Front Burner - Please Explain: Where the major parties stand on climate change

Episode Date: September 16, 2019

In Please Explain, voters come on Front Burner to ask their biggest questions about the election. First up: Marieke Walsh from the Globe and Mail explains the party platforms on climate change, and how the carbon tax is doing for Canada.

In the Dragon's Den, a simple pitch can lead to a life-changing connection. Watch new episodes of Dragon's Den free on CBC Gem. Brought to you in part by National Angel Capital Organization, empowering Canada's entrepreneurs through angel investment and industry connections. This is a CBC Podcast. Over the last few months, we've been getting a ton of emails from our listeners about the big issues coming up in the 2019 federal election campaign. So we're starting a new series today called Please Explain, where we bring on listeners just like you to talk through the big questions in this campaign. Like, how do you make life more affordable for Canadian families?

Conservative leader Andrew Scheer says he can do that. Or, where do the parties stand on pharmacare? The Liberals and the NDP have said they'd like to see a national pharmacare plan. You can send your questions to frontburner at cbc.ca by email, or you can tweet us. The handle is at frontburner cbc hashtag please explain. But for today, hashtag please explain. But for today, our first edition.

Today, we're going to talk about climate change and what the parties say they're going to do about it. I'm joined by my friend and very curious voter, Joseph Chavison. He's actually the guy who wrote the FrontBurner theme song, the thing that you're listening to right now. And we're going to talk with Marika Walsh, reporter for The Globe and Mail. I'm Jamie Poisson. This is FrontBurner.

So I'm here today with my friend Joseph Chavison. Hi, Jamie. Hello. The theme song is actually one of my favorite things about this show. Thank you, Jamie. I know that the reason that you're here today isn't necessarily to talk about the front burner theme song. It's also because you have some questions going into this upcoming election. And I know a lot of those questions deal with climate change. This might be an obvious question, but why do you care about this issue going into the election? You know, so much of the news cycle is dominated by climate reporting and just the state of the world. And I think, you know, Canadians pride themselves on being progressive and caring about

the environment. But at the same time, I think that we are a country that relies really heavily and makes a lot of our money from fossil fuels and things that pollute. So it's a bit paradoxical. And I'm just trying to figure out where everyone stands and how we navigate the next bunch of years, trying to both be progressive with climate policy, while also not putting an entire province out of work. Right. When you say where everyone stands, we're talking about the parties here. Absolutely. And so in that vein, our friend Marika Walsh is here. She is a reporter with the Globe and Mail. She's been looking at these party platforms for a while now. Marika, are you there?

I sure am. Hi, Jamie. Hi, Joe. Hi. Hello. Hello. Thank you so much for being here. So Joe, where do you want to start? Should we start with the liberals? They've been in power for the last couple of years. Does that make sense? Yeah, and that's do you want to start? Should we start with the Liberals? They've been in power for the last couple of years. Does that make sense? Yeah, and that's a good place to start. I guess what I'm curious about is, like, what have they done so far? And then moving forward for this next election, what do they plan on doing in the future? So there's two parts to this. There is what they've done and what they're planning to do or what they're going to add on, we'll find out in the course of this election campaign. But here's what we know so far. The Liberals have signed on to reduce Canada's greenhouse gas emissions by 30% below 2005 levels by 2030. Currently, even with the suite of policies from the carbon tax to investments in transit and technology, Canada's own numbers show that we're about 79 megatons away from meeting that target for 2030.

And this is the Paris Agreement that we've signed? This is the Paris Agreement. Okay, so one thing they've done is the carbon tax, and I'm kind of curious, has it been working? of curious, has it been working? So evidence shows from economists, from scientists, that in general, putting a price on carbon does have the impact of reducing emissions. But because Canada's system is so new, it was only brought in fully in April, you can't really measure it yet. However, the government says that the carbon tax that we see in some provinces, the cap and trade system that we see in others, all of it is part of a bigger policy set that they are using to hopefully meet their emissions targets. So by putting a price on pollution,

