Is Carney undoing the Liberals’ climate legacy?

Still waiting in line? Again? That's time you will never get back. Save time and money with Stamps.com. Over 4 million businesses have skipped the line with Stamps.com. Join them to save up to 90% off carrier rates from your computer or phone right now. Print postage for certified mail, registered mail, and packages in seconds. Then schedule a pickup right from your home or office.

For a limited time, go to Stamps.com and use code podcast for a free welcome gift. Taxes and fees apply. This is a CBC podcast.

Hey everybody, I'm Jamie Poisson. Building big, building fast, building bold again, building with trust, an Alberta strong and a Canada strong for all. Thank you very much. Late last week, Prime Minister Mark Carney made the trip to Calgary to stand beside Alberta Premier Daniel Smith and announce this new energy agreement. It included an industrial carbon pricing deal that paved the way for a new pipeline. It was panned by environmentalists who said, among other things, Ottawa is sacrificing climate targets.

It spent the better part of a decade legislating. Today on the show, we're bringing climate journalist Arno Capecki back. Arno writes for publications like the Narwhal and the National Observer. he is a really great communicator on this stuff. And we're going to try to tackle the question. One year into his tenure, is Mark Carney betraying his own climate bona fides in a decade of liberal groundwork?

Or is it more complicated than that? Arno, great to have you. Hi, Jamie. Great to be here. So we'll talk more about this energy agreement between Alberta and Ottawa in a bit. But I actually, I want to start this conversation with former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and his climate legacy

to better understand how different Mark Carney's approach has been over the last year. And just remind us, what were the big planks of the Trudeau era environmental policies? For sure. So I think the thing that hangs over all of this is the Paris Agreement,

which was signed in December of 2015. Canada was a huge. huge player there. We all agreed to lower emissions by 45% by 2030. And 2030 is the deadline to keep in mind. That was the organizing principle for Trudeau's entire climate strategy. Our government is making climate change a top priority. A year after the Paris Agreement in December of 2016, Trudeau announced the pan-Canadian framework on clean growth and climate change. An ambitious and achievable framework to address climate change and grow the clean economy for our children and grandchildren. With Alberta's premier, then Rachel Notley, at his side. And so I want to thank all of the

premiers for being here today, for coming into this meeting with some strongly held views, but also with a willingness to work hard on behalf of all Canadians. And that was Canada's climate change strategy. There was actually really complex. There was over 50 policy points, but there was some main fillers. The biggest one, of course, was a carbon price, both a consumer carbon price and an industrial carbon price. There was also an EV mandate. There was an emissions cap on the oil sands. And there was a clean electricity growth factor as well. Now, all of these things had hardcore 2030 targets. So the idea was to get, for example, 60% of vehicle sales in Canada were supposed to be EVs by 2030 and 100% by 2035.

The carbon price, of course, started at $20, but it ratcheted up every year. So it was going to be $170 by a ton by 2030 for both the consumer and the industrial carbon price. All of these kinds of things. Every single thing had a 2030 target. The big tradeoff, the grand bargain for all of this in 2016 was a pipeline for Alberta. That's what, that is what made Alberta agree to it. Rachel Notley said, yes, if you give us a pipeline to the coast, we will agree to all these other things. We said, we'll get this pipeline built.

And my friend, we are getting this pipeline built and we will not stop until the job is done. And so we did. she got it. Trans Mountain Pipeline is now running. It has been for two years. And up until Carney's election last April, how were we doing on meeting those 2030 targets? Were we on track to meet them? We were not quite on track. We were doing all right. But I think the best way to think of it is it depended on all of the teeth kicking in. So a lot of the mechanisms that were really going to take effect and force emissions to actually get lower, like that. the carbon price, which we canceled a year ago, that was just starting to kick in. If the EV

mandate had been successful and we actually had ramped up electric vehicles by a greater degree, that would have kicked in. If we had an emissions cap on the oil sands, that was supposed to kick in these last few years leading up to 2030. As it stands, I think we're on track to be about, we're going to lower emissions by about 10% compared to the 2005 baseline, which is dramatically short of the 45% that we were aiming for.

cancelled, but there are still, I think it's a good example, there's still rebates for EVs that Canadians can get up to $5,000 for if you buy an EV. Clean electricity has been watered down and deadlines have been pushed back. And that kind of brings us to today. And hello, today is a good day for Alberta and it's a good day for Canada. It's an honor to be here with Prime Minister Mark Carney to announce a major step forward in unlocking the enormous potential of Canadian energy.

