• About
    • Which Energy Mix is this?
  • Climate News Network Archive
  • Contact
The climate news that makes a difference.
No Result
View All Result
The Energy Mix
  • Canada
  • UK & Europe
  • Fossil Fuels
  • Ending Emissions
  • Community Climate Finance
  • Clean Electricity Grid
  • Cities & Communities
SUBSCRIBE
DONATE
  • Canada
  • UK & Europe
  • Fossil Fuels
  • Ending Emissions
  • Community Climate Finance
  • Clean Electricity Grid
  • Cities & Communities
SUBSCRIBE
DONATE
No Result
View All Result
The Energy Mix
No Result
View All Result
  • Canada
  • UK & Europe
  • Fossil Fuels
  • Ending Emissions
  • Community Climate Finance
  • Clean Electricity Grid
  • Cities & Communities
  FEATURED
BP Predicts Faster Oil and Gas Decline as Clean Energy Spending Hits $1.1T in 2022 January 31, 2023
Canada Needs Oil and Gas Emissions Cap to Hit 2030 Goal: NZAB January 31, 2023
Ecuador’s Amazon Drilling Plan Shows Need for Fossil Non-Proliferation Treaty January 31, 2023
Rainforest Carbon Credits from World’s Biggest Provider are ‘Largely Worthless’, Investigation Finds January 31, 2023
Danske Bank Quits New Fossil Fuel Financing January 23, 2023
Next
Prev
Opinion & Analysis

Analysis: Ontario Sabotages Ottawa’s 2030 Emissions Plan

April 10, 2022
Reading time: 4 minutes
Full Story: The Energy Mix @theenergymix
Primary Author: David Robertson /Seniors for Climate Action Now! @Seniors_CAN

Andrew Scheer/flickr

Andrew Scheer/flickr

18
SHARES
 

One of the biggest gaps in the federal government’s long-awaited Emissions Reduction Plan (ERP) is a reality the Trudeau government has no ability to control: its ability to deliver as promised depends on a provincial government in Ontario that has no intention of playing its part.

The plan, released March 29, was big enough news to break through the week’s reporting of Russian war atrocities. It purports to put Canada on track to a 40% reduction in planet-killing greenhouse gas emissions by 2030.

  • The climate news you need. Subscribe now to our engaging new weekly digest.
  • You’ll receive exclusive, never-before-seen-content, distilled and delivered to your inbox every weekend.
  • The Weekender: Succinct, solutions-focused, and designed with the discerning reader in mind.
New!
Subscribe

The plan met with mixed reviews: Praised for its transparency and the level of detail in its accounting, criticized by the oil and gas industry as too ambitious and by climate activists as woefully inadequate. But little has been said about the role the Ontario government is playing.

The province is one of the two elephants in the room. The other is Alberta.

The problem is this. While the federal government has chosen the low end of its legally-binding 2030 emissions reduction target, even that scaled-back ambition will fail because of Premier Doug Ford’s obstruction.

It may have been inevitable in Canada’s federal-provincial system, but the plan hands Ontario the role of climate spoiler. Ford’s refusal to act on the climate emergency will put the brakes on whatever limited climate momentum there is in Ottawa. The evidence is buried in the fine print and the appendices of the ERP, in particular Annex 5 and the short section on Ontario.

The Annex notes that: “All provinces and sectors contribute to achieving the emissions reductions underlying the Emissions Reduction Plan.” The assumption behind the plan is that Ontario’s contribution will be very significant, almost a third of all the anticipated reduction from Canada’s provinces and territories. And the largest reduction of any province or territory.

According to the Emissions Reduction Plan, Ontario is projected to reduce its emissions by 36% between 2005 and 2030, even though the Ontario government has only committed to reducing emissions by 30%. When it comes to climate ambition, that is a huge gap.

The report also assumes that between 2019, a year after Ford was elected, and 2030, Ontario will reduce emissions by 31 Mt. Here again, there is a huge discrepancy.

