Policymakers should worry less about energy self-sufficiency and more about decarbonization

Suppose that Canada were energy self-sufficient. Would life improve for the average Canadian? In times of instability, self-sufficiency seems like a balm to soothe jangled nerves and wary politicians. But more careful investigation demonstrates that energy self-sufficiency is a red herring. Policymakers should be much more worried about climate change and how to decarbonize the Canadian economy than where our energy comes from. First, to be clear: climate change is here, and adverse effects on Canadians will only increase, particularly in northern Canada, where warming will be more extreme. The politics of climate change are becoming existential, like the threat itself, and policymakers should stay squarely focused on that. But let’s suppose that Canada supplied all its own energy. Self-sufficiency would require continued use and development of the Albertan oilsands, enhanced refining capacity, and a buildout of fossil infrastructure to transport fuels and energy to end users. These are political and economic losers. Despite the prevalence of hydropower in electricity production, about 80 per cent of Canada’s energy comes from oil and gas. And nearly all of Canada’s proven oil reserves are in the oilsands. It is more difficult to extract and refine than the “good stuff” that’s found elsewhere in the world (light crude). Thus, energy self-sufficiency would require a lot more fossil fuel infrastructure—both to refine and transport oil from the oilsands. But we know that big investments in fossil fuel infrastructure are an increasingly risky business, which will only become riskier as climate change accelerates. And the private sector will get even more skittish about big capital projects. The recent cancellation of the Teck Frontier project and the nation-wide protests in solidarity with the Wet’suwet’en against the Coastal GasLink pipeline are just two examples of the growing challenges facing the fossil fuel industry. Governments will have to step in to provide funding and certainty, becoming the owners of expensive and soon-to-be outmoded infrastructure. This is precisely what happened with the Kinder Morgan pipeline, which cost Canadians $4.5-billion, and counting. When governments start buying pipelines, they commit to more fossil fuel use for the lifespan of these power plants and pipelines, or assume yet another risk—a massive write-down when pipelines and plants are retired early. That doesn’t sound like an improvement for your average Canadian. Instead of plowing money into risky and potentially outmoded investments, policymakers should focus their energy on building popular support for decarbonization. This means providing immediate political benefits to voters. Here are three policies to start this process: 1. Abandon carbon pricing for now. It’s time to recognize that carbon pricing is a political dead end. Instead of engaging in political and judicial battles over a controversial policy that delivers limited emissions reductions, focus on green investment. This means building out green energy, public transport, and the land use and planning changes that will be needed to adapt to the effects of climate change. 2. Abolish fossil fuel subsidies. Canada spends more than $3-billion annually subsidizing fossil fuel production; this amounts to $1,650 per Canadian. Getting rid of inefficient subsidies that prolong our reliance on fossil fuels is a no-brainer. Many policy experts agree. This will free up a sizeable chunk of money to invest in schools, infrastructure, health care, and other public goods upon which Canadians rely. 3. Make public transportation free. Cost of living is a key issue for Canadians; free public transport would reduce emissions, auto-associated pollution, and traffic, and provide a key lever for making city living safer, cleaner and more affordable. It would also address a variety of inequalities that ripple through society. Canadian policymakers must come to terms with the fact that we have to decarbonize our economy, as quickly as possible. This will require profound economic changes that will require political support from a broader swath of the public. Adopting policies like these will help address the political polarization that has stymied meaningful progress on the critical challenge of our time: the climate crisis. Jessica Green is an associate professor in the University of Toronto’s Political Science Department and School of the Environment. The Hill Times

Policymakers should worry less about energy self-sufficiency and more about decarbonization

Instead of plowing money into risky and potentially outmoded investments, policymakers should focus their energy on building popular support for decarbonization by providing immediate political benefits to voters.

Time for a shift: Canada must treat Alzheimer’s like other progressive diseases

Canada faces a cybersecurity crisis with critical infrastructure at risk

Let Ukraine strike back

Who’s standing up to the danger of World War III?

The sad saga of Afghan-Canadian military advisers

Between wars and fears of fascism in the U.S., there’s plenty to be scared about

A sinking ship: don’t be fossil fooled by LNG

UN secretary general calls on developed countries to accelerate net-zero timelines to 2040

Oilsands alliance: climate cure or costly delay?

Innovation for net zero: governance and policy innovation as important as technological advances

Can Canada break its fossil fuel addiction?

News

Get free news updates

Opinion

Submit a guest opinion article

resources

Advertise

subscribe

get help

Policymakers should worry less about energy self-sufficiency and more about decarbonization

Instead of plowing money into risky and potentially outmoded investments, policymakers should focus their energy on building popular support for decarbonization by providing immediate political benefits to voters.

Get The Policy Briefings Newsletter