The costs of doing something about climate change are the subject of much debate these, and Canada is no exception. The federal government, like the ones before it, has shown little interest in honest analysis, so one of the country's biggest banks, TD Bank, decided to pay for a study all on its own. The results, which the bank's economists call "robust," represent perhaps the most comprehensive effort to nail down those costs, at least for one country. And what did the consultants they hired to write the report find? Good news, actually.
Unless, of course, you happen to own a piece of the fossil-fuel industry.
According to the study, which was prepared by the Pembina Institute and the David Suzuki Foundation, with significant input from the economics modeling team at M.K. Jaccard and Associates, Canada makes it to 2020 pretty well, overall, even if it implements serious emissions-reductions laws -- the kind consistent with a global strategy required to keep average temperatures from rising more than 2 °C above pre-industrial levels.
Canada's GDP is projected to grow 23 per cent between 2010 and 2020, or an average of 2.1 per cent annually, while meeting the 2°C emissions target. By comparison, under business as usual conditions, Canada's GDP is projected to grow 27 per cent between 2010 and 2020, or an average of 2.4 per cent annually, with GHG emissions in 2020 rising to 47 per cent above the 1990 level. GDP growth rates vary significantly among regions, as is the case under business as usual.
So why, then is the news not all good? Why would the Globe and Mail write an editorial calling the actions recommended by the report's authors "the wrong approach?" Because while Canada as a whole does more than OK under the prescribed scenario, Alberta and Saskatchewan, which rely heavily on fossil fuels, do not, at least, not without enormous compensatory subsidies from the federal government. The Globe and Mail's editorial writer concludes that the report's
all-out attack on the oil and gas sector is politically and economically unacceptable, and would euthanize a vital Canadian industry.
Which may be true, from the perspective of someone who can't think outside the proverbial box of perpetual economic growth and painless political pathways. A more mature attitude leads one to the unavoidable conclusion that getting us out of the hole Canada has dug itself by relying so heavily on the tar sands, conventional oil and gas, and coal industries will require sacrifices. And who better to make the sacrifices than those who have benefited the most from the business of the past?
After all, Alberta had a chance to share the responsibility of running an oil-based economy with the rest of Canada back in the 1970s. It said no. Loudly. To this day many Albertans spit on the memory of Pierre Trudeau for trying to force his "National Energy Policy" down their throats. So it would be bit rich for the province to now beg for government assistance because that industry is about to become economically unviable.
Still, political realities being what they are, the real argument is over how Canada will "afford" to limit Alberta's economic growth (it still grows, according to the new report). This parallels the global debate over how much developed nations should pay in exchange for the developing world's agreement to not to follow in our industrial footsteps. Dramatic changes are necessary to avoid catastrophic climate change. There's no getting around that. Pretending, as the Globe and Mail does, that any plan that accepts that reality is "unacceptable" is denial, pure and simple.
The only real question is how much of the pain should be spread around? Given the inescapable fact that global climate mitigation demands the fossil-fuel industry shrink to close to zero output over the next 40 years or so, how much should Central Canadians pay Alberta to close down the tar sands? Similarly, how much should the U.S. pay China not to build more coal-fired power plants?
Those are the political questions we should be asking. Not unearthing the specter of regional separatism with lines like
Canada cannot take its national unity for granted and must not, in the service of international obligations, allow itself to be immolated by a government policy of such wrenching dislocation.
Such paranoid and alarmist rhetoric give climate change activists a milque-toast reputation by comparison. The Pembina-Suzuki report paints a relatively optimistic vision of the future. Yes, there will be disruptions, but no one was ever arguing that there wouldn't be. Why focus on regional challenges when the big picture is turns out to be more than acceptable?
- Log in to post comments
As an Albertan I would agree with your statment on denial and alarmist rhetoric. I am not much of an environmentalist and even I would agree that the resistance to this is dumb.
Listen Alberta, I realize that the tar sands power your industry and give the province jobs. I know that the tar sands do not contribute that much pollution compared to other places but it's time to face the inconvinent facts.
Even if we keep the tar sands open, oil is not a renewable resource, we're going to deplete it eventually. When that happens Alberta (if it hasn't changed it industries) will be faced with the same crisis that may be the result of an economic change. The difference is that the environment will be less off as a whole.
Maybe I'm just preaching to the choir here but wouldn't it be nice to put aside our treasured tar sands and move on to something else? it kind of hard to rag on the other countries for their environmental disturbances when we have a big polluting mess in the heart of our own country.
So yeah, it's better to change now then to face the consequences later on.
"Maybe I'm just preaching to the choir here but wouldn't it be nice to put aside our treasured tar sands and move on to something else?"
I agree, give up your beloved tar sands Alberta. Let China have it all, or perhaps New Brunswick. That would do wonders for the environment. I'm sure they would not exploit it, they would make it a nature park and no one could use it for any reason. All Albertans would be glad to return to tilling a small plot of soil that has been generously given to them free of charge by the Alberta government. Just as long as they eat tofu, wear Birkenstocks and chant "dear Leader" whenever Al Gore's name is mentioned.
Al Gore
...Why are idiots so fascinated with Al Gore? Does anyone have an explanation? It puzzles me so damn much, and I hate things I can't come up with even a plausible rationalization for.
