Front Burner - Where the major parties stand on climate change

Episode Date: September 7, 2021

The major parties are all promising big action on climate change, but their plans and targets look different. Today on Front Burner, we compare the parties’ strategies and take a closer look at their credibility.

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. When I think about the climate crisis, I honestly have two predominant emotions, and that's fear and exhaustion. We know that the floods and the fires and the heat waves that we already had were bad, and we know that it's going to get worse.

So this is Ali Rougeau. She's a young climate activist from Toronto and she, like so many other Canadians right now, has felt scientists' warnings about the disastrous impacts of climate change really sink in this summer. Dozens of people in the Vancouver area of western Canada have died in an unprecedented heatwave. The whole town is on fire. It took like a whole 15 minutes from, you know, the first sign of smoke to all of a sudden there being fire, you know, everywhere. We're told by officials that between six to ten inches of rain fell in parts of New York. That prompted the National Weather Service to issue its first ever flash flood emergency.

Sofia Sedaris is feeling it too. She's a young Mi'kmaq climate activist and she's seeing the effects on her reserve in New Brunswick. In my reserve of Metapanagia, I can see, you know, how the waters are rising, the winters are getting more aggressive and shorter, and that also impacts the seasons of hunting and fishing. If you're an Indigenous family, how are you going to provide for your Indigenous children if there aren't any moose left, if there isn't any salmon left, if, you know, the coasts are eroding and you live by the coast? The latest report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change warns that at the rate our planet is warming, we've got to take action now to limit already irreversible damage.

And the significance of this is not just being felt by Gen Z climate activists like Ali and Sophia. A recent Angus Reid poll identified climate change as the top issue for voters. Politicians know it. The liberals, the conservatives, the NDP, and the Greens have all promised serious action to fight global warming. But what that action looks like is different for each. Today on FrontBurner, I'm speaking to political scientist and professor at the University of British Columbia,

Katherine Harrison, to understand how the major parties' climate plans stack up, what they're saying to workers whose jobs could be affected, and what indications there are that parties will actually follow through on their climate promises. Hi, Katherine. Thank you so much for making the time to be with me today. Hello, and it's my pleasure. Catherine, thank you so much for making the time to be with me today. Hello, and it's my pleasure. So I want to start by breaking down how each major party says they'll tackle climate change. And let's talk about where they differ, starting with the front runners, the Liberals and the

Conservatives. What are the key differences and how the two parties are saying they'll fight climate change? I think the first key difference is in their targets for Canada's emissions reductions. The Liberals have submitted a new target to the UN in advance of the international climate negotiations in Glasgow in November, that Canada will reduce our emissions 40 to 45% below 2005 levels by 2030. That's why we'll make sure oil and gas emissions don't increase and instead go down with achievable milestones every five years from now until Canada reaches net zero in 2050. The Conservative plan says that they will meet Canada's Paris commitment. But I think that's artfully worded Agreement doesn't let countries go backwards. So we've already submitted a new target.

And so it would be pretty embarrassing for Canada to basically acknowledge that we don't intend to meet it. Right. And I think a price on carbon is another point where they differ. It is. They don't differ as much as they did in 2019 when the Conservatives were running against carbon pricing. But there are still some very big differences. The Liberals have promised to increase the carbon price both for big industrial polluters and for all of the small polluters, including households, from $50 per ton in 2022 to $170 per ton in 2030. Now that would be about, you know, between 35 and 40

cents per liter of gasoline. The Conservatives had said they're open to going as high as $170 per ton for the big industrial polluters. They account for about half of Canada's emissions, but they won't necessarily do that unless Canada's major trading partners in Europe and the US match that carbon price. I think that's a pretty important escape clause that could well kick in. The other part of the conservative platform is to take a different approach to the carbon tax on households. the carbon tax on households, instead of voters get the money back in tax rebates, the Conservative one would cap the price at $50 per tonne, and they would hold the money that

each citizen pays in a separate savings account that they could spend on green things like bicycles or a more fuel-efficient vehicle. This will maintain a consumer price on carbon, but without one penny going to the government. Instead, every time Canadians buy hydrocarbon-based fuel, they will pay into their low-carbon savings account that they will manage and use towards purchases that will help them lower their carbon footprint, improve the efficiency of their home, and live a greener life. Tricky thing with that, well, first of all, there could be a lot of new bureaucracy to get it set up,

but it's hard to know when people are spending the money on new green initiatives versus using that money to spend on what they already would have done. Right. Maybe I would have gotten a new bike, a new bike anyways. Before we move to the NDP and the greens, I just want to be clear on something. What targets do experts say we need to hit to ensure we don't go past the global temperature limit of 1.5 degree Celsius.

