WEBVTT - It’s not just Trump. Canada’s climate policies face a bumpy road post-Trudeau 0:00:00.280 --> 0:00:04.040 Welcome to zero. I am aksha throti. This week Canada 0:00:04.280 --> 0:00:22.880 climate and trouble. Earlier this week, new tariffs imposed by 0:00:22.880 --> 0:00:27.240 President Donald Trump went into effect. They are astonishing. They 0:00:27.320 --> 0:00:31.120 imposed twenty five percent duties on Canadian imports to the US, 0:00:32.000 --> 0:00:34.560 and at the time of this recording, they've already sparked 0:00:34.640 --> 0:00:39.360 chaos in the markets and provoked retaliation from Canada. It 0:00:39.400 --> 0:00:41.879 all comes as Canada's government is in the middle of 0:00:41.920 --> 0:00:45.200 her reconnect The race to replace Prime Minister Justin Trudeau 0:00:45.600 --> 0:00:50.400 is fully underway. Next week the governing Liberal Party will 0:00:50.440 --> 0:00:55.680 announce Trudeau's successor, and before October, if not sooner, the 0:00:55.760 --> 0:00:59.200 country will have to head for a general election. If 0:00:59.200 --> 0:01:03.480 the Liberals lose that election, the opposition Conservative Party has 0:01:03.560 --> 0:01:08.480 promised to dismantle federal climate policies, much like Trump administration 0:01:08.600 --> 0:01:11.840 has done in the US. With so much change in 0:01:11.880 --> 0:01:14.480 the backdrop, last week I got a chance to sit 0:01:14.600 --> 0:01:18.600 down with Rick Smith, president of the Canadian Climate Institute, 0:01:18.760 --> 0:01:22.119 to talk about what shaped the country's climate ambitions might 0:01:22.160 --> 0:01:26.280 take in this new era. We discussed why Canada's oil 0:01:26.280 --> 0:01:29.240 and gas production has remained so high and what Trump's 0:01:29.280 --> 0:01:33.880 moves might mean for Canadian economic and energy policy. He 0:01:33.920 --> 0:01:36.960 also told me why he expects that meaningful climate policy 0:01:37.000 --> 0:01:41.440 in Canada will likely come from provinces and municipalities as 0:01:41.520 --> 0:02:00.360 much as it does from the federal government. Welcome to 0:02:00.400 --> 0:02:02.280 the Showrick, pleasure to be here. 0:02:02.840 --> 0:02:03.040 Now. 0:02:03.080 --> 0:02:05.520 We're talking as the Liberal Party is about to elect 0:02:05.600 --> 0:02:08.640 a new leader and Canada is set to head for 0:02:08.680 --> 0:02:13.079 a general election sometime before October. Before we get to 0:02:13.120 --> 0:02:16.280 the complications of now, tell us more about the Canadian 0:02:16.320 --> 0:02:19.959 Climate Institute, where you've been president for four years. What 0:02:20.040 --> 0:02:22.400 has it accomplished in its five year life that you 0:02:22.480 --> 0:02:23.600 are particularly proud of. 0:02:23.919 --> 0:02:26.920 Well, we were. I think the aspiration of the organization 0:02:27.120 --> 0:02:29.800 when it was launched five years ago has been realized, 0:02:30.440 --> 0:02:34.799 which was to create an independent expert climate change advisor 0:02:34.880 --> 0:02:38.600 for governments in Canada. So we were originally launched to 0:02:38.639 --> 0:02:43.320 provide good ideas, good research to our federal government. And 0:02:43.480 --> 0:02:46.919 since we've been launched, we've grown quite an extensive root 0:02:47.000 --> 0:02:49.960 system across the country. We now work with provincial governments, 0:02:49.960 --> 0:02:53.320 with the municipal governments, with Indigenous nations who have substantial 0:02:53.960 --> 0:02:59.400 constitutional rights in our country. So we're probably the most 0:02:59.520 --> 0:03:04.200 quoted climate change research outfit in the country. I'm very 0:03:04.280 --> 0:03:06.480 proud of the work we do, not just in the 0:03:06.520 --> 0:03:09.839 area of mitigation, but also adaptation. We have a whole 0:03:09.840 --> 0:03:13.279 team that worries about wildfires and flooding of course increasingly 0:03:13.280 --> 0:03:17.000 prominent climate driven effects across the country. We have a 0:03:17.040 --> 0:03:20.800 team of researchers that are focused on clean growth and 0:03:20.840 --> 0:03:24.280 so we're we're you know, as patriotic Canadians, we're interested 0:03:24.440 --> 0:03:27.280 in providing good ideas as to how the Canadian economy 0:03:27.320 --> 0:03:31.080 can prosper through this transitional period. And we actually just 0:03:31.160 --> 0:03:35.880 launched a dedicated Indigenous research unit to work directly with 0:03:36.000 --> 0:03:40.400 our indigenous nations. So we've deepened our work across the country, 0:03:40.480 --> 0:03:44.119 We've expanded it, and I think it's been very helpful 0:03:44.720 --> 0:03:47.200 to driving a climate progress across the country. 