Les électeurs des démocraties occidentales sont en colère. La mondialisation ayant déplacé les emplois à l’étranger et les innovations technologiques visant en supprimer maints autres, la situation des emplois et de leur rémunération les inquiète.

L’insécurité culturelle causée par l’intolérance à l’échelle communautaire et les plus importants changements survenus depuis des décennies révèlent une augmentation inquiétante du nationalisme économique et politique, de la démondialisation et du protectionnisme commercial. 

L’inégalité des revenus est un important moteur de ces changements. Selon la Banque mondiale, un milliard de personnes, dont un très grand nombre vivent en Chine, sont sorties de la pauvreté au cours des dix dernières années. Néanmoins, on estime que 767 millions de personnes continuent aujourd’hui à vivre dans une pauvreté extrême. Pour 23 pays, principalement des pays d’Afrique, on estime que le revenu des 40 pour cent les plus défavorisés a décliné au cours des dernières années. Il ne s’agit toutefois que d’estimations, car la piètre qualité des données dans de nombreux pays se traduit par le fait que nous manquons de statistiques solides pour mesurer la situation à l’échelle nationale, sans parler de l’échelle des foyers individuels.   

L’analyse de la Banque mondiale révèle que malgré la réduction de l’inégalité des revenus entre pays, l’inégalité au sein même des pays a augmenté. Elle est plus importante qu’il y a trente ans. L’économiste français Thomas Piketty a averti que les politiques publiques devraient être axées sur la « spirale sans fin de l’inégalité » connexe à la mondialisation, et cela sans attendre [traduction]. Selon lui, il faudrait obtenir de meilleures données et une analyse plus approfondie pour comprendre la relation entre la mondialisation et l’inégalité.

C’est exactement ce qu’a fait un nouveau rapport publié par l’Institut international du développement durable. Ses auteurs se sont penchés sur la situation des Canadiens au cours des trente dernières années; situation mesurée non pas en fonction du produit intérieur brut (PIB), mais du patrimoine compréhensif. Alors que le PIB est devenu l’un des indicateurs mondiaux ayant le plus d’influence—utilisé quotidiennement par les ministres des Finances, les investisseurs et les foyers—il est, de par sa conception même, axé très étroitement sur le revenu. Ce que Thomas Piketty et maints autres demandent, c’est la mesure de notre richesse collective. Plutôt que de mesurer des flux de revenu trimestriel, comme le fait le PIB, le patrimoine compréhensif mesure les actifs fondamentaux qui, ensemble, constituent l’assise du bien-être  sociétal. Ces actifs sont le capital naturel (nos terres, ressources et écosystèmes), le capital produit (ponts, métros, bâtiments et autres infrastructures similaires), le capital social (confiance et coopération résultant de normes communes) et, ce qui est le plus important, notre capital humain.

Alors, quels sont les résultats du Canada depuis trente ans? En bref, pas très bons. Le patrimoine compréhensif du pays a presque stagné, croissant de moins de 0,2 pour cent par an, compte tenu de l’inflation et de l’augmentation de la population. Il s’agit du taux de croissance du patrimoine compréhensif le plus bas des pays membres du G7.

Selon notre rapport, trois préoccupations très inquiétantes sous-tendent ce piètre résultat. La première concerne le capital humain, qui constitue 80 pour cent de notre richesse. Malgré le fait qu’un nombre jamais égalé de Canadiens investissent dans l’éducation, la formation et les diplômes, leurs gains moyens pendant la durée d’une vie sont aujourd’hui exactement les mêmes qu’en 1980.  Étant donné que l’expression « Canadien moyen » recouvre les personnes dont les perspectives de gains se sont améliorées, cela suggère que pour certains, les gains moyens pendant une vie ont décliné au cours des trente dernières années.

La deuxième préoccupation quant au piètre résultat du Canada dans le domaine de la richesse concerne notre capital naturel. Au cours des trente ans se terminant en 2013, dernière année de notre analyse,  notre inventaire de capital naturel a diminué de 25 pour cent, un chiffre tout à fait étonnant. Une partie de ce capital, par exemple l’argent et le plomb, a été presque complètement épuisé. Une autre, dont  notamment le pétrole et le gaz, a subi des pressions encore plus fortes en raison de l’effondrement des prix du pétrole à l’échelle mondiale en 2015. De nouvelles données très récemment publiées par Statistique Canada indiquent que la valeur des sables bitumineux est passée d’environ 535 milliards de dollars en 2014 à juste 50 milliards en 2015. À moins que les prix du pétrole ne remontent, cette perte massive de richesse, soit plus de 115,000$ pour chaque Albertain, pourrait s’avérer permanente.  

