VANCOUVER—Canada can’t meet its energy needs and climate commitments if it ramps up oil and gas production, says a new report by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives which calls for the development of an energy plan.

The report, released Tuesday amidst an ongoing feud over the Trans Mountain pipeline project, says the rest of Canada’s economy would have to reduce emissions by almost 50 per cent over the next 12 years to meet its 2030 climate targets if oil and gas production increases as projected by the National Energy Board.

By 2040, emissions from the rest of the economy would need to be down 85 per cent, it says.

“I would suggest that’s virtually impossible,” said David Hughes, the report author and an earth scientist who has studied energy resources for more than 40 years.

Canada, a signatory to the Paris Agreement, has committed to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions to 30 per cent below 2005 levels by 2030 and 80 per cent below by 2050.

Caroline Thériault, spokesperson for federal Environment Minister Catherine McKenna, said in a statement that Canada will meet those targets through initiatives like accelerating the phase-out of coal power, investing in green infrastructure and transit, and implementing a carbon price.

But George Hoberg, a professor who specializes in environment and natural resource policy at the University of British Columbia, said “Hughes is right” when it comes to the oilsands and climate.

“I don’t think there’s any disagreement about that beyond the spin rooms in Ottawa. Trudeau and Co. can only make their claims about the economy and environment going hand in hand by postponing the inevitable day of reckoning for Canada, and especially Alberta,” he via email.

Both the federal and Alberta governments have positioned the Trans Mountain pipeline project, which would twin the existing 1,100-km pipeline and nearly triple its flow of diluted bitumen to B.C.’s coast, as critical to the national interest.

A spokesperson for Alberta Energy Minister Margaret McCuaig-Boyd said the pipeline project won’t increase carbon emissions because of the province’s cap on oilsands emissions.

“Completing the Trans Mountain expansion pipeline would mean almost $1 billion more annually in revenue for Alberta, which is what we use to pay for the important public services that Albertans rely on like teachers in our classrooms and nurses in our hospitals,” said Mike McKinnon, the minister’s press secretary, in a statement.

Though, in Alberta, government revenue from royalties and other resource revenue declined significantly between 2005 and 2016 despite growth in production, the Centre for Policy Alternative’s report notes.

“Canada has never been able, nor even tried, to reconcile its international climate commitments with its fossil-dominated energy system,” Hoberg said.

But Terry Abel, the executive vice-president of the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, said emissions reductions have to be considered within a global context.

“If the world’s going to use oil and gas and they’re going to continue to use it at increasing rates — certainly at least for the next several decades — why would we not want the oil and gas used in the world to come from the most responsibly produced resources in the planet?” he said.

He added that the report forecasts emissions from oil and gas based on the technologies that exist today, but it ignores that the industry has a record of reducing emissions with new technologies.

While Canada is the world’s second-largest producer of hydropower, 76 per cent of the energy used is provided by fossil fuels. And Canadians consume five times more energy per capita than the world average — almost 30 per cent more than our American neighbours.

The Pan-Canadian Framework on Clean Growth and Climate Change, the report adds, assumes that an unspecified amount of emissions reductions will come from international cap and trade credits.

“The bottom line is we need a plan and we really don’t have one at this point in time,” said Hughes.

Any plan that’s developed should put a major focus on reducing consumption, he said. But people need alternative options, which means heavy investments in transit, funding for building retrofits and more stringent building codes.

The benefits of conservation programs are evident in this province, where B.C. Hydro has had a conservation program that aims to help its customer use less electricity for 25 years. Without it, the average home would use 16 per cent more electricity than it does now, said Tanya Fish, a spokesperson for the utility.

Alongside measures aimed at lowering energy consumption, the report says an energy plan should consider that ramping up oil and gas production isn’t feasible if Canada wants to meet its climate targets.

Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading...

The alternatives aren’t straightforward though.

Hydro and nuclear offer cleaner alternatives but come with their own environmental and economic issues, which means major new projects are likely to face opposition. At the same time renewables like wind and solar can be intermittent and seasonal, meaning they may not be a reliable replacement for fossil fuels in all cases, the report notes.

“Getting carbon emissions out of our energy system, and rolling out the massive infrastructure buildup of clean energy necessary to provide the energy services we need, are arguably humanity’s most formidable challenges between now and mid-century,” Hoberg said.

Ainslie Cruickshank is a Vancouver-based reporter covering the environment. Follow her on Twitter: @ainscruickshank

Read more about: