Prime Minister Mark Carney and Ontario Premier Doug Ford have made common cause in promoting nuclear energy. Indeed, the prime minister has indicated that the federal climate strategy relies on construction of low-carbon power for a national electrification effort, and nuclear is central to that vision.

This fall, Carney and Ford together announced $3 billion in funding for Ontario’s purchase of four BWRX-300 SMR reactors from Hitachi GE Vernova, a joint Japanese and U.S. company. Ottawa will shoulder $2 billion of that amount through the Canada Growth Fund. In a news release, the two leaders boasted that Canada will become the first Group of Seven country to build an SMR reactor. The prime minister said the federal investment “will extend Canada’s world leadership in clean energy.” Ontario is also pursuing plans to build large-scale reactors.

However, critics argue that the industry’s cost estimates are unreliable. They point to overruns and delays at other “first of a kind” nuclear installations. At the same time, Ontario will rely on a U.S.-based supplier of enriched uranium to fuel the SMRs, unlike its current fleet of Candu reactors that run on non-enriched Canadian sources.

“They’re taking a flyer off Mount SMR and the world is sitting back to see how much of a splat there is,” says Mark Winfield, a professor of environmental studies at York University. The reliance on a U.S. fuel supplier “makes absolutely no sense given our quest for energy independence and security,” he adds.

Pitting nuclear against renewables

Provincially owned Ontario Power Generation (OPG) plans to purchase four Hitachi GE reactors for $20.9 billion, although it has committed to only one at a price of $7.7 billion, including $1.1 billion for infrastructure that would serve all four units.

In addition to the direct support, OPG will benefit from federal investment tax credits of 15% that support investment in clean electricity. The tax credits will be paid out in cash to provincial and municipally owned utilities that are not taxable.

OPG received a construction licence for the SMRs last April from the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission. It is now preparing the ground at its Darlington site, which currently hosts four larger Candu reactors that have been refurbished in a decade-long, $12.8-billion project that was completed on time and on budget.

OPG cites work by the province’s Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO) to back its bet on SMRs as a cheaper alternative to hybrid options of wind, solar and batteries to supply an additional 2,200 megawatts of low-carbon, baseload power. An IESO paper released in August concluded that it would cost up to $34 billion to meet additional baseload demand with SMRs, while a hybrid renewable system would cost $47 billion. Wind and solar would also entail more transmission and land development costs, the IESO said.

Nuclear facilities operate at far higher capacity factors and, unlike wind and solar, the electricity is constantly generated. IESO assumes that nuclear plants operate at 93% capacity, while that figure for wind is only 38% and for solar, 24%.

OPG also defends the nuclear option by pointing to the large supply chain and workforce in the province that is currently focused on refurbishments at its Pickering site and at Bruce Nuclear and will benefit from further investment in reactors. However, critics argue that cost estimates for nuclear are notoriously unreliable, especially for first-of-a-kind projects like OPG’s deal for the BWRX-300. There have been SMRs of different designs built in the world: two in Russia, one in China and one in Argentina. In every case, there were delays and higher-than-promised costs.

How transforming Canada’s electricity grid could drive decarbonization, save billions

The Crown utility – and ultimately Ontario ratepayers and taxpayers – will be responsible for any cost escalation in the SMR deal.

A report prepared for the Ontario Clean Air Alliance compared the levelled cost of power – that is, the average cost of electricity generation over the plant’s lifetime. It concluded that, in 2030, electricity from SMRs would cost up to US$174 per megawatt/hour, while wind would be $93 and solar would be $41. Those costs do not include transmission or land development, nor do they account for capacity factors.

Ralph Torrie, research director for Corporate Knights, weighed capital costs for the nuclear options against alternatives in his Climate Dollars project, which provides a decarbonization analysis for each province. The report concludes that the upfront investment for reactors would far exceed the cost of renewables plus efficiency and other demand-management strategies.

“Public investment in new nuclear plants has a double-barrelled negative effect on addressing greenhouse gas emissions,” Torrie says in an email. “It diverts capital from efficiency and renewables that would increase the supply of emission-free electricity faster than nuclear at a lower cost and with less risk.”

“The government subsidies for nuclear expansion are driving electricity price increases in Ontario,” he adds, “and that slows down the switch to electricity that we need in buildings and vehicles to give our children and grandchildren a fighting chance against climate change.”

Shawn McCarthy is an Ottawa-based writer and senior counsel with Sussex Strategy Group.

