Discussions thématiques – contributions hors-ligne

Louis Beaumier :
How can we « Do no harm and leave no one behind »?

That is one of the BIG question raised today.

It calls for acting on adaptation and mitigation at once.

Jen Winter :
And also understanding the distributional implications of climate policy!

Normand Mousseau :
Devant l’urgence climatique, qui doit mener la transformation? / Facing climate urgency, quoi should lead the transition?

Alors que des groupes travaillent à construire des approches communautaires à la lutte aux changements climatiques, les grandes banques et les investisseurs développent leurs propres stratégies. Doit-on y voir une contradiction ? Doit-on essayer de relier ces pratiques ou laisser les initiatives indépendantes se multplier?

While groups are working to develop community-based approaches to addressing climate change, large banks and investors are implementing their own strategies. Is there a contradiciton ? Should one try to link these practices or favor the multiplication of such independent initiatives?

Simon Langlois-Bertrand :
Indeed it seems difficult to find the « right » role to play for larger actors (including federal and provincial agencies) if community/local action is prioritized. If local/smaller action is more promising, perhaps government policy should focus on larger actors (i.e., industry actors, large bank and investors). It could also provide logistical and networking support and funding for smaller actors to cooperate and share best practices, but without necessarily getting involved in the specifics. Would this approach fit with how the PCF was developed? Is there another, better way to link fed/prov policy with smaller actors?

Brendan Frank :
The policy-making process can build confidence in the outcomes

It’s important that the public is confident in both policy outcomes and the processes used to create them. Attend to both expert and public views (expert consensus can generate polarization if the public is not onside), ensure the process is representative across groups, and avoid any perceptions of politicization or partisanship.

Normand Mousseau :
I agree with you and I think that this is crucial. A report linked yesterday demonstrates that.

This report is from a committee on electrification, adaption and green finances put together by Quebec’s government a year ago. This committee counting around 70 people, had experts but also representatives from various groups of civil society (environmentalists, financiers, sectorial associations, unions, etc.). The report is fairly bold and precise in its recommendations.

Nevertheless, this reports raises questions that are relevant to this theme on governance as it totally ignores the rest of Canada, moving alone on electrification of transportations, for examples, buildings, etc. with potential recommandations that could be at odds with directions taken nationally and leading to strong inefficiencies.

How do we avoid or reduce that?

https://www.dropbox.com/s/f5hdk581fkw5rj3/COPT_document_Plan_electrificationQc_oct019_V05.pdf?dl=0

Graeme Reed :
Hi Normand – interested in the complete absence of First Nations (or Indigenous more broadly) participation in this report. Are there risks at highlighting reports or ‘expert’ processes that are not representative of the entire society in Quebec?

Normand Mousseau :
This is a complicated question. Often, First Nations in Quebec prefer to discuss nation to nation and not to participate into the consultations as simply one group among others. I don’t know what the situation was here.

Simon Langlois-Bertrand :
Policy interaction and evaluation

Given the limited success of several mitigation and clean growth policies in achieving their respective objectives, there is urgent need to establish better policy evaluation processes and feedback loops. Recent research indicates that very little attention is given to policy interactions, notably, whereby some policies may have the desired impact but one that is tempered by another policy with similar objectives.

Can research tell us more about how to improve these evaluation mechanisms, so that policy design is improved but also more (rapidly) responsive to results?

Jen Winter :
I agree that considering policy interaction is extremely important, and often underlooked. An important starting place is enumerating the different policies and evaluating how they interact.

The example I gave in our discussion is the work of the BC Basic Income panel. Here is a visualization of the different programs: http://bc-visualization.surge.sh/research-charts.

Doing something like this to evaluate the overall coherence of climate policy in Canada would be incredibly valuable and important, and help explore the efficacy of different policies.

There is a large literature (of course!) on policy evaluation. I produced a report for TBS synthesizing best practices in assessing regulation and regulatory programs as part of TBS’ regulation review: https://jenniferwinter.github.io/website/WinterAsif_RegReview2019.pdf. It summarises some of the relevant literature and could be useful.

