This article was published by The Energy Mix on Dec. 13, 2024.
The federal government tried Thursday to put the onus on the provinces to bring down greenhouse gas emissions as it released a national emission reduction target for 2035 that is only marginally more ambitious than its existing 2030 goal.
The move had veteran climate policy analysts and experienced international climate negotiators pointing to the other directions the government could have taken.
The 2035 target calls for Canada to reduce its emissions by 45 to 50 per cent from 2005 levels, CBC reports, a goal that amounts to a 41 per cent reduction in just a decade. Last month, federal Environment Commissioner Jerry DeMarco warned the country is falling short of its 2030 target of 40 to 45 per cent.
“We chose a target which we felt was both ambitious but achievable. I want to be as ambitious as Canada can possibly be, but the federal government can’t do it alone,” Environment and Climate Minister Steven Guilbeault explained this week. “If we could work constructively with provinces across the country, then Canada will be able to do much more much, much faster.”
Earlier this year, Canada’s Net-Zero Advisory Body (NZAB) recommended that Guilbeault adopt a 50 to 55 per cent target for 2035. This Thursday, he said his department’s analysis showed reductions above 50 per cent are possible over the next decade, but not without provincial cooperation the Trudeau government has tried in vain to line up.
“Let’s be very honest with each other: some provinces are refusing to act on climate change, even recognize that climate change is a problem,” he told media. “I’m hoping that over time, in the coming years, this will change and we will be in a different space. But right now, this is the political environment.”
CBC cites Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Ontario as provinces that have “challenged federal climate action in court, especially carbon pricing—although the carbon pricing system has survived and is in place across the country.” The news report adds that “Alberta is now trying to oppose Ottawa’s proposed cap on emissions from the oil and gas sector, which is a major—and growing—source of emissions.”
In a statement Thursday, the NZAB urged Ottawa to at least aim for the upper range of its 2035 target. It also reiterated its recommendation that the country follow other jurisdictions—from countries like the United Kingdom and France, to cities like Montreal and Edmonton—to track and limit its total emissions over time.
“By setting a carbon budget, Canada can better connect the dots between its short-term targets and its long-term goal of net-zero emissions,” the statement said. “Evidence from other jurisdictions shows that this cumulative approach to managing emissions helps motivate early action and highlights the trade-offs associated with policy decisions affecting different sectors.”
Ottawa-based NZAB advisor Catherine Abreu, director of the International Climate Politics Hub, called the new target “incredibly disappointing”, noting that it amounts to a 1 per cent emissions reduction per year for the crucial period between 2030 and 2035.
“This is frankly pathetic given the pace of pollution cuts we’re already seeing from our major trading partners—the U.S., UK, and EU decreased their emissions by 3 per cent, 5 per cent, and 8 per cent respectively in 2023 alone,” she wrote on LinkedIn.
“It’s painful to see a government that has spent most of the last decade working hard to revolutionize Canadian climate policy put out a target that projects those policies will fail to do what they’re designed to,” Abreu added. “Here again we see evidence of the stranglehold fossil fuel interests have on Canada’s climate ambition, which have stalled efforts to seriously address oil and gas emissions and allowed them to balloon to account for a third of Canada’s overall climate pollution.”
“Our failure to meet climate goals is the result of individual choices to fail at all levels of government, with many discrete examples to choose from,” agreed Adam Scott, executive director of Shift: Action for Pension Wealth and Planetary Health. “We have countless tools that have either gone unused, or have been delayed or weakened in the face of relentless lobbying—in particular from private, incumbent fossil fuel companies looking to hold onto their market share at our collective expense. Canada can both set and hit ambitious climate goals, but frankly, this requires stronger leadership and a willingness to say ‘no’ in the face of relentless lobbying.”
NZAB Co-Chair and University of British Columbia climate scientist Simon Donner agreed that a higher 2035 target would have been achievable.
“Given the division of power and the jurisdiction over natural resources, the provinces and territories need to take part,” he told The Energy Mix in an email. “However, the federal government does have many levers at its disposal. Our recommended 50 to 55 per cent reduction target may seem ambitious, but the research demonstrated that is was achievable and could contribute to economic growth.”
Donner added: “Getting on pathway to net-zero is not just about reducing emissions—it is about making sure Canada is not left behind in the growing low-carbon economy. Lower targets risk incentivizing ‘dead end’ pathways: locking us in to energy systems or technology that will eventually need to be replaced, possibly at great cost to all taxpayers, and to workers. That’s why we are strongly encouraging the government to strive to achieve the upper end of the selected 45-50 per cent target range, and ideally, to go even further.”
Clean Energy Canada Executive Director Mark Zacharias said there are two components to effective target setting—ambition and achievability—and he declared this week’s announcement “balanced” and realistic.
“Targets are meaningless without a roadmap to reach them,” he said in a release. With Canada’s emissions now at a 27-year low outside the COVID-19 pandemic, “the priority right now is to retain and finalize key policies and programs that will keep us within striking distance of these aspirations. Measures that make life more affordable for Canadians, in particular, should be at the top of the list—after all, ditching fossil fuels can shave hundreds of dollars a month off household energy bills.”
But Julia Levin, associate director, national climate at Environmental Defence Canada, said the government’s “deeply disappointing” target “cements Canada’s position as a global climate laggard. Despite being one of the world’s top emitters, Canada has not achieved the same level of emissions reductions as other wealthy nations. While it’s true that current geopolitics brings much uncertainty, other countries are putting forth much more ambitious climate strategies.”
“The federal government could have used this target to set a bold vision to diversify our economy towards affordable, reliable energy sources, reduce our dependence on the whims of belligerent climate deniers, and build a more equitable, resilient society,” said Climate Action Network Canada Executive Director Caroline Brouillette. “Instead, Prime Minister Trudeau has chosen to cave. This weak target is deeply disconnected from Canada’s fair share of the global climate effort, and from the level of ambition we are seeing in other countries.”
Be the first to comment