Less than two weeks after the prime minister presented Ottawa with a plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions based on the province’s existing legislation — and without any price on carbon — the federal minister in charge informed Houston that the plan is not acceptable because lacks a pollution pricing scheme. Steven Guilbeault writes in a letter dated Aug. 29 that pricing carbon pollution “remains a necessary and fundamental pillar of the federal government’s climate change plan.” “As of 2019, every jurisdiction in Canada has a comparable price on carbon pollution, aligned to common national standards of stringency to ensure fairness and efficiency. The federal government is committed to continuing to put a price on carbon pollution, with clear requirements that are applied consistently across Canada and provide certainty to businesses and households.” The Halifax Chronicle Herald first reported Guilbeault’s letter to the premier.
The NS proposal had no carbon price, timetables
Guilbeault writes that pricing carbon pollution “is widely recognized as the most effective means of promoting innovation and energy efficiency in order to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. When Houston released a plan earlier this month he called “better than a carbon tax,” he said it was based on legislation his administration passed last year to cut greenhouse gas emissions and end the use of coal-fired power plants. electricity production by 2030. But that legislation lacks concrete timelines other than an end date of 2030. The premier has suggested Ottawa could monitor the province’s progress and introduce a carbon tax if it finds in a few years that Nova Scotia is falling behind. Speaking to reporters via conference call from Whitehorse, where he is attending meetings with his provincial counterparts, Nova Scotia Environment Minister Tim Halman argued the province does not need a carbon tax because of the important measures outlined in last year’s legislation. “Nova Scotia in the coming years has the potential to be a clean, green energy superpower,” he said. “Let’s leverage our energies as a provincial and federal government instead of imposing a carbon tax.”
NS government ‘disappointed’ with Ottawa’s decision
Hallman said he was disappointed with Ottawa’s decision. “This is a very good plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, to maintain Nova Scotia’s leadership in greenhouse gas reductions, and I can’t help but feel a big missed opportunity here,” he said. The minister said the provincial government will reconvene and assess next steps before Friday’s submission deadline for a provincially planned submission. It is unclear, however, what that might look like and how it would even be possible in such a short period of time. Hallman initially said the province hopes Ottawa will take a second look at Nova Scotia’s proposal, before saying the province is “looking at all our options” ahead of the Sept. 2 deadline. While the government is not fundamentally opposed to a carbon tax, Hallman said his government does not believe it is appropriate at a time of such high inflation.
Affordability concerns
The province had to find a new path because the cap-and-trade system in use since 2019, which targets large emitters, had expired. Because there were concerns that it would no longer be effective as the annual price of coal continued to rise, the province grappled with its own approach to, or acceptance of, the federal pricing model. Houston’s pitch to the federal government was based primarily on affordability. The province was concerned the carbon tax would add 14 cents to the price of a liter of natural gas starting next year. Guilbeault writes that he, too, is concerned about affordability and says that price pollution is a tool that can be used to make life more affordable. “Provinces can use revenue from carbon pollution pricing systems to support a range of goals and priorities,” he writes. “In provinces where the fuel charge component of the federal system is in place, about eight in 10 Canadians get more money back than they paid. If the federal system is in place in the province, Nova Scotians could expect to receive Climate Action Incentive payments through quarterly checks totaling hundreds of dollars a year. In terms of the specific concerns you raised about rural Canadians, the federal approach adds an additional 10 per cent refund for rural Canadians and special provisions for farmers.” The Prime Minister told reporters at a press conference earlier this month that he is skeptical of the suggestion that most families will get more money back than they pay in a carbon tax.
That’s no reason to avoid the carbon price
Houston tried to make the argument that Nova Scotians could be spared the potential pain associated with carbon pricing if the federal government was willing to support the province’s efforts to green its electricity grid and transportation system, the two largest contributors to GHGs in Nova Scotia. Guilbeault writes in his letter that Ottawa will still be there to help with such projects. The Atlantic Loop, a plan that would include upgrading transmission lines between Nova Scotia and New Brunswick to help bring clean hydropower from Quebec and Labrador into the region “is a shared priority for our respective governments and part of a of a wider collective initiative to transition Nova Scotland away from coal power and towards cleaner renewables,” writes Guilbeault. “However, this is no reason to avoid having a price on pollution – a requirement in all jurisdictions under the Pan-Canadian Approach to Pricing Carbon Pollution.”
