Categories
Uncategorized

How About Axing the Fossil Fuel Subsidies?

Last night Justin Trudeau’s beleaguered Liberal Party government survived a non-confidence vote in the Canadian parliament. Conservative Party leader Pierre Poilievre had been campaigning for a vote all summer on the premise that Canadians can’t afford to pay Canada’s carbon tax. Despite the lack of substance in Poilievre’s message, his campaign has had an impact. It seems inevitable that there will be an election fought on the issue of climate policy within the next year.

Andrew Coyne’s editorial earlier this week points out the delicious irony of Poilievre (as a nominal conservative) opposing market force mechanisms to achieve Canada’s greenhouse gas reduction targets. Not only is carbon pricing the most conservative policy choice, it is also the most efficient and fairest way to reduce emissions.

There are a range of ways for Poilievre’s “government in waiting” to reduce emissions, however. The question Canadians should be asking Poilievre is which does he support? What will his policy be, if not a carbon pricing mechanism? How will a Conservative Party government make good on Canada’s international commitments?

Here are some approaches that he could choose.

1. Emissions Pricing: Proven & Effective

Poilievre hates it, but one of the most effective ways to reduce emissions is by putting a price on them, either through a carbon tax or a cap-and-trade system. Both mechanisms create a financial incentive to reduce pollution. Carbon taxes tax emissions directly, while cap-and-trade systems operate auctions allowing large emitters to bid on carbon allowances in accordance with their needs.

  • Carbon Tax Success: Sweden introduced a carbon tax in 1991, and the results speak for themselves. Since then, Sweden has reduced its emissions by 80%, all while growing real GDP by 100%. By contrast, Canada has grown real GDP by 107% over the same period which tells you that carbon pricing can be implemented without impacting economic growth. (src: World Bank)
  • Cap-and-Trade in Action: The European Union’s Emissions Trading System (EU ETS), established in 2005, has contributed to a 47% reduction in emissions across covered sectors. The U.S. Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) has also been highly effective, reducing power sector emissions by 50% between 2009 and 2020, while the region’s economy grew by nearly the same margin.

Carbon pricing is not only an effective emissions reducer, but it can also generate revenue for governments to reinvest in clean technologies.

2. Subsidies and Incentives: Accelerating the Clean Energy Transition

While carbon pricing penalizes pollution, subsidies and incentives reward clean energy solutions. Clean energy solutions have higher up-front costs than fossil solutions, but dramatically lower usage costs and emissions impact. Countries that support renewable energy projects, electric vehicles (EVs), and energy efficiency programs are seeing rapid reductions in emissions as a result.

  • Renewable Energy Growth: Electricity generation accounts for about 9% of all emissions in Canada. Incentives to drive emissions out of electricity generation, and to build out infrastructure to handle greater demand due to the electrification of the rest of the economy make sense and can have a big impact. Electricity generated from natural gas is responsible for 450 to 550 grams of CO2e/kWh over the lifetime of the plant, versus 20 to 60 grams for solar, and 10 to 20 grams for wind. Fortunately, solar and wind are very affordable now. According to the International Renewable Energy Association (IRENA), since 2021, the weighted average LCOE (levelized cost of energy) for new solar installations in Canada has been lower than the weighted average LCOE of added fossil fuel generation capacity. Onshore wind passed natural gas and goal in 2015 in the Canadian market. Today the LCOE for natural gas-fired power plants in Canada is between $0.07 and $0.14 CAD per kWh, versus $0.03 to $0.06 per kWh for wind and $0.05 and $0.10 for solar.
  • EV Adoption: In the U.S., tax credits for electric vehicles have been instrumental in increasing EV sales by 50%. This shift toward electric mobility is a key factor in reducing transportation-related emissions. In Canada, transportation is the second largest source of emissions, responsible for 24% of greenhouse gas emissions. Incentives to encourage the electrification of the transportation sector make sense when you consider that total product lifecycle emissions for gasoline powered vehicles are 250 to 300 grams for CO2e per kilometer, versus 50 to 150 grams for electric vehicles.

Subsidies and incentives help buyers overcome cost barriers, making it easier for businesses and consumers to transition to a low-carbon future.

3. Regulatory: Setting Standards for a Cleaner Future

Market mechanisms like emissions pricing and subsidies are powerful, but regulations can enforce emissions reductions at scale. Governments can implement standards for energy production, transportation, and construction to ensure that businesses and individuals meet specific emissions targets.

  • Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS): In the U.S., states with RPS policies have seen far greater renewable energy deployment than those without, leading to substantial emissions reductions. Nationwide, Canada performs well, with over 80% of electricity coming from non-emitting sources. However three provinces account for the bulk of emissions from electricity generation — Alberta (41%), Saskatchewan (28%) and Nova Scotia (8.5%). Alberta has a stated goal of 30% of generation from renewables, Saskatchewan 50%, and Nova Scotia 80%, all by 2030.
  • Fuel Efficiency Standards: Data for Canada are not available, but data from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) reveals that fuel efficiency standards have prevented an estimated emission of 6 billion metric tons of CO₂ since 1975, highlighting the long-term benefits of such policies. The transition to a Zero Emissions Vehicle economy will continue this trend.
  • Building Codes: Countries that enforce strict energy-efficient building codes, such as Germany, have significantly lowered energy consumption in homes and offices, contributing to nationwide emissions reductions. Canada has energy efficiency measures built into the building code, but not with the same teeth that German regulations have. Given that buildings contribute 13% of Canada’s emissions footprint, strong regulations to drive construction of new low / zero emissions buildings combined with rigorous retrofit requirements for existing buildings could be a possible solution.

Regulations ensure that emissions reductions happen across industries, even in sectors where market forces alone may not be enough to drive change.

4. Public Investment: Building a Sustainable Infrastructure

Governments also play a crucial role in directly investing in public infrastructure and green technologies. Strategic investments can help shift national economies away from fossil fuels and toward renewable energy and electrification.

  • Renewable Energy Investment: In addition to the investments Canada is making in renewable generation, Canada’s grid is estimated to need a minimum of $400B in upgrades (some estimates are over $1T) to support the country’s 2050 goal. The grid itself is owned by a mixture of public and private entities, varying from province to province. Investment to accelerate the update of the national grid is an important step.
  • Public Transport: Electrifying public transport can make a significant dent in urban emissions. According to Translink Vancouver, each electric bus in the Vancouver fleet reduces emissions by 100 tons of CO2e annually. Nationally, electrifying public transport would account for 1% to 2% of emissions country-wide.

Public investment in infrastructure is a win-win—it not only reduces emissions but also creates jobs and stimulates economic growth.

5. Phasing Out Fossil Fuel Subsidies

Despite the global push toward clean energy, and Canada’s own 2050 net zero targets, the country still provides between $5B and $20B (depending on what you count as a subsidy) in annual subsidies to the fossil fuel industry. However, phasing out these subsidies can lead to emissions reductions as prices will increase for consumers. Estimates from the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) suggest that prices might rise by 5 to 10 cents per liter.

A 2021 study by IISD found that removing fossil fuel subsidies could reduce emissions by 10% by 2030. By leveling the playing field, governments can help renewables compete more fairly with fossil fuels.

In addition, redirecting subsidies from fossil fuels to clean energy initiatives might accelerate the transition to a low-carbon economy.

Poilievre could consider many other policies as well. For example:

  • Incentives to encourage regenerative agriculture. The agriculture sector is responsible for 10% of Canadian emissions.
  • Incentives and regulations to drive more circularity into the Canadian economy. Waste accounts for about 3% of Canadian emissions.
  • Incentives to decarbonize heavy industry. The cement, steel, chemical and mining industries are responsible for 14% of Canadian emissions.

The key point, however, is that the member from Carleton needs to put some flesh on the bones. “Axe the tax” just isn’t enough.

Categories
Uncategorized

Long Read: Statistical Review of World Energy.

BP’s 70th annual Statistical Review of World Energy came out this past week. This data-rich documents is 70 pages of detailed, country by country, statistics about world energy capacity, production, and consumption with commentary. Here are some of the highlights.

Consumption

Due to COVID-19, last year saw the largest decline in energy consumption since World War 2. Consumption fell by 4.5%, primarily due to the shutdown of the transportation industry. Oil consumption fell by 9.2%, while natural gas fell only 2.3%. But renewables — solar and wind — had their best year ever as capacity increased by 50%. BP themselves were surprised by this, saying “we materially underestimated the growth of wind and solar power over the last five years”. But before we break out the bubbly, let’s put that in context. Even with that super result, renewables are still a small fraction of the global energy mix. Non-emitting energy (Nuclear, Hydroelectric, Solar and Wind) are still just 16.8% of the overall energy mix.