And then talk to me about this new agreement. It's, as I mentioned in the intro, laying the groundwork for building a pipeline to the BC coast. And I'm happy to share with Alberts that we'll be signing an agreement today that clearly sets out a pathway to the construction of a new oil pipeline to Asian markets commencing as early as September 1st, 2027. The proposed West Coast oil pipeline would transport more than one million barrels of oil per day, And a key pillar of the energy agreement last week was around the industrial carbon price,

something that, as you mentioned, Trudeau was instrumental in establishing in Canada. And what is happening around that? I forgot to mention that one, another thing Carney canceled was the idea of an emissions cap on oil sands production. That's a pretty cancellation. Right. But yes, with respect to the implementation agreement, three main pillars, industrial carbon price. carbon capture, and in exchange for a pipeline again. So history is repeating itself in some really profound ways here.

The industrial carbon price has been watered down tremendously. It was supposed to be $170 a ton by 2030. Now it's going to be $130 a ton by 2040. Saving Alberta's industry partners approximately $250 billion in compliance costs over the next two decades to 2050. This gives industry the time and certainty needed to plan, invest, and deliver real emissions-reducing projects without undermining competitiveness.

So in all of these things, we see that 2040 is sort of the new 2030. Everything's getting pushed back by a decade if it's not being scrapped entirely. And the idea behind the industrial carbon price is simply that if you're a heavy emitter like the oil sands or if you're a cement factory or other, major heavy industry. Any amount of carbon that you emit over a certain threshold, you have to pay a price for. An industrial carbon price can be effective. Europe has used it to lower emissions

dramatically in their heavy industries. But again, it needs to actually have teeth and be high enough to force heavy emitters to pay for their emissions. And this industrial carbon price is better than nothing, and Alberta has agreed to implement it, but it isn't actually kicking in for another 10, 15 years is when the price will actually start to be felt by producers. So it buys them a huge window of time. And meanwhile, they're talking about getting the pipeline under construction in 2027. This was all kind of agreed on contingent on the Pathways project going forward. This is the massive carbon capture. storage project in Alberta's oil sands.

And the proposed pipeline depends on that alliance, which will achieve emissions reductions equivalent to taking 90% of the vehicles off Alberta roads while generating over $16 billion in GDP as part of this overall package, which can create up to 50,000 jobs in Alberta and across Canada. Do you see carbon capture, and this project is kind of mitigating some of the criticisms around the kind of fallback on the carbon pricing? What I think this really reveals is that the true purpose of carbon capture is to enable an increase in oil production. That's also quite explicit here, even though you have to read

between the lines. So their own numbers are that this carbon capture project would capture about 16 megatons of carbon dioxide by 2045. Compare that to how much emissions you would release if you build a pipeline that enables a million barrels a day is 160 megatons. So you're producing 10 times more emissions than you're capturing is the deal here.

Shipping, billing, admin, payroll, marketing. You're managing all the things. So why waste time sending important documents the old-fashioned way? Mail and ship when you want, how you want, with Stamps.com. Print postage on-demand 24-7 and schedule pickups from your office or home. Save up to 90% with automated rate shopping. That's why over 1 million small businesses trust Stamps.com. Go to Stamps.com and use code podcast.

to try stamps.com risk-free for 60 days. Mr. Kim! Oh, Mr. Lee! My black friend is a Korean rest name. If that made you smile, let us introduce you to Play Me. The podcast where great Canadian theater comes to life through sound. This season opens with Kim's convenience, now reimagined as a cinematic audio drama. Same humor, same heart, just closer to your ears. With a full season of great plays still to come.

