Canada has a major economic opportunity in the global low-carbon economy, if it gets its climate and energy policies right. Those policies should be informed by principles like leveraging the ingenuity of markets and free enterprise, limited government, and respect for provincial jurisdiction. The following article is the latest installment of The Hub’s series sponsored by Clean Prosperity exploring the why, what, and how of conservative climate policy.
The Conservative Party of Canada’s pre-election slogan is “Bring it Home.” This saying is dictionary-defined as making important things clear, understandable, and real with your solution. After a quarter-century of failed climate plans unable to meet targets, climate change policy in Canada could stand for a similar level of ” clarity, reality, and honesty from Conservatives. How? Through a “Made-at-Home” climate plan.
Its singular focus should be this: the most emissions reductions in Canada at the least economic cost to Canadians.
A “Made-at-Home” climate policy would have three main parts: a climate audit, domestic, not international targets, and a revamped new federal/provincial relationship from what we have today.
A Canadian climate audit
First, undertake a climate audit of federal climate plans and policies. Every opposition party taking over government undertakes a financial audit of its predecessor’s books to determine the “true” fiscal situation they just inherited. The same should go for the country’s most difficult public policy problem—climate change.
Conduct a comprehensive, in-depth, cost-benefit assessment of Canadian progress on reducing emissions and which policies are working, and which aren’t. Determine the likelihood of current and proposed federal measures achieving results and assess how efficient and effective they are in doing so. On this basis, decide to keep or discard current policies and, from there, develop new ones as part of a Conservative “Made-at-Home” climate plan. Ripe for review and either shedding or adjusting are those federal policies announced but not yet fully implemented, including the oil and gas emissions cap, carbon capture and storage, electric vehicles mandates, and billions of dollars allocated to various subsidy and incentive schemes.
Domestic climate goals
Second, set new domestic climate goals that are realistic, practical, and achievable. Overly ambitious and unrealistic climate targets are the original sin of climate policy in Canada. We have signed up for every UN climate goal from Kyoto to Paris. Yet, not once did governments ever get us on a feasible pathway to achieve them. Even now after almost 10 years of a federal government actively committed to climate change action, we are not yet on a path to achieving the original 2030 Paris target. Missed targets foster cynicism about climate action, erode public support, and trap us into ineffective climate pathways that cost Canadians over time. Aspiration is fine, but honesty is better.
The problem? Canada has signed onto UN climate goals from Kyoto to Copenhagen to Paris that cannot be met without significant disruption under Canada’s domestic energy economy and federalism realities. Attempts to reach those goals without openly comprehending what’s at stake have bred economic uncertainty and political disunity.
The solution? Instead of arbitrarily applying global top-down targets and making Canada try to meet them, do the reverse. Establish a domestic emissions reduction target that fits our economic reality of being an energy-producing and exporting country with exceptionally diverse energy economies and realities across a large, dispersed geographic space. Focus on actively reducing emissions in the short term with specific reduction goals of cumulative emissions reductions, not just meeting some distant goal. Keep the long-term goal of net-zero emissions by 2050 but reframe the pathway to get there in terms of five-year progress markers based on specific cumulative carbon emissions reduction goals. Paris and other targets can continue to be noted as aspirational references but the shift would be towards emissions reductions now, not later.
This approach is based in climate science. Climate change is generated by the cumulative effect of carbon gathering in the atmosphere from decades of previous pollution. Put differently, climate change today is being caused by yesterday’s emissions, not tomorrow’s. It makes sense to focus on how we can reduce future emissions that will cause more climate change, but distant point in time targets miss the urgent focus of reducing the growing cumulative emissions burden.
This is not as radical a departure as it sounds. In fact, this is skating to where the puck is going. Focusing on cumulative emissions reductions has been noted by international climate organizations from the U.N. to the UK Climate Change Committee, which years ago said: “…it is not simply the level of emissions in a future target year that we should be concerned about. It is cumulative emissions over the whole period that matter.”
Looking at climate action this way offers several advantages. First, it supports the concept of a net zero future, consistent with global actions and trends. Second, it supports domestic clean technology solutions such as carbon capture and underground storage (CCUS) and direct air capture (DAC). Third, it actively incorporates natural climate solutions such as carbon sinks and sequestration, wetlands restoration, and forest, grasslands, and agriculture carbon absorption, all of which fit into classic conservative conservation perspectives.
