By Matt Horne for the Pembina Institute.

With Canada’s first credible national climate change plan within reach, now is not the time to be watering down core policies that would help reduce emissions. That’s why the federal government should reject Premier Christy Clark’s posturing on carbon pricing and stick to the pan-Canadian carbon price committed to in October.

The Premier has been arguing that cap-and-trade systems to cut carbon pollution in Ontario and Quebec won’t be as stringent as B.C.’s carbon tax, and as a result that B.C. shouldn’t need to increase the carbon tax in line with Trudeau’s plan.

When Prime Minister Trudeau announced the national carbon-pricing plan from the House of Commons, he provided provinces with an immense amount of flexibility to comply with the plan. Provinces can implement their own carbon pricing system, or they can allow the federal government to do so for them (as the Yukon plans to do). Provinces can choose between implementing a carbon tax, or implementing cap-and-trade. And, importantly, provinces retain full control over the use of all carbon pricing revenue levied in their jurisdiction.

B.C. has all of those same options.

It can choose to increase its carbon tax in line with, or ahead of, the federal price floor — an approach that would allow B.C. to have its carbon tax freeze run up to nine years. It could adopt a cap-and-trade system like Quebec with a cap at least as stringent as Canada’s 2030 target (30 per cent below 2005 levels). It could probably even go back to the hybrid model that the province originally envisioned — with a carbon tax applied to heating and transportation fuels and cap-and-trade applied to industry.

B.C. In No Position to Stonewall on National Carbon Pricing Plan https://t.co/waNt9ZplQB #bcpoli #cdnpoli #carbonpricing @HorneMatt @Pembina

— DeSmog Canada (@DeSmogCanada) December 9, 2016

Instead of continuing to make flawed claims of its climate leadership, B.C. would be better served picking an approach that meets the national standard. B.C. has work left to do to get its own house in order: the province still doesn’t have a 2030 target despite year-old advice from the premier’s advisory panel to establish one.

And where B.C. does have targets, the picture isn’t good.

The province will miss its 2020 target by a wide margin because it has stalled on new actions since 2012, and there is a massive gap between its 2050 target and projections based on current policies.

When Prime Minister Trudeau announced the national carbon-pricing plan, our view was that the growing incentive to cut carbon pollution would be a big positive for the country from coast to coast to coast. It was also a clear fit with the climate and clean growth ambitions that the first ministers agreed to in the Vancouver Declaration.

Let’s make sure it stays that way by sticking to the plan.

Image: Christy Clark and Justin Trudeau. Photo: Province of B.C. via Flickr

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

The federal government is expected to announce the details of Canada’s national climate plan Friday, Dec. 9 at a high-profile gathering of First Ministers in Ottawa.

The details of the climate plan, which amount to a balance sheet of the nation’s carbon emissions, are critical to evaluating the federal government’s recent decisions to approve major fossil fuel projects in light of Canada’s international climate commitments under the Paris Agreement.

“To have confidence in this plan’s ability we need to see credible accounting,” Catherine Abreu, executive direction of Climate Action Network Canada, said.

Trudeau has garnered significant criticism for his recent approvals of the Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain pipeline expansion and Enbridge Line 3 replacement, both of which invite increased production in the Alberta oilsands, Canada’s fastest growing source of greenhouse gas emissions.

In September the federal government approved the Pacific Northwest LNG terminal on the B.C. coast, a project that is expect to be the single largest point source of emissions in the country.

These approvals — and the increase in emissions they entail — have raised questions about the government’s ability to meet its climate targets.

Under the Paris Agreement Canada pledged to reduce emissions 30 per cent below 2005 levels by 2030.

“We know the 2030 target is the one that is top of mind for ministers,” Erin Flanagan, director of federal policy for the Pembina Institute, said. “It’s the one that [Environment and Climate Change] Minister McKenna is referring to when she says we’ll meet or exceed our climate commitments.”

Canada, unfortunately, has a long history of signing up for targets and an equally long history of not meeting them, Flanagan said.

“In fact, Canada’s best reporting through its biennial report indicates we’re a long way off from achieving those goals,” she said. “The report is quite bullish on fossil fuel development.”

By its own accounting the federal government anticipates Canada will emit 814 megatonnes (Mt) of carbon dioxide equivalent per year by 2030. To meet its commitments under the Paris Agreement, Canada must limit that number to 524 Mt.

Flanagan said the federal government has yet to release an updated plan that incorporates recent climate efforts, like the introduction of a national carbon tax, the phaseout of coal power plants and provincial climate plans, into the overall emissions accounting.

