Saskatchewan has taken steps to address its greenhouse gas emissions, most notably through the implementation of carbon capture and storage technology. This is definitely a step in the right direction in addressing climate change.

However, as long as fossil fuel subsidies and other financial supports exist, they will continue to challenge efforts to reduce emissions in Saskatchewan as well as meeting Canada’s G7 subsidy elimination target.This commentary takes a very preliminary look at consumer fossil fuel subsidies in Saskatchewan. Our initial research identifies roughly CAD 182 million in 2015 in the form of financial supports for the consumption of fossil fuels.

The supports for fossil fuel use identified here are a good place to start to look at reforms. They are not the only supports in place, and we also suggest increased transparency on the foregone revenue represented by the additional, unquantified items. Subsidy reform should be bundled with other policies that help affected industries and workers to adjust. Here the federal government will need to work closely with the provinces, including Saskatchewan.

Dr. Mark Hanson, University of Manitoba, brought a group of students from across Canada to IISD Experimental Lakes Area for a two week field course in the summer of 2016. He explains why IISD-ELA is such a great place for a unique educational experience on environmental protection and aquatic resource management.

The Government of Canada has a longstanding commitment to phasing out production subsidies to the fossil fuel industry, starting with the commitment in the G20 Leaders’ Statement at the 2009 G20 Summit in Pittsburgh.

In this joint submission, Oil Change International, Environmental Defence, Équiterre, International Institute for Sustainable Development, and Climate Action Network recommend that that First Ministers agree in November 2016 to eliminate federal and provincial subsidies to oil, gas and coal by 2020. It also urges the Government of Canada to commit to publicly releasing a detailed schedule in their respective 2017 budgets outlining the specific fiscal measure to be eliminated.

Last year’s Paris climate change agreement marked the first time that all countries have committed to help adapt to climate change and reduce emissions. Canada’s overseas development assistance (ODA) now needs to focus on realizing these commitments. Ensuring maximum impact will require attending to areas where need is greatest and where Canada has particular expertise.

A core focus should be on supporting fragile states where climate change is rapidly eroding prospects for peace and development. A decade of work by IISD has demonstrated the links between climate events such as severe drought or flooding, and the cornerstones of development such as food security, human health, migration and conflict. Proportionately, fragile states are the most vulnerable. These countries tend to be dependent on rain-fed agriculture, while poverty and weak governance undermine their ability to respond to climate stresses.  

There is therefore a pressing need to better prepare fragile states for climate change. Here, the United Nation Framework Convention on Climate Change has established a process—National Adaptation Plans (NAPs)—for assisting developing countries. In addition to providing targeted support for climate-responsive growth across vulnerable sectors like farming, the NAP process provides a foundation to improve governance, so critical in fragile states and a key component of Canada’s international development strategy.

Last March, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and President Barack Obama announced support for the National Adaptation Plan Global Network, created to promote peer learning among developing nations, improve coordination between bilateral donors, and support on-the-ground development and implementation of adaptation plans. Having pledged its support, Canada should take advantage of this network to help make sure our support for adaptation planning in developing countries can be as effective as possible.  

Climate resilient technologies in agriculture will be particularly important for developing countries facing an increasingly volatile environment. Canada should be a leader in supporting resilience-based innovation by, for example, bringing global climate impact mapping to scale, working with farmers to pinpoint vulnerable storage facilities, and supporting climate resilient seed development.

In addition to assisting countries to adapt to the impacts of climate change, the Paris agreement demands that all countries curb carbon emissions over time. Heading into the Paris conference, 188 countries outlined the actions they intend to take to do that; now they face a significant challenge in not only realizing those substantial emission reductions, but also increasing their ambition in the years ahead.

Here again, a focus on agriculture is needed. The sector is responsible for one third of global emissions, and two thirds of global mitigation potential from agriculture is located in the developing world. Climate-smart agriculture can both reduce emissions and stimulate economic growth through improved infrastructure and more efficient practices. Growing markets for certified sustainable products (such as organics fair trade and other eco-labels) represent an opportunity for facilitating this transition; however, this will require targeted investment from ODA sources to ensure that more marginalized producers can access these markets as they expand.

More broadly, the Paris objectives require a rapid scaling up of financing from both public and private sources for the large-scale investments needed in areas like clean energy and infrastructure. There are a growing number of options available ranging from the use of innovative instruments, such as voluntary offsets and green bonds, to improved coordination and transparency among actors committed to providing green finance through initiatives like the Global Impact Investment Network and Montreal’s own Finance Alliance for Sustainable Trade. For Canada there is an opportunity to engage its world class financial service sector to stimulate new and innovative climate finance approaches.