The opposition is not surprised by the result
Nova Scotia Liberal Leader Jacques Churchill said in a statement that Houston and his government missed an opportunity over the past year to develop a Nova Scotia approach that would be acceptable to Ottawa. “It was obvious when they made their announcement that Prime Minister Houston was allowing a carbon tax to be imposed on Nova Scotia when he submitted an incorrect proposal to Ottawa,” Churchill said in a press release. “He knew what was at stake and chose not to act. Now, Nova Scotians will be left to pay the price.” NDP MLA Lisa Lachance said the proposal tabled by the Tories in Ottawa “lets big corporate polluters off the hook and deliberately ignores the federal carbon pricing requirement.” “[The premier] it was an opportunity to show people that we can tackle the climate crisis and make lives more affordable at the same time,” Lachance said in a statement. “Instead, the federal government rejected his proposal, leaving people wondering what’s next. It’s another missed opportunity by the Houston government.” Hallman said his government was open to looking at ways to price pollution for large industrial emitters, although no immediate plans were mentioned in the Ottawa submission.
title: “Carbon Tax Likely To Come To Ns After Ottawa Rejects Houston S Alternative Klmat” ShowToc: true date: “2022-12-13” author: “Ronald Howry”
Less than two weeks after the prime minister presented Ottawa with a plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions based on the province’s existing legislation — and without any price on carbon — the federal minister in charge informed Houston that the plan is not acceptable because lacks a pollution pricing scheme. Steven Guilbeault writes in a letter dated Aug. 29 that pricing carbon pollution “remains a necessary and fundamental pillar of the federal government’s climate change plan.” “As of 2019, every jurisdiction in Canada has a comparable price on carbon pollution, aligned to common national standards of stringency to ensure fairness and efficiency. The federal government is committed to continuing to put a price on carbon pollution, with clear requirements that are applied consistently across Canada and provide certainty to businesses and households.” The Halifax Chronicle Herald first reported Guilbeault’s letter to the premier.
The NS proposal had no carbon price, timetables
Guilbeault writes that pricing carbon pollution “is widely recognized as the most effective means of promoting innovation and energy efficiency in order to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. When Houston released a plan earlier this month he called “better than a carbon tax,” he said it was based on legislation his administration passed last year to cut greenhouse gas emissions and end the use of coal-fired power plants. electricity production by 2030. But that legislation lacks concrete timelines other than an end date of 2030. The premier has suggested Ottawa could monitor the province’s progress and introduce a carbon tax if it finds in a few years that Nova Scotia is falling behind. Speaking to reporters via conference call from Whitehorse, where he is attending meetings with his provincial counterparts, Nova Scotia Environment Minister Tim Halman argued the province does not need a carbon tax because of the important measures outlined in last year’s legislation. “Nova Scotia in the coming years has the potential to be a clean, green energy superpower,” he said. “Let’s leverage our energies as a provincial and federal government instead of imposing a carbon tax.”
NS government ‘disappointed’ with Ottawa’s decision
Hallman said he was disappointed with Ottawa’s decision. “This is a very good plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, to maintain Nova Scotia’s leadership in greenhouse gas reductions, and I can’t help but feel a big missed opportunity here,” he said. The minister said the provincial government will reconvene and assess next steps before Friday’s submission deadline for a provincially planned submission. It is unclear, however, what that might look like and how it would even be possible in such a short period of time. Hallman initially said the province hopes Ottawa will take a second look at Nova Scotia’s proposal, before saying the province is “looking at all our options” ahead of the Sept. 2 deadline. While the government is not fundamentally opposed to a carbon tax, Hallman said his government does not believe it is appropriate at a time of such high inflation.
Affordability concerns
The province had to find a new path because the cap-and-trade system in use since 2019, which targets large emitters, had expired. Because there were concerns that it would no longer be effective as the annual price of coal continued to rise, the province grappled with its own approach to, or acceptance of, the federal pricing model. Houston’s pitch to the federal government was based primarily on affordability. The province was concerned the carbon tax would add 14 cents to the price of a liter of natural gas starting next year. Guilbeault writes that he, too, is concerned about affordability and says that price pollution is a tool that can be used to make life more affordable. “Provinces can use revenue from carbon pollution pricing systems to support a range of goals and priorities,” he writes. “In provinces where the fuel charge component of the federal system is in place, about eight in 10 Canadians get more money back than they paid. If the federal system is in place in the province, Nova Scotians could expect to receive Climate Action Incentive payments through quarterly checks totaling hundreds of dollars a year. In terms of the specific concerns you raised about rural Canadians, the federal approach adds an additional 10 per cent refund for rural Canadians and special provisions for farmers.” The Prime Minister told reporters at a press conference earlier this month that he is skeptical of the suggestion that most families will get more money back than they pay in a carbon tax.
