Adrian Mohareb presentation - Sweden vs. Canada on Climate Change Mitigation - 2010

Oh, Canada… A comparison between Sweden and Canada on mitigating

greenhouse gas emissions

Adrian Mohareb2010

1

Outline

• Introduction – similarities and differences• Statistical comparison of Canada and Sweden• Swedish climate and taxation policy and its

potential application to Canada • The challenges posed by Canada’s political

structure• Canada’s history on climate change• What can Canada learn from Sweden?• Conclusions

2

What do Canada and Sweden have in common?

3

4

2006, Torino – Sweden wins Men’s Hockey GoldSource: media.olympics.com.au

Hockey!

Hockey!

5

2010, Vancouver – Canada wins Men’s Hockey GoldSource: ctvolympics.ca/Getty Images

When it comes to reducing greenhouse gas emissions…

6

Lillehammer, 1994Men’s Hockey

Gold Medal Game Sweden beats Canada

Source: goironpigs.com

Comparing Sweden to (parts of) Canada• Area of 450,000 km2 (more

than 3x the size of Southern Ontario)

• Population of 9.2 million (c.f. S. Ontario – 12.1 million)

• Emissions of 64.0 Mt CO2e in 2008 (down 11% from 1990 levels)▫ Per capita emissions lower

than in any Canadian province• Carbon tax instituted in 1991 –

now equal to approximately CDN$150/tonne

7

8

How do the Two Countries Compare?

How do the Two Countries Compare?

9

Charting Canadian and Swedish Per Capita GHG Emissions

10

Sweden’s Climate Policy• By 2020:

▫ 50% of energy from renewable sources▫ 10% renewable energy in the transport sector▫ 20% greater energy efficiency▫ 40% reduction in emissions from sectors outside

of the Emission Trading Scheme• A vehicle fleet independent of fossil energy by

2030• Zero net GHGs by 2050

11

The Comparability of Canada and Sweden

• Sweden can be compared to some of Canada – but not all!▫ Canada is a varied country geographically▫ However, Canada’s population is denser than we

often think• Some lessons from Sweden can be applied in some

of Canada; but not all lessons can be applied everywhere

12

How is Sweden relevant to Canada?

• Economic growth has been roughly the same between 1990 and 2007 on a per capita basis

• Sweden is most similar to Ontario and Quebec▫ Few domestic energy resources, save

hydroelectricity Half of power demand met by nuclear

▫ Similar climate and geography▫ Excellent wood and mineral resources▫ Similar population densities

13

A significant difference between Sweden and Canada – taxation

• Carbon tax! SEK1010/tonne of CO2

• Income taxes▫ Sweden – first to municipalities and counties,

then to national government; equalization▫ Canada – income taxes to national and provincial

governments (each set their own rates)• Sales tax and property taxes to national

government in Sweden▫ in Canada, sales tax is charged by federal and

provincial governments; property taxes go to municipalities

14

One Difference between Canada and Sweden…

15

Syncrude Oil Sands, Mine and Refinery, Sept. 2001Source: Greg Smith/Corbis/The Guardian

Canada is a Federated Country

16

Canada and Climate Change – History

• 1988 – Toronto – Conference on the Changing Atmosphere (under Progressive Conservative government)

• 1993 – Liberal Party government (until 2006) • Green Plans in Canada under Liberals• WPPI / RPPI; home energy audit/retrofit

program; offset, cap and trade system designed (not implemented)

• 2006 – Conservative government takes power• Repackaging of Liberal programmes in 2007

17

Currently…• Plans to implement Turning the Corner plan

(developed before Copenhagen) ▫ First version of cap-and-trade system would

create a technology fund that companies could use to meet up to 70% of their target

▫ Implementation postponed so that Canada can be in line with American regulations

• 2020 target of 17% below 2005 levels• Vehicle emission standards harmonized with US

▫ Both light-duty vehicles and heavy-duty trucks• Bill C-474, Federal Sustainable Development Act

18

Fortunately, Canadian Policy extends beyond Federal Government Policy

• Canada’s policy environment is NOT limited to the political level of the federal government!