we incentivize people to pollute less. It's basic economics. You want less of something, put a price on it. We want less pollution. We need less pollution. So we'll put a price on it. And the carbon tax, it's not necessarily the only part of the plan, but it's the part of the plan that has received the most attention in Canada, I would say. This year, a $20 tax per ton translates to about 4.3 cents per liter of gas. So that was started in April of this year. It rises by $10 each year. Now, the liberals have worked in a rebate system. So while you see this higher cost when you are paying at the pumps, there is this rebate

that you get each year on your income tax bill that the Liberals say covers the cost of the carbon tax for the individual household. Eight in 10 Ontario families will get back more than they pay directly. And there will be a 10% top up for people living in small, rural, and remote communities. Now, your next question then is, okay, so how does this work? Yeah, how does it lower emissions? Right. And so economists say that essentially this has a bit of a carrot and stick approach. So on the one hand, you have these higher costs that you see when you're going to pay for something.

And the effect of that is to persuade or incentivize people to make a different choice. So if gas is going higher, all of a sudden the cost of a bus fare look more enticing, for example. And so you'll make a different choice. Now, if you can't make a different choice, if your only option is to still drive, if there's no public transit, that's why the Liberals say they've brought the rebate in to not punish people. But at the same time, the rebate acts as a further incentive or the carrot approach because it essentially rewards people who are polluting less because less of your money is going towards these higher cost items now.

Does that make sense to you, Joe? Absolutely. I mean, listening to that answer, which makes a lot of sense to me, I wonder why it is, why do people like Andrew Scheer, Doug Ford, really oppose this tax? So conservatives have not always opposed a price on carbon. Former Prime Minister Stephen Harper at one point supported it. But conservatives today in Canada say that it is an unfair cost to households, especially those who are commuting, and they simply dispute that the rebate will have the effect that the Liberals say it will. The Parliamentary Budget Officer said that in order to reach Paris,

the Liberal carbon tax would have to be over $100 per tonne in all 10 provinces, not just those Trudeau has forced his tax on. The idea behind this, Marika, is that if I live in a rural part of the country and I drive a lot, I'm going to be paying over the course of the year a lot more money at the gas pump because of this tax, and then I'm probably not going to get a rebate that's equal to that. That's their argument. Exactly. That's the Conservatives' argument. But it's also important to note that the Liberals have not given the same rebate to all of the people who have this federal carbon tax. So that's Manitoba, Ontario, New Brunswick, and Saskatchewan. So depending on which province you

live in, your rebate is higher or lower. To try and account for that, the conservatives say essentially it doesn't go far enough. So that helps explain the carbon tax, hopefully, Joseph? Absolutely. You know, generally the centerpiece of the Liberals' climate change plan, but... Yeah, I guess I would wonder what else are the Liberals doing in terms of policy decision? Yeah, and they're actually doing a lot of other things. So, for example, they also have a form of a carbon tax for heavy emitters. They have a benchmark that they don't have to pay carbon taxes on emissions to a certain level. And then if they hit a level and go above it,

they have to pay a carbon tax on those emissions. Similarly, the Liberals are looking at bringing in what's called a clean fuel standard, and that would require producers to lower greenhouse gas content of their fuel. So those are other ways that the Liberals are trying to reduce emissions. They're also investing heavily in things like public transportation. So Environment Minister Catherine McKenna says the starting of the LRT in Ottawa is actually the biggest reduction to greenhouse gas emissions for the city in the city's history. I'm so proud that our government is investing in critical infrastructure, light rail, transit, and waterway. That's interesting. I miss her saying that.

I think, Marika, this is probably a good time for us to bring up something that the liberals have been criticized over, which is the buying of the Trans Mountain Pipeline. A lot of environmentalists have obviously been very critical of this because it is the liberals' commitment to the continuation of fossil fuels in this country. Yeah, that's right. The Liberals announced they were buying the Trans Mountain Pipeline and the pipeline expansion for $4.5 billion. It's an agreement that we believe will deliver a real return on investment for the benefit of British Columbians, Albertans, and all Canadians. And that's really where they're being attacked by the left side of the political spectrum, who say that there is a complete disconnect in saying that you are reducing greenhouse gas emissions, saying that you're focused on addressing climate change, and then at the same time allowing for this expansion of oil sands production,

and then the use of it, right? And how the Liberals counter that, and not everybody buys it, but what the Liberals say is that their focus is on ensuring the economy and environmental sustainability are working in concert. And so they argue that if Canada is reducing its emissions elsewhere, they should still be able to ensure the viability of the oil sands as long as there is a demand for oil from the oil sands. The truth is, it doesn't make economic or environmental sense to sell any resource at a discount. Instead, we should take advantage of what we have and invest the profits in what comes next, building the clean energy future which is also a big environmental burden. So I just didn't realize that expansion of the oil sands was part of it. That's really interesting.