That’s no reason to avoid the carbon price
Houston tried to make the argument that Nova Scotians could be spared the potential pain associated with carbon pricing if the federal government was willing to support the province’s efforts to green its electricity grid and transportation system, the two largest contributors to GHGs in Nova Scotia. Guilbeault writes in his letter that Ottawa will still be there to help with such projects. The Atlantic Loop, a plan that would include upgrading transmission lines between Nova Scotia and New Brunswick to help bring clean hydropower from Quebec and Labrador into the region “is a shared priority for our respective governments and part of a of a wider collective initiative to transition Nova Scotland away from coal power and towards cleaner renewables,” writes Guilbeault. “However, this is no reason to avoid having a price on pollution – a requirement in all jurisdictions under the Pan-Canadian Approach to Pricing Carbon Pollution.”
The opposition is not surprised by the result
Nova Scotia Liberal Leader Jacques Churchill said in a statement that Houston and his government missed an opportunity over the past year to develop a Nova Scotia approach that would be acceptable to Ottawa. “It was obvious when they made their announcement that Prime Minister Houston was allowing a carbon tax to be imposed on Nova Scotia when he submitted an incorrect proposal to Ottawa,” Churchill said in a press release. “He knew what was at stake and chose not to act. Now, Nova Scotians will be left to pay the price.” NDP MLA Lisa Lachance said the proposal tabled by the Tories in Ottawa “lets big corporate polluters off the hook and deliberately ignores the federal carbon pricing requirement.” “[The premier] it was an opportunity to show people that we can tackle the climate crisis and make lives more affordable at the same time,” Lachance said in a statement. “Instead, the federal government rejected his proposal, leaving people wondering what’s next. It’s another missed opportunity by the Houston government.” Hallman said his government was open to looking at ways to price pollution for large industrial emitters, although no immediate plans were mentioned in the Ottawa submission.
title: “Carbon Tax Likely To Come To Ns After Ottawa Rejects Houston S Alternative Klmat” ShowToc: true date: “2022-10-28” author: “Luella Kelly”
Less than two weeks after the prime minister presented Ottawa with a plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions based on the province’s existing legislation — and without any price on carbon — the federal minister in charge informed Houston that the plan is not acceptable because lacks a pollution pricing scheme. Steven Guilbeault writes in a letter dated Aug. 29 that pricing carbon pollution “remains a necessary and fundamental pillar of the federal government’s climate change plan.” “As of 2019, every jurisdiction in Canada has a comparable price on carbon pollution, aligned to common national standards of stringency to ensure fairness and efficiency. The federal government is committed to continuing to put a price on carbon pollution, with clear requirements that are applied consistently across Canada and provide certainty to businesses and households.” The Halifax Chronicle Herald first reported Guilbeault’s letter to the premier.
The NS proposal had no carbon price, timetables
Guilbeault writes that pricing carbon pollution “is widely recognized as the most effective means of promoting innovation and energy efficiency in order to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. When Houston released a plan earlier this month he called “better than a carbon tax,” he said it was based on legislation his administration passed last year to cut greenhouse gas emissions and end the use of coal-fired power plants. electricity production by 2030. But that legislation lacks concrete timelines other than an end date of 2030. The premier has suggested Ottawa could monitor the province’s progress and introduce a carbon tax if it finds in a few years that Nova Scotia is falling behind. Speaking to reporters via conference call from Whitehorse, where he is attending meetings with his provincial counterparts, Nova Scotia Environment Minister Tim Halman argued the province does not need a carbon tax because of the important measures outlined in last year’s legislation. “Nova Scotia in the coming years has the potential to be a clean, green energy superpower,” he said. “Let’s leverage our energies as a provincial and federal government instead of imposing a carbon tax.”
NS government ‘disappointed’ with Ottawa’s decision
Hallman said he was disappointed with Ottawa’s decision. “This is a very good plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, to maintain Nova Scotia’s leadership in greenhouse gas reductions, and I can’t help but feel a big missed opportunity here,” he said. The minister said the provincial government will reconvene and assess next steps before Friday’s submission deadline for a provincially planned submission. It is unclear, however, what that might look like and how it would even be possible in such a short period of time. Hallman initially said the province hopes Ottawa will take a second look at Nova Scotia’s proposal, before saying the province is “looking at all our options” ahead of the Sept. 2 deadline. While the government is not fundamentally opposed to a carbon tax, Hallman said his government does not believe it is appropriate at a time of such high inflation.