A recent analysis done by EnviroEconomics finds that climate progress made under Trudeau’s leadership will help close but not eliminate that emissions gap. The report estimates that by 2030 Canada will overshoot its 2030 target by 152 Mt (or slightly less if international carbon offset credits are used).

But those calculations are based on what can be gleaned from provincial and federal plans announced so far and not necessarily what the federal government has in store.

On Friday Trudeau will meet with ministers and provincial and territorial premiers to discuss the details of what Trudeau has called an “ambitious and achievable plan” to meet 2030 targets.

The specifics have up to this point remained elusive.

Much-Anticipated Details of Canada’s #ClimatePlan to Be Revealed at First Minister’s Meeting. Maybe. https://t.co/7b11biMXJP #cdnpoli

— DeSmog Canada (@DeSmogCanada) December 8, 2016

Steven Guilbeault, senior director of Équiterre, said the government must show its work.

“Without a balance sheet there is no way to know if this plan is delivering on what it says it does,” he said.

“What is enabling Canada’s emissions to go down? Why are they going up? To be able to adjust that plan over time and to have a genuine understanding and reassurance that we do have a plan that will put us on a path towards emissions reduction is needed for credibility,” Guilbeault said.

“Without the plusses and minuses it’s impossible for us to say whether premiers and the Prime Minister have delivered on that plan.”

This week the Canadian Press reported internal sources said the federal government will not, as expected, release detailed information regarding the country’s greenhouse gas inventory.

Minister McKenna responded to the reports, telling the CBC that Canada will indeed release an in-depth plan.

"We will show how we're going to meet our 2030 targets — what measures we've taken, what additional measures we will be taking to meet the target," McKenna said.

"You will see a specific plan. You will see, in each sector, what we're doing to reduce emissions. You'll see what investments we're making. You'll see how we're working with Indigenous communities, in particular in the north, where they have specific concerns about diesel but also about adaptation."

“We know Friday is not the end of the story,” Dr. Louise Comeau, director of climate change and energy solutions with the Conservation Council of New Brunswick, said.

Wrinkles in the climate framework as they relate to financial arrangements for green infrastructure, low carbon economy funding and equivalency agreements, which aim to standardize accounting of efforts made from province to province, will need to be ironed out moving forward, Comeau said.

Dale Marshall, climate campaigner with Environmental Defence, said he’s confident the ministers’ meeting will end with a climate agreement.

“I think there is high likelihood we’ll get an agreement,” he said.

“The federal government has spent since the last First Ministers’ Meeting in March, coordinating with the provinces, meeting with working groups and signed a number of agreements that had the signon of the country, like the carbon price, within the pan-Canadian framework.”

“Most people are feeling positive that we’re going to have a pan-Canadian framework agreed to by most if not all of the provinces and territories.”

Catheine Abreu said it’s important to ensure what is decided now, will remain relevant to 2030 and beyond.

“What we want to see on Friday is a commitment that the federal government and provinces commit to collaborate on moving forward.”

Abreu added more in-depth discussion is needed on crafting a workable accountability mechanism to ensure governments at all levels are keeping to their targets.

In addition the commitment made under the Paris Agreement isn’t just to limit emissions to 2030 but to strengthen targets every few years moving forward, Abreu said.

Canada committed to complete decarbonization by the end of the century and to work to achieve net zero emissions by 2050.

Abreu said Canada needs top-notch measuring, reporting and verification systems to not only establish emission reduction policies and regulations, but to gradually improve them over time.

“We have to totally or almost totally decarbonize our economy,” Guilbeault said. “Really 2030 isn’t the end.”

Image: Justin Trudeau and First Ministers at a March meeting in Vancouver. Photo: Prime Minister's Photo Gallery

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

This article originally appeared on the Pembina Institute website.

For clean energy enthusiasts, yesterday’s budget brought lots of good news. From public transit to renewables in remote communities, the budget made investments that support a thriving low-carbon economy.

Here are our top highlights from yesterday’s budget:

Budget 2016 announced that the federal government’s Accelerated Capital Cost Allowances (ACCA) will extend to electric vehicle (EV) infrastructure and energy storage equipment. The ACCA is a policy tool that allows certain industries to write-off investments in equipment and technologies more quickly than the standard rate provided by government. As such, it supports investment and growth in those industries — making it a very useful tool to apply to climate friendly technologies.

