Transcript: Who has the Best Climate Plan? | Sep 16, 2021

Steve Paikin sits at the Agenda news desk. He wears a dark grey suit and a navy tie. A monitor behind him shows a red lowercase ‘a’. Paikin interlocks his fingers as he rests his hands on the desk. Papers, a cell phone, and a glass of water sit in front of him.

Text reads, “Who has the Best Climate Plan?”

Paikin states,
CARBON PRICING AND
EMISSIONS TARGETS AREN'T EXACTLY
THE STUFF OF ELOQUENT STUMP
SPEECHES.
STILL, THIS PAST YEAR'S MANY
CLIMATE EVENTS MADE CRYSTAL
CLEAR, A PLAN TO DEAL WITH
CLIMATE CHANGE IS NO LONGER
OPTIONAL.
WITH US TO COMPARE WHAT THE
PARTIES HAVE ON OFFER, WE
WELCOME:
IN VANCOUVER, BRITISH COLUMBIA:
MARK JACCARD, PROFESSOR OF
SUSTAINABLE ENERGY, AND DIRECTOR
OF THE SCHOOL OF RESOURCE AND
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT AT
SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY;
IN CALGARY, ALBERTA:
CHARLES DeLAND, ASSOCIATE
DIRECTOR OF RESEARCH, AT THE
C.D. HOWE INSTITUTE;
IN BROOKLIN, ONTARIO, NEAR
OSHAWA:
SARAH PETREVAN, POLICY DIRECTOR,
CLEAN ENERGY CANADA;
AND IN THE PROVINCIAL CAPITAL:
ADAM RADWANSKI, COLUMNIST AND
FEATURE WRITER WITH THE GLOBE
AND MAIL WHO LOOKS LIKE HE NEEDS
A SHAVE.
ANYWAY, ADAM, IT'S GREAT TO HAVE
YOU BACK ON THE PROGRAM.
SARAH, YOU TOO. MARK AS WELL.
CHARLES AT THE SAME TIME.
WELCOME, EVERYBODY.
LET'S START SARAH, WITH THIS.
AS RELATED TO CLIMATE CHANGE,
WHAT IS DIFFERENT IN YOUR VIEW
ABOUT THIS YEAR'S CAMPAIGN
COMPARED TO 2019?

Text reads, “Sarah Petrevan, Clean Energy Canada”

Sarah responds,
2019 WAS THE CLIMATE ELECTION.
WE LEARNED IN 2019 THAT THERE IS
NO PATH TO POWER IN THIS COUNTRY
WITHOUT HAVING A CREDIBLE
CLIMATE PLAN.
SO 2021 IS ALL ABOUT RAISING THE
STAKES.
YOU NEED TO HAVE NOT ONLY A
CREDIBLE PLAN BUT A REASONABLE
PATH TO GET THERE, REASONABLE
PATH TO ACHIEVE IT.
I REALLY LIKE WHAT CLIMATE
SCIENTIST CATHERINE HEYHOE SAID.
THAT NOW EVERY ELECTION IS ABOUT
CLIMATE. THERE IS NO SUCH THING
AS AN ELECTION AN THAT DOESN'T
INCLUDE IMPACTS ON CLIMATE.

Paikin asks,
DO YOU THINK THAT'S TRUE?
THAT IN FACT, THE CANDIDATES ALL
KNOW THAT THERE CAN BE NO SUCH
THING AS A CLIMATE-FREE
ELECTION?

Sarah nods.

She replies, ABSOLUTELY.

Paikin says,
THEY DO. WE COULD DROWN IN
NUMBERS SO I'M
GOING TO TRY NOT TO DO THAT BUT
ALL FOUR MAJOR PARTIES ARE
PROMISING TO CUT EMISSIONS BY
CERTAIN PERCENTAGES BELOW THE
2005 LEVELS, BY THE YEAR 2030 BUT
TO VARYING DEGREES. AND
I'LL ASK OUR DIRECT SHELDON
OSMOND TO PUT THE NUMBERS UP
AND THEN WE’LL DIVE IN.

A chart reads, “Plan to Cut Greenhouse Emissions by 2030”

Paikin continues,
PLAN TO CUT EMISSIONS BY 2030.
THE LIBERALS SAY THEY CAN DO
40%, THE CONSERVATIVES 30%, THE
GREENS 60%, THE NDP 50%.
SO LET'S GO AROUND ON THIS ONE.
ADAM, TO YOU FIRST.
HOW REALISTICALLY ACHIEVABLE DO
YOU THINK THESE FOUR NUMBERS
ARE?

Text reads, “Adam Radwanski, The Globe and Mail”

Text continues, “Who has the Best Climate Plan? Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions”

Adam states,
I THINK THEY'RE ALL A STRETCH FOR
DIFFERENT REASONS.
I MEAN, I THINK CANADA MAY BE
REASONABLY ON PACE TO GET TO THE
30% THAT WAS GOVERNMENT POLICY
UNTIL QUITE RECENTLY.
THE 40% THE LIBERALS ARE
PLEDGING TO UP IT TO MAY BE A
BIT OF A STRETCH WITH CURRENT
POLICIES. I THINK THE
CONSERVATIVES WOULD HAVE A
LITTLE BIT OF A HARD TIME REACHING
THE 30% WHICH THEY HAVE COMMITTED
TO DESPITE GOVERNMENT POLICY
MAYBE GETTING US THERE, LARGELY
BECAUSE, AND WE'LL TALK MORE
ABOUT THIS, BUT LARGELY BECAUSE
THEY'RE PLANNING TO DRAMATICALLY
SCALE DOWN THE CARBON PRICE.
SO THOSE ARE CHALLENGING.
THE OTHER PARTIES, IT WOULD TAKE
AN AWFUL LOT TO GET TO 50 OR
60%.
I THINK IT'S GOOD THAT PARTIES
ON THE LEFT AND IN THE GREENS'
CASE THAT FRANKLY ISN'T CLOSER
TO GOVERNMENT ARE MAYBE WILLING
TO PUSH HARDER TO RAISE THE
LEVEL OF AMBITION.

Paikin asks,
MARK, BASED ON WHAT
YOU SEE ON THE PARTY PLATFORMS,
HOW MUCH OF THAT IS ACHIEVABLE?

Text reads, “Mark Jaccard, Simon Frasier University”

Mark replies,
I LOOK AT IT FROM SOMEONE WHO
MODELS THE ENERGY ECONOMY
SYSTEM. ALL OF THEM ARE
ACHIEVABLE, EVEN
100% BY NEXT YEAR IS ACHIEVABLE.
WHAT I'M INTERESTED IN, THOUGH,
BECAUSE WE HAVE THIS LONG
HISTORY OF I CALL IT CLIMATE
INSINCERITY WHERE GOVERNMENT OR
POLITICIANS PUT OUT TARGETS AND
THEN WHEN THEY GET IN POWER
SOMETIMES THEY'RE EVEN PARALYSED
BY THE TARGET BECAUSE THEY
REALIZE, OH, WE'RE ACTUALLY
GOING TO HAVE DISRUPT PEOPLE'S
LIVES, MAKE SOMETHING MORE
EXPENSIVE AND IT'S NOT EASY.
WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO HAVE
REGULATIONS AND CARBON PRICING.
SO, YES, OBVIOUSLY A SMALLER
TARGET IS MORE ACHIEVABLE THAN A
BIGGER TARGET. BUT I DO AGREE
WITH ADAM THAT THE THIRTY AND
FORTY PERCENT WILL INVOLVE
MAJOR CHALLENGES IN A NINE
OR TEN-YEAR PERIOD. I MEAN
YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THE CARS
YOU'RE LOOKING AT DRIVING AROUND
ON THE ROAD CHANGING
DRAMATICALLY OVER THE NEXT THREE
OR FOUR OR FIVE YEARS. AND TRY TO
FIGURE OUT HOW THAT HAPPENS.
HOW HOUSES ARE HEATED. INDUSTRY.
SO IT'S A HUGE CHALLENGE.

Paikin says,
YOU DO HAVE WHAT YOU
CALL A SINCERITY INDEX AND WE
WILL GET TO THAT LATER IN OUR
CONVERSATION BECAUSE YOU'VE GOT
SOME FASCINATING NUMBERS ON
THAT.
CHARLES, HOW ABOUT TO YOU ON
THIS ISSUE?
WHO HAS A PLATFORM THAT YOU
BELIEVE CAN ACTUALLY ACHIEVE THE
NUMBERS ENUNCIATED HERE?