0:03:47.560 --> 0:03:51.360 So on zero, we've had the UK's Climate Change Committee 0:03:51.800 --> 0:03:55.400 feature a few times because it was one of the 0:03:55.520 --> 0:03:59.600 first ones to be created as part of a country's 0:03:59.760 --> 0:04:04.240 lead binding climate targets. Now the Canadian Climate Institute is 0:04:04.720 --> 0:04:09.240 a sister organization, though not a one to one in comparison. Right, 0:04:09.280 --> 0:04:12.080 the CCC here has quite a bit of power because 0:04:12.120 --> 0:04:15.200 it can tell a government off by telling them, look, 0:04:15.240 --> 0:04:17.480 there's a common budget that you've set as a legally 0:04:17.480 --> 0:04:19.479 binding goal. You're not on track, and here are the 0:04:19.480 --> 0:04:22.440 set of policies that are available to you to choose 0:04:22.480 --> 0:04:25.839 to get back on track. You don't quite have the 0:04:25.920 --> 0:04:28.800 same ability because of the way you've been created. So 0:04:28.839 --> 0:04:31.039 what are the differences and how do they manifest in 0:04:31.080 --> 0:04:31.440 your work? 0:04:31.520 --> 0:04:34.640 Yeah, well, you're right. I mean the CCC was created 0:04:34.680 --> 0:04:37.240 in two thousand and eight, so we're our country is 0:04:37.279 --> 0:04:40.520 a little bit behind. The Canadian version of the Climate 0:04:40.600 --> 0:04:44.520 Change Act was adopted in twenty twenty one. Actually, interestingly, 0:04:44.680 --> 0:04:48.360 we in the CCC and holleague organizations in about twenty 0:04:48.360 --> 0:04:53.560 four other countries launched an international network together at COP 0:04:53.600 --> 0:04:58.040 twenty six. What we have in common is we are 0:04:58.600 --> 0:05:02.400 expert advisors to our resis inspective national governments on climate 0:05:02.400 --> 0:05:06.840 policy specifically. And you're right, there are some differences between us. 0:05:06.839 --> 0:05:10.040 So some of our colleague organizations like the CCC, are 0:05:10.240 --> 0:05:14.240 creatures of Parliament. Some of our organizations like ours are 0:05:14.360 --> 0:05:17.520 independent charities. But what we have in common is we 0:05:17.560 --> 0:05:20.080 have a formal relationship of some sort with our national 0:05:20.120 --> 0:05:24.599 governments to provide good advice, to track progress and to 0:05:24.640 --> 0:05:27.800 suggest improvements in terms of getting back on track. 0:05:28.760 --> 0:05:32.360 So, talking of progress, the Canadian government under Justin Trudeau 0:05:32.839 --> 0:05:35.400 has set a goal to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions 0:05:35.400 --> 0:05:38.640 by forty to forty five percent by twenty thirty relative 0:05:38.680 --> 0:05:41.560 to two thousand and five levels. And the latest check 0:05:41.600 --> 0:05:46.320 on emissions that you provided last year through CCI shows 0:05:46.360 --> 0:05:51.840 that the decarbonization of electricity is going well, but oil 0:05:51.880 --> 0:05:55.719 and gas sector emissions are rising. I had the pleasure 0:05:55.920 --> 0:06:00.520 to interview Justin Trudeau on invitation from the Canadian Climate 0:06:00.520 --> 0:06:03.279 Institute back in twenty twenty two, and my first question 0:06:03.320 --> 0:06:07.320 to him was that all the seven countries have grown 0:06:07.320 --> 0:06:11.240 their economies and reduced their emissions, Canada has not. Its 0:06:11.240 --> 0:06:15.840 emissions were at that time largely flat. Has there been 0:06:15.880 --> 0:06:17.520 progress since then? 0:06:18.240 --> 0:06:20.040 You've packed a heck of a lot into that question. 