This is Play. me. Available now, wherever you get your podcasts. So, I mean, you've laid out how we are absolutely not meeting the 2030 goals that were set out and only really on track to make a fraction of them. But what about 2050, which was another pillar of Trudeau's climate goals? The prime minister said last week that 2050 is still within reach. What you had today, what we have today is an agreement between the government of Canada and the government of Alberta committing to net zero 2050. Both of us committing to net zero 2050. Not committing in a speech, not committing rhetorically, committing with a series of investments and commitments and market frameworks that are going to move the province, going to move the country towards low emission and to net zero.

The Canadian Climate Institute and other environmental groups disagree very strongly. And so which is true or more true? Well, yeah, I think this absolutely makes it harder to achieve 2050 net zero, not easier. There's just, you know, I think the way for people to think about this in big terms is just all of our climate actions have been pushed back by a decade or more. So when you put off your homework, then you have a massive crunch coming in in that final decade as 2050 approaches. It's speculative to say whether or not 2050 net zero is a deal. achievable. It's just, it's undeniable that this really kicks the ball down the road. The Trudeau government also put up a bunch of regulations around environmental assessments, right? And so I want to

talk to you about some of those now. They really transform Canada's environmental assessment regime for big projects to emphasize consultation with indigenous peoples and science-based decision-making. And the Carney government is currently proposing measures that would speed up major projects. making certain projects, including pipelines, reviewable just under the Canada energy regulator. Of course, they say that this is for efficiency, that we have to build these big things to compete globally and to isolate ourselves from the threats south of our border.

But what could that mean for how some of these projects are assessed for their environmental impact? And why are people so concerned about it? Yeah, I think, again, the headline here is, We're trying to increase efficiency without being reckless. And so that can be a good thing if you're talking about accelerating clean energy projects, which are also often hampered by layers of bureaucracy. And then it becomes a scary thing from my perspective if you're talking about accelerating fossil fuel production and transport through pipelines.

And the really frightening thing here is that with respect to pipelines, it puts sole discretion in the hands of the Canada energy regulator. That's the proposal. It hasn't happened yet. But what Carney is now proposing is to say, okay, pipelines will be decided by the Canada energy regulator. Nobody else, climate change, Canada, environment Canada, nobody else will really have a say. And the regulator can approve the project before anything about it has been decided. And that, I think, is quite frightening.

Canadians should be afraid of that and push back on that. And I think Carney will get a lot of pushback. see what comes of it. A lawyer from West Coast environmental law said that this proposal amounts to, quote, an absolute evisceration of Canada's environmental safety net. Would you be inclined to agree with that? With respect to the idea of putting pipeline production under Canada energy regulator? Where I guess any of these projects. You know, I think Canadians are right to be concerned or I think they should be concerned. I think we're seeing environmental protection take a back seat to resource extraction. I don't think it is quite a wholesale evisceration

yet. I think it's important to remember we're just a year into Carney's first term in office here. A lot of these proposals are still just proposals. In fact, almost all of them are still just proposals. We're all, we're working out a lot of these details. The direction of travel is increasingly clear and alarming. But I do think there are still environmental protections in place, and I think Carney is aware of them and acknowledges some of them, you know, another big priority of this government is to protect 30% of the lands and waters here by 2030. They do work quite closely with First Nations throughout BC, especially up in the North Coast, to protect those lands and waters. And there's a conflict there between some of those protections.

and the resource extraction that they are trying to accelerate. And I don't know, I don't think it's clear yet where the trade-offs are going to land down the road. I think that is what we're watching unfold in front of us in real time.

There was another concern flagged by former environment minister, Stephen Gilboe, who resigned, as you know, from Liberal Cabinet over Ottawa's MOU with Alberta, but remains in the Liberal caucus. And he's worried that these proposed measures could give the federal cabinet the power to exempt projects from the jeopardy test for species at risk. That's one of the fundamental elements of our Species at Risk Act and species at risk protection. If a project jeopardizes the survival of a species, we don't go ahead with that. we won't sacrifice a specific species, whether it's an animal or, you know, vegetable species for one single project.