Text reads, “Charles DeLand, C.D. Howe Institute”

Charles responds,
WELL, I GUESS, AS MARK MENTIONED,
I WOULD AGREE WITH THAT
IT'S GOING TO BE CHALLENGING TO
ACHIEVE THOSE NUMBERS, AS HE
SAID.
IT'S REALLY ABOUT THE COST.
WHAT ARE THE CONSEQUENCES?
WHAT ACTUALLY HAS TO HAPPEN IN
THE REAL WORLD HERE?
I WOULD SAY THAT, YOU KNOW, WE
DON'T HAVE EASY WINS THAT
PERHAPS THE U.S. IN THE ELECTRICAL
SECTOR TO DECARBONIZE. SO
THERE ARE NO OBVIOUS WINNERS.

Paikin asks,
SARAH, HOW ABOUT TO YOU ON THIS?

Sarah says,
I THINK WHOSE PLAN IS THE MOST
REALISTICALLY DEPENDS ON WHAT
YOU CARE ABOUT THE MOST.
LET'S ASSUME WE CARE ABOUT THE
ECONOMY AND JOBS.
I LARGELY AGREE WITH WHAT
CHARLES AND MARK HAVE SAID.
I THINK MAINTAINING SOME LEVEL
OF ECONOMIC HEALTH AND JOBS
THROUGHOUT THE CLEAN ENERGY
TRANSITION IS AN IMPORTANT ONE
AND SHOULD BE CANADA'S NUMBER
ONE GOAL.
YOU HAVE CHALLENGES WITH WHAT
THE NDP AND THE GREENS HAVE PUT
FORWARD IN TERMS OF HOW FAST YOU
HAVE TO RATCHET UP POLICY AND
WHAT THAT DOES TO THE ECONOMY TO
ACHIEVE THE TARGETS.
WE KNOW FROM MARK'S WORK AND
FROM OTHERS' WORK THAT THE
LIBERAL PLAN IS PROBABLY GOING
TO GET US TO 40%.
WE'RE NOT 100% SURE.
BUT WE KNOW THAT AT LEAST THE
36% THAT THEY PREVIOUSLY
COMMITTED TO WHEN THEY RELEASED
THEIR LAST CLIMATE PLAN IN THE
SPRING, YOU KNOW, SAID THAT IT
WAS, YOU KNOW, REASONABLE, THEY
HAD MODELLING.
AND NOW, YOU KNOW, 40% SEEMS
RELATIVELY DOABLE.
WITH THE CONSERVATIVE TARGET,
YOU KNOW, I DO TAKE ISSUE WITH
IT.
I WONDER IF THE CONSERVATIVES,
IF THEY WERE TO ACHIEVE POWER,
COULD SHOW UP IN GLASGOW FOR THE
NEXT COUNCIL OF ALL PARTIES
MEETING WITH A REDUCED TARGET,
GIVEN THAT EVERYBODY, THE REST
OF CANADA'S BUSINESS PARTNERS,
HAVE SAID, YOU KNOW, WHAT WE
WANT IS INCREASED AMBITION,
INCREASED TARGETS.
COULD CANADA CREDIBLY SHOW UP
AND SAY, HEY, WE'RE BACKING OUT
OF THE BUSINESS DEAL?
I'M NOT SURE ABOUT THAT.

Paikin responds,
WHEN YOU SAY SHOW UP
IN GLASGOW, YOU MEAN THE MEETING
IN NOVEMBER IN SCOTLAND
THAT THE WORLD THAT THE WORLD IS
GOING TO ATTEND THAT HAS
TO DO WITH CLIMATE CHANGE. YOU
THINK THEY'D HAVE A PRETTY TOUGH
TIME SHOWING UP SAYING WE’RE
UP FOR THIRTY PERCENT.

Sarah says, YEAH, I THINK SO.

Paikin continues,
YEAH OKAY I GOT THAT. YOU
INDICATED OFF THE TOP THAT WE ARE
NOW INTO AN ELECTION CAMPAIGN
WHERE ALL FOUR MAJOR PARTIES
REPRESENTED IN THE LAST
PARLIAMENT SUPPORT
CARBON PRICING IN SOME FORM.
SO LET'S BRIEFLY GO THROUGH THAT
AND THEN I'LL GET YOUR VIEWS ON
THIS.
FOR EXAMPLE ON THE ISSUE OF
CARBON PRICING, WE KNOW THE
LIBERALS BROUGHT IN A CARBON TAX
$40 A TONNE, RISING TO $170 A
TONNE BY 2030.
THE CONSERVATIVES WOULD HAVE
LOWER NUMBERS, $20 A TONNE
RISING TO $50 A TONNE BY 2030.
THAT IS FOR PERSONAL CARBON
TAXES WHICH WOULD GO INTO WHAT
THEY CALL A PERSONAL CARBON
SAVINGS ACCOUNT THAT PEOPLE CAN
THEN USE TO BUY ENVIRONMENTALLY
FRIENDLY PRODUCTS SUCH AS
BICYCLES, ET CETERA.
$170 A TONNE BY 2030 WOULD BE
FOR INDUSTRY BUT ONLY IF THE
AMERICANS AND THE EUROPEANS
MATCH THAT PRICE.
THE GREENS ARE AT $50 A TONNE,
RISING TO $275 A TONNE BY 2030.
AND THE NDP IS AT $40 A TONNE,
RISING TO $170 A TONNE BY 2030.
CHARLES, STARTING WITH YOU FIRST
THIS TIME -- AGAIN, NOT LOOKING
FOR AN ENDORSEMENT HERE OF ANY
PARTICULAR PLAN, BUT WHAT STANDS
OUT AS BEING ACHIEVABLE HERE?

Charles answers,
I GUESS THE THING THAT STANDS
OUT FOR ME IS THAT THE LIBERAL
PLAN AND THE NDP PLAN AND THE
GREENS ARE VERY SIMILAR IN
STRUCTURE. OBVIOUSLY THE
PRICES ARE HIGHER FOR
THE GREENS.
WHILE THE CONSERVATIVES' IS A
LITTLE DIFFERENT BOTH ON THE
INDUSTRIAL AND THE CONSUMER SIDE
WITH THEIR SAVINGS PLAN.

Paikin asks,
MARK, HOW ABOUT TO YOU ON THAT?

Mark Says,
WELL, SO I WAS
OVERSEEING A GROUP THAT MODELLED
FOR THE CONSERVATIVES AND THEN
PEOPLE IN MY TEAM MODELLED THE
OTHER PARTIES', AND OF COURSE
THE LIBERALS -- A LOT OF US HAVE
BEEN MODELLING THEIRS AND THAT'S
WHY THERE IS A DEGREE OF
CONFIDENCE IN THE LIBERALS AND
THEIR CARBON PRICING. BUT,
IT'S GOOD THAT YOU QUALIFIED THE
CONSERVATIVE ONE BECAUSE LINKING
THE PRICE FOR INDUSTRY TO THE
UNITED STATES, WHEN WE MODELLED
IT, WE SAID TO THEM, WE THINK
WE'RE NOT GOING TO GIVE YOU A
BREAK ON THAT ONE. SO,
THE CONSERVATIVES GET A LOT OF
REDUCTIONS FROM A REGULATION ON
NATURAL GAS THAT HAS GOTTEN
HIDDEN. AND THEN, FINALLY FOR
THE PRICES FOR THE OTHER TWO
PARTIES WITH THE CARBON PRICE,
WHEN WE TRIED
TO SIMULATE THE TARGETS, FOR THE
NDP WE NEEDED A PRICE THAT GOT
CLOSER TO $500 A TONNE TO GET TO
THAT 2030 AND FOR THE GREENS, IT
GOT CLOSER TO $600 A TONNE.
SO THIS IS AN ISSUE THAT
[inaudible] IT'S GREAT TO HAVE
HIGH TARGETS, BUT IF YOU BELIEVE
IN HONESTY, YOU SHOULD TELL
PEOPLE WHAT'S GOING ON WITH THAT
AND THE NDP AND GREENS DID NOT PUT
OUT WHAT THE CARBON PRICE SHOULD
BE TO GET TO THEIR TARGET.

Paikin adds,
SO EVEN THOUGH THE
GREEN AND NDP NUMBERS ARE HIGHER
THAN THE OTHER ONES, THEY'RE
STILL NOT HIGH ENOUGH TO MEET
THE TARGETS THAT THEY THEMSELVES
HAVE SET; IS THAT RIGHT?

Mark replies,
THAT'S RIGHT.
AND ALSO I NOTICED YOUR TABLE
SAID THAT THE NDP AT 170 -- AND
I CAME OUT AND MADE THAT
ASSUMPTION ABOUT THEM BECAUSE
THEY'RE REALLY VAGUE AND SOME
PEOPLE FROM THE NDP HAVE PUSHED
BACK AND SAID, NO, NO, NO, IT'S
GOING TO GO HIGHER THAN 170, AND
I CAN'T REMEMBER WHERE. BUT
STILL, I'M TELLING YOU WHERE OUR
MODELLING HAD TO GET IT TO,
WHICH WAS WAY HIGHER.

