The net zero delusion must be sold as snake oil as the reality and cost of abandoning higher density energy for lower density energy is a loss of prosperity and de-industrialization. Canada is a cold nation, widely dispersed, and heavily reliant on hydrocarbons for heat and transportation and inflicted with immigration policies that give it a spectacular housing shortage as well as increasing hydrocarbon usage. With no grid capacity to further electrify and nuclear power as the only practical high density non emitting source for such of course our CO2 emissions will rise.
What that graph really shows is the futility of Canada trying to drop CO2 emissions at all. Because our emissions are so insignificant. It would be interesting to see China and India on that graph too. All those US reductions (well most) came from switching from coal to natural gas. Then you would really see the elephants in the room.
Umm…the relevant policy comparison should be to a “no policy” base case. If you dig deeper, the data shows that Canadian emissions have declined in some sectors and the increases are from a few sectors, mostly oil and gas. So, are policies that reduce GHG emissions from say electric generation a failure because national emissions from oil and gas production continued to increase? No; they have undoubtedly just reduced the level of increase that would have otherwise occurred. And policies take time to show any impact. For the example given (buildings) it took decades to construct inefficient buildings and it will take decades for retrofitting to make an impact. Bit after one or two generations, the impact will be there and will persist. But, again, recent data shows that building energy emissions are starting to decline following the expected policy lag since most of the country’s serious GhG policies are pretty recent.
You do have a point, but when you compare Canada to the US - whose oil and gas sector is more than three times the size of Canada's and, yet, has a very different CO2 output experience - I'm not convinced that "no policy" is the best comparison.
So a deeper dive would be warranted. I’m not an expert but I think the main driver of all the countries that saw a big decrease (see Russia for example) over that period was modernizing and making more efficient (or just closing) large industrial base including coal. If you were a coal dependent economy in 1990 it was an easy win to move to natural gas because gas is so much cheaper and has other emissions benefits related to human health.
I'm also no expert here. But I guess my real point is that I have no confidence that the people in Ottawa making these decisions are experts either. But they have the power to authorize countless billions of dollars in public spending on what are - at best - gut assumptions about the way macro economies *might* behave.
Brookings has Mark Carney on its board or management team right? Liberal adjacent like Chrystia Freeland and McKinsey. Maybe it’s about grift and not emissions at all?
Also, in this economy who will be able to buy the ev’s and retrofit their homes?
The net zero delusion must be sold as snake oil as the reality and cost of abandoning higher density energy for lower density energy is a loss of prosperity and de-industrialization. Canada is a cold nation, widely dispersed, and heavily reliant on hydrocarbons for heat and transportation and inflicted with immigration policies that give it a spectacular housing shortage as well as increasing hydrocarbon usage. With no grid capacity to further electrify and nuclear power as the only practical high density non emitting source for such of course our CO2 emissions will rise.
What that graph really shows is the futility of Canada trying to drop CO2 emissions at all. Because our emissions are so insignificant. It would be interesting to see China and India on that graph too. All those US reductions (well most) came from switching from coal to natural gas. Then you would really see the elephants in the room.
You're 100% right. I did look at the numbers for China and India and they're absolutely off the scale (and moving the wrong direction).
I also thought it was interesting to see US numbers moving *back up* starting in 2020...
Wouldn't that reflect the COVID dip? A sharp drop followed by a tick back up? That's what I assumed that was in the US graph.
You're probably right. Although it seems no other G-7 nation experienced anything quite like it.
Umm…the relevant policy comparison should be to a “no policy” base case. If you dig deeper, the data shows that Canadian emissions have declined in some sectors and the increases are from a few sectors, mostly oil and gas. So, are policies that reduce GHG emissions from say electric generation a failure because national emissions from oil and gas production continued to increase? No; they have undoubtedly just reduced the level of increase that would have otherwise occurred. And policies take time to show any impact. For the example given (buildings) it took decades to construct inefficient buildings and it will take decades for retrofitting to make an impact. Bit after one or two generations, the impact will be there and will persist. But, again, recent data shows that building energy emissions are starting to decline following the expected policy lag since most of the country’s serious GhG policies are pretty recent.
You do have a point, but when you compare Canada to the US - whose oil and gas sector is more than three times the size of Canada's and, yet, has a very different CO2 output experience - I'm not convinced that "no policy" is the best comparison.
So a deeper dive would be warranted. I’m not an expert but I think the main driver of all the countries that saw a big decrease (see Russia for example) over that period was modernizing and making more efficient (or just closing) large industrial base including coal. If you were a coal dependent economy in 1990 it was an easy win to move to natural gas because gas is so much cheaper and has other emissions benefits related to human health.
I'm also no expert here. But I guess my real point is that I have no confidence that the people in Ottawa making these decisions are experts either. But they have the power to authorize countless billions of dollars in public spending on what are - at best - gut assumptions about the way macro economies *might* behave.
Brookings has Mark Carney on its board or management team right? Liberal adjacent like Chrystia Freeland and McKinsey. Maybe it’s about grift and not emissions at all?
Also, in this economy who will be able to buy the ev’s and retrofit their homes?
That's really interesting. I just looked and in fact Mark Carney is "Chair of Brookfield Asset Management and Head of Transition Investing."