OilGasCoalNuclearHydroRenewableTotal
173.73137.62151.4223.9838.1631.71556.63
31.2%24.7%27.2%4.3%6.9%5.7%
Primary Energy Consumption (EJ – Exajoules)

The world is finally weaning itself off coal. Coal generation declined by 405 TWh, which was almost directly correlated to the 358 TWh increase in solar and wind generation. We are truly seeing coal-fired generation being phased out in favor of renewables.

On a country by country basis, the biggest global consumers of energy were the United States (87.79 EJ) and China (145.46 EJ), or 15.8% and 26.1% of global energy consumption. Nobody else comes close, except if you start to combine regions. All of Europe, for example, consumed 77.15 EJ, a little less than the USA. It’s also worth noting that the United States consumed 15.8% of the global energy supply, but has just 4.25% of the population. China consumed 26.1% of the worlds energy, but has 18.5% of the population.

Globally, each human on the planet averages annual consumption of 71.4 Gigajoules (GJ) of electricity. However, Canadians (361GJ), Qataris (594 GJ), Saudi Arabians (303 GJ), Emeratis (423 GJ), and Australians (218 GJ) all are good examples. Or maybe it’s just the weather. Singapore has no natural resources, and Singaporeans use an astonishing 583.9 GJ per person of energy annually, second only to Qataris.

Emissions

Global carbon emissions from energy use also fell, and even more dramatically than energy use itself. Carbon emissions fell by 6.3%, while energy consumption declined by just 4.5%.

Among the big economies, the US generates 18.3% of its energy from non-emitting sources, China 15.7%, and Europe 28.8%. China is still heavily dependent on coal, and Europe has been helped out by a favorable shift to renewable plus the fact that a whopping 36% of France’s energy comes from nuclear. Canada, often in the news because of it’s foot-dragging on emissions targets, does surprisingly well with 35.4% of it’s energy coming from non-emitting sources. This is due to the outsize impact of the country’s hydro-electric industry. Canada, with fewer than 40 million people, is the second largest producer of hydro-electric power globally, only surpassed by China.

The biggest absolute GHG emitters are (in order) China with 9,899.3 megatonnes, the United States (4,457.2), Indonesia (2,302.3), and Russia (1,482.2). Nearly a third of all emissions are from China. This is no surprise, given China’s massive energy appetite, but it’s still sobering nonetheless. Let’s put these into context, though. The US, with 330M people, is a much bigger emitter, per capita, than China. If the Chinese were to pollute the way America does, then their emissions would be close to 19,000 megatonnes. And all of Europe, which is a population of roughly half of China, emits just 3,596.8 megatonnes.

Geopolitics

The geopolitical world of energy stands out clearly in this report.

The United States is well established economically, and has small reserves of oil (68.8M barrels), about 6.7% of the worlds gas reserves (12.6 trillion cubic metres), and almost a quarter of the worlds coal reserves (248,941 million tonnes). At current rates of consumption, the US will exhaust its oil in about 10 years, and gas in 15 years. The US is the “Saudi Arabia of coal”, but most of that resource will stay in the ground.

China, by contrast, sits on a paltry 26M barrels of oil, 8.4 trillion cubic meters of gas, and 143,197 million tonnes of coal. China uses less oil annually than the US, but has only about 4 years reserves remaining. The country uses less than half the gas of the United States today, and thus has 25 years of reserves remaining. And they burn a lot of coal to generate power.

Consequentially, the US is a net exporter of oil and gas. In contrast China imports nearly all the oil and gas it needs to meet its energy needs, and China’s energy needs are growing at a blistering 3.8% annually.

The Chinese have been reluctant to give up coal electric generation, as the one energy source they have in abundance is coal. It is the one tool they have which gives them a measure of energy independence. It should therefore be unsurprising that China now leads the world in renewable power generation (#1 in hydroelectric, solar and wind), and new renewable capacity additions (in 2020 China accounted for 36% of new global solar capacity, and 38% of new global wind capacity). China has no choice. They cannot continue to generate electricity with coal. The global trend toward net-zero emissions means that Chinese companies risk being cut off from global export markets unless they can show that the carbon footprint of the products they sell is acceptable to their customers. Moreover, China cannot continue using coal to generate electricity at home without polluting its already fouled air even more.