Seul le capital produit a accusé une solide croissance pendant la période étudiée (une croissance moyenne de 1,7 pour cent par an). Cependant, près de 70  pour cent de l’investissement dans le capital produit étaient concentrés dans seulement  deux secteurs : le logement et l’exploitation pétrolière et gazière. L’instabilité des prix des logements est notoire. Ainsi, la Banque du Canada a récemment prévenu qu’un détenteur d’hypothèque à « proportion élevée » sur trois ne serait pas admissible à un financement en vertu des nouvelles règles adoptées par le gouvernement fédéral. Le pétrole et le gaz non seulement font face à une volatilité à court terme, mais à des déclins à long terme dus aux promesses faites par le Canada (et 165 autres pays) lors du sommet de Paris sur les changements climatiques de réduire de 80 pour cent l’utilisation des combustibles fossiles.

Étant donné l’importance de ce qu’a révélé notre rapport, on pourrait assumer que le gouvernement fédéral et ceux des provinces surveillent déjà le patrimoine compréhensif du Canada, et le renforcent activement. Cependant, ce n’est malheureusement pas le cas. Aucun gouvernement au Canada, ni ailleurs dans le monde, ne mesure le patrimoine compréhensif. Les pouvoirs publics ne peuvent prendre de mesures à l’égard de ce qui n’est pas évalué. Nous sommes convaincus qu’il est temps de remédier à cette situation.  

Countries around the world face pressures and stresses on their highly valuable freshwater resources. 

In addition to many long-standing pollution and contamination pressures from sewage, waste water and eutrophication—among the biggest environmental challenges on the planet today—new pressures from the impacts of climate change are creating new stress points on water quality and quantity.

It is no secret that robust science must underpin freshwater policy. Yet bridging science and policy is neither automatic nor simple: science priorities change and new methods to capture data evolve quickly. At the same time, traditional knowledge must act as a central pathway to real stewardship, and policy priorities remain subject to debate.

On January 20, IISD, in collaboration with the University of Ottawa, will host a meeting of public policy specialists and freshwater scientists (including scientists from IISD-ELA) in order to explore these challenges.

Building on this event, as part of its celebration of Canada's 150th Anniversary IISD will mark Canada's remarkable contribution to freshwater science and conservation by hosting an international meeting of water science-policy experts, to take place in Winnipeg, Canada in late 2017.

Debate over Canada’s climate change policies has frequently centered on concerns over jobs and economic competitiveness.

This is not surprising. Industries and governments have long worried that tougher pollution standards push up costs, flatten margins in tight markets and shed jobs. However, the debate today takes place in an environment of high anxiety over wages and job losses, and alarm over growing levels of inequality.

Against that backdrop, this commentary begins in Cumberland County, in Northwestern Nova Scotia, Canada, where new jobs are emerging in the renewable energy sector. It argues that the shifts underway in Cumberland County are representative of a larger, global transition, as job losses in the fossil fuel industry are replaced by growth in renewable energy. 

'The Watershed', a play inspired by IISD Experimental Lakes Area, is coming to Winnipeg! Hear IISD-ELA's executive director, Matt McCandless speak with the playwright Annabel Soutar about the play and the new era of the world famous research site.

There will be a gala reception and exclusive preview performance on March 14, 2017 in Winnipeg. Click here for more information and for tickets.

In December 2016, Canada's First Ministers released their Pan-Canadian Framework on Clean Growth and Climate Change. In this series of blog posts we break down the Framework for you, explaining what is proposed, what the strengths are, and what challenges may lie ahead.

In this blog post, we focus on government leadership.

WHAT IS THE ISSUE?

Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from government operations account for a fraction of Canada’s emissions.

Government acquisitions, energy efficiency measures, and infrastructure investments can have an important role in driving the transition to the clean economy future. The significant amount of money that is spent on government procurements can play an important role in driving demand, supporting early stages of technology deployment, improving market acceptance, and reducing costs. It is important for governments to lead by example by applying climate policies to government operations but also by embedding climate action as an integral part of policy and program decisions.

