Front Burner - What would it take for Canada to meet its climate targets?

Episode Date: June 18, 2019

The Canadian government has already admitted that it probably won’t be able to meet its Paris climate targets, the international agreement Canada signed promising to significantly reduce emissions of greenhouse gases. As part of a new CBC News project called In Our Backyard, reporter Connie Walker has been using climate modelling to investigate different policy options to find out what it would actually take for Canada to meet its goals. Today on Front Burner, she shares her findings.

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. As I talk about it, I can feel and smell everything that I did back then. And he looks down at me, I'm looking up at him, and he says, that's my little girl. It's a 30-year-old homicide where we don't have anybody charged and convicted.

Felt like a murderer had gotten away with something. Tell me now, did you have anything to do with the murder? Someone Knows Something with David Ridgen, Season 5. Now available. Go to cbc.ca slash sks. Hello, I'm Jamie Poisson. Last week I had a really illuminating and sobering chat with David Wallace-Wells. He wrote a book on climate change called The Uninhabitable Earth. You can find that episode in our feed.

But essentially, David explained how just an additional two degrees above pre-industrial levels of warming could have devastating consequences. Just between the threshold of 1.5 degrees of warming and two degrees. So just that half degree additional would kill, just through the impact of air pollution, 153 million additional people. Of course, David is not alone here. Nearly 200 countries around the world are really worried about these consequences as well. And they've made pledges to try and keep warming under that 2 degree level. The thing is, though, is that they're almost all very well off that mark, including Canada. Our government admits it probably won't be able to meet the goals it sets for itself.

So what would it take to do it? Today, I'm talking to my colleague Connie Walker about that. This is FrontBurner. Hi, Connie. It's so nice to have you here. Hi, Jamie. Nice to be here. So, look, I know you've been doing some really cool work looking into specific scenarios to see what Canada would have to do to meet its climate targets. This pledge to keep global warming under two degrees pre-industrial levels. And this is, of course, the Paris Agreement, right?

Or the Paris Agreement, right? 175 countries, including big polluters like the United States and China, vowing to cut back emissions and stop global temperatures from rising more than two degrees above pre-industrial levels. Today, with my signature, I give you our word that Canada's efforts will not cease. And can we go over first, what has Canada promised? What are its targets? Sure, yeah. So Canada's pledged to significantly reduce our country's emissions. The actual target is to reduce emissions by 30% below 2005 levels by 2030, so in the next 11 years. And in order to do that,

the government's come up with a plan called the Pan-Canadian Framework. An ambitious and achievable framework to address climate change and grow the clean economy. However, they've admitted that based on their own projections, they're not going to make it. The latest estimate from last December is that the government will miss its Paris targets by 79 megatons. And other projections suggest it could actually be higher than that. We're looking at policies every single day that can get us to a cleaner future. It's not really about our target. Of course, we're committed to meeting our target. Okay, okay. And help me understand megatons. Like when we're talking about megatons here, what are we talking about?

A megaton is a million tons, essentially. And on our website this morning at cbc.ca, you can actually go on and see what a megaton looks like. Essentially, a megaton in Toronto covers most of downtown and is as high as the CN Tower. Wow. So essentially, when we say that we're going to be at least 79 megatons short, and you said that that's like a conservative projection here. We're talking about carbon emissions that cover most of downtown Toronto are as high as the CN Tower and multiply that 79 times. Exactly. That's how short we could be by 2030.

Yes. Wow. Okay. So we aren't on track to meet these targets. And I want to talk to you later about whether or not these targets are even good enough in the first place. But first, let's stick with these targets. And I want to talk to you today about how we might be able to get there. Tell me about what climate modeling is, because this is what you've been working on.

Sure. Well, I've just been learning a lot about climate modeling myself. But we partnered with a company called Navius Research. They're based out of Vancouver. And what they do is actually a form about climate modeling myself. But we partnered with a company called Navius Research. They're based out of Vancouver. And what they do is actually a form of economic modeling. It's called economic analysis. And they analyze the impact of climate and energy policies in terms of how those policies will affect things like greenhouse gas emissions, economic activity, household income, et cetera.

