_______________________________________________________________________
"Not
everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be
counted."
Albert Einstein
WEAK
LINKS IN THE LIBERAL CHAINS
The text presented here offers an in-depth
portrait of the Liberal greenwashing record on addressing climate change, from
past Liberal governments, to the 2015 election campaign and to the period up
to, and including, the Budget for the fiscal year 2016-17. The links with past Liberal governments reflect my experiences as
a former Government of Canada employee who has worked for several Ministries on
sustainable development during previous Liberal reigns.
Beginning with previous Liberal climate change action plans, emissions rose despite generous clean tech innovation programs, plus ongoing consultations with all stakeholders, because of the following weak links
in the Liberal chains, 1) the absence of a backbone to
stand firm with the lobbies of power and money, 2) feebleness with regard to
taking action via new legislation; and 3) highly selective listening skills
with stakeholders. -- Not all that different
than Hillary Clinton!
These weak chain links
remain very much alive today.
All of these weaknesses
are evident with the decision of the Justin Trudeau government to accommodate
Air Canada's request to undertake a legislative change - while imposing closure in the form of two days of Parliamentary debate -- for the purposes of
removing the Air Canada obligation to provide 2600 middle
class aircraft maintenance jobs in Canada. This is an important
signal as it raises questions on how on earth could one expect the Trudeau
government to be firm with the Suncor, TransCanada, the Koch brothers and the
fossil fuel sector at-large? How
can one expect Trudeau to keep his promise on eliminating fossil fuel subsidies
in Canada, estimated by the International
Monetary Fund to be $46B USD for the year 2015?
Diversification of the Fossil Fuel Sector is Possible
Not
only could an incremental shifting of the fossil fuel subsidies be exploited to
establish a better economic development paradigm by way of Canada joining the
high growth, high job creation global green economy that is advancing rapidly
in China Europe and the US, but also some of that $46B/year USD in Canadian fossil fuel subsidies could be used to
significantly diversify the petroleum sector.
Such diversification of
the sector is possible, as per Norway's Statoil 1) for which the new CEO is formerly from
the Statoil renewable energy division 2) which
has become a major global investor in clean technologies, including avant garde clean tech
innovation; and 3) has set up a venture capital entity to invest in clean tech start-ups.
In effect such a re-allocation of subsidies was promised by the Liberal 2015 election campaign but has since become a broken promise. More important fossil fuel subsidy re-allocations are critical to close the green economy gap between Canada's and its competitors regarding the expeditiously emerging new economic paradigm.
In effect such a re-allocation of subsidies was promised by the Liberal 2015 election campaign but has since become a broken promise. More important fossil fuel subsidy re-allocations are critical to close the green economy gap between Canada's and its competitors regarding the expeditiously emerging new economic paradigm.
Canada
Needs to Diversify to the Green Economy Fast to be Competitive: Fossil Era
Drawing to a Close
Like a dog hanging on
to it's bone, the Liberal's seem to be oblivious to the clear signs of the
demise of the fossil fuel era being imminent with 1) 90% of all new
electricity generation capacity in 2015 being
represented by renwables 2) global emissions production remaining flat
since 2013 3) China's coal consumption having declined in both 2014 and 2015 4) US coal producers representing 45% of US coal output having gone into bankruptcy 3) most important in terms of the market for petroleum products,
the tipping point
favouring electric vehicles projected to occur as early as 2020 and the end of
the monopoly of internal combustion engines, potentially happening as soon as
2025. and 4) the Chief Financial Officer of Suncor, Alister Cowan in April 2015 having candidly said that "The years of large, multi-billion projects are probably gone" and 5) The Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers indicating negative financial results for 2016 for the Canadian oil and gas industry to the tune of $30B in spending plans couple with $17B in revenues, making it clear that these sectors will be cutting costs and avoiding big projects for several years to come.
Further on item #3 above regarding the the tipping point electric vehicles materializing around 2020, in December 2015, Ford announced it will be investing $4.5B in electric vehicles and that 40% of their nameplates will be electric by the end of the decade. The Hyundai-Kia group also aims to lead the charge on next generation vehicles, with plans to introduce 26 hybrids, plug-in hybrids and electric vehicles by 2020. On a similar theme, Volkwagen's CEO Matthias Müller has stated that the company plans to "make electric cars one of Volkswagen's new hallmarks" with 20 new models that plug in by 2020.
