The new strategy is an important moment for action to both reduce emissions in the country and support economic competitiveness in uncertain times. It follows months of speculation and some policy signals that introduced significant uncertainty about the government’s climate commitments.

The verdict? It ain’t perfect, but the strategy is a useful step forward.

Now the government needs to quickly implement it and flesh out the details it promises. That’s critical if Canada hopes to dramatically increase investments in low-carbon projects across the country and reduce uncertainty for businesses that stalls economic development. There’s never been a more urgent time: Canada’s trading partners are accelerating their energy transitions and Canada risks missing out on big economic opportunities right when they’re needed most.

So, what are some of the central pieces of the climate strategy that are encouraging – and where are some of the biggest uncertainties?

Top on the list is the commitment to strengthen industrial carbon pricing. This is one of the most important things the federal government can do to cut emissions while keeping costs low for businesses and having virtually no impact on the costs for consumers.

That last part is critical. Misinformation about this policy has ramped up recently, and it’s worth underlining that research shows that industrial carbon pricing has negligible costs for the average Canadian. The impact is around 0% on household consumption, according to Canadian Climate Institute research. There are a number of reasons for that: the carbon price applies to large emitters only; it adds very low costs on those businesses (think a Timbit per barrel of oil); moreover, these already-low costs on industrial goods are a small fraction of the final costs for finished consumer goods.

The climate competitiveness strategy commits to fixing the industrial-carbon-pricing benchmark, which defines minimum standards for provincial systems. It also commits to strengthening the backstop, which will be decisively applied in provinces that do not meet the benchmark. In addition, the government will be setting a carbon-price trajectory that is measured in decades and sets Canadian industry on the path to net-zero emissions.

Each of these commitments is positive. But the details here will matter greatly; it’s no exaggeration to say they will make or break this policy’s effectiveness, for both Canada’s emissions and its competitiveness.

Some other highlights included a commitment to finalizing methane regulations for oil and gas, which has been a long-standing promise to slash these powerful emissions by 75% over the next five years. Canada has already made big progress here, and these are lower-cost emission reductions that provide opportunities for innovative Canadian companies to lead the charge.

RELATED STORIES:

Canada needs strong climate policy to be competitive in countries beyond the U.S. 

A fork in the road for the Canadian climate change discussion

Climate disasters demand respect, but we can’t be quiet about their causes

The strategy also recognizes the importance of dramatically increasing investment into Canada’s electricity system: it commits to soon implementing the clean electricity investment tax credit and restates its commitment to the clean electricity regulations. It recommits to finalizing a national climate investment taxonomy for the financial sector by the end of 2026. And it dedicates $2 billion for a critical minerals sovereign fund to invest in critical mineral projects and companies using equity investments, loan guarantees and offtake agreements. These financial risk-sharing tools can unlock private-sector investment in Canadian projects to help seize a growing opportunity in the global energy transition.

There was nothing new on the fate of the Electric Vehicle Availability Standard, though we should hear more “in the coming weeks.” And the strategy is almost silent on climate adaptation. Investing in adaptation is not just a “nice to have”; upgrading infrastructure for extreme weather will be crucial to saving billions of dollars in costs from disrupted trade and other economic impacts, and should be a key component of any climate competitiveness strategy.

I’m often asked my opinion on how the new government is doing on climate change. My honest answer is “I’m hopeful but increasingly impatient.” Now that the government has declared its climate change intentions, it’s time to get a move on.

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 fast action on its new climate competitiveness strategy appeared first on Corporate Knights.

In a speech to the United Nations in late 2019, Plante pointed out that cities are on the front lines of climate change, having to deal regularly with negative impacts like flooding and heatwaves. “The [United Nations] Secretary-General has set a target for states to reduce their emissions by 2030 and commit to being completely carbon neutral by 2050,” said Plante. “I’m ready to go further.”

Plante has now followed through in magnificent fashion, introducing a plan that not only aims for carbon neutrality by mid-century but that cuts her city’s emissions by more than half by 2030. Montréal’s plan includes forty-six actions to help drive ambitious reductions, including banning non-electric vehicles from the city’s downtown core, removing parking around Metro stations, implementing an innovative system for disclosing building energy ratings and adopting strict energy efficiency standards for new construction. In fact, the city is already planning a zero-carbon neighbourhood on the site of the old Hippodrome horse-racing track.

There are a few unique aspects to Montréal’s approach. In keeping with the collaborative nature of Plante’s administration, the plan is being backed by a number of major civil society organizations, including the Trottier Family Foundation and the Foundation of Greater Montréal, who will lead an effort to engage major economic players and institutions in implementing the plan as a critical part of building a healthy and equitable city. It also includes a requirement for annual progress reports, something the federal government has only recently committed to in its Climate Accountability Act after years of missing targets. More importantly, the Montréal plan includes a “climate test” for all government decision-making. Requiring that all city decisions around spending or infrastructure consider climate implications “sets a standard for all public administrations,” according to Marc-André Viau of the Quebec-based environmental organization Équiterre.

