Russia’s invasion of Ukraine does not change the fact of climate change – a reality brought home again by Another stark reportTwo weeks ago, the UN’s climate change panel.
However, the ramifications from this war are being used as a way to raise new questions about Canadian energy and climate policy.
Brampton Mayor Patrick Brown is concerned about gas prices, which have risen a week following the invasion of Ukraine by Vladimir Putin’s forces. Chrystia Freeland, Finance Minister, wroteShe suggested she delay the annual increase of the federal carbon tax, which is due to go into effect April 1. He said, “Now is not the right time for any additional burden.”
- Have a question? CBC News is available in the comments right now.
You could be forgiven for suspecting that Brown’s new interest in federal climate policy has something to do with the fact that he’s About to enter the Conservative Party’s Leadership Race. Brown’s proposal for a pause is not based on any of his motives.
While the higher carbon fee will add 2.2 cents per litre to the price of gas, carbon pricing’s critics tend to ignore the fact that nearly all of the revenue it collects is rebated back to households in provinces covered by the federal policy – and most households end up receiving more than they pay out.
Due to fuel consumption patterns only Ontario households in the top 2 income quintiles were expected pay more than they got because of this. In 2020, the Parliamentary Budget Officer published projections.
Brown’s call for a moment of pause (which has been echoed many times by) federal Conservatives and conservative provincial governments in Alberta, New Brunswick Ontario) also assumes that climate policy is something less than necessary — that reducing emissions is a priority only when it’s not inconvenient.
A bad precedent
Between now and 2050 — the target date for bringing the world’s greenhouse gas emissions down to net-zero — there will be many moments when leaders are tempted to deviate from the goal of reducing emissions and moving to a clean economy.
Even though policymakers must account for the practical effects of climate action, suspending a planned rise in the carbon tax could be a troubling precedent.
In addition to the attacks on the federal carbon-tax, there is a renewed push for Canadian oil and natural gas exports.
Russia is a major source of Europe’s energy. Russia’s exports to Russia help finance Putin’s regime, and complicate European efforts against Russia. Canadian oil and liquefied petroleum gas might be able to replace the Russian resources if it is necessary to reduce that dependence. So it seems.
“Alberta is a stable supplier for Liquefied Natural Gas in countries that are under Putin’s control,” Alberta Premier Jason Kenney TweetThis week.
Pipelines are not the answer
The federal Conservatives had voted in a week earlier. Put a motion before House of CommonsThey urged the Liberal government to prioritize construction of new pipelines to East Coast to transport liquefied natural gases (LNG) to Europe.
Michael Chong, Conservative MP, argued that LNG could be environmentally beneficial if used to replace high emission coal. But building a pipeline is easier said than done — and even in an ideal scenario it doesn’t seem like a short-term solution.
As Environment Minister Steven Guilbeault noted enthusiastically in a speech he delivered in Toronto on Wednesday, Europe is not simply aiming to replace Russian oil and gas with fossil fuels from less problematic countries. The European Union has proposed a plan that focuses on both diversifying and moving faster to improve energy efficiency and develop clean and renewable energy.
Guilbeault suggested, with this in mind, that Canada could be “uniquely situated” to help Europe as an source of non-emitting technologies, critical minerals, and other resources. Hydrogen.
Guilbeault answered a question about the immediate needs for Europe by saying that Canada could increase its crude oil exports by approximately 200,000 barrels per hour, which could allow the United States and Canada to send the equivalent amount across the Atlantic.
Guilbeault said, “Looking further into the future. Trans Mountain pipeline expansion could be finished by the end of next year (although it is supposed to serve the Asian market) and LNG Canada’s Project in British ColumbiaThis could be done in two to three year.
In was published a day earlier. Interview with CBC Power & PoliticsJonathan Wilkinson, Minister of Natural Resources, was slightly more optimistic about the prospects for Canadian oil-and-gas.
It’s not about drilling holes.
“I believe there may be ways for us to support European colleagues who are consistent with combating climate change. That means you need to produce oil and natural gases in a very low emission way,” he stated.
He pointed out regulations on methane emissions and work being done to capture and sequester carbon. Also, he suggested a cap on oil and natural gas sector’s emissions.
“In fact, if Canada had increased production in a low-emissions way, it could fit within our overall climate targets,” he stated. “It would be better for both the world economy and the global climate because Russia doesn’t do that.”
“But it’s important to do it right. It’s more than drilling holes. It’s actually about how you manage the emissions in an intelligent and constructive manner.
Wilkinson suggested that LNG could be part the transition to hydrogen.
It’s not clear whether he was talking about something more than the Trans Mountain expansion and LNG Canada — but Guilbeault just gave himself until mid-April to make a decision about the Bay du Nord oil project proposed for Newfoundland.
By then, Guilbeault also will have had to present to Parliament a new climate plan explaining how Canada can reach its emissions reductions target for 2030.
“Crises are moments when we can see clearly,” Caroline Brouillette from the Climate Action Network, which is one of many organizations that has spoken out. Appelled on the federal government for rejection of Bay du Nord.
“The federal government needs to be honest with Canadians that our economy’s reliance on a volatile commodity is making us vulnerable — both in the face of Putin’s use of gas as an economic weapon and in the face of the climate crisis.”
At the very least, it’s up to the proponents of new oil and gas developments to demonstrate how they can be conducted responsibly. Bay du Nord and any other project should be pursued in a “right way”, which presumably means that it fits within the country’s climate goals.
The war in Ukraine is profoundly important. However, the battle against climate change needs to be fought.
Do you have questions about this story or the story itself? We are happy to answer any questions you may have in the comments.