Now we're giving the southern resident killer whales. For example, people have been talking a lot about whales in the last couple of days. Do you share his concerns here? Yes, I live in Vancouver. The sailor sea is a deer to me. It's a body of water that is precious. The southern resident killer whales are magnificent creatures. There's what leaps out at me here is, especially with respect to this pipeline, which is at the heart of so much of this conversation, a huge part of the opposition to the pipeline isn't even really about climate change.

I mean, the emissions are a big part of it, but really the thing that people are super scared of is the possibility of an oil spill. And even without an oil spill, the damage that all of these oil tankers will introduce acoustically to the marine environment around here, which is a very delicate. marine environment that has already been heavily industrialized. And so some of those impacts are exactly what we're worried about. And if you eliminate species protection, then absolutely we are afraid that the creatures that we love that mean so much to us like the orcas, but certainly not just orcas. There's northern caribou, mountain caribus along the pipeline route. I really would be very scared if we just start ignoring that for sure.

You know, as you've noted, these are still just proposals, but Gilbo also said that these proposed changes to environmental regulations and review processes goes beyond what former conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper proposed when he was in power. What do you think of that comment? I would respectfully disagree. I have a huge amount of respect for Stephen Gilbo. I'm really glad that he. he's saying, everything he's saying. And I think the fact that he's allowed to say that within

the Liberal Caucus indicates partly why I disagree with that idea. I think people will forget that Harper, the Harper years were just, were so dramatic in terms of that government's assault on environmental protection. Stephen Harper and his cabinet launched a crusade against environmental organizations in Canada. They, you know, the environment minister himself of the time, Peter Kent accused environmental groups of laundering money for foreign interests. We could go through a laundry list of the regulatory attacks that the Carper government instituted against environmental protection in this country. And it would be quite a lot longer than what Carney has done so far.

So I think Canadians should listen to Gilbo and should be alarmed. But I don't think that comparison is apt. I mean, for all that Mark Carney has done to accelerate resource extraction, He's also fighting for a carbon price, an industrial carbon price, which is more than Stephen Harper ever did. And he's done a lot of other things to advance clean electricity and the energy transition in tandem with promoting fossil fuel extraction, which again is a more holistic approach than what Harper did, I think. It sounds like you're making a more nuanced argument here about what Carney is doing. I just want to put you a headline from a piece that you wrote in the Walrus a few months ago. No matter which way you look at it, this is the headline, no matter which way you look at it,

Carney has abandoned climate. I mean, square that circle for me because it seems to be at odds with what you just argued. Well, I think we should be allowed to change our views slightly over time. I think I wrote that right after the MOU came out and with Alberta and promoting a pipeline. I remain, you know, I feel, and it's not about how I feel, but I think a lot of the the environmental community, a lot of First Nations, a lot of British Columbians feel quite betrayed by Carney's aggressive pursuit of a pipeline. That does feel like an abandonment of climate goals. At the same time, I think what I've come to appreciate since then, perhaps what's changed my

calculus a little bit is seeing just how ruthless Alberta's government and the oil patch have been in weaponizing Alberta separatism as a negotiating tactic. Daniel Smith has effectively become an enabler of that threat. And I think I have a bit more appreciation for what Carney is up against in terms of national unity and the global environment that we're dealing with here, with whatever's happening in the U.S. And so for me, both things are true. I am deeply disturbed by everything Carney is doing on the climate file. And I appreciate why he might feel he has to be doing some of that. And so how do you negotiate with that? I wish Carney could negotiate harder, but that's easy for me to say from my seat in my home office in

Vancouver when I'm not the one who has to, you know, go to-to-toe with these guys. You know, you mentioned the national electricity strategy. Just tell me more about it and how that fits in the conversation that we're having today. Sure. So basically, Carney has pledged to double the national electricity grid and especially knock down provincial barriers because right now each province is sort of in a silo. We produce our electricity.