The post Concerns loom over Canada’s nuclear renewal appeared first on Corporate Knights.

A U.S. district court judge ruled on August 14 that the state of Montana violated the constitutional rights of the young plaintiffs to a clean and healthful environment through legislation, enacted in 2011, that limits the environmental factors that can be considered when approving oil and gas projects. The court declared that legislation unconstitutional, meaning that now Montana must consider climate change and the emission of greenhouse gases when approving fossil fuel projects.  

“I’m grateful and relieved, because the climate knows no bounds conjured up in the minds of humans,” says Shaelyn Wabegijig, one of seven young people suing the Ontario government in their own climate lawsuit. “A win for any of us is a win for all of us.”  

The Montana case marked the first constitutional climate trial in U.S. history and is part of a growing movement around the world to use courts as a way to force governments and corporations to take action. Climate litigation has more than doubled in the last five years, according to the UN Environment Programme and the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia University, from 884 cases in 2017 to 2,180 in 2022. Most of the cases are in the United States. Thirty-four have been brought by and on behalf of children and youth under the age of 25, including by girls as young as seven in Pakistan and India.  

“It’s a huge moment for climate litigation in the world,” says Danielle Gallant, a lawyer with Canadian environmental group Ecojustice, which has been representing the Ontario youth in their legal fight. “For a jurisdiction in the U.S., one of the world’s largest emitters, to be held accountable and to set that precedent in that country, I think it’s very important ... Every victory that we see builds that momentum towards further victories in other jurisdictions.”  

The decision also reflects the arc of many other decisions in North America and around the world “that are recognizing the imperative of courts to supervise the governments’ often woefully inadequate efforts to grapple with the climate emergency,” says Chris Tollefson, a B.C.-based lawyer representing another youth-led climate-change lawsuit in Canada, the first of its kind that is federal in nature.    

 In an email, Tollefson says the Montana judgment “bolsters” the claims being made by his clients, 15 youth from seven provinces and one territory. In that case, La Rose et al vs. His Majesty the King, the young people argue that the federal government is violating their right to life, liberty and security of the person under Section 7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, along with their right to equality, under Section 15, since youth are disproportionately affected by the climate emergency. The case was dismissed in 2020, and an appeal was heard in February of this year, with no decision yet rendered.   

“Even though the constitutional provisions being interpreted in the Montana case are different, in many ways the Montana decision backs up arguments the La Rose plaintiffs have made,” Tollefson says. “Both the La Rose and the Montana plaintiffs have made very similar arguments with respect to the science of climate change, and the causal role and contribution that can be attributed to government conduct.”  

It’s a huge moment for climate litigation in the world.

 

– Danielle Gallant, lawyer at Ecojustice

The Ontario case, Mathur et al vs. His Majesty in Right of Ontario, is also rooted in the Charter. It was launched in 2019 by seven youth who argued that a decision by the government of Premier Doug Ford to roll back emission targets violated their rights to life, equality and security of the person.  

The group secured a historic win in 2020, when a court ruled that the case deserved its day in court, and then again in 2021 when another court dismissed an application by the Ontario government to appeal that ruling. This paved the way for a full hearing in September of last year, the first of its kind in Canada. In April, a judge dismissed the case. The applicants have launched an appeal.  

While the ruling was a loss, Gallant says it contained some positive elements that give her and the plaintiffs hope.  

“I think it’s really key that the judge fully endorsed the important science of climate change,” she says. “There was really no debate that climate change is real.”  

The judge found that “Ontario’s [rolled back] target is increasing the risk of harmful and deadly climate impacts on Ontarians,” engaging the section of the Charter that has to do with the right to life and security, Gallant says, although the judge ultimately ruled that there was not a full violation.  

And then there is the precedent-setting justiciability of the case – that it is appropriate for courts to weigh in on matters of climate change. Other cases have not been able to cross that hurdle. 

That’s a significant victory for Wabegijig, who recalls sitting in the courtroom and feeling chills as she heard the legal arguments being made.  

“As a young Indigenous woman, it’s not new or surprising that government-sanctioned actions are impacting our lives, violating our rights and thwarting our responsibilities to the earth,” notes the 26-year-old, who is Algonquin of Timiskaming First Nation. 

“It’s not simply a political issue. It’s an existential issue,” she adds. “It’s a matter of the continuation of life as we know it or death and destruction, and it’s no exaggeration or fear–mongering. It’s simply what it is and it’s happening right now.” 

