The good: $ to support worker transition in oil/gas-dependent provinces; more ambitious methane red'ns by 2030; net zero electricity by 2035. More $ for EV purchases because, hey, it's election time. /3
The questions. Commitment to "5-year targets starting in 2025" for oil/gas industry "at a pace and scale needed to achieve net zero by 2050." Given that it's already 2021, I infer that's a 5-yr target for 2025-2030. Q1: Why wait to 2025 to start? Q2: Why not give target now? /4
The Lib govt will already have modelled Canada's new #ParisAgreement target to reduce by 40-45%. If they can announce a 75% methane target for 2025-30, why not total GHG target too? I worry that 4 yrs of industry lobbying will yield delay and weakening (as with Clean Fuel Std).5
This is more ambitious than the Conservatives on ZEVs, methane, carbon pricing, *presumably* oil/gas industry (though see Q's above, and neither mentions subsidy phase-out), 2030 target. Doubt it's enough yet for -40%. Wish all parties would state red'ns expected from proposals.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
One last comparison of the parties’ #climate plans in #elxn44! This time updates based on LPC and NDP platform costing. As with original thread (pasted at end), I haven’t covered everything, incl adaptation, buildings, climate finance, green growth $$ (might do that one yet). /1
Big update for NDP. Platform said NDP “supported” carbon pricing but didn't specify price. This led many (incl me) to question impact and cost of the NDP plan. But budget matches Lib price schedule - $170/tonne in 2030. That will deliver signif and cost-effective reductions. /2
NDP promised to reduce or eliminate unfair industry C pricing “loopholes” but I'm not seeing a new revenue stream for that (open to correction!). So, budget suggests NDP plan will be more effective than previously implied, but obfuscation on price, fairness is disappointing. /3
We’ve now got the 3 main national parties’ climate platforms. (Greens haven’t got much on website, so will go with a 8/9 press release here and there.) How do they compare? Great that lots of detail, so 🧵will be long. Still can’t promise to cover everything. #cdnpoli#elxn44 /1
Cutting to the chase, Cons plan is better than in 2019, but Lib and NDP both promise much more ambitious policies and less support for fossil fuels. NDP builds on Lib initiatives, w tweaks, some important (fossil fuel subsidies). There’s a table to compare at end of 🧵! /2
TARGETS: Libs submitted new target of 40-45% below 2005 by 2030. Cons said they’ll meet “Canada’s Paris commitment” but that’s original -30% target. #ParisAgreement doesn't allow backtracking, so would mean going to #COP26 with a stated intention of non-compliance. NDP -50%. /3
This is integral to the fed govt's v important carbon budget legislation (Bill C-12). Independent advice is critical to ensure govts set appropriate climate targets and stay on course. Can also provide a shared foundation of knowledge for parliamentarians. But.../1
There are different approaches. The UK Climate Change Committee is heavily weighted toward researchers, most from academia. theccc.org.uk/about/ /2
The Cdn one announced today is more diverse with representatives from Indigenous communities, govt, labour, ENGOs, business, academia. /3 canada.ca/en/services/en…
In anticipation of a possible 2021 Canadian election, with a new fed climate plan on the table, and a new Paris Ag target to come by April, some thoughts on partisanship and #climate. Bear with me for 🧵, two proposals at end. #canpoli /1
It's tempting and easy to play partisan politics with climate for 5 reasons. 1. Most voters have no idea how far current policies are from what's needed. So parties still debate marginal policy shifts even as they *say* they are committed to 2/1.5C. /2
2. Climate action will have uneven costs on sectors, workers, provinces. They fight change. The oil ind has spent big $ on denial, obfuscation - with success. Parties still want those votes so are afraid to tell the truth. There WILL be new jobs but beneficiaries are unknown /3
That Canada's Environment Minister would celebrate this initiative using Shell's "Carbon Neutral" framing is deeply troubling to me, for many reasons. /1
$0.02/litre is less than $9/tonne CO2. *IF* we still have credible (i.e., additional, lasting) offsets at that rate in Canada it speaks volumes to the failure of our government to adopt policies that move Canada, cost-effectively, toward our Paris Agreement target. /2
Worse, this reinforces the individual responsibility narrative -- "hey, just pay 2 cents more per litre and you can save the planet!" -- and in a way that undermines public support for much more costly *government* actions that are needed (still good investment!) /3