This depreciation program will lower costs and risk to investors looking to jump into the energy storage or EV space. Canada needs more clean electricity to fuel its transition to a low carbon economy — and this commitment will enable further clean technology deployment across the country.

Generous tax measures have long been enjoyed by the fossil fuel sector — in fact, the ACCA has existed for oilsands mines and in situ facilities since 1972 and 1996 respectively. While you could make the case that the oilsands was a fledgling industry decades ago, that’s certainly no longer the case. In 2007, the federal government committed to phase out fossil fuel subsidies for exactly that reason. Progress has been stalled — and we encourage the federal government to continue to advance these important G20 commitments.

Further, while it’s encouraging to see the government think seriously about how to embed more zero-emitting electricity into Canada’s electricity grid, and also into our transportation sector, they’ve remained mum on a critical issue: phasing out emissions from coal-fired electricity plants more quickly. Under the former government, regulations were introduced to phase-out coal-fired electricity; but — after being weakened twice, from 40 years to 45 and then to 50 — they were widely panned as capitulation to coal industry pressure.

The previous government claimed considerable health savings from the regulations, including at least 900 avoided deaths and 120,000 avoided asthma episodes in the first 20 years alone. Of course, by weakening the regulations, the government actually caused a proportional number of deaths and health events. The Trudeau government can and should do more to accelerate this transition to secure these greater health savings. From our perspective, the government should make it clear they will join the international trend toward phasing out coal. 

Resources to Modernize the National Energy Board

Yesterday’s budget saw $16.5 million over three years allocated to the National Energy Board and the bureaucracy to deliver on the government’s interim review process for energy projects. This is great news: we were supportive of those interim principles when they were announced, and are pleased to see the government put the necessary resources behind it.

An allocation of this size — in addition to review-specific resources already earmarked to this work — should help ensure that Canadians have meaningful opportunities to participate in federal energy project reviews. Further, the money will be spent on Crown consultations — a hopeful signal that the government will work to repair relationships with Indigenous communities impacted by natural resource development across the country.

But much work remains to be done to modernize Canada’s federal energy regulator. Canada’s environment commissioner recently found that the NEB was not providing sufficient oversight on pipeline projects. Further, the NEB’s marquee publication,Canada’s Energy Future, does not consider the implications of continued domestic and international climate action. In order for the Board to become a world-class regulator, it must align its supply and demand modeling with the world’s stated climate policy objective — achieving the deep reductions outlined in the Paris Agreement. Though not perfect, the IEA’s World Energy Outlook 450 scenario is a good place for the NEB to start. 

New Funds for the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency

It may not always be obvious, but industry proponents and environmentalists share a common interest when it comes to environmental assessments. Both camps often advocate for rigorous and fair environmental assessments — and, ultimately, for evidence-based decision-making.

The Trudeau government seems to have received the message that building and maintaining credible environmental assessment processes is in everyone’s best interest. To that end, Budget 2016 proposes to provide $14.2 million over four years to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency (CEAA) for consultation, compliance and enforcement activities.

This financial support should support CEAA as they continue to play a critical role in the government’s interim review process for major energy projects. Over the last two months, CEAA has been publishing assessments of the direct and upstream emissions associated with major energy projects. These assessments have been limited to LNG terminals to date, but will soon extend to midstream infrastructure, like oil and gas pipelines.  Judging by methodology released late last week, that work appears to be moving in the right direction. Critically, Minister McKenna and her Cabinet colleagues should review how proposed projects, and their upstream emissions, align with the federal government’s 2020 and 2030 emissions reduction goals and the government’s long-term reduction commitment vis-à-vis the Paris Agreement.

Standing up the Low Carbon Economy Fund

One of the big ticket environmental announcements yesterday was the commitment to provide $2 billion over two years (beginning next year) to establish the Low Carbon Economy Fund. This fund, as promised on the election trail, is designed to catalyze investment in projects that “yield the greatest absolute greenhouse gas reductions for the lowest cost per tonne.” With this mandate in hand, the fund can make strategic investments that support the country’s decarbonization efforts. We’re keen to see how the government designs and implements criteria for investment to ensure the funds are disbursed to achieve those goals.   

The Low Carbon Economy Fund is particularly interesting in the context of Canada’s renewed federal-provincial relationship on climate change. Just a few weeks ago, Canada’s first ministers met to reaffirm the urgent need to invest in a low-carbon economy for Canada.  Their meeting concluded with the release of the Vancouver Declaration on Clean Growth and Climate Change — a document that outlines a new and collaborative approach to tackling emissions reductions across the country.  

