Support strong Canadian climate journalism for 2025
British Columbia’s New Democratic Party (BC NDP) was just re-elected in a campaign where they touted their climate leadership. Despite these reassuring words, Canadians concerned about climate change should pay close attention to what's happening. The province has turned into a climate laggard, with emissions stuck far above 1990 levels. And, perhaps shockingly, all the increase in climate pollution has happened while the BC NDP has been running the government.
My first chart shows both these sad facts. See that orange and blue line at the top? That’s BC’s climate pollution since 1990. As you can see, three decades later the province emits 26 per cent more.
For comparison, I’ve shown what Canada and its peers in the Group of Seven (G7) advanced economies have done. BC is doing even worse than the G7’s climate laggard, Canada.
And take a moment to compare British Columbians’ climate efforts to the British. Our Commonwealth peers have already cut their climate pollution in half.
So, clearly, BC could have reduced its climate damage over the last three decades. Its failure has been a choice.
A second startling takeaway from this chart is how the entire rise in provincial emissions happened while the BC NDP was running the government. On the chart, the years the BC NDP were in power are shown in orange. The other major party to hold power over these decades was the center-right BC Liberals (blue line). Over the years they were in office, emissions fell for a decade before rushing back.
All the increase … and more
To put some more precise numbers on it, I added up all the annual emission increases and decreases between 1990 and 2022. My next chart shows the results.
Provincial emissions rose by a net total of 16 million tonnes of CO2 (MtCO2) during the years when the BC NDP were in power. That’s the tall orange bar on the chart.
Provincial emissions fell by a net 2 MtCO2 during the years the BC Liberals controlled government. That’s the smaller blue bar pointing downwards.
Overall, BC’s emissions were 13 MtCO2 higher in 2022 than in 1990. And, yep, all of that increase — and more — occurred while the BC NDP held office.
Obviously, this one measure of climate accountability doesn’t tell the whole story. A government can enact climate policies that might change emissions for years, and they might not be in power during all of that time. On the flip side, governments can preside over huge emission drops that aren’t tied to their climate policies. For example, that BC NDP bar above includes a record emissions drop that was caused by the global pandemic in 2020, not by climate policy.
Despite the wiggle room on this metric, when a party holds power for literally all the emissions increase across decades, that party has clearly failed the most basic climate task – reducing the greenhouse gases overheating our planet.
There was once hope for climate leadership in BC
There was a time, back in the 2000s, when BC looked like it might turn around its pollution and become a climate leader. Emissions had started to fall and both major political parties were voicing support for stronger climate action. Cross-party support for climate policy has been a key ingredient for success in many nations, like Germany and the United Kingdom.
I’ve highlighted the year 2007 on my chart. Hopes for climate progress were particularly high that year as the governing center-right BC Liberals under Premier Gordon Campbell rolled out a series of innovative climate policies — plus an ambitious target.
The new climate policies included one of the world’s first clean electricity mandates and one of the world’s first pure carbon pollution taxes.
The BC Carbon Tax was the most talked-about policy, both at home and around the world. It was exactly the kind of climate-pollution-fee-with-rebates policy that many climate experts were advocating for, including Dr. James Hansen of NASA. And it had progressive roots in the “tax shifting” proposals from the Sightline Institute, a sustainability think tank focused on the Pacific Northwest.
That year, BC also set its 2020 climate target. The target aimed for 19 per cent below 1990 levels, as shown by the green bullseye on the chart. And the dashed green arrow shows how steep the emission path was to get there. BC would need all those new climate policies and more to pull it off. In the end, several G7 nations managed to cut emissions at roughly the pace BC was aiming for. You can see some of their similarly steep gray lines on the chart.
BC hopes soon fell to the Axe
Sadly, the hopes for a golden age of BC climate leadership quickly faded when the BC NDP made a fateful decision to run their 2008 election campaign centered on an “Axe the Tax” message. Sound familiar?
While the BC NDP lost that election, they severely weakened the BC Carbon Tax.
To understand why, it’s important to know the power of the BC Carbon tax to cut emissions did not lie in its carbon tax rates. They were deliberately set low in the beginning to minimize economic impact. Instead, the policy relied on convincing citizens and businesses that the cost to emit CO2 would rise ever higher in the future. If British Columbians believed that would happen, then they would be motivated to buy cleaner cars, trucks, furnaces, factory equipment, and so on. But that incentive only worked if people believed the cost would keep rising.
