Stéphanie Grammond invited us on April 131 a relevant reflection on the virtues and failures of the SPEDE (Cap and Trade System for Emission Rights), commonly known as the carbon exchange, which has linked Quebec and California in the fight against climate change since 2013.
M’s editorialme Grammond emphasizes that Quebec was a leader in implementing this GHG emissions reduction program, the implementation of which I completed as Minister of the Environment, while credit also goes to Jean Charest who had initiated the project and especially to the ministry officials who carried out the work.
Subsequently, however, the editorial paints a grim portrait of what the carbon exchange has become and generated. Allow me to comment on a few aspects of it. These are indeed shortcomings that I feared might eventually be observed and wanted them to be discussed.
Revenues from the auction of “emissions rights”, the ceiling of which was to decrease each year, replaced those of the Green Fund. They had to finance initiatives that would concretely combat climate change (at that time, it was said Warming). However, even before the first auctions, we were sometimes offered a bit of anything regarding the use of these sums, between disguised subsidies to the usual suspects, puppet theater to raise awareness among young people or covetousness of other ministries.
In this context, a surplus of 1.7 billion dollars is preferable to the squandering of money, but to resist the temptation of politics, it indeed seems salutary to consider a method of distribution independent of governments which, successively , have not demonstrated the rigor required by the issue and the intention of such programs.
In addition, while the 25 most polluting companies in terms of GHG were to be subject to regulations in 2013, over time we have seen a proliferation of exceptions that have freed major polluters from their obligations. Thus, the overall emissions ceiling fell only too little.
So, while there is time and in order to avoid a possible future tariff shock, there is reason to think about more rigor in subjecting companies to the SPEDE, but also about significantly expanding the number of companies and the criteria for being subject to the regime.
Recent debates have distanced us from the obvious: reducing emissions is an obligation for the entire planet, and the denial that the ” Ax the tax! » of this country brings us closer to human and costly disasters of which we are observing the first manifestations.
If it is therefore appropriate to initiate an uncompromising reflection on the vices and virtues of the carbon exchange, it would be imprudent to call it into question on its merits. Imperfect, yes, partly because it can of course be improved, but also, even above all, because of the lack of courage in its implementation over the last 10 years. Let us also remember, when eyeing rebates to taxpayers, that the mandate of the SPEDE is not and has never been to “tax” emissions and systematically increase the revenue it generates.
Foster innovation
The aim of the regime is to encourage companies to reduce their emissions through innovation, which would be rewarded by the virtues of a carbon market linking Quebec and California (already a market larger than the entirety of Canada). ) and perhaps new participants, and penalizing companies that try to evade. Better yet, I dreamed that this innovation would give rise to exportable R&D, thus creating green wealth. Ontario, which fuels the revolt against federal tariffs, almost joined in 2014. The neighboring province would be better off today, as would the climate.
All this does not free us from a pitiless observation: the carbon exchange, with all its virtues and without being “in the field”, is due for an examination of conscience on the part of the Quebec government. The lower price per ton of carbon emitted in Quebec, if we compare it to the federal carbon tax, is not in itself a vice, but above all not the right measure of the success of the SPEDE.
Achieving emissions reduction targets is the only valid scale. However, the SPEDE is doing well, it is doing better, but it is not doing enough. The fault is above all political.
We must finally keep two things in mind: abandoning the carbon exchange would give the Liberals a fantastic pretext to subject Quebec to a centralizing and less effective federal tax and, perhaps worse still, an equally formidable pretext for the Conservatives. to abolish all forms of pricing on carbon in order to please their electoral base doped with Western oil and its lobby.
The carbon market is another example, with agreements on housing, immigration, childcare services and drug insurance, that Quebec innovated before Ottawa tried to vampirize our successes and our taxes in our own jurisdictions. So if we can do better, we must do better, and without ever giving up what sets us apart.
1. Read the editorial “Our carbon exchange is in the field”
What do you think ? Participate in the dialogue
reference: www.lapresse.ca