HOW DOES THE PAN-CANADIAN FRAMEWORK PLAN TO ADDRESS THE PROBLEM?

The Framework provides three principles for government leadership on climate:

1. Emission reduction targets for federal, provincial and territorial government operations;
2. Scaling up of efforts for highly efficient buildings and zero-emission fleets; and
3. Clean procurement.

WHAT ARE THE STRENGTHS OF THE PROPOSED SOLUTIONS?

The Government of Canada’s target to reduce emissions by 30 per cent by 2030 – similar to Canada’s international climate targets but applied specifically to government operations – is a bold but achievable target. British Columbia has already achieved a carbon neutral government – the first in the continent.

For the first time, governments across the country have agreed to set targets to reduce emissions resulting from operations. These targets can demonstrate that governments are serious about delivering on Canada’s international climate commitments and are ready to lead by example.

There are also other benefits. Investment in energy efficiency measures across government assets can reduce emissions but also reduce energy waste, resulting in costs saving for tax payers. Deployment of energy efficiency measures can generate clean technology jobs, and lead to development of skills which can then be applied across other sectors of the economy.

The shift away from fossil fuels to zero-emission fleets can also support accelerated deployment of clean energy infrastructure and support emission reduction efforts in the transportation sector. A switch to electrical and cleaner fuels could save governments money over the life of the vehicle.

Government leadership on climate is an important step forward with benefits for the environment and the economy.

WHAT ARE SOME KEY ELEMENTS TO CONSIDER IN IMPLEMENTING A ROBUST POLICY?

While the Framework sent high-level signals about government objectives, it is light on specific details. An important next step is to maintain momentum and set bold and consistent targets across the country. At minimum, provincial and territorial governments should adopt the federal target and set the goal of reducing emissions from government operations by 30 per cent by 2030 while aiming for carbon neutrality by 2050, at the latest. Provincial and territorial governments should work with municipal governments to develop similar targets and supporting policies across all levels of government. Governments should also work with industry to encourage similar voluntary standards across the economy.

In terms of energy efficiency and vehicle fleets, a clear schedule for the transition will important. At a minimum, governments should no longer  purchase any new fossil fuel based vehicles, should develop guidelines for lower carbon fuel purchases, and require highest energy efficiency building and equipment purchases and lease requirements. An immediate directive from finance and treasury departments across governments on this will be necessary.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, governments need to incorporate climate in policy and program decisions. That means, any future policy and programing decision should ask, as a foundational principle, whether the policy or program is aligned with, and supportive of, climate objectives. Continued investments in policies which inadvertently increase emissions will undermine government leadership on climate. Governments should also make sound procurement decisions that take into consideration adaptation needs.

In December 2016, Canada's First Ministers released their Pan-Canadian Framework on Clean Growth and Climate Change. In this series of blog posts we break down the Framework, explaining what is proposed, what the strengths are and what challenges may lie ahead.

In this post we focus on international leadership.

WHAT IS THE ISSUE?

As a global issue, tackling climate change requires international cooperation at all levels, from national governments to cities’ administrations. The Paris Agreement has enabled a new era of international cooperation on climate change, and its extremely rapid entry into force demonstrates the political buy-in achieved last year.

Canada’s commitment to multilateralism on this file is ever more critical. Along with other developed countries, it has benefited from industrialization while being responsible for significant greenhouse gas (GHGs) emissions that are causing our climate to change. Under the Paris Agreement, developed countries are therefore expected to show leadership and ambition in curbing their emissions pathway. There is still much work to be done, however—even when accounting for national pledges made under the Paris Agreement, a temperature increase of 2.9℃ to 3.4℃ is expected by the end of the century. 

Developing countries have joined the Paris Agreement with another expectation—receiving financial support to make their economies more resilient to climate impacts and less carbon-intensive. Developing and least-developed countries face important challenges in fostering economic growth, while investing to reduce their emissions and adapt to a changing climate. Developed countries have an ethical duty to support developing countries and have committed to mobilize USD 100 billion per year from 2020 onwards.

HOW DOES THE PAN-CANADIAN FRAMEWORK PLAN TO ADDRESS THE PROBLEM?

The Framework spells out Canada’s plan to engage internationally, by

• Reiterating Canada’s commitment of CAD 2.65 billion by 2020 to vulnerable countries.
• Indicating that Canada is interested in exploring ways to make use of internationally transferred mitigation outcomes to comply with its 2030 mitigation target.
• Acknowledging the important role that trade can play in support of climate policy.

