Earlier this year, Ontario’s…

Earlier this year, Ontario’s new premier Doug Ford passed Bill 4, the Cap and Trade Cancellation Act, with no public consultation. Luckily, it was delayed thanks to Greenpeace suing the government and forcing a public consultation (Wechsler, 2018). But with the consultation period coming to a quick close on October 11th, now is the time to properly weigh the costs and benefits of this bill.
For a bit of background first, we have known about the problem of climate change for approximately 70 years and Ontario has been hit worse than the rest of the planet and we have already seen the effects of this disruption in the increase in frequency of extreme weather events such as polar vortexes, flooding, and heatwaves. These events impact people’s health, safety, and well-being. For example, First Nation communities have already been evacuated from James Bay coastlines due to flooding (Stackelberg, 2017). These events also have a financial cost – after all we need homes and roads. Under the Cap & Trade (‘C&T’)system, we were able to reduce greenhouse gas (‘GHG’) by 32% since 1997 while GDP still grew 6% (Environmental Commissioner of Ontario, 2018). Cancelling the C&T program will harm our economy, slow down innovation, and most importantly place us in risk.
Since its passing in 2016, the C&T Act has already positively impacted the economy. In its first year, the program generated $1.9 billion in revenue from the carbon auction which in turn was directly invested back into the economy through projects such as improving public transportation, the School Retrofit Program (aiming to upgrade schools), and GreenON (an initiative to help consumers reduce heating and cooling costs) (Environmental Commissioner of Ontario, 2018). Not only will funding to the above-mentioned initiatives will be cancelled but the government has demanded the money to be returned despite already being paid. In total, 50 initiatives, 500+ organizations, and 752 renewable energy contracts have been defunded or cancelled. This is unacceptable seeing as in 2017, the C&T program generated $1 billion in Ontario alone ($19.8 billion in Canada) while employing 130,000 people across 5,000 companies (Environmental Commissioner of Ontario, 2018). This is even more unacceptable when realizing that the clean technology industry will be worth around $2.2 trillion by 2022 (Rabson, 2018).
Not only will cancelling the bill eliminate beneficial initiatives but may also endanger our relationships with Quebec and California, our two largest trading partners, since we do share the carbon economy. And given Canada’s relationship with NAFTA chapter 11, it may unnecessarily open Ontario to law suits (Environmental Commissioner of Ontario, 2018). And despite money returning to the people in the form of cheaper gas products, the cancelling of the beneficial initiatives may be a higher price to pay.
Overall the short-term economy is expected to improve; however, we should never forget that the future is right around the corner and with such uncertainties, Ontario must ensure that we can be fully independent. Currently, we import more than $11 billion worth of fuel annually. This is money that could be better spent in Ontario and is very possible if the government forces companies to get creative. Fortunately, the C&T program has an in-built innovation cycle. The cycle is as follows: first, emissions are capped which then leads to revenues from carbon-pricing which are then invested in efficiency improving projects which lowers GHG emissions in Ontario which are again capped. This cycle forces companies to get innovative, phase out high emission producers or risk paying steep amounts of money. For example, electricity completely phased out coal from 2003 to 2014 reducing emissions to 6% below 1990 emissions while also attracting billions of dollars in investment in clean energy (Ontario.ca, 2018).
Another excellent success story is a new fully electric mine being developed by Goldcorp. This is the first of its kind and has the distinct advantage of reducing operational costs, GHG emissions, and health risks to employees (Taylor & Lewis, 2018). This is a great example of the C&T cycle working – the company felt the pressure and knew they had to fix the issue. It is a good reminder that we can still make money while respecting our resources.
Ontario is not only dependent on its mining industry but also its significant agricultural industry. Increased GHG emissions have been linked to increased variability in weather patterns which invariably impacts agricultural produce. For example, warmer average temperatures have resulted in longer growing dies but on the other hand, increased variability may cause early growth only to be killed by frost. Moreover, increased occurrences of extreme heat waves have caused cattle to die. And finally, water access might be limited due to increased water pollution which makes land unusable and destroys marine populations . Our agricultural industry is worth protecting as it ensures self-sufficiency.
These GHG emissions also have health impacts on citizens. Currently, 120 people die in Toronto due to heatwaves per year. An increase in 5°C in the summer adds 4 deaths per day (Environmental Commissioner of Ontario, 2018). These deaths are not avoidable, but we should strive to reduce them and there are other higher risks. For example, mosquitos with Zika have been found in southern Ontario (Environmental Commissioner of Ontario, 2018). There are also other dangers associated with increased flooding occurrence. By 2020, climate disruption will cost Canada $5 billion per year and $21 to $43 billion per year by 2050. Insurance premiums have risen by 15-20% over the past 10 years. Wildfire management costs are currently at $120 million/ decade. In 2013, insured flooding damage in Toronto exceeded $940 million. These are just the fiscal costs and do not even account for the loss of life that occurs from natural disasters and illnesses that have been magnified by climate change (Environmental Commissioner of Ontario, 2018).

Overall, this bill will neutrally impact the short-term economy in that it provides households extra liquidity while cutting social welfare programs that would promote greener living styles. However, it discourages long-term investment which would make Ontario less competitive and force us to play catch-up and may damage our agricultural industry. Finally, it poses a health risk as uncontrolled GHG emissions will worsen extreme weather conditions and place citizens in danger.

Bibliography
Environmental Commissioner of Ontario. (2018). Climate Action in Ontario: What's Next? Toronto: Environmental Commissioner of Ontario.
Ontario.ca. (2018). The End of Coal. Retrieved from Ontario.ca: https://www.ontario.ca/page/end-coal
Rabson, M. (2018, March 16). Canada’s clean tech industry falling behind. Retrieved from The Record: https://www.therecord.com/news-story/8331512-canada-s-clean-tech-indust…
Stackelberg, M. v. (2017, April 17). Kashechewan First Nation evacuated due to flood concerns. Retrieved from CBC: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/sudbury/kashechewan-flood-evacuation-201…
Taylor, S., & Lewis, B. (2018, June 21). First new all-electric mine dumps diesel; cuts costs, pollution. Retrieved from Reuters: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-mining-electric-goldcorp/first-new-a…
Wechsler, F. S. (2018, September 11). Doug Ford is being taken to court again, this time for ‘unlawfully’ scrapping Ontario’s climate policies. Retrieved October 10, 2018