Affordable.

Onshore wind and utility‑scale solar photovoltaic installations are now substantially cheaper than new fossil fuel plants almost everywhere in the world. With voters broadly ranking economic concerns and energy costs above climate, cost is a key part of the new low-carbon lexicon.

Secure.

Renewables rely on international supply chains for set-up, but once installed they use freely available local resources like sunlight, wind and ground-source heat, which makes them less vulnerable to the sorts of market volatility that afflict fossil fuels.

Resilient.

A grid that is dependent on a mix of renewable sources, rather than exclusively on fossil fuels, can better withstand shocks. That’s why Ukraine, for example, has pivoted to wind and solar rather than large power plants to avoid major outages from Russian attacks.

Advanced.

Rather than positioning renewables as climate-positive, the sector is increasingly describing its products as modern, high-tech and cutting edge. Worldwide, renewables have received twice as much investment as other power sources, which increases competition and strengthens.

Efficient.

Combustion technologies also lose most of their fuel energy as heat, converting only about 35% to 60% into electricity. By contrast, electric motors commonly achieve 80% to 95% efficiency.

Illustrations by Drew Shannon

The post The new language of clean power appeared first on Corporate Knights.

The deal’s effectiveness in putting a lid on methane pollution will depend on details that are still under development. But experts say Ottawa already traded away the equivalent of 53 million tonnes of carbon reductions last November, when it first signalled that it would allow Alberta to postpone methane controls from 2030 to 2035.

Methane carries about 84 times the global warming potential of carbon dioxide over the crucial 20-year period when humanity will be scrambling to get climate change under control. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change identifies methane reductions as one of the cheapest paths to the quickest, deepest greenhouse gas emission reductions by 2030.

The agreement in principle, released Wednesday, cements a five-year postponement in Ottawa’s 2030 methane target that first appeared in the November 2025 memorandum of understanding (MOU) between Canada and Alberta. If the two governments can agree on an “outcome-based equivalency agreement” under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, Canada will stand down its own methane regulations in deference to Alberta’s.

The two governments have also agreed to identify an independent third party “to conduct methane modelling, analysis of emissions reductions, and to assess methane reduction results.” That provision is being hailed as an important step, a week after analysis by the Calgary-based Pembina Institute concluded that Alberta’s methane emissions are up to 90% higher than the province’s official estimate, which relies on self-reporting by industry.

The agreement is to take effect on January 1, 2027, following a 60-day consultation on the draft plan.

The methane equivalency agreement was one of several commitments in the Canada–Alberta MOU that were meant to be finalized by April 1. Alberta Premier Danielle Smith now says that other elements of the deal, including a proposed new oil pipeline to Canada’s West Coast, will be delayed beyond next week’s deadline.

Canadian Climate Institute (CCI) president Rick Smith declared the agreement in principle a “positive step forward.” He called the provision for an independent third party “an important approach to reinforce policy ambition and integrity, and help ensure the regulations cover the true extent of methane pollution levels from Alberta’s oil and gas sector.”

But he cautioned that “the final details of the equivalency agreement, and follow-through on the commitment to independent and transparent verification of outcomes, will be critical to determine the agreement’s success.”

CCI senior research associate Alison Bailie says she has confidence in the agreement’s focus on “looking at the Alberta numbers, not just accepting them,” adding that methane measurement technologies have improved in recent years – with some of the gains achieved by Emissions Reduction Alberta with funding from the province’s Technology Innovation and Emissions Reduction (TIER) system. “That’s where I see the hope and the benefits of doing this properly,” she tells The Energy Mix. “It helps Alberta’s own companies,” creating a business case for methane controls in Canada and enabling them to position themselves for methane-abatement projects overseas.

Bailie adds that Canada has “tended to see greater emission reductions” when federal and provincial governments actually work together. “That can work really well,” she says. “We’d like to see more.”

Aly Hyder Ali, senior program manager of oil and gas at Environmental Defence Canada, calls the five-year delay an “unnecessary concession” that represents a “bad deal for everyone outside the oil patch.” Citing Pembina Institute modelling, he says the carve-out would pour 1.9 million extra tonnes of methane into the atmosphere, the equivalent of 53 million tonnes of carbon dioxide over a 100-year period – or far more over a 20-year span.

Amanda Bryant, manager of Pembina’s oil and gas program, agreed in a release that independent, third-party verification is a “vitally important and positive step,” allowing Alberta to “report its methane progress more credibly.” She said the agreement “signals an end to the roadblock that had been preventing progress on this crucial element of climate and energy policy,” enabling industry to “invest and hire with confidence to advance the next stage of methane mitigation work.”

But so far there’s no clarity on whether the “independent party” responsible for monitoring Alberta’s methane controls will rely on theoretical modelling or actual measurement of releases from oil and gas infrastructure, or on whose data the monitor will rely. Real measurement “will be vital, both for an effective response to climate change and to ensure ongoing access to major international natural gas markets that are demanding provably low-emissions-intensity fossil fuel imports, such as the European Union, South Korea, and Japan,” Bryant said.

Last week, a Pembina technical analysis flagged data and regulatory gaps in Alberta’s current approach to methane controls, resulting in actual emissions that have been up to 90% higher than official government figures.

“Alberta should not be afraid to modernize its measurement data and methods, including vehicle-based systems, aircraft and satellites to effectively reduce its methane emissions,” Bryant said at the time.

But Premier Smith may have a different take on what to expect from the independent third party. During an unrelated media conference Wednesday, she said the goal is to arrive at “a common set of facts” after “some other reports that have been put out there kind of put us at odds,” iPolitics reports.

The agreement in principle states that “should third party analysis determine that emissions are higher than expected, Alberta commits to take the necessary corrective actions.”

Mitchell Beer is publisher of The Energy Mix, a non-profit community news site and e-digest on climate change, energy and the shift off carbon. This article first appeared on The Energy Mix. It has been edited to conform with Corporate Knights style. Read the original article here.

The post Alberta will set its own methane regulations in new agreement with federal government appeared first on Corporate Knights.

Currently, much of the nation is rightly animated by the urgent need to diversify trade away from the United States. Our once-stable ally has quickly imposed an erratic barrage of self-owning tariffs and threatened our national sovereignty.

In practical terms, that means Canadian businesses will need to be competitive in markets that are rapidly moving toward clean energy. Think of the European Union and the United Kingdom: both jurisdictions continue to see rising adoption of renewables and electric vehicles. And both are set to impose carbon tariffs on imports that don’t already price carbon to specified levels. In China, another critical market, roughly half of all new car sales are already electric – and rising fast. Renewable installations are off the charts. And the country is expanding coverage of its massive national carbon market.