Jen Winter :
Showcasing the benefits of policy harmonization/integration

There is a growing literature in economics outlining the economic benefits from policy harmonization. This can take several forms: harmonization across jurisdictions, or even within jurisdictions across sectors. To the extent that firms can be treated the same regardless of the jurisdiction they are in, it lowers the cost of compliance (which has economic benefits) and can lead to better environmental outcomes.

The 2016 Senate report on internal trade (https://sencanada.ca/content/sen/committee/421/BANC/Reports/2016-06-13_BANC_FifthReport_SS-2_tradebarriers(FINAL)_E.pdf) identified differences in environmental policy as a trade barrier.

Example of an environmental policy: Quebec and California merging the cap and trade system.

Example of a current policy action towards harmonization: http://www.newwestpartnershiptrade.ca/

Research on this (this is just a sampling):

Trevor Tombe, Jennifer Winter. Environmental Policy and Misallocation: The Productivity Effect of Intensity Standards. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 2015.

Trevor Tombe, Lukas Albrecht. Internal Trade, Productivity, and Interconnected Industries: A Quantitative Analysis. Canadian Journal of Economics, 2016.

Jorge Alvarez, Ivo Krznar, Trevor Tombe. Internal Trade in Canada: The Case for Liberalization. IMF Working Paper 19-158, 2019.

Yu Chen, Trevor Tombe. The Aggregate Productivity Effect of Labour and Capital Market Distortions in Canada. Working Paper, 2020.

Jen Winter :
The role of cities (engaging all levels of government)

I think the CICC has an important role in helping cities and other communities in prioritizing their mitigation and adaptation actions.

My example is from Calgary: the city has a strategy with a large number of actions it committed to (https://www.calgary.ca/uep/esm/energy-savings/climate-change.html?redirect=/climateprogram). But, as far as I can tell, moving forward on many of these actions depends on the interests and priorities of members of the City’s Climate Advisory Panel, rather than a true prioritization of need or net benefits.

I imagine many other cities are in the same situation. And, I also suspect that (like other levels of government) there is a lack of coherence in policy or consideration of policy interactions within cities.

David Foord :
What frameworks can be used to prepare climate policies in the Canadian context?

How can the multi-level perspective in sociotechnical transition literature (Geels, Schot, Raven, etc.) and mobilization models (Mathews, Polzin, Bartels, Cohen, Delina, etc.) be used to frame Canadian policy alternatives?

David Foord :
Scientific Research and Experimental Development

Canada’s Scientific Research and Experimental Development (SR&ED) Program provides incentives R&D in both high carbon and low carbon initiatives alike. What new taxation credit programs may be investigated to incentivize low versus high carbon initiatives?

Marjorie Shepherd :
A few notes on social policies where understanding how to apply climate lens would be beneficial….

Finding climate in other social policy instruments. Do we understand where climate change impacts of warming, related consequences) and the impact of policies/action interface with the major social policy levers / mechanisms in Canada?? For example food, wages and energy equity.

The National Food Policy

https://www.canada.ca/en/campaign/food-policy/thefoodpolicy.html

Priority Outcome 5: Sustainable food practices: Improvements in the state of the Canadian environment through the use of practices along the food value chain that reduce environmental impact and that improve the climate resilience of the Canadian food system.

And…. Fostering protection and conservation of the environment, including support for the adoption of practices and technologies that contribute to clean air and water, soil health, biodiversity, sustainable use of resources (e.g. greenhouse gas emissions, energy, farm inputs, and water) and climate change mitigation and adaptation.

Also at Food Secure Canada – analysis of COVID, SDGs (climate) and food security

https://foodsecurecanada.org/food-policy/sustainable-development-goals

EAT Lancet Commission Food Guide – that includes animal protein because of (primarily) livelihood considerations.

https://eatforum.org/eat-lancet-commission/eat-lancet-commission-summary-report/

Living Wage / Minimum Wage policy and climate resiliency & justice

Do we understand the potential of “wage policy” to build in resiliency for vulnerable or marginalized people, and potentially vulnerable (the precariat). If decarbonized energy sources are more expensive, employment shifts as sectors decarbonize…. is our “wage structure” resilient ? What would “climate resilient wage structure” look like?