It’s not simply a political issue. It’s an existential issue.

 

– Shaelyn Wabegijig, one of seven youth suing Ontario government 

In the Montana case, the court heard about how “anthropogenic climate change is impacting, degrading and depleting” the state’s natural environment, with higher temperatures, longer droughts, and more extreme weather events. It also heard from doctors about how “children are uniquely vulnerable to the consequences of climate change” as they are in physiological and psychological development.   

And, crucially, it heard from the youth and children themselves: Mica experienced a sense of loss from having to stay inside because of wildfire smoke, Sariel suffered distress from the loss of culturally important plants and snow mentioned in  creation stories, Grace was scared because the glaciers were melting from the state she loves, and Claire had anxiety over whether it’s a safe world in which to have children.  

A spokesperson for Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen called the ruling “absurd” and part of a “taxpayer-funded publicity stunt.”  

“Montanans can’t be blamed for changing the climate – even the plaintiffs’ expert witnesses agreed that our state has no impact on the global climate,” said Emily Flower. “Their same legal theory has been thrown out of federal court and courts in more than a dozen states. It should have been here as well.” 

But Wabegijig says it’s only a matter of time before more courts, including in Canada, follow suit.  

“As youth we are educated on climate science, and we carry the crushing weight of the climate emergency, and we’re putting this knowledge into our actions. Governments must do the same.”

The post How a landmark youth climate ruling in Montana is reverberating across Canada appeared first on Corporate Knights.

How developers made direct requests to a minister’s chief of staff to take properties out of the Greenbelt.  

That government complied, making formerly protected areas available for development.  

For me, the sad thing is how the Greenbelt is conceived.  

Investors and politicians see it as land parcels, dark circles on a map, numbers tallied on a chart. Where is the childhood memory of walking the Bruce Trail in spring surrounded by a flowering of red and white trillium?  

On August 9, provincial Auditor General Bonnie Lysyk released a 95-page assessment of Ontario’s plan to remove from protection 3,000 hectares (7,400 acres) of farmland, wetland and forest. Written in response to a request from three opposition parties, it explains in exquisite detail the removal’s financial and environmental consequences.    

Few will be surprised by the AG’s discoveries – little at Queen’s Park is shocking, these days – but she presents them with admirable assurance. Her findings are damning and definitive.    

Notwithstanding government claims, opening the Greenbelt was never necessary to meet provincial housing goals. Lysyk learned this from city planners working in the regions where the protection designation would be scrapped. Even Ontario’s own Housing Affordability Task Force “determined that a shortage of land was not the cause of the province’s housing challenges and that the Greenbelt and other environmentally sensitive areas must be protected.”  

Lysyk offers a precise picture of land-removal profits. The scale is staggering. It’s one thing for tree huggers to make this point; it’s quite another when proclaimed by the auditor general. She writes: “Developers/landowners could see a $8.28 billion increase in the value of their land after the removal of 15 sites from the Greenbelt . . .” (Ontario wants the private sector to build “affordable” homes here.)  

Most Ontarians refuse to see the Greenbelt as land whose potential is only achieved when it’s monetized. 

The consultation process was poor. Interested parties had just 30 days to weigh in. Indigenous communities were not adequately engaged. And Housing Ministry staffers didn’t have enough time to assess public comments. Government received 35,000 submissions, which were “overwhelmingly negative.” It didn’t matter. Queen’s Park did not change its plans.  

I’m struck by Ontario’s very conception of the Greenbelt. In its response to the AG’s report the premier’s office defends itself, saying it’s “unlocking lands” to build housing. The words are telling. In this worldview, protected green space is seen as imprisoned. Here nature is not in need of preservation, but liberation – in the form of development. When woods and fields become a subdivision, they’re set free. Such is the perverse vision guiding our decision-makers. For Queen’s Park, the Greenbelt is a commodity no different than tin or pork belly. It’s this impoverished notion of creation that troubles so many of us.  

Earlier this summer, I walked the protected Niagara Escarpment near Tobermory. There in a field I saw for the first time a pair of sandhill cranes. I jumped the fence and put binoculars to my eyes. They were bowing their heads, spearing grain as herons spear fish. These were not abstractions. I experienced the birds and escarpment as a personal gift. I’ve loved this landscape since adolescence. I have dreams about its limestone sinkholes.  

