Connect with us
[bsa_pro_ad_space id=12]

Alberta

Taking Action Against Climate Change with Emissions Reduction Alberta

Published

5 minute read

As the climate conversation continues to expand in the public space, ambitious goals for reducing emissions are being communicated at regional and international levels. The burning of fossil fuels has substantially contributed to the build up of greenhouse gases (GHG) in our atmosphere, resulting in the climate changes currently impacting major industries, ecosystems, weather patterns, natural resources and biodiversity around the world. According to Climate Change in Alberta, “97% of climate scientists now agree that human activity is responsible for most temperature increases over the past 250 years.”

In Alberta, over 50% of GHG emissions are the result of “industrial, manufacturing and construction activity, as well as producing the electricity we consume … the remainder comes from heating our homes and businesses, transportation and from agriculture, forestry and municipal waste” (1). As a part of a multi-level provincial strategy aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions in Alberta, the government currently partners with various organizations and funds a number of programs designed to accelerate emissions reduction initiatives and technology development. 

One Alberta organization that has played a significant role in furthering emissions reduction in our province for more than a decade is Emissions Reduction Alberta (ERA), based in Edmonton. 

Established in 2009, Emissions Reduction Alberta “takes action on climate change and supports economic growth by investing in the pilot, demonstration and deployment of clean technology solutions that reduce GHGs, lower costs and attract investment, and create jobs in Alberta.” For more than 10 years, ERA has been facilitating Alberta’s transition to a low carbon economy by supporting and furthering the most innovative approaches to emissions reduction.

“Alberta’s industries have ambitious goals around emissions reductions that can’t be achieved without deploying new technology,” says Steve MacDonald, CEO of Emissions Reduction Alberta, “Our goal is to identify and accelerate the innovation Alberta needs to grow the economy and cut emissions.” 


Steve MacDonald – CEO of Emissions Reduction Alberta 

ERA’s funding comes from the carbon price paid by large final emitters in Alberta. With this funding, ERA operates a challenge structure that calls innovative companies to respond to pertinent industry challenges with original solutions. “Challenges are always well over-subscribed,” says MacDonald. “This gives us the ability to really select the best of the best and get a good understanding of the range of ideas that are out there.” 

To date, ERA has invested $607 million in the development of 183 unique projects dedicated to reducing emissions across various industries. ERA funding is leveraged and for every dollar invested by the organization, another $6.40 is invested by industry, innovators and other project funders. As a result, the total value of these projects is over $4 billion. ERA estimates this will lead to a total reduction of 34,800,000 tonnes of CO2e by the year 2030.

In October 2019, ERA announced their Natural Gas Challenge, a campaign committed to improving cost competitiveness and reducing emissions in Alberta’s natural gas sector. On July 21, 2020, ERA pledged $58.4 million to the 20 winning projects, valued at over $155 million. According to ERA, these projects will create 760 new jobs and, “if successful, these technology innovations will lead to cumulative GHG reductions of almost one million tonnes of CO2e by 2030 – equivalent to the GHG emissions from 750,000 passenger vehicles driven for one year.” 

Moving forward, the ERA expects to see the first round of Expression of Interest for their latest $40 million Food, Farming and Forestry Challenge by August 27, 2020. In the meantime, the organization will continue to focus on aiding Alberta’s economic recovery through diversification and job creation, and the pursuit of innovation. 

“We are supporting the actions required to help Alberta achieve its economic and environmental goals,” says MacDonald. “Our investments are making a real difference; one that is fundamental to Alberta’s future success. From incremental change to game-changers, we are developing the solutions Alberta and the world need.”

To learn more about Emissions Reduction Alberta, visit https://eralberta.ca. 

 

For more stories, visit Todayville Calgary.

Alberta

Is Canada’s Federation Fair?

Published on

The Audit David Clinton

Contrasting the principle of equalization with the execution

Quebec – as an example – happens to be sitting on its own significant untapped oil and gas reserves. Those potential opportunities include the Utica Shale formation, the Anticosti Island basin, and the Gaspé Peninsula (along with some offshore potential in the Gulf of St. Lawrence).

So Quebec is effectively being paid billions of dollars a year to not exploit their natural resources. That places their ostensibly principled stand against energy resource exploitation in a very different light.

You’ll need to search long and hard to find a Canadian unwilling to help those less fortunate. And, so long as we identify as members of one nation¹, that feeling stretches from coast to coast.

So the basic principle of Canada’s equalization payments – where poorer provinces receive billions of dollars in special federal payments – is easy to understand. But as you can imagine, it’s not easy to apply the principle in a way that’s fair, and the current methodology has arguably lead to a very strange set of incentives.