0:06:21.120 --> 0:06:24.120 Let me let me unpack that a little bit. Let's 0:06:24.160 --> 0:06:27.400 just start by looking at where Canada is at in 0:06:27.480 --> 0:06:31.200 terms of decarbonization. Yes, I'm delighted to report that there 0:06:31.200 --> 0:06:34.719 has been progress since since twenty twenty two. In fact, 0:06:34.839 --> 0:06:38.760 since two thousand and five, national emissions overall in Canada 0:06:38.800 --> 0:06:41.120 are down about eight percent according to our calculations. I 0:06:41.120 --> 0:06:43.640 think we're going to be down again in this next year. 0:06:44.480 --> 0:06:46.320 So you know, good news. For the first time in 0:06:46.320 --> 0:06:51.919 the country's history, we've inflected the carbon curve downward. But 0:06:52.040 --> 0:06:54.280 if you dig down a little bit, what you see 0:06:54.320 --> 0:06:59.320 is real differences between sectors. So fantastic news in our 0:06:59.400 --> 0:07:04.360 electricity sector. For instance, electricity sector emissions down about sixty 0:07:04.400 --> 0:07:08.320 percent since two thousand and five. Most provinces now off 0:07:08.360 --> 0:07:12.960 of coal. Significant uptake of renewables across the country, including 0:07:13.520 --> 0:07:18.280 in provinces governed by by conservative parties provincially, so great, 0:07:18.400 --> 0:07:24.040 great things happening, And clearly the regulatory framework driving decarbonization 0:07:24.120 --> 0:07:29.360 in the electricity sector is largely working. Buildings, some decarbonization 0:07:29.480 --> 0:07:32.600 happening again, a little bit variable by province. In terms 0:07:32.640 --> 0:07:37.160 of a transportation decarbonization, some variability by province, a big 0:07:37.240 --> 0:07:40.640 uptake of electric vehicles in some provinces, not so much 0:07:40.640 --> 0:07:45.040 in others. Where we see more progress needed is when 0:07:45.040 --> 0:07:48.120 it comes to oil and gas industry emissions. So those 0:07:48.120 --> 0:07:53.000 which increasing, So those emissions are actually increasing about ten 0:07:53.040 --> 0:07:59.040 percent up since two thousand and five overall. And you know, interestingly, 0:07:59.200 --> 0:08:03.600 as we see now emissions going down in other sectors, 0:08:04.160 --> 0:08:08.200 we see the percentage of oil and gas sector emissions, 0:08:08.720 --> 0:08:13.720 that chunk of the Canadian emissions pie increasing, and now 0:08:13.760 --> 0:08:18.520 over thirty percent of national emissions attributable to oil and 0:08:18.520 --> 0:08:19.120 gas production. 0:08:19.400 --> 0:08:22.840 And all this is before Donald Trump took White House, 0:08:23.720 --> 0:08:26.080 and since his election, of course, there's been a huge 0:08:26.120 --> 0:08:30.600 amount of focus now in Canada on energy security, on 0:08:30.680 --> 0:08:35.440 diversification of energy markets, which suggests that more pipelines will 0:08:35.440 --> 0:08:37.880 be built, perhaps not to the US, but to the 0:08:37.920 --> 0:08:40.400 East and West coast so that Canada can continue to 0:08:40.440 --> 0:08:43.600 export its fossil fuels. How concerned are you that the 0:08:44.080 --> 0:08:47.319 impact of whatever Trump does is actually going to increase 0:08:47.600 --> 0:08:51.280 Canada's reliance on extractive industries and further increase oil and 0:08:51.320 --> 0:08:52.079 gas emissions. 0:08:52.240 --> 0:09:00.240 Yeah. Look, it's inarguable that what President Trump is doing, 0:09:00.320 --> 0:09:02.920 what his administration is doing with respect to climate policy, 0:09:03.160 --> 0:09:08.839 is uniformly unhelpful. I do think that there's a lot 0:09:08.880 --> 0:09:11.360 of dust that has to settle over the next few 0:09:11.400 --> 0:09:14.720 months in terms of the actual impact of these things. 0:09:15.360 --> 0:09:20.840 You know, unclear, for instance, whether the president's administration can 0:09:21.080 --> 0:09:24.959 overturn without congressional approval, a lot of the very helpful 0:09:25.200 --> 0:09:29.079 tax credits in the Inflation Reduction Act. It is unclear 0:09:29.800 --> 0:09:34.040 the extent to which the Trump administration can overrule. The 0:09:34.200 --> 0:09:37.960 two dozen or so US states led by California, New York, 0:09:38.000 --> 0:09:40.400 some of the biggest states who've served notice that they 0:09:40.440 --> 0:09:46.440 are going to proceed with ambitious electricity sector decarbonization, electric 0:09:46.520 --> 0:09:51.640 vehicle regulated