I’m not alone. Most Ontarians refuse to see the Greenbelt as land whose potential is only achieved when it’s monetized. Our relationship to it is one of intimate friendship, not commerce.  

This, to its peril, is what the government cannot comprehend.  

Gideon Forman is a policy analyst at the David Suzuki Foundation. 

The post Greenbelt report reveals Ontario’s sad view of nature   appeared first on Corporate Knights.

As the IESO moves ahead with plans to add 1,500 megawatts of new natural gas-fired generating capacity at four existing generating stations, independent analysts are also looking into how long the province will actually be using the gas plants, how much they’ll drive up climate pollution – and whether the procurement was needed in the first place.

The discussion about provincial power planning became that much more complex and fraught over the last week, when Energy Minister Todd Smith announced a procurement for utility-scale renewables in 2025-26 that he said would be the biggest the country has ever seen. The province is moving immediately to add 4,800 MW of new nuclear capacity at the massive Bruce complex on Lake Huron and three more small modular nuclear reactors at the Darlington nuclear generating site on Lake Ontario.

But the other big uncertainty is the extent to which the IESO’s battery procurement will end up depending on natural gas, a fuel whose primary component is methane, a climate super-pollutant with 85 times the warming potential of carbon dioxide over a 20-year span.

‘Clean’ Battery Storage from a Fossil Fuel

In its May 16 media release on the gas plant procurement, the IESO put most of the emphasis on the seven new battery projects totalling 739 megawatts, yet another Canadian first for the biggest storage buy ever. The concurrent decision to push ahead with new gas capacity means a large share of the electricity flowing into those batteries may be generated from a high-emitting fossil fuel. But a review of the IESO’s in-house analysis over the last two years suggests the grid operator might not be entirely sure how much or how often that will happen:

• A data table [xlsx] accompanying the IESO’s December, 2022 Annual Planning Outlook shows the percentage of the time that gas is the “marginal resource” increasing from 24% in 2023 to 54% in 2024, 81% in 2027, 89% in 2033, and 99% in 2037, then holding at 99 or 100% through 2043.

• But the equivalent table [xlsx] from the December, 2021 outlook indicated much heavier reliance on emissions-heavy gas—70% in 2023, 74% in 2024, 91% in 2027, and 100% in 2043.

Both sets of numbers bear out the note in the 2022 outlook that “the escalating trend continues quickly prior to 2028 as demand grows and other [power generating stations] come out of service, as natural gas facilities will increasingly be the marginal resource.” But the higher numbers mean more gas being burned sooner, more emissions going into the atmosphere as a result, and the IESO’s numbers shifting in the course of a single year to indicate a smaller climate impact.

An IESO spokesperson did not respond to questions about how much of the electricity destined for battery storage will be generated from gas, or how the IESO calculated that percentage prior to this week’s announcements. The IESO and the Ministry of Energy both said it’s too soon to say how the new renewable energy procurement will shift that picture. “As the 2025-26 procurement is still being designed, target quantities and commercial operation dates are yet to be determined through consultation with the IESO and other stakeholders,” said Ministry spokesperson Michael Dodsworth.

The post Will Ontario’s ‘clean’ battery storage be powered by a fossil fuel? appeared first on Corporate Knights.

In Ontario and Alberta, significant policy reversals in recent years have weakened the business case for emerging clean-tech firms, which need major local customers to commercialize and scale up their technology. 

Ontario has supported investments in electric vehicle manufacturing by auto manufacturers and in lower-carbon processes by steel companies. But the government plans to rely more heavily on natural-gas-fired power for electricity over the next decade.

“The absence of a net zero emissions strategy for Ontario’s electricity grid could result in missed growth opportunities in promising new markets,” said the report, Net Zero Opportunities, pointing to renewables, smart grids and battery storage.

The report, which includes individual provincial assessments, is a follow-up to Sink or Swim, a study released in October 2021 that analyzes Canada’s net-zero opportunities and challenges on a national scale. In the new report, the Climate Institute assesses individual provinces’ records on whether they are nurturing “transition-opportunity companies” that can become the key employers of the future.

Ontario, for example, has the highest number of workers in industries threatened by the energy transition but lacks a “consistent, comprehensive, and long-term approach” to climate policy that would support high-growth clean technology companies.

Policies that create domestic demand for low-carbon goods and services in government and the private sector are a critical part of the effort to grow companies that can take advantage of the energy transition and support provincial economies, the report concludes.

