Thanks for the view into the current government policy.
As I read through this piece, I think the part that deserves more attention would be measures that make it easier for consumers to switch to green options. EV, heat pump, better windows and insulation, solar panels and batteries. That interest free loan program has expired under this government.
When you mention risk and return at the corporate and foreign investment levels, it seems to me that your government approach is that we, as Canadian taxpayers, need to publicly subsidize to reduce risk and guarantee return for foreign investors and foreign and domestic firms. If that's the case, is the mechanism for taxpayers going to be public ownership of parts of these assets? Or will we have to rely on trickle down economics for our return? I fear it's the latter.
Our track record, if we are being honest, is an approach where we publicly talk about shared cost and shared risk, but then we look around and suddenly we have abandoned wells and oil sands tailing ponds that will need to be cleaned up on the public dime. So that's where the talk of polluter pay sounds great, but are our governments at both the provincial and federal level, willing to enforce that principle? History tells us no. Is it possible this government will be different? Maybe. But I'm skeptical.
If the Liberals want to boost the economy, benefit citizens, and decrease carbon emissions, I'd strongly advocate for supporting increasing energy efficiency. Bring back support (grants, loans, and tax benefits) for housing retrofits. Help small companies switch to practices that keep them functional with lower energy costs.
This additional (!) pipeline will benefit only a select few - already wealthy people will increase their wealth at the expense of the rest of the world. It will further endanger land (Indigenous and rural people in particular will suffer) and we will keep careening towards ever more extreme climate tipping points. Sure, we'll skim off some profits for our governments and a few employees, but the net effect is harmful.
Helping people lower their energy costs would help lift some out of poverty or near-poverty. Efficiency will lower the demand for carbon-producing energy sources - not only in net emissions, but in maintaining inefficient infrastructure. We'd also feel like the government is acting for us - not acting for select industries, but for all of us, to better weather the challenges we face. We'd be happier, wealthier, and more resilient - this would be a win-win-win.
Lest you think I'm being unrealistic, please see all the tremendous work being done on this already: https://www.efficiencycanada.org/
Thanks Corey. Practicality and purpose is taking the place of zealotry and shaming. We can and will do better, and the transition will likely take longer than suggested. And until I can bolt a Mr. Fusion onto the Delorean, there will be a need for diesel, NG, LPG, C/LNG, HFCEVs etc for some remote and northern applications.
Gilbeault framed this as a switch we could flick rather than a process that will require hard work and common sense.
“So the question for all good environmentalists becomes: how do we get capital into Canada at a scale never before seen?”
Or
How do we protect the environment while not crippling the economy that hurts our community?
Capitalist hyperbolic language or your words “simple is better”? Bigger is better? Or Better, to start, is motivating our community in language that is reassuring something is being done to help those struggling. Tommy Douglas said,”Think globally, act locally”. Just a suggestion?
"To reach our goals, we can’t fixate on emissions from one sector at the expense of the emissions profile of the entire economy: the government can and must be willing to trade 1 MT of emissions in electricity production to reduce 2 MT of emissions elsewhere."
This is the key paragraph, IMO.
We need to look at scale. The Canada Greener Homes Loan program, which I took advantage of to get rooftop solar on my home, was a decent tool, but the effect of that in combatting emissions was not even a rounding error.
Building transmission lines to diesel reliant communities; effective public transportation to reduce vehicle traffic; new energy efficient, higher density affordable housing at scale to replace aging and inefficient single family homes - that's real impact.
Canada's Emissions peaked in 2007 and 1.5% of global emissions and falling. Punishing Canadian industry to meet this arbitrary and empty goal is economic suicide.
Although we will be able to sell oil for some time, the world is electrifying and doing it rapidly. Ukraine, Iran wars really highlight the problem of being fossil fuel dependent. Many countries want to be the ones to sell the last barrel but Alberta’s production and shipping costs (not to mention carbon emissions) mean that the break even costs are high. So if demand for oil starts dropping, doesn’t canada risk losing competitiveness?
I don’t get why we invest in CCUS when it’ll take billions to build , the oil companies really don’t want to do it, and we really don’t know to what extent it’ll decarbonize oil sands production. Wouldn’t it be better to invest in decarbonizing cement and steel production?
Thank you for broadening the spectrum of thought on this critical issue. I share the views and concerns of the previous two commenters below (Mike and Rivkah). In addition to a stable regulatory and tax environment responsible action must include rebates, discounts, and a return of the Canada green home loan to name a few. This not only gives Canadians the keys to the solutions necessary for change but may well help to ensure those with the least amount of personal capital and highest personal/private debt (eg the younger homeowners, first-time homebuyers etc) at this time get a fighting chance to work, live and raise families in more liveable communities --- ones that can withstand heat domes, floods, record wind storms and the insurance premiums that come with all of this. While providing for investors and investment to raise capital, we must also provide more liveable and affordable transportation, food, and housing solutions to our most vulnerable citizens who, because of a timeline which favours GHG emitters may well worsen conditions, are the very people we need to remain healthy in order to fulfill productive roles across economic sectors that support the growth.
I think you've done a better job answering the questions posed to Minister Dabrusin on yesterday's Question Period. Especially compared to smooth talking Premier Smut (oops, autocorrect) Smith, who also was interviewed.
