News

President Barack Obama is a basketball player, but he apparently knows about Wayne Gretzky, too.

On Sunday, Mr. Obama was discussing climate-change legislation with reporters at the White House in the presence of Energy Secretary Steven Chu. Mr. Chu, arguing for a clean energy future, called it “an opportunity for the United States to say that's where the puck is going to be - to quote Wayne Gretzky - 10 or 20 years from now.”

To which Mr. Obama added, laughing: “I just want to point out my Secretary of Energy just used a very cool Wayne Gretzky metaphor.”

The President had called in reporters to discuss the American Clean Energy and Security Act that squeaked through the House, 219 to 212, last week, with 44 Democrats ominously bolting their party. Prospects for similar legislation in the Senate are cloudy, at best, since Republicans want to do nothing serious about climate change and Democrats from coal-producing and Rust Belt states are worried politically.

Still, a bill (known as Waxman-Markey after its two sponsors) did emerge from the House. The way it moved through committee recalled the old adage about the U.S. legislative process being like watching sausages being made: It wasn't pretty.

What happens to this House bill, then a Senate bill, then reconciliation between the two, and eventually what the President will do (if Congress passes a bill) are hugely consequential for Canada - since the Harper government has essentially ceded domestic climate-change policy to America.

Also, some provisions in what emerges from Congress could be alarming for Canada, such as not including hydro imports as clean energy and placing tariffs on imports from countries with weaker emissions policies than America. Our tar sands are already a target for U.S. environmentalists.

Similarly, without U.S. legislation, whatever hope for success in international climate-change negotiations in December will vanish.

The headline-grabbing feature of the House bill is the cap-and-trade system for industrial emitters, designed to reduce carbon emissions by 17 per cent by 2020 and 83 per cent by 2050. This target is below what Mr. Obama had wanted and what the Harper government has set for Canada: 20 per cent.

This kind of national market has never been tried for something as ubiquitous as carbon, although it did work in reducing sulphur dioxide emissions that caused acid rain.

Canada now has no choice but to create either a similar scheme or to blend our efforts with the Americans' to create a continental market. The Harper government, as part of its follow-the-U.S. approach, has already signalled that some kind of system is coming, but the how, when and where remain unsettled.

Mr. Obama had hoped that auctioning permits to start the trading system would raise buckets of money. Indeed, he once thought four-fifths of his health-care changes could be paid for with the auction money. Instead, the House bill gives permits away to 85 per cent of the polluters at the start of the system. (Will Canada follow suit and give away so many permits?)

Of special interest for Canada are requirements in the bill that effectively make carbon capture-and-store mandatory at all new coal-fired plants. Where will that leave any similar plants contemplated in Western Canada?

The bill also provides for $190-billion in the next 15 years for new energy technologies - including $60-billion for carbon capture and storage (compared with $3-billion by Canada and Alberta), $20-billion for electric cars and $90-billion for renewable energy.

Who knows what will emerge from Congress? The Obama administration is already fighting for health-care changes and a new system of financial regulation. The U.S. system might be suffering from legislative overload. Getting something signed and sealed before the Copenhagen negotiations in December might not be possible.

But at least Mr. Obama speaks of the imperative of reducing greenhouse gases. He's prepared to talk directly to his fellow citizens, and he's assigned the issue a high priority. He evokes visions of a better future, as in the Gretzky analogy. And he's prepared to spend some political capital.

The contrast between his leadership and what Canada has done on this file could not be starker.