In fact, the transition to clean energy is happening at a blistering pace in many countries beyond these select few. To paraphrase economist Nicholas Stern, investment in climate action is the economic growth story of this century. The cost of solar power and batteries has fallen off a cliff in the last decade, down 80%. Offshore and onshore wind costs are down by 73% and 57%, respectively. Lithium-ion battery costs have fallen 90% since 2010.

Whatever the strategy includes, the focus on strong climate policy as an enabler of our nation’s economic success is the right one.

– Rick Smith, president, Canadian Climate Institute

These rock-bottom prices have powered a technological revolution that is quickly remaking global energy markets. Renewables generated more electricity than coal for the first time ever in the first half of this year. The amount of installed renewable power is expected to more than double in five short years, according to the latest from the International Energy Agency. Globally, more than one in four vehicles are set to be electric this year.

Though Trump gets most of the news headlines, there remains significant decarbonization progress within the United States. California, for instance, through a combination of policy and targeted investment, has increased its utility battery storage by 3,000% since 2020, with much more on the horizon.

Building Canada’s low-carbon economy

All of these data points reinforce the point that decarbonization is fast becoming the key driver of economic progress globally. That has important implications for Canada and the forthcoming climate competitiveness strategy. Strong climate policy that drives investment into low-carbon technologies that cut emissions will be crucial for the economic health of the country.

So, what should that strategy look like? There are a number of policies the federal government can implement right away to catalyze low-carbon growth.

RELATED

Canada’s finance regulator says up to $1 trillion in lending could be unlocked

Economists say Ottawa should rethink tariffs on Chinese EVs

Defying Trump, banks and investors boost renewables as they recoil from fossil fuel stocks

At the top of the list should be strengthening industrial carbon pricing across the country. Doing so will increase certainty for businesses and attract investment. It has the potential to break down interprovincial trade barriers and support export diversification.

Building bigger, cleaner, smarter electricity grids is another no-brainer that should also be on the list. And the same goes for cutting more methane emissions from the oil and gas sector and the creation of a sustainable investment taxonomy.

Plus, there are important policies the government should stand its ground on. The most obvious is the federal electric vehicle mandate.

Whatever the strategy includes, the focus on strong climate policy as an enabler of our nation’s economic success is the right one. A lot of the necessary pieces are already in play: now they need to be connected and strengthened.

Rick Smith is president of the Canadian Climate Institute, the co-author of two bestselling books on the effects of pollution on human health, and the executive producer of Plastic People, a 2024 documentary chronicling the damage done by microplastics in the human body.

The post Canada needs strong climate policy to be competitive in countries beyond the U.S. appeared first on Corporate Knights.

A new report from the NewClimate Institute, a European think tank, finds that 35 of the world’s biggest businesses are leaning on short-term tree-planting and other forms of “nondurable” carbon removal in order to say they’ve neutralized some of their climate pollution. The handful of companies investing in more reliable carbon removal are mostly not doing so in conjunction with deep decarbonization, or the elimination of carbon emissions altogether.

There is a “dangerous mismatch between corporate climate claims and the reality of what is needed to reach global net-zero,” the organization said in a press release. Reaching net-zero by the middle of the century – a scenario where all unavoidable human-caused climate pollution is cancelled out via carbon removal – is considered necessary to limit global warming to 1.5°C.

Carbon dioxide removal, or CDR, refers to efforts to capture carbon dioxide after it’s been emitted into the atmosphere and store it in rocks, land, ocean reservoirs or human-made products. The most reliable types of carbon removal, which the NewClimate Institute calls “durable CDR,” involve injecting carbon into geological formations or turning it into rocks, where it will stay put for at least 1,000 years – about the same amount of time that carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels will remain in the atmosphere.

Currently, these durable techniques don’t work at scale: they account for just 0.1% of global carbon removal each year. The rest is based on methods like planting trees, restoring wetlands and burying carbon in the soil, which are much cheaper but can keep carbon out of the atmosphere for only decades or a few centuries at most.

Government investment and regulations are needed to scale up durable CDR – experts consider the next decade to be “crucial” for developing the technology – but the private sector can help, too, by funding durable CDR projects and research. In industries like construction, for which total decarbonization is not yet possible, companies will likely need to use durable CDR to offset residual emissions as part of a credible climate strategy.

The NewClimate Institute authors looked at 35 of the world’s largest companies across seven sectors: agrifood, aviation, automobiles, fashion, fossil fuels, tech and utilities. Tech companies showed the most investment in durable CDR – Microsoft alone is responsible for 70% of all durable CDR ever contracted – but the report criticizes the sector for planning to claim “potentially significant amounts” of both durable and nondurable CDR toward net-zero targets. Tech companies can fully decarbonize without offsets, so their emissions targets should not depend on carbon removal.

Aviation was the other sector showing the greatest support for durable CDR, but only one airline – Japan’s All Nippon Airways – had a “reasonable” plan to use the technology to neutralize residual emissions by 2050. Three airlines lacked concrete plans.

Of the 15 companies across the agrifood, automobiles and fashion sectors, only H&M and Stellantis are investing in durable CDR. Two of the five utilities in the report, Eon and Ørsted, are supporting durable CDR projects, but it’s unclear whether Eon intends to use removals to count toward its net-zero goal, and the NewClimate Institute says some of Ørsted’s removals are being double-counted in the emissions-reduction targets of both Denmark and Microsoft. The five fossil fuel companies analyzed – Equinor, ExxonMobil, Shell, Sinopec and TotalEnergies – are focusing mostly on carbon capture and storage, which intercepts carbon dioxide at the point of emission, before it escapes into the atmosphere, and does not reduce atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations.

Silke Mooldijk, an expert with the NewClimate Institute and the lead author of the new report,  says she wasn’t surprised to find limited support for durable CDR, except from some tech companies. What did surprise her was that companies investing in durable CDR projects did not publicly report any information on these projects’ environmental and social risks. Some CDR methods, for example, may jeopardize biodiversity, while others require large amounts of renewable energy that would have to be diverted from other uses. “Not a single company in our report disclosed details on potential risks of projects they support and how they mitigate those,” Mooldijk tells Grist.

Grist reached out to all 35 companies included in the report. Adidas, Amazon, Enel, Google, H&M, Inditex, Microsoft and TotalEnergies responded by describing their net-zero commitments. Adidas and Enel, which are not currently investing in durable CDR, said they would use “high-quality” carbon removals to offset their residual climate pollution after taking actions to decarbonize; Inditex said it is “exploring” durable CDR to offset residual emissions, and its use of the technology “will be determined by the evolution of reference scientific frameworks.”