What the IPCC reports have said is if we want to have a good chance of limiting global warming to 1.5 C, we need to get to net zero in 2050. And that probably means a 40 to 45% reduction of global emissions in 2030. But on top of that, there's also a pretty understandable expectation, the wealthy and more carbon intensive economies make deeper cuts sooner. But that's a moral question rather than a scientific question. All right, so now let's move on to the NDP, who has made climate change a major part of their platform. And they've also set slightly more ambitious targets than the liberals and obviously the conservatives. So what sets their plan apart from the Liberals and the Conservatives? The NDP has announced a target of 50% reduction by 2030. So more ambitious

than either the Conservatives or the Liberals. It appears they're more strongly committed to a regulatory approach. They propose setting targets every five years for different sectors. On carbon pricing, they provide less detail. They say they support carbon pricing, but the platform doesn't say what price. The other thing is that on the particular design of carbon pricing for industry, the way it's been done under the Liberal plan, and it appears the Conservatives support this, in order to protect the competitiveness of industrial polluters, they only have to pay the carbon tax above a certain share of their emissions. The NDP has said that the Liberal approach exempts big industry and they would close that loophole,

which appears to be either a call to completely eliminate that approach or to be less generous. What we've seen for a long time are subsidies into the fossil fuel sector, and that is the wrong approach. And we want to make it really clear. New Democrats want to end those subsidies, and we want to invest directly into creating jobs and directly into protecting the environment. And probably worth noting here, this target of 50 percent, this is the same as the Biden administration's target in the United States. And then, of course, the party who is the most obvious one on this file, the Greens. And how are they proposing to fight climate change? And in particular, what sets them apart from the NDP? So the Greens have provided very little detail publicly in this election campaign in contrast to 2019. They've been engaged in internal battles between the leader and the council.

And it seems pretty clear that set back their election preparation. But they have said that their target as in 2019 would be a 60% reduction by 2030. They are more specific about carbon pricing and say they would continue to increase the carbon price by $25 per ton for every year going forward. So that would get to, by my calculations, about $260, $265 per ton for every year going forward. So that would get to by my my calculations, about $260 $265 per ton in 2030. So higher than the liberals, or the conservatives and the NDP hasn't said, okay, I'll just take a top line summary here, we've got the conservatives committing to a 30% reduction in emissions this decade, liberals to 40 to 45, NDP to 50, Greens to 60. 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. Hi, it's Ramit Sethi here. You may have seen my money show on Netflix. I've been talking about money for 20 years. I've talked to millions of people and I have some startling numbers to share with you. Did you know that of the people I speak to, 50% of them do not know their own household income? That's not a typo. 50%. That's

because money is confusing. In my new book and podcast, Money for Couples, I help you and your partner create a financial vision together. To listen to this podcast, just search for Money for Couples. Before we dig into the credibility of those plans, I do want to talk now about what all these people whose jobs are tied up in these industries can expect from the parties. And John Peters worked on pipelines, and so did his dad, and so did his brother. And he's now a research fellow at the University of Montreal. And here's some of what he had to say about the concerns that he's hearing here. Are all those workers not aware of climate change? I think they are.

But, you know, they think about what's the reality for them. The short-term reality is that they might lose their jobs and their livelihoods. That probably means more to them than thinking about what might happen 10 years or 20 years from now, you know, and they go, well, you know, what the F am I going to do, right? Catherine, what is each of the parties saying they'll do to make sure that their plan to fight climate change won't leave people that John mentioned without a job? Yeah, that that's a big issue for Canada, because we have a very carbon intensive economy, we've got a lot of people working in the oil and gas industry and whole communities who are dependent on that. The Conservatives,

