The path the Ford government…

The path the Ford government has taken to fulfill their campaign goal of cancelling the Ontario Cap and Trade program gleams with ill-intention and lack of concern for climate change for two reasons: the avoidance of public comment; and failing to propose any sort of replacement plan for the cap and trade program and for the Climate Change Mitigation and Low-carbon Economy Act (CCMLE) as a whole. Firstly, the government avoided a period of public comment for Bill 4, which not only violates the Environmental Bill of Rights but also denies the sharing of opinions by 'the people' that the Ford government states they are acting to protect. The Minister's justification for this was that the provincial election provided a sufficient public comment period: within this statement, the Minister is assuming that all those that voted for Ford agree with all of his campaign goals, including ending the cap and trade program; what he fails to understand, or failed to think of when he fashioned this excuse, is that just because a person votes for a party does not mean they fully support all of their campaign goals. Thus, some that voted for the liberal party candidate may have agreed that the cap and trade program should be cancelled, while there are also conservative voters that do not necessarily support this cancellation. Some may not see this as a purposeful mistake; however, the fact that this cancellation is being proposed without any replacement plan shows the lack of urgency felt by the Ford government to take climate change mitigation seriously.

Because of this, the proposal of Bill 4 shows no signs of being equally or more effective at decreasing CO2 emissions compared to the CCMLE Act, which supplied Ontario with a substantial amount of progress as our first step towards climate change action. Cap and trade programs are seen as one of the most reasonable ways to decrease greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions (Rocha et al., p. 195). These programs are most successful when two circumstances are met: when the region shifts from high-carbon fossil-fuels to low-emission technologies and renewable energy sources (p. 207); and when political resilience is kept at a minimum (Rabe, p. 110) through incentives and increased participation (Chaloux, p. 253). Some parties argue that moving towards renewable energy sources when fossil fuels are still so abundant is a simply foolish decision, as it is costly to invest in seemingly unnecessary renewable energy systems when fossil fuel extraction infrastructure is already available. Yet, these costs can be greatly decreased when renewable energy sector development is funded, either through private or government investment, as it allows for price decreases and will thus become increasingly affordable to implement (Yatchew, p. 3893). In Ontario's case, the federal government was prepared to provide Ontario with $400 million of funding towards a framework in-line with the national climate change plan as set out by the federal government (Rabson, 2018); additionally, Ontario made almost $3 billion through cap and trade auctioning (McQuigge, 2018). However, in order to be in compliance with the federal plan and in turn receive the federal funding, a carbon price scheme must be introduced in Ontario (Rabson, 2018). Thus, the cancellation of the cap and trade program throws away a huge opportunity to fund renewable energy development, inhibiting the movement away from fossil-fuel use.

More specifically in terms of political resilience, Rabe argues that cap and trade policies can be durable, but political resiliency in one region is often what causes failure in individual programs and in other regions' programs as they lose encouragement to participate (p. 110). Federal funding was put in place to incentivize the Ontario government to implement cap and trade, and the province accumulated additional funding to allow for the greatest success of the program. In spite of this, the Ford government denied participation, which will in turn cause other regions to lose incentive to decrease emissions through cap and trade. If Ontario was to continue the path to cap and trade, more provinces in Canada as well as regions internationally would be more incentivized to participate, and the international effort of decreasing GHG emissions would become more effective (Chaloux, p. 253).

Not only does Bill 4 discard federal funding, it also wastes the labour and funding that went in to creating and planning the infrastructure of the cap and trade program. If the new act is supposed to achieve the same emissions reductions as the CCMLE Act, the cost of retracting cap and trade infrastructure, creating a new program, and implementing it is quite an immense price to pay when the result is supposed to be equivalent. This is not only costly in terms of money but in terms of time: the cap and trade program has been largely implemented and now additional time will be taken to execute the cancellation and determine a new program. Our action towards mitigating climate change will be further delayed through this process. The longer we wait, the greater the climate change impacts will be, and thus transitioning to renewable energy and repairing these impacts will become increasingly expensive. We need to act fast, and Bill 4 is only an obstacle in a real attempt to decrease emissions. Even though Bill 4 states it will keep the same emissions reductions as the CCMLE Act, it provides no legal infrastructure that will ensure these emissions levels will be met, especially in accordance with the Paris agreement (Greenpeace, p. 12).

Although the impacts would be detrimental, if the Ontario government was to go forward with Bill 4, the same emissions targets as outlined in the CCMLE Act must be met. However, another program that will be as effective at reducing emissions will be a challenge for the Ford government. The use of federal and provincial funding to allow for an effective cap and trade program is largely in place, and any attempt to dismantle this program is clearly not for the benefit of Ontarians and the environment we live in.

Works Cited

Chaloux, A. (2017). The Implementation of the Western Climate Initiative: How North American States and Provinces Lead International Climate Negotiations. International Negotiation, 22, p. 239-258. doi 10.1163/15718069-22021112
Greenpeace. (2018, September 11). Notice of Application for Judicial Review. Retrieved from greenpeace.org/canada/en/press-release/4414/greenpeace-takes-ontario-to-court-for-unlawfully-cancelling-cap-and-trade-program/

McQuigge, M. (2018). Ontario government promises public consultations on cap-and-trade after facing legal action. Global News. Retrieved from globalnews.ca/news/4443790/ontario-government-promises-public-consultations-on-cap-and-trade-after-facing-legal-action/

Rabe, B.G. (2016). The Durability of Carbon Cap-and-Trade Policy. Governance: An International Journal of Policy, Administration, and Institutions, 29(1), p. 103-119. doi:10.1111/gove.12151

Rabson, M. (2018, July 4). Ontario cancelling cap and trade akin to pulling out of climate framework: Catherine McKenna. CBC News. Retrieved from cbc.ca/news/politics/ontario-federal-government-cap-trade-1.4734182

Rocha, P., Das, T.K., Nanduri, V., & Botterud, A. (2015). Impact of CO2 cap-and-trade programs on restructured power markets with generation capacity investments. Electrical Power and Energy Systems, 71, p. 195-208. doi.org/10.1016/j.ijepes.2015.02.031

Yatchew, A., & Baziliauskas, A. (2011). Ontario feed-in-tariff programs. Energy Policy, 39, p. 3885-3893. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2011.01.033