Canada’s ability to achieve long-term emissions reductions, consistent with those spelled out in the Paris Agreement, is now in the hands of our prime minister and premiers. It’s essential that those political leaders and their teams have the resources required to implement the Vancouver Declaration.

The first ministers and their teams will be busy over the summer with working groups to study the policies required to hit our 2030 goal — and are tasked with reporting back by September 2016. The first ministers need resources to hit the ground running: to call experts, conduct studies, and ensure the best available science is informing those political discussions. What they don’t need are squabbles over who picks up the bill, which the budget allocation handily takes care of.

Since the government’s election last year, Canada has upped its game on climate change. We’ve seen political commitments from the highest levels of federal, provincial, and territorial governments to reduce emissions. And with yesterday’s budget, governments and civil society will now have more resources to do so.

Next, we need the policy ambition required to get Canada on track to meet or exceed its existing climate targets. We’re optimistic Budget 2016 has begun to lay tracks for the ultimate success of the first ministers’ process — and supports the low-carbon economy we’re ultimately working to build.

Image: Prime Minister's photo gallery

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

Many Indigenous leaders have expressed disappointment that only the leaders of the national organizations representing Inuit, Métis and First Nations were allowed to fully participate in the talks at a climate strategy meeting with the prime minister and premiers earlier this month. Other Indigenous leaders in attendance for the meeting in Vancouver were relegated to the role of spectators.   “Limiting conversation to three Indigenous voices from over 600 Indigenous communities across Canada is a vast under representation,” Melina Laboucan-Massimo, a climate and indigenous rights activist, said. “At a bare minimum, the regional chiefs should be at the table as well, but also Indigenous leaders and experts who work on climate should be as well.”   Regional chiefs were also frustrated that their input into the pan-Canadian framework for clean growth and climate change is limited, despite Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s promise of a “renewed, nation-to-nation relationship” with Indigenous people in Canada.   “We thought we’d have a chance to speak, but it was the national chief who was permitted to speak for about ten minutes. Ten minutes for all First Nations in Canada? That is a slap in the face to First Nations and embarrassment for Canada,” Ontario Regional Chief Isadore Day told DeSmog Canada. “Climate change is a matter of life and death. Our kids and grandkids will suffer if we fail to act and we only have a 20-year window to act. Clearly, we all need to work together.”

Treaty 6 Grand Chief Tony Alexis, an Alberta regional chief, said First Nations had been merely “asked to come and visit” the climate meeting. Chief Allan Adam of the Athabasca Fort Chipewyan First Nation in Alberta declared the federal government and premiers had “failed terribly” in addressing Indigenous concerns about climate change and protecting the environment.

“We Were Not Welcome At The Table": Chief Day   Two days of meetings took place in Vancouver: a meeting on March 2nd for Indigenous leaders, premiers and the prime minister and a meeting the following day exclusively for the provinces, territories and the federal government. Last-minute invitations to join the Alberta and Ontario provincial delegations allowed Day and Alexis to be present at the final meeting.   “We were not welcome at the table. If the meeting is an indication of how things will proceed moving forward, Indigenous peoples and Canadians should be concerned,” Day said.   Not all provinces appear comfortable with Indigenous leaders playing a significant role in the crafting of a Canadian climate framework either.   “From what I heard some provinces indicated during the meeting they would like to limit Indigenous involvement in the climate framework. I find this very concerning, not to mention deeply disrespectful,” Laboucan-Massimo told DeSmog Canada. “It is of immense importance for Indigenous governments to be engaged from start to finish at the four climate tables, and I hope that all levels of government respect that.”   Before the summit in Vancouver had begun, the federal government came under fire for failing to invite two other national Indigenous organizations — Native Women’s Association of Canada and the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples — to the talks. NDP Leader Tom Mulcair blasted Trudeau in Parliament for the “slight” and Manitoba Premier Greg Selinger pointed out in the past all five national organizations have been invited to attend first ministers meetings.   Indigenous Peoples To Be Consulted On The Climate Change Framework   A “broader engagement process with Indigenous peoples” is meant to take place alongside the work of four federal-provincial working groups studying key climate policy areas such as clean technology, carbon pricing mechanisms and greenhouse gas reductions strategies. If the recommendations are approved at a first ministers meeting this fall, they will make up the bulwark of a national framework shaping Canada’s responses to climate change.   The details of the consultation process have not been made available yet, but both Day and Laboucan-Massimo agree the process needs to be as comprehensive as possible for Indigenous concerns to be heard and incorporated.   "I think a climate change accord in Canada is necessary going forward. It would spell out how a constructive dialogue between Indigenous people and the federal government could take place," Day said.   Indigenous knowledge could also strengthen a national plan to address climate change. Scientists have already begun using Inuit knowledge and observations for studying weather patterns in the Arctic. Firsthand information like this can be used to test climate models.   “Because of the innate connection to the land, Indigenous people notice changes in the ecosystem, animals and water that others may dismiss. We’ve had centuries of observation, experience and intimate relationships to the land that has built this unique knowledge and sensitivity,” Laboucan-Massimo told DeSmog Canada. Laboucan-Massimo is a member of the Sakaw Nehiyawak (“Northern” or “Bush” Cree in English).   Laboucan-Massimo also sees the low-carbon economy as much more in line with Indigenous worldviews than fossil fuels economies.