Amazon, Google, Microsoft and H&M are currently investing in durable CDR. A spokesperson for H&M described the fast-fashion company’s purchase of 10,000 metric tons of durable CDR from the Swiss company Climeworks, one of the largest purchases to date, and said H&M plans to use them to neutralize residual emissions. The tech companies affirmed their commitment to reduce emissions first and then use carbon removal to offset residual emissions, though none of them addressed NewClimate Institute’s concerns that they would use large amounts of durable and nondurable CDR to claim progress toward net-zero.

A statement provided to Grist from TotalEnergies did not address CDR. It instead described the company’s support for carbon capture and storage and “nature-based solutions.” The latter refers to short-lived offsets, such as tree-planting, that the NewClimate Institute does not believe are appropriate for offsetting fossil fuel emissions.

Apple, Duke Energy and Shein declined to comment after seeing the report. The remaining 24 companies did not respond to inquiries from Grist.

Jonathan Overpeck, a climate scientist at the University of Michigan and the dean of its School for Environment and Sustainability, says the NewClimate Institute report is timely. “Right now the whole idea of CDR . . . is kind of a Wild West scene, with lots of actors promising to do things that may or may not be possible,” he says. He adds that companies appear to be using CDR as an alternative to mitigating their climate pollution. “The priority has to be on reducing emissions, not on durable CDR at this point,” he tells Grist.

In the near term, durable CDR is doing virtually nothing to offset emissions. As of 2023, only 0.0023 gigatons of carbon dioxide were removed from the atmosphere each year using these methods. That’s about 15,000 times less than the annual amount of climate pollution from fossil fuels and cement manufacturing.

According to the NewClimate Institute, voluntary initiatives are no substitute for government-mandated emission-reduction targets and investments in durable CDR. To the extent that these initiatives exist, however, the organization says they should provide a clearer definition of what constitutes “durable” carbon removal; determine companies’ responsibility for scaling up durable CDR based on their ongoing and historical emissions, or – perhaps more realistically – on their ability to pay; and require companies to set separate targets for emission reductions and support for durable CDR. The last recommendation is intended to reinforce a climate action hierarchy that puts mitigation before offsetting. Companies should not “hide inaction on decarbonization behind investments in removals,” as the report puts it.

Mooldijk says voluntary initiatives can incentivize investments in durable CDR by recognizing “climate contributions.” These might manifest as simple statements about companies’ monetary contributions to durable CDR, instead of claims about the amount of carbon dioxide that they have theoretically neutralized.

Some of these recommendations were submitted earlier this year to the Science Based Targets initiative, the world’s most respected verifier of private-sector climate targets. The organization is getting ready to update its corporate net-zero standard with new guidance on the use of CDR. Another standard-setter, the International Organization for Standardization, is similarly preparing to release new standards on net-zero, which could curtail some of the most questionable corporate climate claims while also drumming up support for durable CDR.

John Reilly, a senior lecturer emeritus at the MIT Sloan School of Management, says that ultimately, proper regulation of corporate climate commitments – including of durable CDR – will fall on governments. Companies “are happy to throw a little money into these things,” he says, “but I don’t think voluntary guidelines are ever going to get you there.”

This article originally appeared in Grist. It has been edited to conform with Corporate Knights style. Grist is a non-profit, independent media organization dedicated to telling stories of climate solutions and a just future.

The post Big companies have embraced the wrong kind of carbon removal, new report says appeared first on Corporate Knights.

Billions of taxpayer dollars once intended to help fight climate change by subsidizing capture and storage of carbon dioxide may instead go to fossil fuel companies to help boost production of oil – one of the main drivers of climate change.

In a February 19 call with investors, Vicki Hollub, chief executive officer of Occidental Petroleum, said she’s had several conversations with President Donald Trump, arguing the “business case” for federal support for carbon capture. “We believe the next round of technology that’s going to add significant barrels . . . will be production that comes from the use of CO2 in enhanced oil recovery,” Hollub said. “And that 50 billion to 70 billion barrels would extend our energy independence by more than 10 years. It’s critically important.”

The United States produced about five billion barrels of oil in 2023. Hollub calls carbon capture a way to keep the oil industry alive amid the international calls to reduce reliance on fossil fuels.

What is enhanced oil recovery?

In enhanced oil recovery, pressurized carbon dioxide is used to force oil out of aging wells. The process is used to produce about 2% of the nation’s oil. Hollub said the industry is turning to carbon captured from industrial sources as the supply of naturally occurring carbon dioxide has dwindled.

Depending on conditions, producing oil using captured carbon can offset the climate impacts of a barrel of oil, making it less carbon intensive. But because new oil supplies lower the market price of oil, it could increase demand for oil, raising overall carbon emissions, according to one analysis by the Clean Air Task Force, which supports carbon capture.

Charles Harvey, professor of civil and environmental engineering at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, told Floodlight that the net climate impact of using captured carbon for enhanced oil recovery “gets super complicated.”

The pivot from carbon capture as a climate solution to a boost for oil comes as the Trump administration seeks to cut or kill climate-related spending, including billions set aside for carbon capture and sequestration, while also ordering the federal government to pave the way for more fossil fuel production.

A ‘perverse incentive’ for oil companies

Support of carbon capture, though, might alienate a key Trump ally.

The Heritage Foundation and its Project 2025 – which is serving as a blueprint for Trump’s second term – argue that federal incentives for carbon capture should be scrapped. “Most carbon capture technology remains economically unviable, although private-sector innovations are on the horizon,” according to Project 2025. “[Carbon capture utilization and sequestration] programs should be left to the private sector to develop.”

Critics also question the safety of the technology, noting that leaks from pipelines have sent dozens of people to the hospital and forced evacuation orders.

During the Biden administration, Congress allocated about US$8.2 billion to carbon capture projects and increased a tax credit for carbon capture that the U.S. Treasury has estimated will cost $30 billion through 2032.

If Trump allows the carbon capture incentives to stay in place, oil companies could increase production at a time when the international consensus is that no new oil should be produced if the world is to keep climate change in check.

The subsidies “create a perverse incentive, because for companies to qualify for the subsidies, carbon dioxide must be produced, then captured and buried,” Harvey and Kurt House wrote in an opinion piece in The New York Times. The two co-founded the first privately funded carbon capture company in the early 2000s. They left the company when it began selling carbon for enhanced oil recovery.

