贴心姐妹网
 · 设为主页 | · 添加收藏 | · 会员注册 | · 会员登录    +
 
首页 | 社会政治 | 职场创业 | 情感关系 | 子女成长 | 多元生活 | 文化艺术 | 社区公益

Federal election: Which party has the best climate plan? Here’s where they stand

来源:The Conversation   更新:2021-09-11 19:47:21   作者:Cameron Roberts,

Cameron RobertsCarleton University


The coronavirus crisis gives us a golden opportunity to make our society more sustainable, as politicians and organizations around the world have already noted. Just like how the oil crises of the 1970s led many countries to revolutionize their energy systems, the pandemic has given us a chance to rethink many aspects of our society — including our dependence on fossil fuels.

 

But the question of how to do this is tricky. The findings of socio-technical transitions researchers, who study large-scale technological change, can help us evaluate whether the climate platforms being put forward in this election will achieve what they say they will.

 

Liberals: Emphasizing innovation

 

Up until now, the Liberals have relied heavily on carbon pricing — an approach that has received considerable criticism. Carbon taxes reduce the problem to individual choices, ignoring the role played by infrastructure, regulations and industry structure.

 

Fortunately, the current Liberal plan expands on the carbon tax. The Liberals have a clear plan not just to develop new low-carbon technologies, but to embed these in a wider technological system, through support for electric vehicle charging and smart grids, for example.

 

The Liberal plan does not, however, say much about social or economic change to complement their proposed technological change. For example, the Liberals have an electric vehicle plan, but say very little about the arguably more important task of reducing car dependence altogether.

 

And their plan to reduce emissions from the oil and gas sector ignores the fact that the biggest problem with the fossil fuel industry is the fossil fuels themselves.

 

The Liberal plan, despite its impressive detail, is insufficient for broad systemic change. It does not address topics like demand, consumption, urban planning or the structure of daily life.

 

Conservatives: No at-large plan

 

The Conservative plan focuses on empowering private citizens and industries to make low-carbon choices for themselves. The Conservatives would, for example, replace the carbon tax with a low-carbon savings account, which people would pay into every time they buy fossil fuels. This money could then be spent on low-carbon purchases, such as electric vehicles or more efficient boilers. For industry, the Conservatives propose tax breaks for the first five industrial facilities to implement a new low-carbon technology.

 

The problem with this approach is that it individualizes the problem and does nothing to address bigger issues of infrastructure, logistics chains, standards and other systemic factors that lock in dependence on fossil fuels.

 

True, the Conservatives do have some plans to develop infrastructure — such as for electric vehicles. But even here, the justification for focusing on electric vehicles on the grounds that “most families cannot meet the challenges of work and parenting without one or more cars” indicates an unwillingness to tackle the reasons why our cities are so car-dependent.


Read more: COVID-19 could end our dependence on cars — if we 'build back better'


A new technology must first fit into existing systems before it can stretch it into something else. Cars, for example, had to be able to drive on roads built mainly for bicycles and horses before anyone would think about building a highway.

 

The Conservative platform is all fit and no stretch: They want to make low-carbon technology more accessible on an individual basis, but they have no plan for a wider transformation.


New Democrats: Two birds, one stone

 

The NDP climate platform proposes to use climate policy to achieve economic and social change. The NDP plan for worker retraining is by far the most detailed and will soften the blow for workers who are displaced from fossil fuel-intensive industries. They also propose to support community-owned renewable energy projects, which can help build local support for renewable energy projects, and to link low-carbon housing with their affordable housing agenda.

 

The NDP also has a serious plan for tackling energy demand. Their low-carbon transportation plan prioritizes public transit, walking and cycling alongside an electric vehicle strategy. Their plan to improve internet provision to rural areas to enable more working from home has a similar logic to it, although unfortunately evidence suggests that working from home might actually increase vehicle distance travelled.

 

The NDP clearly understands that linking social and economic benefits to environmental ones is an important way of ensuring that good climate policy remains politically viable.

 

Bloc Québécois: Regional side benefits

 

The Bloc platform emphasizes side benefits of green transitions for the province of Québec: a hydroelectricity powerhouse and a global mining centre. Existing Québec industries can produce low-carbon aluminumbatteries and electric vehicles. Beyond supporting these industries, the Bloc also proposes a regional Québec alternative to Via Rail Canada.

 

In addition to prioritizing side benefits, the Bloc are wise to enlist support from powerful incumbent industries. As with the Conservatives, however, the Bloc Québécois’ plan emphasizes support for established players and falls short on embracing large-scale change.

 

The Green Party: Mandate, but no details

 

The Greens have an aggressive plan, which includes phasing out the fossil fuel industry, promoting innovation and addressing consumption.

 

The Green platform ticks a lot of important boxes: They propose retraining for workers, a national renewable-powered grid, and a coherent national transportation network including high-speed rail, light rail and electric buses. Their practical plans for how to achieve this range from international agreements to patent law.

 

This is a good plan, although in some places it lacks both detail and systemic scope for how change will actually happen in practice. The promise to simply “mandate and support” a faster transition to renewable energy in transportation, for example, gives no understanding of what this support would actually look like.

 

Managing the transition

 

The parties’ climate plans differ mainly on the question of which specific part of the transition they account for. Different parties place different levels of emphasis on innovation, consumption, political support and industrial support.

 

Unfortunately, an effective climate plan that can actually enact a large-scale transition away from fossil fuels requires working hard in all of these areas at once. Transitions are multifaceted and involve codependent changes in technology, infrastructure, regulations, consumption habits and many other areas. A good climate plan should combine into something greater than the sum of its parts.


Cameron Roberts, Researcher in Sustainable Transportation, Carleton University

 

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

分享到: 更多
相关文章
[社会政治] Canada’s status quo election: Trudeau returned with another minori
[社会政治] Electronic tracking of voters is a thorny topic in a tight federal
[社会政治] Climate action is at risk because of the snap federal election cal
[社会政治] With far right groups on the rise, we should keep an eye on populi
[社会政治] Why dental care needs to be part of health care — and on the feder
[社会政治] Federal election: Canada’s next government should shift from recon
[社会政治] Canadian election 2021: Do strategic voting campaigns actually wor
[社会政治] Transitional justice for Indigenous Peoples should be a key federa
[社会政治] Who is Erin O’Toole? The answer is key to Conservative election ch
[社会政治] Rhetoric Check: Historically, how important is the 2021 Canadian e
发表评论
您必须登录后才能发表评论![立即登录] 还没有注册会员?[立即注册]  
 
会员登录
用户名:
密 码:
 
· 关于我们 About Us · 用户条约 Terms and Conditions · 隐私政策 Privacy Policy · 联系方式 Contact Us
版权声明:本网发布的内容版权归Lovingsister Media Inc. 所有,未经书面许可,严禁转载,违者将承担法律责任。
© 2013 Lovingsister Media Inc. All rights reserved. Unauthorized distribution, transmission or republication strictly prohibited.