USA vs. Canada Comparing Environmental Sustainability

Although both the United States and Canada have achieved modest progress in reducing their greenhouse gas emissions, it will be difficult to meet their respective 2030 emissions reduction targets given how quickly the necessary new investment can be put into place. Key lessons are highlighted by the patterns in emissions in the major polluting sectors. In order to support continued attempts to increase the output of renewable power, it is imperative that the energy sector support the expansion of non-emitting baseload generation, especially nuclear power.

Given that methane predominates in the U.S. oil and gas industry while carbon dioxide is the primary greenhouse gas generated in Canada, the two nations may need to give distinct priorities to mitigating emissions in this sector. Canada needs to encourage the use of electric vehicles more strongly in order to offset the effects of increased population growth, which resulted in increased driving, which countered the advantages of internal combustion engine vehicles' declining emissions intensity.Canada and the United States have set aggressive goals to cut greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from 2005 levels by 40–45% and 50–52%, respectively, by 2030. However, by 2021, the U.S. and Canada's emissions had only decreased by 15.2% and 8.5%, respectively.1.

There is a significant amount of ground to cover in the next six years which begs the issue of whether it is feasible

Furthermore, it's critical to comprehend why Canada hasn't performed as well as the United States and whether there are any lessons to be learned about where to find the savings on emissions. In the United States, not only have absolute emissions decreased considerably, but so has the emissions intensity both per person and per GDP unit. Canada has done a better job of cutting emissions in the electrical industry than any other of the major polluting economic sectors. Nonetheless, this industry made up a bigger portion of all emissions in the US and therefore had a greater impact on the reduction of all emissions in that country. The U.S. has also achieved more progress in the transportation industry, which has further skewed the numbers in their favor (Chart 1). Despite being more influential in offsetting emissions reductions observed elsewhere in Canada, the oil and gas sector's emissions climbed at a fairly equivalent rate between 2005 and 2021, despite popular belief to the contrary (Chart 2). Increasing efforts in the primary emitting sectors that have the power to dramatically affect national numbers will be necessary to make additional progress toward closing the difference between the current emissions route and one that is in line with the Paris Agreement.

Market forces and policies determine trends in emissions. Regulations, government-industry alliances, and shifting market dynamics are some of the factors that influence the trajectory of emissions across different industries. Regulations have a particularly important role in the transportation sector, as seen by the reduction in the emissions intensity of roadtransportation brought about by stricter fuel economy and emissions standards. Unfortunately, this did not result in lower absolute emissions in Canada prior to the pandemic, partly because ofincreased driving activity brought on by population expansion that counteracted the effect of declining emissions intensity. In contrast, a slower increase in road transport activity was advantageous to the United States.

Furthermore, improved U.S. outcomes were influenced by variations in the relative contributions of different sectors to overall emissions

This element also helps identify the industries that are essential to achieving the interim emissions reduction targets. The two main emitting sectors in each nation in 2021—oil and gas and transportation for Canada, and transportation and electricity for the United States—accounted for around half of the total emissions in each. Canada benefited from coal controls in terms of lowering electrical emissions. Significant effects have been seen in the electrical sector's emissions, which have been declining since they peaked in the United States and Canada in 2007 and 2001, respectively. The more recent decrease in Canada's emissions is attributed to Alberta, while the previous reduction was caused by coal plants in Ontario being forced to close by the government. Regulations from the federal and provincial governments that seek to eradicate emissions from the production of coal electricity by 2030 are what have sparked the reforms in Alberta.

The Alberta government's pledge to pay the affected utilities for early coal plant retirements probably helped the plan get more utility backing.3. A quicker move away from coal also appears to have been encouraged by the growing cost of carbon. For instance, TransAlta stated that one of the reasons for its decision to transition away from coal in Canada more quickly was the possibility of reduced margins as a result of rising carbon costs, which were expected to reach $405 million if they did nothing.4 A few states in the United States (Oregon, New York, Washington, etc.) have passed laws requiring coal-fired power stations to reduce their emissions. For instance, New York used regulatory steps to gradually phase out the production of coal electricity in 2020.The laws have been successful in lowering the amount of electricity produced by coal-fired power facilities.

Coal + coke power generation fell by 66% in Canada and 55% in the United States between 2005 and 2021.5, 6 Natural gas power generation increased by 86% in Canada and more than doubled in the United States during that same time period. Over this period, emissions in the electrical sector in Canada decreased more due to a steeper decline in coal-fired generation and a relatively smaller increase in unabated natural gas-fired generation (Chart 3). However, the sector has made a greater contribution to the decline in U.S. national emissions because it represents a bigger portion of all emissions in the country (Chart 2). Remember that the primary driver of the reduction in total emissions in both nations was the power industry.

These include states like Georgia, Alabama, and Mississippi

Regulations were not the only factor in the decline of coal power; natural gas and renewable energy sources were becoming more and more economically competitive. Between 2001 and 2021, natural gas and wind energy surpassed coal as the primary sources of in-state electricity generation in 14 states inside the United States.7. which do not have clean power or renewable portfolio standards. As a result, market forces rather than regulatory forces were primarily responsible for the shift in the electrical supply mix. Similar to other provinces, Alberta was on schedule to close its last coal facilities by early 20248, six years ahead of schedule, thanks in part to declining natural gas prices and falling renewable energy technology costs.But compared to managing emissions from coal power, the next phase of gas generation emission reductions might be more difficult to achieve. In order to support renewable energy sources and storage, there is a requirement for enough low-carbon baseload generation capacity, such as nuclear and hydropower.

In this particular area, Ontario's coal phase-out strategy proved successful in reducing emissions and could serve as a model for other plans. The province made an investment in adding more nuclear power to the grid in addition to natural gas and renewable energy.9. In contrast to California and New York, who both withdrew some of their nuclear capacity recently, Ontario has been more effective in decreasing emissions from the electricity industry, even though it still relies heavily on gas-fired generation for flexible power (Chart 4).

An intriguing example is California, where the share of domestic generation derived from solar and wind power climbed significantly from 2% in 2005 to over 25% in 2021.10 However, from 2005 and 2021, the sector's emissions decreased by only 6%.11 If the state had made an investment to increase nuclear capacity, it would have achieved greater progress in reducing emissions from the production of power. Rather, the nuclear energy lost between the peak in 2011 and 2021 was equal to almost 20% of the fossil fuel generation that continued unabatedly in 2021. Total emissions would have grown by 0.5% in Canada (as opposed to an 8.5% fall) and decreased by 3.5% in the United States (as opposed to a 15.2% decline) if emissions from the production of electricity had stayed constant between 2005 and 2021.