“For the first time since the age of industrialization, there finally exists a technology that produces energy that is not in complete contradiction with Indigenous values and our way of life,” Laboucan-Massimo said. “The time is now for our communities to begin integrating renewable energy technology such as solar photovoltaic to help us become less reliant on fossil fuels.” 

Image: Melina Laboucan Massimo at a solar installation in her community of Little Buffalo in northern Alberta.

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

This is a guest post by Clare Demerse of Clean Energy Canada.

Canada’s premiers and prime minister headed home from Vancouver last week having launched a brand-new climate change negotiation process. Set against a backdrop of clean tech power brokers and pipeline skirmishes, the lead-up to last week’s meeting generated headlines mainly for the faultlines it brought to the surface.

No doubt about it: Tough conversations are coming, especially about the best way to price carbon pollution. But as the hot rhetoric cools down, here are four reasons for optimism based on the results of last week’s First Ministers’ meeting.

First, this initiative is unprecedented. The politicians who signed the declaration said they’ll try to craft something we’ve never had before: a national plan to hit a climate target.

Under Paul Martin, we saw a climate plan proposal from Ottawa — but it was federal rather than national, and most of it didn’t go into effect. Prime Minister Stephen Harper, of course, never offered a serious plan to cut greenhouse gas pollution in line with Canada’s targets. And during the long years when Ottawa was missing in action, some premiers raced ahead, while others barely got out of the starting gate.

So if last week's agreement works — which, of course, is still a very big “if” — the outcome will be a Canadian first.

Second, this process gets the right players involved.

Climate change is way too big to fit neatly into an environment minister’s portfolio. It’s also an energy issue, an infrastructure issue, a finance issue, a transportation issue, and so on. To really succeed in tackling climate change, you need leadership right from the top — the puzzle pieces just don’t line up without it. Premiers and prime ministers need to make climate action a priority, decide in broad strokes how to go about it, and then give their ministers marching orders to get it done.

Similarly, we need both Ottawa and the provinces at the table; climate change is an area of shared jurisdiction. The federal government can provide funding, set (some) national standards, and negotiate for Canada at global climate talks, but provinces make crucial decisions about electricity and energy development.

So federal, provincial and territorial First Ministers are the right cast of characters to get Canada on track. It won’t be easy, of course — regional tensions were already on full display in Vancouver — but this participant list opens up the possibility of success.

Third — as Saskatchewan Premier Brad Wall reminded everyone more than once — this was always a discussion about the economy, not “just” the environment. And that’s a good thing.

As the declaration puts it, the transition to a clean economy “is necessary to ensure the future prosperity of Canada and Canadians.”

Exactly. Our analysis, published last week, concluded that clean energy just had its best year ever globally, with US $367 billion invested — nearly 50 per cent more than new investment in fossil fuel power.

You don’t even have to take our word for it. The CEO of Enbridge, best known for its Northern Gateway oil pipeline proposal, said this week that power generation — particularly from renewables — is “going to be a significant element of growth both in North America and globally.”

But while the U.S., China, Japan, and Mexico (to name just a few) saw their clean energy investment grow in 2015, Canada’s dropped by 46 per cent relative to the year before.

We need to reverse that trend as soon as possible — our competitors certainly aren’t standing still. Which brings us to a final reason this meeting matters: the process that the leaders announced last week can deliver a plan to build Canada’s clean energy economy.

The traditional approach to climate negotiations has been to fight about the allocation of pain. Who will make the deepest cuts? Who will charge the highest prices? For obvious reasons, those are not easy political conversations — and the vastly different emission profiles of Canada’s provinces make them even trickier.

