For millions of Canadians, the recent deal between the Trudeau Liberals and Jagmeet Singh’s NDP will be about progress on pharmacare and coverage of dental services. But for Justin Trudeau, it was almost certainly about buying more time and space to reach his government’s climate goals. Now, with the release of the government’s emissions reduction plan, we know exactly what they look like — and how far away we are from achieving them.

It represents the most ambitious policy objective a Canadian prime minister has laid out since Trudeau’s own father announced his intention to repatriate the Constitution and create a Charter of Rights and Freedoms for Canada.

By 2030, our greenhouse gas emissions are expected to be 40 per cent lower than they were in 2005, a radical transformation of the economy that will be powered by $9.1 billion worth of investments in zero-emission vehicle incentives, a cleaner electrical grid and more carbon capture and storage technology.

It has the backing of high-profile environmentalists like former BC Green Party leader Andrew Weaver, along with a host of think tanks and policy shops, and it even received praise from the Toronto Regional Board of Trade. Dave Sawyer, a renowned environmental economist with EnviroEconomics, described it as a “serious policy document for a serious issue.”

But if the policy is sound, the politics are a little more suspect.

Monica Gattinger, a director of the Institute for Science, Society and Policy and the chair of positive energy at the University of Ottawa, noted the plan still has gaps — and one of the big ones is around affordability. “Durable emissions reductions require approaches that integrate climate and energy imperatives. Without reliable affordable energy, the country will fast lose public and investor support for emissions reductions.”

That’s especially true when the leadership candidates for the country’s biggest and loudest opposition party are still competing with each other over who can be the biggest carbon tax critic. Decarbonizing Canada’s economy on the timelines laid out in this document is a challenge nearly as big as putting a man on the moon was in the 1960s, but at least NASA didn’t have to constantly justify and defend its own existence from one side of the political spectrum.

And then, of course, there’s Alberta. The oil and gas industry, which produced 191 megatonnes of carbon dioxide in 2019, most of which occurred in that province, is being asked to cut emissions to just 110 megatonnes by the end of the decade. That would be a big ask even with a provincial government willing to buy into the plan and its objectives. But Ottawa has just about the opposite in Jason Kenney’s UCP. His environment minister, Jason Nixon, described the plan as “insane,” while opposition leader Rachel Notley was slightly more diplomatic in calling it “a fantasy.”

Given the compressed timelines and major investments that need to be made, this chasm that exists between Ottawa’s ambitions and Alberta’s intentions is a big problem.

Unless Trudeau can find some sort of grand bargain here, as his father did with Peter Lougheed and the notwithstanding clause in 1982, it will almost certainly be insurmountable. Trying to meet emissions reduction targets in Canada without Alberta’s full support is like trying to leave the house with a toddler wrapped around your ankles. Sure, you might be able to move, but you won’t get far or go fast.

Opinion: Trying to meet emissions reduction targets in Canada without Alberta’s full support is like trying to leave the house with a toddler wrapped around your ankles, columnist @maxfawcett writes for @natobserver. #cdnpoli #abpoli

That’s especially true if Alberta’s biggest economic sector continues to believe there’s a free lunch out there just waiting to be served.

In response to the federal plan, Terry Abel, executive vice-president of the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, trotted out one of his industry’s favourite arguments, which is that the solution to climate change is actually to produce more oil and gas in Canada. “One of the largest contributions Canada can make to lowering global greenhouse gas emissions is by exporting Canadian liquefied natural gas to displace the use of coal in the world’s energy mix,” he said in a statement.

This argument has been knocked down repeatedly, most notably by Jason Dion in a 2019 Policy Options piece. “Countries don’t get credit toward their emissions reduction targets for low-carbon exports because the global GHG accounting system doesn’t work that way,” he wrote.

“Countries know that reductions in their emissions have value,” he added. “They won’t let others get credit for them for nothing.” In other words, if we want the credit for those LNG exports and the emissions they theoretically abate, someone’s going to have to pay for them.

