More Debate, Less Rhetoric

A new report on the costs of meeting greenhouse gas targets should be embraced as a starting point, not dismissed with derisive adjectives.

Ten years ago, I co-chaired Alberta’s first round table on climate change. Meeting with 100 opinion leaders from all regions and sectors of the province, we debated our options in the face of what we believed to be a serious economic threat – climate change policies mangled together by an unsympathetic federal government. If you’d told us then that a full scale effort to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions would still leave Alberta in the catbird seat, outperforming the rest of Canada’s GDP by 50 per cent, we probably would have turned around and gone home. Hardly a threat – more like a promise!

So why all the hue and cry over “Climate Leadership, Economic Prosperity,” a recent report on meeting greenhouse gas targets commissioned by TD Bank and co-authored by the Alberta-based Pembina Institute and the B.C.-based David Suzuki Foundation? The report assesses the economic impact of meeting the federal government’s own GHG emission targets, as well as a more aggressive threshold favoured by environmentalists, and recommends policy measures that would get us there. This is far more than the federal government has done to date.

The report happily concludes that climate leadership and economic prosperity are not mutually exclusive (hence, its title). If we met our target of 20 per cent below 2006 levels by 2020, Canada would still have a strong economy with solid growth, steady job creation, and a higher quality of life than we do now. As for Alberta, the report demonstrates that if aggressive GHG-reduction policies were put in place now, the province would continue to lead Canada in GDP growth (an annual average of 3.3 per cent over the next decade compared to a national average of 2.1 per cent) and GDP per capita, while still creating jobs.

But to hear Environment Minister Jim Prentice and his Alberta counterpart Rob Renner, or read the headlines in The Globe and Mail, you’d think the report constituted the first shot in a renewed East versus West battle for economic supremacy. Prentice called the report “irresponsible,” Renner labelled it “divisive,” and a Globe editorial fanned the flames further, calling it “perilous” and damaging to Canada’s “national unity.” A strident chorus of politicians and punters sprang into action, tossing derisive adjectives and deep-seated fears into the fray with all the aplomb of cats hissing at an unwelcome intruder on their territory.

Amidst all this cacophony, I’d be surprised indeed if very many Canadians emerged with a better understanding of the choices facing them. Perhaps that’s the most disappointing aspect of our public discourse on climate change so far. Friends and foes alike have tended to focus on a single carbon price in an attempt to create a kind of shorthand reference summarizing the detailed analysis that lies at the heart of the report. Unfortunately, this obscures much of the richly-textured narrative that I believe would help Canadians figure out just how far we’re prepared to go in reducing GHG emissions.

That’s why leaders of all political stripes from across the country should have embraced the Pembina/DSF report as a starting point instead of polemicizing the debate further. The report does what the federal government has not yet managed to accomplish: provide meaningful options to meet the government’s own GHG targets while still allowing for economic growth. Prentice calls this “irresponsible,” but having no plan at all smacks more of irresponsibility than laying the options and evidence before the Canadian public so that our choices can be informed ones.

The report is based on the real-time capital and operating costs of thousands of low carbon technologies. The costs vary across a wide spectrum. Some technologies are simple and actually save money in the long run, such as low emission light bulbs. Others, like carbon capture and storage, are more complex and correspondingly expensive. Each technology has the potential to reduce a finite number of tons of carbon dioxide, depending on where and how often they are installed.

We all know there’s no single solution to reduce GHGs. It takes an array of responses. Individuals will be called upon to do their share, as will public institutions and businesses across all commercial and industrial sectors. The report takes this into account and measures the corresponding impact of each. Other reports, such as a 2007 study by McKinsey, have also demonstrated the efficacy of a many-pronged approach to reducing GHG emissions. They created an impressive visualization called an “abatement curve” that shows how many simultaneous efforts can come together to reach a single goal: arresting climate change.

If you pay attention, you’ll find that Minister Prentice frequently characterizes the federal government’s 20 per cent GHG reduction target as “aspirational.” Perhaps what he’s really trying to tell us is that he has no intention of achieving his stated goals. If that’s the case, Canadians deserve to know. Canadians also deserve to know the real cost of doing nothing. The Pembina/DSF report echoes World Bank economist Sir Nicholas Stern who estimates that uncontrolled climate change could cost us upward of a 20 per cent loss in global GDP – not to mention the environmental costs.

Once again, we’ve tragically missed an opportunity to engage in meaningful national debate on climate change. The Pembina/DSF report is the first credible study to assess regional economic impacts across the country under a robust plan to reduce GHGs in Canada. I urge Canadian leaders in all sectors to ignore the inflated rhetoric, pick up a copy, digest it, and build upon the positive steps for action contained therein. Our environmental clock is ticking.