By Hugh Holland
This is a timely question since we are 24 days away from a federal election in Canada.
Our next government will have a crushing set of issues to deal with: mitigating Covid-19 with the delta variant and all of its health and economic effects, affordability and growing economic inequality, Afghanistan, China, internet-fuelled culture wars, reconciliation with our Indigenous people, immigration to counter a shrinking population, to name a few.
But the number one issue is climate change. All those other things will get fixed. Climate change is rapidly becoming irreversible and forever.
Climate change is complicated but is quite logical when you take the time to think about it. Carbon emissions, from 150 years of burning fossil fuels to create energy, are accumulating in the atmosphere and, like a greenhouse, are trapping heat from the sun.
The polar vortex is the normal mass of low-pressure cold air swirling above the earth’s northern pole. Convection pushes a rotating mass of higher-pressure hot air up from the equator. The interface between the competing cold and hot air fronts is called the jet stream.
The greenhouse effect warms and expands the oceans, increases evaporation/precipitation, melts the polar ice, and warms the polar vortex. The warmer polar vortex increases in pressure and pushes down to produce a meandering jet stream and erratic weather systems.
The overall result is increasing frequency and severity of hurricanes, droughts, fires, crop failures, floods, and rising sea levels that will impact low-lying coastal areas displacing some 600 million people, including many of the biggest cities. Like pandemics, nobody will be safe from climate change until we are all safe.
Climate change has been slow moving but this year we have seen new record heat waves (49⁰C causing 700 deaths from heat stress in temperate BC), droughts and fires in western Canada, the USA and Greece, record low water levels behind hydro dams in the western US, record flooding destroying thousands of homes and infrastructure in Europe, China, and Tennessee, record melting of the arctic ice and glaciers in beautiful BC and Alberta, and the melting of the Greenland ice sheet that is starting to submerge the Gulf Stream that moderates Atlantic Canada and the west coast of Europe, and an increasing frequency and severity of tropical hurricanes and tornadoes.
How much more proof do we need of a problem the world’s top 2,500 climate scientists have been warning about for over 30 years?
Left unchecked, climate change will affect everything, and is poised to make all other problems look like a Sunday School picnic. Some aspects are already close to being irreversible. That means forever. My generation is going to escape the worst effects, but I want my children and grandchildren to know that I tried to do what I could to help avoid the worst effects of climate change for their lifetime. After that, its up to them.
Climate scientists tell us we can avoid the worst effects of climate change by getting to net-zero emissions by 2050. That is a tall order, but we already have the technology to do it. All it takes is for public understanding to drive political will.
I voted Conservative most of my life. Erin O’Toole, with the help of current events, has finally been able to move the Conservatives in the right direction in the past six months but they still lack an appropriate sense of urgency and a credible plan on climate change.
There is broad agreement among global economics experts that a carbon tax is the most effective tool to incentivize change for both producers and consumers. Neither one can do the job without the other. Producers can only make what consumers want to buy. The Conservative approach is weak, would require time and money to create a new administrative bureaucracy, and would have minimal impact.
The change must be fast but gradual. The Greens and some NDP want to eliminate fossil fuels before we have credible alternatives in place. But that would pile a global energy shortage on top of a climate crisis.
The Liberals are far from perfect, but in my view as a professional engineer who has invested a great deal of time in this subject, the Liberals have listened to the global experts and have the most rational and effective plan for the mitigation of climate change. If the government was changed, it would take a year to get a new government up to speed.
Canada and the USA are among the highest in the world in terms of greenhouse gas emissions per capita. We must be responsible and do our part.
Hugh Holland is a retired engineering and manufacturing executive now living in Huntsville, Ontario.
Don’t miss out on Doppler!
Sign up here to receive our email digest with links to our most recent stories.
Local news in your inbox so you don’t miss anything!
Click here to support local news
When all us old white guys that fight over definitions, economics, cost, and affordability are dead I’m sure that our children will hunker down and actually fix things worldwide.
I doubt that by then the old white guy political parties will still be around either.
Hugh, the debt to GDP numbers I quoted are correct. I was talking about Gross Debt, not Net Central Gov Debt, which is what you seem to be referencing for comparisons. Gross Debt includes all levels of government, business and household debt, and indeed Canada’s is 450% of GDP, among the highest globally. Why this matters was stated. When interest rates rise, as they will with rising inflation (and debt ratings downgrades too), it’s the Gross Debt to watch. Why? Because it means government spending goes up, increasing deficits, and business/household costs rise, squeezing budgets and slowing spending. Not good.
