Op-ed: The science is clear, the politics are muddy, and the public is distracted

Louise Comeau, Director Climate Change and Energy Solutions, reacts to the week that was climate change

Dr. Louise Comeau reacts to the week that was climate change

What are we to make of the climate change story told to Canadians in recent days? A story featuring dire warnings from climate scientists about the need for the urgent phase-out of fossil fuels, federal approval of a massive Newfoundland and Labrador offshore oil project, and a federal budget that mentions the source of the problem (oil, gas, coal, hydrogen) 67 times, false solutions like carbon capture and small modular nuclear reactors 11 times, while addressing the most effective solutions like solar, wind, hydro, and clean electricity 25 times.

The week started with the world’s leading climate scientists making clear that the world must rapidly reduce the pollution unbalancing the climate by at least half by 2030 to stave off dangerous levels of the global warming fueling weather extremes. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) made clear that global emissions must peak no later than 2025 and then rapidly decline to near zero over the next 30 years. Of all the potential cost-effective contributions to solve climate change, the IPCC, based on a review of thousands of peer reviewed scientific papers, concludes that the future energy system runs on wind, solar, and energy efficiency and that nature protection is the way to absorb carbon through natural processes. Nuclear, carbon capture and biofuels may have a role to play, but are costly bit players, compared to renewable energy, energy efficiency and nature protection.

The International Energy Agency (IEA), in its deep emissions reduction scenario, suggests a 75 per cent decline in demand for oil by 2050 and that any remaining oil (or other fossil fuel) production will have to include technology to capture carbon pollution (e.g., carbon capture and sequestration). Demand for oil will decline because the world is shifting to non-polluting electricity to power transportation, homes and industry, including here in Canada.

Today, however, Canadian oil and gas represents just over six per cent of the country’s economic activity and is our largest export. Canada’s oil sands is also a high-cost and high-emissions intensity energy producer, compared to other global sources of oil. The companies invested in fossil fuels are powerful, geographically concentrated and constitutionally out of reach of the federal government in terms of controlling production. From a constitutional perspective, the federal government can drive production emissions down. From a political perspective, the federal government says it is trying to ensure that whatever demand is left for oil and gas in 2050, Canada can supply some of that demand.

Canada’s petrostate reality sets the context for the announcement two days after the IPCC report by the federal government approving Canada’s first deep-sea, offshore oil project, with the potential to produce up to 1 billion barrels of oil to 2060. The $6.8 billion project by Norwegian energy giant Equinor and partner Husky Energy would create a floating production station and up to 40 wells in the Flemish Pass Basin, 500 kilometres from St. John’s. Wells would be drilled at a depth of 1,200 metres, far deeper than other current offshore oil projects in Canada which have a depth of 100 metres.

The federal Government claims Canada can approve Bay du Nord without increasing domestic emissions because the project will capture greenhouse gas emissions from production. This means that this new project can be approved and operate under a proposed national cap on oil and gas emissions in Canada at 2021 or 2022 levels. The problem with this logic of course is that 85 per cent of emissions from a barrel of oil come from burning it, not producing it. There is no such thing as clean oil, as claimed by Newfoundland and Labrador Premier Andrew Furey.

The demand side of things is easier for the federal Government to stickhandle because global demand decline for coal, oil and eventually gas is a fact of life that Canada is not causing, but participates in while looking for economic opportunities. This focus on reducing fossil fuel production emissions and on reducing demand for fossil fuels is the framework behind the recently released federal Emissions Reduction Plan (ERP) and the federal budget. The ERP barely sketches a pathway to 40 per cent emissions reductions by 2030, well below the 40 to 45 per cent below 2005 by 2030 promised and assumes heroic performance by unproven technologies. It is overly focused on protecting the fossil fuel sector and underinvested in cost-effective solutions, ready today that build out the renewable electricity sector and help consumers lower energy bills. It does not do Canada’s fair share.

As a climate activist, I am angry. As a Canadian, I am sympathetic to the national balancing act needed to keep our country together. As a human, I despair for my children and grandchildren.

Dr. Louise Comeau Tweet

The federal budget entrenches the two-pronged strategy (protect fossil fuel companies and reduce demand for fossil fuels) with a series of funds and tax breaks targeting energy supply and demand. Of $9.1-billion in spending to 2027, about a third ($2.8-billion) will support the switch to zero-emitting vehicles, trucks and freight and charging infrastructure, including $500-million from the Infrastructure Bank and just over $2-billion will go to energy efficiency programs (the demand side). To 2027, $677-million goes to support clean electricity. That’s just about two-thirds of the total $9.1-billion allocation.

On the protecting fossil fuel sector side of the equation, about a third of the $9.1-billion ($2.6-billion) goes to existing energy players for tax breaks supporting carbon capture, including over $370-million to small modular nuclear development (up to $250-million for pre-development work, and $121-million for waste management research). These amounts pale in comparison, however, to the $15-billion Canada Growth Fund, the $1-billion Innovation and Investment Agency, and $1-billion to the existing Strategic Innovation Fund. These agencies and funds are to focus on transforming the fossil fuel sector, generating investment in critical minerals mining and recycling, battery manufacturing, hydrogen, nuclear energy, as well as clean electricity. These new amounts are additional to existing funds previously allocated to the Infrastructure Bank ($35-billion) and Strategic Innovation Fund ($1-billion).

On balance, federal budget and Emissions Reduction Plan investments up to 2027 favour incumbents, rather than new energy players in the renewable energy sector. Canadians are getting less support than they need to play their part to get the country off fossil fuels. As a climate activist, I am angry. As a Canadian, I am sympathetic to the national balancing act needed to keep our country together. As a human, I despair for my children and grandchildren.