Instead of building elaborate and expensive policy frameworks to meet increasingly unattainable long-term GHG emission targets of 30, 40, or 45 percent below 2005 levels as a backward benchmark, focus on more immediate carbon reductions that add up to real, tangible progress in timeframes governments can measure and people can see. Do this by setting designated amounts of cumulative carbon emission reductions that can be achieved over five-year periods (the progress marker) and craft specific measures to generate those reductions. Doing so explicitly aligns climate actions with carbon reduction outcomes. This approach brings forward climate accountability for the government of the day, making it their responsibility, not that of whoever comes next.
Collaboration, not coercion
Third, foster a new climate federalism in Canada by reining in federal climate overreach into provincial jurisdiction and offering climate collaboration, not coercion. The way to do this is to offer bilateral Climate Action Agreements between Ottawa and each province and territory. This will focus the efforts of both orders of government on what each does best and on actions that work best for that jurisdiction, whether it is carbon capture and storage in Alberta and Saskatchewan, energy retrofits in Manitoba, or heat pumps in Atlantic Canada.
Begin by recognizing that climate policy impacts and circumstances are different across the country and imposed one-size-fits-all national policy has disproportionate impacts on one province over another. This creates inequities and division. It has led to policy gerrymandering to accommodate, such as the carbon tax home heating fuel exemption to placate Atlantic Canada, different carbon price stringencies under the federal carbon pricing backstop regulation in Quebec, and massive industry subsidies to battery plants in Ontario, as examples.
Climate Action Agreements across the country would knit together a truly pan-Canadian climate action effort that no longer exists. These collaborative agreements would set out shared goals, actions, funding, and accountability that are designed specifically for the needs and priorities of each province. Where there is obvious merit in a national policy approach to maintaining pan-Canadian fairness and competitiveness, such as industrial carbon pricing, then jurisdictions that did not adhere could opt out provided they took equivalent measures. Quebec, for example, could continue with its own cap-and-trade policy under this approach.
To incent provinces to join (they would not receive money otherwise), Ottawa would provide targeted financial supports, refreshed every five years, contingent on provinces meeting each new cumulative emissions reduction goal. For fairness, each jurisdiction would receive a base allocation of funding for uniquely provincial/territorial initiatives. This could be a combination of a fixed dollar amount based on population with a top-up allocation based on that province’s contribution to national emissions, with more funding going to higher-emitting provinces given the scale of effort required to reduce emissions there.
Additional joint federal/provincial funding could also be added on a project-by-project basis for initiatives that extended beyond a single five-year cumulative emissions reduction progress marker. The overriding proviso is that this money must be used to reduce emissions on a tangible, measurable basis so it can be measured, tracked, counted, and reported publicly as part of the national five-year cumulative emissions reduction goal. Shared climate action mirrored by shared climate accountability.
Doing this will relieve the current acrimony in national climate policy and, more importantly, encourage jurisdictions to proactively and responsibly act on climate change. It would lead to greater mutual accountability of both orders of government to their own respective populations. Premiers that did not act while others did would have to justify this inaction to their voters.
This is a far cry from Justin Trudeau’s climate change promise in 2015 before he became prime minister. He travelled to Calgary, the heart of Canada’s oil and gas sector, giving a speech comparing climate action to Medicare, stating: “…the federal government does not have all the answers.”
He spoke of collaboration with provinces and territories in reducing carbon emissions, saying: “When the federal government ignores these regional distinctions, or discounts provincial or territorial perspectives, our country is weakened, not strengthened.”
That was then, this is now. Canada’s climate change policies are expansive and expensive. Today, Ottawa’s climate policies have divided the country, generated economic uncertainty, and are intrusive and inconsistently applied. Most tellingly, they are not likely to meet stated emission reduction goals.
In office, if not before, the Conservative Party will have to show how they will reduce carbon emissions, not just carbon taxes. No climate plan is not an option. The prospect of a large majority mandate would give it the running room to remake climate policy in Canada on very different terms than present. They should seize that moment and adopt a made-in-Canada climate policy that accepts climate change as a reality to manage, not an idol to obey.
