When does ‘bold’ start?

CHELSEA, QUE.—So far Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s “bold," green, post-pandemic recovery plan appears to lack boldness. And detail. And deadlines. In fact, it is in danger of disappearing altogether this winter as all available political and media space is occupied by the pandemic and the other political contagion down south. Historically, Liberal environmental promises have tended to surge, overlap, recede, and then reappear, like a restless surf. But a few months ago, in the midst of an unprecedented global pandemic, there was talk of using the crisis to create a cleaner, fairer, even more prosperous new world. Environmental spending would be the “cornerstone” of recovery, said the prime minister. With billions flying out the door in social and business support, why not throw some of that cash at clean energy, transformative technologies and green jobs? But here we are. The only immediate carbon reductions we are likely to see are temporary and involuntary—the result of the economic slowdown caused by the global health emergency, notably declines in air travel and commuter traffic, on top of the market-driven retreat by the oil industry. Federal government policy has been, with rare exceptions, incidental to any progress. Not that the federal government hasn’t been recycling like mad, but mostly old environmental promises. It has been a year, for example, since the government promised to plant two billion trees by 2030, a natural remedy for rising emissions. Easier, you would think, than challenging the Alberta government’s recent decision to re-open parts of the foothills to open-pit coal mining. Easier by far than actually enforcing federal methane reductions in Saskatchewan and Alberta (rather than defaulting to weaker provincial oversight), especially after a recent report by federal scientists revealed that emissions of the powerful greenhouse gas are probably two times previous estimates. But, a year later, not a single tree has been planted—who could oppose baby trees?—and, more seriously, no money has been budgeted for the program. As to those damaging, newly discovered methane emissions, so much for the already-delayed federal target of halving emissions, mostly from oil and gas operations, within five years. There has been a similarly sluggish approach to the government’s oft-repeated pledge (most recently in the September Throne Speech) to exceed current 2030 emission reduction targets (30 per cent below 2005 levels) and to legislate interim five-year targets towards the ultimate goal of net-zero emissions by 2050. It is another promise first made a year ago, as emissions continued to increase; three months ago, in the Throne Speech, legislation was promised “immediately.” Pressed to explain why there is still no action, Environment and Climate Change Minister Jonathan Wilkinson recently told opposition MPs that his department is “leading government-wide work to develop further plans to exceed Canada’s 2030 emissions reduction goal and firmly put the country on a path to net-zero by 2050.” This, in fact, appears to be the main work of Canada’s environment department and has been for years: creating plans, that supersede previous plans, based on targets, that over-shoot previous targets, all with the goal of creating the illusion of progress. Eventually, normal people tune out. What does 30 per cent below 2005 levels even mean? To underscore the absurdity of federal rhetoric, this latest slowdown in plan-making is being blamed on the coronavirus—which will likely accomplish more than a library-full of federal plans in terms of lower emissions (however briefly). Still, it is possible that Wilkinson’s “government-wide effort” will yield a plan by Dec. 12 (lightening-fast by bureaucratic standards), just in time for an international online summit to mark the fifth anniversary of the Paris climate accord. Needless to say, neither Canada, nor the majority of signatories, have come close to meeting their original Paris pledges. So time for new ones, clearly. (Meanwhile, a Bloc Québécois MP has introduced a private motion that, essentially, insists the Trudeau government follow through with its legislated reviews of progress towards net-zero by 2050. We’ll see how that vote goes.) Not that targets aren’t good and plans aren’t necessary. They are. Also, climate change is a global phenomenon that requires a global response—and agreement on a problem that affects everyone living on earth, but is caused primarily by oil-exporting nations and wealthy consumer societies, is difficult. It helps that U.S. president-elect Joe Biden intends to rejoin the Paris Accord; this is, at least, an acknowledgement from the world’s largest economy that climate change needs to be addressed, not ignored. But Biden has long been a mainstream, consensus politician and was only pushed to include a green plan in his campaign by Democratic Party “radicals.” So we’ll see how serious he is about confronting his own country’s powerful fossil fuel sector. While the international community continues to dither, there are many useful steps the Canadian government could take to mitigate domestic emissions. They are outlined in decades-worth of Liberal party resolutions, prime ministerial speeches, previous Throne Speeches and campaign documents going back to Paul Martin’s days as Jean Chrétien’s environment critic. They include that old chestnut—national energy efficiency standards for new commercial and residential buildings. So sensible, yet so curiously unattainable. Another favourite: incentives for homeowners to retrofit old, leaky houses (if lower energy bills aren’t incentive enough.) This one comes and goes depending on the ideological bent of various federal and provincial governments, while the construction industry increasingly offers green alternatives—but at a premium price. Then there is government support for electric vehicles, another frequently re-announced bullet point. This includes rebates for consumers who buy cleaner vehicles, more charging stations, and incentives for the auto industry to start building commercial and passenger EVs, and components, including batteries. Some of this is already happening—although hardly enough, given the transportation sector overall contributes 25 per cent of greenhouse gas emissions, a portion of which is generated by ordinary cars and trucks. It is no accident that the still tiny electric vehicle market ( fewer than one per cent of vehicles on the road) is centred in Quebec and British Columbia, where provinces have offered rebates for some years. Premier Doug Ford eliminated a similar program in Ontario and EV sales immediately dropped. In May 2019, the federal government offered a three-year, $300-million incentive to consumers to buy new, non-luxury EVs. The rebates range from $2,500 for hybrids to $5,000 for zero-emission vehicles. But, as of the end of September, some $255-million had been claimed, leaving only $75-million left until 2022. Nor is there any sign of a 2019 Liberal campaign promise to offer rebates for used, and more affordable, EVs. Transport Minister Marc Garneau recently noted how “incredibly popular” the EV rebate program has been. Asked if it will be getting more money, he replied: “Its something that I would hopefully like to see continued, but conversion something that we are looking at.” There you have the federal approach in a nutshell: a burst of enthusiasm followed by a cloud of vagueness. As to his government’s previous plan to have 10 per cent of Canada’s passenger fleet electrified by 2025—a modest four to six percent is now looking more realistic, say analysts. To summarize, the federal government’s “bold” approach has produced this: an increasingly remote chance of meeting methane reduction targets; badly lagging targets for conversion to electric vehicles; a year-long delay in plans to better existing 2030 emissions targets, never mind getting to net-zero by 2050. And not a single tree planted. Some will blame the back-sliding on the intense demands, bureaucratic and political, posed by the pandemic. Others point to the limitations of minority government, to recalcitrant premiers still banking on oil, to federal opposition parties (all of them, except the tiny Green caucus) that give scant priority to climate. But the greatest obstacle may be the Trudeau government’s wavering commitment to its own “bold” vision. It has shown it can move quickly, and mostly effectively, when faced with a health crisis. Wasn’t climate change supposed to be a crisis, too? Susan Riley is a veteran political columnist who writes regularly for The Hill Times. The Hill Times