The BC NDP’s “Axe the Tax” campaign cut the legs out from under this incentive by promising to eliminate the tax in the future. It also removed any political pressure on the BC Liberals to stick with the carbon tax when the inevitable attacks by the fossil fuel industry emerged. And sure enough, in 2012, Christy Clark, the new BC Liberal premier, finished the job of neutering the policy by “freezing” the carbon tax. At that point, both major political parties were on record against raising it.
You can see on the chart what happened next. The decade-long decline in BC’s emissions ended in 2012. Emissions then shot up and they remain far higher today. Along the way, BC wildly overshot its 2020 climate target.
What now?
The province’s next climate target is for 2025. It’s shown on the chart below by a second green bullseye.
The BC NDP set this target a few years after returning to power with a minority government allied with the BC Green Party.
The first thing to note about the 2025 target is how much weaker it is than the province’s 2020 target. It allows emissions to be much higher despite being five years later.
The second thing to note is the path to this weaker target requires equally steep emissions cuts as the earlier target did: kicking the can down the road doesn’t make the task go away. It just wastes precious years while making the climate ever more dangerous.
Now, as British Columbians enter the target year of 2025, you’re probably wondering how close they are to meeting it. I’d like to tell you, but the BC government hasn’t released emissions numbers for 2024 yet. Or for 2023. Or even for 2022. Keeping the public in the dark about the last three years of provincial emissions prevents citizens and businesses from knowing what is happening and how to hold their government accountable.
The best I can tell you, by using the federal government’s data for BC, is that provincial emissions shot up in both 2021 and 2022. You can see this on the chart as the orange line rockets away from the target.
Most British Columbians I talk with have the mistaken view that the province has been a climate leader that has been reducing emissions.
As we’ve seen in this article, the numbers tell a different story.
Comments
Outstanding article with truly useful and telling graphs. Thank you!
Any chance that there is a similar article outlining Canada's performance, and is there an article that speaks to Canada's change from a 1990 baseline to a 2005 baseline for climate goals?
Thank you.
Good idea about for a similar ghg-vs-party-in-power article at national level. I will see if I can find time for that.
And, yeah, switching to a 2005 baseline was just cherry picking by USA/Canada to make their climate targets seem less pathetic. The media tend to just report the percentage cut and not the baseline…so it works.
Japan just switched this month from 1990 baseline to 2013 baseline which happens to be their peak. That let them announce a 2035 target of -60%. I read a lot of articles about it and none converted it to their 1990 baseline. So they got the greenwashing they wanted. This is a problem because climate change is driven by cumulative emissions and if you can keep kicking the baseline down the road the cumulative pile builds up without pressure on govts to act.
Great work as usual, Barry.
The emissions track does indeed tell a story, which is made that much clearer with such effective illustrations. However, not isolating emissions from economic data would have been be more helpful.
After the BC carbon tax was enacted in 2007 a worldwide recession occurred, and it lasted for years. I don't believe the big dip from 2008 onward can be attributed to the CT at all as implied, especially since the CT rates were very modest at the time. Meanwhile, economies around the globe were rocked, largely due to toxic debt. Down went global economic performance, pulling directly associated emissions with it.
Another factor not included in the graphs is BC LNG, which rose mainly under Christy Clark. Fracking the hell out of the shale formations in NE BC was catalyzed under her watch until the worldwide pandemic hit. Again, worldwide emissions dropped while the world locked diwn, not because our tiny corner had a leader who stopped raising the CT rates.
This brings BC's industrial strategy into the light. Electrifying LNG processes will not prevent methane release from wellheads and pipelines, but bringing new industry to BC and electrifying it with renewables (e.g. green steel and cement....) will allow economic performance to be maintained while lowering emissions. Ditto electrifying transportation.
There is also the BC NDP's recent invitation to First Nations and almost everyone to produce their own renewable power and sell or trade it with the grid through net metering. That is a policy by the Eby government and it effectively cancels the reluctance of former premiers in both parties (not to mention BCH management) to open up decentralized power generation by third parties. That fresh policy must be allowed time to play out, and if it has a measurably positive effect on emissions decreases -- or at least a plateau -- then that gives Eby and future leaders the ability to ignore LNG, allowing it to stand on its own without further subsidies against an export market not exactly favouring expensive BC LNG. Let it fail, I say.
Eby said he'll kill the BC CT if the feds kill theirs. That was a mistake, a loose comment meant to dull the rise of the BC Conservative party during a heated election campaign. That won't happen with the Greens now on board to back the NDP. To me, why not just grow a spine and make it an official coalition with Greens in cabinet and really run with renewables and electrification and create new green industries?