An older article, but makes the point: https://www.policyalternatives.ca/publications/ourschools-ourselves/climate-change-whos-carrying-burden

And more recent Federal Issue Paper: https://www.canada.ca/en/employment-social-development/services/labour-standards/reports/federal-minimum-wage.html

UNIFOR statement https://www.unifor.org/en/whats-new/news/unifor-joins-global-strike-demand-climate-justice

Energy policy

https://www.nrcan.gc.ca/sites/www.nrcan.gc.ca/files/energy/CoucilReport_july4_EN_Web.pdf

The principles on page 12 include all the right words to address preventing social inequity and exacerbating current inequities.  Do we know how to do this? What does the climate lens for energy transition look like?

jeyzaguirre@essa.com :
Thanks Marjorie! I was thinking along the same lines as you and was specifically going to suggest applying climate and equity lenses on Canada’s food policy! I really like the idea of examining the nexus between universal basic income and climate action (both M & A), since proposals are still being put forward.

Other ideas:

Canada’s Buildings Strategy delivers on the Pan-Canadian Framework but I am not sure how well integrated climate resilience considerations are and it would be insightful to « test » the pathways suggested in this document against social equity goals.
http://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2018/rncan-nrcan/M4-150-2017-eng.pdf

(Incidentally, I just skimmed through the most recent Pan Canadian Framework report on progress and the word equity occurs 5 times, all in the context of financial equity (ownership of assets).)

Another possible slice could be to look at a sample of « successful » climate-related interventions (ideally both GHG mitigation and adaptation) in Canada and examining their development and implementation outcomes through a climate justice lens. The aim could be to develop a series of best-practice-principles to assist in program design and to understand what enabling conditions need to be in place to follow them. The framework in this article looks like a useful starting point. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959378014000120

On issues of gender equity and resource-based communities, Dr. Maureen Reed’s work comes to mind.
https://www.nrcresearchpress.com/doi/pdfplus/10.1139/cjfr-2014-0174

Here are a couple of articles / resources to spark thinking as we move on to refining research questions:

Natcher, D., Bogdan, A. M., Lieverse, A., & Spiers, K. (2020). Gender and Arctic climate change science in Canada. Palgrave Communications, 6(1), 1-8. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41599-020-0407-6

Mantyka-Pringle, C. S., Westman, C. N., Kythreotis, A. P., & Schindler, D. W. (2015). Honouring indigenous treaty rights for climate justice. Nature Climate Change, 5(9), 798-801. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Chrystal_Mantyka-Pringle/publication/280920347_Honouring_indigenous_treaty_rights_for_climate_justice/links/55cb23f808aea2d9bdcc229e.pdf

Islam, N., & Winkel, J. (2017). Climate change and social inequality.
https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/docserver/2c62335d-en.pdf?expires=1600524490&id=id&accname=guest&checksum=DECFE3F4450DF6246CA4CFE19EF39119

GBA+ is a tool advanced by Status of Women Canada that is the equivalent to the climate lens for infrastructure funding. In principle all Memoranda to Cabinet (federally) have to apply GBA+ in policy design and in evaluating potential outcomes of policy implementation. I am not sure about the rigour of application in practice…and no idea if there are comparable things in provinces, territories or at the local government level.
https://cfc-swc.gc.ca/gba-acs/index-en.html

jeyzaguirre@essa.com :
Reflections on September 15 discussions

Thanks everyone for the initial discussion on social and equity dimensions of low carbon-climate resilient transitions. The topic is huge and our perspectives are diverse so I am confident we will land on useful and motivating lines of inquiry. Personally, I found it a bit difficult to engage in the initial discussion because of the wide-ranging / almost intractable scope. I am comfortable with ambiguity, for sure, but it would be helpful if we (1) sketched out a structure for future discussions and (2) decided whether there are themes that are out of scope.