If the biggest lobby group for Canada’s oil and gas industry is still throwing up smokescreens like this, it doesn’t bode well for the federal government’s plans. It stands to reason that after watching environmental activists kill their pipeline projects with procedural delays and other clock-management strategies, the industry may want to return the favour. Just listen to Kendall Dilling, the interim director of the Oil Sands Pathway to Net Zero Alliance, who said: “We also need to recognize the time required to build the infrastructure, deploy the necessary technology, secure appropriate regulatory approvals, and implement economic incentives to achieve these reductions.”

Now it’s up to Trudeau to decide how he’s going to break through this resistance, and whether it involves more carrots or sticks. The good news is he has at least three years to work with. The bad news is that may not be nearly enough time to get it done.

Keep reading

You know I am so tired of the oil and gas sector in always complaining and not owning up to there large contribution to the effect it has on the environment. It is obvious what is happening so they really need to be better corporate citizens and go to new technology to produce energy. Even if Alberta and Saskatchewan will not own up to what they need to do.

No one blames the oil and gas sector for their part in producing what we all needed before we knew the damage, but they knew before most of us, so what they ARE directly responsible for is deliberately financing climate science denial for decades. That's a genuine crime against humanity, and they will be held to account....

There is no such thing as a good corporate citizen. As soon as you have a publicly traded corporation, its only motivation is the bottom line; if it can best make profit by shoveling babies into furnaces, that is what it will do. There is some wiggle room when a company is not publicly traded, and ownership is restricted to one or a few individuals, although it rarely seems to make much difference in practice.

Oil companies will do the right thing when we can muster big enough carrots and/or big enough sticks that going for renewables or just diversifying away from their core business is more profitable than sticking to producing oil. So basically, they'll change the day they realize once and for all that if they stay the way they are they will be driven out of business. Unfortunately, their political power is such that this condition has proved hard to arrange.
Fortunately, this isn't just up to Trudeau; the investment world is also on it, not to mention the growing, tangible, felt effects of our deteriorating environment.
Also, harping on the "politics" of what Trudeau is doing is irrelevant; it's not his fault that fractious, ignorant prairie cons have inexplicably been voted into power in the heart of our main oil and gas reserves. And comparing them to toddlers clinging to the legs of the adults in the room btw is spot on.

I would add the word "wailing" to "...toddlers clinging to the ankles of adults..." ;-)

Fawcett: "But for Justin Trudeau, [the recent deal] was almost certainly about buying more time and space to reach his government’s climate goals."
Revised: But for Justin Trudeau, it was almost certainly about buying the NDP's silence on the Liberals'/Big Oil's plan to fail on climate — a longer lifetime for Canada's fossil fuel industry and billions of dollars in subsidies for largely foreign-owned oil companies reporting record profits.

Fawcett: "By 2030, our greenhouse gas emissions are expected to be 40 per cent lower than they were in 2005"
"Projected", not expected. The projection is not based on reality. Not even the Liberals can believe these 2030 targets are attainable.
I bought a lottery ticket yesterday. I am expecting to win $1 million next week. I have about as much chance of winning as the Liberals do of meeting their targets.
Now the NDP can't vote against the Liberals' plan to fail.

Fawcett: "a radical transformation of the economy that will be powered by $9.1 billion worth of investments in zero-emission vehicle incentives, a cleaner electrical grid and more carbon capture and storage technology"
Revised: a radical investment in our fossil-fuel status quo that will be powered by $9.1 billion worth of dodgy projects with huge opportunity costs. Spent more wisely, those same dollars could achieve far greater reductions at lower cost.
What is the TMX pipeline costing us now? $21.4 billion and counting.

Fawcett: "It has the backing of high-profile environmentalists like former BC Green Party leader Andrew Weaver"
It does not have the backing of low-profile environmentalists like yours truly who can read the writing on the wall and who bother to do the math.