Using data from PitchBook, the Climate Institute report found that four provinces – Quebec, British Columbia, Ontario and Alberta – have all seen some success in the growth of companies that could anchor a new economy. 

However, B.C. and Quebec are leading the pack with a comprehensive approach that fosters growth in emerging companies as well as decarbonization investments by incumbent firms that can become important customers for the high-impact start-ups.

The absence of a net zero emissions strategy for Ontario’s electricity grid could result in missed growth opportunities in promising new markets.

Ontario has a high number of cleantech start-ups relative to Quebec and B.C. but falls behind its rivals when it comes to company track records in attracting growth capital and in scaling them to be globally competitive.

Alberta’s ability to capitalize on emerging sectors such as carbon capture and hydrogen “is hampered by mixed policy signals and dominance of the oil and gas sector,” the report says. Despite strong investment in renewable power, Alberta trails B.C. and Quebec in nurturing emerging companies that will seize opportunities from the transition.

In an interview, report author Jonathan Arnold noted that the pace of a climate-driven transition remains uncertain, especially as Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has increased demand for non-Russian oil and gas.

However, countries representing 90% of global demand have committed to achieving net-zero status this century, while the disastrous impacts of climate change are becoming increasingly clear and present. 

“We see this transition as inevitable,” Arnold said. “Certainly, there is short-term uncertainty . . . but if the world is serious about making progress on climate targets and reducing the long-term impacts of climate change, then this really is an inevitable transition. And we will get to a place where we have to act.”

At the Davos summit in Switzerland this week, European Commission Vice-President Frans Timmermans, U.S. climate envoy John Kerry and Fatih Birol, executive director of the International Energy Agency, addressed the challenges of current energy needs while maintaining a focus on climate concerns. 

“There was clear consensus that the right policies for addressing the global energy crisis can also bring us closer to our climate goals,” Birol said on Twitter.

The Climate Institute report argues that, despite the current surge in demand for oil, we should expect lower demand for fossil fuels and carbon-intensive products in the future and a greater need for low- or zero-carbon alternatives. “Provinces that get ahead of those changes will thrive while those that fall behind could face significant upheaval,” the report says.

Support for emerging clean-economy companies is a necessary but far from sufficient strategy for achieving clean growth and a just transition that ensures that vulnerable workers and marginalized communities are not left behind. Provinces need to embrace future-oriented sectors such as biotech and artificial intelligence while addressing education, training, social safety nets and Indigenous empowerment. If they don’t, they risk being left behind. 

The post Canada’s net-zero opportunities might skip some provinces appeared first on Corporate Knights.

The post Civil liberties group challenges Doug Ford’s gas pump propaganda appeared first on Corporate Knights.

Ontario Government and Consumer Services Minister Todd Smith announced July 10 the cancellation of the nine-turbine White Pines Wind Project in eastern Ontario.

wpd AG, a medium-sized German wind producer, and the city of Munich have already put C$100 million into the nearly finished project, according to wpd’s Canadian subsidiary. One hundred workers were on site the day news of the cancellation broke.

“I’m definitely hearing a lot of questions and concerns from the German government,” ambassador Sabine Sparwasser told Corporate Knights in an interview July 19. “Beyond that, it is a case that has by now attracted the attention of the EU and European companies who want to invest in Ontario and in Canada.”

Recent concerns on foreign investment and the rule of law in Canada have focused on British Columbia’s attempts to stop Kinder Morgan’s expansion of the Trans Mountain crude pipeline, which is being developed in that province and Alberta. The federal government is contesting British Columbia’s efforts to regulate the project’s environmental risks.

But the new Progressive Conservative government in Ontario, which is seeking to dismantle its predecessor’s environment and energy policies, is raising new concerns about investment safety.

“This is a case of how safe is our investment, how good is it to invest in Ontario and Canada because we do want to have bilateral investment,” Sparwasser said.

There are 800 German companies in Canada and more are hungry to invest, she said. Most of Canada and Europe’s comprehensive free trade agreement went into force last year, laying the groundwork for more European money in Canadian projects.

But the White Pines cancellation is pushing interest away, according to the ambassador.

“When you have all the necessary permits, to be asked to immediately stop the project and take it down, with no clarity on what the indemnification process would be, is unsettling,” Sparwasser said. “It is unusual to have such a drastic measure when all the necessary permits of a project are present.”