And continue raising CT rates as originally planned, a tax essentially on a diminishing fossil resource if renewables and electrification are allowed to achieve their potential.
The stage is already set for just that.
Clarification:
"...open up decentralized renewable power generation using private land and rooftops."
Lots of good points, Alex. Thanks for adding these. I agree that emissions are impacted by economic drops. I don't think that explains away BC’s emissions surge after 2013, because you can see on my charts how most of G7 advanced economies continued to cut emissions that decade and beyond. I am sure it is a complex mix of factors, and one big one in my experience living through it as climate reporter was the cross party collapse of political support for climate action.
Indeed.
I do believe that much of the success out there in lowering emissions has more to do with enacting and directly supporting climate action through industrial strategies beyond carbon taxes and r
...regs. Cases in point, the UK and offshire wind, the US and Biden's Inflation Reduction Act, etc.
One issue for BC is that most jurisdictions that have made major improvements in emissions have done so by getting rid of emissions from electricity production. BC already didn't have any before anyone was thinking about climate change, so that set of low-hanging fruit was unavailable.
That said, I'm not happy with the BC NDP's progress on climate change. LNG was a boneheaded thing to back . . . although I'm not clear whether it's actually creating any emissions YET, it'll really break the bank if and when it gets under way. I don't think the economics on that stuff are going to work for very long, though, luckily. The Chinese and Europeans are going to be using less and less . . . they'll stop buying.
The BC NDP have done a not-terrible job by Canadian standards on moving towards electric vehicle use. And it's nice that they're working on not having natural gas in new buildings soon. But we need a lot more than that, we need to be working seriously for instance to shift away from natural gas heating in existing buildings, and they're not doing much there, and there need to be incentives and programs for moving industry away from fossil fuel use and I'm unaware of any real push in that direction. I'm not seeing any big money into transit. In general, the BC NDP talk a good game, but have not been delivering much. The best you can say is they've done a decent job at the kind of regulatory infrastructure that will be needed going forward, but that's stuff is still just phasing in, so it's been way too slow.
Interesting comments, thanks. Your point about electricity emissions is a similar to what I have read BC NDP say. The data shows this isn’t a big factor. For example if you exclude the electricity sector, the rest of BC emissions are +27% since 1990 … and -43% in UK. That’s a 70% gap outside the electricity sector.
You are right that BC has done better-than-most in encouraging BEVs. That’s a climate plus. However BC is leading Canada in the increase in new ICEV as well. Allowing lots more new fossil burners is category 1 climate fail because these are locking in tailpipe emissions for many years.
This is a terrible story for someone who has been a life long NDP supporter........though only for a short time as a grad student, in B.C.
Still.........I'm glad to know this story, see the data, and face the unpleasant fact that no political party in Canada today can safely promise to do what must be done to curb the carbon bomb coming rapidly our way. AS SOON AS WE THE PUBLIC WOKE UP ENOUGH TO WANT SOMETHING DONE, BIG FOSSIL FUELS AND FOOLS GOT BUSY.
That a party with the history of social progress that the NDP rightfully has, is afraid to tell the truth and double down on Climate action is shocking. That they were able to Ax the B.C. Tax, and do it with almost no Canadians knowing, is frightening for what it says about our MSM.
We all have to do much better. We the people have to make it unnecessary for our elected officials to quake in fear in front of Fossil Fuel Propaganda. We need to make them do the right thing.
So far, if the upcoming federal election is any indication.........we're more interested in some very paltry kick back, than we are in saving our society. Climate change is here.........and its going to damage more, kill more, render more lands unavailable for housing projects or agriculture, than anything Axing the Tax will do for any of us. Hell: We're electrified; We make money off the carbon tax.
And more of us could do the same....git yer butts off fossil gas, already!! Stop voting to Ax my rightfully earned rebate cheque.
In an environment (pardon the expression) where many provinces and states (and soon, a federal government?) are actively hostile to climate efforts, I'm afraid the NDP get points for just not actively opposing transition efforts.
And, actually, the scientific/technological/economic trends are so very heartening right now, that if government can merely get out of the way, private forces can now defeat the carbon industries all by their own, with superior solutions.
Good points. Note that those heartening trends are occurring mainly outside Canada's borders, right smack dab in the export markets targetted by BC LNG. It will be a very hard lesson for investors about getting with the program (renewables) or losing your shirt.