sales targets. The US Climate Alliance states represent 0:09:51.720 --> 0:09:54.640 about fifty percent of the US population, and what we 0:09:54.679 --> 0:09:57.000 see at the moment I mean with vehicles in the 0:09:57.080 --> 0:10:00.840 United States, for instance, is basically a bifurcated market where 0:10:00.840 --> 0:10:05.720 you have the California led group of states administering a 0:10:05.800 --> 0:10:10.120 European style ZEV mandate, and then you have the federal 0:10:10.160 --> 0:10:14.400 government tailpipe standards being followed by the other half of 0:10:14.440 --> 0:10:17.120 the US economy. You know, of course, the US, like Canada, 0:10:17.160 --> 0:10:21.280 is a federal country. States have substantial constitutional authority to 0:10:21.400 --> 0:10:25.840 regulate in areas relevant to climate policy. So, you know, 0:10:25.920 --> 0:10:29.760 as unhelpful as the Trump administration wants to be, as 0:10:29.800 --> 0:10:32.720 much as they want to impede climate progress, I would 0:10:32.760 --> 0:10:37.079 suggest it's premature to jump to conclusions about how far 0:10:37.080 --> 0:10:38.119 they're going to get. 0:10:38.480 --> 0:10:41.120 But if you're looking at the numbers from two thousand 0:10:41.120 --> 0:10:43.800 and five, levels emissions are down as of twenty twenty 0:10:43.840 --> 0:10:47.319 three by eight percent. They need to be down as 0:10:47.360 --> 0:10:52.000 a legally bound target by forty percent by twenty thirty, 0:10:52.520 --> 0:10:55.719 and so the piece has to pick up. But at 0:10:55.760 --> 0:11:01.240 this point, when the focus is being drawn away from 0:11:01.280 --> 0:11:07.400 climate and do much more carbon intensive industrial conversation, even 0:11:07.440 --> 0:11:11.320 if there is no right now on paper direct impact, 0:11:11.679 --> 0:11:14.720 doesn't that slow down progress at a time and it 0:11:14.760 --> 0:11:16.000 actually needs to accelerate. 0:11:16.840 --> 0:11:18.640 Well, it's certainly not going to help. I mean, you're 0:11:18.640 --> 0:11:22.360 absolutely right in a fact, according to our analysis, absent 0:11:22.600 --> 0:11:25.880 adding some new policies to the table, Canada is actually 0:11:25.880 --> 0:11:28.560 not on track for forty to forty five percent reduction 0:11:28.679 --> 0:11:31.480 by twenty thirty by our calculation, at the current rate, 0:11:31.480 --> 0:11:34.080 we're probably headed towards something like thirty five percent or 0:11:34.120 --> 0:11:38.280 slightly less. So we've provided to the federal governments over 0:11:38.280 --> 0:11:41.520 the last couple of years a variety of suggestions in 0:11:41.640 --> 0:11:45.240 terms of how to accelerate progress, how to both increase 0:11:45.280 --> 0:11:49.240 the effectiveness of existing policy and add some new policy 0:11:49.280 --> 0:11:51.560 to the table to get us on track. I do 0:11:51.640 --> 0:11:55.360 want to underline here the Canada's a federal country, and 0:11:55.400 --> 0:11:58.080 so one of the things that I suspect you're going 0:11:58.120 --> 0:12:00.199 to see in Canada over the next few years is 0:12:00.400 --> 0:12:04.200 climate change advocates. Regardless of what happens in our federal election, 0:12:04.600 --> 0:12:09.040 I think there's the acknowledgment in the climate policy community 0:12:09.280 --> 0:12:13.520 that more attention needs to be put on provincial action, 0:12:13.800 --> 0:12:17.880 on municipal action, partially because we've had a relatively sympathetic 0:12:17.960 --> 0:12:20.880 federal government over the last decade, Virtually all of the 0:12:20.880 --> 0:12:23.160 attention in terms of climate policy has been focused in 0:12:23.200 --> 0:12:25.840 the federal government, and in our system, there's only so 0:12:25.920 --> 0:12:29.400 far the federal government can get in many areas of 0:12:29.480 --> 0:12:33.079 climate policy and regulation. So in many cases, for instance, 0:12:33.080 --> 0:12:35.280 the federal government has tried to do something has been 0:12:35.600 --> 0:12:40.480 taken to court by provinces. That continues. My point here 0:12:40.559 --> 0:12:44.080 is that even in a Trump era that will extend 0:12:44.120 --> 0:12:48.360 for some years, there is substantial scope in the United States, 0:12:48.480 --> 0:12:52.400 in Canada for subnational action, and in fact it's already 0:12:52.440 --> 0:12:55.680 the case that some of those important subnational actors are 0:12:55.760 --> 0:13:00.240 creating cross border cooperation. So Quebec and California for since 0:13:00.280 --> 0:13:04.200 have long been part of a common carbon credit market, 0:13:04.960 --> 0:13:07.880 and I suspect we're going to see more of that 0:13:08.000 --> 0:13:12.560 continental subnational action in the years they had and some 0:13:12.640 --> 0:13:15.840 of these subnational actors very large. Of course, if California 0:13:15.880 --> 0:13:19.000 were its own country, it would be the fifth largest 0:13:19.000 --> 0:13:23.600 economy on the planet. So these are not small actors here, 0:13:23.640 --> 0:13:24.440 they're consequential. 0:13:24.720 --> 0:13:27.640 Point taking that provincial governments can do a lot, but 0:13:28.240 --> 0:13:31.199 when you do have climate policies at the federal level, 0:13:31.559 --> 0:13:35.440 they can add up to how much more provinces can do. Now, 0:13:35.559 --> 0:13:38.520 one of Trudeau's signature climate policy was to put a 0:13:38.520 --> 0:13:41.960 price and pollution and then give most of that money 0:13:42.080 --> 0:13:45.079 back to citizens. So the poorest people would get more 0:13:45.120 --> 0:13:49.200 money back from the government than they would potentially spend 0:13:49.520 --> 0:13:53.640 on higher costs and goods, and richer people who have 0:13:53.679 --> 0:13:58.000 more carbon intensive lifestyles will pay more. All the leaders 0:13:58.200 --> 0:14:00.880 in Canada who are now wanting to be power, we 0:14:00.960 --> 0:14:04.520 have the Liberal Party that's going through its own election 0:14:04.920 --> 0:14:08.360 that'll get concluded sometime in March, and then the Parliament 0:14:08.400 --> 0:14:10.880 will come back and at some point there will be 0:14:10.920 --> 0:14:13.640 a general election. All the leaders who want to be 0:14:13.679 --> 0:14:16.760 in power in Canada are now promising in one form 0:14:16.840 --> 0:14:19.400 or the other to roll back some of the price 0:14:19.520 --> 0:14:22.520 on pollution. Can you talk through what type of rollback 0:14:22.680 --> 0:14:23.800 are we likely to see. 0:14:23.840 --> 0:14:25.960 We've in the last couple of years in our country, 0:14:26.000 --> 0:14:28.520 we've kind of backed ourselves into this strange cul de 0:14:28.600 --> 0:14:33.520 sac when it comes to climate policy. By our institute's calculations, 0:14:34.120 --> 0:14:38.000 best case scenario, the contribution of the Canadian consumer carbon 0:14:38.040 --> 0:14:42.280 price to emission reductions by twenty thirty is at best 0:14:42.480 --> 0:14:47.520 ten percent. And yet, for a variety of reasons, political 0:14:47.560 --> 0:14:52.040 and otherwise, the debate surrounding the fate of the consumer 0:14:52.120 --> 0:14:55.240 carbon price has probably occupied I don't think it's an 0:14:55.280 --> 0:14:59.160 exaggeration to say that ninety five percent of the entire 0:14:59.240 --> 0:15:02.720 climate changesscussion in our country has swirled around this one 0:15:02.800 --> 0:15:06.760 policy for at least two years, and we need to 0:15:06.760 --> 0:15:08.800 get out of that. One of the things we've done 0:15:08.840 --> 0:15:11.040 over the last couple of years is pointed to the 0:15:11.040 --> 0:15:16.880 fact that we need to focus on climate policy progress 0:15:16.920 --> 0:15:21.280 across a range of policies, and there are many other 0:15:21.320 --> 0:15:24.480 policies that are far more consequential in terms of emission reduction, 0:15:24.720 --> 0:15:28.320 name the industrial carbon price probably thirty to forty percent 0:15:28.440 --> 0:15:31.160 of the solution by twenty thirty, partially because it just 0:15:31.240 --> 0:15:34.800 captures it applied to a much larger basket of emissions 0:15:35.240 --> 0:15:40.560 than the consumer carbon price. Continued electrification across the country penetration. 