Fawcett: "Given the compressed timelines and major investments that need to be made, this chasm that exists between Ottawa’s ambitions and Alberta’s intentions is a big problem."

Try "insurmountable". Oh, I see Fawcett used that word just below.
The AB Govt is the front office of the AB oil industry. If "Alberta’s intentions" are not aligned with "Ottawa’s ambitions", that means the AB oil industry is not on board. The AB oil industry backed by the Big Banks will never agree to any plan or proposal that impairs its profits, much less puts the industry out of business.
If government can not or will not take on the oil industry, then we shall have to wait decades for global markets to respond to global climate disaster and shut the industry down.

Paying the industry to capture a mere fraction of its own upstream emissions while 80% of emissions continue unabated downstream is not a climate solution. But that's where we are. The industry's plan is to "green" fossil fuels, not get off them.

The Liberals and the federal govt apparatus have long been captured by the oil industry. The industry's plan to fail on climate was hammered out years ago; the Trudeau Liberals are the agents chosen to carry it out.
Trudeau, Notley, & Co. signed on to Big Oil's fraudulent "climate" plan -- a deal forged by Big Oil and corporate Canada years before Notley and Trudeau came to power. Big Oil's climate plan permits oilsands expansion enabled by new export pipelines in return for a nominal carbon tax that would not impair their profits and production — plus a fraudulent oilsands cap. Smoke and mirrors.

Delay is Denialism 2.0.

Big Oil supports a nominal carbon price too low to be effective — and far short of actual environmental and health costs — in exchange for federal co-operation and approval of pipelines that enable oilsands expansion.
"Canada's biggest emitters are paying the lowest price on carbon"

Not one big oil company has bet big on renewables. No oil company seeks to sideline its main business. The fossil fuel industry is desperate to slow down the energy transition to protect profits. "Predatory delay."
Carbon Tracker 2019: "Every oil major is betting heavily against a 1.5 degree C world and investing in projects that are contrary to the Paris goals."
"The Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP) also encouraged its members to submit feedback, with high-level recommendations like … ensuring any 'just transition' policy is aimed at cementing Canada as a global supplier of fossil fuels, rather than transitioning out of the industry."
"Industry and climate groups face off over just transition consultation" (National Observer, 06-Oct-21)
"Big Oil's Strategy Is Stalling The Energy Transition" (Forbes, Jan 28, 2022)
"… Much like Big Tobacco, Big Oil has lost the scientific and public opinion battle in the West, and not for a lack of investment in disinformation and lobbying. It acknowledges the threat of climate change but advocates for an 'orderly energy transition' in which demand for oil falls gradually in wealthy countries, and the rest of the world takes decades to catch up. That orderly transition will not achieve global carbon neutrality by 2050. Not by a long shot.
"…Big Oil's tobacco-inspired strategy has 3 components. First, double-down on sales abroad. Second, greenwash at home. Third, spend lavishly on share buybacks instead of investments in clean energy.
"…Big Oil will invest just enough in clean energy companies to deflect criticism—and ensure that none turn into real competitors."
Alberta's climate plan is to maximize O&G production:
AB Finance Minister Travis Toews's 2022 provincial budget speech: "Global oil demand is expected to exceed pre-pandemic levels in 2022 and many expect it will continue to increase for the next several decades. Given the increased demand for oil, we have an opportunity and, indeed, a responsibility to maximize production."