Paikin responds,
I KNOW JAGMEET SINGH
HAS BEEN ASKED THAT NUMEROUS
TIMES ON THE HUSTINGS AND HE
ALWAYS STARTS HIS ANSWER WITH
LET ME BE ABSOLUTELY PERFECTLY
CLEAR ABOUT THIS AND THEN HE
NEVER GIVES A NUMBER.
SO ANYWAY...
BE THAT AS IT MAY, COME ON HERE,
ADAM, AND TELL US WHAT STANDS
OUT FOR YOU IN ALL OF THOSE
PROGNOSTICATIONS.

Adam states,
WELL, MY CONCERN, A LITTLE BIT
IS THERE'S A BIT OF A FALSE
PERCEPTION THERE'S A CONSENSUS
IN THE PRICING OF
CARBON IN THIS ELECTION.
BECAUSE THE CONSERVATIVES HAVE
EMBRACED IT IN SOME CAPACITY,
WHICH IS CERTAINLY A BIG STEP
FORWARD FROM WHERE THEY WERE
BEFORE.
BUT THEIR PLAN WHICH, AS YOU
NOTED, PUTS THE CARBON PRICE
THAT MOST OF US PAY MUCH LOWER
AND THE INDUSTRIAL ONE IS A BIT
UP IN THE AIR, SETTING ASIDE THE
STRANGE PLAN TO TURN IT INTO A
PERSONAL SAVINGS ACCOUNT, I'M
NOT CONVINCED IT EVER ACTUALLY
HAPPENED, BUT CERTAINLY I
BELIEVED THEY WOULD CAP
IT AT $50 FOR MOST OF US INSTEAD
OF GOING UP TO $170.
THAT'S A HUGE CHANGE. AND
IT MEANS YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO
DO A LOT, AS MARK WAS ALLUDING
TO, A LOT OF STUFF TO MAKE UP
FOR THAT GAP. AND AGAIN,
IF THEY WERE TO TWEAK THE
INDUSTRIAL SIDE, EVEN MORE SO.
AND I THINK WE GOT THE IDEA THAT
NOW WE GOT THE IDEA THAT THIS
DEBATE IS OVER BECAUSE FINALLY
THE CONSERVATIVES HAVE EMBRACED
IT COMPARED TO THE LAST ELECTION.
BUT, I MEAN, THE DIFFERENCE
BETWEEN A PROBABLY MUCH MORE
EFFECTIVE CARBON PRICE OF $170 A
TONNE AND ONE THAT'S $50 A TONNE
SHOULD NOT BE OVERLOOKED AND I
THINK HAS BEEN A LITTLE TOO MUCH
IN THIS CAMPAIGN.

Paikin asks,
SARAH, DO YOU WANT
TO SEPARATE THE FACTION FROM
FICTION FOR US?

Text reads, “Who has the Best Climate Plan? Carbon Pricing”

Sarah states,
I'M ONE OF
THOSE PEOPLE WHO WANTS TO TAKE A
MINUTE TO BE GRATEFUL FOR THE
FACT WE'RE NOT DEBATING CARBON
PRICING IN THIS ELECTION.
BUT I DON'T THINK THAT THE
DEBATE IS FAR FROM OVER BECAUSE
THE DEVIL IS ALWAYS IN THE
DETAILS.
I SHARE CONCERNS WITH MY
CO-PANELISTS ABOUT SOME OF THE
CONSERVATIVES' PLAN ON PERSONAL
SAVINGS ACCOUNT AND FRANKLY SOME
OF THEIR REGULAR TORY
APPROACHES, WHETHER OR NOT
THEY'LL EVER ACTUALLY IMPLEMENT
THEM OR, YOU KNOW, SOME OF THE
TECHNOLOGICALLY FEASIBLE --
FEASIBILITY OF CERTAIN
COMMITMENTS PARTICULARLY AROUND
RENEWABLE NATURAL GAS.
I DON'T ACTUALLY THINK WHAT THEY'VE
ACTUALLY COMMITTED TO IS
POSSIBLE. YOU KNOW, BUT,
ANOTHER THING, AND MAYBE IT'S
BECAUSE I'M A POLICY WONK AND
STUDY THIS FOR A LIVING, THE
OTHER THING THAT IRKS ME ABOUT
THE CONSERVATIVES' CLIMATE PLAN
IS HOW THEY ARE APPROACHING
INDUSTRY.
THEY'RE SAYING 170 BUCKS A TONNE
IF THE U.S. AND THE E.U. GETS
THERE.
THE E.U. IS NEVER GOING TO GET
THERE BECAUSE THEY HAVE A
COMPLETELY DIFFERENT SYSTEMS OF
CARBON PRICING.
THEY USE A CAP AND TRADE SYSTEM
WHERE EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS ARE
DEPENDENT ON THE CAP, NOT ON THE
PRICE. THEREFORE I GUESS THE
CONSERVATIVES ARE SAYING THEY
WILL NEVER PLAN TO PUT A PRICE
ON INDUSTRY AND I WOULD RATHER
POLITICIANS JUST BE HONEST AND
SAY THOSE THINGS.
YOU KNOW, I'M NOT GOING TO LIE.
I RELY ON THE WORK MARK DOES
QUITE EXTENSIVELY FOR SOME OF
THE RESEARCH AND SOME OF THE
STUFF I DO.
I AGREE, YOU KNOW, THAT LOOKING
AT THE GREENS AND THE NDP, OR AT
LEAST THE GREENS, YOU KNOW, IT'S
PROBABLY THEIR CARBON PRICE,
WHAT THEY'RE PROPOSING IS
PROBABLY TOO HIGH AND TOO FAST
TO SAVE CANADA FROM SOME OF THE
HARSHEST ECONOMIC IMPACTS
THROUGH THE TRANSITION.
AND MY CHALLENGE WITH THE NDP
PLATFORM IS THAT IT IS
UNNECESSARILY VAGUE IN MANY
RESPECTS, AND CARBON PRICING IS
JUST ONE OF THOSE AREAS.
THEY TALK ABOUT LOTS OF
LOOPHOLES IN THE LIBERALS'
APPROACH TO CARBON PRICING AND
SPECIFICALLY WITH INDUSTRY BUT
THEY DON'T NAME THOSE LOOPHOLES
AND THEY ALSO DON'T TELL
CANADIANS WHAT THEY PLAN ON
DOING DIFFERENTLY AND I HAVE A
MAJOR PROBLEM WITH THAT.

Paikin adds,
YOU WOULDN'T EXPECT
THE NDP TO BE THE PLAN THAT HAS
THE LEAST AMOUNT OF DETAIL.
THEY'RE ALWAYS THE ONES, IN THE
PAST ANYWAY, WITH THE MOST
AMOUNT OF DETAILS AND I SEE MARK
NODDING ON THAT. BUT I WANT TO
GO TO ADAM ON A FOLLOW-UP ON THIS.
ERIN O'TOOLE, THE CONSERVATIVE
LEADER, HAS JUST COME OUT AND
SAID: I WON'T NECESSARILY SCRAP
THE LIBERALS' CARBON TAX IF I
BECOME THE PRIME MINISTER.
CAN YOU EXPLAIN HOW ALL THAT IS
GOING TO WORK?

Adam laughs.

He responds,
I THINK WHAT HE'S GETTING AT THERE,
ALTHOUGH IT'S CONFUSING, IS THAT
DIFFERENT PROVINCES HAVE
DIFFERENT SYSTEMS HERE AND SOME
OF THEM HAVE NOW ADOPTED
SOMETHING SIMILAR TO WHAT THE
FEDERAL HAS CURRENTLY.
I THINK WHAT HE IS GETTING AT IS
HE WOULDN'T FORCE THE OTHER
PROVINCES TO ADOPT A DIFFERENT
SYSTEM IF THEY'RE
HAPPY WITH THIS ONE. BUT WHAT I
TAKE FROM IT HONESTLY AS
WHAT I WAS ALLUDING TO BEFORE IS
I'M NOT CONVINCED AT ALL ABOUT
THIS WHOLE IDEA OF THE PERSONAL
SAVINGS ACCOUNT.
IT JUST SOUNDS SO LOGISTICALLY
CHALLENGING TO ME.
IF YOU'VE EVER SEEN GOVERNMENT
TRY TO HANDLE AN I.T. PROJECT,
THE IDEA IT'S SOMEHOW GOING TO
IMPLEMENT THIS KIND OF COMPLEX
SYSTEM WHERE EVERY PERSON HAS
AN INDIVIDUALIZED ACCOUNT THAT
THEY CAN USE TO BUY CERTAIN
THINGS AND ACTIVATE IT EVERY
TIME THEY MAKE A PURCHASE, I
CANNOT SEE HOW THAT HAPPENS.
SO MY INSTINCT, ALTHOUGH I DON'T
WANT TO MAKE TOO MANY
ASSUMPTIONS, IT WOULD BE VERY
EASY FOR THAT PART TO BE SET ASIDE.
WHAT I WOULD COME BACK TO IS I
DON'T THINK THEY WOULD FORCE THE
PROVINCES TO CONTINUE RAISING
THE PRICE AS THE OTHER PARTIES
WOULD. WHICH MEANS THAT
IN SOME PROVINCES YOU MIGHT
CONTINUE TO GET AN ESCALATING
CARBON PRICE, B.C. OR QUEBEC,
PLACES WHERE THEY'VE EMBRACED
THAT EVEN BEFORE THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT MADE THEM DO SO.
BUT IN THE REST OF THE COUNTRY,
I THINK WHAT YOU MIGHT SEE IS
SOMETHING QUITE SIMILAR TO THE
CURRENT SYSTEM, AT LEAST IN A
LOT OF PLACES BUT JUST NOT RISES
IN THE SAME WAY AS WITH THE
OTHER PARTIES.

