STIRLING and CAMERON: What we have here is a failure to communicate

When Premier Danielle Smith met with Prime Minister Justin Trudeau in Calgary recently, notwithstanding the smiles for the camera, there was frost in the air...Despite Premier Danielle Smith’s honest attempts to meet federal climate change objectives, but at a pace that works for Alberta and that does not leave Albertans with the classic 'eat-or-heat' dilemma, you need to be aware of the implications of three reports.When you examine what the prime minister actually said regarding the recent meeting and look beyond the charming performance that he does so well, there are federal plans in place, that you have probably never heard of, that will make energy too expensive for Canadians to use.Smith is prepared to set up Alberta to reach Net-Zero carbon emissions by 2050, but not by 2030. She is optimistic that this can be done. Her expectation is that high-emitting industries can be coaxed away from carbon emissions with emerging technologies like Carbon Capture Utilization and Storage (CCUS) or new fuels like hydrogen.But not, importantly, from fossil fuel use or production. However, on that there is a federal-provincial impasse.The situation in which the Pathways Alliance finds itself is a case in point. The $16.5 billion, oil sands carbon capture network seems stuck in limbo.On the one hand, Minister of Natural Resources, Jonathan Wilkinson, wants to see progress on the ground.On the other, the Pathways Alliance wants confirmation of the promised tax credit.Producers are also gun-shy of a proposed federal initiative to impose an emissions cap on the oil and gas sector.Where are the Trudeau Liberals coming from? These three documents sum it all up. (And unfortunately, Alberta’s plan does not seem to align with any of them. Nor does carbon tax relief seem likely.)First, although the Paris Agreement is purely voluntary, the Canadian Net-Zero Emissions Accountability Act (which became law on June 29, 2021) “enshrines in legislation Canada’s commitment to achieve Net-Zero emissions by 2050.”Second, the government’s first Net-Zero assessment was a Dec. 2021 report by the Canadian Energy Regulator (CER) called Canada’s Energy Future 2021: Energy Supply and Demand Projections to 2050 (EF2021). This did not explicitly model a Net-Zero future. That drew criticism and resulted in a subsequent report, Canada’s Energy Future 2023 (EF2023,) published in June 2023.This became the CER’s “long-term outlook on modeling Net-Zero by 2050.”As explained in the Energy Demand section, total end-use energy demand for the two Net-Zero scenarios declines by 22% and 12%, from 2021 to 2050, despite continuing economic and population growth. This decline is largely due to “switching to different technologies and fuels, more efficient use of energy, and lower activity levels in some sectors.” The CER assumed real annual GDP growth of 1.4% for the Global Net-zero scenario and slightly higher in the other two scenarios; see p.112 of the full report.Third, the left-wing Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, took note of EF2023 and commissioned David Hughes to use it as the basis for a report. The result is called 'Getting to Net-Zero in Canada – Scale of the problem, government projections and daunting challenges' (full 64-page report and 6-page summary).The Discussion and Implications chapter of the full Getting to Net-Zero report (pp.56-61) states that in the CER’s Net-Zero scenarios, per capita end use of energy must be reduced 33-41% and lists a number of unrealistic outcomes (e.g., wind and solar generation must increase 10-12 times and direct air capture 4,600-5,500 times current world capacity,) together with optimistic assumptions about future cost reductions in carbon capture, use and storage (CCUS), direct air capture (mechanically extracting CO2 from the atmosphere), wind and solar capital costs, hydrogen production, battery storage, and others (see Table A2.1 of EF2023).Hughes found that to meet Net-Zero targets, there must be a stark reduction in end-use demand for fossil fuels.What means in plain English is you and your consumption, as the prime minister said. It's what he called 'a market solution,' but actually means that when the taxes are so high on energy that you can't afford it, you'll use less of it.It also means industrial retraction.Hughes found that electricity generation will have to increase from the CER’s 39-41% share of end-use energy to a “more realistic” 55%. That, in itself, would have huge, embodied emissions and is extremely unlikely to be possible in the short-term due to a lack of material supply chain. Likewise, the Hughes report doesn’t assess the cost of reaching Net-Zero, only that the CER’s per capita energy reduction of 33-41% won’t be enough. As he told The Tyee: “We are going to have to accept contraction, unfortunately. It has been a slice. But the math does not work for continuous growth.”In other words, getting to Net-Zero means an end to economic growth, let alone the 1.4%/year real GDP increase assumed in EF2023.The prime minister and cabinet colleagues consistently talk of making life more affordable for Canadians while reaching climate targets and growing the economy. What the ministers desperately don’t want is to tell the public that fulfilling their government’s Net-Zero agenda will entail a quarter century of energy and economic deprivation.Net-Zero push-back is rolling across Europe and the UK as citizens realize their lives are being ruined by ‘heat or eat’ poverty, their jobs offshored, and their children sentenced to decades of debt.Canada’s oil reserves represent 50% of global oil in the free world. The just released US Energy Information Administration’s Short Term Energy Outlook shows there’s no energy transition happening; demand for oil and gas grows worldwide. That is Canada’s ticket to economic stability and climate change innovation.Net-Zero’s roots are found in the fear of a climate emergency, which arises from the misuse of the implausible scenario known as RCP 8.5. This scenario is no longer used by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Yet this is the scenario the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions and the Bank of Canada have embedded in climate risk disclosures — thus creating an oxymoronic investment environment.The solution to these issues is to repeal the Net-Zero legislation, stop using RCP 8.5 as a baseline scenario on climate risk, roll back the carbon tax and accelerate oil/gas production and export sales to diffuse Canada’s ticking debt bomb.One has to question the federal government’s lack of Net-Zero due diligence, while coercively forcing its citizens into impossible compliance on climate targets.Meanwhile China emits in one month what Canada emits in a year and eight months.Michelle Stirling is Communications Manager for Friends of Science Society. Ian Cameron is a director for Friends of Science Society and compiles the “Extracts” newsletter. A more comprehensive discussion of this information can be found here

STIRLING and CAMERON: What we have here is a failure to communicate

Related Stories