0:15:40.960 --> 0:15:44.120 You know, various policies meant to expedite the uptake of 0:15:44.160 --> 0:15:48.360 electric vehicles are methane regular because, partially because of oil 0:15:48.360 --> 0:15:51.760 and gas sector so large, methane regulations a huge part 0:15:51.800 --> 0:15:55.280 of the solution by twenty thirty. So there's probably a 0:15:55.320 --> 0:16:00.560 couple of dozen other policies that are important in terms 0:16:00.600 --> 0:16:04.960 of progress by twenty thirty that are relatively unexamined in 0:16:05.000 --> 0:16:08.520 the public debate, and that needs some improvement. And so 0:16:08.600 --> 0:16:10.920 if you know, obviously it's not ideal if the country 0:16:10.960 --> 0:16:15.200 moves off of consumer carbon pricing in an age when 0:16:15.560 --> 0:16:19.440 affordability concerns animate all aspects of politics. I'm not sure 0:16:19.440 --> 0:16:23.600 it's surprising, to be honest, but there are other policies 0:16:23.640 --> 0:16:24.600 that are far more important. 0:16:25.520 --> 0:16:28.200 So if the industrial carbon price is going to do 0:16:28.240 --> 0:16:30.400 so much of the heavy lifting going into twenty thirties, 0:16:30.640 --> 0:16:33.160 I know you can't comment on specific political parties, but 0:16:33.200 --> 0:16:36.120 at least one of the major parties, the Conservatives, are 0:16:36.160 --> 0:16:38.960 trying to push back against any form of carbon pricing 0:16:39.000 --> 0:16:42.360 which might even weaken the industrial common price. 0:16:42.440 --> 0:16:45.800 Right. Well, it's actually the industrial carbon price is actually 0:16:45.880 --> 0:16:49.200 quite a different system in our country than the consumer 0:16:49.280 --> 0:16:51.520 price now, I think it's important to note here that 0:16:51.600 --> 0:16:55.200 industrial carbon pricing, unlike consumer carbon pricing, has not been 0:16:55.240 --> 0:16:59.760 the topic of raging public discussion over the last few years. 0:16:59.760 --> 0:17:03.600 And one reason is that industrial carbon pricing was invented 0:17:03.880 --> 0:17:07.240 at a provincial level and then spread across the country. 0:17:08.080 --> 0:17:12.720 And this trajectory of public policy, or the move from 0:17:13.080 --> 0:17:17.199 a province to a national level phenomenon, is actually a 0:17:17.200 --> 0:17:21.639 hallmark of enduring, sometimes enduring Canadian public policy. This is 0:17:21.640 --> 0:17:24.760 what happened with our medicare system, our public healthcare system, 0:17:24.800 --> 0:17:29.560 for instance. So I think there's some basis to believe 0:17:29.640 --> 0:17:33.560 that industry. There's many heavy emitting industries across the country 0:17:34.160 --> 0:17:37.239 that are quite supportive of industrial carbon pricing because one 0:17:37.240 --> 0:17:39.480 of the things it does is create a lucrative credit market, 0:17:39.880 --> 0:17:43.240 and those credits now exist on balance sheets right across 0:17:43.280 --> 0:17:47.119 the country. So industrial carbon pricing, which only applies to 0:17:47.640 --> 0:17:51.919 exporting industries so there is no interface with Canadian consumers, 0:17:51.960 --> 0:17:58.080 meant to both reduce emissions and increase the competitiveness of 0:17:58.119 --> 0:18:01.520 Canadian industry. So I think that's a winning argument. 0:18:10.800 --> 0:18:13.600 After the break, more of my conversation with Rick Smith 0:18:13.680 --> 0:18:17.240 of the Canadian Climate Institute by the way. If you've 0:18:17.280 --> 0:18:19.600 been enjoying this episode, please take a moment to rate 0:18:19.640 --> 0:18:22.879 and review the show on Apple and Spotify. It helps 0:18:22.920 --> 0:18:33.359 other listeners find the show if it wasn't already. The 0:18:33.480 --> 0:18:38.880 twenty twenty three record breaking wildfires in Canada showed people 0:18:39.280 --> 0:18:43.520 the scale and the intensity that climate driven extreme weather 0:18:43.560 --> 0:18:47.760 events can bring. At the CCI, you also look at 0:18:47.760 --> 0:18:51.560 how Canada can adapt to climate change. Adaptation is often 0:18:51.760 --> 0:18:54.800 the forgotten cousin in the climate equation. People only think 0:18:54.840 --> 0:18:58.760 really about reducing emissions. How is Canada doing on the 0:18:58.800 --> 0:18:59.680 adaptation front? 