But with the global economy making a rapid shift from fossil to clean energy, there’s now a huge opportunity to talk about. Instead of arguing about what we’re going to cut, it’s time to figure out what we’re going to build.

We can’t tackle climate change without building a clean energy economy. At its core, the recipe for reducing greenhouse gas pollution in Canada (and anywhere else) is simple: invest in clean power and then electrify everything. Move away from using fossil fuels to drive our cars and heat our homes; use clean power instead.

In Canada, this means building far more clean power, along with a smarter grid and a new generation of cars, buildings and industrial processes. And there’s money to be made every step of the way.

First Ministers acknowledged that reality in their declaration, which mentions the economy nearly as often as it does the climate. One of the four working groups this meeting established has a mandate to “stimulate economic growth, create jobs, and drive innovation” — and will do its work under the direction of ministers of economic development.

To reap those economic benefits, leaders need to use the months ahead to set ambitious clean energy goals for Canada — and then commit to policies to meet them. How much new clean power will we bring onto the grid? How many more electric vehicles will be on the road by 2030? How many buildings will we retrofit with state-of-the-art technologies to cut energy waste? How much clean technology will we be selling to the world? And in the process, how many new jobs will we create?

Canada’s governments, and all of us, need to seize this opportunity. Last week's meeting moved us a step closer to doing so.

Clare Demerse is a senior policy advisor in Ottawa for Clean Energy Canada, a climate think tank that is a project of Simon Fraser University’s Centre for Dialogue. 

You can click here to read more about Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and climate change.

Image: Prime Minister of Canada

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

The summer of 2010 was a bad year for Saskatchewan. Record floods, winds, and hailstorms led to 175 communities declaring states of emergency, and costing the province over $100 million. “The Summer of Storms” also made it the worst year ever for insurers, with $100 million in crop insurance payouts.

Premier Brad Wall, a man once described by Maclean’s as “standing athwart history yelling ‘I’m not sure about this!’” responded to the string of natural disasters with a telling quote: “The one thing the province cannot control is the weather,” he said.

Unfortunately for Saskatchewan, the type of extreme weather that cost it so dearly in 2010 is symptomatic of what models predict for the province under a changing climate.

Sure enough, extreme weather was yet again making headlines and shutting down entire cities in 2014.

On carbon emissions, the province is Canada writ small: both are small emitters in their larger contexts, yet large emitters per capita. Saskatchewan is the biggest carbon source per capita in the country, with three quarters of the province’s energy coming from coal and natural gas, although it plans to reduce that to 50 per cent by 2030.

Wall’s philosophy on climate change appears to be to downplay the significance of actual emissions while encouraging innovation in Canada that can be exported to larger emitters — tackling carbon on a larger scale than what can be done in the Canada’s relatively small arena.

Frustrated during last year’s Paris climate conference by his characterization in the media as being out of step with the rest of the premiers, he defended his province, saying he was actually offering a solution: carbon capture and storage (CCS). His flagship endeavour in this regard is the CCS facility at SaskPower’s Boundary Dam coal power station, which he regards as a model for the world’s developing nations as they bring more and more coal-fired plants online.

“We can talk all we want about cap and trade or carbon taxes in Canada, but we’re three per cent of global emissions,” he told Alberta Oil Magazine before the Paris conference. “So why don’t we, as Canadians, decide to lead the world and develop technologies that can be applied in places like China and India and Indonesia and Europe where coal is being turned on right now?”

The Saskatchewan government hypes the Boundary Dam project for capturing 90 per cent of the emissions from one of the station’s units. However, what is captured doesn’t all stay that way; some is lost in the capturing phase and some is sold for use in oil extraction, meaning that only about half of what is captured is actually stored on a permanent basis when the CCS process is working — which it only is about 40 per cent of the time.

Reducing part of a coal power station’s emissions by almost a fifth, however, is still no mean feat if it can be done in a way that would encourage emerging economies to follow the example, i.e. by being cost-effective.

But that doesn’t seem to be the case: the economics of the CCS technology at Boundary Dam have not borne out, and given that the project is projected to lose about a billion dollars over its lifespan, energy reporter David Roberts called the $1.47 billion price tag a “very high carbon tax” on provincial and federal taxpayers as well as anyone paying for power in Saskatchewan.

Perhaps, then, it’s because the province already has a de facto carbon tax that Wall has promised to refuse to sign any carbon tax put forth at this week’s premiers’ meeting.

He has consistently criticized the idea of carbon taxes, worrying that the money would be directed into federal coffers (like the equalization payments his province already pays), and that the low price of oil is already hitting the oil industry hard.

