A few months ago, the U.S. Magazine Sierra assembled a group of scientists, politicians, chief executives, policy experts, and venture capitalists in San Francisco to discuss what steps America could take to combat global warming.

Their conclusions are instructive and serve as fodder for policy development in New Brunswick and indeed Canada.

To put the relevance of the Sierra discussion in context, you will know that our federal government recently unveiled its “Action Plan to Reduce Greenhouse Gases” claiming it will force industry to reduce emissions by 150 million tonnes by 2020. Environment Minister, John Baird boasts that “Canada now has one of the most aggressive plans to tackle greenhouse gases in the world".

His plan offers business a range of compliance options including a choice of in-house gas reductions, dollar contributions to a capped technology fund and domestic emissions trading and offsets. New developments will be exempt from target reductions for three years.

Nearly 50% of Canada's greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions come from large industrial facilities in sectors like oil and gas, electricity generation and chemicals. It’s notable that our Government’s reduction target(s) consist only of a promise to reduce the intensity of greenhouse gas emissions not total emissions (6% a year from 2007 through 2010 total 18%).

Emission intensity is the ratio of greenhouse gas emissions per unit of production such as a barrel of oil. Growth can produce a reduction in intensity even as it produces an increase in the growth of emissions. For example; between 1990 and 2004, Canadian industry reduced its GHG intensity by 6% while its actual emissions grew by 13%, according to the David Suzuki Foundation.

Notably absent from Canada’s Action Plan is mention of the Alberta and Saskatchewan oil sands.

Oil sand operations stand out because of their tremendous pace of growth in both production and emissions. Oil sand emissions are set to increase more than threefold from 2003 to 2012 and fivefold between 2003 and 2020. By 2011, annual emissions from the oil sands are expected to be more than 80 million tonnes of CO², according to the Pembina Institute.

The San Francisco Sierra discussions produce food for thought. They suggest that the federal government assign a cost to carbon emissions. They indicate that energy efficiency is the cheapest, fastest and cleanest option for carbon reduction.

They conclude that energy efficiency must be tied to a strategic imperative that says “we can no longer rely on cheap energy for all". They remind us that the “cheap energy” approach goes back to the 1950s when we decided to build a highway system that would employ trucks instead of trains; to build sprawling cities where people would drive to their jobs instead of living close to their jobs in high-rise residential units.

They conclude that we won’t solve our environmental problems unless we assign a cost to energy that's commensurate with the damage it does to the planet. They challenge politicians to speak out by saying "My goal is to make energy more expensive”.

They advocate a carbon tax, a value-added tax, based on carbon content. The rationale – carbon is not an asset, it’s a liability. A carbon tax would exempt no one. It would promote new technology development, cause people to change old equipment and switch fuels.

They are adamant that you don't subsidize poverty with artificially low prices of commodities that are not sustainable. You target money toward projects that help advance sustainability.

Most poor people don't live near their work. It's not because they don't want to but because of housing prices. They don't drive 15mile-a-gallon cars because they like old clunkers; they drive them because that’s all they can afford.

If the price of energy should be increased through a carbon fee, people will need help but rather than give them gasoline subsidies the Sierra discussion group would offer them $10,000 vouchers to help them buy a better-than-40-mile-a-gallon car.

• 
  The corn ethanol process reduces greenhouse gases by about 20 percent.
• Brazilian ethanol reduces it dramatically more.
• A hybrid car improves efficiency by about 20 to 25 percent on average.
• Getting that efficiency improvement costs consumers between $3,500 and $5,000 more per car because of the extra batteries and drive-train costs.
• Sugarcane ethanol adds nothing to the cost of a new Brazilian car and reduces greenhouse emissions per mile driven by about 60 to 80 percent!

A modest investment in home-weatherization which insulates people's homes could reduce home energy use by more than 30 percent. By upgrading a home's furnace, sealing leaky ducts, fixing windows and adding insulation, we could cut energy bills by up to 40 percent.

By adding energy-efficient appliances and lighting, the savings are even greater. Replacing a 1970s-vintage refrigerator with a new energy-efficient model will cut an average home electricity bill by 10 to 15 percent.

NB Power is a natural to weatherize homes, yet the utility is rewarded for producing more energy and building more power plants. If NB Power were to come up with a plan to cut energy use by 20 percent and was willing to give half of the benefit to the customers and half of the benefit to its shareholder, everyone would benefit.

California has the lowest-CO2-emitting per capita in the U.S. It legally mandates energy-efficiency standards - better windows, lights, refrigerators, air conditioners, and automobile performance standards, that pay for themselves in less than 11 years. This generates an equivalent 7 percent return on investment.

Europe has taken advantage of efficiency opportunities; it charges higher energy prices. It operates a much more robust system of time-of-use metering. It has more-robust building and renovation codes and it has a culture that supports energy efficiency.

We should consider their lead.

W.E. (Bill) Belliveau is a Shediac resident and Moncton business consultant. He can be contacted at bill.bellstrategic@nb.aibn.com Atlantic Insight is a published Blog inventory of opinion articles published weekly in New Brunswick's print media as written by W.E. (Bill) Belliveau, who is a resident of Shediac, New Brunswick, and small business owner, operating his Moncton-based marketing consultancy, Bell Strategic. He can be reached by e-mail at bill.bellstrategic@nb.aibn.com