That’s because Ford’s Ontario has no plans to reduce emissions by that amount. It has no intention of even trying. The Ford government’s climate plan, at its most ambitious, targeted only 17.6 Mt of GHG emissions for elimination by 2030. And there is overwhelming evidence the government isn’t making the effort to achieve that small amount.

In 2019, Ontario Auditor General Bonnie Lysyk published a comprehensive review of the Ontario government’s climate plan. The AG concluded the Ford government’s plan was not “supported by sound evidence”. In a November, 2021 follow-up report, she repeated the conclusion.

The evidence in the Auditor General’s reports is clear: On the basis of current plans, the Ford government will not reach its 2030 targets. In fact, in a startling revelation, the AG concluded that there were “committed policies” in place to eliminate only 3.4 Mt of emissions.

So Ontario is only on track to achieve about 11% of what is expected of it in Canada’s Emissions Reduction Plan. The federal government, it seems, has simply ignored that inconvenient truth.

As part of the ERP, every province and territory provided a short description of its climate commitments and plans to achieve emission targets. The section on Ontario is sober reading. Unlike other provinces’ reports (such as British Columbia and Quebec) no emission reduction targets are identified. There are no concrete plans. There are no commitments to clean, renewable energy, such as solar and wind power. There is no mention of all the things we know need to get done.

Instead, there are hugely expensive commitments to a series of bad energy choices, such as C$26 billion to refurbish old nuclear plants, billions more on wrongheaded, new small modular nuclear reactors, and more again for problematic carbon storage and for the dirty (blue) version of hydrogen. There is also a whole lot of blather about “meaningful reductions” and “cooperation” with the federal government and hopes for a far-off future.

The section ends with this: “Ontario is prepared to achieve further emissions reductions contingent on increased federal support for provincial priorities.”

The Ontario section of the EPR makes it is clear that the Ford government has no real climate plan, no emission reduction strategy, and no intention to meaningfully reduce GHG emissions by 2030. And yet, according to the federal government’s calculations, Ontario needs to reduce its emissions by a significant amount for Canada to achieve its target. We are in trouble.

The government of Doug Ford is already derailing the federal government’s Emission Reduction Plan. We had better do something about that.



in Canada, Carbon Levels & Measurement, Climate Denial & Greenwashing, Energy Politics, Hydrogen, Nuclear, Ontario, Opinion & Analysis, Sub-National Governments

The latest climate news and analysis, direct to your inbox

Subscribe

Related Posts

Mike Mozart/Flickr
Ending Emissions

BP Predicts Faster Oil and Gas Decline as Clean Energy Spending Hits $1.1T in 2022

January 31, 2023
325
Gina Dittmer/PublicDomainPictures
Canada

Canada Needs Oil and Gas Emissions Cap to Hit 2030 Goal: NZAB

January 31, 2023
196
CONFENIAE
Ending Emissions

Ecuador’s Amazon Drilling Plan Shows Need for Fossil Non-Proliferation Treaty

January 31, 2023
61

Comments 4

  1. Angela Bischoff says:
    10 months ago

    Further evidence that the Ford gov’t has no intention of meeting their modest climate targets — they’re ramping UP gas power 375% by 2030, and more than 600% by 2040! — despite the fact that we have substantially lower cost options to meeting our electricity needs including wind, solar, conservation, and water power and storage imports from Quebec. https://www.cleanairalliance.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/Zero-Emissions-Report-2022-feb-25-v_02.pdf

    Reply
  2. Neil Alexander says:
    10 months ago

    The author makes great store of the AGs report but then says “Instead, there are hugely expensive commitments to a series of bad energy choices, such as C$26 billion to refurbish old nuclear plants” ignoring the fact that the AG clearly stated that these emissions free projects were indeed the best value for Ontarians.

    If they are the best value and undoubtedly reduce emissions when compared with any other possible generation technology how can they be a bad energy choice?