WHAT ARE THE STRENGTHS OF THE PROPOSED SOLUTIONS?

The Framework firmly reiterates Canada’s commitment to taking domestic actions and supporting developing countries in taking climate action and dealing with climate impacts. This announcement from North America is timely and welcomed as the world enters a new phase in climate diplomacy. 

Canada’s 2015 pledge on climate finance has been instrumental in building trust from developing countries in international negotiations ahead of the adoption of the Paris Agreement. Many developing countries welcomed Canada’s pledge, partly because it was structured over four years, providing predictability of financing for developing countries.    

Beyond public climate finance, tackling climate change will require massive investments to flow across borders to enable the transition to low-carbon economies. In this regard, Canada’s focus on ensuring that trade rules support climate policy is noteworthy.

WHAT ARE SOME KEY ELEMENTS TO CONSIDER IN IMPLEMENTING A ROBUST POLICY?

Solidarity with developing countries must be at the heart of Canada’s international action, and Canada needs to provide clarity on how it intends to increase its international climate finance to contribute its fair share beyond 2020.

Trade can also play an important role in addressing climate change by facilitating access to sustainable solutions and good practices needed for countries to implement their commitments under the Paris Agreement. Yet the climate and trade agendas have been kept quite separate and have often focused on how they negatively impact or constrain each other. Canada, with its international partners, can play a positive role in framing these talks in a more positive light, exploring opportunities for trade rules to support climate policy and ambitious action.

Showing leadership internationally is as much about cooperating with international partners as it is about setting and meeting ambitious emission reduction targets. Canada has an opportunity to raise its climate ambition domestically, but also by using international mitigation outcomes, thereby benefiting from emissions reductions at a lower cost in other countries. The use of international mitigation outcomes to achieve Canada’s target should be considered in light of what can be reasonably achieved in Canada through investments in innovation and avoiding investments that lock in emission pathways for decades to come.  

International cooperation indeed means being accountable to the other parties to the Paris Agreement. Canada’s federal, provincial and territorial governments must strive to provide clear and comprehensive information on progress in both domestic actions to reduce emissions and its international climate finance commitments.

As countries are developing the accounting rules, transparency and rigour will be of utmost importance, especially around the trade of mitigation outcomes across borders. It will be important to have a robust system that avoids double counting of mitigation outcomes before trading begins.

In December 2016, Canada's First Ministers released their Pan-Canadian Framework on Clean Growth and Climate Change. In this series of blog posts we break down the Framework, explaining what is proposed, what the strengths are and what challenges may lie ahead.

In this post, we focus on industry.

WHAT IS THE ISSUE?

In 2014, about two fifths of Canada’s greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions came from industrial sectors.

More than half of industrial emissions are from oil and gas production, processing and distribution—the  fastest-growing source of Canada’s GHG emissions. Alberta’s cap on oil sands emissions will ensure, for the first time, that the sector’s emissions will not go unchecked, but does still provide room for growth, including for projects currently under construction. The emissions cap—combined with performance requirements and a price on carbon—could decrease the GHG intensity of the oil sands. As a result, oil sands production volumes could increase over time without an increase in upstream emissions beyond the cap. This growth raises the need to reduce emissions from other sectors of the economy. It will also be imperative to reinvest revenues generated from the oil and gas sector to support the transition to a clean energy future.

The oil and gas sectors are also responsible for about 40 per cent of emissions of methane, a short-lived climate pollutant whose global warming potential is 86 times higher than that of carbon dioxide. Methane, however, is a short-lived climate pollutant with a life of 12 years versus carbon dioxide, which stays in the atmosphere for thousands of years. In other words, by phasing out short-lived climate pollutants, we will see immediate benefits and can increase the chances of staying within climate-safe limits. Canada agreed to phase out hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), another short-lived climate pollutant, which is expected to result in the avoidance of 0.5℃ in temperature increase.

HOW DOES THE PAN-CANADIAN FRAMEWORK PLAN TO ADDRESS THE PROBLEM?

The Framework provides three solutions to reduce emissions in the industrial sector:

1. Reducing methane and HFCs
2. Implementing energy efficiency measures
3. Investing in research and the development of clean technologies.

WHAT ARE THE STRENGTHS OF THE PROPOSED SOLUTIONS?