Paikin asks,
CHARLES, DO YOU HAVE
ANY QUALMS ABOUT WHAT THE
CONSERVATIVE HAS ON OFFER AS IT
RELATES TO THIS, AS SOME PEOPLE
HAVE REFERRED TO AS AN AIR
MILES ACCOUNT PERSONAL
ACCOUNT PEOPLE WILL HAVE
RELATED TO POLLUTION?

Charles answers,
WELL, I MEAN, MY
CONCERNS ARE MOSTLY THAT IT
LIMITS THE ABILITY TO SUBSTITUTE
ONE THING FOR ANOTHER.
IT'S VERY NARROW IN WHAT YOU CAN
ACTUALLY USE IT FOR.
AND THE ADMIN -- THE
ADMINISTRATION PART OF THAT DOES
SEEM VERY BURDENSOME.

Text reads, “Who has the Best Climate Plan? Sincerity”

Paikin says,
LET ME GO TO MARK
NOW ON SOMETHING THAT HE TOUCHED
ON EARLIER AND THAT I PROMISED
WE'D COME BACK TO AND LET'S DO
IT NOW.
YOU HAVE DONE SOME MODELLING,
MARK, AROUND THE DIFFERENT PARTY
PLANS AND YOU HAVE RATED EACH OF
THESE FOUR MAIN PARTIES ON A
CLIMATE SINCERITY INDEX AND
WE'RE GOING TO SHARE THAT INDEX
WITH OUR VIEWERS AND LISTENERS
NOW AND GET YOU TO EXPLAIN HOW
YOU GOT TO THESE NUMBERS.
NOW, THIS IS A SINCERITY INDEX.
THE LIBERALS ARE AN EIGHT OUT OF
TEN. YOU'VE GOT THE
CONSERVATIVES NEXT AT FIVE OUT
OF TEN. THE GREENS AT FOUR OUT
OF TEN. AND THE NDP TRAILING WITH
ONLY TWO OUT OF TEN. OKAY.
LET'S DOUBLE BACK AND FIGURE OUT
WHAT CRITERIA YOU USE TO GET TO
THOSE NUMBERS.

Mark replies,
THANK YOU. AND JUST A LITTLE BIT
OF BACKGROUND.
I MODELLED -- I WAS SELECTED TO
MODEL FOR THE CHRETIEN
GOVERNMENT IN THE NATIONAL
PROCESS, THE KYOTO TARGET AND
WAS ABLE TO WRITE A BOOK NINE
YEARS BEFORE, SO IN 2001,
EXPLAINING WHY WE WOULD MISS
THAT TARGET.
YOU CAN'T GET THAT TARGET WITH
RICK MERCER COMMERCIALS.
YOU ACTUALLY HAD TO KEEP THE
PRICE THAT WE HAD AGREED TO AND
THE REGULATIONS.
SO WHAT I'M GETTING AT IS THAT I
AND MY IPCC COLLEAGUES WHO ARE
IN THE POLICY SECTION ARE
CONTINUALLY NOTICING THAT WE
FAIL ON CLIMATE AND WE FAIL
BECAUSE GOVERNMENTS DON'T
IMPLEMENT THE POLICIES TO
ACHIEVE THEIR TARGET AND THAT
VOTERS GET TRICKED BY FOCUSING
ON TARGETS, THAT THE MORE
AMBITIOUS TARGET MUST MEAN
YOU'RE MORE SINCERE ABOUT
CLIMATE.
THE ORIGIN OF THIS IS TO SAY:
NO, SINCERITY, IT'S GOT TO BE
SOMETHING ELSE.
IT'S GOT TO BE HONESTY.
IN FACT, THE TARGET MEANS LESS.
LIKE, I'D BE HAPPY IF SOMEBODY
MET A 30% TARGET.
I REALLY WOULD.
AND SO WE'RE FOCUSED ON, WHEN
YOU PUT A TARGET IN, HAVE YOU
ACTUALLY PUT IN POLICIES THAT'S
GOING TO BE PRICING AND
REGULATION AND SOME GOVERNMENT
SUBSIDIES, MAYBE SOME RICK
MERCER COMMERCIALS, BUT MOSTLY
PRICING AND REGULATION, AND HAVE
YOU SPECIFIED THEM? BECAUSE IT'S
NOT ROCKET SCIENCE. WE'VE
KNOWN THIS FOR TWENTY OR THIRTY
YEARS HOW TO DO THIS AND SINCERE
GOVERNMENTS HAVE DONE IT.
YOU PUT THOSE PRICES IN AND TELL
US, LIKE THE LIBERALS SAID, HERE
IS THE PRICE NEXT YEAR, THE YEAR
AFTER, THE YEAR AFTER, AS ONE
EXAMPLE.
YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO DO THAT.
IF YOU'RE NOT DOING THAT, THEN
YOU'RE SCORING VERY LOW.
AND SO SOME PEOPLE CRITIQUE
THESE, LIKE GREEN AND NDP, YOU
MEAN YOU'RE NOT REWARDING PEOPLE
FOR HAVING HIGHER TARGETS?
AND I GUESS, BASICALLY I'M NOT.
BUT IF YOU COMPARE THE LIBERALS
AND THE CONSERVATIVES, THE
LIBERALS GET ALMOST TWICE THE
SCORE OF THE CONSERVATIVES.
THERE'S ANOTHER ELEMENT, THERE'S
SMALLER CRITERIA WE HAVE IN
THERE WHICH RELATE TO YOUR TRACK
RECORD, THE LIBERALS HAVE DONE
WELL SINCE REGAINING POWER IN
2015, AND IF YOU ARE ABLE TO
ACTUALLY ACHIEVE YOUR TARGET,
AND WE WANT PEOPLE TO KNOW THAT.
I HOPE THAT HELPS EXPLAIN A
LITTLE BIT.
SINCERITY IS REALLY TO DO WITH:
DID YOU HONESTLY PUT OUT THE
POLICIES CLEARLY THAT WOULD
ACHIEVE YOUR TARGETS SO THAT
INDEPENDENT PEOPLE LIKE ME COULD
SIMULATE IT AND CONFIRM IT, AND
IT'S EASY TO DO.
THE CONSERVATIVES HAVE NOW DONE
IT. SO THAT'S THE CRITERIA.

Paikin adds,
OKAY, ONE QUICK FOLLOW-UP THERE,
HAVE YOU HAD PUSHBACK
FROM THE NDP AND THE GREENS
WHO FEEL YOU'RE UNFAIRLY VALUING
THEIR PLANS WITH THIS?

Mark responds,
YEAH AND SOME OF IT IS
WE HAD TO -- SO SARAH MENTIONED
VAGUENESS.
THAT'S THE OTHER GOAL HERE.
OBVIOUSLY THE FLIP SIDE OF WHAT
I'M TALKING ABOUT.
IF YOU'RE NOT PRECISE, YOU'RE
VAGUE.
AND SO WHEN YOU'RE VAGUE, IT'S
EASY TO SAY, I'LL GET THERE
SOMEHOW. I KNOW
IT'S A HIGH TARGET BUT I'LL GET
THERE SOMEHOW.
AT LEAST IN MODELLING, WE CAN
LOOK AT WHAT WE THINK THEY HAD
IN THEIR PLATFORM.
WE TRIED TO DO THAT.
AND WITH THE NDP WE GOT ABOUT A
25 OR 30% REDUCTION WITH THESE
BIG SUBSIDY PROGRAMS AND
HAMMERING INDUSTRY.
BUT WE WEREN'T SURE ABOUT THEIR
PRICE. SO THEN WE JUST SAID, WELL,
LET'S DO THE MOST EFFICIENT
POLICY WE CAN SO WE'LL HELP OUT
THE NDP TO GET TO THEIR 50%
TARGET AND THEN WE ENDED UP
SAYING THE NDP SHOULD COME CLEAN
AND SAY ITS CARBON PRICE, UNLIKE
THE LIBERALS, NEEDS TO KEEP
MARCHING UP TOWARDS ALMOST $500
BY 2030.
AND THEY'RE NOT HAPPY WITH THAT,
BUT THEY'RE NOT HAPPY BECAUSE
THEY'RE SAYING I'M IGNORING THE
TARGET.
AND I'M PUTTING WAY MORE
EMPHASIS ON TRANSPARENCY AND
HONESTY AND IT'S GOOD TO SEE THE
CONSERVATIVES ARE FINALLY DOING
THAT.
WE CHALLENGED STEPHEN HARPER ON
THIS AND ANDREW SCHEER AND
YOU'RE FINALLY GETTING THAT FROM
BOTH OF THE LARGEST PARTIES IN
THE COUNTRY WHICH IS REALLY GOOD
NEWS.