Yeah, it's also a safety issue, right? Between rail and pipelines, people say that pipelines are safer. And you're right that there is the potential for expansion. But the liberals have also ensured there is a cap on oil sands production. It still allows for expansion of production, but there is an overall cap. Got you. Let's move on because we want to talk about some of the other parties too, right? Absolutely. So maybe we can go to the conservatives? Yeah, that sounds perfect.

Okay, so I guess my question here is, what is their plan? Like a lot of people said that their environmental policy looked bad, that it wasn't doing anything. And I'm just wondering if that is in fact true. So we spoke with several experts for this explainer that we did in the Globe and Mail on the different parties' climate plans. And the experts generally have the consensus that emissions will go up or that the Conservatives, at the very least, will not meet any of the targets that Canada has with the plan that they put forward. And I've put that to the Conservative Party. They don't give us evidence to dispute it. What the Conservatives, though though do say about their plan is

that they say their plan represents the best chance Canada will have to meet its Paris targets. And again, that's the 30% reduction of 2005 levels by 2030. But they stopped short of actually committing to meeting those targets. And that leaves many scientists and economists skeptical of just how far this will go. Conservatives say they will repeal the carbon tax and they will also repeal that clean fuel standard that we talked about earlier under the Liberal plan that reduces or requires the reduction of greenhouse gas content in fuel. And then they say they'll replace that with this suite of tax incentives and investments in technology. The fact is we can actually create more jobs in Canada through technological growth

while at the same time lowering global emissions. And they also say that they will put a cap on emissions from large emitters and if those large emitters go above the cap then they will have to pay to invest in emissions reduction technology specific to their industry we will set this limit at 40 kilotons per year so in essence that is a carbon price but experts say that without knowing what the cost will be for companies who go beyond it it's impossible to know whether it would be effective let's pull apart some of what you just did there so we talked about be for companies who go beyond it, it's impossible to know whether it would be effective.

Let's pull apart some of what you just did there. So we talked about this one thing that the conservatives have promised, which is this cap on emissions per large emitters. They are getting criticized for this, I know, because they have not said what that actual cap is. And then Marika, you mentioned some other things in there, and let's do them one at a time, maybe. Tax incentives. So what are we talking about when we're talking about tax incentives? And for people listening, like why would that lower our emissions? So what they're saying, for example, is that they're proposing a two-year retrofit program where households and families and individuals who own a property could get a tax incentive to retrofit their homes or retrofit certain parts of their buildings. And so that would be one way to help reduce emissions. However, on that front, experts say there's no target and there's no mandates around it. So again, it's unclear what

the actual overall impact will be. This might sound like a dumb question, but can you just elaborate for me what retrofitting your home looks like, what that means, and how that affects people's houses? Yeah, there are no dumb questions on this show. Never in journalism. Never, ever, ever. So a really good example is changing your windows, right? So if you change your windows,

you have a less drafty house, or you improve your insulation, you have a less drafty house, or you improve your insulation, you have a less drafty house, that means that you will be more energy efficient. In 2017, emissions from buildings accounted for 12% of Canada's total greenhouse gas emissions. We cannot tackle climate change without making our buildings greener. Okay, so we've dealt with tax incentives, we've dealt with these emission standards, which is a little bit vague. Have they promised anything else in the way of policy decisions? Yeah, so they're also promising to invest in technology and encourage investment in technology.