0:19:00.000 --> 0:19:03.600 The adaptation is an increasing part of the debate in 0:19:03.640 --> 0:19:06.920 our country. In the last few years, the table has 0:19:06.920 --> 0:19:10.239 been completely reset in terms of the public understanding of 0:19:10.520 --> 0:19:15.160 climate driven extreme weather. Last summer alone, over a few 0:19:15.240 --> 0:19:20.800 days in August in southern Quebec, that province saw devastating 0:19:20.840 --> 0:19:25.679 flooding and actually the most expensive natural disaster in Quebec's history. 0:19:26.040 --> 0:19:29.399 Last August, in the west of our country, the beautiful, 0:19:29.800 --> 0:19:33.119 world renowned mountain town of Jasper essentially burned to the 0:19:33.119 --> 0:19:39.600 ground because of raging wildfires. The first stage of rebuilding 0:19:39.840 --> 0:19:43.400 that town almost a billion dollars Canadian. One of our 0:19:44.080 --> 0:19:46.840 strong partners of the Canadian Climate Institute is the Canadian 0:19:46.840 --> 0:19:51.600 insurance industry. The insurance industry fascinating to work with because 0:19:51.640 --> 0:19:57.480 as an industry there's structurally risk averse, but yet because 0:19:57.520 --> 0:20:01.359 of the product that they sell, they're being forced to 0:20:01.400 --> 0:20:04.400 grapple on a daily basis with the realities of climate change, 0:20:04.440 --> 0:20:06.720 the measurable realities of climate change, in a way that 0:20:06.760 --> 0:20:09.000 no other industry is, and so we work with them increasingly. 0:20:09.640 --> 0:20:13.000 And the Insurance Bureau of Canada calculated twenty twenty four 0:20:13.080 --> 0:20:16.080 to be the most expensive year in Canadian history, over 0:20:16.160 --> 0:20:21.760 eight billion dollars in insured losses across the country, mostly 0:20:21.760 --> 0:20:26.560 from climate driven weather. So you know whether it's wildfires 0:20:26.640 --> 0:20:29.359 in the west of our country flooding in the east. 0:20:30.160 --> 0:20:31.960 In some parts of our country over the last couple years, 0:20:31.960 --> 0:20:35.240 there's been both flooding and wildfires at the same time, 0:20:35.400 --> 0:20:38.919 as happened in Halifax in our East coast two years ago. 0:20:39.680 --> 0:20:45.080 This has transformed the Canadian understanding of climate change and 0:20:45.800 --> 0:20:48.360 in a very short period of time, rendered what used 0:20:48.400 --> 0:20:52.159 to be a kind of notional discussion of effects our 0:20:52.280 --> 0:20:55.000 children and grandchildren might have to deal with sometime down 0:20:55.080 --> 0:21:00.520 the road into a far more urgent discussion of you know, 0:21:00.600 --> 0:21:04.119 the security of my family and of my neighbor's family, 0:21:04.359 --> 0:21:08.440 and of our communities. So, you know, I think climate 0:21:08.520 --> 0:21:13.640 change in our country has been permanently moved from an 0:21:13.760 --> 0:21:22.119 environmental policy pigeonhole into a far more powerful public policy discussion, 0:21:23.000 --> 0:21:26.160 you know, in the same space that you see healthcare, crime, 0:21:27.080 --> 0:21:31.639 these other far more approximate threats to human security. You know. 0:21:31.680 --> 0:21:35.000 Does that mean that, you know, every decision maker across 0:21:35.000 --> 0:21:37.320 the country is motivated to make the right decisions on 0:21:37.359 --> 0:21:39.800 climate policy every day of the week. No, but it's 0:21:39.920 --> 0:21:43.960 always there, kind of lurking under the surface, a risk 0:21:44.200 --> 0:21:47.040 to be managed by political leaders. I think that's where 0:21:47.040 --> 0:21:48.879 we're at in our country when it comes to climate change. 0:21:49.200 --> 0:21:51.199 And so we spend a lot of time at our 0:21:51.240 --> 0:21:57.400 institute trying to quantify the damage of wildfires and flooding, 0:21:57.480 --> 0:21:59.960 how to come up with policy solutions to keep Canadian 0:22:00.080 --> 0:22:05.280 communities safer, and it's become a fundamental part of our argument. 