The federal government has been intentionally refusing to have "an adult conversation" on climate change because it doesn't want Canadians to know the positive and negative effects of addressing the issue, but it's time to make difficult policy choices in the public interest and before it's too late, warn environment experts and government critics.

"The government has an understanding of what it will take for Canada to meaningfully address climate change. The government has done the policy analysis, the economic modelling and the environmental modelling in-house, but they don't feel it's politically expedient to tell Canadians what it will take for us to meaningfully address climate change," said Pierre Sadik, manager of government affairs with the David Suzuki Foundation. "Politics involves a mix of leadership by politicians and engagement by citizens. There's a mix there. It's a fluid process and I don't think I'm going out on a limb here in saying that there's a vacuum of leadership right now in this country."

The David Suzuki Foundation and the Pembina Institute, recently released a report, "Climate Leadership, Economic Prosperity: Final Report On an Economic Study of Greenhouse Gas Targets and Policies for Canada," funded by the TD Bank and economically modelled by M.K. Jaccard and Associates Inc., which showed that Canada can meet its climate change targets and still have a growing economy.

The report states that with "strong federal and provincial government policies" of putting a price on carbon, investing in renewable energy and reducing energy consumption, Canada is able to meet the UN's International Panel on Climate Change's target of a 25 per cent reduction of 1990-level greenhouse gas emissions while still growing the economy by 2.1 per cent every year from 2010-2020.

The report also estimates that revenues under the Kyoto targets by 2020 would generate $71.9-billion in carbon pricing and under the government's targets would generate $45.5-billion, which would then be reinvested back into Canadian taxpayers to offset the higher energy costs.

The report took more than a year to write and cost an estimated $150,000 to $200,000 to produce. The two groups sent the report to Environment Minister Jim Prentice (Calgary Centre North, Alta.), the Privy Council Office and other agencies a week before it was released.

Four days later, Mr. Sadik, and Matthew Bramley, the Pembina Institute's director of climate change, along with TD Bank chief economist Don Drummond, briefed Environment deputy minister Ian Shugart, Environment associate deputy minister Bob Hamilton and Environment assistant deputy minister Michael Keenan in person for approximately 45 minutes.

"Their response was, 'Thank you, this was informative,' " Mr. Sadik told The Hill Times last week.

Publicly, however, Mr. Prentice said the report's conclusions were "irresponsible."

Last week, he declined an interview with The Hill Times, and his office sent Mr. Prentice's recent letter to the editor of The Edmonton Journal in response to an interview request.

In it, Mr. Prentice said the report "is one of many that have been produced over the past few years advocating various scenarios to reduce greenhouse gases in Canada."

He noted that the report showed that Canada could indeed reach the government's targets of a 20 per cent reduction of greenhouse gas emissions from 2006 by 2020, which is "achievable, realistic, balanced and responsible."

However, there are "serious concerns" about the approach, he said. For example, Mr. Prentice said the report "does not take into account the importance of the use of technology in achieving Canada's climate change goals and the investments required to achieve a low-carbon economy."

Mr. Prentice also said the 1990 target "would have a severe negative impact on the Canadian economy, especially given current economic conditions." Although he acknowledged that the "report certainly adds to the debate about the economic costs" of climate change, it doesn't set out "achievable and realistic goals that will benefit both our environment and our economy."

The government has consistently said that if there's a transformation of energy resources in the economy, the economy would collapse, but Mr. Bramley said the government is misleading Canadians.

"Ministers have been unwilling and, frankly, unable to explain how they would actually show Canada meets that target," he said. "I think our report has made it clearer than ever that the emperor has no clothes when it comes to policies that the government intends to implement to meet the target that it's repeatedly professing."

Mr. Bramley said despite media reports and comments by the minister, the report does not show a negative growth of the Canadian economy.

He said the report shows three scenarios and their possible outcomes. In the first scenario, a "business as usual" approach where there is currently very little being done to significantly address climate change, the economy would grow 2.4 per cent each year for the next 10 years.

If the government were to implement strong measures—which the report says includes a cap and trade system with carbon priced at $50 to $200 per tonne, developing carbon capture and storage, a reduction of "fugitive" emissions from the oil and gas industry and from landfills, increased energy efficiency, increased renewable energy production and replacing fossil fuels with clean electricity—it could meet its own target of 20 per cent greenhouse gas reductions from 2006 levels (or three per cent below 1990-levels) and still achieve a 2.2 per cent growth rate over the next decade.

In the most stringent target, that of the UN's 25 per cent below 1990 levels, the government could still achieve 2.1 per cent economic growth if more significant measures were introduced to fight climate change.

Mr. Bramley said the three per cent negative growth number used by Mr. Prentice is misconstrued. He said it actually means that there would be a 3.2 per cent growth difference if aggressive climate change policies were put in place.

Mr. Bramley said another misconception is that the West and Alberta's oil sands will be the ones paying for the climate change programs through a "massive wealth transfer," which he said is also wrong.

Mr. Bramley said Alberta would keep more than 90 per cent of the money paid to reduce emissions.

Moreover, Mr. Bramley said the third misconception "the notion that failing to act on climate change has no cost. In fact, we've learned from the Stern review in 2006 which was done by former chief economist of the world bank Nicholas Stern, which is the most exhaustive global assessment of the economics of climate change, that uncontrolled climate change would lead to a loss of between five and 20 per cent of global GDP, now and forever."

Mr. Sadik said the government's position is an example of politics, rather than "sound policy" when it comes to the environment.

"The government knows it can achieve its 2020 targets. Whether the government has any intention or desire to achieve its own targets is an open question that perhaps isn't too difficult to answer if you look around," Mr. Sadik told The Hill Times, adding that current and previous governments have had to make unpopular and tough decisions "in the interest of sound public policy." For example, he said, the Conservative government's move to tax income trusts, when it said it wouldn't, and the Liberal government of the mid-1990s which had to slay the deficit by cutting a significant number of social programs.

"[There were] some short term political costs but long term benefits for all Canadians and long term political benefits as well. We know that government politicians can rise to the challenge. We've seen that in the past and we expect that they'll do so again," Mr. Sadik said.

bvongdou@hilltimes.com

The Hill Times