And they analyze how the policies will also affect industry and consumer behavior. They do this work mostly for provincial governments in Canada. They've worked with B.C. and Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia. But they also work with industry and environmental groups. They say they provide impartial analysis. They don't advocate for any particular climate policy or position. So we decided to partner with Navias to take a look at, first of all, the pan-Canadian framework and the other policies that the provinces have put in

place that are directed at reducing emissions. And according to Navias' analysis, it found that Canada is actually going to miss our Paris targets by 109 megatons. Okay, so even more than the 79 megatons that the government's admitting they're going to miss. Exactly. Wow. So we asked them to ramp up certain policies and to try to analyze just how effective they might be at closing the gap. Okay, okay. And I know that these policies that you asked them to look at, you looked at three different policies that people talk about a lot. So this isn't everything, but three different ways in which it's widely believed that we can reduce emissions. Let's go through them. So the first is the carbon tax, increasing the carbon tax. Yes. My friends, putting a price on pollution is the best way to tackle climate change because it works.

So currently the cost of the carbon tax is $20 per ton of greenhouse gases emitted. Now the Pan-Canadian Framework, the plan for the Pan-Canadian Framework is to increase that by $10 per year until it maxes out at $50 a ton in 2020. $50 a ton in 2020. Now, we wanted to see if you kept increasing it, if you didn't cap it at $50 per ton in 2020, if you kept going up by $10 a year, how effective would that be at reducing emissions? And how effective was it? Well, if the carbon tax continued to grow by $10 a year, it would in 2030 be $130 per ton. It still missed the Paris targets by 70 megatons. Wow. That's really interesting to me because this is like the centerpiece of Canada's climate action plan. So what does that tell you? Well, I mean, it is effective at reducing emissions. There was a significant reduction, but we spoke to experts who said that even though it's not going to be effective at meeting the Paris targets, they still support a carbon tax because it also helps to change the attitudes of people in industry to get people used to the idea of paying a price on carbon.

The idea that emissions have a cost and either we need to adjust our behavior or pay for it. Right, right. behavior or pay for it. Right, right. The idea being that if there's a tax on emissions, then that gets moved along to the consumer. So we end up paying more money at the gas pumps. And then perhaps we'll make different decisions in our lives, like we'll take public transit more or walk or bike. Sure. Or if industry goes above a certain number of emissions, then they're charged a certain amount. And that's also an incentive for them to keep emissions as low as possible. Right, right. It still feels kind of alarming to me that even if this carbon tax was raised substantially by 2030, like we're still talking about 70 megatons

over. Like this is a very big difference here. Okay, so let's go to the next policy, right, that you guys looked at, which was essentially moving over to electric cars, which feels like a significant move to me. Yeah, well, I mean, you know, we wanted to choose policies that are being talked about, right? You know, I think that these conversations around what can individuals do to address climate change and what can governments do to address climate change, they're happening all the time. And, you know, we wanted to, you know, I think that for sure the carbon tax takes up a lot of space in that conversation. But also so do electric vehicles. The Honourable Minister of Finance. That's why with this budget, we're taking steps to make zero emission vehicles more affordable for more Canadians.

With a new federal purchase incentive of up to $5,000 for electric battery or hydrogen fuel cell vehicles. You know, we actually, when we were doing this story, we met a couple who are retired. We met them, Barry and Hermine Steinberg, who were shopping for an electric vehicle. The engine's so quiet. And they were doing that because they're so concerned about the effects of climate change.

They're worried about their family and their grandchildren. And they support a carbon tax, they say. They're happy to pay it, but they also want to do whatever they can. And so they were shopping for an electric vehicle. I think it's really down to individuals also, because they have to be more proactive and make demands from their government and ensure that their representatives understand how important the issue is to them. And I think that we wanted to then see,

like, if, you know, they're certainly not the only ones, if by 2030, if 100% of the vehicles sold in Canada were electric vehicles, how much of an impact would that have? I was genuinely curious to find out. And what did you find there? I would think it would be a big impact. Well, keep in mind that even if 100% of the vehicles sold in Canada in 2030 were electric, that wouldn't mean that every single car in the country would be electric. There would still be tons of vehicles on the road that

relied on fossil fuels. But we're talking about new cars here. And that specifically refers to personal vehicles. And it did make a difference. It reduced emissions by 16 megatons, but obviously the target would still be missed by quite a bit. Okay, got it. So we're talking, again, even if we put this policy in place to ensure that all new vehicles sold were electric, we would still be missing our Paris goals by a very wide margin.