Affordability concerns
The province had to find a new path because the cap-and-trade system in use since 2019, which targets large emitters, had expired. Because there were concerns that it would no longer be effective as the annual price of coal continued to rise, the province grappled with its own approach to, or acceptance of, the federal pricing model. Houston’s pitch to the federal government was based primarily on affordability. The province was concerned the carbon tax would add 14 cents to the price of a liter of natural gas starting next year. Guilbeault writes that he, too, is concerned about affordability and says that price pollution is a tool that can be used to make life more affordable. “Provinces can use revenue from carbon pollution pricing systems to support a range of goals and priorities,” he writes. “In provinces where the fuel charge component of the federal system is in place, about eight in 10 Canadians get more money back than they paid. If the federal system is in place in the province, Nova Scotians could expect to receive Climate Action Incentive payments through quarterly checks totaling hundreds of dollars a year. In terms of the specific concerns you raised about rural Canadians, the federal approach adds an additional 10 per cent refund for rural Canadians and special provisions for farmers.” The Prime Minister told reporters at a press conference earlier this month that he is skeptical of the suggestion that most families will get more money back than they pay in a carbon tax.
That’s no reason to avoid the carbon price
Houston tried to make the argument that Nova Scotians could be spared the potential pain associated with carbon pricing if the federal government was willing to support the province’s efforts to green its electricity grid and transportation system, the two largest contributors to GHGs in Nova Scotia. Guilbeault writes in his letter that Ottawa will still be there to help with such projects. The Atlantic Loop, a plan that would include upgrading transmission lines between Nova Scotia and New Brunswick to help bring clean hydropower from Quebec and Labrador into the region “is a shared priority for our respective governments and part of a of a wider collective initiative to transition Nova Scotland away from coal power and towards cleaner renewables,” writes Guilbeault. “However, this is no reason to avoid having a price on pollution – a requirement in all jurisdictions under the Pan-Canadian Approach to Pricing Carbon Pollution.”
The opposition is not surprised by the result
Nova Scotia Liberal Leader Jacques Churchill said in a statement that Houston and his government missed an opportunity over the past year to develop a Nova Scotia approach that would be acceptable to Ottawa. “It was obvious when they made their announcement that Prime Minister Houston was allowing a carbon tax to be imposed on Nova Scotia when he submitted an incorrect proposal to Ottawa,” Churchill said in a press release. “He knew what was at stake and chose not to act. Now, Nova Scotians will be left to pay the price.” NDP MLA Lisa Lachance said the proposal tabled by the Tories in Ottawa “lets big corporate polluters off the hook and deliberately ignores the federal carbon pricing requirement.” “[The premier] it was an opportunity to show people that we can tackle the climate crisis and make lives more affordable at the same time,” Lachance said in a statement. “Instead, the federal government rejected his proposal, leaving people wondering what’s next. It’s another missed opportunity by the Houston government.” Hallman said his government was open to looking at ways to price pollution for large industrial emitters, although no immediate plans were mentioned in the Ottawa submission.
title: “Carbon Tax Likely To Come To Ns After Ottawa Rejects Houston S Alternative Klmat” ShowToc: true date: “2022-11-23” author: “Hannah Romanowski”
Less than two weeks after the prime minister presented Ottawa with a plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions based on the province’s existing legislation — and without any price on carbon — the federal minister in charge informed Houston that the plan is not acceptable because lacks a pollution pricing scheme. Steven Guilbeault writes in a letter dated Aug. 29 that pricing carbon pollution “remains a necessary and fundamental pillar of the federal government’s climate change plan.” “As of 2019, every jurisdiction in Canada has a comparable price on carbon pollution, aligned to common national standards of stringency to ensure fairness and efficiency. The federal government is committed to continuing to put a price on carbon pollution, with clear requirements that are applied consistently across Canada and provide certainty to businesses and households.” The Halifax Chronicle Herald first reported Guilbeault’s letter to the premier.