And if we want to trade across provincial borders, it's really hard and expensive and inefficient. So Carney is trying to knock that down. And to electrify the country, which if you talk to any climate hawk, The solution is always to electrify everything. So that's great. He's put some money into that. He's said he's going to refer to the major project office. These things are great.

The critique is that he's also opened the window to allowing for gas-powered electricity to creep into the picture a bit more. So that's, you know, I think that's a valid critique. I'm hopeful that a lot more will be coming from everything from geothermal to wind and solar because those are just financially they make sense. And I think Carney knows that too. So the market will somewhat decide how this goes. But yes, this plan is another big part of Carney's plank.

It is less aggressive on the clean energy front, on the renewable energy production front than what Trudeau had. But it is probably more aggressive in terms of actually electrifying the country and expanding the grid, which is a huge deal, I think. It's been really interesting listening to you today, talk about how your position has evolved somewhat. But of course, as you know, as you know well, I'm sure there are lots of environmentalists in this country that would not give the prime minister the kind of, well, leeway, a little bit of leeway or generosity, really, that you just gave him, right? People who feel like this is a guy who held himself up as a global leader in climate change. He was the former special envoy for climate action and finance.

He gave this really famous speech while he was governor of the Bank of England about the financial risks of climate change. And they do feel betrayed right now. And could this come, maybe not right now, but perhaps even down the line with a political cost for the Prime Minister? I think it will. I think you're absolutely right. A lot of people are feeling deeply betrayed. I have been one of them. What the cost of this will be remains to be seen.

You know, we could have a whole conversation about the opening this is created for Avi Lewis and the NDP. But I think I just want to say, you know, I think the part of the betrayal here is even the conversation we've just been having has really, it's quite a cerebral conversation. We're talking mostly about numbers of quantities and some. substances that we can't really fathom, you know, megatons of carbon dioxide or billions of barrels of oil. And it just becomes automatically, I'm contributing to it, a very cerebral accounting exercise in moving numbers around on a page. And what has been swept off the page

is the actual physical reality of climate change, of wildfires, of floods, of species disappearing. I live in British Columbia. Our snowpack and our glaciers are disappearing. our rivers are drying out. Salmon are getting hammered. Farmers are having a harder time than ever. We're about to enter summer here where I think we're going to have quite a dramatic season of wildfire. We've got an El Nino coming. It is already extremely dry where I live. All of these impacts, I could go on and on wherever you live in Canada or the world. You have a local physical effect of climate change. And then Alberta has been really successful at framing this conversation in terms of the profits of oil and the costs of climate policy, which is another

way of ignoring the benefits of climate policy and the costs of oil. And those costs, you know, I'll be the first to acknowledge that oil generates a lot of profit and has delivered immense good to society. You know, it has powered a lot of things that we rely on, obviously. But the costs are adding up in a really massive fashion. And that side of the ledger has just been completely swept off the page, and including in the public discourse. And I think a lot of people in Canada have either sort of naturally forgotten about it because there's so many other things going on. I'm not trying to say this, like I'm not trying to wag my finger at anybody here, but just to acknowledge that, in fact, none of the costs of climate change have gone away. We're about to be

reminded of them as summer comes up. And when those costs come in, I think that's when that sense of betrayal, when we see our community getting evacuated because of a wildfire, or when we see water restrictions coming in because of a drought, or when we see the price of groceries, you know, double or triple because the local wheat harvest got hammered, I could go on and on. That's when that physical sense of betrayal, like, what are we doing about this? We need to collectively respond to this crisis. It's not just a moral or ethical thing. It's also a strategic imperative, I think, to live well in this world. And that's at the heart of this conversation or something that I would like to bring back into the conversation. Arna, that was great. Thank you. Thank you for being so

thoughtful. Thanks, Jamie. It's so great to talk to you. All right, that is all for today. I'm Jamie Poisson. Thank you so much for listening. Talk to you tomorrow.