The price of climate change
The high cost of achieving Trudeau’s ‘ambitious’ goal of zero carbon emissions by 2050
The Liberals unveiled a climate action plan Tuesday that promised to push Canada to become carbon neutral by 2050. But the plan was immediately criticized for lacking detail of how it would happen and, just as importantly, exactly how much money and economic disruption such an ambitious target would cost Canadians. Under current Liberal policy, Canada still will not meet its shorterterm target to cut carbon emissions by 30 per cent below the 2005 level by 2030.
Liberal leader Justin Trudeau admitted that the plan to push Canada to net-zero emissions by 2050, was an “ambitious target” but “doable”. When pressed to provide details on how exactly the net-zero emissions target will be achieved in 30 years, former environment minister Catherine McKenna said, “We may not know exactly how to get there, but that’s the same of all countries that have committed to this.” She added that right now, the goal was to “get elected.” “If we are re-elected, we will look at how best to do this.”
Vanmala Subramaniam spoke to climate policy experts to gauge what exactly it would take for Canada to achieve that goal by 2050.
OIL AND GAS SECTOR
The oil and gas industry is Canada’s biggest greenhouse gas contributor. Climate experts on both ends of the ideological spectrum tend to agree that in order to achieve carbon neutrality in 30 years, there will either have to be a dramatic transformation of Canada’s oil and gas sector that sees it transitioning into a clean energy sector, or massive innovations in technology around capturing and storing carbon.
“Being carbon neutral by 2050 means that in the long term, we can’t have an oil and gas sector here. We need to talk about how to transition our fossil fuel workers out of the sectors implement policies that can support communities dependent on this sector,” said Kathryn Harrison, a professor at the University of British Columbia whose primary area of research is environmental policy.
“We need to think in terms of, ‘How can we gradually wind down our fossil fuel industry?’” Harrison says.
That’s simply not feasible or realistic, argues Jack Mintz, President’s Fellow at the University of Calgary’s School of Public Policy. “Demand for our oil and gas is increasing worldwide with more people in developing countries becoming middle class. Our oil and gas is used in singleuse plastics, automobiles, bunker fuel, aviation fuel. Every country will have to commit to being carbon neutral for demand for our bitumen to end.”
The Liberal plan of becoming carbon neutral by 2050 could potentially be achieved by a large investment in technology that focuses on carbon storage, said Mintz. “Carbon storage may end up succeeding. We don’t know that. That’s why I don’t understand setting goals for these things, because you aren’t factoring in technological changes that might help us get there.”
TRANSPORTATION
In Canada, transportation is the second largest contributor to carbon emissions. Achieving carbon neutrality by 2050 will involve two massive changes in the way we commute — a much larger dependence on public transportation and the complete phase-out of fossil fuel vehicles.
“People ask me, well, how much will an electric vehicle cost? And my answer is, do you need a zero-emission vehicle? How about massive investment in public transportation that will make transit more affordable and reduce our dependence on cars,” says Harrison.
Marc Lee, a senior economist at the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives believes that eliminating fossil fuel vehicles is not an unrealistic goal over the next 30 years. “You could say after 2050, no one is allowed to drive a fossil fuel vehicle by imposing a carbon tax that makes it much more expensive to own one, and to manufacture one. You want to incentivize industry to only manufacture zeroemissions vehicles. Economies of scale will do the rest.”
Mintz points out that not only are emissions created when you’re trying to build car batteries for electric vehicles, but if electricity generation is still fossil fuel dependent, then a mass use of electric vehicles will only serve to increase emissions from the grid.
“Look, only two to three percent of vehicle sales right now are zero-emission. That’s because it’s just really expensive for people. If you want to eliminate all traditional vehicles you’re going to have to give out a massive subsidy to people … but that’s going to break the bank for governments,” he says.
ELECTRICITY GENERATION
Most of Canada already relies on non-fossil fuel sources like hydro and nuclear energy for electricity generation. A carbon neutral Canada by 2050, will involve turning converting those remaining areas dependent on fossil fuel for electricity generation into clean energy sources.
“We already have 82 percent of renewable energy with hydro and nuclear. We don’t have a lot of room for major emissions reductions there. Provinces are already phasing out coal, and transitioning to natural gas,” says Mintz.
“In places like Alberta and Saskatchewan, you will use more wind and solar and biofuels for electricity generation along with a little bit of natural gas to back up when the wind isn’t blowing and the sun isn’t shining,” says Mark Jaccard, a professor at the School of Resource and Environmental Management at Simon Fraser University.
BUILDINGS
The Liberals and Conservatives both agree on creating energyefficient households as one of the ways to reduce Canada’s carbon footprint. The Liberal plan introduced Wednesday proposes to retrofit 1.5 million homes over the next five years, while the Conservatives are promising a two-year income tax credit of 20 per cent for green home renovations.
But a 30-year runway to achieving carbon neutrality, as per the Liberals’ climate goal, will involve all buildings being retrofitted for energy efficiency.
“That means the installation of solar panels on new and existing buildings. If buildings are using natural gas or heating oil as their heating source, that has to be transitioned into something that is zero emissions,” says Lee.
IMPACT ON GLOBAL CLIMATE
It is unclear what impact Canada’s commitment to carbon neutrality by 2050 will have on the planet, but Jaccard’s perspective is that a country only acts on a global problem “to be part of a global effort.” “You never measure the contribution of Rhode Island to a United States target, for example. That’s how we should think about it.”
Mintz points out that Canada is responsible for just three per cent of worldwide global emissions. “If you take the biggest countries — China, India, Russia, U.S. and the EU — they are responsible for two-thirds of worldwide global emissions. China has made no such commitment to be carbon neutral. We shouldn’t try to move ahead when other countries aren’t doing it. If we kill the oil and gas sector, that will be more for disunity in this country than anything.”