Ontario’s government introduced legislation outlining its cancellation of White Pines on July 16. The bill, which is being examined by members of the provincial Parliament, includes a section on how compensation will be calculated but doesn’t provide any hard figures.

Premier Doug Ford’s office, as well as Smith’s, did not respond to a request for comment on Sparwasser’s concerns.

wpd AG issued an open letter to Ford July 12 calling on the new premier to reconsider the cancellation.

“Do you think, dear premier, that it is fair and equitable that a project right before completion is now being ruined retroactively and that our company is suffering serious damage through no fault of its own?” wpd AG CEO Hartmut Brosamle wrote.

It’s still too early to consider a formal complaint under the Canadian-European Union Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA), Sparwasser said.

“This is why we want to raise the concern now and say we want to proceed here in a better matter and in a manner that respects contracts and in a manner that respects the investment trust that an investor has put into the province of Ontario,” she said.

The post Investors wary after Ontario wind farm closure: Germany appeared first on Corporate Knights.

It was a historic night, with Wynne becoming the first openly gay premier elected in Canada. People simply liked the 61-year-old politician, a former community activist and school board trustee. They could connect with her. And despite attempts by opposition politicians to paint as reckless and expensive the Liberal government’s green power plan, anchored by its landmark Green Energy and Green Economy Act, voters seemed happy to stay the course rather than turn the ship around.

That Ontario’s electricity grid became coal-free in spring 2014 was symbolic of the progress made to date. Rather than coast on that accomplishment, however, Wynne is arguably accelerating the ship – at least with respect to tackling climate change, as demonstrated in her mandate letters to some cabinet ministers.

She instructed her economic development minister, Brad Duguid, to make infrastructure investments “ensuring resiliency to the impact of climate change.”

She directed her energy minister, Bob Chairelli, to make “co-ordinated efforts to improve energy efficiency and conservation, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, foster innovation in the energy sector,” and explore ways to import more zero-emission hydropower from neighbouring Quebec and Manitoba.

She also added “climate change” to the official title of environment minister, Glen Murray, who was ordered to develop a plan to reach the province’s 2020 greenhouse-gas emissions target of 15 per cent below 1990 levels, and craft a long-term climate change strategy that would guide the province into 2050. Toward that goal, Murray was told to work with other ministers in what Wynne described as an “all-of-government” approach to meeting emissions targets.

Investing in climate-friendly transportation infrastructure will no doubt be part of the solution, and on that front, Wynne’s support of Canada’s first green bond issuance demonstrated her willingness to test new approaches. This week, the province revealed that its first $500 million green bond offering was nearly five times oversubscribed. Investors from the United States, Europe, Asia, and Canada couldn’t get enough – a good sign that green bonds will be a permanent fixture in Ontario’s future.

Corporate Knights sat down with Wynne in early October to discuss her plans to put the province on a more environmentally sustainable path.

CK: What is your overall vision for “greening” Ontario?

WYNNE: I see us building on a foundation that we put in place over the last 10 years, such as shutting down the coal-fired plants and taking the equivalent of seven million cars off the road. Over 25 per cent of our greenhouse-gas emissions were from the coal-fired plants, so that’s a huge step forward. The introduction of new industries – solar and wind – again was a huge step. We need to continue to look for ways to reduce our emissions. The reason I put climate change in the environment minister’s mandate and into the name of his ministry is I want a climate change strategy – I want a mid-to-long term climate change strategy that will let us build on the foundation we have. We’re obviously not there; we still have lots to do. I guess if I had to articulate where I want Ontario to be in the context of the country, I want us to be leaders. I want to be able to demonstrate there is a way to be clean, green and sustainable, because it’s the right thing to do, but also because I don’t believe we have a choice. We all have to be part of the solution. Government has to take that leadership role.

CK: When the previous McGuinty government created the Green Energy and Green Economy Act, which subsequently spawned the province’s renewable feed-in-tariff (FIT) program, it seemed to focus more on boosting economic development and tackling urban smog. Climate change, while not ignored, was not emphasized as much and over time was discussed less and less. With you, it appears climate change is moving front and centre. What has changed in your view?

WYNNE: A couple of things have happened over the last 10 years. I think severe weather events have made it much clearer to people what it is we’re dealing with, even if you argue that there were events before 2003, which I think there were. It’s pretty irrefutable now that we better get our act together, and move as quickly as we can, and (Environment and Climate Change Minister) Glen Murray certainly feels this way.

