Prospects for a Low Carbon Society: The Case of CanadaRalph Torrie

Low Emission Scenarios for Canada
The first low emission scenario for Canada was developed for the David Suzuki Foundation andfocused on what it would take to cut Canada’s greenhouse gas emissions by 50% by 2030, 1 as
illustrated in Figure 1. Utilizing a standard, bottom-up, end use focused methodology; the analysis
systematically evaluated the technological potential for reducing emissions in Canada with existingand economically feasible technologies. By far the most important conclusion from the study wasthat the key to achieving deep and sustainable reductions in greenhouse gas emissions is on thedemand side of the energy economy, and it also introduced to the policy debate in Canada the idea
the low emission future could bring with it significant economic benefits.
Figure 1. A Low Emission Scenario for Canada(R. Torrie, et. a., “Kyoto and Beyond: The Low Emission Path to Innovation and Efficiency”, 2002)

The National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy subsequently sponsored a moredetailed “bottom-up” analysis of the technological potential for a deep emission reduction in Canada,
this time for a 60% reduction from current levels by 2050.2 The results were published in the form ofa modified Socolow wedge, as shown in Figure 2. Based on this work, the National Round Tabledeveloped an advisory note for the government that began to set out the road map to a low emission
future for Canada.3 The key findings of the NRTEE Advisory began to shape the emerging policy
for a low carbon society for Canada:•A low emission future for Canada is possible with domestic solutions, but can beachieved only if energy is used more efficiently and if energy is emitted while

1

Ralph Torrie et. al., “Kyoto and Beyond: The Low Emission Path to Innovation and Efficiency”, David Suzuki
Foundation, Vancouver, October 2002. Available on line at www.torriesmith.com.
2
Ralph Torrie et. al., “Energy-Related Greenhouse Gas Emissions in Canada in 2050: A Low Emission Scenario”,
ICF International for NRTEE, Ottawa, 2006.
3
National Round Table on Environment and the Economy, “Advice on a Long Term Strategy on Energy andClimate Change”, Ottawa, June 2006.

emitting less carbon. Improvement in energy efficiency is key to the low emission
future.
•Canada’s growing oil and gas production sector could be compatible with a lowemission future, but only if carbon capture and sequestration can be perfected.

•Increased deployment of cogeneration and renewable electricity will be needed totransform the power sector to a low emission regime, along with clean coaltechnology incorporating CCS.

•There is an urgent need for a long term policy signal to give the private sector theconfidence it needs to bring GHG considerations into investment decisions.

•Air pollution and other co-benefits of GHG emission reduction measures areimportant to both the implementation and the acceptance of the low emission future.
Figure 2. GHG Reduction Wedges for Canada(From Ralph Torrie et. al., “Energy Related Greenhouse Gas Emissions in Canada in 2050 – A Low Emission
Scenario”, prepared for the National Round Table on Environment and the Economy, Ottawa, 2006)

Work is continuing on refining our understanding of what a low emission future would like for
Canada, and the policies and programs that would get us there. Recent work has coupledmacroeconomic models with multi-sector energy and emissions models in order to evaluate theeconomic impacts of greenhouse gas reduction policies. While the policies typically subjected tosuch analysis fall short of those that would be required to achieve deep emission reductions, they doindicate that the net economic impacts of the portfolio of GHG reduction policies currently in vogue
in North America (e.g. carbon cap-and-trade; efficiency standards for buildings, cars and appliances;
renewable portfolio standards, etc) will have modest and possible net positive impacts on
employment, net output and per capita disposable income, even without, even without valuing theenvironmental damage avoided by the lower emissions.

Conclusions and Strategic Directions
The roadmap to a low carbon society has begun to take shape in Canada, first in the form of anunderstanding of the changes in the way we use and produce energy that will have to take place, andmore recently in the form of a debate over the policy responses to get there.
With regard to the technological shape of the low emission future, there are a number of keyelements that must be achieved:
9New residential and commercial buildings constructed with best available energy
design and technology

9Retrofit all existing buildings (except where technically not feasible) for 30-50%
improvements in energy efficiency

9Double and redouble the fuel efficiency of passenger vehicles.

9Double or triple the fuel efficiency of trucks.

9Efficiency standards for office equipment, home appliances, motors, lighting toensure rapid deployment of the new technologies

9

Cogeneration of heat and power as standard practice going forward

9

Continued rapid deployment of wind and other renewable electricity options

9

Continued development of environmentally sustainable biofuels, commercializationof lignocellulosic ethanol technology

9Emission caps on energy-intensive industry to encourage innovation for more
efficient production technologies

9More efficient utilization of industrial process heat9

Eliminate landfill methane emissions

9

Alternative industrial processes for non-energy industrial GHG emission sources9

Low emission techniques and technologies for agriculture

9

Reforestation and afforestation programs to alleviate net Canadian emissions on a 50year time frame.

9

Carbon capture and storage technology successfully deployed, especially in the oiland gas production industry.

There is a large variation in the types of barriers that stand in the way of more rapid andwidespread deployment of the technologies and techniques we need to bring about the low carbon
society, but in general these barriers are neither technological nor fundamentally economic. Moreoften there weaknesses in the logistical or financial infrastructure needed. For example, acombination of front-end costs and a dearth of skilled and available labour hold back theacceleration of building retrofits, suggesting the need for financing and manpower training andcertification. The development of more fuel efficient trucks is held back by a risk-averse
manufacturing sector with limited R, D&D resources, suggesting the need for market development
policies. For technologies such as home appliances and office equipment, where the energy costs area small contributor to the total cost of ownership and operation, well designed performancestandards can be the most effective, and the most cost effective, policy approach.
The “geology of low emissions is complex” – for each of the key wedges needed to bring about
low emission futures, a unique policy approach is needed that targets the particular barriers to
deployment for that option.