Issues

Search

FINDING SUSTAINABLE PATHWAYS

OUR PROCESS

Our process helps Canada achieve sustainable development solutions that integrate environmental and economic considerations to ensure the lasting prosperity and well-being of our nation.

RESEARCH

We rigorously research and conduct high quality analysis on issues of sustainable development. Our thinking is original and thought provoking.

CONVENE

We convene opinion leaders and experts from across Canada around our table to share their knowledge and diverse perspectives. We stimulate debate and integrate polarities. We create a context for possibilities to emerge.

ADVISE

We generate ideas and provide realistic solutions to advise governments, Parliament and Canadians. We proceed with resolve and optimism to bring Canada’s economy and environment closer together.

Home / GHG Forcasting – Section 1 / GHG Forcasting – Endnotes

GHG Forcasting – Endnotes

Greenhouse Gas Emissions Forecasting: Learning from International Best Practices

Endnotes

1 Environment Canada (2008), A Climate Change Plan for the Purposes of the Kyoto Protocol Implementation Act, p. 30. 2 Business-as-usual (BAU), or "without policy" forecasting, is generally straightforward. However, the production of GHG emissions forecasts based on policies (e.g., Regulatory Framework for Large Emitters, EcoEnergy for Buildings and Houses) is particularly challenging. 3 For further information, see http://www.nrt-trn.ca/eng/publications/c288-response-2007/index-c288-response-2007-eng.htm. 4 Simpson, J., Jaccard, M. and Rivers, N. (2007). Hot Air: Meeting Canada’s Climate Change Challenge. Toronto: McLelland and Stewart, p.165. 5 Please see Appendix B for a description of these effects. 6 Environment Canada (2008), A Climate Change Plan for the Purposes of the Kyoto Protocol Implementation Act, p. 30. 7 This issue is further discussed in section 4.4.1. 8 This issue is elaborated upon in section 4.1. 9 Please see Notice to Reader for details. 10 Examples include Jaccard, M., J. Nyboer and B. Sadownik, The Cost of Climate Policy (2002); Bernstein, S., "International institutions and the framing of domestic policies: The Kyoto Protocol and Canada’s response to climate change," Policy Sciences, 35 (2002); and Nordhaus, R. and K. Danish, Designing a mandatory greenhouse gas reduction program for the U.S. (2003). 11 At the very least, baseline assumptions should include supporting data and data consistency with other agencies. 12 In this case, system dynamics refers to how an energy-economy model captures changes in technologies, costs, and behaviours over time. 13 Dowlatabadi, H., D.R. Boyd, J. MacDonald (2004). Model, Model on the Screen, What’s the Cost of Going Green? Washington, D.C.: Resources for the Future, p. 10. 14 E3MC stands for Energy-Economy-Environment Model for Canada. A description of it is found in section 4.3.1. 15 Please refer to Appendix A for a discussion of modelling approaches. 16 The EIA’s domestic approach to emissions forecasting is described in Section 3.2.2 17 Natural Resources Canada (2006), Canada’s Energy Outlook: The Reference Case 2006. As noted in this report and the NRTEE’s 2008 KPIA Response, a new baseline (March 2008) has been developed that has significantly improved from the 2006 baseline. 18 For example, see International Energy Agency (2004), World Energy Outlook 2004, Annex B – Energy Projections: Assessment and Comparison, p. 519. 19 IEA (2006), World Energy Outlook 2006, p. 53. 20 For details, refer to Government of Canada (2008), Turning the Corner – Detailed Emissions and Economic Modelling. 21 In two recent reports on long-term issues related to energy and climate change, the NRTEE used the Energy 2020 (bottom-up) model and the CIMS (hybrid) model. 22 Government of Canada (2008), p. iii–iv. 23 Please see Appendix C for a discussion on different modelling approaches. 24 Simpson, J., M. Jaccard, and N. Rivers (2007). Hot Air: Meeting Canada’s Climate Change Challenge. Toronto: McLelland and Stewart, p.165. 25 The Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development has conducted an audit of specific federal climate change measures but not a full, comprehensive review. For details, see http://www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/internet/English/ aud_parl_cesd_200609_e_936.html. 26 For details, see http://www.rsc.ca//files/publications/expert_panels/ ozone_&_pm/Ozreport.pdf. 27 http://www.eia.doe.gov/neic/aboutEIA/quickfacts.html 28 Further information on the EIA can be found at http://www.eia.doe.gov. 29 See http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/analysispaper/ retrospective/pdf/table18.pdf. 30 UNFCCC (2004), Report on the in-depth review of the third national communication of the United States of America, p.11. 31 National Audit Office (2006), Emissions Projections in the 2006 Climate Change Programme Review; National Audit Office (2008), U.K. greenhouse gas emissions: measurement and reporting. 32 National Audit Office (2008), U.K. greenhouse gas emissions: measurement and reporting, p.5. 33 The NRTEE expressed similar concerns to the Canadian government in its 2007 KPIA Response. 34 UNFCCC (2007), Report of the centralized in-depth review of the fourth national communication of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, p.18. 35 For example, a specific program or measure (i.e., fuel efficiency vehicle programs) may require a different forecasting model than one designed for large-scale, integrated modelling. 36 Morgenstern, D. and W.A. Pizer (eds) (2007), Reality Check: The Nature and Performance of Voluntary Environmental Programs in the United States, Europe and Japan. Washington, D.C.: RFF Press. 37 NRTEE (2007), Response of the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy to its Obligations under the Kyoto Protocol Implementation Act, p. 32. 38 Statistics Canada – Canada’s independent, federal statistics agency – collects emissions data for the purpose of reporting, not forecasting. 39 NRTEE (2006), Advice on a Long-term Strategy on Energy and Climate Change; NRTEE (2008), Getting to 2050: Canada’s Transmission to a Low-Emission Future. 40 Rivers, N. and M. Jaccard (2005). "Combining Top-Down and Bottom-up Approaches to Energy-Economy Modeling Using Discrete Choice Methods," The Energy Journal, Vol.26, No.1; Grubb, M (1993) "Policy Modeling for Climate Change: The Missing Models" Energy Policy, 21(3); Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (1996), IPCC Second Assessment Report: Climate Change 1995. 41 Grubb (1993), Hoffman and Jorgenson (1977), Jacobsen (1998), Bohringer (1998), and Koopmans and te Velde (2001) have all designed hybrid models.