Occidental has invested heavily in carbon capture, including buying a carbon technology firm for US$1 billion in 2023. The multinational oil company, which bills itself as an industry leader in seeking low-carbon solutions, also is developing a federally supported facility in Texas that would capture carbon directly from the atmosphere, a process called direct air capture.

RELATED

Can carbon capture be a meaningful climate solution?

Green steel may be a climate game-changer. Which carmakers are making the shift?

Alberta’s conservative party invites climate disinformation into policy debate

While most carbon capture projects are designed to take carbon from a facility’s emissions – such as from a power or chemical plant – direct air capture filters and captures 0.4% of carbon dioxide directly from the ambient air. If Trump allows federal support for the project to continue, Occidental subsidiary 1PointFive stands to receive at least $500 million from the Department of Energy.

‘The last best hope of the fossil fuel industry’

Compared with other funding approved under the Inflation Reduction Act targeted by Trump, such as for solar energy and offshore wind, carbon capture “is in a good place relative to some of the other clean energy tax credits,” said Jessie Stolark, executive director of the Carbon Capture Coalition. “And I would say we’re cautiously optimistic as far as our positioning,” she said. “But, you know, it’s just kind of a moving target at this point.”

Before the incentives, companies had no way to make money from capturing carbon other than to sell it to oil companies for enhanced oil recovery. But since carbon capture incentives were boosted under Biden, more than 270 carbon capture and storage projects have been announced.

Some projects are in limbo as they await direction from the federal government, Stolark said. “There’s more uncertainties, certainly for folks who have federal grants awarded or under contract, given the federal funding freeze, and the different memos and directives that have come out.” 

Stolark’s group and more than 160 other companies and organizations signed a letter to congressional leadership after Trump’s inauguration, urging the lawmakers to maintain support for carbon capture.

One bill introduced this year in Congress would give companies that use captured carbon to recover oil the same amount of tax credit as they receive to permanently store it underground – eliminating the incentive to do so.

Carbon capture incentives are “another subsidy for oil,” said Carolyn Raffensperger, executive director of the non-profit Science and Environmental Health Network, which produced a report last year on the “false promises” of using captured carbon dioxide to produce oil.

The report concludes that using carbon dioxide for enhanced oil recovery is “the last best hope for the fossil fuel industry to keep pumping oil out of the ground. It must end.”

This article was originally published by Floodlight, a non-profit newsroom that investigates the powerful interests stalling climate action. It has been edited to conform with Corporate Knights style.

Pam Radtke is an environment, energy and climate reporter. A long-time New Orleans resident, Radtke was part of the Times-Picayune team that published after Hurricane Katrina.

The post The oil industry is selling carbon capture as a way to boost production appeared first on Corporate Knights.

Drawing on longstanding pro-CO2 rhetoric in climate denialism, Policy Resolution #12 asks the government to scrap its decarbonization goals, remove the designation of carbon dioxide as a pollutant, and recognize the greenhouse gas as a “foundational nutrient for all life on Earth.”

“I think it has a very good chance of passing,” says Debra Davidson, a researcher in climate change impacts at the University of Alberta. “It’s not at all out of step with the position of Alberta’s United Conservative Party with respect to climate change mitigation and the energy industry for quite some time now.”

If it passes, the effect of the policy would be mainly symbolic, Davidson says, not only because it would be non-binding, but also because the Alberta government has already signalled that it has little intention of achieving its net-zero targets. Last year, for example, the province imposed a moratorium on large wind and solar projects, which led to 53 projects being cancelled and the estimated loss of $91 million in tax revenues. In the past five years, the UCP has also repealed the former NDP government’s carbon levy, opened the eastern slopes of the Rocky Mountains to coal mines, and withdrawn funding for a public transit project in Calgary.

As Stephen Legault, senior manager of Alberta energy transition at Environmental Defence, has said, the resolution is “already de facto policy.”

On the other hand, Alberta did release its Emissions Reduction and Energy Development Plan (ERED) in April 2023,  aiming for a carbon-neutral economy by 2050.  However, despite these commitments, “There is no evidence that Alberta has taken any action to regulate oil sands emissions as noted in the ERED plan,” says Simon Dyer, deputy executive director at the Pembina Institute. This summer, the Alberta Energy Regulator projected a 17% increase in oil sands production by 2033.

Instead, the provincial government “has focused on criticizing the federal plan to reduce oil and gas emissions,” Dyer says. Premier Danielle Smith is an outspoken opponent of Ottawa’s planned emissions cap and has launched a national “scrap the cap” ad campaign.

Even if the policy proposal mainly serves to underscore existing inaction on emissions, what’s truly notable, Davidson says, is “the degree to which it indicates a full-scale legitimation of disinformation.”

An energy policy based on fiction

The rationale for the proposal is largely erroneous. It takes a few grains of truth – that the carbon cycle is necessary and that carbon dioxide benefits plants – and couches them in the mistaken ideas that current CO2 levels are near their lowest in more than 1,000 years and that “the earth needs more CO2 to support life.”

But the carbon in our atmosphere isn’t even close to being at its lowest levels, says James Miller, a researcher on global climate change at Rutgers University–New Brunswick.

“Except for the recent period of increase, CO2 levels have been below 300 ppm for thousands of years,” he writes in an email to Corporate Knights. The atmospheric reading of CO2 reached 420 parts per million last year, according to the World Meteorological Association, which notes in a press release that “the last time the Earth experienced a comparable concentration of CO2 was 3–5 million years ago, when the temperature was 2–3°C warmer and sea level was 10–20 meters higher than now.”

And while increased carbon dioxide can be helpful for plants when everything else is equal, Miller explains, “everything else is not equal, and adding more CO2 leads to increasing temperatures, which can lead to less plant productivity.”

RELATED:

Enough renewable-energy projects have been cancelled in Alberta to power almost all its homes

Alberta risks billions in renewable investments with new development rules

Is pollution from Alberta’s oil sands way worse than the industry has let on?

Davidson calls the argument that more CO2 will be good for plants “absolutely preposterous,” not only because global warming leads to more droughts, but also because crops are temperature-dependent. Above certain thresholds, plant productivity declines precipitously, she says. NASA has predicted that factors including temperature stress from climate change could lead to a 24% decline in global maize crops as soon as 2030, which the study’s author says “could have severe implications worldwide.”

The type of CO2 boosterism expressed in the UCP policy proposal isn’t novel. Climate-denying think tanks like Alberta’s Friends of Science Society have been promoting it for many years. But the inclusion in a formal policy document represents a new development.