His stance that oil companies are too fragile to support a carbon tax, however, is undermined by industry statements like Suncor CEO Steve Williams’ assertion last year that he believes “a broad-based carbon price is the right answer.”

Wall nearly missed the 2015 premiers’ meeting because his province was on fire, but decided to attend at the last minute to make sure the other premiers knew that “oil and gas is not something we should be ashamed of.”

It appears his message will remain the same this year, fighting the rest of the premiers and the federal government on behalf of an industry that seems to itself be coming around to the other side of the argument.

If the premier can’t control the weather, in other words, he could certainly benefit from knowing which way the wind blows.

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau confirmed Wednesday the federal government will meet with Indigenous leaders and premiers in Vancouver in early March in the hopes of laying out the framework for a national climate strategy.   “I look forward to working with the premiers on combatting climate change and moving toward a greener, more sustainable Canadian economy better positioned to compete globally in the areas of clean knowledge and technologies,” Trudeau said in a media release.

The Prime Minister announced he will meet with Indigenous leaders on March 2 to inform a national climate framework discussion with the premiers in a First Ministers' Meeting scheduled to take place March 3. First Ministers' Meetings did not occur under former prime minister Stephen Harper.

According to Clare Demerse, Ottawa-based energy policy adviser with Clean Energy Canada, the meeting provides an unprecedented opportunity to discuss Canada's renewable energy transition.   “The right people will be in the room to move forward on a national approach [to climate change]," Demerse told DeSmog Canada. "Whether it’s electrical production, or natural resources extraction, provinces make big decisions on energy in Canada."

Meeting to Capitalize on Low-Carbon Economy

According to the Prime Minister's press release, the Vancouver meetings "will focus on effective ways to adapt to climate change, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and capitalize on the opportunities presented by a low-carbon economy to create good-paying and long-term jobs." 

“We’d really like to see the conversation in Vancouver be about what we're going to build, not just about what we’re going to cut,” Demerse said. “How many electric cars will we see on the road? How are we going to make buildings more energy efficient? How much solar, wind and water power needs to be produced in 2020 or 2030?”   “This is not to say reduction targets shouldn’t be discussed. But the discussion needs to be more focused on the ‘how’ instead of just the number."   Canada was one of the only countries among the world’s top ten greenhouse gas gas emitters not to provide a national clean energy plan to the United Nations in the lead up to the Paris climate talks last December. Other heavy emitters like the United States, European Union, China and even Mexico submitted plans with clean energy targets along with their GHG reduction targets.    The $125 billion the Liberal Party promised during the federal election to invest in infrastructure could go a long way encouraging provinces and territories to adopt strong climate policies.    “The low-carbon infrastructure dollars could be used to reward a province or territory for raising its carbon price, or for adopting stronger climate policies,” Demerse said.   Green infrastructure and public transit were two priorities in the Liberals infrastructure spending pledge. The Liberals also committed to increasing Canada’s Low Carbon Economic Trust to $2 billion.

Feds Could Set a National Minimum Carbon Price

Carbon pricing could also play an important role during the first ministers meeting.   “The First Ministers will consider all policy measures at their disposal to make sure Canada can take advantage of the significant appetite for expertise in the clean growth economy,” the PMO announcement states.   Currently, British Columbia, Alberta, Ontario and Quebec all have some sort of carbon pricing system: either cap and trade or carbon tax. Last December, Manitoba announced it would join Ontario and Quebec’s cap and trade market, which is linked with California’s.   Unlike his predecessor, Trudeau is a supporter of making polluters pay for their greenhouse gas emissions. He is also an advocate of the provinces and territories choosing the system that suits them best.   The problem now lies with the different prices on emissions in different provinces. B.C.’s carbon tax is $30 per tonne of carbon, but Quebec’s carbon price, which is meant to fluctuate, is about half that.    “Eventually Canada will want one coherent national carbon pricing market. The bigger the market, the more diverse the opportunities to reduce emissions,” Demerse said.   “But we aren’t quite there yet, and certain provinces have done a lot of leg work to create their own carbon pricing systems. So, to create consistency between the different system and jurisdictions, the federal government should set a national minimum price on carbon."

