Climate Change Policy is at the Heart of Canada’s Federal Election Next Week

Whether it was a good time to call a federal election or not during the fourth wave of the COVID-19 pandemic is now a moot point. But what’s on the line for next Monday’s election is the future of climate change action and the commitment of Canada to meeting the objectives of the Paris Climate Agreement of 2015.

There are six political parties vying for seats in Parliament: the Liberals, Conservatives, New Democrats, Peoples’ Party, Greens, and the Bloc Quebecois. The first two are the ones most likely to finish with enough seats in Parliament to become the government whether minority, majority or in coalition with one of the smaller parties.

In this posting, I provide my personal opinion (and ratings in italics) on the first part of the Liberal Party’s climate plan. (I must admit that the plan is comprehensive and far-reaching which means it will take me at least two postings to cover it all. And another thing you should know. In rating the plans different planks, I’m a hard marker.)

Once I am done with the Liberals we’ll look at the Conservatives plan, the only other party likely to form a government.

So my apologies ahead of time to the NDP, PPC, Greens and Bloc. Sorry folks.

Liberal Party’s Climate Plan – Part 1

1. Increasing the price of carbon pollution through a tax on end-use products such as gasoline, and diesel fuels. The current price at the pump is $40 CDN per ton (about $30 USD) at the pump. This will rise in annual increments of $15 CDN until it reaches $170 by 2030. (Rating B+: Why? Because the government assumes the escalator at $15 per year will impact gasoline and diesel use. Currently, the $40 hasn’t had any impact on Canadian driving habits and on their consumer choices when it comes to vehicle purchases. And with the price of fuels always varying depending on supply and demand, the tax is hidden from the consumer for the most part. Maybe the tax will be more overt as it rises, but for the moment, Canadians aren’t responding in their behaviours to this policy.)
2. Committing to a GHG emissions reduction target of between 40 and 45% by 2030 when compared to 2005 pollution levels. (Rating C: Why? Because when compared to other jurisdictions this cannot be described as “ambitious” as stated on the Liberal Party website. Take for example the European Union’s 2030 Climate Target Plan which has committed to GHG emissions reductions to 55% or more below 1990 levels by 2030.  The difference between 1990 and 2005 is an important distinction even if Canada were to up its goal to the 55% target set by the EU. Why? Because Canada’s GHG emissions were 600 Megatons in 1990 and 739 in 2005, a 23.16% increase. And comparing Canada to the U.S. doesn’t make us look any better because under the Biden administration the Americans are committed to reducing net GHG emissions by 50-52% below 2005 levels in 2030.)
3. Committing to reduce emissions from the oil and gas sector since its contributions to GHGs has risen by 20% since 2005 and currently makes up 26% of Canada’s total emissions. (Rating D: Why? There are no hard targets in this commitment. Instead, the goal is to develop an advisory body to work with the industry to achieve declining emissions with enforceable or unenforceable targets in 2025 and 2030, and every 5 years thereafter until achieving overall net-zero emissions by 2050. The oil and gas sector would contribute their fair share of overall declining emissions by 2030 of 40 to 45% but is described as only a “meaningful contribution.” What that last phrase means is beyond me.)
4. Eliminating thermal coal exports from and through Canada by no later than 2030. (Rating D: Why? Because this doesn’t address coal’s contribution to GHG emissions from domestic production and use in thermal power plants. Where the oil and gas sector is singled out in the previous policy commitment, there are no targeted emission reductions for the use of coal in Canada in this policy plank. Instead, coal will continue to be mined and used domestically and exported to foreign markets where it will become a net contributor to global carbon emissions.) 
5. Cutting methane emissions by 75% or more below 2012 levels by 2030 and seek similar commitments from G20 countries and other major economies at the November climate summit in Glasgow. (Rating B: Orphan wells leaking emissions and working gas fields with inadequate pollution controls throughout much of Alberta, Saskatchewan, and offshore in Newfoundland and Labrador are potential sources of methane which is a shorter-term, more potent GHG than carbon dioxide. Targeting these industrial emission sites is a good policy. But what about methane leaks from melting permafrost and a policy to address what may prove to be a much bigger source of this GHG as the atmosphere and land surfaces warm in areas above 60 degrees latitude? There is a reference to the National Research Council becoming a global centre for excellence on methane detection and elimination, but no mention of the growing concern of methane from permafrost.)
6. Developing a plan to phase out public financing of fossil fuel projects and the elimination of subsidies by 2023, accelerating it from the original 2025 deadline. (Rating D: According to a CBC report published earlier this year, the federal government issued close to $18 billion in subsidies and other forms of financial support to the fossil fuel industry in 2020. Canada’s largest oil and gas producers were net money losers in 2020 because of a downturn in oil prices and the impact of the pandemic, so subsidies may have helped. But overall, the industry over the last two decades has contributed $250 billion to the country’s GDP. You can’t do that without making lots of money. So why a subsidy in the past, and why not end the subsidies now and not in two years? The argument against immediately ending subsidies is that other oil and gas producing countries need to be on board in parallel, otherwise, Canada might see the flight of capital and talent from domestic production to overseas or the U.S.)
7. Introducing a Clean Electricity Standard to achieve a 100% net-zero system for the country by 2035 including investments in renewable energy, battery storage, a smart grid with inter-provincial energy sharing, and a national grid council to promote investment, and innovation. (Rating B+: A national plan for net-zero clean electrical power is long overdue. But what surprised me is no specific mentioning of innovative domestically created modular nuclear and fusion reactors as part of a 100% clean energy mix, nor any mention of exploiting Canada’s geothermal capacity to contribute to the net-zero overall goal.)

In our next posting will look at the Liberals’ strategy in the country’s transition to net-zero including programs to support green jobs, industrial transformation, finance, transportation, infrastructure resilience and adaptation, conservation, and the treatment of waste plastic, and consumer and food waste.