Canada 51
setting emissions standards, improving monitoring, reporting, and verification of
methane emissions, and detecting leaks and repairing (Leach et al., 2015). In
this future, carbon capture and storage (CCS) is anticipated as a game- changing
technology. Starting from 2018, Alberta was expected to capture 2.76 million
tons of CO 2 per year, equivalent to the emissions of around 600,000 cars/year
(Alberta Ministry of Energy, 2017). We can anticipate the development of CCS
to continue to grow once the cost of the technology falls. The Albertan
government intends to lead the way towards a more sustainable energy system
while respecting the current system that is largely dependent on fossil fuels.
Technological advancements are expected to reduce emissions and
environmental impact while increasing productivity. However, some
technologies being tested, such as solvent- assisted in- situ bitumen extraction,
although capable of generating a significant decrease in carbon emissions, raise
many concerns due to their potential environmental impact and unknown
cumulative effects in the local ecosystems. Alberta’s lead is in line with federal
intentions to reduce emissions through its Pan- Canadian Framework on Clean
Growth and Climate Change. This framework contributes to Canada’s 2017
National Determined Contribution to reduce emissions to 30% below 2005
levels by 2030.
The reception of this pathway among industry stakeholders is mixed. Some
players consider that the Pan- Canadian framework could bring clarity and
stability to the sector and potentially open new markets if the carbon footprint
of the Alberta oil sands can be lowered through technological innovation.
However, for other industry stakeholders, this future is harmful to the sector and
lacks inclusion of the industry’s current concerns. Although this future
represents a change widely expected by many, the collapse of oil prices in 2014
changed the sector’s outlook. Low oil prices, especially for the Alberta oil sands,
forced producers to significantly cut spending and concentrate their efforts in
reducing production costs to at least break even at oil prices below C$50/barrel
(Erickson, 2018). Under this reality, the new cap on emissions, a trading system,
and the carbon tax was an additional cost unwanted during a time when the
industry was struggling. While the policy was being developed, oil producers
increased production to maintain profits, causing an increase in GHG emissions
(Environment and Climate Change Canada, 2017).
By contrast, these measures were welcomed by environmentalists, who also
claimed the measures did not do enough to decrease climate change impacts.
Moreover, this future represents a risk of double standards since the advisory
panel that developed the Climate Leadership Plan acknowledged that such
measures would probably not be enough to meet the emission reduction goals of
the Paris Agreement and the Canadian NDC. Detractors of these new measures
stress the fact that more- drastic changes are needed in order to achieve the
global objectives. However, the limits placed of these regulatory actions were
justified by avoiding carbon leakage – an increase of emissions in a jurisdiction
as a result of the reduction of emissions in another jurisdiction with stricter
climate policies. From our perspective, the actual reason was the desire to
setting emissions standards, improving monitoring, reporting, and verification of
methane emissions, and detecting leaks and repairing (Leach et al., 2015). In
this future, carbon capture and storage (CCS) is anticipated as a game- changing
technology. Starting from 2018, Alberta was expected to capture 2.76 million
tons of CO 2 per year, equivalent to the emissions of around 600,000 cars/year
(Alberta Ministry of Energy, 2017). We can anticipate the development of CCS
to continue to grow once the cost of the technology falls. The Albertan
government intends to lead the way towards a more sustainable energy system
while respecting the current system that is largely dependent on fossil fuels.
Technological advancements are expected to reduce emissions and
environmental impact while increasing productivity. However, some
technologies being tested, such as solvent- assisted in- situ bitumen extraction,
although capable of generating a significant decrease in carbon emissions, raise
many concerns due to their potential environmental impact and unknown
cumulative effects in the local ecosystems. Alberta’s lead is in line with federal
intentions to reduce emissions through its Pan- Canadian Framework on Clean
Growth and Climate Change. This framework contributes to Canada’s 2017
National Determined Contribution to reduce emissions to 30% below 2005
levels by 2030.
The reception of this pathway among industry stakeholders is mixed. Some
players consider that the Pan- Canadian framework could bring clarity and
stability to the sector and potentially open new markets if the carbon footprint
of the Alberta oil sands can be lowered through technological innovation.
However, for other industry stakeholders, this future is harmful to the sector and
lacks inclusion of the industry’s current concerns. Although this future
represents a change widely expected by many, the collapse of oil prices in 2014
changed the sector’s outlook. Low oil prices, especially for the Alberta oil sands,
forced producers to significantly cut spending and concentrate their efforts in
reducing production costs to at least break even at oil prices below C$50/barrel
(Erickson, 2018). Under this reality, the new cap on emissions, a trading system,
and the carbon tax was an additional cost unwanted during a time when the
industry was struggling. While the policy was being developed, oil producers
increased production to maintain profits, causing an increase in GHG emissions
(Environment and Climate Change Canada, 2017).
By contrast, these measures were welcomed by environmentalists, who also
claimed the measures did not do enough to decrease climate change impacts.
Moreover, this future represents a risk of double standards since the advisory
panel that developed the Climate Leadership Plan acknowledged that such
measures would probably not be enough to meet the emission reduction goals of
the Paris Agreement and the Canadian NDC. Detractors of these new measures
stress the fact that more- drastic changes are needed in order to achieve the
global objectives. However, the limits placed of these regulatory actions were
justified by avoiding carbon leakage – an increase of emissions in a jurisdiction
as a result of the reduction of emissions in another jurisdiction with stricter
climate policies. From our perspective, the actual reason was the desire to