Climate denialism has grown significantly more entrenched in Alberta’s UCP party, political commentator David Climenhaga writes in an email to Corporate Knights. “Since Smith became premier, to a significant degree the UCP has become more like a comment thread on social media and less like a conventional political party,” he says.

Climenhaga thinks that the odds the resolution will be adopted are “extremely high, like 100%.” If so, it will create a problem for Smith, who is “heavily invested in carbon capture, both as a subsidy to the fossil fuel extraction industry and as a way to win social licence for more extraction.”

“Carbon capture is a real solution – one of the best we know of,” Smith said in November, adding that “Alberta fully intends to lead the world in this critical field.” Last year, she launched an incentive program to cover some of the capital costs associated with new carbon capture, utilization and storage (CCUS) infrastructure in the province.

But according to Climenhaga, the people behind the policy proposal are “increasingly suspicious of carbon capture, not because they think it’s a boondoggle necessarily, but because they believe, as per the resolution, that CO2 is good.”

Alberta’s self-inflicted economic wounds

Abandoning its net-zero targets would set Alberta on a lonely path, marking it as an outlier in the global economy. “A commitment to net-zero is table stakes, in terms of the bare minimum,” Dyer says.

The policy proposal may be mainly symbolic, but “it’s a symbolism that is damaging to the investment climate in Alberta,” Dyer argues. Calgary and Edmonton are home to many entrepreneurs in the decarbonization space, he says, and policies that discourage investment would be economically harmful.

Even Texas, Alberta’s oil-loving American counterpart, has embraced the renewables boom and rapidly ramped up its solar and wind capacity. Three-tenths of its net electricity in 2023 was generated from renewable sources, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.

The proposed measure to abandon its net-zero targets would also put Alberta out of step with its own energy sector. Most oil and gas companies see a need for energy diversification and have made commitments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. “The industry has been very good cutting back the use of diesel and methane emissions, carbon capture – they’re very active on that side,” says Josef Schachter, president of Schachter Energy Research, in an interview with the CBC.

It was economic factors and not climate change that drove the shift toward renewables in Texas, and the same could theoretically be true in Alberta. Even if the province doubles down on science denial, that doesn’t mean it has to deny cheap renewable power.

Mark Mann is an associate editor at Corporate Knights.

The post Alberta’s conservative party invites climate disinformation into policy debate appeared first on Corporate Knights.

The company, which supplies sheet metal to the auto industry, says the move will cut carbon emissions from production by approximately 70%, a reduction equivalent to removing more than 900,000 cars from the road each year. This is good news for the climate and for the auto sector. As the second-largest consumer of steel after buildings and infrastructure, the auto industry needs low-carbon steel products if it’s going to meet its own emissions targets.

Virtually every vehicle on wheels is made primarily of steel. That’s a problem since the steel industry is one of the highest emitting sectors of the economy, responsible for 7% of global greenhouse gas emissions, mostly due to its reliance on coal. Currently, tailpipe emissions are responsible for the bulk of the pollutants from road transportation. But that’s changing as uptake of electric vehicles continues apace. EVs don’t produce exhaust and, in many places, the grid is increasingly generating power from renewable or other green power sources.

Increasingly, attention is turning to the carbon footprint of an automaker’s supply chain and all the materials that go into building a vehicle. Of those materials, steel makes up the largest proportion at 60%. Indeed, the embedded, or production, emissions of an electric car will likely account for around 60% of total life-cycle emissions by 2030, with steel making up anywhere from 16% to 27% of that, according to the EU-based advocacy group Transport and Energy.

Auto sector takes small steps toward green steel

To date, only a handful of automakers have pledged to increase their use of either fossil-free steel or steel with reduced carbon intensity by 2030. BMW announced its procurement of “carbon-reduced” steel supplied by H2 Green Steel, based in Sweden, and has partnered with Salzgitter AG to receive “low-carbon steel” in 2026.

Volkswagen has signed a memorandum of understanding with Salzgitter AG to procure carbon-reduced steel starting at the end of 2025; Volvo has pledged that 50% of its steel purchases in 2030 will be lower in emissions intensity compared to current levels. And General Motors announced a supply agreement with U.S. Steel and ArcelorMittal for reduced carbon steel. (Algoma will in all likelihood also supply the automotive industry with green steel given that approximately 30% of its products go to the auto sector.)

The climate impact of shifting to low-carbon steel is profound. If, as recommended by groups such as Transport and Energy, European automakers replace 40% of the steel used in their manufacturing process by 2030, carbon dioxide emissions from the production of cars plummets by 6.9 megatonnes, equivalent to the annual GHGs emitted from 3.5 million fossil fuel cars. Switching to 100% green steel in new cars by 2040 will reduce emissions equivalent to taking 8.1 million gas-powered cars off the road.

In a recent report, the International Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT) acknowledges the importance of the public announcements made by some of the biggest players in the auto industry while also pointing out that “among major automakers selling vehicles in Europe and North America, only four have pledged to procure any fossil-free steel by 2030.” The report authors note that those commitments apply to a mere 2% of the global steel used by all these major automakers. Adding in “commitments to procure steel with reduced GHG emissions,” they write, “increases the share of cleaner steel to 4% of all automotive steel.”

The authors further argue that the auto sector is in a unique position to push the steel industry to decarbonize. “Automakers have significant purchasing power,” says Marta Negri, an associate researcher at ICCT and lead author of Which Automakers Are Shifting to Green Steel? “They can influence demand for green steel.”

Steel’s great big carbon footprint

Around 75% of steel worldwide is manufactured using coal-fired blast furnaces. According to the International Energy Agency’s Net Zero Emissions scenario, the steel industry must reduce its carbon output by 25% by 2030 to achieve climate neutrality by 2050 – and the sector is nowhere close to being on track.

On the bright side, the carbon intensity of steel production can drop considerably through deployment of low-carbon technologies and resource efficiency. For starters, the coal-blast furnaces can be replaced with electric ones, like Algoma’s, reducing emissions by as much as 95%. Scrap steel can be incorporated at much higher volumes than is done currently, and green hydrogen power is being actively explored for its potential as a cost-effective energy source.

Transportation, in turn, leaves a massive carbon footprint. Road transport in Canada is the second-largest source of carbon pollution after oil and gas, responsible for 22% of the country’s overall emissions. Electrifying road mobility is essential to meeting Canada’s international obligation under the Paris Agreement to limit global warming to below 1.5°C. Steel’s importance in the auto sector is becoming increasingly visible in part because more of it is needed in electric vehicles – due to their large battery units – than in combustion vehicles.