Further on item #3 above regarding the the tipping point electric vehicles materializing around 2020, in December 2015, Ford announced it will be investing $4.5B in electric vehicles and that 40% of their nameplates will be electric by the end of the decade. The Hyundai-Kia group also aims to lead the charge on next generation vehicles, with plans to introduce 26 hybrids, plug-in hybrids and electric vehicles by 2020. On a similar theme, Volkwagen's CEO Matthias Müller has stated that the company plans to "make electric cars one of Volkswagen's new hallmarks" with 20 new models that plug in by 2020.
Add to the equation
that since year 2000, 21 countries have
experienced economic growth while diminishing their respective emissions.
But the Trudeau
government continues to do everything possible to promote Energy East and
Kinder Morgan for which the signs suggest that these pipelines may be
economically redundant. Incredibly much new information has been
identified since the Pipelines to Nowhere article
was first published in The Common Sense Canadian on March 7, 2016 with the result that a new Blog version of Pipelines to Nowhere was required to assure all the additional rapid advancements of the green economy are captured.
More detailed
descriptions of the aforementioned phenomenons can be found in the second last
section of this document entitled, "LOW CREDIBILITY, THE CONTRADICTIONS AND MANIPULATION."
_______________________________________________________________________________
BUDGET
2016-17
Getting deeper into Budget 2016-17,
turning attention to what counts, as per the Einstein quote provided at the
beginning of this text, some have suggested that the 2016-17 Budget text
reference to a $2B Low Carbon Economy Fund for the fiscal years 2017-18 to
2018-19 is a strong indication of a commitment. But the other side of the
Budget coins tell a very different story.
Low Carbon Economy Fund: A Spineless, Inept and Costly Formula to Make Fossil
Fuel Companies Look Righteous -There are Better Options for Western and All of Canada
First, the Budget 2016-17
two-sentence description of the Low Carbon Economy Fund has a resemblance to
the $1B Climate Fund, a fund announced by Stéphane Dion just prior to the
defeat of the previous Liberal government by the Conservatives. Under the
still-born Climate Fund, the greater an entity's emissions, the more money one
could get from the government to reduce one's emissions. Put another way,
that means that the largest emitters, such as the petroleum and other fossil
fuel sectors, would be the largest beneficiaries of a "pay the biggest
polluters the most dollars fund" -- a sharp and perverse contrast with
"the biggest polluters pay more model". While this may make the
fossil fuel companies appear to be righteous, it entails the most spineless,
inefficient and costly way to reduce emissions.
Examples of far more effective
and less expensive ways to reduce greenhouse gases comprise 1) a legislative
agenda with meaningful penalties for non-compliance; 2) expenditure-neutral
shifting of some of the $46B/year USD in fossil fuel subsidies to investments
in a) the clean tech sectors and b) the diversification of the fossil fuel
sectors, including the training of fossil fuel workers for green jobs and the
creation of a more diversified and less vulnerable Western Canada economy; 3)
engaging the Business Development Bank of Canada and other financing arms of
the federal government to establish clean technology portfolios/programs
regarding the development of green sectors coupled with a meaningful green bond
programs, comparable to European models (as opposed to the paltry/token green
bonds fund of Budget 2016-17); 4) revamping government supported clean
technology innovation activities to include networks of research centres on
clean technologies that cultivate public-private partnerships plus a national
clean technology integration centre that links clean energy, low carbon
buildings and clean transportation -- the US National Renewable Energy
Laboratory is one model among many models on clean tech integration nodes; 5)
measures to support for clean technology product development and manufacturing
including meaningful support for Quebec's electric vehicle sector to reap the
opportunities associated with vehicle manufacturers increasingly turning to
outside suppliers for these technologies; 6) initiatives comparable to
that of China and California for encouraging a rapid migration to low and zero
emission vehicles including a) vehicle fuel consumption legislation more
stringent than that of the US federal government, with examples including
California and 7 other US states; and b) policies to influence consumers on
their respective choices of vehicles and 7) government procurement policies --
to name just a few!
