What do we do now regarding emissions?

Opinion

Over the past months, multiple impassioned pleas in the Free Press have demanded Canada reduce greenhouse gases. Concern and angst are evident, but no practical or actionable suggestions. This aptly characterizes the wasted decade under Justin Trudeau, with lots of aspirations and haughty pronouncements, but policies poorly conceived and overly political, resulting in woeful performance. That’s not just me talking but the United Nations Environment Program. They note Canada as worst of the G7 for over-promising and under-delivering on emissions.

Unfortunately, little seems to have changed under Mark Carney, whether on the environment or even on trade; still too much over-promising and under-delivering. Carney, for example, vowed to shield Canadians from content-thievery by U.S. tech giants, only to completely cave, almost on cue, when Trump objected. There is constant touting of “clean growth,” but nothing concrete and little tangible progress.

So, what can we do now? Taking a business perspective on climate is increasingly important, given economics is a key pillar of sustainability. As Vaclav Smil suggests, “Without affordable solutions, wishful thinking on decarbonization risks unimaginable economic misery.”

Carney dropped the useless commodity carbon tax but did not acknowledge failures both on emissions and fairness. Most Canadians, especially lower income, paid more than received back. Carney is now focused on the large industrial emitter tax, a tempting cash-cow. Yet such industries, like steel, are under dire threats. A better idea today is to temporarily drop the tax to help preserve jobs. We could also smartly set up special levies in the case of desired exports to Europe, matching carbon border adjustments there for any exports, but with collected funds going back to affected industries to help make improvements.

If people want electric vehicles, fine, but let’s drop the unachievable mandates, as recommended by automotive manufacturers. Electric vehicle progress is inconsequential, still only around three per cent of overall fleet, with almost all being imports. The bigger issue is excessive price, unaffordable for most Canadians even with incentives. Speaking of incentives, more than $2.2 billion went overwhelmingly to the top 16 per cent income bracket, hardly in need.

A positive alternative, both cost efficient and equitable, is public transit. Across Canada, transit has not fully recovered to pre-COVID ridership, everywhere facing huge challenges, with cumulative financial losses approaching $12 billion. Even diesel buses are good. They too get people out of cars. For personal vehicles, why not modest incentives, say $2,000, but for all more-efficient vehicles including conventional hybrids. These are more affordable, provide reductions, and are made in Canada in significant numbers. Such incentives would go much further too. On the trade side, though, not a dime should go to any company benefiting Elon Musk, given his odious role.

Despite pronouncements on heat pumps, there is not much reality. They still represent only three per cent of heating. Air source heat pumps are suitable in only a few provinces, not including the prairies. I know of failures. Ground source heat pumps can save operating costs, but are pricy, $30,000 to $40,000 per single site. Examining government information more closely shows a current focus on trying to shift all-electric homes. This conserves electric power and lowers operating costs, but no GHG reductions, and a high-cost per kW reduced, more than $4,000.

For good reasons, we already have efficient natural gas systems, exceeding 90 per cent, and these are affordable. Despite incentives, heat pump economics are questionable for getting off natural gas. There is a logical path, though, involving community loops and multi-house neighbourhood-systems. These have demonstrated high performance and low costs, but no level of government pays any attention. Until this happens, heat pumps will languish at the periphery.

Regarding electricity, Manitoba and Canada have lots of energy, i.e., kWh, but are limited on capacity, i.e., kW. These are distinctly different parameters. Jay Grewal stressed we could face problems here before 2030. Wind can provide diversification to guard against drought, so is positive, but solar, often touted, is overly expensive, surprisingly dirty, especially solar trash, involves largely imported equipment, and cannot provide kW. Natural gas turbines are a good capacity option, less than $2,000 per kW. They only generate emissions when actually running. If only operated as needed, say 10 to 20 per cent of the time, numbers show this is better than solar.

A last opportunity to note is transforming canola we already grow, but threatened too, into low-emissions sustainable aviation fuel (SAF). A realistic plant has already been proposed for Manitoba. Further analysis is still needed, but there is potential for what could be the largest emissions reduction project in Manitoba, combined with local value-add opportunities, and support for Canada’s crucial canola sector, more economically important than automotive but receiving little federal attention.

Yes, we have opportunities, but we need to be realistic and think things through.

Robert Parsons, PhD, MBA, teaches at the I.H. Asper School of Business, University of Manitoba.