“This is the day that will define our century. Canada is fully acknowledging its historical climate debt and the legal responsibilities that follow. Today, we no longer have to wait for a COP20 or COP100 before the voices of our children are heard. Now that we are friends, I can say it is high time Canada changed.”

- Margaret Matembe, MP and member of the Climate Committee of Uganda

Too bad “the staged response” was in response to the fake news release claiming that Canada had done an about turnaround on its carbon emissions targets.

The hoax has created such a stir that PMO spokesman Dimitri Soudas apparently accused eco-warrior Steven Guilbeault of being its author. François Cardinal reports that Guilbault caught up to Soudas and the two exchanged some unkind words for one another. Suffice to say that the Feds in Copenhagen are getting some pretty bad press.

So far, it seems the Yes Men are getting credit for the prank.

The reason why it’s so hard to solve climate change is that the problem is, as the Economist recently remarked , “a prisoner’s dilemma, a free-rider problem and the tragedy of the commons all rolled into one.” It’s hard for countries, acting in their narrow national interests to trust others to do do what needs to be done to tackle the problem head on. But as we know all too well here in Canada, even at the national level it’s practically impossible to agree on a coherent framework.

Consider yesterday’s report, published by the Canada West Foundation, a Calgary think tank, in response to a recent study by the Pembina Institute and the David Suzuki Foundation on the economic implications of reducing greenhouse gas emissions in Canada . The report argues that any plan to impose national greenhouse-gas emissions targets will strain national unity if oil-producing provinces — Alberta and Saskatchewan — are forced to carry too much of the burden.

“When we look at the combination of revenue raising and revenue distribution, the Pembina/Suzuki approach is to raise revenue disproportionately from Alberta and Saskatchewan and then to use the revenue for tax reductions and spending across the country, thereby focusing the pain as much as possible on Alberta and Saskatchewan. The message is frustratingly clear: for most Canadians, emission reduction strategies will result in no immediate cost and very real gains in terms of tax reductions, with the bill being picked up largely by the resource economies in western Canada.

What we don’t see is any plan to use revenues for re-investment in the energy sector. Surely one could argue that if Alberta and Saskatchewan are so much of the problem, then they should also be a large part of the solution, that it would make more sense to invest in energy research relating to hydrocarbon production and consumption than to provide rebates for home heating costs.

Reading between the lines of the Pembina/Suzuki report, it is clear that these organizations feel that Alberta and Saskatchewan have made their bed by developing large fossil fuel industries and relying on coal-fired electricity generation. Tough luck is the message we are hearing, and this is not only unfair but counter productive in terms of implementing effective climate change policy in Canada.”

There’s no question that the Pembina/ Suzuki study could be more constructive in providing workable solutions, as the economic repercussions felt by the West would undoubtedly be more disruptive than for other provinces. Still, there is little in the Canada West Founbdation’s report to indicate that it acknowledges that Alberta, in particular, could be doing more to diversify its economy and wean itself off oil — arguably the only way it can ensure a prosperous economic future should the world decide to do so.

The truth is that Canada is already beset by unity problems, and we can hardly bring ourselves to having an open and frank discussion about finding a common solution.

UPDATE: La Presse’s Alain Dubuc adds his two cents, noting that Quebec Premier Jean Charest is headed to Copenhagen — proof, he says, that all is not well in the Canadian family on the environment unity front. Only this time it’s not Quebec vs. the ROC, but industrialized provinces vs. oil producing ones. He also notes that while Alberta and Saskatchewan feel hard done-by, so do Quebec and Ontario. Indeed, Kyoto signatories use 1990 as a baseline. But the Federal government has opted instead for 2006 — understandable considering Canada’s foot dragging over the years. But this approach penalizes Quebec, and those in the industrial sector whose efforts to reduce emissions precede 2006, while the oil sands continue to pump CO2 in the atmosphere. Furthermore, Dubuc points out, Canada’s poor performance risks hurting our exporters, most of whom hail from the industrialized provinces.

The Copenhagen climate change summit opens today and will run until December 18. Depending on who you read, either the Canadian government won’t buy into “the hype” and won’t be rushed, or will “push for a binding deal.”

Though Climategate still looms in the forefront, members of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change (IPCC) have released the Copenhagen Diagnosis — a review of hundreds of peer-reviewed research papers published since the IPCC’s last assessment in 2007 — which concludes that the climate situation is much worse than the IPCC has so far reported.

The lesson in all this is that it is important we continue to question the orthodoxy of scientists and deniers alike.

Martin Wolf of the Financial Times offers three criteria for post-Copenhagen climate change policies to be truly effective.

First, we need prices for carbon that apply over relevant planning horizons. That price cannot be fixed forever, but must change with events. But it needs to be far more stable than in the European Union’s market for permits (see chart). A tax seems more attractive to me than “cap and trade”, for this reason.

Second, where the abatement occurs must be separated from who pays for it. Abatement needs to happen where it is most efficient. That is why emissions of developing countries must be included. But the cost should fall on the wealthy. This is as much because they can afford it as because they produced the bulk of past emissions.

Finally, we need to develop and apply innovations in all relevant technologies. A paper from the Bruegel think-tank argues, persuasively, that merely raising prices on carbon emissions would reinforce the position of established technologies. We need large-scale subsidies for innovation as well.

Yesterday Ontario passed O.Reg.452/09 which requires large emitters to report their greenhouse gas emissions to the MOE. The first step is for companies to supply emissions data to the Ministry to draw up the province’s emissions profile that can serve as a basis for creating a cap-and-trade system.

O.Reg.452/09 starts by imposing a reporting requirement of specified GHG data by all facilities emitting annually 25,000 tonnes or more of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e), and annual reporting of GHG emissions thereafter, starting in 2010 with a NPRI-like June 1 deadline for emissions reports each year.

The regulation also introduces third party verifications of reporting requirements, to be phased in over time.

Interestingly, most of the methods are based on the Essential Requirements for Mandatory Reporting published by the Western Climate Initiative (WCI) on July 15, 2009. Other methods adopt by reference methods of the mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases rule finalized by the EPA in the U.S. on September 22, 2009. No surprise here, but the intention is obviously to mimic what the U.S. will adopt as a cap-and-trade system.

For more details see the MOE’s Guideline for Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reporting.