Paikin says,
LET'S GET FEEDBACK
FROM EVERYBODY ELSE ON THIS.
CHARLES, WHAT DO YOU THINK OF
THE ADVISABILITY OF DOING THIS
KIND OF CLIMATE SINCERITY INDEX?

Charles replies,
LOOK IT, I'M AN ECONOMIST.
DATA IS ALWAYS GOOD.
SO TO THE EXTENT THAT YOU CAN
TRY TO QUANTIFY SOME OF THE
PLANS, IT'S USEFUL AND I THINK
THE VAGUENESS HAS BEEN VERY
HURTFUL TO THE NDP AND THE GREEN
PLATFORMS AND THE INABILITY TO
ANALYZE SOME OF THESE THINGS.
THEY DO USE VERY VAGUE LANGUAGE
AROUND SUBSIDIES OR PIPELINES,
YOU KNOW, THOSE TYPES OF THINGS,
THAT DON'T REALLY -- THEY AREN'T
EASY TO QUANTIFY THE RESULT, THE
ACTUAL EMISSIONS RESULT, AND
WHAT IS IT THAT THEY'RE TRYING
TO ACCOMPLISH?
IT'S JUST NOT VERY CLEAR.

Paikin asks,
SARAH, DO YOU THINK
THESE NUMBERS ACCURATELY REFLECT
THE CLIMATE SINCERITY OF EACH OF
THE FOUR PARTIES?

Sarah answers,
I'M GOING TO SAY THAT, YOU KNOW,
I DON'T KNOW IF SINCERITY IS THE
RIGHT WORD.
FOR ME IT'S REALLY ABOUT, LIKE,
ECONOMIC FEASIBILITY.
YOU KNOW, THE THING -- I THINK
MOST NDP VOTERS ARE CANADIANS
WHO ARE CONSIDERING VOTING FOR
THE NDP ARE GOING TO SAY, YOU
KNOW, THE NDP ARE A LEFT-LEANING
PARTY, I INHERENTLY TRUST THAT
THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE A
REASONABLE PLAN ON CLIMATE OR I
BELIEVE THAT THEY'RE GOING TO DO
SOMETHING EVEN THOUGH THEIR
PLATFORM IS PERHAPS
UNNECESSARILY VAGUE.
BUT I DO THINK, TO DRIVE HOME
MARK'S POINT, WHAT MATTERS MORE
WHEN YOU'RE LOOKING AT CLIMATE
POLICY AND WHAT CANADIANS SHOULD
REALLY PAY ATTENTION TO IS NOT
JUST THE TARGET BUT THE OUTLINED
PLAN TO GET THERE.
BECAUSE TARGETS MEAN NOTHING IF
YOU CAN'T ACTUALLY ACHIEVE THEM.

Paikin continues,
ADAM, DO YOU WANT A WORD ON THIS?

Adam responds,
YEAH I AGREE WITH THAT. I THINK WE
GOT A LITTLE TOO BOGGED DOWN. THE
OTHER POINT WORTH MAKING HERE
AND WHY THERE MAY BE VALUE IN
WHAT THEY CALL SINCERITY OR
PRACTICALITY OR WHATEVER.
WE'VE GOTTEN BOGGED DOWN. IT'S
A LITTLE TOO EASY FOR THE NDP OR
THE GREENS IN PARTICULAR TO POINT
TO THE GOVERNMENT'S RECORD TO
DATE AND SAID YOU HAVEN'T REDUCED
EMISSIONS YET AND THAT MEANS
YOU'RE NOT SINCERE ABOUT IT.
THAT'S NOT A GOOD BAROMETER.
IT’D BEEN GREAT HAD THEY DONE MORE.
THEY PROBABLY COULD HAVE DONE
MORE IN THE LAST FEW YEARS BUT
MOST OF THE POLICIES THEY'VE
IMPLEMENTED ARE ONES THAT
PROBABLY WON'T FEEL AN IMPACT
UNTIL SOMETIME THIS DECADE.
CARBON PRICING IS ONE. THERE’S
CERTAINLY MANY OTHERS
WHETHER SUPPORT FOR TRANSITION
TO EVs OR BUILDING WORK, THERE ARE
ALL KINDS OF THINGS THAT WILL ONLY
HAVE AN IMPACT NOW.
SO, WE HAVE TO LOOK FORWARD.
WE HAVE TO GET PAST THIS IDEA
THAT WHICHEVER GOVERNMENT HAS
NOT YET ACHIEVED THE EMISSIONS
REDUCTIONS THEY PROMISED OR
TARGETED OR ARE NOT ON PATH TO
DO IT, THAT MEANS WE HAVE TO BE
DEFEATIST OR CYNICAL WITHOUT
LOOKING AT WHAT THE PARTIES ARE
ACTUALLY PROMISING.

Paikin says,
ALRIGHT, LET'S LOOK AT THE
FUTURE OF OIL AND GAS.
SARAH, I'LL START WITH YOU ON
THIS ONE.
WHICH OF THE PARTIES IN YOUR
VIEW HAS HAD SOMETHING
INTERESTING AND USEFUL TO SAY
ABOUT THE FUTURE OF OIL AND GAS
AS IT RELATES TO GETTING TO
CLIMATE CHANGE TARGETS?

Text reads, “Who has the Best Climate Plan? Future of Oil and Gas”

Sarah responds,
LET ME JUST TAKE ONE SECOND
AND KIND OF PUT THIS INTO CONTEXT.
70% OF THE WORLD'S ECONOMY HAS
COMMITTED TO NET-ZERO BY 2050.
THAT MEANS THAT TO GET THERE,
ACCORDING TO THE INTERNATIONAL
ENERGY AGENCY, WE CAN HAVE NO
NEW OIL AND GAS PROJECTS
STARTING IN 2021, AND GOING
FORWARD, NO EXISTING OIL AND GAS
PROJECTS CAN CONTINUE TO EXIST
WITHOUT SOME SORT OF CARBON
EMISSIONS ABATEMENT, SO
SOMETHING LIKE CARBON CAPTURE
UTILIZATION AND STORAGE,
ET CETERA.
AS WE'VE SAID ON OTHER MATTERS,
THIS IS THE BIGGEST HOLE YOU CAN
DRIVE A MACK TRUCK THROUGH IN
THE NDP PLATFORM, THEY
SIDESTEPPED THE ISSUE
COMPLETELY, OTHER THAN
CRITICIZING THE TRUDEAU
GOVERNMENT FOR SOME FUNDING
AROUND FOSSIL FUEL SUBSIDIES.
THEY DON'T TALK ABOUT WHAT
THEY WOULD DO DIFFERENT, AND
THAT'S A PROBLEM FOR ME.
THE LIBERALS AT LEAST HAVE
OUTLINED SOME PLAN IN TERMS OF
HELPING THE OIL AND GAS SECTOR
ACHIEVE EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS,
WHICH I THINK IS IMPORTANT AND
WHICH IS IN LINE WITH WHAT THE
INTERNATIONAL SCIENCE COMMUNITY
IS SAYING NEEDS TO HAPPEN TO
ACHIEVE EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS.
MY PROBLEM WITH THE
CONSERVATIVES' PLAN IS THAT
THEY'RE TALKING OUT OF BOTH
SIDES OF THEIR MOUTH.
ON ONE HAND, THEY'RE TALKING
ABOUT REDUCING EMISSIONS AND
PUTTING A PRICE ON CARBON.
ON THE OTHER HAND, THEY ARE
TALKING ABOUT REDUCING RULES AND
REGULATIONS THAT BAN OIL TANKERS
IN NORTHERN B.C.
THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT PIPELINE
EXPANSION.
AND PARTICULARLY THE CHERRY ON
TOP IS BANNING ANY PROTESTS ON
PIPELINE DEVELOPMENT WHICH I
THINK IS A CHALLENGE.
THE GREENS, UNSURPRISINGLY, ARE
NOT FOR INCREASED OIL
DEVELOPMENT BUT, YOU KNOW, THEIR
PLATFORM DOESN'T PARTICULARLY
SAY WHAT THEY WOULD DO INSTEAD.