Thanks for the view into the current government policy.
As I read through this piece, I think the part that deserves more attention would be measures that make it easier for consumers to switch to green options. EV, heat pump, better windows and insulation, solar panels and batteries. That interest free loan program has expired under this government.
When you mention risk and return at the corporate and foreign investment levels, it seems to me that your government approach is that we, as Canadian taxpayers, need to publicly subsidize to reduce risk and guarantee return for foreign investors and foreign and domestic firms. If that's the case, is the mechanism for taxpayers going to be public ownership of parts of these assets? Or will we have to rely on trickle down economics for our return? I fear it's the latter.
Our track record, if we are being honest, is an approach where we publicly talk about shared cost and shared risk, but then we look around and suddenly we have abandoned wells and oil sands tailing ponds that will need to be cleaned up on the public dime. So that's where the talk of polluter pay sounds great, but are our governments at both the provincial and federal level, willing to enforce that principle? History tells us no. Is it possible this government will be different? Maybe. But I'm skeptical.
If the Liberals want to boost the economy, benefit citizens, and decrease carbon emissions, I'd strongly advocate for supporting increasing energy efficiency. Bring back support (grants, loans, and tax benefits) for housing retrofits. Help small companies switch to practices that keep them functional with lower energy costs.
This additional (!) pipeline will benefit only a select few - already wealthy people will increase their wealth at the expense of the rest of the world. It will further endanger land (Indigenous and rural people in particular will suffer) and we will keep careening towards ever more extreme climate tipping points. Sure, we'll skim off some profits for our governments and a few employees, but the net effect is harmful.
Helping people lower their energy costs would help lift some out of poverty or near-poverty. Efficiency will lower the demand for carbon-producing energy sources - not only in net emissions, but in maintaining inefficient infrastructure. We'd also feel like the government is acting for us - not acting for select industries, but for all of us, to better weather the challenges we face. We'd be happier, wealthier, and more resilient - this would be a win-win-win.
Lest you think I'm being unrealistic, please see all the tremendous work being done on this already: https://www.efficiencycanada.org/
Thanks Corey. Practicality and purpose is taking the place of zealotry and shaming. We can and will do better, and the transition will likely take longer than suggested. And until I can bolt a Mr. Fusion onto the Delorean, there will be a need for diesel, NG, LPG, C/LNG, HFCEVs etc for some remote and northern applications.
Gilbeault framed this as a switch we could flick rather than a process that will require hard work and common sense.
“So the question for all good environmentalists becomes: how do we get capital into Canada at a scale never before seen?”
Or
How do we protect the environment while not crippling the economy that hurts our community?
Capitalist hyperbolic language or your words “simple is better”? Bigger is better? Or Better, to start, is motivating our community in language that is reassuring something is being done to help those struggling. Tommy Douglas said,”Think globally, act locally”. Just a suggestion?
"To reach our goals, we can’t fixate on emissions from one sector at the expense of the emissions profile of the entire economy: the government can and must be willing to trade 1 MT of emissions in electricity production to reduce 2 MT of emissions elsewhere."
This is the key paragraph, IMO.
We need to look at scale. The Canada Greener Homes Loan program, which I took advantage of to get rooftop solar on my home, was a decent tool, but the effect of that in combatting emissions was not even a rounding error.
Building transmission lines to diesel reliant communities; effective public transportation to reduce vehicle traffic; new energy efficient, higher density affordable housing at scale to replace aging and inefficient single family homes - that's real impact.
Canada's Emissions peaked in 2007 and 1.5% of global emissions and falling. Punishing Canadian industry to meet this arbitrary and empty goal is economic suicide.
Although we will be able to sell oil for some time, the world is electrifying and doing it rapidly. Ukraine, Iran wars really highlight the problem of being fossil fuel dependent. Many countries want to be the ones to sell the last barrel but Alberta’s production and shipping costs (not to mention carbon emissions) mean that the break even costs are high. So if demand for oil starts dropping, doesn’t canada risk losing competitiveness?
I don’t get why we invest in CCUS when it’ll take billions to build , the oil companies really don’t want to do it, and we really don’t know to what extent it’ll decarbonize oil sands production. Wouldn’t it be better to invest in decarbonizing cement and steel production?
Thank you for broadening the spectrum of thought on this critical issue. I share the views and concerns of the previous two commenters below (Mike and Rivkah). In addition to a stable regulatory and tax environment responsible action must include rebates, discounts, and a return of the Canada green home loan to name a few. This not only gives Canadians the keys to the solutions necessary for change but may well help to ensure those with the least amount of personal capital and highest personal/private debt (eg the younger homeowners, first-time homebuyers etc) at this time get a fighting chance to work, live and raise families in more liveable communities --- ones that can withstand heat domes, floods, record wind storms and the insurance premiums that come with all of this. While providing for investors and investment to raise capital, we must also provide more liveable and affordable transportation, food, and housing solutions to our most vulnerable citizens who, because of a timeline which favours GHG emitters may well worsen conditions, are the very people we need to remain healthy in order to fulfill productive roles across economic sectors that support the growth.
I think you've done a better job answering the questions posed to Minister Dabrusin on yesterday's Question Period. Especially compared to smooth talking Premier Smut (oops, autocorrect) Smith, who also was interviewed.