Search Climate Insights Directory

The report analyzes Canadian infrastructure investment flows and stocks from 2009 to 2019, noting significant growth in hydroelectric power and pollution abatement but a sharp decline in wind and solar investments. It highlights a total infrastructure value of 250 billion dollars in 2019, dominated by electricity assets. The author argues that current data is incomplete, lacking coverage of energy efficiency, natural infrastructure, and building renovations, and proposes a new classification system to better align investments with long-term climate goals and avoid 'path dependency' where current projects fail to meet future resilience needs.

The Canadian Climate Institute introduces a framework of 11 indicators to track 'clean growth' in Canada, balancing economic prosperity with climate action. The report identifies that while most provinces have decoupled GDP growth from GHG emissions since 2005, significant gaps remain in technology adoption, data collection for climate costs, and the protection of vulnerable populations and ecosystems. It argues for a 'skeptical optimism' approach, where governments actively resolve barriers to transition rather than assuming growth will naturally follow emission declines.

The report analyzes the gap between Canada's GDP and GHG emissions, noting that while national decoupling has occurred, significant regional disparities exist. It highlights that Canada's economy remains more carbon-intensive than other developed nations and suggests three primary pathways for achieving low-carbon growth: reducing emissions intensity, reallocating resources, and accelerating the growth of low-carbon firms.

The Canadian federal government has introduced a strategic assessment requiring major infrastructure projects with lifespans extending beyond 2050 to provide a concrete plan for achieving carbon neutrality by 2050. While some critics argue the measure lacks a rigorous 'climate test' or is an improper strategic tool, the author contends its primary value lies in providing decision-makers with additional information and signaling to promoters that strict climate policies are forthcoming. The document highlights that high-emission, high-cost projects face risks of stranded assets due to future policy shifts and investment reorientations. While the author notes that the strategic assessment alone may not prevent stranded assets—especially since it only applies to projects lasting past 2050—it is viewed as a step toward investment stability. The author suggests that a 'climate accountability framework' with intermediate emission reduction milestones would further bridge the gap between long-term goals and short-term actions.

The research evaluates national and international support policies for emissions-intensive trade-exposed (EITE) industries, specifically comparing Canada's approach with those of Australia, California, and the European Union. The evaluation is based on four specific metrics: administrative costs, economic efficiency, the incentive to reduce emissions, and equity both between and within sectors.

The study finds that public transport in its current North American configuration increases nitrogen oxide levels and does not significantly improve local air quality.

The Canadian Climate Institute asserts that a 'green recovery' is insufficient if it focuses solely on decarbonization without addressing climate adaptation. The author argues that failing to prepare for climate risks—such as extreme heat, flooding, and wildfires—will lead to economic disaster, similar to the lessons learned from COVID-19. The document proposes integrating resilience into public investments, such as upgrading social housing for heat protection, building weather-resilient electrical grids, and utilizing nature-based solutions to reduce reliance on high-emission 'grey' infrastructure.

The Canadian Climate Institute asserts that green stimulus plans for economic recovery often overlook climate adaptation. The author argues that proactive investment in resilience—such as upgrading infrastructure to withstand extreme weather and protecting vulnerable populations from heat waves—provides a high rate of return by avoiding future damages. The document suggests that 'shovel-ready' projects should combine low-carbon objectives with resilience, such as using low-carbon materials for climate-hardened infrastructure and integrating nature-based solutions to reduce reliance on traditional 'grey' infrastructure.

The Climate Change Response (Zero Carbon) Amendment Act 2019 establishes a framework for Aotearoa (New Zealand) to reach net zero greenhouse gas emissions (excluding biogenic methane) by 2050. The law introduces five-year emissions budgets, an independent Climate Change Commission to provide expert advice and monitoring, and a requirement for the government to produce public action plans and national climate risk assessments every six years. Notably, the Act differentiates between long-lived and short-lived pollutants by setting a separate target for biogenic methane: a 10% reduction from 2017 levels by 2030 and a 24% to 47% reduction by 2050. The legislation also mandates the inclusion of Māori and iwi through consultations, the integration of traditional knowledge, and the recognition of the Treaty of Waitangi in climate planning.