But this would run contrary to
the aforementioned Liberal weaknesses (as per Clinton's Canadian subsidiary)
with respect to dealing with powerful lobbies of power and money and a
well-entrenched longstanding Liberal hesitation to enact legislation to get the
job done.
The main point here is that the current Liberal government has chosen the most costly and least effective option for a significant reduction of emissions by way of its $2B Low Carbon Economy Fund, the option for maintaining corporate rule intact. It is thus not surprising that Trudeau's co-campaign chair lobbied for Energy East.
The main point here is that the current Liberal government has chosen the most costly and least effective option for a significant reduction of emissions by way of its $2B Low Carbon Economy Fund, the option for maintaining corporate rule intact. It is thus not surprising that Trudeau's co-campaign chair lobbied for Energy East.
Clean Technology Funds
The amounts of funding for clean
technologies in 2016-17 are lower when compared with the funding that was
available during past Liberal governments -- a period when emissions went up.
One example is that of Sustainable
Development Technology Canada (SDTC) which had an
average allocation of $40M/year during past Liberal governments while
Budget 2016-17 only provides for $50M over 5 years.
Another former Liberal government
sustainable development program was Technology Early
Action Measures, a program complementary to that
of SDTC, which had an allocation of $56M for the period 1999-2001.
As well, past Liberal
governments offered substantial funding for clean transportation innovation but
Budget 2016-17 only calls for $56.9M over two years which is to be divided up to cover the development of regulations and standards, including international emission standards for the air, rail and marine sectors. Thus this money will only cover a handful
of clean transportation projects.
This has all the appearances of
a money shell game.
Pipelines and the Broken Promise on Credible
Environmental Impact Analyses
Perhaps most disconcerting, is
the Liberal broken election promise on the creation of bonafide environment
impact analyses for pipelines.
First, the "interim
plan" for National Energy Board (NEB) hearings on Energy East involving a
mere 3 month prolongation and an expanded NEB mandate to take into account
emissions, constitutes insufficient time to put into place research contracts
on scientific studies on GHG impacts.
More disturbing, is that Budget
2016-17 calls for the "too close" to the industry NEB to be the
permanent authority for environment impact analyses concerning pipelines.
Unfortunately, the much dismantled and formerly internationally respected
Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, as per the latest Budget, is
relegated to that of an advisory body on environmental impact analyses.
A bonafide review would entail
starting the Energy East and Kinder Morgan review processes over, with the
right parameters from the outset, and overseen by a competent team. -- at least
comparable to that of the former Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency.
Suffice to say that there are
many options for engendering cumulative impacts for transformative change of
the order of magnitude of green economy actions planned, and already adopted,
by China, the EU and the US.
Infrastructure Funds
The "all of the
above", positives and negatives, cancelling one another out, modus
operendi that is the Liberal trademark, is very prominent in the Liberal plan
for infrastructure. While Budget 2016-17 funding to support public transit is a
strong positive, Trudeau has let it be known that the provinces and
municipalities will define the projects for federal support. In other
words, urban sprawl related road and services infrastructures will also be
eligible for this Santa Claus fund, thereby undermining gains made on reducing
GHGs attributable to public transit projects.