Paikin asks,
CHARLES, WHICH PARTY'S GOT
SOMETHING INTERESTING TO SAY ON
OIL AND GAS?

Charles replies,
I AGREE WITH SARAH PARTIALLY IN
THAT THE LIBERALS HAVE AT LEAST A
PLAN TO ADDRESS REDUCING
EMISSIONS AND POTENTIAL FUTURE
ONES. AND ASWELL, THE
CONSERVATIVES DO, IT'S MORE
TECHNOLOGICALLY ADVANCED OR,
SORRY, MORE
TECHNOLOGICALLY AIMED, CARBON
CAPTURE AND HYDROGEN AND VARIOUS
INCENTIVES AND INNOVATION.
I THINK WHERE I DON'T KNOW THAT
I AGREE NECESSARILY IS ON THE
SIMPLE FACT THAT YOU KNOW,
THINGS LIKE THE SOCIAL PIECE,
HARD ON PROTESTS AND TANKERS, I
MEAN, THOSE ARE OUTSIDE THE
EMISSIONS REALM, SO I'M NOT SURE
THAT'S ACTUALLY PART OF THE
EMISSIONS DISCUSSION.
I DON'T LIKE IT WHEN IT GETS
CONFUSED, MIXING THOSE ISSUES
WITH THE EMISSIONS FOR ME.

Paikin says,
GOOD SHOT. DO YOU WANT TO
COME BACK ON THAT, SARAH?

Sarah responds,
I MEAN, I DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW
IT DOESN'T INVOLVE EMISSIONS
WHEN YOU, YOU
KNOW -- I GUESS WE COULD SAY
THAT LIMITING OR REDUCING
CITIZENS' RIGHT TO PROTEST OIL
DEVELOPMENTS, I
SUPPOSE THAT'S NOT ABOUT
EMISSIONS, BUT ALLOWING OIL
TANKERS TO SHIP IN PLACES THEY
ARE BANNED IS ABOUT PROTESTS
BECAUSE IT'S ABOUT SHIPPING
PRODUCTS THAT CREATE A HECK OF A
LOT OF EMISSIONS WHEN WE'RE TOLD
WE NEED TO REDUCE EMISSIONS FROM
FOSSIL FUELS.
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT SHIPPING
MORE OF THEM OUT AND THAT IS
ABOUT EMISSIONS.

Paikin says,
CHARLES, DO YOU WANT TO COME BACK?

Charles states,
AGAIN, I WOULD MORE LOOK AT THE
DEMAND-SIDE AS OPPOSED TO THE
SUPPLY-SIDE. I THINK
IF THERE WAS NO DEMAND, THERE'S
NOT GOING TO BE A SUPPLY.
IT'S NOT TO SAY THAT SHIPS DON'T
HAVE EMISSIONS. THEY DO.
BUT WHERE ARE THEY ON THE EARTH
ISN'T REALLY THAT RELEVANT.
OBVIOUSLY, WE WANT TO PROTECT OUR
WATERS.
IT DOESN'T MEAN WE SHOULDN'T
HAVE REGULATION.
BUT I JUST THINK THAT WE NEED TO
FOCUS ON THE ACTUAL CONSUMPTION
SIDE OF THAT, AND THE EMISSIONS
ALSO INVOLVED IN PRODUCING THEM.

Paikin adds,
OKAY, WE LIKE CIVILIZED
DISAGREEMENT ON THIS PROGRAM.
IN FACT, WE ENCOURAGE IT.
LET'S MOVE ON TO MARK.
MARK, WHO HAS SOMETHING
INTERESTING TO SAY ON OIL AND
GAS?

Mark responds,
SO I'M A LITTLE CLOSER TO CHARLES,
I GUESS, IN THAT GLOBALLY WE NEED
ACTION GLOBALLY.
SO I LOOK AT PARTIES THAT ARE
REALLY TRYING TO GET GLOBAL
ACTION ON FLIPPING THE
AUTOMOBILE MARKET, ON PHASING
OUT COAL PLANTS.
IN OTHER WORDS, IT'S TO DO WITH
WHAT'S GOING ON IN INDIVIDUAL
COUNTRIES FOR THE DEMAND THAT
WILL -- THAT WILL AFFECT THE
DEMAND FOR COAL, THAT WILL
AFFECT THE DEMAND FOR OIL AND
HOPEFULLY THE DEMAND FOR NATURAL
GAS.
AND SO I'M MORE INTERESTED, AS
CHARLES SAID, IN THE DOMESTIC
GREENHOUSE GAS REDUCTION
POLICIES AND HOW WE CAN PARLAY
THOSE INTERNATIONALLY, WHICH IS
REALLY IMPORTANT.
BUT WHEN IT COMES TO INDIVIDUAL
INFRASTRUCTURE, I MEAN, I
UNDERSTAND SARAH'S POINT AND I
SUPPORT IT TO SOME EXTENT.
I'VE TESTIFIED BEFORE THE U.S.
CONGRESS AGAINST THE KEYSTONE XL
EXPANSION BUT AT THE SAME TIME I
DON'T PUT THE IMPORTANCE IN THAT
SOME PEOPLE DO.
SO JUST A QUICK, EASY,
UNTHINKING WAY TO SAY, OH, HOW
CAN YOU EVER SUPPORT TRUDEAU?
HE BOUGHT AN OIL PIPELINE?
PERSONALLY I THINK THE
TRANSMOUNTAIN PIPELINE, THE
PURPOSE OF THAT -- I MEAN, THIS
IS ME GUESSING, I WASN'T IN THE
ROOM, IS REALLY ABOUT NATIONAL
UNITY AND SAYING TO ALBERTANS,
TELL YOU WHAT?
YOU'RE ONLY GETTING ACCESS TO
MARKETS THROUGH THE U.S.
WE WILL GIVE YOU ACCESS OVERSEAS
AND THEREFORE WE'LL COMPLETE
THIS PIPELINE.
I THINK THAT'S WHAT IT WAS
ABOUT.
AND THEREFORE IT'S NOT SOMETHING
I WAS ABLE TO OPPOSE IN ANY BIG
WAY OR PROTEST AGAINST.
IT DOESN'T INCREASE THE GLOBAL
DEMAND FOR OIL.
AND IF CANADA PRODUCES A BIT
LESS OIL, IT IS TRUE IT WILL
COME FROM SOMEWHERE ELSE.
THERE'S JUST A HUGE AMOUNT OF
OIL OUT THERE GLOBALLY.
THE EARTH'S CRUST IS FULL OF IT.
AND SO, THAT'S WHY I AM SO
FOCUSED ON DOMESTIC EMISSIONS.

Paikin says,
UNDERSTOOD. ADAM YOUR
WORD ON THIS.

Adam adds,
I’M INCLINED TO LEAVE THE SUPPLY
DEMAND DEBATE TO THE ECONOMISTS
ON THE PANEL. BUT I THINK
ONE THING WE HAVE NOT TALKED
ABOUT HERE THAT I THINK IS
RELEVANT IN THE CONSERVATIVE
PLAN THERE IS MUCH MORE
PROMOTION, MUCH MORE EMPHASIS
ON PROMOTION OF NATURAL GAS
EXPORTS. AND THAT'S ONE WHERE I
THINK IF THEY ARE PROMOTING
THAT INTERNATIONALLY WHICH THEY
CLEARLY WOULD AS A TRANSITIONAL
FUEL THAT IS A CONCERN TO
CLIMATE SOME KIND OF FOLKS BUT
NOT ALL, SOME WOULD AGREE THAT IT
SHOULD BE A TRANSITIONAL FUEL
AWAY FROM COAL OTHERS WOULD
SUGGEST THAT YOU DON'T WANT TO
LOCK IN ANOTHER FOSSIL FUEL AND
INFRASTRUCTURE ELSEWHERE SO
I THINK BEYOND THIS I DO THINK
AN OIL AND GAS THERE'S A BIG
DELINEATION BETWEEN THE PARTIES
AND IF YOU LOOK AT WHAT THEY ARE
PROMISING THE CONSERVATIVES ARE
CLEARLY ARGUING FOR FOSSIL FUELS
AS A CONTINUING PART OF OUR
ECONOMY WHERE IT WILL HELP THEM
MANAGE THEIR EMISSIONS TO THAT
SECTOR TO REDUCE AND COMPETE
INTERNATIONALLY. THE LIBERALS
ARE ESSENTIALLY PROMISING
WHAT I WOULD SAY IS KIND OF
GRADUALLY PHASED MANAGED PHASE
OUT OF THE INDUSTRY VERY SLOWLY
WHERE THEY'LL CONTINUE TO
SUPPORT IT IN SOME DECARBONIZATION
EFFORTS TO KEEP IT COMPETITIVE
WHILE THE SAME TIME PLANNING
FOR WHAT HAPPEN AFTER THAT
THROUGH STRATEGIES FOR THOSE
PROVINCES AND SO ON. THE NDP
AND EVEN MORE SO THE GREENS ARE
ESSENTIALLY PROMISING A QUICKER
WIND DOWN OF THAT INDUSTRY
IN AN ATTEMPT TO PHASE IT OUT MORE
QUICKLY. WITH FEWER SUPPORTS
EVEN FOR ONGOING DECARBONIZATION
EFFORT. SO I THINK THERE IS A
CLEAR CHOICE THERE. THERE ALL
VALID PERSPECTIVES BUT THERE'S
A CLEAR CHOICE THERE THAT I
THINK SOMETIMES DOESN'T GET
EMPHASIZED IN THE CAMPAIGN
BECAUSE WE ARE KIND OF DANCING
CAREFULLY AROUND THIS ISSUE
OFTEN BECAUSE WE’RE ALL
WEARY OF IT AND WE
ALL AWARE OF THE NATIONAL
IMPLICATIONS BUT THERE ARE
VERY DIFFERENT PATHS
BEING PROPOSED.