As for the “world leading economists” selling carbon taxing as the best approach, sorry, I am not buying it. Carbon taxes are meant to push consumers to switch to lower emissions energy and to use less. But the truth is new green energy today is considerably more expensive than fossil fuel energy. Refunding a portion of the tax to consumers based on some government created general formula doesn’t properly account for the obvious overall impact to the economy will be rising energy costs and rising general inflation. Energy costs hit everything. It hits hardest on the least well off, and the more debt you have, the worse it gets. With inflation already rising, this is a terrible time to be driving energy costs up through rising carbon taxes. These economists are not telling the full story, and it begs the question, why?
You don’t have to be an expert to understand, just look at how carbon taxes have actually performed in the real world. Consider the EU, which leads the carbon tax parade as the primary tool to reach their net zero target. From 2014 to 2019: Energy Demand growth +1.7.%, CO2 emissions: -3%. How about Sweden, a global leader in high carbon taxes (around $160 Cdn $)? Nope, actually, worse: Energy Demand +6.%, CO2 emissions: +0.6%. The US, with higher growth and no national carbon tax actually did better: Energy Demand +1.6.%, CO2 emissions: -6%. All these stats can be confirmed by looking at BP’s energy statistical review 2021. https://www.bp.com/en/global/corporate/energy-economics/statistical-review-of-world-energy.html
So now economists say carbon taxes need to be far higher to meet net zero emissions, as high $300 per ton in some studies. When you don’t get the results hoped for, keep raising the bar. You may recall the oil price shock (from oil prices doubling) in the late 70’s and the long deep recession that followed. It would pale in comparison to what will happen to energy prices and the economy with poorly conceived energy policies like this in place. Pay attention Canada, the election is just 3 weeks away.
Dave Wilkin – “Liberals haven’t published the costs of their program” Please tell me where I can find the costs-benefit study published by the Greens, the NDP, or the Conservatives including the cost of their new “private” system to administer their proposed carbon credit for 27 million taxpayers.
While wind and solar may be the main clean source in a few high-sun countries, I agree with you that it is a very expensive solution for northern countries both in terms of money and the enormous amount of shrinking farmland it requires. I also agree that it will be the late 2020s before new advanced nuclear technologies start to make a sizable impact. That is why our environment minister introduced the new CLEAN FUEL STANDARD that provides incentives to reduce the carbon content of fossil fuels to help attain 2030 emissions targets. (Google Canada’s clean fuel standard)
Re your cost concerns – The refurbishment of Darlington and Bruce nuclear is already funded, will be complete in 2025 and will extend their life to 2055. Almost every vehicle on the planet will be replaced over the next normal 15-year replacement cycle and electric vehicles will be there to replace them. We already have the capacity to charge them at night in the 5 provinces with 80% of our population. We simply need to stop bypassing the hydro generators at night. Utilities and Industries routinely budget to modernize plant and equipment. All of this means the incremental costs of replacing old technology with new technology will not be nearly as severe as you suggest.
Regardless, did anyone ever say the cost of winning WW2 was too high? Canada is consistently forecast to have the lowest or second lowest debt to GDP ratio among the G7 largest democratic economies. And the feds will help the provinces make the needed changes, if they will also help themselves.
Re the carbon tax – We have all received a nice Climate Action Incentive Rebate for the second year in a row. It’s on line 45110 of your tax return. Check it out. The idea of the incentive is to make people think when they buy, but then give them their money back. I know it works for me every time I spend $80 to fill my gas tank and realize I could be spending $20 to fuel an electric car. I hope to do that soon. Check out the Fuel Economy Guide published by Natural Resources Canada and the US EPA.
Mr. Holland: A true believer! And willing to attempt their conversion, one at a time.
I’m with you on the covid passport, it’s for your own safety and the greater good; like seatbelts and no drinking and driving.
But dirty oil? To fund our”fight” against global warming!
Just can’t share your conviction.
Stay well.
Dave Wilkin – Every reference on the Internet indicates that a) the debt to gdp ratio is expected to go up in almost all countries due to the pandemic and efforts to curb climate change. and b) Canada is expected to have the second lowest debt to gdp in 2021 and 2023 among the world’s G7 biggest democratic economies.
When we need medical advice we go to a doctor. We armchair economists should accept the advice of the world’s leading economists that say a refundable tax on carbon is the most effective tool to drive the needed change.
