Why is Suncor's net zero plan more credible than Ottawa's?
Bill C-12, the federal government's plan to get to net zero carbon emissions by 2050 is so inadequate and full of loopholes that we might as well call it "net zero 2090."
Emily Nickerson (EN) is a graduate student at the Max Bell School of Public Policy where she is co-editor of The Bell. Emily is passionate about promoting sustainable, inclusive growth, and ensuring that natural resources are well governed. Write us at newsletterthebell@gmail.com
CANADA’S OIL SANDS GIANT SUNCOR announced an aggressive new plan last week, with annual capital budget commitments, for achieving net zero carbon emissions by 2050, matching an earlier pledge by its rival Cenovus Energy. Net zero by 2050 also happens to Canada’s official goal as set by the governing Liberals, but it says a lot about the state of federal inaction that the oil sands companies’ commitments are more credible than Ottawa’s.
The International Energy Agency report released last week paints a dire picture of what inaction will mean. Lofty net-zero pledges without progress and timid international corporation will have us saying net zero 2090, rather than 2050. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has said that the worst impacts of climate change can only be avoided if net zero is reached by 2050 or sooner. Canada’s effort to enshrine its net zero 2050 pledge in Bill C-12, Canadian Net-Zero Emissions Accountability Act, is an important step, but will mean nothing if targets are not met and emissions are not reduced. There is no longer time to make ambitious climate commitments and simply report on why it was too hard to meet these targets.
The proposed Bill C-12 makes the federal government set national targets every five years to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, aiming to keep the country on track to net zero by 2050. This includes developing a plan, progress report, and assessment for each five-year target, and reporting on any failures to reach the target. As well, the bill includes the establishment of an expert body to advise the Minster, and audits by the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development every five years. Bill C-12 passed second reading early May and is now in committee. The NDP has indicated that they would help the Liberals get this to the Senate if more short-term targets are introduced.
Critics have aptly pointed out that C-12 currently has some major holes as a tool to keep this country on track to 2050. If the government in power fails to meet the target, C-12 does not create any real accountability, beyond a section on the failure in the assessment report. It is unclear what will happen if the government continues to fail target after target. To limit failure and increase oversight, MP Elizabeth May in the latest reading suggested that Canada needs to look at the United Kingdom (UK), the first country to develop a climate accountability framework. May highlighted that, like the UK, Canada’s independent expert body should report progress to Parliament rather than simply advise the Minister. In addition, reporting needs to be more regular, for example annual, compared to the proposed single progress report in a five-year cycle. These mechanisms for regular oversight are important to keep attention on reaching the target, instead of failures going unnoticed.
However, improving oversight will not address C-12’s awkward silence on how the federal government is going to move these national targets forward, when presumably many of the reductions will need to be led by the provinces and territories. The Pan-Canadian Framework on Clean Growth and Climate Change – Canada’s climate framework that was developed with the provinces and territories in 2016 – seems pretty outdated with the new federal 2050 commitment. It does not mention net zero once and lacks any mention of targets. More alignment is necessary so that these federal targets do not simply fall short, and the pan-Canadian coordination needs to be updated in light of these net zero ambitions. To complement this, some have suggested that Canada should look at the European Union Burden-Sharing Agreement to allow for redistribution of provincial and territorial targets, as long as the overall national target is achieved.
These improvements will be meaningless if the government cannot create a net zero roadmap that has provincial and territorial buy-in. Targets without sufficient measures to meet them will leave Canadians wanting. The federal government is placing a lot of pressure on a gamble that consensus is feasible amongst provinces, territories, and Indigenous communities on plans and funding to achieve the targets. Though countries like the UK have legislated their decarbonization pathway, experts suggest that this approach likely would not survive a legal challenge in Canada’s federated system. Canada will have put up with a less binding approach, and ensure that there is robust oversight and transparency of the measures that are implemented.
Setting shorter-term targets to 2050 is an important step so that Canada does not delay action, but it will be the results that matter. The Government of Canada needs to break past patterns of forgone climate commitments and targets, from Kyoto to Copenhagen, and ensure that C-12 is more than a target setting exercise. Canada needs to make failing targets more consequential, create an independent expert body that is accountable to Canadians, require more regular reporting on progress, and update the pan-Canadian framework to ensure that emissions targets are actually reached. 2090 cannot be the new 2050. (EN)
Read: What if Aliens have found Earth? And, did Gen-X get screwed on AstraZeneca?
Watch: An oral history of Raiders of the Lost Ark. Did you know he was originally called “Indiana Smith”?
Tune-in: With more access to WNBA games, Canadian viewership is up 325%.
Viral: This video of a woman juggling, shot from above:
___
The Bell is edited by Emily Nickerson, Mariel Aramburu, and Andrew Potter of the Max Bell School of Public Policy at McGill University. If you have any feedback or would like to contribute to this newsletter, please send an email to the editors at newsletterthebell@gmail.com