To see a significant dent in steel-related emissions, carmakers will need to employ a combination of strategies. “Green steel can be a competitive advantage for an automaker,” Negri notes. “Some companies are exploring this and being very vocal about their green steel use.”

Still, the road to industrial decarbonization is long. “We’d like to see more ambition,” Negri adds. “Two-thirds of the automakers we analyzed haven’t made any commitments to purchase low-carbon or fossil-free steel. And we need to see that the commitments made are carried through.”

Victoria Foote is a writer and editor who specializes in clean energy and climate.

The post Green steel may be a climate game-changer. Which carmakers are making the shift? appeared first on Corporate Knights.

The technology, known as direct air capture, has lately gathered steam as climate scientists warn that, without it, humanity stands little chance of limiting global warming to acceptable levels. In its latest report, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said that using carbon removal – which also includes measures such as planting trees or enriching the soil with minerals – will be “unavoidable” if the world wants to hit net-zero emissions.

Buoyed by those predictions, the industry has already gathered serious momentum. U.S. President Joe Biden’s infrastructure package allocated $3.5 billion for several direct-air-capture hubs last year, and plans are underway to build the first truly large-scale plant in the southwestern United States, which will eventually trap up to one million tonnes a year.

Private investors have also piled in: Climeworks, a Swiss company that is one of the burgeoning industry’s biggest players, bagged US$650 million in its latest round of fundraising. And corporations from tech giant Alphabet to payments company Stripe recently committed close to US$1 billion to buy removals from innovative start-ups in the space.

That is not to say direct air capture is without its critics. Some point out that the vast amounts of energy needed to draw heavily diluted carbon out of the air is better used elsewhere. Others fear that relying on so-called negative emissions technologies is merely giving high-emitting companies an excuse to keep on polluting, with catastrophic consequences for the climate.

Although it may sound high-tech, drawing carbon from the air is surprisingly straightforward in practice. At Climeworks’s flagship facility in Iceland, the largest in the world, stacks of giant fans suck in the ambient air; inside, it passes over a filter that collects the carbon dioxide, which is then released under high heat. (Other companies separate the carbon by passing air through chemical solutions instead.) Nearby, another plant run by the Icelandic company Carbfix mixes the concentrated carbon with water inside a group of pentagonal spheres that lend the site the eerie look of a space colony. The mixture is then pumped deep underground, where it reacts with basalt rock and turns solid within a few years.

That the plant sits in Iceland is no accident: the country has plenty of clean geothermal energy for the power-hungry process, as well as suitable geological storage to permanently sequester the carbon. Under those conditions, direct air capture can have a much higher impact than capturing emissions from factories or power plants, since it traps CO2 without releasing any emissions in the first place.

That promise and the potential to use the captured carbon for a range of low-carbon technologies – mixing it into cement or producing jet fuel and feedstocks for plastics, for example – has attracted big names from sectors that are notoriously hard to decarbonize. United Airlines has directly invested millions in the first large-scale project being built in the United States, which is being developed by Houston-headquartered oil firm Occidental and will partly use the captured carbon to make jet fuel. Other major companies from Shell to Apple also rely on carbon removal in their net-zero plans. And 18 of the 50 countries that have submitted long-term climate strategies to the UN specifically mention technological carbon removal.

One caveat to direct air capture’s climate potential is the type of energy used. Researchers have found that rapid, large-scale deployment of the technology could require up to a quarter of global energy demand by 2100, underscoring the need to use renewable energy or waste heat.

It’s absolutely not a magic bullet; it’s absolutely not an alternative to mitigation. But we do need this … to undo the damage that we’ve done.

—Niall Mac Dowell, Imperial College London

For now, the technology is also still expensive: Occidental estimates that it will cost between US$300 and $425 to sequester each tonne of carbon at its plant. Companies throughout the industry are confident that successive projects will drive costs down quickly. Nevertheless, even some of the industry’s champions are skeptical of the slew of start-ups that have sprung up.

“You are seeing lots of people making big promises right now, and they don’t quite know how to keep them,” Klaus Lackner, the director of Arizona State University’s Center for Negative Carbon Emissions and a pioneer in direct air capture technology, told the MIT Technology Review.

Perhaps the most common criticism of carbon removal, and one that has dogged direct air capture for years, is that it could afford companies a fig leaf to keep pumping out CO2 by relying on technology that is not guaranteed to become commercially successful.

Executives at direct-air-capture companies are quick to echo what experts have long emphasized, however: that cutting emissions first should be every company’s priority. “The best way is not to clean up your mess; the best way is to not cause the mess in the first place,” says Andreas Aepli, Climeworks’s CFO.

Aepli thinks the relatively high cost of direct air capture means most companies still have every incentive to prioritize emission cuts. But he also points to growing scientific consensus around carbon removal, with most assessments estimating that we will ultimately need to remove between five and 15 billion tonnes of carbon a year by 2050 to keep global warming to 1.5°C. Under the International Energy Agency’s net-zero scenario, direct air capture alone is projected to sequester close to one billion tonnes a year.

Nature-based carbon removal, such as planting trees, is certain to play a larger role, too. But there are limits to growing forests, and wildfires can quickly release all that trapped carbon. That means technological carbon removal will likely be necessary to compensate for emissions from hard-to-abate sectors like aviation or heavy industry, as well as to draw down already accumulated emissions in the atmosphere.

“It’s absolutely not a magic bullet; it’s absolutely not an alternative to mitigation,” says Niall Mac Dowell, a professor at Imperial College London who studies carbon removal. “But we do need to do this … to undo the damage that we’ve done.”

That also leaves the companies that are championing carbon removal with a daunting task. For now, Climeworks’s flagship plant in Iceland traps only about 4,000 tonnes of carbon per year; altogether, the roughly 20 direct-air-capture pilot plants operating around the world have capacity for around 10,000 tonnes – far from making a meaningful impact.

You are seeing lots of people making big promises right now, and they don’t quite know how to keep them.

—Klaus Lackner, director of Arizona State University’s Center for Negative Carbon Emissions

Another question is what to do with the captured carbon. Early projects have focused on selling it for use in a wide range of consumer goods, from fizzy drinks and vodka to diamonds and watches, and start-ups focusing on niche applications now abound. But experts and executives at direct-air-capture companies agree that the most effective pathway will be storing it away permanently.

“We can make yoga pants out of carbon,” says Lori Guetre, head of business development at British Columbia–based Carbon Engineering, which is providing the technology for Occidental’s plant. “But each one of those markets is small. And what we find, even when we talk to cement production plants, is they only need a really small amount of CO2 per plant.”