Paikin says,
OKAY.
LET'S MOVE ON TO ANOTHER SECTOR,
NAMELY ELECTRIFICATION.
THE PARTIES HAVE THINGS TO SAY
ABOUT ELECTRIC VEHICLES AND
FURTHER CLEANING UP THE GRID AND
SO ON.
ADAM, YOU HAVE THE FLOOR.
WHY DON'T WE START WITH YOU.
WHO HAS INTERESTING THINGS TO
SAY ON THIS FRONT?

Adam responds,
WELL, ALL THE PARTIES HAVE
INTERESTING THINGS TO SAY ON
ELECTRIFICATION OF
TRANSPORTATION, BUILDINGS
INDUSTRY, IT'S INTERESTING THAT
BOTH THE LIBERALS AND
CONSERVATIVES ARE PROPOSING
A ZERO-EMISSIONS VEHICLE
MANDATE REQUIRING A CERTAIN
SHARE OF NEW VEHICLES SOLD ARE
EVs, ESSENTIALLY.
THE LIBERALS PROPOSING A 50%
MANDATE BY 2030, THE
CONSERVATIVES 30%. THAT'S A
BIG STEP EVEN FROM A YEAR AGO.
EVEN THE LIBERALS WERE UNLIKELY
TO COMMIT TO THAT.
THE FACT THE CONSERVATIVES ARE
DOING IT AS WELL IS INTERESTING.
THEY ALL ARE COMMITTED TO
BUILDING CHARGING INFRASTRUCTURE.
ON BUILDINGS ACTUALLY THE
CONSERVATIVES HAVE A PRETTY GOOD
BUILDING RETROFIT PACKAGE
THEY'RE PROPOSING.
ALL THE PARTIES HAVE SOME OF
THAT. THAT'S GOOD.
GET BUILDINGS OFF THE FOSSIL
FUELS. I THINK
WHERE THERE'S A LOT MORE ROOM
STILL, ALTHOUGH SOME HERE IS
ADDRESSING THE QUESTION
OF HOW ARE WE GOING TO DEAL WITH
ALL THE ELECTRICITY DEMAND
THAT'S CAUSED BY ELECTRIFYING SO
MANY THINGS?
IF YOU TALK TO PEOPLE WHO ARE
EXPERTS IN THIS AREA, YOU'LL
HEAR WE'RE LOOKING AT AT LEAST A
DOUBLING, POTENTIALLY A TRIPLING
OF ELECTRICITY DEMAND LEADING
TO 2050 IF
WE'RE GOING TO HIT NET ZERO. SO,
HOW DO YOU GO ABOUT THAT?
THE PARTIES ALL HAVE,
PARTICULARLY THE LIBERALS AND
THE NDP AND GREENS, HAVE
REFERENCES TO GETTING US TO AN
ENTIRELY CLEAN GRID NATIONALLY,
WHICH MEANS GETTING THE
REMAINING FOSSIL FUELS OFF OF
THERE BY 2030 OR 2035.
WE DON'T HAVE THAT MANY FOSSIL
FUELS WE RELY ON FOR THE
ELECTRICITY GRID ANYWAY.
BUT THERE'S NOT A LOT OF TALK
ABOUT HOW DO YOU MEET THAT
DRAMATICALLY RISING DEMAND?
I THINK THE LIBERALS HAVE THE
MOST ON THIS PROBABLY.
THEY'RE PROPOSING FOR INSTANCE A
TAX CREDIT FOR RENEWABLE ENERGY.
I THINK IMPORTANTLY, ALTHOUGH IT
SOUNDS VAGUE, THEY'RE PROPOSING
TO CREATE A PAN-CANADIAN COUNCIL
THAT WILL HELP BRING THE
DIFFERENT PROVINCES TOGETHER TO
DISCUSS THIS BECAUSE THAT'S
REALLY AN ABSENCE IN THIS
DISCUSSION.
YOU KNOW, WHETHER IT'S BUILDING
BETTER TRANSMISSION BETWEEN
PROVINCES THAT HAVE A SURPLUS OF
CLEAN ELECTRICITY AND THOSE THAT
HAVE A DEFICIT OF IT OR WHETHER
IT'S JUST COLLABORATING ON HOW
WE MODERNIZE THE GRID THROUGH
ALL KINDS OF -- DEALING WITH HOW
YOU CAN TAKE THE BEST ADVANTAGE
OF SOLAR PANELS ON PEOPLE'S
ROOFS AND THE ABILITY TO SELL
THAT BACK INTO THE GRID.
ALL OF THESE THINGS ARE GOING
TO REQUIRE COLLABORATION.
THERE'S SOME TALK OF THAT.
I JUST WISH IT WAS MORE OF AN
ISSUE, I WISH THERE WAS MORE
TALK ABOUT IT AND ATTEMPT TO
ENGAGE CANADIANS ON IT.
WE TAKE ELECTRICITY FOR GRANTED.
WE TURN ON THE LIGHTS AT WORK.
OUR ELECTRICITY IS NOT POLLUTING
COMPARED TO OTHER COUNTRIES?
BUT WE HAVE A BIG CHALLENGE
TO MAINTAIN THAT IF WE
ELECTRIFY EVERYTHING AND THAT
COULD BE IMPORTANT, AND IN
SOME WAYS APPEALING
NATIONAL CHALLENGE IF YOU FRAME
IT THAT WAY BUT NOBODY IS
REALLY DOING THAT.

Text reads, “Who has the Best Climate Plan? Plans for Electrification”

Paikin asks,
SARAH? ELECTRIFICATION?
WHAT DO YOU SAY?

Sarah states,
I THINK ADAM DID A GREAT JOB OF
SUMMARIZING THE CHALLENGE. HE
DID A GREAT JOB SUMMARIZING
WHERE ALL THE POLITICAL PARTIES
ARE AT SO I WOULD STRUGGLE TO
ADD A LOT TO IT. BUT MAYBE JUST
TO SAY TWO THINGS SO THE
GOVERNMENT DID ATTEMPT, I THINK
THE LIBERAL GOVERNMENT FIRST
MANDATE TO DO A NATIONAL
CONSULTATION AROUND ENERGY AND
ELECTRIFICATION AND THEY CALLED
IT GENERATION ENERGY.
THERE WAS A WHOLE BUNCH OF
CROSS-COUNTRY DIALOGUES WITH
PEOPLE, OBVIOUSLY THIS WAS
BEFORE THE PANDEMIC, THEY HAD
APPOINTED AN ADVISORY COUNCIL
WHICH MY ORGANIZATION WAS A PART
OF AND THEY CREATED A REPORT
WHICH THEN PROMPTLY GOT SHELVED
AS SOON AS MINISTER CARR LEFT
THE NATURAL RESOURCES CANADA
PORTFOLIO.
SO, YOU KNOW, THERE WAS A BIG
BUREAUCRATIC EXERCISE.
IT DIDN'T GO ANYWHERE.
PROBABLY NOT.
WOULD ANOTHER HAVE A SIMILAR
FATE? PROBABLY. THE INTERESTING
THING ON ELECTRIFICATION, I THINK
ADAM HIT THE NAIL ON THE HEAD,
WHICH IS THE PROBLEM AROUND
SOLVING THE CHALLENGE OF THE
ROLE OF THE
PROVINCES AND THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT. I MEAN, ELECTRICITY
IS A PROVINCIAL RESPONSIBILITY.
IT IS A PROVINCIAL
RESPONSIBILITY THAT THEY PROTECT
VEHEMENTLY.
ANY INCREASE IN FOSSIL FUELS ON
CANADA'S GRID -- LIKE, WE'RE
REALLY TALKING ABOUT THE LAST
20%. WE HAVE AN 83% NON-EMITTING
GRID RIGHT NOW.
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT GOING TO
A HUNDRED. THAT'S GOING TO MEAN
TRANSITIONING OUT NOT ONLY COAL
BUT ALSO THINGS LIKE NATURAL GAS
IN ONTARIO.
STEVE, YOU AND I HAVE TALKED A
LOTS ABOUT ONTARIO'S ELECTRICITY
SYSTEM OVER THE YEARS. AND
AND SO, YOU KNOW, IT'S AN
INTERESTING CHALLENGE FOR A
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO REALLY TRY
AND STEP INTO THE PROVINCES AND
ENCOURAGE THEM TO SWITCH THEIR
ELECTRICITY SUPPLY.
AND I THINK THAT'S WHY YOU SEE A
LOT OF VAGUENESS IN A LOT OF THE
PLATFORMS.
THE LIBERALS PROBABLY BEING THE
MOST DETAILED, YOU KNOW, WITH
SOME TAX CREDITS AND UNDERSTAND
RENEWABLES AND BUILDING OUT
ENERGY STORAGE, ET CETERA.
BUT THE BIG CHALLENGE IS HOW DO
YOU DO THIS?
HOW DO YOU DO THIS IN
CONSULTATION WITH THE PROVINCES
AND IN A WAY THAT THEY WILL
ACCEPT?

