David Dodge, an economist and former Governor of the Bank of Canada, was the first to speak. The environment and the economy, he said, is "an issue that concerns city, province and country. It's an emotional issue" he added, referencing the "complexity" of these discussions Chris Ragan, Chair of the Ecofiscal Commission, had mentioned. "Science tells us we must reduce emissions in the future. Activists believe it needs to be done without regard for the economy. The other extreme denies any need to reduce emissions; the bulk of Canadians are in the middle". Jean Charest, former Premier of Quebec, said it was about "aligning good policy with public opinion. How do you bring people to the table in a polarized debate? Too many people aren't listening".
"We don't want a tragedy of the commons but it must be dealt with today" Dodge continued "it is undefined but certain. How do we reduce the cost of reduction or increase the perceived benefit of reduction?" While a sustainable environment in 200 years will be of little benefit to those of us alive today, reducing energy use isn't without its perks. Steve Williams, CEO of Suncor, talked about how the company has reduced its production energy use by over 50% from what it was 15 years ago and their "plan is to reduce it by another 30% by 2030" because it saves them money.
 |
| L-R; Jen Winter, Ed Whittingham, Chris Ragan, Steve Williams, Jean Charest |
Williams stood beside Premier Notley as she introduced the carbon tax legislation back in 2015. He was also a member of the Climate Change Advisory Panel. While the public had not seen direct carbon taxes, the oil industry, as a large emitter, has been priced since 2007. "Production," Williams said "accounts for 20% of the carbon footprint. The other 80% is consumption". Stephen Cornish, in a conversation afterwards, said that was equivalent to passing the buck.
Dodge introduced what he sees as the two most important questions in the debate. What is the incentive and how do we pay for it? "The cost is not zero" he said, "it costs to change". "Carbon tax, cap and trade, greater efficiency equals lower costs and it's better than regulations". Jen Winter of the Calgary School of Public Policy agreed, "there's a reduced administrative burden on government" to use pricing instead of regulation. However, Dodge, Winter, Charest and Ed Whittingham admitted regulations may need to accompany pricing.
Whittingham noted "carbon pricing isn't the be-all-end-all". Poor communication in the rolling out of carbon tax policy allowed the policy to open proponents "up to 'it's just a cost, it's not going to do anything'". Charest agreed adding the public has "experience with perversion of (government spending). The government says money will be used for this but then put it into general revenues. And that's good for government, to give them flexibility "but it erodes the public's trust. "We are the biggest consumers of energy, produce the most garbage" he said, but putting a price on that behaviour "is a challenge".
Complementary policy, said Whittingham, is something like a clean fuel policy which ignites innovation. Even environmental stewards don't want to shut down an economy. Winter mentioned the reluctance of some people to make the change because the cost was too low. This is in line with what many have said as well about meeting our targets from the Paris Accord; the cost would have to be almost $200/tonne. "Start low" said Winter, to provide the incentive for people to make a gradual change.
Williams also examined the effect Canada can have on the rest of the world. "China is starting to reinvest in coal" he said "because (they) can't trust Canada to deliver the oil. That doesn't help anyone if one of the world's largest populations goes back to coal". Even though Canada does not have the whole solution he said, people see Canada trying. "It's about leadership," offered Charest, "the world expects it of us".
 |
| L-R: Carissima Mathen, Preston Manning, Pierre-Gerlier Forest, Carol Anne Hilton, Stephen Cornish |
Preston Manning added that in a polarized debate the solution should lie in "the reconciliation of conflicting interests by non-coercive means". He felt all major interests needed to be identified and invited to the table. Stephen Cornish, CEO of the David Suzuki Foundation also said that not only should everyone be present but the goal needed to be identified. "Politics are driving people away from the table. We haven't even agreed where we need to go" but the continued division is making it seem less likely we will be able to get there.
There are differing interests however as we've seen with the carbon tax implementation. While the easiest thing for the federal government would have been to implement a 'one-size fits all' approach, they really wanted the provinces to find what would work for them said Winters. This isn't always easier though, as Williams pointed out. A company that operates across provincial borders now has to ensure it is adhering to a number of different policies when it could have been just one.
Pierre-Gerlier Forest, Director and Palmer Chair at the University of Calgary School of Public Policy, asked how it was possible to find a cohesive policy nationally. "There is an anti-pipeline party running for government in Quebec" he said with slight exasperation, "how do we have a national discussion when everyone has a different point of view?" Dodge had addressed this somewhat as well noting that people are no longer willing to allow someone to make decisions for them; they want to be involved in decision-making after the election as well.
Admittedly, it is a small number of people who engage in the entire political sphere. There are special interest groups for everything today. Are you particularly impressed by the need for social housing? There's an advocacy group for that. Do you feel the environment is the greatest priority today? There's an advocacy group for that. Do you support Canadian oil development? There's an advocacy group for that.
"The federation is even more diverse" added Carissima Mathan, Vice Dean and Associate Professor of Law from the University of Ottawa. "It's more about geography; a reconciliation of interests away from a fundamental moral question versus immediate economic survival". Carol Anne Hilton, CEO and Founder of the Indigenomics Institute, said there was "an alarming tendency to rely on 'national interest'" as a way to reduce collaboration. Cornish stated there was "dissonance in policy; a fundamental disagreement on what we're trying to achieve". It's hard to disagree with him.
At the end of the panel discussions, we were no closer to finding a solution to the current problem of how the environment and economy can, and must, work together. However, both compromise and communication are necessary to move forward. As Preston Manning said "the majority should respect the minority because one day, you might be the minority".
 |
| Deirdre Mitchell-MacLean Content Director/Writer |
No comments:
Post a Comment