So one of those key examples that we hear about a lot in the climate change field is carbon capture and storage. So that's something that they would like more of. And then the other thing they talk about is, quote, taking the climate change fight global. That's kind of the spin or the language they use. And what they mean by that is doing things like if they're able to get more of Canada's liquefied natural gas sold to China and China then reduces its coal usage while then overall impact on emissions in the world is to lower them. If you shut down Canada's entire economy for a year China would replace all our emissions within three weeks. The fact is Canada will not make a meaningful contribution to fighting climate

change by focusing only on our own emissions. And so it's not clear how that would work but it is an option that's still being looked at. One expert I spoke with said you know if you are addressing the cheaper things for other countries if you're helping developing countries lower their emissions, and it's cheaper to help those countries lower their emissions because they have lower hanging fruit, then for Canada to lower its emissions, then the overall impact on the world is still good. So Joseph, when you hear that, what do you think? I mean, it's interesting. Like, I think that on the one hand, it's always good to sort of lower emissions globally. But at the same time, what feels a bit gross about it to me is that it kind of alleviates Canada of the responsibility of being a climate change policy leader. and it would be nice, and this is very much a value judgment on my part, but it would be nice to feel like your country was doing more in the way of policy to kind of affect change.

And I guess what I would add to that is just to say that's why the Conservatives say there is a way to do this, that Canada would get credit and recognition for that. Marika, I would be interested to hear your perspective here, because it strikes me that the lens by which you view this and the lens by which you view these platforms, it's informed by your worldview on climate change. I think that's a really important point. And it's a point that Andrew Leach with the University of Alberta made to me as well, that essentially, if the entire world tomorrow decides to completely change how we operate to really tackle climate change head on and really move quickly,

then all of a sudden a party like the Green Party's plans seem more doable and also might make more sense because our economy would need to shift in a quick manner. Whereas if you look on the other side of the spectrum at the Conservatives' plan, that might make more sense to some people if they don't see the world acting and they see Canada taking on costs that other countries aren't being forced to take on. Right. Feels like this existential question, hey? Absolutely. Like, are these costs worth it? In the Dragon's Den, a simple pitch can lead to a life-changing connection. Watch new episodes of Dragon's Den free on CBC Gem.

Brought to you in part by National Angel Capital Organization, empowering Canada's entrepreneurs through angel investment and industry connections. Let's move on to some of the other parties. I know Marika mentioned the Greens, but does it make more sense for us to start with the NDP? Yeah, I was going to ask. I mean, they're the third biggest party, and I was curious where they stood on all of this. So the NDP critically say that they want to make Canada's targets more ambitious. critically say that they want to make Canada's targets more ambitious. So they say if they form government, they would up our target from 30% currently to 38% below 2005 levels by 2030.

They say they will do this by continuing the current system of carbon pricing and carbon taxes in Canada, but they would roll back some of the things and tweak some of it to make it a bit more expensive for wealthier people and to make sure that industries pay even more. The first step to make sure that we put a price on pollution that's appropriate would be to make sure that there's no exemptions for the biggest polluters. If you pollute, you have to pay. Right now, that's not the case. That's what they would do with the carbon tax. And then on other things, they want to essentially create a retrofit program that would see half of Canada's housing stock retrofitted by 2030, which would be an absolutely massive undertaking.

And then by 2050, all of our housing stock, they say, would be retrofitted. Which will encourage work and jobs in communities, every community that needs to retrofit their homes. We understand that 70% of the buildings around us today will still be here by 2050. So that is, again, one of those massive, massive undertakings that they say they will do. But it's important to note that on the zero emissions vehicles targets and on the retrofits, right now they're just saying they'll incentivize these changes. They're not saying that they will regulate it and force the change. And it's possible that more of that comes out in the election campaign, more details comes out. But certainly, that was a red flag for experts,

that it's not a guarantee that these targets would be met because they're not being mandated. Another critique from experts is that it just is so fast that it seems difficult to see how it's actually doable. But that again goes back to this question that we had earlier, Jamie, about what the rest of the world is doing and how fast it's being done. Right, right. Where does the NDP stand on the pipeline? So the NDP says that they are against the Trans Mountain Pipeline. It's not clear to me, and the party would not tell me, even though I asked many times, what exactly they would do with it, though, because Canada has now invested the money. So if they're not going to build it, are we just writing off that multi-billion dollar investment?