Paikin adds,
IN WHICH CASE,
CHARLES, WHAT IS NEEDED IN ORDER
TO CLEAN UP THE GRID AND
INCREASE ITS CAPACITY TO BE ABLE
TO ELECTRIFY ALL OF THE MILLIONS
OF NEW CARS THAT ARE GOING TO
REQUIRE PLUGGING IN OVERNIGHT IN
ORDER TO RUN?

Charles responds,
RIGHT.
WELL, SARAH MENTIONED A LOT OF
GOOD POINTS, AS DID ADAM.
I THINK, YOU KNOW, WE DID
TRANSITION, IS ONE THING,
PERHAPS FROM LOWER-EMITTING
SOURCES TO OTHERS, WHICH IS NOT
ALWAYS EASY TO COME BY.
ON THE DEMAND SIDE, WE NEED SOME
IDEAS OR ABILITY TO PERHAPS
SHAPE OUR DEMAND TO DEAL WITH
THE GROWING DEMAND IN A WAY THAT
DOESN'T NECESSARILY MEAN WE HAVE
TO BUILD EVERYTHING NEW.
BUT THEN ALSO WE NEED A SYSTEM
THAT WE CAN ACTUALLY BUILD
STUFF.
WE'VE HAD ISSUES IN IMPACT
ASSESSMENTS OR REGULATORY
PROCEDURES JUST TAKING FOREVER
AND NOT ACTUALLY BEING ABLE TO
BUILD LARGE INFRASTRUCTURE
PROJECTS.
SO SOME WAY TO SPEED UP THAT
INVESTMENT TO ACTUALLY GET
THINGS DONE IF NEED BE IS HELPFUL.
I WOULD SAY IT'S BROADLY -- IT
WAS REFERENCED TO IN PASSING IN
THE CONSERVATIVES' PLATFORM BUT
I WOULD LIKE TO SEE A BIGGER
DISCUSSION.

Paikin says,
MARK, JUST BECAUSE WE'RE
GETTING TIGHT ON TIME I'M GOING
TO MOVE YOU ON TO ADAPTATION.
BECAUSE YOU'RE IN BRITISH
COLUMBIA, OF COURSE, WHERE
THERE WERE HORRIFYING FIRES.
FOR GOODNESS SAKES,
LYTTON, BRITISH COLUMBIA, WAS
BURNED TO THE GROUND THIS PAST
SUMMER.
I WONDER WHETHER YOU THINK THE
PARTIES HAVE ANYTHING
INTERESTING ON OFFER AS IT
RELATES TO ADAPTING TO THE NEW
CLIMATE CHANGE REALITIES WE ARE
IN?

Mark replies,
RIGHT, AND IN FACT THE
OTHER SPEAKERS COVERED
BASICALLY EVERYTHING I WOULD
HAVE COVERED IN ELECTRIFY
ANYWAY. I AGREE WITH MUCH
THEY HAVE PRESENTED I WOULD
JUST SAY IT MAY NOT BE
AS DIRE AS WE THINK. IT IS THE
PROVINCIAL RESPONSIBILITY
AND I'M JUST LOOKING AT THE
COUNTRY LIKE NORWAY AND THERE
ADAPTING TO A DRAMATIC
INCREASE IN ELECTRIC CARS
AND SO ON AND THEY'RE SORT OF
THE SIZE OF A PROVINCE LIKE
BRITISH COLUMBIA WHEN IT COMES
TO WHAT YOU JUST ASKED WHICH
IS ABOUT CLIMATE PLAN FOR
ADAPTATION I HAVE MORE
TROUBLE IN THIS CASE SEPARATING
THE PARTIES BECAUSE EVERYWHERE
WHEN I HEAR POLITICIANS OF ANY
POLITICAL STRIPE, THEY WILL
ALWAYS BE SAYING, "OH, WE'RE
GOING TO DO A LOT TO HELP PEOPLE
ADAPT."
AND SO AGAIN YOU SHOULD LOOK FOR
MORE CONCRETENESS IN THEIR
PLANS.
BUT I THINK I WILL PASS IT ON TO
THE OTHER SPEAKERS BECAUSE SOME
OF THEM MAY BE ABLE TO SEE SOME
WINDOW BETWEEN THEM AND I HAVE
NOT STUDIED THEM CLOSE ENOUGH TO
BE ABLE TO DETECT THAT.

Paikin asks,
ADAM, DO YOU WANT THE LAST WORD
ON TODAY’S PROGRAM ON THAT?

Adam answers,
SURE. IT BRINGS IT BACK TO THE START
WHEN YOU ASKED WHAT HAS CHANGED
SINCE THE LAST ELECTION.
ONE THING THAT HAS CHANGED
BECAUSE WE'VE GONE THROUGH A
SUMMER OF HORRIBLE WILDFIRES AND
DEADLY HEATWAVES AND DIRE
WARNINGS ABOUT WHAT'S COMING IS
THERE IS MORE ADAPTATION TALK.
I THINK PARTIES HAVE AVOIDED THIS
BECAUSE IT SEEMS A LITTLE
DEFEATEST, YOU’D RATHER TALK ABOUT
MITIGATION. BUT YOU ARE SEEING
A LITTLE BIT OF SPECIFIC STUFF.
THE LIBERALS AND THE
CONSERVATIVES BOTH HAVE
COMMITMENTS, FINANCIAL
COMMITMENTS, TO FUND WILDFIRE
PROTECTION SOMEWHAT, I THINK
IT'S 500 MILLION I THINK IN THE
LIBERALS' CASE.
THEY BOTH HAVE A PROPOSAL TO
INTRODUCE INSURANCE FOR
HIGH-RISK -- PUBLIC INSURANCE
FOR HIGH-RISK HOMEOWNERS AND
BUSINESSES WHERE THEY CAN'T BE
INSURED.
I SHOULD SPECIFY, FOR FLOOD
INSURANCE, WHICH IS GOING TO BE
A GROWING PROBLEM OTHERWISE.
THERE'S SOMETHING THERE.
AT THE RISK OF BEATING UP ON THE
NDP AGAIN WHICH WE'VE DONE ON
THIS PANEL, THEIR ADAPTATION,
THERE'S REALLY NOTHING THERE,
WHICH IS SURPRISING TO ME GIVEN
WHAT WE'VE SEEN RECENTLY. BUT
IN GENERAL, WE'RE STARTING TO SEE
THIS CREEP INTO THE DEBATE.
WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO HEAR A
LOT MORE.
I WOULD BET BY THE NEXT CAMPAIGN
THERE WOULD BE A LOT MORE
ADAPTATION TALK BECAUSE THE
IMPACTS ARE INCREASINGLY
DIFFICULT TO ESCAPE.

Paikin says,
TERRIFIC, I WANT TO THANK YOU
VERY MUCH FOR HELPING US OUT,
MARK JACCARD, CHARLES DeLAND,
SARAH PETREVAN, ADAM RADWANSKI.
GREAT TO HAVE YOU ALL ON
TVO TONIGHT. TAKE CARE EVERYBODY

Adam responds, THANK YOU.

The other guests reply, THANKS.

Text reads, “Who has the Best Climate Plan? Produced by Preeti Bhuyan @PreetiBhuyan”

Watch: Who has the Best Climate Plan?