0:22:05.440 --> 0:22:11.960 That's too often the climate change discussion is dominated by 0:22:12.520 --> 0:22:15.520 a fixation on the alleged costs of taking action and 0:22:15.600 --> 0:22:19.879 climate change, when in fact, the increasing measurable costs or 0:22:19.880 --> 0:22:22.879 the cost of our inaction and we're seeing that across 0:22:22.880 --> 0:22:23.560 Canada every day. 0:22:23.600 --> 0:22:28.000 Now, Canada and the US share the longest undefended border 0:22:28.280 --> 0:22:32.640 in the world. Canada has the US as its largest 0:22:32.680 --> 0:22:37.240 trading partner. Most of Canadian oil is going into the US. 0:22:37.400 --> 0:22:42.400 The connections run deep, not just culturally, but at an 0:22:42.480 --> 0:22:47.159 economic and at a carbon level. And so there is 0:22:47.200 --> 0:22:52.200 a very real danger that what happens in this administration 0:22:52.400 --> 0:22:56.680 derails Canada's climate plant. How are you going to start 0:22:56.720 --> 0:23:00.840 advising whichever politicians take power in the next government to 0:23:00.960 --> 0:23:02.840 deal with the Trump threat? 0:23:04.760 --> 0:23:07.720 The speed with which the Canadian national debate has changed 0:23:07.760 --> 0:23:10.880 since January twentieth. This is just unbelievable, since since Trump's 0:23:10.880 --> 0:23:14.879 inauguration and the focus of the national debate now is 0:23:15.040 --> 0:23:19.399 fully how to ensure the success of the national economy, 0:23:19.720 --> 0:23:23.240 given the United States has revealed itself within a matter 0:23:23.280 --> 0:23:27.280 of weeks to be a difficult partner to be polite. 0:23:27.560 --> 0:23:30.560 If the debate is as broad as the future of 0:23:30.600 --> 0:23:35.600 the Canadian economy, there are many carbon relevant factors to 0:23:35.640 --> 0:23:39.720 contribute there. Of course, one of them is that as 0:23:39.840 --> 0:23:43.520 Canada asks itself, okay, well, where if we can't reliably 0:23:43.520 --> 0:23:45.720 trade with the United States, to the extent that we 0:23:45.760 --> 0:23:48.880 have in the past, and we need to start accelerating 0:23:48.920 --> 0:23:53.120 trade with other countries around the world. Well, lo and behold, 0:23:53.119 --> 0:23:54.960 it turns out that a lot of those potential trading 0:23:55.000 --> 0:23:59.600 partners are implementing carbon border adjustments. Yeah, there is rapidly 0:23:59.640 --> 0:24:00.480 decard urbanizing. 0:24:00.920 --> 0:24:05.399 There was a joke made about Canada joining the EU. 0:24:06.160 --> 0:24:09.920 Well, yes, it turns out Canada had a very low 0:24:10.040 --> 0:24:12.880 level conflict with Denmark a few years ago that resulted 0:24:12.920 --> 0:24:17.120 in a very small island in the Arctic being divided 0:24:17.119 --> 0:24:19.399 in two. And Canada turns out shares a one point 0:24:19.400 --> 0:24:24.240 five kilometer border with Denmark on Hans Island in the Arctic. 0:24:24.280 --> 0:24:28.040 And so there's been actually a lot of somewhat serious 0:24:29.280 --> 0:24:31.560 suggestion in the Canadian in the Canadian media that we 0:24:31.560 --> 0:24:32.840 should look at joining the EU. 0:24:33.080 --> 0:24:37.120 Well, it turns out technically the European Union has never 0:24:37.240 --> 0:24:42.080 defined what Europe really means geographically, and so yeah, it 0:24:42.160 --> 0:24:42.840 might just happen. 0:24:43.119 --> 0:24:45.600 Right, Well, so there you go. So we you know, 0:24:45.720 --> 0:24:49.000 we we speculate on geopolitics on this podcast as well. 0:24:49.040 --> 0:24:52.119 But but you know, so are there are many complicated 0:24:52.200 --> 0:24:55.199 questions bound up with this raging national debate about the 0:24:55.200 --> 0:25:00.520 future of the Canadian economy. But it it can't escape 0:25:00.560 --> 0:25:05.560 the notice of Canadian decision makers that regardless what Donald 0:25:05.560 --> 0:25:08.040 Trump is doing over the next couple of years, the 0:25:08.160 --> 0:25:14.280 medium and longer term decarbonization trajectory in the world is set. 0:25:14.760 --> 0:25:17.280 So a couple of weeks ago we saw seventy five 0:25:17.320 --> 0:25:22.080 percent of German voters supporting political parties promising massive climate 0:25:22.160 --> 0:25:25.080 change progress. The trajectory is set in Europe, it's set 0:25:25.119 --> 0:25:28.480 in the United Kingdom. We work with colleague organizations all 0:25:28.480 --> 0:25:31.160 over the world and so we're intimately familiar with what 0:25:31.200 --> 0:25:34.359 the decarbonization debate looks like in the two dozen major 0:25:34.400 --> 0:25:39.119 economies around the world. And yes there are hiccups, Yes 0:25:39.400 --> 0:25:42.640