With respect to (1) and drawing from some knowledge of these issues from a developing-country context, this IDRC / IDS publication synthesizes scholarship on climate justice and provides a framework for transformative climate justice that looks at procedural (process) and distributive (outcomes) aspects.Based on this framework a number of issues emerge. Some of the ones I think could be relevant to our discussions are as follows:

Procedural justice (inputs and drivers, processes that affect outcomes) 

**Participation of different social groups at national levels: Decision-making processes can be vulnerable to capture and even abuse by certain political and economic actors.

**Ability to make claims for resource access: This relates to the proactive agency of marginalized groups in asserting and defending their rights and making their voices heard. This relates to climate policy but also to policies and decisions that underpin adaptive capacity, such as land and water rights, health service access.

**Recognition and integration of plural knowledges: This is a key justice concern. Over recent years there has been a growing attention to local and Indigenous Knowledge in framing problems / understanding challenges as well as devising solutions. But there is limited progress on actual integration of knowledge other than scientific or formal knowledges in decision-making processes.

**Accountability in government and non-government/private sector climate action: This concerns to what extent processes that are meant to serve marginalized populations are transparent in their goals as well as processes, and relates to emissions of GHGs as well as their effects on vulnerability to climate-related risks.

Distributive justice (outcome focus, sharing of costs and benefits)

**Just transitions: A key justice concern is the extent to which transitions to low-carbon economies are inclusive, recognizing the different burdens, costs and the potentials for benefits among different social groups.

**Just energy access: This is an important, yet contested area, relating to how benefits and costs on energy services are distributed.

**Outcomes from GHG mitigation interventions: While this is linked to issues of just transitions, there are added concerns here around how mitigation interventions – typically seen as necessary and a global public good (although local benefits in terms of cost savings and energy security, for example) – may have unintended negative (or positive) consequences in terms of human rights, land use, as well as other implications for livelihoods that may affect vulnerability to climate-related shocks and stressors and contribute to contemporary populist sentiments.

**Just distribution of benefits from adaptation and resilience programs: Unlike mitigation projects, adaptation and resilience benefits are primarily local in nature, yet may affect people differently. Decisions over who is prioritized by adaptation funding decisions have strong climate justice dimensions, and there is significant evidence to suggest that not everyone will benefit equally from adaptation interventions.

We could probably come up with many additional configurations of procedural and distributive justice issues. It would help to be able to find some focus, recognizing that each of us could have different views on what’s most important.

David Pearson :
First Nations. Communication.

I appreciated being part of today’s discussion. I would like to suggest that “Integrative Strategies” could benefit from considering research questions that have to do with integrating various public audiences into the transformative conversations discussed today. Rebecca pointed that out in her comments on behalf of our group. I suggest Indigenous Canadians (First Nations in Ontario) have a right to special involvement; they are, after all, rights holders not stakeholders. Communication is mentioned in the framing document and would obviously be part of engaging public audiences, including Indigenous peoples. It should be elevated in significance and considered in developing research questions …. I would like to say all research questions in keeping with urgency noted in our discussion.

Chris Chopik :
It appears that global best practice is emerging with respect to at risk populations, specifically related to climate risk and forced migration. Many indigenous communities in Canada are in these High-risk locations. From my research paper, working with client Global Indigenous Development Trust on the Futures of Indigenous Economic Development 2042, I learned a granular level that indigenous communities in Canada are not being consulted about issues related to resource extraction and self-determination in terms of housing and community resources.

I think there is important work to be done in a human centered design research and co-creation process around housing archetypes and eliminating issues which have plagued remote and particularly indigenous communities in Canada.

In 2008 I met with Michael Bryant to was the Minister of indigenous affairs at the Ontario government at the time, to discuss with him some of the ideas that could be brought to remote communities around integrated Energy generation (non-diesel) combined with water purification and leading efficiency in house design. There are many proven an existing technologies that are available and produced here in Canada which are ideally suited to resolve some of the welfare questions related to indigenous Canadian communities.