• NRCan – From Impacts to Adaptation – Canada in a Changing Climate 2007 (released Mar. 2008)

• Gas tax – municipalities must prepare an Integrated Community Sustainability Plan in order to access funding

• Provinces have also been proposing their own climate change mitigation measures

19

Canadian Provinces

• Québec: ▫ 20% below 1990 levels by 2020▫ first carbon tax in North America ($0.007/L gasoline)

• Ontario:▫ By 2014, 6% below 1990 GHG levels; 15% by 2020▫ Renewable Energy Feed-In Tariff; Green Energy and

Green Economy Act in 2009

• British Columbia:▫ 14% below 1990 by 2020▫ Strongest carbon tax regime in North America

($30/tonne by 2012)

20

Some Hope for Canada!• First Light solar power plant, Napanee, Ontario

▫ 9 MW peak capacity, on 36 ha of scrubland

21

What Can Canada Learn from Sweden?

• Moving towards a low-carbon society does not have to hurt the economy! ▫ Lower per capita growth rates in Canada than

Sweden• Urban and transport planning and building

codes• Policies that drive the shift towards a low-carbon

society• Taxation that changes accountability structures

and discourages carbon-intense development

22

Conclusions• Sweden has made a commitment to low-carbon

energy and mitigating demand▫ Government policies foster sustainable individual decisions

• This commitment is made more possible through a carbon tax and other elements of the taxation system that drive innovative uses of energy and change accountability

• Sweden has many key similarities to parts of Canada, though some differences

• Canada can learn from the Swedish example

23

Adrian MoharebM.Eng., MSLS, P.Eng. (Ontario), LEED AP

24

Relevant Low-Carbon Technologies and Strategies Applied in Sweden

25

Biomass District Heating

26

Gullberna Park, Karlskrona

Biomass CogenerationVäxjö – district heating for 60,000 plus 38 MW

electricity – over 90% wood-fired

27

Wood resourcesOrkanen Gudrun (Hurricane Gudrun)

British Columbia – Mountain Pine Beetle

29

© Lorraine MacLauchlan, B.C. Ministry of Forests

Offshore wind power in Sweden

Lillgrund wind farm – 48 turbines x 2.3 MW

30

Hammarby Sjöstad

31

Hammarby Sjöstad

32

Hammarby Sjöstad – waste management

ENVAC system – three-stream (organic, paper, containers) waste vacuum systems

33

Hammarby Sjöstad – waste management

Waste is vacuumed to central collection site

34

Hammarby Sjöstad

• Solar cells on south-facing façades

• Public transit integrated at time of development/ construction

35

Hammarby Sjöstad – Transportation Fuels

Biogas pumps

36

Ethanol pumps

Transport – curbed bicycle lanes

37

Waste-to-energy cogenerationSysav, Malmö

38

Source: http://www.noah.no/Portals/noah/Bilder%20NOAHs%20Ark/SYSAV.jpg

According to Canada’s Environment Minister, Jim Prentice...

“If the US does not make a substantial effort going forward, there is nothing Canada can do. Our own mitigation efforts will be futile – as a practical matter, we should probably focus on adaptation.If we do more than the US, we will suffer economic pain for no real environmental gain – economic pain that could impede our ability to invest in new clean technologies.But if we do less, we will risk facing new border barriers into the American market.”•Speech to the Chamber of Commerce, 13 November 2009Source:http://www.ec.gc.ca/default.asp?lang=En&n=6F2DE1CA-1&news=757C0154-3353-4BB4-B2F3-9E095A0DA33E

39

Compare to Kevin Rudd, former PM, Australia

“… (A) group of climate deniers are those who pretend to accept the science but then urge delay because they don’t want their country to be the first to act.…(they) have said wait for Copenhagen and for President Obama’s scheme….It is an endless cycle of delay …. which will be to wait until the next year or the year after until all the rest of the world has acted at which time Australia will act.What absolute political cowardice.What an absolute failure of leadership.What an absolute failure of logic.The inescapable logic of this approach is that if every nation makes the decision not to act until others have done so, then no nation will ever act.The immediate and inevitable consequence of this logic – if echoed in other countries – is that there will be no global deal as each nation says to its domestic constituencies that they cannot act because others have not acted.The result is a negotiating stalemate. A permanent standoff.And this of course is the consistent ambition of… do-nothing climate change deniers.”•Speech to the Lowy Institute, 6 November, 2009Source: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/the-pms-address-to-the-lowy-institute/story-e6frg6nf-1225795141519

40