On October 14, 2016, Canada was part of a historic international agreement to phase out HFCs, the single biggest climate commitment ever. Reducing methane by 40 to 45 per cent by 2025 is a step in the right direction on another short-lived climate pollutant. Recognition of the need to invest in energy efficiency across the industrial sector is a similarly positive move. Addressing energy waste is often one of the lowest-cost emission reduction opportunities.

For the industrial sector to reduce its emissions, innovation will be key, and governments can be strategic partners. Continued investment in new technologies and support for pre-commercial demonstration projects should send a strong positive signal to industry on the government’s commitment.

WHAT ARE SOME KEY ELEMENTS TO CONSIDER IN IMPLEMENTING A ROBUST POLICY?

The phase-out of methane can result in near-immediate climate benefits and turn the temperature down in the short term. The Framework, however, does not provide a path towards this objective. Although reducing methane in the oil and gas sector by about half is a good first step, it falls short of what is needed to meet climate objectives, especially where additional emission reduction opportunities may exist. A plan to phase out methane emissions to the extent technologies permit, beyond 2025 and across all sectors, will be needed.

In relation to oil and gas emissions, one way to reduce intentional methane venting is to flare, which is a better alternative but also a wasteful practice. In addition, flaring can result in the production of black carbon, a climate pollutant that can accelerate the melting of sea ice. Canada has agreed to eliminate routine flaring by 2030 and to reduce black carbon emissions. In reducing methane from the oil and gas sector, governments should prioritize conservation and ensure that regulations do not result in increased flaring and black carbon emissions.

In December 2016 Canada's First Ministers released their Pan-Canadian Framework on Clean Growth and Climate Change. In this series of blog posts, we break down the framework for you, explaining what is proposed, what the strengths are and what challenges may lie ahead.

In this blog post we focus on electricity.

What is the issue?

In 2014 about one tenth of Canada’s greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions came from electricity. About 80 per cent of Canada's electricity is already non-emitting, thanks to a large abundance of hydroelectricity and policies that have supported renewable energy sources, such as wind and solar electricity.

A number of jurisdictions across Canada have moved away from, or are in the process of moving away from, coal electricity in order to reduce GHGs and improve local air quality and human health. Ontario has already phased out coal electricity. Alberta will phase out emissions from coal-fired electricity while requiring a minimum 30 per cent electricity generation from renewable sources by 2030. A robust plan to phase out coal emissions in Saskatchewan is still needed.

Challenges in a post-coal world include: avoiding a quick switch to gas; getting clean electricity to the regions, provinces and local communities that need it; and ensuring efficient and effective support for renewable energy.

Reducing emissions from electricity must be a short-term focus for Canada, as we identify ways to address emissions in other sectors that will require a longer-term strategy.

How does the Pan-Canadian Framework plan to address the problem?

The framework’s clean electricity component has four key elements:

1. Increasing renewables and low-emitting sources.
2. Connecting clean power to the places that need it.
3. Modernizing electricity systems.
4. Reducing reliance on diesel in Indigenous, northern and remote communities.

Outside of commitments to accelerate coal phase-out and intent to develop performance standards for natural gas, details are noticeably absent in the framework.

What are the strengths of the proposed solutions?

The framework hits the right notes on the need to accelerate the phase-out of coal from the Canadian electricity grid while integrating renewables into the sector.

While it will have a small overall impact on national emissions, the commitment to help communities get off diesel power will be pivotal in providing equal access to clean power and reducing the potential for negative environmental impacts (e.g., spills). In some communities this may include connection to larger grids, while off-grid renewables may be part of the solution in others.

Performance standards for natural gas may reduce the emission intensity of natural gas-fired electricity generation.  Natural gas is, at best, a bridging fuel, and should be treated as such. Avoiding the lock-in of fossil fuels will be necessary to meet mid-century emission reduction objectives. 

What are some key elements to consider in implementing a robust policy?

Smart policy making in the electricity sector should include expansion of electricity grids to promote clean energy trade and considerations to minimize the impact that supports for renewables will have on rate payers. 

Improved connectivity of electricity grids across provinces and to the United States could create economic opportunities while helping individual provinces and our neighbours to the south phase out coal.

Smart renewables policies should be designed to help technologies achieve economic competitiveness without over-subsidizing them, which can lead to higher electricity costs for residents and businesses. With rapid expansion of renewables, governments should also have a robust environmental assessment process.