One specific example is Ontario based company Zenon, prior to being cured by GE, initiated a program called Water for Humanity, where they would send out a shipping container (or series of them) with the capacity to Plug into polluted water or effluent and place that effluent through a reverse osmosis and purification process to make it possible water on the other end of the system.

I think there is a Critically Important Opportunity for Canada to co create solutions with indigenous communities that integrate leading technologies and skills with locally skilled people who may be builders, maintenance staff, residents, community members, and experts from outside the community to create a quality of life focussed process for improving the living conditions, quality of life and self determined opportunity for Canada’s first peoples.

Lastly, additionally there may be incorporated to this an opportunity to do as Taking IT Global (https://www.tigweb.org/) had in 2001 « bridging the digital divide », by making technology and global connection accessible to remote Indigenous communities.

I would like to collaborate on a Human Centred Design research question that allows Indigenous Canadians to shape their future in the context of Climate response, decarbonization, cleantech and intergenerational quality of life.

John Zhou :
Follow-up to Integrative Strategies Session on Wednesday, September 16, 2020

Further to Wednesday’s Integrative Strategies session, I am proposing here a couple of ideas on the research question around Integrative Strategies for CICC to consider.

1.      How can technological, behavioural and financial dimensions be integrated to address the challenges of national mitigation polices targeting the natural resources sector?

This is the Sample Question #8 in the Framing Document. It is well framed. It speaks to “natural resources sector” not “fossil fuel sector”. Yes, natural resources sector is one of the largest emitters in Canada today and bulk of hydrocarbon resources are used for fuel. But they don’t have to be. Natural resources can be part of a solution. Think of blue hydrogen, bitumen beyond combustion (BBC), geothermal, petro-lithium, vanadium, … All can contribute to net-zero emission solutions: blue hydrogen for heavy duty vehicles and heating; carbon fibers for light weight and energy efficient vehicles, wind blades, low-emission intensity infrastructures, etc.; activated carbon for energy storage; geothermal for power and heat; Li and V for EV and energy storage; … The possibilities are numerous and they are increasingly becoming real. In the coming decades where hydrocarbon based fuels are still necessary, its production can be decarbonized (CCS, SMNR, geothermal, etc.). Canada can be the low-carbon emission oil and gas producer for the world. Carbon utilization, biofuel production with CCS, and nature-based solutions can mitigate the emission from hydrocarbon fuels. Therefore, the question is how to make these possibilities into realities. What technological, behavioural, and financial changes (or advances) will be required? How national policies can accelerate the changes? How much impact they can have for Canada’s overall net-zero goal? These are rich questions for CICC to address. At the intersection of technology, behavior, and finance, this question should not be avoided. Above all, this is the largest export industry for Canada.

2.      Optimal Net-Zero Emission Energy System for Canada

The Government of Canada has set an ambition to reach net-zero GHG emissions in Canada by 2050. There are multiple pathways to reach net zero emissions. As an integrative strategy considering technology, behavior, and finance, can CICC take on an optimal energy system modelling approach? Such modelling may identify most socially acceptable and economically effective way to reach net-zero emission for a jurisdiction. Tools for optimal net-zero emission energy system modelling are available. For example, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Energy Initiative (MITei) has developed a SESAME and have been applied to certain jurisdictions. While SESAME type of models are effective in looking at technology feasibility and economic efficiency to reach net-zero, it cannot model social behavior and acceptance. CICC may contribute to this third dimension. The results of the energy system modelling and behavioural analysis can form solid recommendations and roadmap for Canada to achieve its net-zero emission by 2020 goal.

Regards,
John Zhou
Alberta Innovates

David Foord :
Social Practice Change

1. How can social practice theory (Shove, etc.) be applied to examine (at times unnecessarily fixed) assumptions and standards in energy consumption and energy system modelling?
2. What can be learned and applied from previous public policy initiatives to change public behaviours, e.g. health eating, calories counting, exercise, etc? Wha may be learned from initiatives in other states that have implemented publication education carbon reduction initiatives?