"The Liberal climate plan essentially is a reworking of the business plan of Big Oil and the broader corporate lobby. …The plan is to support a carbon tax and to effectively make it a cover for expanded tarsands production and pipelines. That was a plan hatched by the Business Council of Canada back in 2006, 2007. For 20 years oil companies had resisted any kind of regulation or any kind of carbon tax and fought it seriously. But they started to realize that it would be a kind of concession that they would have to make in order to assure stability and their bottom line not being harmed. The climate bargain that Trudeau went on to strike with Alberta of a carbon tax plus expanded tarsands production was precisely the deal that Big Oil had wanted."
"How Trudeau's Broken Promises Fuel the Growth of Canada's Right" (The Tyee, 4 Sep 2019)
In his book, "The Big Stall: How Big Oil and Think Tanks are Blocking Action on Climate Change in Canada", Donald Gutstein details how neoliberal "progressive" politicians like Trudeau and Notley subverted the climate change agenda and enabled Big Oil's "predatory delay":
"The Big Stall traces the origins of the govt's climate change plan back to Big Oil. It shows how, in the last fifteen years, Big Oil has infiltrated provincial and federal govts, academia, media and the non-profit sector to sway govt and public opinion on the realities of climate change
"This is how Big Oil and think tanks unraveled the Kyoto Protocol and how Rachel Notley and Justin Trudeau came to deliver the Business Council of Canada's energy plan. Donald Gutstein explains how and why the door has been left wide open for oil companies to determine their own futures in Canada, and to go on fracking new "natural" gas wells, building new oilsands plants and constructing new pipelines.
"The Trudeau govt's purchase of the TM pipeline in 2018 illustrates how entrenched neoliberalism has become. Under neoliberalism, the role of govt is to create and enforce markets and prop them up when they fail, just as Trudeau did."
"The Rise and Fall of Trudeau's 'Grand Bargain' on Climate"

Yes, as you keep pointing out to many of us who were probably behind the Leap Manifesto if we had our way, but there are these naysaying, foot-dragging, paranoid conservatives braying on our heels (or clinging to our ankles, take your pick) who comprise 30-40% of our population, a.k.a. the squeaky wheels who get the grease.
I'm starting to wonder who you vote for, or do you just eschew that pedestrian act as you sail up there beyond the fray, secure in the knowledge that you're right above all else.

The Conservatives cannot be blamed for the Liberals' failed climate policy. The Cons have not been in power since 2015. Trudeau's Liberals have won three consecutive elections.
As the excerpts above demonstrate, the Liberals are willing captives to the oil industry. The industry's plan to fail was set in motion long ago.

Trudeau does not need to win votes from Alberta or seats in Saskatchewan to win federal elections. Liberal victories depend on Atlantic Canada, Central Canada, and the Lower Mainland. Votes from the Prairie provinces not required. The Liberals have nothing to gain electorally by pandering to intransigent Albertans and the oilpatch.
In recent elections, a majority of Canadian voters have voted for parties other than Conservative. In 2015, Trudeau handily won a majority government with a strong mandate from voters on climate action.
"As in 2019, climate change was a major issue in the campaign. In March 2021, Conservative leader O'Toole announced a carbon pricing plan to replace the current Liberal carbon tax, despite previous Conservative opposition to any form of a carbon tax."
So it was actually the Conservatives who stood to lose seats to the Liberals because they failed to take climate change seriously. Just the opposite of what Liberal apologists suggest.

Liberal support for the oilpatch has nothing to do with winning seats in Alberta or staying in power. The neo-Liberals serve Corporate Canada and the Big Banks, heavily invested in the oilsands. It is these entities and not conservative premiers that dictate the Liberals' energy/climate policies.
Corporate Canada is banking on fossil fuel expansion and climate action failure. The Liberal Party is Corporate Canada's front office.

Trudeau and the Liberal power players behind the scenes are sincere fossil fuel boosters and reluctant climate warriors — not the other way around.
Trudeau (2016): "There is growth to be had in the oilsands. They will be developing more fossil fuels while there's a market for it, while we transition off fossil fuels."
Trudeau (2017): "No country would find 173 billion barrels of oil in the ground and just leave them there."

I believe Trudeau is sincere. Why don't his apologists believe him?

There is no such thing as perfection, especially in arena politics. We have to support the good, though it can be tepid, in order to keep the bad out of play.

