Watching Government: Why US, Canada GHG plans differ

Aug. 29, 2016
Canada and the US face different greenhouse gas (GHG) emission challenges and are taking different approaches despite their close economic, social, and cultural ties, a recent IHS Markit report said.

Canada and the US face different greenhouse gas (GHG) emission challenges and are taking different approaches despite their close economic, social, and cultural ties, a recent IHS Markit report said.

The two countries’ governments may have chosen similar GHG reduction goals, but their climate policies reflect differences in the nature of their economies and emissions sources, it said. US policies primarily focus on specific businesses, while Canada’s concentrate more on putting a price on carbon, the report said.

“How to address climate change has become a defining question of the 21st century and there has been increased policy momentum in both Canada and the United States over the past year,” Kevin Birn, director for IHS Energy and head of the IHS Oil Sands Dialogue, said on Aug. 23 as the critical information, analytics, and solutions firm released the report.

“While the two countries maintain similar policy approaches in several areas, the reality is that each country is also starting to develop its own distinct climate policy portfolio based on the specific attributes of its economies and GHG emissions profiles. There is not a one-size-fits-all approach to reducing emissions,” Birn said.

Differences in the makeup of the countries’ respective power businesses are a primary example of where their approaches differ, said the report, “The State of Canada and US Climate Policy.”

It said US electric power generation, particularly coal-fired, is the country’s single biggest GHG emissions source, accounting for about 30% of the country’s total. Access to abundant and affordable shale gas, which emits half the amount of GHGs vs. coal, and the declining cost of renewables provide the US with a relatively low-cost opportunity to reduce power generation—and thus national—emissions, the report stated.