The refurbishment of Darlington and Bruce nuclear is funded and will be complete by 2025 and will extend their life to 2055. All vehicles on the road today will be due for replacment over the next 15 years and EVs will be ready to take their place. Utilities and industries routinely budget to maintain and modernize their plant and equipment. So, the incremental cost of replacing old with new state-of-the art vehicles, plant and equipment will not be anywhere near as severe as you suggest. And no doubt the federal government will assist provinces to fund the mitigation of climate change. We must not allow politics to cloud our thinking.
Good luck, Mr. Holland of convincing others that climate change is paramount. It is much easier to “dither”, as we can note by some of the comments made. A “broad stroke”, big picture is what we need folks. We won’t have to worry about an economy with this global crisis here on our doorstep, think of the iceberg which took down the indestructible Titanic. Ask any of today’s students about climate change – many “get it”.
An anecdote, of no consequence perhaps. Years ago the local NDP candidate identified “acid rain” as a concern in the constituency. Stan Darling (Conservative MP) laughed at this as an issue. It wasn’t too many years after that on the Conservative platform, acid rain was identified as an issue of concern. Honestly, the Conservatives have dragged their feet on the environment for sometime — not a new posture. Thank you, Mr. Holland for weighing in on this important election issue.
The Trudeau Liberals haven’t published the likely costs to reach either their 40 – 45% 2030 emissions reduction target or their net zero 2050 target. I have completed some updates to my modeling of future energy system costs for the ~75% of emissions that come from energy (using current technologies, and realistic future energy system capital cost declines & likely demand/growth assumptions). The costs are absolutely enormous. In a Wind/Solar dominant transition scenario, the energy system capital costs alone approach $1 trillion by 2030, and $3.5 T by 2050. Include government subsidies, business + end-user costs, existing energy infrastructure deficits and economic losses stemming from the certain oil and gas sector losses, and that cost likely doubles. Further, this doesn’t include costs needed to mitigate risks associated with an energy supply chain that becomes highly dependent on imports (many from China) or an energy system that is more vulnerable to severe weather events or cyber/terror attacks.
Note that Nuclear, which I am a big fan of, won’t be part of any 2030 target solution, as Small Modular Reactors (SMR’s) won’t be utility-scale production ready for at least a decade. As well, many of our big CANDU nuclear power stations are aging (needing expensive retrofits/upgrades) and unfortunately no new ones are planned.
Energy is a provincial responsibility, so much of the cost burden falls on them, and they can’t print money, as the feds do. All of them already face high debt loads and deficits into the foreseeable future, with increasing pressures for much higher health care spending only adding to it. The trillions of debt financed energy transition spending will add to the already high and unsustainable debt levels, thanks to years of deficit spending now worsened by very high COVID spending. Cdn gross debt is approaching 450% of GDP, among the highest globally. Interest rate hikes and certain debt rating downgrades would follow. This means the already high costs of everything, including housing, food, healthcare and energy, would explode much higher. A Liberal carbon tax planned to hit $170 by 2030 will only add to the inflation, hurt productivity and make Canadian businesses even less competitive globally.
The Liberal ‘plan’, if followed, will end badly for Canadians. This is all entirely foreseeable, but the Trudeau Liberals (as well as the NDP, Greens) have chosen to ignore this reality, at Canada’s peril. Reducing emissions is very important for all countries to do, but it will fail badly if economies are heavily damaged in an undisciplined rush to reach unreasonable or unachievable targets.
Paul Johnson, of course the government must and can keep several balls in the air at once and let’s be fair, they have been doing it as well as any government anywhere in these complex times. Who has done better? As you recall, Stephan Harper always tried to focuss on 3 to 5 top priorities. Events show that Climate Change must now be at the top of that list. Left unabated, climate change will destroy more health, lives, economies, and affordability than anything else we can imagine. What will happen when insurance companies go broke? So, Climate Change must be the top priority.
The Liberals are not just throwing money at climate change. As you must know, there is always a time lag between passing legislation and regulations and getting results. What results did Harper get after 10 years? Harper couldn’t get a pipeline built, but the Liberals are building the most sensible one (along an existing route) that we will need over the next 20 years until the world can ween itself off oil and gas. 63% of Canada’s emissions come from extracting and burning oil and gas for transportation and heating buildings. 10% comes from burning coal to make electricity in Alberta and Saskatchewan. We are fortunate to have had very well qualified and competent Ministers of Natural Resources and Environment and a supportive cabinet and PM that have taken very specific steps to eliminate those emissions.
