didn't mean to suggest that there aren't a million alternative target & timeline possibilities. But if we're making comparisons, it seems fairest to compare that which the Government is talking about against that which the Opposition is talking about. Sorry if I gave short shrift to your own suggested target & timeline.
"quebecois separatiste:
The solution to all this mess:
http://vhemt.org/
4/25/2007 "
We all hope to god you have a leadership position in this organization and by not breeding will spare future generations of any more of you & yours.
Quebecois Separatiste:
Please get started without me. You can report back in a few years and tell me how it's going. Or not.
Unlike the Voluntary Human Extinction movement, with its ridiculous insistence on "Gaia" (their name for the unaware piece of rock called "Earth" we happen to be presently living on), I'm an optimist.
Though when I look at Canadian politics, even I have pause at times...
Note: 20% "of", not 20% "from". I'll check, but I think he means that in 2020, emissions will be 150 Mt lower than they otherwise would have been.
But emissions would be likely to rise by at least that amount between now and then, probably more, in a business-as-usual scenario. For example, Baird's paper last week on the costs of Bill C-288 projected emissions for 2012 at 850 Mt, which is 80 Mt more than they are now. So I think the implication is that emissions will in fact be higher in 2020 than they are now.
I both hope and suspect that this is wrong (though I suppose we'll find out soon). Remember that one of the big issues with the Cons' plan has been the baseline date: Kyoto's targets are based on 1990 emissions, Ambrose's original plan called for a 2003 date, while Baird's is reportedly based on 2006 emission levels. Would it make any sense at all to bother changing the baseline date that way if a "business as usual" emissions level (which would presumably take into account the growth in the meantime without any adjustment) is being applied?
The hard reality is that we are too many humans on earth. 10 000 years ago, it is estimated that they were only 5-10 millions humans on the entire planets. And now 6.5 billions. that's way too much. Which cause destruction, pollution and hence global warning.
In the past 200 years the population has grown from 1 billion to 6.5 billions. So are we going to be 100 billions in another 200 years. That's absolutetly intolerable.
The good news is that fertility rate are falling all over the world. It is possible that the world population will start to decline in this century. I think the worldwide birth rate is now 2.5 birth per women. It was 3.5 just 20 years ago i think. That's very good. And please, someone need to tell people like Coyne and Steyn that there is no population race going on now. There is no prize for that.
"Part of these costs will be paid by individual Canadians and their families."
For those of you who got your knickers in a twist about Chimpy MulrooneyHarper's 427 Billion Dollar GST cut, you can rest assured that the temporary diversion of the tax trough sump pump has been repaired and the money will begin flowing back into the Treasury the way God designed the Canadian Government to work in the first place.
Just in time to trigger David Suzuki's Great Depression.
"The hard reality is that we are too many humans on earth."
Thank goodness then that Quebec is helping to reverse this by only allowing 3 people in Quebec to have children in 2008.
You are always thinking of others before you think of yourselves. That's what we'll miss about you.
Math and journalists.....never a good mix.
Anonymous: I suspect that the Tories will bring in the plan you mention, within minutes Dion will denounce it. If he does, I hope we go to the polls. I think it's time for the Canadian people to decide how much we really want to support Kyoto.
I hope so too. This is getting to the point where it is the elephant in the room. Will we try to meet our Kyoto target, as the opposition wants, or not? It's time to clear the air (no pun intended). I can only see one winner in such an election. Even if the Conservatives somehow lost that election, it would be short-term pain for long-term gain, as the Liberals (and likely their allies the NDP and Greens) would be destroying their credentials as a viable government in the eye of the Canadian public.
Regarding the current viability of international carbon trading markets
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/48e334ce-f355-11db-9845-000b5df10621.html
Not that it cant get there, just that it isnt there yet.
qebecois separatiste sez:
"The hard reality is that we are too many humans on earth. 10 000 years ago, it is estimated that they were only 5-10 millions humans on the entire planets. And now 6.5 billions. that's way too much. Which cause destruction, pollution and hence global warning."
You should read this book written in the '70s. By the way, they were wrong:
http://www.amazon.com/Limits-Growth-D-H-Meadows/dp/1844071448/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/103-3512135-8482250?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1177607257&sr=8-1
http://www.standard-freeholder.com/webapp/sitepages/content.asp?contentid=502332&catname=Local%20News&classif=
More cracks in the consensus
Apparently 2/3 of Canadians want to go with Kyoto.