According to Department of Finance Canada, eligibility for payments is determined based on your province’s fiscal capacity. Fiscal capacity is a measure of the taxes (income, business, property, and consumption) that a province could raise (based on national average rates) along with revenues from natural resources. The idea, I suppose, is that you’re creating a realistic proxy for a province’s higher personal earnings and consumption and, with greater natural resources revenues, a reduced need to increase income tax rates.

But the devil is in the details, and I think there are some questions worth asking:

  • Whichever way you measure fiscal capacity there’ll be both winners and losers, so who gets to decide?
  • Should a province that effectively funds more than its “share” get proportionately greater representation for national policy² – or at least not see its policy preferences consistently overruled by its beneficiary provinces?

The problem, of course, is that the decisions that defined equalization were – because of long-standing political conditions – dominated by the region that ended up receiving the most. Had the formula been the best one possible, there would have been little room to complain. But was it?

For example, attaching so much weight to natural resource revenues is just one of many possible approaches – and far from the most obvious. Consider how the profits from natural resources already mostly show up in higher income and corporate tax revenues (including income tax paid by provincial government workers employed by energy-related ministries)?

And who said that such calculations had to be population-based, which clearly benefits Quebec (nine million residents vs around $5 billion in resource income) over Newfoundland (545,000 people vs $1.6 billion) or Alberta (4.2 million people vs $19 billion). While Alberta’s average market income is 20 percent or so higher than Quebec’s, Quebec’s is quite a bit higher than Newfoundland’s. So why should Newfoundland receive only minimal equalization payments?

To illustrate all that, here’s the most recent payment breakdown when measured per-capita:

Equalization 2025-26 – Government of Canada

For clarification, the latest per-capita payments to poorer provinces ranged from $3,936 to PEI, $1,553 to Quebec, and $36 to Ontario. Only Saskatchewan, Alberta, and BC received nothing.

And here’s how the total equalization payments (in millions of dollars) have played out over the past decade:

Is energy wealth the right differentiating factor because it’s there through simple dumb luck, morally compelling the fortunate provinces to share their fortune? That would be a really difficult argument to make. For one thing because Quebec – as an example – happens to be sitting on its own significant untapped oil and gas reserves. Those potential opportunities include the Utica Shale formation, the Anticosti Island basin, and the Gaspé Peninsula (along with some offshore potential in the Gulf of St. Lawrence).

So Quebec is effectively being paid billions of dollars a year to not exploit their natural resources. That places their ostensibly principled stand against energy resource exploitation in a very different light. Perhaps that stand is correct or perhaps it isn’t. But it’s a stand they probably couldn’t have afforded to take had the equalization calculation been different.

Of course, no formula could possibly please everyone, but punishing the losers with ongoing attacks on the very source of their contributions is guaranteed to inspire resentment. And that could lead to very dark places.

Note: I know this post sounds like it came from a grumpy Albertan. But I assure you that I’ve never even visited the province, instead spending most of my life in Ontario.

1

Which has admittedly been challenging since the former primer minister infamously described us as a post-national state without an identity.

2

This isn’t nearly as crazy as it sounds. After all, there are already formal mechanisms through which Indigenous communities get more than a one-person-one-vote voice.

Subscribe to The Audit.

For the full experience, upgrade your subscription.

Continue Reading

Alberta

Big win for Alberta and Canada: Statement from Premier Smith

Published on

Premier Danielle Smith issued the following statement on the April 2, 2025 U.S. tariff announcement:

“Today was an important win for Canada and Alberta, as it appears the United States has decided to uphold the majority of the free trade agreement (CUSMA) between our two nations. It also appears this will continue to be the case until after the Canadian federal election has concluded and the newly elected Canadian government is able to renegotiate CUSMA with the U.S. administration.

“This is precisely what I have been advocating for from the U.S. administration for months.

“It means that the majority of goods sold into the United States from Canada will have no tariffs applied to them, including zero per cent tariffs on energy, minerals, agricultural products, uranium, seafood, potash and host of other Canadian goods.

“There is still work to be done, of course. Unfortunately, tariffs previously announced by the United States on Canadian automobiles, steel and aluminum have not been removed. The efforts of premiers and the federal government should therefore shift towards removing or significantly reducing these remaining tariffs as we go forward and ensuring affected workers across Canada are generously supported until the situation is resolved.

“I again call on all involved in our national advocacy efforts to focus on diplomacy and persuasion while avoiding unnecessary escalation. Clearly, this strategy has been the most effective to this point.

“As it appears the worst of this tariff dispute is behind us (though there is still work to be done), it is my sincere hope that we, as Canadians, can abandon the disastrous policies that have made Canada vulnerable to and overly dependent on the United States, fast-track national resource corridors, get out of the way of provincial resource development and turn our country into an independent economic juggernaut and energy superpower.”

Continue Reading

Trending

X