That’s not to say the explosion in so-called carbon tech is not useful to help kickstart the industry. Lauren Riley, head of sustainability at United Airlines, says sustainable jet fuel will play a large role in the company’s reaching its net-zero goal. But since it could be decades until that is available at the necessary volume and price, financing carbon removal in the meantime makes sense. “It’s a very practical solution to enable that transition,” she says.

“Obviously, if you’re talking about battling climate change, you’re going to ultimately need some level of sequestration,” says Fred Moesler, chief technology officer at Global Thermostat, another direct-air-capture company that is building its own plant in Colorado. “But I really think we should be doing everything at this point in time to encourage technologies like ours to develop.”

Despite the explosion in corporate interest, companies in the industry say direct air capture will take off only if governments incentivize it by creating mandatory markets. Occidental’s plant in the Permian Basin, which combines carbon sequestration with jet fuel production and enhanced oil recovery, is taking advantage of tax credits and low-carbon fuel standards. Incentives have also ramped up in Canada, where the most recent budget proposed a 60% tax credit for direct-air-capture projects. Most promisingly, recent bills introduced by Democratic lawmakers at the U.S. federal level and in New York State would see the government directly procure carbon removal.

“We’re super excited about the voluntary market, but we see it as a means to accelerate how quickly we can get going,” says Guetre. “It’s not going to do the heavy lifting over time for these projects.”

Jennifer Wilcox, principal deputy assistant secretary for the Office of Fossil Energy and Carbon Management at the U.S. Department of Energy, acknowledges that available tax credits are still “a drop in the bucket” for direct-air-capture projects. But she says it’s still premature to discuss public procurement of carbon removals, since metrics for measuring the sustainability of emissions savings still need to be ironed out.

“I think we still have a lot of work cut out for us with the investments that we’ve already been making,” Wilcox says.

In the meantime, Occidental is already planning dozens of plants alone and Carbon Engineering has struck similar partnerships with developers in Canada, the United Kingdom and Norway. Climeworks is planning to use its own design in a series of larger installations over the coming years, ultimately reaching its own megatonne plant. That’s not to mention all the smaller companies waiting in the wings.

With many experts now saying that direct air capture will be necessary to rein in climate change, the biggest challenge for the technology, arguably, is growing quickly enough before it is too late.

“There’s really no way to get to net-zero without carbon removal, both natural and technological,” says Katie Lebling, a carbon removal expert at the World Resources Institute. “And the need for it will only increase.”

Yannic Rack is a journalist based in London and mainly writes about business, climate change and the environment.

The post Is capturing carbon from the air an effective climate solution? appeared first on Corporate Knights.

In March, Jim Hourdequin, the CEO of Lyme Timber – one of the world’s largest suppliers of carbon offsets to companies like Chevron – admitted that lax standards have allowed his forestry company to earn US$53 million over the past two years without making significant changes to business as usual. The company received offset payments from polluting industries on projects that, as Bloomberg put it, “don’t actually change the way forests are managed, and therefore do little to help the climate.”

Carbon offsets have a bad name for a good reason. Some of the biggest polluters exploit offsets purely to avoid making cuts to their emissions. And some of the biggest offset sellers rake in profits while failing to achieve equitable or even tangible climate benefits. With a fifth of the world’s biggest companies already committed to United Nations net-zero targets, and virtually all relying on offsets to reach that goal, the growing climate accountability across the private sector is now driving growth of a carbon-offset industry that has its own climate accountability problems.

At the same time, offsets are one of the only opportunities for financing the critical work of ecosystem care and climate repair today. In Atlantic Canada, for example, which receives less than 3% of environmental funding nationally and experiences low rural incomes coupled with high rates of clearcut forestry, the non-profit I work for has used carbon partnerships with sustainable architecture and film companies to protect some of the region’s last carbon-rich and biodiverse forests.

This mix of failures and redeeming opportunities reflects the broader complexity of transitioning to a low-carbon economy, as well as society’s relatively novice response to the climate crisis. We’re still learning and adapting. It also, however, reflects the depth of exploitation that companies are capable of when market-based mechanisms are deployed in absence of strong policy and regulatory oversight.

Almost 20 years since the first carbon-offset mechanisms emerged, it is becoming increasingly difficult to forgive these ongoing failures. Carbon offsetting can hope to remain reputable today only if its two most harmful pitfalls are addressed: the failure to ensure significant reductions in overall emissions in first priority, and the failure to achieve genuine carbon-storage outcomes in an equitable way. In a bid to help solve these challenges and promote even greater investment in carbon offsetting, Mark Carney – the former governor of the Bank of Canada and the Bank of England – made bold promises at the COP26 climate conference to grow the voluntary market to US$100 billion per year by the end of this decade. Less than two years later, the Taskforce on Scaling Voluntary Carbon Markets is being scaled back. Now rebranded as the Integrity Council for the Voluntary Carbon Market, the initiative is grappling with the same regulatory shortfalls that have plagued offsets since their invention.

In the meantime, carbon markets are growing in Canada and around the world. According to Refinitiv, a subsidiary of the London Stock Exchange, the voluntary market reached a record high US$1 billion last year, while more established compliance markets surpassed US$850 billion.

Pioneering Papua New Guinea bans new carbon deals

Offsetting was popularized by the Kyoto Protocol, which came into force in 2005. The treaty recognized that wealthier countries are historically responsible for climate change, while nations throughout the Majority World – a term that replaces the expressions “developing world” or “Global South” to better recognize that this is where 80% of humanity lives – suffer the majority of negative impacts. All signatories set equalized emission reduction targets, recognizing their differentiated climate responsibilities, and a mechanism was created – offsetting – where those states failing to meet their climate goals could make up for it by transferring a proportionate amount of wealth to countries that were beating their own national targets and picking up the slack in the fight against climate change.

Papua New Guinea, an island state home to some of Earth’s largest remaining tropical forests cared for generatively by Indigenous communities for over 50,000 years, was positioned to be one of those countries that could exceed national targets. At the same 2005 UN climate summit in which offsetting was enacted, the government of Papua New Guinea put forward the first-ever proposal to store additional carbon by protecting exceptionally biodiverse and carbon-rich forests. They invited high-polluting states to pay for tropical forest protection to not only help meet global emission reduction targets but also replace the financial losses their country would face by deferring timber harvests – revenues that the country needed to take care of its people.