Anyone consider the fact that the population has dramatically increased, the number of houses, the number of cars, etc. during the last 20 years.
Also, the signing on to Kyoto in 1997 was signing on to the protocol for discussion, etc. The actual "international agreement" wasn't signed until November 2006 when the Liberals were pulled down.
I'm so tired of the B/S about the facts.
And, I'm so tired of the Conservative never-ending show and tell spin machine treating us all like we're children with no intelligence.
How much does it cost taxpayers for all the set up show and tell backdrops, etc? Plenty I'll bet.
Why not a simple press conference from "Ottawa" - save plane fare and staff costs, etc.
Enough already!
In all of this, I've never seen a detailed plan of how Canada could meet its Kyoto commitments (6% below 1990 levels on average between 2008-2012) without spending tens of billions on emissions credits. That's roughly 2 years. Given the inertia at changing behaviors, adopting new technologies and building new infrastructure (e.g. subways etc) - I just don't see how this could be done in a liberal democracy. Please enlighten me!
Rant warning!
a) Kyoto is about CO2 emissions. It is NOT air pollution! This is a FACT.
Nevertheless, every GD time CTV or CBC runs a story involving "global warming" or "Kyoto", they inevitably add in a video clip of smog laden skies over some city, or smoke stacks belching smoke. This is just pure and utter crap.
b) Harper desperately is trying to make this, at least to a small extent, about "pollution"...you know, the toxins in our air, water and earth that is quite literally killing people by the tens of thousands annually, not to mention all the other life forms on the planet.
The other parties could bloody well not care less! They are obsessed with this Kyoto garbage to the point that they make religious fundamentalist zealots by comparison look like boy scouts.
c) God help us all if the Liberals somehow get back into power on a Kyoto platform!
'Cause nobody else will be able to.
And, frankly, if this country is stupid enough to give 'em power, then we deserve every last iota of the hell we'll have coming when they're done savaging this country, our economy, our DND, and the lives and wellbeing of millions of people who are struggling already just trying to make ends meet.
This utter lunacy is so freakin' unbelievably asinine, particularly within a 21st century society that calls itself educated and civilized, it beggars adequate description.
Correction for clarity: "Kyoto is NOT about air pollution."
Springer, I don't see how dealing with air pollution is bad, or contrary to the national interest - or unsaleable. Global warming is a problem we have remarkable little control over (it is a global problem), meaning we reap little of the benefits of spending on it. Air pollution, on the other hand, is concentrated here, meaning we capture the benefits of spending on reducing air pollution in Canada.
Frankly, the obsession most people have about Canada meeting its Kyoto targets is retarded. Canada's GDP is about 2.5% of the world's total - lets say we're extra inefficient and account for 5% of global emissions.
A 30% reduction in Canadian emissions amounts to only about 1.5% of the world total - and its not like they aren't going to go down eventually. Canada's domestic environmental policy cannot account for more than a few % of the variation in global C02 emissions, and can hardly be held responsible independently for changes in weather.
Two thirds of Canadians may support the treaty when it is presented to them as an international hug. If debated, however, I think the Tories can get enough traction to win over a big enough chunk of the electorate (you don't need to win everybody over if you are the only game in town) to take the election.
I will add that the air pollution thing is consistent with Harper's understanding of Mancur Olson.
It is very hard to sell something that benefits the broad strata of people just a little big (eg. tax cuts, lower C02 emissions), and so there is much more political gain to be had from addressing problems that effect a specific group of people - eg. smog IN TORONTO, or tax credits for hockey parents.
It was noted on a CBC news doc last night that, although efficient light bulbs have been around for years, it takes an act of law to get Canadians to spend a few paltry dollars to change over to them.
And that's just light bulbs.
Frankly, I'd enjoy seeing gas now take a little jaunt up into the $1.50/liter stratosphere.
Then, when just about everybody and their dog is down on their knees convulsing, Harper can say: "You want Kyoto? Hell, this ain't nuthin'! Vote the Liberals into power and you can enjoy $2.00/liter! Go for it!"
I personally hope the opposition forces a non-con vote now.
Let's have an election on this and force Canadians to decide whether they actually want to bleed green.
As the saying goes: Time to s*** or get off the pot.