Finally, federal, provincial and territorial governments need to pay close attention to fossil fuel subsidies for electricity and heating sources.  Reform and elimination of fossil fuel energy consumption subsidies should be a part of the framework, in line with existing commitments to reform subsidies under the G20 commitment.

In December 2016, Canada's First Ministers released their Pan-Canadian Framework on Clean Growth and Climate Change. In this series of blog posts we break down the Framework for you, explaining what is proposed, what the strenghts are, and what challenges may lie ahead.

In this blog post, we focus on forestry, agriculture and waste.

What is the issue?

In 2014, about one fifth of Canada’s emissions came from changes to land use and forestry, the agriculture sector, and municipal waste.

Forests, croplands, grasslands, and wetlands are known as natural carbon sinks, which means that they absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. They are home to many species and play a critical role in maintaining balance in our ecosystem. The destruction of these ecosystems, including by human activity, reduce the planet’s natural ability to reduce emissions and can result in the carbon stored to be rereleased back into the atmosphere.

For example, in 2014, Canada’s forests removed about 64 megatonne (Mt) of greenhouse gases (GHGs), while the destruction of grasslands and wetlands, as well as harvested wood products resulted in 143 Mt of emissions.

In the agricultural sector, about half of emissions comes from the digestive process of animals, in methane and nitrous oxide emissions. Both these GHGs have a very high global warming potential.

In the waste sector, which accounted for 29 Mt of Canada’s GHGs, the majority of emissions came from solid waste disposal where breakdown of landfill-produced methane emissions, also known as landfill gas.

How does the pan-Canadian framework plan to address the problem?

The framework proposes to protect and enhance carbon sinks (e.g. through conservation), increase the use of wood products in construction (e.g. through building code requirements), work to develop opportunities for renewable fuels and bioproducts, and support innovation.

What are the strengths of the proposed solutions?

Earlier this month, Canadian conservation organizations urged First Ministers to recognize “the important role of Canada’s terrestrial and marine ecosystems in reducing emissions.” The framework took a positive step forward in this regard, by noting the important role of Canada’s carbon sinks.

Conservation of our natural assets can help prevent release of the carbon stored and conserve ecosystems that absorb carbon from the atmosphere. Restoration efforts (e.g., planting trees) will further these goals while creating a habitat for species to thrive, and help governments with their plans to reverse the decline of at-risk species. Finally, these efforts can provide natural solutions to climate adaptation, such as restoring wetlands to reduce the impact floods.

The waste sector provides untapped opportunities. By expanding landfill gas use, this cleaner burning source of energy which was once wasted could be put to use and create economic opportunities. From an environmental perspective, methane from landfills are of particular concern, and, by turning it into an energy source, short-term and quick climate benefits could be realized.

The agriculture sector could also benefit from climate measures but additional research is needed. Recognizing the need for innovation will make the sector more resilient and can result in economic opportunities.

What are some key elements to consider in implementing a robust policy?

One challenge will be to ensure that carbon sinks credits attributed to Canada’s inventory are real and additional. A robust, objective and transparent accounting system will be necessary.

Sound climate policy could support both emission reduction and biodiversity objectives. When restoring and protecting ecosystems, governments can begin by prioritizing natural habitats to meet a number of objectives. For example, governments could protect and restore critical habitat for species at risk in order to meet emission reduction and conservation objectives. To this end, the Canadian federal government should be mindful of its fast approaching international commitment, under the Aichi Biodiversity Targets, of protecting at least 17 per cent of terrestrial and inland water by 2020, among other areas. It will be important for governments to work closely with Aboriginal communities on conservation efforts.

When it comes to bioenergy policies, governments should ensure that they don’t inadvertently stimulate deforestation and increase the use of fertilizers for feedstock production. The same would be true with increased use of wood products in buildings. If anything, governments should maximize conservation efforts and further improve sustainable forestry practices. Opportunities in landfill gas, on the other hand, should be maximized through requirements that reduce methane emissions to the extent possible.

Finally, while noting the need for innovation, governments could also create conditions in order for the agriculture sector to be both part of the climate solution and capitalize on market opportunities. For example, improved soil management can result in emission reductions and governments can create opportunities for the sector to create carbon offsets. These could provide the agriculture sector with new revenue opportunities under carbon pricing programs.