Even if the Green Party was mature enough to form the government in the next election (I know ... dream on, given their penchant for childish self-immolation, with a couple of exceptions), all it would take is a single term with the Conservative Party running government to destroy everything remotely attached to climate mitigation.

You can aim for perfection (known also as high principles) or keep the Conservatives away from the helm. There is no middle ground in our current electoral system until true proportionality is finally achieved.

"Do not let the perfect be the enemy of the good."
Good advice, except the Liberals do not represent the "good" in this scenario. The Liberals serve and represent the interests of Corporate Canada, the Big Banks, and Big Oil. Trudeau is Corporate Canada's willing servant, hand-picked to do its bidding. And the Liberals deliver on Corporate Canada's agenda more effectively than the Conservatives ever could.
Who can believe that a plan to fail is good?

This argument refuses to acknowledge failure. As long as you can find someone else who is even worse, your failure is acceptable.
I got 47% on my math test. I advised my father not to cancel my allowance, because little Johnny got 23%. Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
My homebuilder took my money and left me with peeling paint, leaky plumbing, drafty doors, cupboards that won't open, windows that won't close, a shifting foundation, and god knows what else. But that's OK. I could have hired a company that was even worse.
The busdriver left half the kids at the wrong stops last week. But, hey, you know, half the kids made it home. A truly incompetent busdriver might have lost them all.
Obvious fallacy.

No one is asking for perfection. What climate activists seek at a minimum — and what Canadians deserve — is a plan not to fail on climate.
This slogan misreads the dynamics and history of our predicament. The Liberals decided a long time ago to execute Big Oil's climate plan. I call that evil, not good.

Is electoral reform in the offing anytime soon? Any realistic hopes for PR? Hope is nice, but this hope is empty. Why would the Liberals make electoral changes that dim their chances of majority govt?
Doing the same thing over and over again (voting Liberal), expecting different results. Isn't that the definition of insanity?

Big Oil couldn't ask for a better setup. Terrified by the Conservative bogeyman, progressive voters run into the arms of Trudeau's Liberals. CAPP can set their Conservative hounds on the Liberals, while the Liberals give the O&G industry just about everything on its wishlist. The Liberals play the fear card every election to limit the NDP and Green vote.

How to break this impasse?
Give the Liberals a richly deserved time-out.
If progressive Canadians vote their values, and the Liberals lose power, the Liberals will be forced to change their policies in alignment with progressive values in order to regain power.
If progressive Canadians vote in fear (i.e, "strategically") for the Liberals, the Liberals remain in power indefinitely — and never have to change their policies.

The only way out of this trap is to terminate the Liberals' contract. Yes, even if it means going several steps backwards under the Conservatives for a term.
How else to get the message across that climate failure, a litany of broken promises, betrayals, cynicism, and Trudeau's mockery of First Nations, etc. are unacceptable?
If you reward failure, betrayal, and broken promises, expect more of the same.
If progressives wish to encourage Liberals politicians to ignore them, by all means, keep voting Liberal.
If you want to break them of the habit, park your vote elsewhere or stay home.

The Liberals have progressive voters over a barrel. Progressives must re-assert control of nominally progressive parties, set them on the right track, and keep leaders and government accountable. There is no hope otherwise.
Short-term pain for long-term gain.

That's all fine and dandy logic, Geoffrey. But it still doesn't answer the most basic question, one that Tris brought up above. Who the hell do I vote for in my very competitive riding where the centre + left vote is always under threat of fragmenting? Living in Tory Alberta, your choice is likely much easier because most candidates other than Conservatives don't have a chance and one is free to express principled critiques without the ability to change the colour of the leopard's spots.

You are very dismissive of the threat the Conservatives present if / when they form government, and it seems that is based exclusively on the climate file. You are right, of course, but that's only half the story. I also distinctly remember the Conservative government's muzzling of ALL scientists (not just climate scientists) and trashing of ALL environmental budgets, followed up by a decimation of ALL social programs, and followed yet again by the blatantly racist "barbaric cultural practices" narrative. I believe that last one helped shut down the Dark Decade of Harper, but they barely lost, which is indicative of the support they really have despite the anti-everything naysayin' rhetoric and simpleton economics.