This April, Papua New Guinea’s minister of environment enacted a moratorium on new voluntary carbon-offset projects in the country. Civil society watchdogs identified major weaknesses and loopholes in projects being developed there and raised concerns that the exploitative history of logging interests infringing on the rights of Indigenous people was now simply being perpetuated by carbon project developers. The government has banned all new voluntary carbon projects until laws can be enacted that properly safeguard the rights of the people who have lived and worked with forests forever.

Carbon offsets have a bad name for a good reason.

Should we throw out all carbon offsets? Not quite yet. Transitioning millions of hectares of land and millions of jobs toward the protection and restoration of Earth’s natural life-support systems is fundamental to halting the climate crisis. Carbon-offset frameworks can aid in that transition, by channelling wealth into carbon-storage livelihoods like climate-focused forestry, farming and conservation. But we need fair carbon-storage payments that directly compensate the people who live and work most closely with the land, enabling them to make decisions optimized for carbon drawdown, and we need to decouple the source of those payments from the continued emissions of the highest-polluting industries.

Oil and gas companies, for example, shouldn’t be allowed to participate in offset programs; they should just be required to reduce their emissions. Analysis from Oxfam found that it would take a forest the size of Ghana to offset just 15% of BP’s ongoing emissions by 2050. That’s a single company and doesn’t take into account BP’s historical emissions, which also require reparations. There is literally not enough planet for the highest-polluting industries to offset their way out of the climate crisis.

Hope in first-ever citizen forest carbon program in Canada

Over the past decade, our small team at Community Forests International has worked on the forest and people side of the climate equation. We’ve developed new approaches to forestry that maximize carbon storage and climate resilience, we’ve informed policy improvements at the provincial and national scale, and we’ve developed novel forest carbon projects.

This summer, with collaborators across a community of more than 80,000 rural small forest owners in the Maritime provinces and partners at the Natural Capital Exchange (NCX) – a leading carbon marketplace dedicated to democratizing forest carbon markets – we will be enrolling tens of thousands of acres into the first-ever citizen forest carbon program in Canada.

In a region with some of the most intense forest cutting and lowest incomes nationally, this reflects the potential in transition pathways that centre the people most affected – in this case rural, forest-dependent communities and economies. It is creating entirely new climate-focused forest occupations and incomes for people who can now go to work storing more carbon in the forests they care for.

It would take a forest the size of Ghana to offset just 15% of BP’s ongoing emissions by 2050. There is literally not enough forest for polluting industries to offset their way out of the crisis.

There are countless opportunities like this, and carbon offsets are a relatively small part of the story. But the work of nature-based carbon storage, like virtually all climate solutions, requires far greater investment than it is currently afforded – and investment that is unconflicted by the ongoing climate damages of the most polluting industries. Otherwise, these solutions will fail to produce their promised results on a scale and timeline that is meaningful in the global climate crisis. Or the positive measures that society takes to remunerate ecosystem care in one sector will be cancelled out by damages in another – the worst possible outcome of carbon offsetting.

UN Secretary-General António Guterres described the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report, published in February, as “an atlas of human suffering and a damning indictment of failed climate leadership.” The window is closing on limiting planetary heating to 1.5°C. Global emissions must peak by 2025 and then plummet, while at the same time forests and other ecosystems must be protected and restored to their full carbon-sequestration capacity by 2030.

What type of world will we face toward the end of this decade? A brighter one, if we make full use of all possible climate solutions today, including carbon offsetting. But it requires us to remember that tools like carbon offsets were only ever invented to enable a transition – not to delay it. In the words of Jonathan Foley, the executive director of Project Drawdown, “the best offset is the one you do not need.”

The post How to fix the broken carbon-offset system appeared first on Corporate Knights.

The new coalition government in Germany has resolved to put 15 million electric vehicles (EVs) on roads by 2030 – a considerable increase from the 540,000 purely electric cars on the road today – and to install one million more charging stations. It is using pandemic recovery funds to encourage the transition. In 2020, the government announced a €5-billion pandemic stimulus package to help the automotive industry transition to EVs. It consists of €1 billion for rebates on EV purchases, €1 billion for the replacement of older trucks, €1 billion to support technology investments by suppliers and €2 billion to help them adapt their production.

2. Penalize what you don’t want

Germany hasn’t been a leader in phasing out combustion vehicles by a particular date, relying instead on incremental measures. In January 2021, the government raised the motor vehicle tax (or Kraftfahrzeugsteuer) – an annual tax paid by vehicle owners and calculated on the basis of their vehicles’ engine size and emissions value. Owners of EVs will be exempt from this tax for 10 years, saving them an average of €194 per year. Owners of large (non-electric) SUVs will now be paying upward of €700 annually. Meanwhile, municipalities across Germany are limiting high-emission vehicles’ access to some urban zones and charging them more for parking.

3. Invest in especially hard-hit regions

As governments work to wean their countries off fossil fuels, they’ll need to make sure that marginalized communities and workers aren’t left behind. In 2020, the German government passed a “structural revitalization law,” allocating €40 billion to the country’s coal-producing regions, of which Lusatia is one. These funds, managed between federal and local governments, are being invested in transportation infrastructure, education and training, and employment-generating projects. In the last two years, the government has opened offices of two federal agencies in Lusatia – the Federal Office for Economic Affairs and Export Control and the German Pension Office – to create jobs.

4. Engage with those regions

According to Thomas Froehlich, a political scientist based at King’s College, London, public consultation is key to public acceptance. Froehlich, who has been comparing the transitions of the coal regions of Appalachia (U.S.) and Lusatia (Germany), says that given the severe impact of coal mining on local communities – villages were frequently demolished and relocated to make way for new pits – the German coal industry has a tradition of engaging with the public to gain acceptance. Froehlich feels this culture of consultation is facilitating the current transition and contrasts it with a less collective, more “winner takes all” approach in the U.S.

5. Encourage, train and compensate

It’s one thing for federal governments to sign off on massive recovery packages; it’s another to ensure that those funds are accessible to individuals and municipalities. Furthermore, investors in transitional regions are looking for a trained local workforce. Germany’s dual education system, which pairs post-secondary institutions with the private sector, is helpful in this respect. Companies like Rock Tech Lithium are tapping into – and helping train – local youth. Lastly, those who have little chance of re-entering the workforce must not be left in the dust. The German government is providing people aged 58 and over who have lost jobs in the coal industry with up to five years of compensation (equivalent to their previous earnings) to bridge them into their pensions.

Naomi Buck is a Toronto-based writer.

The post 5 ways to not screw up the green transition appeared first on Corporate Knights.