Though the current “best in class,” Montréal is not unique amongst Canadian cities for tackling the climate challenge. For instance, Vancouver is looking to deter cars from travelling into its core with a congestion charging system and by putting a strong emphasis on a shift to “active” transportation like walking and cycling. It’s aiming for a city in which 90% of people live within “an easy walk or roll” of their daily needs and two-thirds of trips are by active transportation or transit by 2030.

Montréal and Vancouver will be well served by the bans enacted by their respective provincial governments on the sale of internal combustion vehicles (2035 in Quebec; 2040 in BC). This provincial action will, for example, help put Vancouver well on the road to achieving its goal of having 50% of the distance driven on the city’s roads be by zero emissions vehicles by 2030. Montréal will, in turn, lead by example by converting all city vehicles to electric by 2030 and will simultaneously encourage residents to switch to car sharing with the added goal of seeing a 25% decrease in single-occupant vehicle trips over the same time frame.

Toronto has an official goal of reducing citywide emissions by 65% by 2030 and achieving net zero by 2050 “or earlier.” Thanks in part to Ontario’s coal power phase out, Toronto’s emissions have already declined by 37% since 1990, a benefit Edmonton may also be about to reap as Alberta accelerates its own move away from coal and the city strives to reduce its emissions by 35% from current levels by 2035.

Climate change is a uniquely complex challenge and one that will require simultaneous interventions from all levels of government. Canadian cities, though chronically cash-starved and dramatically impacted by COVID and climate change alike, are punching well above their weight when it comes to solutions. Our country is well-served by this ambition.

The post Canadian cities lead the way in the fight against climate change appeared first on Corporate Knights.

In fact, environmentalists might find themselves crowded into one small corner as mining and cement companies, labour unions, farmers, school teachers, doctors and nurses, and engineers join in to extoll the virtues of a shift to a low-carbon economy. This astonishing depth and breadth of support for a public policy is unusual, and the federal government should take note as it considers what measures to announce, in September’s throne speech, to build the post-COVID economic recovery.

Significantly, even the staunchest defender of the fossil fuel economy – Alberta Premier Jason Kenney – bluntly acknowledges, “I have a firm grasp of the obvious. There is no reasonable person that can deny that in the decades to come we will see a gradual shift from hydrocarbon-based energy to other forms of energy.” What Kenney sees as gradual others see as quickly accelerating. An increasing number of major investors, from the trillion-dollar Norwegian sovereign wealth fund to private capital titan BlackRock, are pulling their money out of fossil fuels. And these are not altruistic gestures: returns from oil and gas investments were already miserable before COVID hit. Oil stocks have been the worst-performing sector on U.S. stock markets for the past decade.

The popularity of the Liberal promise to strengthen action on climate change helped Justin Trudeau eke out a victory in the last election, with a strong majority of voters casting their ballots for parties that supported carbon pricing and strong action on climate change. That support persists: a 2019 Abacus Data poll found that 61% of Canadians support a Green New Deal, what the pollsters described as “a massive government jobs program and investment in clean energy, green technology, and electrification.” That support extends to people in Alberta too. A whopping 79% of the province’s residents think it should transition to renewable energy, and half believe it is time to fully transition away from oil and gas.

The Green Recovery tent is crowded for good reason: the economic and health benefits of moving to renewable energy, less wasteful goods and services, and fewer plastics and toxics are simply too big to ignore. As a coalition of health organizations noted, “The consequences [of climate change] will be even more devastating and irreversible if ambitious policies are not put in place quickly … Ignoring the growing stress on our public health system and its workers as a result of climate change is simply not a viable option.”

Meanwhile, an Ontario study found that had the province stuck to its plan to collect revenue from big polluters and spend it on building retrofits, it could have generated 24,500 to 32,900 jobs over five years. In addition, a further 16,800 to 24,000 jobs could have been created from the reinvestments of energy cost savings into the economy. Those numbers sound even better in our current straitened economic circumstances.

For labour, the transition to a green economy is an ideal way to link powerful job-creation arguments to the carbon reduction imperative. As the BlueGreen Alliance, a partnership between major labour unions and environmental and health organizations, points out, “We must begin to plan now for well-managed and inclusive transitions to a low carbon future. This starts by talking with people about what a fair, green future economy looks like, including communities and workers that have been historically disadvantaged, union members, and precarious workers in Canada.” In order to make good on this promising future, Canada needs to move fast to catch up to jurisdictions like Germany that are already developing innovative plans for new approaches like hydrogen.

Farmers, too, understand the need to get off the money-sucking conveyor belt of fossil-fuel-dependent agriculture. Farmers for Climate Solutions notes that “the agriculture sector is also responsible for 12% of Canada’s greenhouse emissions. Most of these emissions result from high-input, high-emissions farming practices that rely heavily on fossil fuels, fertilizers, pesticides, plastics, and other inputs. These same inputs are costly and make it harder for farmers to turn a profit.” The group’s calculations show clearly that more sustainable farming practices can not only help farmers get off this cost escalator, but also contribute to storing carbon in healthier soils.

As they struggle with the increasing impacts of extreme heat and flooding, hundreds of municipalities across Canada have passed “climate emergency” declarations. From Smithers to St. John’s, cities are calling for new low-carbon approaches to drive their economies and reduce infrastructure damage.