I would say, don't acknowledge that there will be a transition, at least that there will be any loss of jobs in the oil and gas industry. They talk about a shortage of jobs in the energy sector. They express a commitment to protecting those fossil fuel jobs. In this plan, we launched the most comprehensive climate change plan ever released by a party before an election in Canadian history. It's measured to meet our Paris objectives and get Canadians back to work. That's what Canadians want, a plan. The Liberals have talked about introducing just transition legislation. That's something that they promised in 2019 and didn't get around to. They have gone further, though, in this election campaign and promising to create a $2 billion fund to support community transitions in the

oil and gas dependent provinces of Alberta, Saskatchewan and Newfoundland. And that's really the first time we've heard a political party not just use just transition as a euphemism, but actually identify where the jobs are that are at risk. We know people get it. We know people want their kids to have good jobs. So we'll be there to invest and help communities thrive in a transformed economy. transformed economy. Because our plan for climate, it's also a plan for jobs. I was struck that the NDP platform focuses less on just transition in 2021 than they did a couple of years ago. There's some statements in there about ensuring there's more generous employment insurance and supporting workers looking for new jobs, but not the same kind of financial commitment.

All right, so now let's get into sort of the quality of these plans, the viability of these plans, the track record of some of these parties. And I want to go back to Ali and Sophia, who we heard from in the intro. So both say they want politicians to move beyond just promises. I will really, really be waiting for concrete actions. And no matter who ends up in government, really my current attitude towards the election is there's a lot of words, a lot of promises being thrown around.

And regardless of the quality of some of them, there's really just a mistrust that needs to be resolved if we want to kind of go through this crisis together. Honestly, I have witnessed different parties in power and the issues are the same. parties in power, and the issues are the same. It's not enough. And we need to see concrete action taking place and parties that mean it. And so we've gotten into what the party's climate platforms are on paper. But this question, Sophie and Ali are asking of essentially, why should I believe that you'll actually follow through on what you're saying? So the liberals have received a lot of criticism from people who say their climate goals don't square with their financial support of the oil and gas industry. And remember, they bought the pipeline, the Trans Mountain Pipeline in 2018. And according to one recent report, the Fed spent $18 billion on financial support to the fossil fuel industry last year.

And now their platform says this financial support will be quickly phased out. But even without putting a value judgment on it, is it possible for them to continue to offer support to the fossil fuel industry and also meet the targets that they have set out here? I think that the contradiction between ongoing support for fossil fuels and climate commitments has been fundamental

in Canadian climate policy all along. For a long time, we had two very separate conversations, one about the energy industry, a euphemism that's usually used to refer to oil and gas, you know, supporting the industry, seeing it as an economic issue, and then this separate climate conversation, it's increasingly difficult to keep those two apart, both because as Canada's international targets become more demanding, it becomes more important that we tackle the emissions from oil and gas production, which are the single largest sector contributing to Canada's emissions and the one that accounts for most of the growth. So that challenge looms larger, but also as global ambition increases, it raises big questions about the future of Canada's oil exports. As the rest of the world gets serious about climate change,

it's less likely that they're going to need our oil. So I think this is an important moment. And it's one where we're starting to connect those two conversations. The NDP and Greens are both committing to eliminate fossil fuel subsidies. The liberals have been saying they would do that for quite some time, but have not accomplished that yet. I think the $18 billion figure is probably too high because it includes some measures that were available to all businesses, you know, COVID relief. There's no question that $1.5 billion during the pandemic to help clean up orphan and abandoned wells, a few hundred million to the offshore oil industry in Newfoundland. We keep throwing money at this industry at the same time as we're trying to reduce our emissions and play our role in transitioning the world away from oil. Right. And let's talk about the conservatives a bit. So, I mean, you just talked about how Aaron O'Toole is talking about keeping people employed in this sector. And he says he'll prioritize building pipelines like the now defunct Northern Gateway Pipeline.

At the Conservatives Leadership Convention this spring, delegates actually voted against the statement, climate change is real. And yet, he says he has a serious plan to tackle climate change. And how does he reconcile that, you think? That's a good question. I think reconciling support for the oil and gas industry and climate action is especially hard for the Conservatives because their base is so much more steeped in oil country. It's not clear how they reconcile it. The idea that in the middle of the campaign, Mr. O'Toole announced support for another pipeline when it was not actually clear it's needed is really evidence of him, I think, speaking to his base saying, don't worry, I haven't forgotten

about you. I'm still committed to this industry. It may be worth noting, and I think perhaps this is something not everybody has necessarily heard of, that the Conservatives have in their platform this proposal to amend the criminal code, Canada's criminal code, which would increase punishments for people who disrupt key infrastructure like pipelines or railways. And a lot of critics are worried, too, that in particular, that law could unfairly target Indigenous activists. And how do you think that squares with the party's climate proposals as well? Well, I think it's interesting because you see the party saying quite different things

in different parts of their platform. party saying quite different things in different parts of their platform. So the proposal to create a new offense is, of course, not in the climate part of the platform. And it, you know, again, it's very much, I think, a symbolic measure, because there are already laws in place. It's a symbolic statement of which side the conservatives are on in those disputes. I just want to stick with the Liberals and Conservatives here because these guys are the ones who have been in government. And so Canada has missed every emissions reduction target. It's set since everyone, since the early 90s. And according to the most up-to-date data available between 1990 and 2019, under the Conservatives and then the