Image Credit: PMO Photo Gallery

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

After languishing in the darkness for ten years, a national climate policy in Canada could take shape during an anticipated first ministers meeting in Vancouver next month. The meeting fulfills a Liberal election promise “to establish a pan-Canadian framework for combating climate change” and meet with provincial ministers within 90 days of the UN COP21 climate negotiations in Paris.    “If there ever was a time this could work it would be now,” Jennifer Allan, PhD candidate and researcher with International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD), said. “Canadians are mobilized and there’s more momentum for change than there’s been in the recent past, if ever.”   “The federal government and the provinces are not going to be able to sneak anything weak — or failure — out the backdoor,” Allan told DeSmog Canada.   Although Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has not officially announced the meeting to discuss a national climate plan with the premiers, the government of Newfoundland and Labrador published a media release earlier this week identifying March 3 as the date of the first ministers meeting to discuss a national climate change framework. 

Other sources confirmed the meeting will be held on March 3rd during the Globe Series, an international environmental business summit in Vancouver.

The early March date falls just within the federal government’s pledge to hammer out a climate framework with the provinces ninety days after the climate talks. The Liberal Party platform promised to meet with the provinces with the intended goal of establishing a national framework for combating climate change, “to develop real climate change solutions, consistent with our international obligations to protect the planet, all while growing our economy."   The task before the prime minister and premiers ­— figuring out how to rein in Canada’s rising greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions — will be a difficult one. The most recent emissions data from Environment and Climate Change Canada shows the country is way off course in meeting the weak GHG reduction targets set under the previous Conservative government.

  Source: Environment and Climate Change Canada, January 29th, 2016.

Under former Prime Minister Stephen Harper, Canada indicated it would reduce its GHG output only by roughly 14 per cent based on 1990 levels by 2030. The Trudeau government has said it wants to improve on this target, but has not said by how much.   Canada currently exceeds 1990 levels by 18 per cent.

Climate Action Creates Jobs 

Politically, the ground does not appear very fertile for the provinces, territories and federal government to all agree on a climate strategy that must include a plan on how to diminish Canada’s dependence on fossil fuels. Canada has agreed to phase out the use of fossil fuels by the end of the century and eliminate net carbon emissions by 2050.    Last month, Montreal-area mayors received criticism from Alberta and Saskatchewan politicians for refusing to support the proposed Energy East oil pipeline.   Even CBC personality Rick Mercer derided Montreal for suggesting the environmental risks of the pipeline outweigh potential economic rewards.   The low price of oil has sent the Canadian dollar on a downward spiral and triggered job losses in the oil patch. Many in Canada are concerned what a downward turn in oil production could mean for the economy.   “There’s unfortunately this old myth out there if the economy isn’t doing well it is certainly not the time to talk about environmental protection,” Allan said. “There’s been a lot studies done showing across the world climate action creates jobs.”   A 2014 report found the clean energy sector employs more people than the oilsands (also called tar sands), despite the $1.3 billion in subsidies the oil and gas industry receives from the federal government.   Globally, clean energy is a booming $300 billion industry right now.   Paris Agreement Should Guide a Canadian Climate Strategy

Under the Paris agreement, countries pledged to reduce GHG emissions in order to cap the rise in global temperatures at “well below 2C” (Celsius) and even “pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5C.”   “The reference to 1.5 is a call for greater ambition than we’ve seen in the past,” Allan said, who attended the Paris talks as part of IISD’s Reporting Services Division.   “I think this will give some leverage for those within Canada who want to see the contributions put forward by the Harper government strengthened,” Allan told DeSmog Canada.   But the Paris agreement is light on details in regards to actual hard GHG reduction targets. The agreement allows countries to set GHG targets and reduce emissions in whatever way suits them.   Allan says this may be a blessing or a curse.   “The Paris agreement gives countries a tremendous amount of flexibility. In Canada’s case, the doors are open for us to come up with meaningful climate action in a way that is best for our economy and political structure. This is a good thing,” Allan said.   “This also means there is very little guidance in terms of policies and targets we should undertake,” Allan told DeSmog.   The commitment to keep planet’s temperature increase “well below” two degrees or even at 1.5 degrees (Canada was one of the countries pushing for the inclusion of 1.5 during the Paris talks) will have to be guiding principle in creating a national climate strategy if Canada is serious about breaking with past climate inaction and meeting international obligations.   Another nugget from the Paris agreement that could inform the first ministers meeting in Vancouver is the concept of no backsliding on previous commitments. Countries are expected to submit their plans to cut GHG emission to the UN every five years. Each plan is suppose to outdo, that is, outline deeper GHG cuts than in the previous one.   “So in a way the conversation starting now with the premiers is the first go around. Chances are they are going to have this conversation every five years or so to see what they can do that is more ambitious than the last time,” Allan said. 

Photo Credit: US EPA

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.