Finally, there is the question of Canada’s own contribution to assisting developing countries in the transition to lower-carbon, more resilient economies. Since 1970, developed economies have repeatedly committed to providing 0.7 per cent of their gross national income to overseas development assistance. However, historically only five countries have done so (Sweden, Netherlands, Norway, Denmark and Luxembourg). In 2015, the United Kingdom became the sixth, and the first G7 country, to formally commit to meeting this target. Canada has an opportunity to turn the United Kingdom’s bold move into a “trend” among G7 countries by making a similar commitment.

Today we know so much more; we know just how monumental the challenges are, and that it is now entirely untenable to consider ODA at anything below these 1970 targets as meaningful. The world is ready for change, but it will not be possible without significant investment. 

This article was originally posted on The Hill Times website on July 20, 2016, and is reprinted here with permission.

Climate change will be high on the agenda as Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, President Barack Obama and President Peña Nieto meet in Ottawa this week for the North American leadership summit. With the right approach, cooperation will make it easier for the three countries to meet their respective climate commitments, while also creating economic opportunities.

Given the integrated nature of the North American market, there are natural synergies that we can capitalize on. Here are four key areas where our governments should focus.

Reducing Emissions in the Oil and Gas Sector

Methane emissions are 25 times more potent to our climate than carbon dioxide. Eliminating leaks as well as wasteful routine venting and flaring practices would provide low-cost emission reduction opportunities in the short term. Last March, Canada and the United States agreed to a 40–45 per cent reduction in emissions from methane by 2025, and also endorsed the World Bank Zero Routine Flaring Initiative. As a next step, it will be important for Mexico to join Canada and United States on the methane reduction goals. Harmonization will prevent a patchwork of policies, improve the energy sector’s competitiveness and create opportunities to expand exports of emission-reduction technology.

A North American Approach to Clean Energy

All three countries can better connect their electricity grids from where clean energy is produced to where demand is growing. This would result in a more resilient and reliable grid, and reduce price volatility. In parallel, we must increase our clean energy production capacity and quickly move away from coal-fired electricity production. This should include phasing out coal-fired electricity generation as quickly as possible. A harmonized North American renewable energy target would also optimize clean energy production while increasing the flow of capital to the sector.

Building a Competitive Transportation Sector

A similar approach should be applied to the transportation sector. There is much that our three countries can do to drive innovation and build a more competitive sector, such as setting clear targets for engine manufactures to build the cars of the future. A North American approach can increase the competitive advantage of the automotive sector as market demand grows globally for near-zero emission vehicles. North America’s automotive sector will face serious challenges if we fail to move quickly in this regard.

North American Global Leadership in Monitoring and Reporting

One of the fundamental problems with the global climate change regime is the lack of a common framework for monitoring, reporting and verifying reductions in emission. Without this, it is not only difficult to compare levels of effort and verify results between states and provinces, but to compare countries—a must if we want to know accurately which countries are meeting their commitments and which are falling behind. This lack of a common framework can also result in inefficiencies and missed opportunities for further emission reductions.

There is an opportunity for North America to lead on this front, by taking an evidence-based approach in determining standards for measurement and reporting among the three countries trilaterally, as well as providing guidance to other jurisdictions around the globe.

Leadership and cooperation in this regard will ensure that we are getting our money’s worth when investing in reducing emissions, and ensure that the outcomes of policy reflect the ambitions of the countries and their national targets. Having this common and evidence-based framework can also better position North America to advocate for more ambitious climate efforts in other countries.

This article was originally posted on The Hill Times website on June 28, 2016, and is reprinted here with permission.

In May 2016 the Government of Canada, along with other G-7 countries, committed to a much needed timeline to phase out fossil fuel subsidies.

These countries committed to ending fossil fuel subsidies by 2025, attaching a specific year to the previous commitments to phase out subsidies for fossil fuels.

We have a good picture of the scale of this task at the national level in Canada from a recent IISD/ODI/OCI report, G20 Subsidies to Oil, Gas and Coal Production: Canada. In this report, we identified CAD 2.9 billion in national subsidies for fossil fuel production.

This, however, is only part of the story. In an effort to better communicate the full scale of what it means for Canada to eliminate fossil fuel subsidies, IISD will be taking a look at both production and consumption subsidies through a series of briefing notes, along with a consideration of where action is already taking place and where more can be taken.

We start this examination with Canada’s most heavily populated province, Ontario. Phasing out the use of coal and setting a price on carbon are two major accomplishments in Ontario, but there is a third one needed for a truly low-carbon future for the province and for Canada as a whole. This is the removal of environmentally harmful subsidies that support production and consumption of fossil fuels.

This commentary highlights some of the prominent subsidies in place in Ontario that give preferential tax treatment to the use of fossil fuels, and examines how Ontario stacks up against other provinces.

At the end of May 2016, the Water Brothers visited IISD Experimental Lakes Area to shoot an episode on the impact of climate change on fresh water. They performed some of the science themselves, spoke with researchers,  shot our beautiful vistas and, most importantly, met our fish.