Yes. Okay. Finally, let's talk about the third policy that you looked at, which you hear a lot about, this idea of greening the electrical grid. And before we talk about what you found, tell me what that means, greening the electrical grid. And before we talk about what you found, tell me what that means, greening the electrical grid. Our goal is to have Canada powered by 90% clean energy by 2030. Canada already has a pretty green electrical grid. You know, 80% of the electricity already comes from renewable or emissions-free energy. So we're talking about hydroelectricity, nuclear, renewable natural gas. So when we did this hydroelectricity, nuclear, renewable natural gas. So when we did this modeling,

we wanted to push that even further and see if in 2030, most of the electricity came from zero emission sources, how much of an impact would that have? And it got closer to the target, but again, still missed it by 70 megatons. Wow. Man, that is a lot, right?

We'll be back in a second. Discover what millions around the world already have. Audible has Canada's largest library of audiobooks, including exclusive content curated by and for Canadians. Experience books in a whole new way, where stories are brought to life by powerful performances from renowned actors and narrators. With the free Audible app, you can listen anytime, anywhere, whether you're at home, in the car, or out on a jog. The first 30 days of the Audible membership are free, including a free book. Go to www.audible.ca slash cbc to learn more.

Okay, so look, I feel like the obvious question for me to ask you here is what would happen if you combined all three of these policies? If we implemented a much higher carbon tax, if we switched to electric cars, if we moved to greening the electrical grid, then what would happen? We ran that scenario and it got much closer to meeting the Paris targets, but still fell 30 megatons short. much closer to meeting the Paris targets, but still fell 30 megatons short. Wow. We'd still fall 30 megatons short of this goal that we talked about at the beginning, which was getting ourselves 30% under 2005 levels. And I think that it's important to note about this story and about the modeling that we were doing

is that we also see it as a reality check, just in terms of the kinds of policies and conversations that are taking up space in these stories and in these conversations around addressing climate change and whether or not these are the things that we actually should be talking about. Right, right. Tell me more about what you mean by that. Well, I mean, I think that when you're talking about, you know, what people can do to address climate change and what governments can do to address climate change, You know, people talk about the carbon tax, people talk about not buying a car or buying an electric vehicle and these individual things, like going vegan. But the reality is experts tell us those are not necessarily the most effective things at reducing emissions overall.

So, so if it's not these things that we're talking about, if the things that we're talking about certainly help, but don't get us across this finish line, what does? Well, about a quarter of Canada's emissions come from the oil and gas industry. So policies that are directed toward reducing emissions from buildings or the transportation industry or the oil and gas sector

obviously can have a bigger impact. So one of the other scenarios that we ran with Navias was a more stringent clean fuel standard. So that would affect all of those things I just mentioned. It would affect buildings, it would affect the transportation industry, it would affect oil and gas, you know, reducing the emissions from certain fuels. Right. And there's like a move towards biodiesel. So a more stringent clean fuel standard would have an impact in terms of lowering emissions and would actually get us to our Paris targets, according to the Navius analysis we did. Okay. So if this, in conjunction with these other policies we've been talking about, get us to these goals, 30% under 2005

levels. Why are we not seeing that? Well, the government is talking about a clean fuel standard and is talking about implementing a clean fuel standard. That's part of the conversation that's currently happening. Designed well, it will stimulate Canadian production of renewable biofuels from the agricultural sector and use lower carbon fossil fuels such as natural gas. But as with any policy directed at industry, governments, provincial and federal, are obviously going to be concerned with how they would affect growth in those industries and the Canadian economy overall. Right. So, I mean, let's say the oil sands as an example. Obviously, this is a huge economic engine of the country,

but at the same time, a very large emitter of carbon. What's happening around that? Well, right now, the Alberta government has a cap on emissions in the oil sands at about 100 megatons per year. Those are the conversations that are happening right now. But the oil sands currently emits about 70 megatons per year, so nowhere near this cap. And we have not committed to amending the legislation which imposes the emissions cap.

But if the cap was lowered, if it was made policies directed at reducing emissions in industry, is also going to be considering about how that would affect the growth of that industry, how that affects the jobs and the Canadian economy overall. And there's something in this climate modeling scenario that's called carbon leakage. And so an example that Navias gave us was, you know, a cement company operating in southern Ontario. And if there were strict caps placed on their emissions, would they stay in Canada or would they pop up in Michigan? Right. And so you're not necessarily reducing the emissions from that company because globally they're still in operation.