David Foord :
Personal Investing

Canada’s Registered Retirement Savings Plan (RRSP) and Tax Free Savings Account (TFSA) provide popular incentives for personal investing. What new models for personal investing may be developed to incentive the mobilization of capital into low carbon firms and initiatives? How might the policy options be framed in new laws and regulations?

David Pearson : 
First Nations

Nothing profound or far reaching, I simply suggest two steps, if they have not already been taken in one way or another :

1.      Inclusion of First Nations in the discussion of research questions related to policy development through the Assembly of First Nations.  Perhaps this is implied by initiatives in the Speech from the Throne or is happening already in another context.

2.      The AFN will probably want to frame the discussion with their emphasis on protection of biodiversity, which has been strenuous.

3.      Some research questions may well relate to the design of technology that recognizes the importance of cold weather reliability in Arctic and subarctic climates; robust systems and installations that only require maintenance and adjustment within reasonable skills of a local operator in a remote location. Lessons can be learned from drinking water treatment plants in that respect.

Chris Chopik :
Climate Risk Disclosure to Canadian Property Owners

What happens to property values after a catastrophic climate event such as flood, or wildfire? How do individuals and marketplaces protect assets, and quality of life and recover after catastrophic events. Present and future risks to property valuation and insuranability are affecting all real estate classes. Disclosure and recommendation for Canadians to understand their risk is a pragmatic method of showing the marketplace where to apply clean tech and resilience investment for buildings. The federal regional and local government could reduce liability and accelerate market uptake through the creation of a Real Estate Climate Risk Index, as an intervention for creating market stability in the face of increasing frequency and scale of property damage from climate events.

This approach allows for the market to respond to the REAL risks to property from climate. While the kind of solutions to these emergent problems require will be contextual, having a foundation of known-risk disclosure could provide a deep accelerator as markets respond to #Wildfire #Sea-LevelRise&LandSubsidance #WindTornadoHurricane #PermafrostMelt #Drought #Heat

Energy Use in Buildings Disclosure:

Why is it that while every consumer product from a can of soup to a car has a consumer protection label except for real estate. The largest asset that Canadians buy is purchased without knowing the energy use characteristics. Buildings where Canadians live and work are responsible for a significant percentage of Canada’s GHGs. We need an MPG L/100KM for homes in Canada. Imaging the climate and energy literacy and meaning for that literacy that could come from energy use disclosure for Canadian Real Estate.

One Silver Bullet Proposal

Real estate represents 20% of the Canadian Economy. “In North America real estate ownership is central to cultural status, personal well-being, upward mobility and wealth.” (Goodman, L., & Mayer, C., 2018)

I think the connection between personal and organizational real estate wealth provide the home owning public and business investors an understandable self-interested frame for taking action and making investment in Energy Efficiency and Climate-Risk Reduction. The availability of consumer facing data is limited and not present in the market on either the energy or climate risk.

#SelfInterestedReasonsToMitigateANDAdapt

Further: government is picking up the tab for response including handling displaced at risk populations, and in the case of flood property owners are in some cases being relocated with governments buying at risk property at great expense. At some point this will not continue to be possible.

#AbandoningAtlantis #CoastalBuyBack #DomesticClimateMigrants #BuildBackBetter #BuildBetterNow #resilient #passive #renewable

Louis Beaumier :
Data sharing and use / Partage et utilisation des données

jeyzaguirre@essa.com :
For me one of the big questions related to data sharing and use is one of equity across Canada. Do Canadian governments, communities and Canadians have equitable access to useful climate information for adaptation decision making (as is promised in the PCF)? If not, what re the barriers /enablers for making this happen.

Louis Beaumier :
Modelling efforts / Efforts en modélisation

Roger Street :
Climate action and societal transformation

Joanna Eyquem :
Nationwide Citizen Engagement in Climate Adaptation Action within the « Attention Economy »