It should also come as no surprise that 44% of the electric vehicles manufactured and sold in the world were sold in China. China is completely dependent on foreign oil. They cannot satisfy the growing appetite for vehicles domestically without an alternative to gasoline. They also cannot build the economy they want without the logistics in place to move goods from one location to another. They need electrified transportation more than any other economy globally.

Nuclear

Nuclear was a surprise. The top producer of nuclear energy in the world today is the United States, despite the unpopularity of nuclear domestically. 31% of the nuclear in use today is in the USA (7.39 EJ), although it is declining. The next largest producers of nuclear energy were China (3.25 EJ) and France (3.14 EJ). Few countries globally are adding nuclear capacity, the most notable exception being China, where nuclear (pre-COVID) was growing at a rate of 16.7% annually. Again, unsurprising that China would be building this capacity.

Conclusions

There are three inescapable conclusions in BP’s numbers.

The first is that there is little economic incentive in the west (Europe and North America) to replace fossil fuel generation. The energy demands of the west’s stable economies are growing slowly, having shifted most manufacturing overseas. The western economies’ focus on emissions are largely domestic politics, centered around climate change risk management. To make the transition from fossil fuel to renewable energy will require deft political skills, regulatory frameworks, and a continuation of the economic incentives we have seen.

The second is that Asia-Pacific, having become the center of global manufacturing, must navigate growing their energy use carefully. Global supply chains originate in Asia-Pacific, today. Consequently the region has a ravenous appetite for energy, but must find ways to meet that appetite and grow consumption while managing and reducing GHG emissions. Expect to see this region lead renewable energy deployment globally for some time, as they deal with the double incentive of managing climate change risk, while rapidly growing economies to satisfy western consumers needs.

And finally, the two remaining superpowers of the world, China and the United States, are quite different in their approaches.

America is divided. America has a substantial fossil fuel export business, many politicians support that business, and American free speech rights permit climate deniers to manipulate the public by spreading disinformation about the severity of the climate crisis, and the value of solutions being proposed. The fossil fuel lobby is strong! However, America has the luxury of being able to dither simply by virtue of the fact that it has secure domestic energy resources, and business seems to be stepping into the leadership vacuum in a way that Washington is apparently not able to.

China, in contrast, has a more immediate crisis and as a result seems to have a more unified approach. The Chinese don’t have the energy independence that America has. As a result, they are simply “getting on with it”, rapidly deploying renewables, building electrified products and industry, and making plans to decarbonize generation by taking their coal plants off line. The pace at which China is weaning itself off coal is slower than some in the west want, yes, but it is happening.

The inescapable conclusion is that China is playing a “long game”, building expertise that will serve it well for generations. The rest of the world already buys much of its wind and solar generation capability from China. It’s not hard to see how cars and batteries will be next.

Categories
News

Happy Canada Day

Happy Canada Day, to my friends and family north of the 49th! In honor of the day, let’s dig into some Canadian climate news.

Yesterday marked the passing into law of the Canadian Net-Zero Emissions Accountability Act, which (among many things) gives the Canadian Paris-accord commitments the force of law. It has attracted both plaudits and criticism. Ecojustice climate program director Alan Andrews applauded the frequency of reporting, and the framework itself, for example. However Marc Lee from the Center for Policy Alternatives complained that the idea of “net-zero” has too many loopholes. Neither are wrong. It’s an important step forward.

One outcome of the new Net-Zero Emissions act is that Canada is banning the sale of new gasoline and diesel powered cars and light-duty trucks by 2035. Meanwhile, amidst the heat of the last few days, the shortage of charge stations is being acutely felt as people embark on summer road-trip vacations. That won’t be for long though. EV stations are getting built out nationwide, and in fact, just last week Parkland Canada (owner and operator of BC’s “On the Run” gas-station convenience stores) announced they would be augmenting their BC stations with up to 100 new DC fast chargers. Expect more of this, everywhere — not just Canada.

Presumably the current heat (Lytton BC, 49.6C / 121.1F on Tuesday) has been causing the skeptics to rethink their positions on climate change, as 911 calls have spiked. The Province of British Columbia has reported 486 ‘sudden and unexpected’ deaths since last Friday, and is attributing those to the sudden and extreme heat. Back to “normal” for Canada Day though. It’ll be toasty on the prairies (36C in Calgary, 32C in Winnipeg), a balmy 23C in Vancouver, 24C with thunder storms in Toronto, and similar in the maritimes.

Happy Canada Day, friends!