CK: Can you explain the rationale behind your government’s recent issuance of green bonds? Do you expect more rounds down the road?

WYNNE: What is wonderful about the green bond idea is that it makes the link between building, building infrastructure and people making investment in a greener, more sustainable society. We need to do more of that. We need to do more to help people understand how we have to build protections for the environment into what we build. It’s not like we can go on building things and doing what we’ve always done for the last 50 years, and then we’ll deal with climate change later. It has to be integrated. So for me, what’s great about green bonds is it says, you know what, financial markets and investment are directly related to sustainability.

CK: Do you think citizens appreciate that link? It seems in the past, governments have tried to avoid drawing a direct line between a pool of funding and specific initiatives because it tied their hands. It also leaves them open to more scrutiny if the money doesn’t flow as promised.

WYNNE: I want to be subjected to that scrutiny. It’s why we are doing everything we can to be transparent. It’s why we released the mandate letters (to new ministers) publicly. I want to be held to the objectives we’ve put in place. If there’s something we can’t do, we have to explain why it didn’t happen. But I want to set those targets, and I want people to understand where we’re going and what our aspirations are. When you ask ‘Do the people understand that?” I don’t think we as a society have understood that. If we had, we would have built things differently, we would have had different energy policies, we would have had a different society. So we haven’t made those connections, and we’d better make them now.

CK: Ontario, since 2007, has talked openly about participating in a regional cap-and-trade program for greenhouse-gas emissions. It has been quiet on that front for the past few years. Is cap-and-trade, or some sort of carbon pricing, on your government’s agenda?

WYNNE: I’ve asked Glen (Murray) to put together a climate change strategy. What I can tell you is we know we have to take more action in terms of our greenhouse-gas emissions. Exactly how that will look, I don’t know. I’ve had a conversation with (Quebec Premier) Philippe Couillard and I know he’s moving very aggressively in terms of cap-and-trade and working with California. I don’t have the detailed answer for you at this point, but are we committed to taking the next step? Absolutely.

CK: Do you have a personal preference regarding carbon-pricing approaches?

WYNNE: I’m going to let that discussion unfold in the government. I think we are all in the discussion of carbon pricing. Even (Prime Minister) Stephen Harper, who doesn’t want to take clear action, is part of the discussion of carbon pricing whether he wants to be or not. It’s a survival question.

CK: Does it bother you that the federal government takes credit for the coal plant closures in Ontario as a sign of federal progress on reducing greenhouse-gas emissions?

WYNNE: It’s disingenuous. It’s political, because they don’t have anything else to talk about, really. But the reality is every premier across the country is thinking about the issue. Jim Prentice (the new Alberta Premier) is thinking about it vis-à-vis the oil sands. Christie Clarke (the B.C. Premier) is thinking about it, and she’s got a carbon tax in place already. Even if Stephen Harper doesn’t want to have the active discussion, all the premiers in this country are having this discussion, so de facto he’s part of it.

CK: With the coal-plant closures, Ontario can more credibly market itself as a clean energy economy. (Note: About 85 per cent of the electricity Ontario generated in 2013 could be characterized as emission-free). Is the province doing enough to promote itself as a place to build stuff with low-emission electricity?

WYNNE: I think there’s more we can do. Marketing ourselves as a clean energy jurisdiction is absolutely something that can be a selling point for us, and we haven’t done as much as we could.

CK: Following along that line of thinking, should the province be taking a more holistic approach to economic development by looking at energy, transportation and economic development in a more integrated way, rather than separately within the bureaucratic silos of each responsible ministry?

WYNNE: Absolutely. It’s one of the hardest things I have found in government – getting the walls between the ministries to be broken down, and having people work together. Again, that’s another reason the mandate letters (to ministers) were so important to me, because they all talk about working across ministries. And it’s not just about co-signing cabinet submissions, it’s about actually having officials and ministers work together and come up with solutions with the bureaucracy that are looking at a problem from different angles. I’m pushing very hard on that and it’s what I believe has to happen. I’m not coming at this saying do something I didn’t do myself. That’s actually how I worked as a minister. I know it can be done, but it takes political will. It takes the ministers to say, we’re going to sit at this table and have the conversation with all three ministries here and we’re going to come up with a combined solution. If that doesn’t happen, then it’s very hard for the bureaucracies to look sideways and see what their colleagues are doing.

The post A Wynne for the climate? appeared first on Corporate Knights.