The NS proposal had no carbon price, timetables
Guilbeault writes that pricing carbon pollution “is widely recognized as the most effective means of promoting innovation and energy efficiency in order to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. When Houston released a plan earlier this month he called “better than a carbon tax,” he said it was based on legislation his administration passed last year to cut greenhouse gas emissions and end the use of coal-fired power plants. electricity production by 2030. But that legislation lacks concrete timelines other than an end date of 2030. The premier has suggested Ottawa could monitor the province’s progress and introduce a carbon tax if it finds in a few years that Nova Scotia is falling behind. Speaking to reporters via conference call from Whitehorse, where he is attending meetings with his provincial counterparts, Nova Scotia Environment Minister Tim Halman argued the province does not need a carbon tax because of the important measures outlined in last year’s legislation. “Nova Scotia in the coming years has the potential to be a clean, green energy superpower,” he said. “Let’s leverage our energies as a provincial and federal government instead of imposing a carbon tax.”
NS government ‘disappointed’ with Ottawa’s decision
Hallman said he was disappointed with Ottawa’s decision. “This is a very good plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, to maintain Nova Scotia’s leadership in greenhouse gas reductions, and I can’t help but feel a big missed opportunity here,” he said. The minister said the provincial government will reconvene and assess next steps before Friday’s submission deadline for a provincially planned submission. It is unclear, however, what that might look like and how it would even be possible in such a short period of time. Hallman initially said the province hopes Ottawa will take a second look at Nova Scotia’s proposal, before saying the province is “looking at all our options” ahead of the Sept. 2 deadline. While the government is not fundamentally opposed to a carbon tax, Hallman said his government does not believe it is appropriate at a time of such high inflation.
Affordability concerns
The province had to find a new path because the cap-and-trade system in use since 2019, which targets large emitters, had expired. Because there were concerns that it would no longer be effective as the annual price of coal continued to rise, the province grappled with its own approach to, or acceptance of, the federal pricing model. Houston’s pitch to the federal government was based primarily on affordability. The province was concerned the carbon tax would add 14 cents to the price of a liter of natural gas starting next year. Guilbeault writes that he, too, is concerned about affordability and says that price pollution is a tool that can be used to make life more affordable. “Provinces can use revenue from carbon pollution pricing systems to support a range of goals and priorities,” he writes. “In provinces where the fuel charge component of the federal system is in place, about eight in 10 Canadians get more money back than they paid. If the federal system is in place in the province, Nova Scotians could expect to receive Climate Action Incentive payments through quarterly checks totaling hundreds of dollars a year. In terms of the specific concerns you raised about rural Canadians, the federal approach adds an additional 10 per cent refund for rural Canadians and special provisions for farmers.” The Prime Minister told reporters at a press conference earlier this month that he is skeptical of the suggestion that most families will get more money back than they pay in a carbon tax.
That’s no reason to avoid the carbon price
Houston tried to make the argument that Nova Scotians could be spared the potential pain associated with carbon pricing if the federal government was willing to support the province’s efforts to green its electricity grid and transportation system, the two largest contributors to GHGs in Nova Scotia. Guilbeault writes in his letter that Ottawa will still be there to help with such projects. The Atlantic Loop, a plan that would include upgrading transmission lines between Nova Scotia and New Brunswick to help bring clean hydropower from Quebec and Labrador into the region “is a shared priority for our respective governments and part of a of a wider collective initiative to transition Nova Scotland away from coal power and towards cleaner renewables,” writes Guilbeault. “However, this is no reason to avoid having a price on pollution – a requirement in all jurisdictions under the Pan-Canadian Approach to Pricing Carbon Pollution.”
The opposition is not surprised by the result
Nova Scotia Liberal Leader Jacques Churchill said in a statement that Houston and his government missed an opportunity over the past year to develop a Nova Scotia approach that would be acceptable to Ottawa. “It was obvious when they made their announcement that Prime Minister Houston was allowing a carbon tax to be imposed on Nova Scotia when he submitted an incorrect proposal to Ottawa,” Churchill said in a press release. “He knew what was at stake and chose not to act. Now, Nova Scotians will be left to pay the price.” NDP MLA Lisa Lachance said the proposal tabled by the Tories in Ottawa “lets big corporate polluters off the hook and deliberately ignores the federal carbon pricing requirement.” “[The premier] it was an opportunity to show people that we can tackle the climate crisis and make lives more affordable at the same time,” Lachance said in a statement. “Instead, the federal government rejected his proposal, leaving people wondering what’s next. It’s another missed opportunity by the Houston government.” Hallman said his government was open to looking at ways to price pollution for large industrial emitters, although no immediate plans were mentioned in the Ottawa submission.