    Reply
    • David Robertson says:
      10 months ago

      In the Auditor General’s review of the Ford government’s climate nothing was said about nuclear refurbishments but the AG did point out that none of the initiatives on Small Modular Reactors (SMR), would be online soon enough to make any contribution to the 2030 emissions reduction target. Earlier (2018 value-for-money audit) the AG did undertake a review of the Darlington refurbishment project. The final conclusion in the review is this: “Given the complexity of the project and risks associated with work not yet done, uncertainty still remains as to whether the Project will be completed on time and on budget.” Huge cost overruns and missed deadlines are a perennial problem for the nuclear industry. The fact remains that nuclear power is an overly expensive energy option whose costs have now been buried in our tax bills. As electricity consumers we pay through our hydro bills and then we pay billions more in our taxes. The recent IPCC report makes it clear that there are far cheaper energy options available, especially with the dramatic reductions in the costs of clean, renewable energy such as solar and wind.
      David Robertson

      Reply
    • Angela Bischoff says:
      10 months ago

      Check out the prices for new and rebuilt nuclear compared with new renewable wind/water/solar/conservation: https://www.cleanairalliance.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/options2022.pdf Clearly not the best value for Ontarians. Not to mention the pesky problems of long-lived nuke waste, weapons proliferation concerns, accidents and routine emissions.

      Reply

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

I agree to the Terms & Conditions and Privacy Policy.

Trending Stories

Mike Mozart/Flickr

BP Predicts Faster Oil and Gas Decline as Clean Energy Spending Hits $1.1T in 2022

January 31, 2023
325
EcoAnalytics

Albertans Want a Just Transition, Despite Premier’s Grumbling

January 23, 2023
324
United Nations

Salvage of $20B ‘Floating Time Bomb’ Delayed by Rising Cost of Oil Tankers

January 27, 2023
122
/Pikrepo

Four Decades of Research Show Gas Stoves as ‘Overlooked’ Risk to Indoor Air, Child Health

December 7, 2020
1k
jasonwoodhead23/flickr

Canada, U.K., U.S. Must Cut Oil and Gas 76% by 2030 to Keep 1.5° Alive, New Analysis Finds

March 23, 2022
505
Nuclear Jordan/Facebook

TC Energy Wants to Supply ‘Small-Scale’ Nuclear Reactors to Alberta Tar Sands/Oil Sands

May 4, 2022
399

Recent Posts

Gina Dittmer/PublicDomainPictures

Canada Needs Oil and Gas Emissions Cap to Hit 2030 Goal: NZAB

January 31, 2023
196
CONFENIAE

Ecuador’s Amazon Drilling Plan Shows Need for Fossil Non-Proliferation Treaty

January 31, 2023
61
Ken Teegardin www.SeniorLiving.Org/flickr

Virtual Power Plants Hit an ‘Inflection Point’

January 31, 2023
125
/snappy goat

Rainforest Carbon Credits from World’s Biggest Provider are ‘Largely Worthless’, Investigation Finds

January 31, 2023
94
Victorgrigas/wikimedia commons

World Bank Climate Reforms Too ‘Timid and Slow,’ Critics Warn

January 31, 2023
42
Doc Searls/Twitter

Guilbeault Could Intervene on Ontario Greenbelt Development

January 31, 2023
132
Next Post
SaskPower/flickr

Is CCUS Tax Credit the ‘Put Up or Shut Up’ Moment for Canadian Fossils?

The Energy Mix - The climate news you need

Copyright 2023 © Energy Mix Productions Inc. All rights reserved.

  • About
  • Contact
  • Privacy Policy and Copyright
  • Cookie Policy

Proudly partnering with…

scf_withtagline
No Result
View All Result
  • Canada
  • UK & Europe
  • Fossil Fuels
  • Ending Emissions
  • Community Climate Finance
  • Clean Electricity Grid
  • Cities & Communities

Copyright 2022 © Smarter Shift Inc. and Energy Mix Productions Inc. All rights reserved.

Manage Cookie Consent
To provide the best experiences, we use technologies like cookies to store and/or access device information. Consenting to these technologies will allow us to process data such as browsing behaviour or unique IDs on this site. Not consenting or withdrawing consent, may adversely affect certain features and functions.
Functional Always active
The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
Preferences
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
Statistics
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes. The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
Marketing
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.
Manage options Manage services Manage vendors Read more about these purposes
View preferences
{title} {title} {title}