____________________________________________________________________________
LOW
CREDIBILITY, THE CONTRADICTIONS AND MANIPULATION
Further on the recent/current
weak links in the Liberal's climate change chains, note that:
2. Trudeau
had praised
Alison Redford for her boasting of Canada's environmental record as
a means to warm up the Obama administration on approving Keystone XL;
3. the Energy
East and Kinder Morgan pipelines, should they get approved, could cancel
out any advances in the reductions of emissions attributable to
the Liberal new funding for clean technologies;
4. the
Budget's heading "Cleaner Transportation" rather than "Clean
Transportation" with a mere $56.9M over 2 years is ridiculous when compared
to a) China having sold 331,000
electric vehicles in 2015; b) China's BYD projection to triple that company's
electric vehicle sales in 2016; c) the Chinese
government vehicle procurement policy of 30% to be electric vehicles as of
this year; d) China's target to manufacture 2M eco-vehicles/year by 2020; and
e) a
projection that a $30000 electric vehicle in the US in 2020 will represent
major savings on fuel/energy and maintenance by 2020, the
year Tony Seba - a guru on the green economy -- suggests will be the tipping
point favouring electric vehicles, with the end of the gasoline
car era occurring as early as 2025 -- All
this, with some of those Chinese vehicles to be equipped with the Canadian
TM4 electric motor wheel technology manufactured under license in China. -- All
this with California also having an aggressive agenda to both support zero
emission vehicle-related research, manufacturing and consumer choices;
5. Trudeau's
steadfast support for tar sands exports represents being in denial on
global supply and demand economics in light of a) the factors highlighted in the section "Canada Needs to Diversify to be Competitive: Fossil Fuel Era Drawing to a Close" plus the recent revelation that b) 30% of Energy
East capacity is slated to transport North Dakota shale oil across Canada for
re-exportation to the US East Coast --- which, if taken
together -- may suggest that the Energy East and Kinder Morgan pipelines
are not economically viable; (for more on the leveling off of demand for fossil
fuels refer to attached accompanying document Section #7 and the article, Pipelines to
Nowhere)
6. despite
all of the cumulative factors mentioned in #5 of this list, Trudeau is taking
every opportunity for exchanging -- a) federal infrastructure support for
municipalities and b) a price on carbon in collaboration with the provinces --
items "a" and "b," in exchange for gaining social
acceptability for the Energy East and Kinder Morgan pipelines;
7. UBS,
the world's largest bank, the BP Chief
Economist and the Governor of
the Bank of England are on the same page on
the demise of the fossil fuel sectors; and
8. the Investor
State Dispute Settlement provision of the Trans Pacific Partnership would
allow corporations to sue a national government in the event domestic
environmental laws impedes the maximization of profits. On this
latter point,cross country Liberal consultations on the TPP have been primarily
with highly restricted audiences, little advance notice and no answering of
tough questions.
_________________________________________________________________________________
CONCLUDING REMARKS
Thus, Conservative governments
aside, the cumulative results of past and current Liberal governments will be
such that the green economy gap between 1) Canada on one hand; and 2)
China, the European Union and the US on the other, will continue to grow ... to
grow larger than it is now as the pace accelerates for advancements of green
economics in these other countries.
The factors contributing to changing global economic/energy paradigm have been outlined in this text, from the global plateau in emissions production for the last 3 years to the tipping point coming as soon as 2020 in favour of electric vehicles and there is no turning back of the clock. Yet the current Liberal government like past Liberal governments have given priority to yesterday's model for corporate rule. The result it that it remains questionable if Canada can meet the very modest Conservative target should the Energy East and Kinder Morgan pipelines get approved.
The factors contributing to changing global economic/energy paradigm have been outlined in this text, from the global plateau in emissions production for the last 3 years to the tipping point coming as soon as 2020 in favour of electric vehicles and there is no turning back of the clock. Yet the current Liberal government like past Liberal governments have given priority to yesterday's model for corporate rule. The result it that it remains questionable if Canada can meet the very modest Conservative target should the Energy East and Kinder Morgan pipelines get approved.
More detailed analyses on the
weak links in the Liberal chains can be found in the accompanying document
regarding 1) the 2015-16 actions of Justin Trudeau; 2) the Liberal machine,
past and current and 3) Budget 2016-17. As such the accompanying document
underlines the sharp contradictions between 1) Trudeau's charm giving rise to
uncritical journalism projecting Trudeau as a Messiah on the environment and 2)
the Trudeau and Liberal record including Budget 2016-17.
Finally,
those who are interested enough to read through the accompanying document's more detailed review on the Liberal record, past and present, may also be interested in a 55
page Roadmap on options for a Canadian migration to a green economy based on:
1.
models from
around the globe, adapted and improved upon for a Canadian context; and
2.
my own
Government of Canada experiences on sustainable development policies,
legislation, programs, projects and other related initiatives.
Limited distribution of the Roadmap in a pdf version can be requested
via green.transition@yahoo.ca
In closing, it would be nice if some of the future mainstream media articles on the environment would contain more balanced and critical analyses.
Will Dubitsky: Updated 01/05/16
No comments:
Post a Comment