Today they are going all trucker convoy on the nation because, didn't ya know, global warming / coronavirus are hoaxes and Trudeau imposes them on our freedom, and taxes are a way to line Trudeau's elitist pockets. So F*ck Trudeau. I believe we are witnessing the splitting of the Conservatives with the extremist faction taking votes from the centre right. Is there a problem with weakening the Conservatives from a climate perspective? There sure isn't from a social point of view

Electoral math is as complex and meaningful as dividing a pie. In my riding there were five choices.

The Green Party is so small and haven't gotten their act together and actually ran a fake candidate in the 2019 election. What the hell? There goes Principled Vote #1.

The NDP ran semi-known candidates and have garnered respect from both environmental and social democratic voters, but have not outcompeted the Libs in votes, though the last election was closer than expected. Principled Vote #2 slips away.

The 2019 election garnered a lot of support for an Indigenous candidate running as an Independent, and before that who was the Liberal Attorney General of Canada who resigned on principle after the SNC Lavelin scandal. She supported TMX as a Liberal, but changed her stance to oppose TMX as an Independent. She was also very strong on reconciliation and social files. Bingo. That was a Principled Vote that won the seat and that was also strategic.

End of voting on principles. The rest is cold, hard math and strategy.

The Liberals ran an unknown candidate last September with a checkered history in real estate speculation. This was an unprincipled hold-the-nose vote to keep the Conservative from winning. It worked. But as mentioned, the NDP candidate came pretty close, and that will present a large enough quandary next time to force us to look at the weekly campaign polls to see which one (Lib or NDP) has the momentum.

Meanwhile, the Liberals and NDP struck a minority government and followed up with an agreement that provides stability for three more years, enough time to enact child care, pharmacare and dental care programs and, yes, watered down and hopelessly inadequate climate initiatives. This occurred just when the Conservatives are holding a leadership contest with more than one going to the barbarians.

So, what is an environmentalist social democrat supposed to do in a competitive riding? Risk voting Green, split the progressive vote and watch in horror as the Conservatives waltz up the middle and wipe out environmental and social programs in one big sweep, just like last time?

Ideally we'd have a Liberal Democratic Green government coalition. Until that's possible, then why would I ever consider mathematically supporting a candidate for a truly abhorrent party by fragmenting the opposing vote?

Whom to vote for? Depends on your long-term strategy.
If you agree that progressive voters need to assert control over Canada's nominally progressive parties (Liberals and NDP), and that the only way to do that is to give them a time out when they stray too far from the progressive agenda, then you vote your values. Either you vote for some other party, or you tear up your ballot, or you stay home. You grit your teeth under the evil Conservatives, and make it known to your nominally progressive party that if they want your vote, they will have to earn it. I know of no other way to effect change.

Remarkably, Canada survived the Harper years. Indeed, Canada's nominal emissions decreased slightly during Harper's tenure. In the first four years of Trudeau's govt, emissions increased year after year. (Does not mean much, I know. Both are climate failures.)
I do not underestimate the stupidity of the Conservatives, much less the lunacy of their fringe followers. Premier Kenney's reckless COVID mismanagement is responsible for the deaths of hundreds if not thousands of Albertans. For citizens, the difference between good and bad government can be a matter of life and death.
Likewise, on the climate file, but on a far greater scale: ecosystem collapse, extinction, and untold loss and misery for humankind on the scale of centuries, if not millennia.

Conversely, if you hope that voting for the Liberals over and over again to keep the evil Conservatives at bay someday will somehow make the Liberals see the light someday, vote Liberal.
To me, that hope seems futile. Why would the Liberals change if voters do not give them reason to change? If the Liberals can count on your vote, they will take continue to take you for granted.