Um, tar sands are worse, not better, by up to 5x for CO2 pollution, not to mention the ground cover and waste water destruction and pollution, as compared to traditional oil technologies. Almost as bad as mountain top removal for getting at the remnants of our coal reserves.
The specter of regional separatism is never that far from the surface in Canada, something Americans generally do not understand. This idea is not in the same class as those in the States that speak of the same things; separation, particularly in Quebec, but also in the West, is considered a serious option and is ignored by politicians at their peril.
Provincial governments are much more powerful than their counterparts in the States, and the Federal government consequently weaker. The failure of Trudeau's National Energy Policy is indicative of just how strong regionalism is in this country. The reality is that Canada is still in many ways, a confederation and politics and policy must reflect this.
I just wish this wasn't being pitched the way it is by so many. Framing, James, framing! :-) The message is not that dealing with climate change will impose a cost on the oil sands. The real message is that the oil sands are imposing a massive cost on the planet as a whole, and that should be rectified somehow.
Unfortunately it's not going to happen with a federal government so heavily dependent on Alberta's political support, and so allergic to anything resembling the multi-lateralism it would take to come up with a real plan to control emissions.
Some of your summary is wrong. The National Energy Plan had nothing to do with planning the nation's energy resources and everything to do with taking any income from oil in the west and moving it to the richer provinces who also voted for the Liberals. Politics, pure and simple.
Just like the falsehoods that the oil sands are large sources of carbon emissions in Canada, especially since most emissions are caused by the consumers of oil, Toronto is the largest Canadian source of carbon emissions, more than the entire province of Alberta, oil sands and all.
As for the report, the report's authors didn't not explain how growth would occur if consumers reduced use by 20%, meaning shutting all of Canada down for a day and a half each week, including Toronto (remember, largest source of Canadian carbon emissions). The report's authors assume that all reductions in emissions should be made by the producers of oil and coal and not the consumers, kind of like Bush stopping the production of drugs in the US to reduce the number of addicts and drug problems. Not reasonable.
Anthropogenic Global Warming, is a theory that has never been proven, Computer models supporting AGM have proven to be flawed. Temperatures have not increased in the past 9 years. Hurricane frequency in the North Atlantic, way down. Seasonal ice persistence, in many parts of the arctic, is above average. Cold summers, etc...no need to go on. So much disinformation, i.e. faked footage of polar bears, Al Gore, has people fooled.
People get real passionate about this, esp scientists that rely on funding from governments/orgs that support the AGM theory, and politicians who see a big tax grab (carbon tax). Anyone questioning AGM is generally mocked, but as time goes on, scientific observations are dispelling the theory. The sun is driving our climate folks. We need a more mature debate, an examination of facts, and less name calling.
That said, it is high time the world stopped being so reliant on fossil fuels. We have the technological capability to do so. Air pollution from fossil fuels is highly detrimental, and reliance on foreign sources creates economic and political turmoil. Iran would never be developing a nuclear weapon if it did not have vast oil reserves.
Alberta oil sands - inefficient extraction techniques (burn natural gas). Nuclear is a better source to extract crude from oil sands. America, if you don't like this so called "dirty oil," the Canadians will sell it to the Chinese. Is that what you want?
No, I do not work for an oil/gas/coal company. I am not a republican or conservative.
Nice dog.
Oh...someone has to say it...
@G. Macdonald
"Anthropogenic Global Warming, is a theory that has never been proven, Computer models supporting AGM have proven to be flawed. Temperatures have not increased in the past 9 years. Hurricane frequency in the North Atlantic, way down. Seasonal ice persistence, in many parts of the arctic, is above average. Cold summers, etc...no need to go on. So much disinformation, i.e. faked footage of polar bears, Al Gore, has people fooled."
So wierd how this rant type is never accompanied by sources. Kind of makes it seem like a soundbyte you heard on Glenn Beck or something. Can't wait to see you ref the Heartland, Daily Telegraph, Lomborg, Superfreakonomics, Singer, The Austrailian or some other widely debunked junk.
"That said, it is high time the world stopped being so reliant on fossil fuels. We have the technological capability to do so. Air pollution from fossil fuels is highly detrimental, and reliance on foreign sources creates economic and political turmoil. Iran would never be developing a nuclear weapon if it did not have vast oil reserves. "
so basically, you agree, but just won't concede that this "AGW nonsense" is anything to be bothered about? Ah the human ego, rarely misses a chance to introduce some serious cognitive dissonance. Why even start the post with such rabble?
Maybe they're fans of Futurama. That's what I know him from.
Where I live, it's gotten an awful lot colder in just the last few months!
But it's a lot warmer here than it was when I got up this morning....
"scientific observations are dispelling the theory"
I'm always fascinated when I see this sentence used to describe a theory that almost all scientists in the relevant fields accept (AGW, evolution, HIV/AIDS, etc.) What does it mean to say "science says X" when X is something almost no scientist thinks or has offered evidence to support?
Absolute certainty is the problem. Each side has looked at the facts they want to see and disregarded the facts they do not want to see.
It will be interesting in 25 years to look back at the absolutely certainties of today. I went to grade school in the 60s and they were absolutely certain there was another ice age coming in the next 500 years.