Greenhouse gas emissions: How can Canada cut 30% by 2030?

When the federal government announced itsplan to cut its greenhouse gasemissions by 30 per cent below 2005 levels by 2030, it gave little indication how it planned to do it, exactly.

Canada produced 749megatonnes of greenhouse gas emissions in 2005, according to Environment Canada data. By cutting 30 per cent, the Conservative government is hopingto eliminate more than 200 MTa year.

So, just how doable is that?

• Oilsands emissions will rise faster than ability to curb them, cabinet told
• Canada sets carbon emissions reduction target of 30% by 2030
• How Canada's provinces are tackling greenhouse gas emissions

Well, to put that amount into more relatable terms,cars, trucks and motorcycles were responsible for 88 MT of GHGemissions for 2013.Includebus, train and domestic flights in to the tally, and that's another 10.

So, if the Conservative government was to take all the cars, buses, motorcycles and trains off the road for a year, they wouldn't even meet half their goal.

How about Alberta's oilsands? A lot of attention has been focussed there, but completelyshutting it downwould only scrap62MT at current levels and that's for an industry that is projected to grow. In fact, the government couldfreezethe whole oil and gasindustry for a year and itwould still come up short eliminating only179 MT.

Environment Minister LeonaAglukkaq has admitted that the 30 per cent goal is ambitious (so ambitious, in fact, that she repeated the word four times in a recent interview on CBC Radio's The House with Evan Solomon.)

She has said repeatedly thatCanada will take a "sector-by-sector" approach tomeet its target. Thatincludesbringing in regulations to reduce methane leaks from the oil and gas sector, and limiting emissions from the chemical and fertilizer industry and natural-gas fired electricity.

These new measures are in addition to phasing out traditional coal-fired power plants,stricter controls on cars and light trucks and counting on the provinces to help.

She wouldn'trule out purchasing international credits invest in green projects in other countries tobalance out rising emissions in Canada even though former environment minister John Baird once dismissed the ideaas "hot air credits."

Two choices: prices or rules

Cabinet documents marked "secret" and obtained by CBC News revealproposals for Canada's target to cut its greenhouse emissions.

While that particular document was aiming for original cuts of around 24 to 26 per centof 2005 levels, it still gives an indication of where the government may be looking to make cuts.

For example, according to the document:

• Lower oil prices and slower economic growth could eliminate 30 MTa year by discouraging production.
• Unidentified reductions from the oilsands could cut 51 MT, while buying international emissions credits would also make up for about 33 MT.
• Energy efficiency, clean transportation and clean electricity could eliminate 89 MT.

But environmental economist Marc Jaccardsaid it basically comes down two options.

"Ifthegovernmentwants to do somethingit has toeitherchange prices [implementing a carbon tax or a cap-and-trade system]or regulate technologies. There's nothing else."

The Conservatives, so far, have ruled out any kind of pricing mechanism, arguing that it's a job killer, although Ontario recently signed a cap-and-trade agreement withQuebec, which already had a deal in place with California.

And while most economists support a carbon tax or cap-and-trade system as the best way to achieve GHG reductions,California hasachievedthe bulk of its decrease through regulation, Jaccard said.

Those regulations include:

• The low-carbon fuel standard, whichrequirespeoplesellingfuels to mix in more bio fuels to lower the carbon content.
• Vehicle emission standards that require a growth in the percentage of sales in low-emission vehicles (electric,plug in electric and hybrid vehicles).
• Renewable portfolio standards that require a growing share of renewables in electricity generation.

"Weknowthatregulations,not to be toocostly,have to be implementedimmediatelyandthat theyonly affect the incremental actions," Jaccard said.

"They don't make you getrid of your car. It'swhenyou'rebuyinganew car ...then they influence that decision.

"But ifyoutrytoforcepeopleto getrid oftheircarwhenit's not very old ortheirfurnace, or whatever thatwill be costly to your economy."