Canada’s Conservative Think Tank Asks Should CO2 Reductions Discriminate By Industry And Sector

The Fraser Institute publishes a research bulletin. Its most recent issue features a paper written by William Watson, a Yale and McGill University graduate, and resident of Montreal best known for his twice-weekly column in the Financial Post.  Watson’s paper is entitled “CO2 is CO2 is CO2 – the Implications for Emission Caps.” 

The Fraser Institute describes itself as independent, and a non-partisan research and educational organization. It’s fiscally conservative. It has received grants from billionaires like Charles and David Koch, who have actively supported The Heartland Institute, an organization that supports climate change disinformation activities. It also receives grants from fossil fuel giants like Exxon Mobil.

In the Fraser, progressives and those left-of-centre see the Institute as a neo-conservative or libertarian organization posing as non-partisan. Most of the time when I read its research bulletins I tend to view its content through a lens of skepticism. But this paper intrigued me because its main argument is that climate change is fundamentally a CO2 emissions problem (I agree) that knows no political or economic boundaries. CO2 molecules produced by growing food, generating energy, driving, heating, cooling and so on are all the same. It is CO2 emissions that we are fighting against to mitigate global warming.

In the last week, Steven Guilbeault, the Canadian Minister of the Environment and Climate Change met with representatives of the country’s fossil fuel industry to discuss CO2 emissions caps that along with carbon pricing are the government’s principal pathways to achieving a 42% 2030 reduction target and the 2050 net-zero CO2 emissions outcome. In a CBC interview, the Minister talked about capping CO2 and methane (CH4) from fossil fuel operations and tax incentives the government was offering to subsidize the building of carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) infrastructure.

Watson argues that a different approach would mean no subsidies and tax incentives are needed. He also noted that singling out any industrial sector, in this case, fossil fuels through new regulations and a cap would not be the best strategy. Instead, he believes a better approach would be to engage Canadians across all economic sectors to tackle CO2 emissions collectively.

There is merit to this argument although most of my environmentalist friends would disagree. Why is that? Because in Canada, the obvious villain of the piece when it comes to CO2 emissions is the fossil fuel industry.

To some degree, I agree with Watson, that all Canadians can work together to tackle CO2 through better consumer decision-making. And I believe this is possible if we equip all Canadians with the right tools.

In a posting a few days ago I called for the national adoption of carbon labelling. By labelling “cradle-to-grave” carbon content for all the goods and services Canadians buy, lower emissions could be had. Faced with two different products or services, Canadians could see which caused more pollution and avoid them. Through this approach to emission reduction, the public would be engaged and become better educated when shopping for food, products, and services.

As Watson states in his Fraser paper, “the subject here is not whether to reduce carbon emissions but rather how best to reduce them.” He proposes that common sense can dictate that we start with “the easiest reductions first and then, as the sacrifices become greater and greater, make sure every unit of emission reduction involves the same sacrifice across all…activities.”

In sales and marketing, there is an expression “go for the low-hanging fruit.” That essentially is what Watson is proposing. He warns of the danger of “carbon-reduction policies that focus on specific sectors, regions, or activities” which call for greater sacrifices from these activities rather than looking to solutions that encompass the entire economy.

Carbon labelling gives every consumer a means of tallying his or her carbon footprint. A person or family that knows its carbon footprint can start to do something about it. Fortunately, there are many carbon calculators out there to choose from. Many are smartphone apps. The combination of carbon labelling, a smart app that keeps a running track of your carbon consumption, and that provides carbon reduction strategies can work wonders to reduce consumer-based emissions.

Watson’s paper includes the calculation of his family’s carbon footprint. He describes the exercise of reducing it by 10% using the “equate-at-the-margin” rule (incremental changes to produce optimal results). It doesn’t mean decreasing the carbon content of all activities, but rather choosing the ones that would least impact the family’s lifestyle. Pick ones that hurt the least and then repeat the process with the next and so on to eventually achieve the 10% reduction.

Watson speculates that this type of low-hanging fruit strategy can achieve a 10% reduction conceivably without having to give up using fossil fuels to heat the home, or to drive the car. He goes on to state that what works for a household could equally be applied to the larger society, that Canadians could work on these low-hanging fruit emission opportunities that are the least costly and achieve them first. Then they could move on to the next least costly and so on.

In his conclusions, Watson argues that this approach does not necessitate the government having to come up with new rules or regulations for CO2 emissions. He believes the need for subsidies or tax credits for any sector of the economy including the fossil fuel industry would simply not be there.

When I finished reading Watson’s paper I kept thinking wouldn’t carbon labelling make all of this work and make the effort to calculate and reduce our carbon footprint so much easier?