They're still being released. They've just moved from Canada. And what impacts would that have on the Canadian economy, for example? And those are, I mean, those are all of the things that when Navias is doing this climate modeling research, those are all of the things that they're looking at in terms of how would a cap on emissions affect, you know, this industry or that industry. Right, right. And already there are a lot of stresses on the oil sands in Alberta as we stand right now. The lack of investment is how the pain of one sector became the pain of an entire province. Alberta's lost more than 120,000 jobs since 2008.

And the government's announcing this afternoon whether or not they're moving ahead with the Trans Mountain Pipeline. And that's, you know, I think that the federal government in particular is, you know, they talk about addressing climate change and fighting climate change, but also having clean growth. And so this is something that, you know, any government I'm sure will be grappling with moving forward. I do want to talk to you before we go about another elephant in the room. So we've been talking a lot today about how to meet these targets, right? 30% below 2005. But there are also a lot of people who say that even the Paris Agreement targets are too low.

Scientists with the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change say that target should be kept below 1.5 degrees. It's very clear that half a degree matters. The Paris Agreement targets are really just part of what is a bigger plan, right? The Paris Climate Agreement is actually a plan to limit global warming to below 2 degrees Celsius by 2050. And so for Canada, that actually means an 80% reduction in our emissions by 2050. And that is something that, you know, experts that we've talked to says is going to require more than just incremental change.

It's actually going to require transformational change in terms of the way we live, the way we run our economy. And they're critical or questioning what they see as these incremental changes that are happening to meet the 2030 targets and saying it's not going to be enough to meet 2050. Right. And that sort of brings us back to what I was talking about at the top of the show, our conversation with David Wallace-Wells last week, where he talked about sort of the catastrophic consequences that come with two degrees warming, and then by the end of this century, potentially four to six degrees warming. We should have yields of rice and other grains that will be half as bountiful as they are today. And we'd probably be using those crops to try to feed 50% more people globally. Connie, I'm interested to know,

in working through all these projections, what was the most striking revelation for you personally? You know, I think that, again, what we talk about, or what seems to be monopolizing the conversation around climate change are things that we can do as individuals, you know, and then hearing from experts how these individual actions are really just a small part of what global emissions are and recognizing, you know, just the scope of the problem and kind of how the discrepancy between what we're focusing on and what's actually going to be effective. Right. You know, it's interesting to me, you hear a lot about these personal choices, but lately I have been hearing about the need for like greater political solutions here. You want to be heard not just seen. For the record their demands of the

Canadian government include committing to zero emissions by 2050. And you can see all over the world this movement towards green parties. I mean this EU election has been a gutting of the centre. In Germany, the Greens doubled or almost doubled the number of votes they got in the previous election five years ago. And even in our election this year, climate change, for the first time, it looks like it's going to be a major voting issue. Yeah, I'm sure this is going to be the first of many conversations, especially leading up to the fall election. Connie, thank you so much. This was a really depressing, as usual, discussion, but also really important. So thank you so much for coming by.

Thanks for having me. Thank you. After Connie and I recorded this conversation, Canada's House of Commons declared a national climate emergency, which would require Canada to meet its national emissions targets under the Paris Agreement, and even make deeper reductions to fight global warming. The Conservatives, they voted against the motion, but it passed with the support of other parties. Conservative leader Andrew Scheer is expected to unveil his much-anticipated climate plan on Wednesday of this week, and we'll keep you posted on that. Connie's reporting today is part of a new CBC News project called In Our Backyard that looks into how climate change is affecting our lives. You can find out more about it at cbc.ca slash confronting carbon.

That's all for today. I'm Jamie Poisson. Thanks so much for listening to FrontBurner. For more CBC Podcasts, go to cbc.ca slash podcasts. It's 2011 and the Arab Spring is raging. A lesbian activist in Syria starts a blog. She names it Gay Girl in Damascus. Am I crazy? Maybe. As her profile grows, so does the danger. The object of the email was, please read this while sitting down. It's like a genie came out of the bottle and you can't put it back.

Gay Girl Gone. Available now.