The Liberals initiated the carbon tax (as encouraged by experts) at very little cost to consumers, that incentivizes both producers and consumers to make the needed changes. Conservatives spent millions to fight the carbon tax and then came up with their own very weak version that requires an entire new bureaucracy to administer. They “don’t trust government” unless of course it is a Conservative government. So, I guess they would lay off the CRA professionals who are already doing the job, take a year or so to properly tender the job, build new computer systems, train the new organization, and pay them for their services and a healthy profit. Remember the new government payroll system fiasco that was only for 200,000 government employees? The carbon tax system is for 20 million taxpayers. I would love to discuss the specific details with you at any time. Let’s set a date.
The science outline is broad-stroke, well explained, undeniable, and apparently attested to by 2,500 climate scientists. Don’t we wish that that many health scientists could agree on a procedure for our pandemic.
The question ‘what political issues do you (I) consider most important’ seems to be left open-ended. It has been previously pointed out it is easy to complain but hard to lead.
Here’s my easy part. For myself, what I want is a real, national leader. There are now so many issues, all intertwined and twisted like a ball of my grandmothers’ knitting wool and only she could resolve that mess. We need someone with a vision to resolve this mess; a vision, outlined so we will be able to recognize it might work.
And for any party to suggest a carbon tax as the solution, is being less than genuine. It is simply a way to gain control of a greater amount of cash and has nothing to with carbon reduction. Tell me the last time a tax on whiskey closed a liquor store. Or gasoline taxes caused people to buy smaller cars and boats.
In Canada’s case, some of these funds would be used to increase the sale of one of the worlds’ dirtiest oils. From a site that is now polluting and reducing the viability of a major watershed and river, the Athabaska. Refer to the July, 2010 report of the National Academy of Science of the United States. It points out that both the oil companies and the government(Canadian), are being less than honest when reporting the scope and extent of the damage being done. We don’t need any more boil water directives.
And the hard part(leading) is beyond me, although I hope I will be able to recognise that leader when he/she (I remembered eh!) shows up. But I’ve looked and I can’t imagine what we need is to be found in this box of flakes. Suggesting a new government may need time to get ‘up to speed’ might infer that this Liberal/NDP union is up and running. Pretty unimpressive.
It seems like JT and the boys will be stuck with their NDP millstone for the next four years, or until he (JT) begins to pout again and proposes something so outlandish, that even Mr. Singh won’ be able to choke it down.
Then we will get to do this over again. Some leadership.
Proportional government anyone? Terminate these attempts to be dictator or petty potentate and force these people to work together. We elect them to represent us, for the good of us all. We are owed better.
There are so many reasons why the Trudeau liberals need to be defeated in this election. For starters, the deaths of Canadian citizens at Kabul airport just days ago are the result of Trudeau’s incompetence and inaction. On a more local level, look at the contempt and disdain shown towards the people of Muskoka by the federal liberal campaign. Local candidates here were rejected, and instead a person who only 2 weeks ago was trying to represent Don Valley East was forced upon the liberal riding association here. The people of Muskoka should send a statement to Trudeau and his team on September 20th, and I suspect that message of rejection will be delivered strongly.
Covid control is paramount. Tha Bill for this will affect government policy for years .The sooner this happens , the sooner full government monies and thinking can go to climate change mitigation and environmental controls .
I have to disagree with Mr Holland on what the most important question is with the coming election. In my view the most pressing thing is the economy and trying to get back to a balanced budget. Without that as a country we will not have the resources to spend vast amounts of money on anything. I guess we can borrow more and more but sooner or later we are going to have to pay it back. It would be much better to get people back to work and stop handing them 2000 a month to stay home while most businesses can not find enough staff to even stay open. The Federal Govt is no different than any household you can only borrow so much and sooner or later your in big trouble with bankruptcy about the only option. So get the economy up and running then tackle global warming. There has to be a better way than a carbon tax especially one we have to pay HST on as well.
Great article and I agree that Climate Change is critical. It does not mean that governments cannot balance a few priorities. Where I disagree is your conclusion that the Liberals have the best plan. First our climate footprint has worsen against our Paris goals under the Liberal leadership. Secondly they have demonstrated that their solution is to just throw money at the problem. They have yet to release their platform so not sure I have any confidence in them. WE cannot feel implying “trial by error”. I also agree with you that the Green and NDP solutions are not realistic. Canada must come up with a plan that is realistic and implementable. As Canada is not a major contributor to global warming, like all nations we have a responsibility and recently have been impressed with Erin O’Toole. We cannot afford any further stupidity from Trudeau.