'Cause we all innately know that nobody loves loitering atop the ol' crapper of inaction and indecision while spouting off big talk as do Canadians.
Springer: "God help us all if the Liberals somehow get back into power on a Kyoto platform!"
Somehow this doesn't really concern me. Let's not forget the last time the Liberals regained power it was based on their promise to scrap the GST and the Free Trade Agreement. The Liberals never had any intention of meeting the Kyoto targets.
Tories tried to talk about smog reduction, the last great green cause....it got overtaken by this ridiculous Kyoto thang....
I believe most people think it is about pollution which people care about. CO2 is a fear that has been raised that Canadians say, well if we must we must but dont think for a moment that they get it or understand how to reduce it, especially if they were told the gas we are trying to reduce is the one we exhale.
Cons have chosen the right ground. Eventually the debate will legitimately turn to the opposition to produce an alternative plan that is costed. Either they will not be able to or it will be released and it will cost mor and require more sacrifice (the easy target will be saying things like "invest in sequestering technology to reduce the Tar Sands emissions")
BTW, CBC report this morning went as follows
1) Alberta relieved they dodged a bullet on hard targets and that they prodce 1/3 of Canada's emissions
2) "In industrial Southern Ontario..." CBC then proceeds to interview an environmentlist....no mention of OPG being THE LAREGST EMITTER of CO2. And when you setup the interview of industrial southern ontario you think yu would interview someone in INDUSTRY in southern ontario...ridiculous report.
No Agenda At The CBC...none at all. BTW I am a listener and like much of what they produce, but the naked agenda stuff is an insult.
The Tories have officially abandoned Kyoto and still no word about the Opposition tabling a non-confidence motion. Do the opposition parties not support Kyoto anymore?
Dion can talk all he wants about this plan being a sham but if he doesn't go all out in trying to bring this government down he only reinforces the image that he is not a leader.
He's made it perfectly clear that abandoning Kyoto is unacceptable. It would be the ultimate flip-flop and the ultimate betrayal of those who believed in him to protect the Kyoto Protocol.
CTV online poll...
What do you think of the Conservative plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions?
Balanced approach 1337 votes (50 %)
Way too soft 1078 votes (40 %)
Too tough 266 votes(10 %)
Total Votes: 2681
Looks to me like the "Yays!" have it.
AC,
Caught your appearance on CBC's Politics with Don Newman last night. Thank you for saying, to the entire nation, something that is painfully true but no politician could ever say on the environmental file. Canadians are hypocrites when it comes to the issue, demanding action but actually taking actions that only contribute to the problem without any desire to change their ways so that their actions line up with their words. It needed saying, and kudos for stepping up and saying it.
you mean the national's at issue panel. i liked the part when you chuckled about chantal's description of baird's announcement...that there was more security to keep away environmentalists than terrorists...that was funny.
From CTV online report:
"But respected environmentalist David Suzuki came out swinging Friday, calling the plan an embarrassment that was more of a sham than a strategy.
Suzuki said the government must meet the terms of the Kyoto accord on time -- regardless of expense."
Let's hear that again...
"...REGARDLESS OF EXPENSE."
Good plan.
What's another 5,000,000 or so Canadians dropped below the poverty line, eh?
Worth every penny of Kyoto.
Great election catch phrase for Liberal lawn signs in the election:
"Kyoto! REGARDLESS OF EXPENSE!"
Has a nice ring to it.
...speaking as a Conservative.
Still waiting for someone/anyone (politician, environmentalist, right winger, David Suzuki, Green nutcase or whomever) to make the link between GHG emmisions and Canadian immigration/population growth.
Very simply 10% population growth (as in 300,000 immigrants in 10 years or 27 million population in 1996 rising to 30 million population in 2006 in rough numbers) means that there must be a 10% per capita reduction in GHG emissions just to stand still never mind see a net reduction in GHG emissions.
Sure, immigrants do not usually start oil sands projects but they do settle in large numbers in Canadian cities where they must be supplied with heat (gas, oil, or electric) and electricity plus they often buy those awful (!) carbon fueled motor cars. Just settling in Toronto means that OPG, Canada's worst GHG emitter as others have stated, has to generate more power to run the city.
Just on this basis, job #1 for the environmental crusaders should be to put an immediate halt to immigration.
So why the silence on immigration? Surely it couldn't be two of Canada's sacred cows colliding on the road to utopia?