They wouldn't really tell me what they would actually do, but they said they would not go ahead with it. This all sounds pretty ambitious, but it also sounds incredibly expensive. Is it financially even doable? So it is a big price tag. The NDPs say that they would spend $15 billion in their first mandate. So it's not like a 10-year plan.

It's in four years, they're saying they would spend $15 billion. They haven't released a costed platform. So it's impossible for us to know how that impacts Canada's bottom line overall, but certainly it is a huge amount of money and it would be expensive. The other thing that they're not saying is what would happen to the carbon tax after 2022. So like the Liberals, they say that they'll keep the price escalating as it is by $10 a year. And then in 2022, they'll negotiate and see what happens after consultations with the provinces and territories and industry. I think it's probably fair to say here that we're looking at a more ambitious plan than the liberals. But as Marika mentioned, you know, criticisms that like there's a lack of detail here on how we're going to pay for it. And also, you know, how we're going to achieve it in such a tight timeline. Fair, Marika? Yeah, certainly.

Then, you know, I guess the obvious place for us to go next is the party of climate change. Yes. What is the Green Party promising? You know, the Green Party plan is really a plan that I would say is on steroids compared to the other parties' plans. They would like to double Canada's targets. So they would like to see us reduce our emissions by 60 percent below 2005 levels by 2030. So that's a doubling of the Liberals' current targets, and it's certainly a lot more still than the NDP targets as well.

We have to stop debating what is possible and start doing what is necessary. If you go back to the science, you recognize that holding to 1.5 degrees is not a political target. It's a real-life problem of physics. And what they say is needed is essentially a war cabinet. And Elizabeth May says that she wants to create a cabinet that's a multi-partisan cabinet that takes the politics out of climate change and really focuses down and doubles down on the response that she believes is needed to address climate change. In a time of war, the opposition parties were invited into the inner cabinet to make sure that decisions were taken and were not subject to becoming political footballs. And they have not costed their plan yet, but they say they will in this campaign.

They say they will do things like increase the carbon tax by $10 per year annually, going up to 2030, so that would put it at $130 by 2030. And they say that they want all new cars sold in Canada by 2030 to be zero emissions vehicles and all traditional cars in Canada to be replaced by 2040 to all be zero emissions vehicles. So again, those very aggressive timelines are just amped up now under the Green Party. You know, I would imagine then that you're hearing similar criticisms of this plan, as you were the NDP's plan, for example. Yeah, similar criticisms around the how, because that is the big question. How do you get it done? And at what cost to Canadians and to the economy and to the Treasury?

I find that very interesting. But Joseph, ending this conversation today, what's your biggest takeaway here? Are you feeling like you have a better understanding of where all the major parties stand? So yeah, I feel like I have a much better understanding of where all the parties are at. And I think I have a less clear understanding of where I'm at. I think that there's a lot of different plans that all claim different things. And yeah, I'm really happy to have gotten that explainer so I can go home and kind of do some more research. Okay, sweet. Please explain. Marika, thank you so much. Joseph, thank you so

much for being here. first edition of Please Explain. We're trying this thing out, so we'd love to hear your feedback. And of course, if you want to come on and you have any questions, and of course, if you want to come on and have your questions answered, send us an email. Again, it's frontburner at cbc.ca or tweet us at frontburner cbc hashtag please explain. In other campaign news, the Liberals, the Conservatives, the NDP and the Greens have now all dropped candidates in the first few days of the race over controversial old social media posts or beliefs. On Saturday, Andrew Scheer defended his position not to fire candidates who made homophobic posts in the past as long as they apologize.

As long as someone takes responsibility for what they said and addresses the fact that in 2019 some things that may have been said in the past are inappropriate today, that if anything that they've ever said in the past caused any type of hurt or disrespect to one community or another and have apologized for that, I accept that. You know, I accept the fact that people can make mistakes in the past. We're going to talk about this and more on Tuesday with our election panel with Vashie Capellos. But today, that's it. I'm Jamie Poisson. Thanks so much for listening and see you tomorrow.