The document analyzes Manitoba's 2018 climate accountability legislation, highlighting its use of a 'carbon savings account' with five-year cumulative emission reduction targets and an independent expert advisory council. While praising the framework's governance and the advantage of cumulative budgets over annual targets, the study notes that the absence of long-term targets and a multi-budget strategy reduces predictability and accountability for investors and policymakers.

The document analyzes the 2019 amendments to British Columbia's Climate Change Accountability Act, detailing its framework for emissions targets, reporting requirements, and the establishment of the Climate Solutions Council. It highlights the integration of climate risk management and clean growth but identifies critical gaps in independent oversight and the lack of a formal mechanism to review long-term emissions targets.

The document examines Manitoba's 2018 climate accountability legislation, highlighting the Carbon Savings Account (CSA) and the role of the Expert Advisory Council. While praising the cumulative emissions budget approach, it notes that the lack of long-term targets and the practice of setting budgets one-at-a-time reduce predictability and accountability.

The report argues that a well-designed climate accountability framework can increase government transparency and coordination across different levels of government to meet 2030 and 2050 targets. Based on international and domestic case studies, it identifies six common elements of such frameworks and proposes a national Canadian model that balances federal leadership with subnational flexibility.

The document examines the 2019 Climate Change Response (Zero Carbon) Amendment Act of Aotearoa New Zealand, highlighting its accountability framework, the role of the Climate Change Commission, and its specific approach to biogenic methane and Indigenous engagement.

The document analyzes the 2019 amendments to British Columbia's Climate Change Accountability Act, which established a broader climate accountability framework. Key features include the requirement for intermediate and sector-specific emission targets, the creation of an independent advisory committee (the Climate Solutions Council), and enhanced reporting obligations for the provincial government and public bodies. While the author notes that regular reporting improves transparency, the study identifies several gaps: a lack of independent oversight to monitor government progress, the absence of formal requirements to actually reduce climate risks, and no codified mechanism for reviewing long-term emission targets, such as the 2050 goal.

The report analyzes climate accountability frameworks—systems that break long-term greenhouse gas targets into interim milestones—using case studies from jurisdictions like the UK, Aotearoa/New Zealand, British Columbia, and Manitoba. It identifies six common elements and associated best practices, such as legislating targets, ensuring independent expert advice, and using cumulative carbon budgets. For Canada, the authors recommend a national framework with legally binding milestones set only at the national level to avoid regional burden-sharing conflicts, while encouraging subnational governments to implement their own complementary frameworks. The report emphasizes a collaborative approach where the federal government provides policy backstops and financial incentives to ensure a resilient, multi-jurisdictional response to climate change.

The fact sheet details key components of effective climate accountability frameworks, emphasizing the need for legislated governance structures, independent oversight, and the use of cumulative carbon budgets to track progress toward long-term goals.

The document evaluates three key dimensions of climate target implementation: the scale of binding targets (national, provincial/territorial, or sectoral), the method for defining the trajectory (provincial-led, collective, federal-led, or expert-led), and the level of government responsible for policy development (federal, shared with a federal backstop, or provincial/territorial).

The author contends that green stimulus is a useful tool for economic recovery but cannot replace the regulatory and pricing mechanisms necessary for deep emissions reductions. While infrastructure projects can create jobs and increase resilience, the specific nature of the COVID-19 recession—which hit service and education sectors harder than construction—means traditional 'shovel-ready' green projects may not address the root of the current economic crisis. The document emphasizes that climate action often provides economic and health benefits regardless of the economic cycle and warns against the notion that climate policy is only justifiable when linked to a crisis.

The author draws a parallel between the psychological and political responses to COVID-19 and climate change, noting that both follow a pattern of denial, downplaying risks, and eventual action. While the pandemic triggered a rapid global mobilization—including G20 spending commitments of US$5 trillion—climate change has suffered from decades of delay due to human psychology's preference for immediate threats. The document concludes that the 'new found wisdom' of global cooperation seen during the pandemic should be leveraged to combat climate change.