Chrystia Freeland and Justin Trudeau really want you to know their latest federal budget was green. Green, get it? Just look what they were wearing.
Freeland, shoulders to knees in a financially sensible, classy yet approachable evergreen with aquatic hints. Trudeau, more cheerful, less square footage — his necktie a bright sprig of sartorial spring. ’Tis the season to sprout green growth, the garments declared.
And the budget itself was packed with fertilizer for green growth. Or “clean growth” to use the feds’ preferred term. The word “clean” appears 283 times in a budget just 246 pages long (none of them in the section on dental care).
It’s certainly the biggest clean energy budget Canada has ever tabled: $80 billion over the next decade. At least in part a response to the massive investments in the U.S. Inflation Reduction Act. Ever the wry eye, Chantal Hébert called President Joe Biden the budget’s “co-author.”
Freeland may have anticipated the knock — the relevant section is titled A Made-in-Canada Plan: Affordable Energy, Good Jobs, and a Growing Clean Economy.
The new Made-in-Canada budget measures are heavily market-oriented: a confetti drop of investment tax credits to entice the lords of capital.
Perhaps most important is the allocation for clean electricity and transmission. It’s the single biggest line item in the clean economy section and suggests the Liberal government has grasped the central role of electrification in the energy transition. Tax credits for clean electricity are estimated at $6.3 billion over the next four years and another $19.4 billion over the following six.
Electricity was the biggest item but far from the only one. Line after line item in the budget was classified as clean, many of them deservedly.
Most energy wonks were surprised, some almost jubilant about the scale of incentives and their priority given the economic headwinds. The David Suzuki Foundation celebrated a “historic investment.” The Canadian Climate Institute called it a “shrewd gameplan.”
Even Greenpeace was impressed: Keith Stewart declared “This budget is the first to fully recognize that the only route to a prosperous and secure future lies in aggressive action to combat the climate crisis.”
That’s actually well off the script laid out by the budget’s green-clad ambassadors. The words “climate change” barely figure in their budget document. The “climate crisis” makes no appearance at all. In contrast to those 283 incantations of “clean,” there are a measly 29 mentions of “climate change.”
A bit strange, you might think, given that climate change is the raison d’être for the energy transition. But any number of PR pros will advise you this is precisely how the government should be selling its green programs. Seize the opportunity, sell the sizzle. Downplay the wet bulbs and grow clean.
As Freeland framed it: “Canada must either meet this historic moment — this remarkable opportunity before us — or we will be left behind as the world’s democracies build the clean economy of the 21st century.”
The PR pros are onto something, of course. People like likable things. Doug Ford is more than happy to cut ribbons at battery plants. And the Liberals had Pierre Poilievre in a rare tangle this week. The Conservatives will vote against the budget but weren’t willing to endanger those ribbon-cuttings by condemning the industrial strategy.
But there’s real danger in completely divorcing clean from climate. In severing opportunity from necessity. For starters, it makes the whole enterprise seem optional. So maybe we don’t keep up with the Yanks, Europeans or Chinese? Maybe we miss out on some opportunities? Bummer but whatevs. Life goes on.
Unless you’re one of those for whom it doesn’t. One of the casualties of fossil fuels. The mission isn’t optional and neither can it be additional. We can’t simply build clean tech in addition to climate-destroying operations. And Freeland’s comments illustrated that risk clearly:
“We’re going to build big things here in Canada,” she said. “From a Volkswagen battery plant in Ontario, to the Galaxy Lithium mine in Quebec, to the Trans Mountain expansion (TMX) in Alberta, to the Atlantic Loop, to the LNG terminal in Kitimat, B.C.”
You’ll note immediately that some of these things are not like the others. But many millions of Canadians still hope we can grow clean energy and expand fossil fuels too.
Freed from the burden of combating climate change and cutting fossil fuel emissions, the federal budget contains items like $7 million for “Future Arctic Offshore Oil and Gas Development ($7 million is chump change in the scheme of things but, really, WTF?). The budget bestows even more than previously pledged for carbon capture in the oil and gas sector. “Rather than finally delivering on the government’s promise to end fossil fuel subsidies, this budget throws more fuel on the fire by funnelling even more public dollars into false solutions that serve to prop up the fossil fuel industry,” said Julia Levin of Environmental Defence.
Caroline Brouillette from Climate Action Network had the pithiest summation: “Budget 2023 phases in the good and fails to phase out the bad.”
To be fair, a single budget isn’t expected to accomplish everything everywhere, all at once. There are regulations, other policies and budgets to come. We are, as always, faced with the perennial climate problem: even the most historic step will be wholly insufficient. This week, it’s worth pausing to acknowledge progress — in the face of serious economic constraints that could easily have derailed clean energy spending, our green-garbed political leaders surprised us.