Is Win-Win Possible? Can Canada’s Government Achieve Its Paris Commitment . . . and Get Re-elected?

For the past 6 months, I and co-researchers Mikela Hein and Tiffany Vass have been developing our national energy-economy model (CIMS) to simulate climate policy scenarios that explore the effect of current Canadian policies, and contrast this with (1) the must-price-emissions approach that some are advocating, and (2) an alternative approach that emphasizes a significant role for flexible regulations, similar to what California is doing with regulations on electricity, vehicles, fuels, etc. Available on this link, our report is called “Is Win-Win Possible? Can Canada’s Government Achieve Its Paris Commitment . . .  and Get Re-elected?"

If policy advisors and policy makers are to learn anything from the past 30 years of ineffective climate policies, they would hopefully see that climate policy is very difficult politically and emissions pricing is especially difficult. Canada intends to achieve its Paris commitment. To do so by emphasizing emissions pricing would require a price that climbs by about $15 per year to reach $200 per tonne of CO2 by 2030. It is highly unlikely that federal or provincial politicians will pursue this approach. Fortunately, they don’t have to. As noted, California is especially relying on flexible regulations. Such an approach is likely to be less economically efficient than emissions pricing. But researchers can help policy makers by estimating the magnitude of the economic efficiency trade-off for political acceptance. Our report attempts to start that process.

My interview in "Building a consensus on climate change? Not so easy, after all" in Macleans

Here is the link to an article by John Geddes "Building a consensus on climate change? Not so easy, after all", Ottawa bureau chief at Maclean’s, who does a good job of distilling my point that while carbon pricing is the most economically efficient GHG reduction policy, it is willful blindness to assume that economic efficiency is the only criterion when trying to implement climate policy. If regulations are more politically acceptable, especially for doing the heavy lifting, then put some intelligence (even economic intelligence) into designing market-oriented regulations that are relatively economically efficient.



One might notice by the way, that in the first two weeks of March Trudeau failed to get provinces to agree to even a small carbon price (that would have virtually no effect on emissions - such as $15 or $30 per tonne of CO2)) and then went to Washington and quickly signed an agreement with Obama to dramatically reduce methane emissions from the oil and gas industry. No mention of emissions pricing. It will be regulation." 

The Paris climate summit

This article appeared in Policy Options in November 2015.

The Paris climate summit

Canada has consistently failed to deliver, but it’s not too late for us to make a major contribution at the climate summit in Paris.

The other day I heard an environmental advocate argue that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau needed to make an ambitious commitment at the UN Paris climate summit (COP 21) to atone for all the “climate fossil” awards won by our previous prime minister. I’m not so sure.

Remember when newly elected President Barack Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize? He hadn’t yet done anything. Apparently the Nobel committee bestowed the award simply because he was not George W. Bush. In the same vein, Trudeau will be welcomed because he is not Stephen Harper.

I am not saying, of course, that Trudeau should just go to Paris and smile. But to make a real contribution, he will need to be brutally honest about why UN negotiations have failed for over two decades and equally honest about why Canada’s emission reduction efforts have also continuously failed.

Canadian Climate Policy Report Card: 2015

Executive Summary

Over the past three decades, governments in developed countries have made many commitments to reduce a specific quantity or percentage of greenhouse gases by a specific date, but often they have failed to implement effective climate policies that would achieve their commitment. Fortunately, energy-economy analysts can determine well in advance of the target date if a government is keeping its promise. In this 2015 climate policy report card, I evaluate the Canadian government’s emission commitments and policy actions. I find that in the nine years since its promise to reduce Canadian emissions 20% by 2020 and 65% by 2050, the Canadian government has implemented virtually no polices that would materially reduce emissions. The 2020 target is now unachievable without great harm to the Canadian economy. And this may also be the case for the 2050 target, this latter requiring an almost complete transformation of the Canadian energy system in the remaining 35 years after almost a decade of inaction.

Canadian Climate Policy Report Card: 2015

Background
A critical challenge to preventing the harms from human-produced greenhouse gas emissions, especially CO2 from burning fossil fuels, is that elected representatives face weak incentives to implement effective climate policies and strong incentives to implement no or ineffective policies. There are several reasons.

First, significant CO2 emissions reductions require ‘compulsory policies’ – regulation of technologies and energy forms and/or pricing of CO2 emissions – and these are seen to cause immediate costs for some even though the long-term benefits for society exceed these costs. These immediate costs would begin during the mandate of current politicians, and have significant political risks, while the benefits of avoiding climate change will mostly occur after the career of current political leaders.

A letter to Minister Oliver from climate scientist and energy experts

On May 7th 2013, I was among twelve Canadian climate scientists and energy experts who sent a letter addressed to Natural Resources Minister the Hon. Joe Oliver.

As professionals who have devoted our careers to understanding the climate and energy systems, we are concerned that the Minister’s advocacy in support of new pipelines and expanded fossil fuel production is inconsistent with the imperative of addressing the climate change threat. We are going to have to wean ourselves off our addiction to fossil fuels. Thus our choices about fossil fuel infrastructure carry significant consequences for today’s and future generations.

Alberta’s (Non)-Carbon Tax and Our Threatened Climate

Why is Alberta’s policy a regulation and not a tax?

Alberta’s government officially says it doesn’t have a carbon tax, and I agree. But if I had a dollar for every time I’ve heard someone claim it does, I could buy a lot of anti-oil sands ads, and maybe a politician along the way.

I hear about Alberta’s so-called carbon tax from business people, politicians, journalists, environmentalists, sometimes even economists (who should know better). But the policy in question is, in fact, a “performance regulation,” that sets a maximum “emissions-intensity” for industries, and fines them $15 for each tonne of CO₂ emissions in excess of that maximum.

Asking the wrong question about Keystone XL

Oral Testimony to the US Congress Subcommittee on Energy and Power hearing entitled

“H.R. 3, the Northern Route Approval Act.”

April 10, 2013

The State Department assumes that future production of the Alberta oil sands will be the same even if it denies construction of Keystone XL. Yet a great deal of evidence contradicts this assumption. Ironically, much of this evidence comes not from environmentalists, but from industry analysts, Canadian politicians, and even the oil sands producers themselves.

Webcast of Keystone XL Hearing in Washington: testimony now online

I was invited by Rep. Henry Waxman  (of the former Waxman-Markey bill) to speak as a witness at the Congressional Hearing on Keystone, the "Northern Route Approval Act,” Subcommittee (April 10, 2013) which discussed approval of the Keystone pipeline.  My testimony and that of the other witnesses is now available for viewing as a webcast.  If you just want to hear my 5 minute testimony, skip to minutes 31:11 - 36:40.  This is followed by a question period and statements from the members of the Congressional Subcommittee on Energy and Power.