Liberals, we have seen Canada's greenhouse gas emissions go up 21% while they've gone down for other G7 countries like Germany and the UK. So what do you think should give voters confidence at this point that either party would take the action needed to hit their respective targets that they've set out here? Why should anyone believe them? Yeah, voters have a lot of reason to be cynical about Canadian political parties' climate promises, because in addition to missing all those international targets, we've had, I don't know, nine, 10, 11 different national climate plans, and the most important measures in all of them have never been implemented. I do think some important things have shifted. Canada now has put in place a policy structure,

an architecture, carbon pricing is central. So for a long time, the reason we failed is that we kept pretending this would be easy, that someone else would clean up. It wouldn't cost anyone anything. And I think what we are starting to see, even the conservatives in their 2021 platform, is a recognition that mandatory measures are what we need. We need carbon pricing. We need regulation to reduce our emissions. It's not going to happen voluntarily.

There was significant emissions growth from 1990 to 2005. And since then, it's been kind of leveled off. So we've curbed the increases, but we really need to drive down the emissions. And that will require more ambitious carbon pricing and or more ambitious regulation. And, you know, we are starting to see proposals for that. Okay. And, you know, bringing in all the parties here, I know that this is certainly something that you've touched on throughout this conversation. But I guess the question is, when you look at the plans that all four of these parties have put forward. Are there sufficient details in there for how these parties are going to reach their stated goals? I find the Conservative plan the least credible, because there's that big

loophole on what they're going to do with carbon pricing for industry, and various other proposals to support the oil and gas industry. So it's least clear to me that they can meet a 30% reduction. The Liberals produced a plan in 2020 that was credible that it can achieve a 30% reduction, largely through carbon pricing. And since then, including in the election, they've announced a bunch more proposals, the net zero electricity in 2035, phase out of gas powered vehicles, those five year targets for oil and gas, it's not clear to me that those are enough to get to a 40 to 45% reduction, but it goes beyond 30% for sure. Okay. The NDP, I wish there was more detail on carbon pricing.

They are somewhat more ambitious on electricity, on elimination of fossil fuel subsidies and using that funding for spending that's informed by environmental justice concerns. But it seems like they're relying more heavily on sectoral regulations, setting five-year targets for every sector. And what worries me about that is it's slow. Regulation is slow because governments take a few years to develop each new regulation. So I'm very skeptical that the NDP could achieve a 50% reduction. And the Greens, this is obviously a very important issue to the Greens. It's central to many Green voters, but they just haven't provided much detail yet in this election. And I will note, I believe their platform is coming out today.

So certainly something for us to keep tabs on. Before we go today, big picture question. Do you feel like any of these parties in this election are treating this crisis with the level of gravity that it actually requires? where hundreds of people died in a heat wave this summer, where there have been wildfires raging across the province ever since, where the town of Lytton burned to the ground. And we keep using the phrase wake up call, but we've been using the phrase wake up call for years saying this should be the wake up call. I still feel like we haven't completely woken up. There is no new normal. The kinds of stuff that we saw this summer is going to keep getting worse until we get to net zero. So yeah, it's an emergency. And it feels often like we're still

engaged in business as usual politics. All right. Catherine, thank you so much for this. Very appreciative. You're very welcome. Okay, so before we go today, the federal election is less than two weeks away. And the only English language leaders debate is coming up on Thursday. The group of broadcasters hosting the event,

including the CBC, has announced the themes that will be covered. Climates on the list, along with affordability, COVID recovery, leadership and accountability, and reconciliation. The debate will be streamed live on various CBC platforms, and we'll have an episode recapping it for you the morning after. But that is all for today. Thanks so much for listening to FrontBurner. I'm Jamie Poisson, and we'll talk to you tomorrow.