Even one of Canada’s biggest resource companies is on board with the need for dramatic action on climate. Earlier this year, Teck Resources announced a goal of achieving carbon neutrality in its operations by 2050.

Though the existential threat of climate change is unprecedented, the support for ambitious approaches to solving the problem now reaches into every corner of our society. With a new global temperature record set in July, recognition that a massive transition is needed – and needed now – is spreading like wildfire. Governments often do lots of controversial things: leading Canadians in a rapid green transition is not one of them.

Rick Smith is executive director of the Broadbent Institute and co-author of two bestselling books on the human health effects of pollution.

Note: An earlier version of this op-ed incorrectly described Teck Resources as one of the Canada’s biggest oil sands miners. Teck has a minority (21.3%) ownership stake in one oil sands operation, the Fort Hills oil sands mine, and no other operating oil sands assets. Teck’s major business units focusing on copper, zinc and steelmaking coal, with active operations and projects in Canada, Chile and the U.S.

The post The unstoppable support behind the green transition appeared first on Corporate Knights.

The European Union is well out in front on this issue, recently unveiling a €1 trillion ($1.57 trillion Canadian) plan to reach carbon neutrality, create more sustainable and resilient communities and create a “circular economy” with less waste of both resources and energy. Half of this spending is expected to come directly from the EU budget; the the rest will come from member state contributions, financing from the European Investment Bank and investments by the private sector. EU President Ursula von der Leyen has described the plan to slash carbon emissions by more than 50% by 2030 and to reach carbon neutrality by 2050 as Europe’s “man on the moon moment.” Except that instead of a quest for geopolitical bragging rights, this moonshot is about planetary survival right here at home.

Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden also seems to have grasped both the need and the opportunity around bold climate action, significantly upping his game with a US$2 trillion ($2.6 trillion Canadian) four-year plan that includes achieving a zero-emissions power sector by 2035.

So where’s Canada? Still talking the good talk, with the Liberal government promising a binding carbon-neutral national mandate for 2050, but still not walking the walk. In its 2019 budget, the federal government committed less than $64 billion to all infrastructure development over the next four years. The government also earmarked $435 million to help Canadians switch to electric vehicles and invited the auto industry to “access” its $800 million Strategic Innovation Fund. Then there is $1 billion dedicated to helping municipalities and the institutional sector improve energy efficiency and $35 million for a Just Transition Fund for workers in coal mining communities. So Canada has, at best, just cracked the $1.5 billion mark, while its peers are planning to spend trillions.

Sure Canada is a smaller country with a population roughly 10% that of the U.S. and about 8% of the EU’s. But to match the level of ambition in the EU and Biden plans, we should be spending in the hundreds of billions, not just billions in the single digits. We are currently off by orders of magnitude when it comes to what it will take to both rebound our economy and address the climate crisis. Even if we just compare the EU’s direct budget spending plan – roughly $617 billion directly from EU and member budgets – Canada is still lagging significantly.

This matters not just because we desperately need to get our climate house in order, but also because weak ambition could be very costly. The EU has made it clear that it plans to tax goods entering its massive market from climate laggards and has additionally hinted at restrictions on agricultural products that are not sustainably produced. Of course, what is also at stake is leadership in new services and industries, whether it is innovative “bundled project” financing for building retrofits, artificial intelligence for buildings and transport, or the manufacturing of electric cars.

Canada recently joined the “3% Club,” a group of countries, companies and institutions committed to achieving 3% annual increases in energy efficiency. That would be a big step up for a country that has been averaging an unimpressive 1% annual improvement in energy efficiency over the past 15 years. Even more importantly, the commitment came with no specific mechanisms or budget attached, including no commitment to the sort of national building retrofit program that is central to both the Biden and EU plans.

And while Canada’s commitment to help workers affected by its coal phase-out plan is laudable, it is again almost laughably small compared to EU and Biden commitments. The EU, for example, is earmarking €100 billion to a Just Transition Fund for vulnerable sectors, while the Biden plan commits 40% of its infrastructure and energy spending to disadvantaged communities.

In this regard, the Biden plan is simply recognizing the stark realities revealed by the COVID crisis and the linkages between poor air quality and other pollution, poverty and poor health outcomes. Climate change, of course, is only going to exacerbate the impact on vulnerable communities, with hotter weather promising to stir up an even thicker stew of pollutants.

And that’s the real message behind the EU and Biden plans: these initiatives do not represent some sort of wild spending spree – they are exactly what is needed if we want to see our economies grow rather than shrink. The EU plan, for example, reflects projections that warming of more than 3 degrees Celsius could trigger GDP losses of 2 to 8%, with southern countries hit the hardest by flooding, droughts and heat-related mortality. On the other hand, the EU estimates that carbon neutrality will boost GDP by 2% and create millions of jobs. There is an important lesson in this for Canada, where warming is happening at twice the global average rate.

This is a case where modest Canadian incrementalism simply isn’t going to cut it. We need to be bold. And green.

Rick Smith is the executive director of the Broadbent Institute.

The post As EU and Biden commit billions for green recovery, where is Canada? appeared first on Corporate Knights.