I read your response carefully, and I absolutely sympathize with your predicament. However, I was unable to find any plan — or hope of a plan — for reforming the Liberals. If what you are doing is not working, why keep doing it? It's like hitting your heading against the wall to make your headache go away.

The Liberals, the provincial NDP, and the Conservatives all serve the same masters: Corporate Canada, the Big Banks, and Big Oil. The Liberals just happen to be more effective at delivering on Corporate Canada's agenda.

Progressive Canadians are realizing the swindle. I spend no time on Twitter, but here are some comments I came across by clicking on a CBC link:
"No matter who we vote for, they work only for the same wealthy donors and lobbyists as the last gov."
"Their climate plan is to extract as much profit as possible for their donors and lobbyists before they are out of office. Their plans are always short term profits. Our system is so corrupt and rigged to the wealthy."

The Liberals are Lucy, and progressive voters are Charlie Brown. Every time we try to kick the progressive football forward, the Liberals snatch it away.
If political parties will not reform voluntarily or spontaneously, voters must take charge and reform them. The only leverage voters have over political parties is their vote (and donations of time and money). If you reward the Liberals for failure, that only ensures continuing failure. If political parties are to change, voters need to change. The onus is on voters to do something different.

As for me, I cannot in good conscience vote for climate failure.
I'm sorry. That's the best I can offer.

Alex, can you provide links to the NRCan info you posted recently? Thx.

1) "I believe it was the Natural Resources Canada website that iterated 60% of the emissions from every barrel of unconventional and expensive tar sands bitumen mined and piped is released under the processing stage in Alberta. The remaining 40% is emitted when it's burned. Conventional oil is the inverse, and in some cases pumping and shipping it accounts for less than 25% of total emissions, and the majority is released when combusted by consumers."

2) The Natural Resources Canada website, which has undergone revisions to defend the Alberta oil sands (or at least offer more apologia) indicates average CO2 emissions from bitumen production and consumption as follows:
Well to retail pump: ~170 kg/barrel
Tailpipe combustion: ~400 kg/barrel
Total: ~570 kg/barrel
The previous NRC website information pegged 60% of per barrel CO2 emissions as occurring within Canada, and 40% in consumer countries as the exported product is further refined and burned in cars in foreign lands. Eliminating exports from total Canadian emissions, the calculation works out to ~340 kg or 0.34 tonnes per barrel in house.
The average per tonne costs per sector of carbon capture is outlined below from a 2021 report by the IEA (US$):
Direct air capture: $143 - 342
Power generation (gas and coal): $50 - 100
Cement: $60 - 120
Iron and steel: $40 - 100
From the same IEA report the cost of transport and storage of CO2 in the onshore US varies between ~$7-24/tonne (median ~$15/tonne).

This may seem like an odd thing to say, right now when oil and gas prices are so high. But in the medium term, all the demand side stuff world wide, all the electric cars, transit, green building codes and so on, is going to kill oil and gas prices. The current price spikes, and fears in Europe of relying on Russian supplies, are just going to accelerate transitions.
Oil and gas prices are pretty volatile--the current spike is like serious multiples of where it was a few months ago, and that's just from really quite a small supply crimp; it's not like Russia actually stopped selling oil. But the reverse is also true--even a fairly small supply glut from dropping demand can lead to very low prices, as it did for a while in the depths of the pandemic. If demand drops and stays dropped, then either the prices drop through the floor and stay there, in which case after a while oil companies have a lot less money and as a result less political influence, OR the more expensive and carbon-intensive sources of oil and gas start going out of business until supply is reduced far enough that prices recover.

And as it happens, that kind of describes the tar sands. I'd bet they'll be in serious financial difficulties within five years. Their emissions will be dropping whether they like it or not, just because nobody will be buying their stuff at a price that pays for production.

@ Rufus Polson

Nice observations of fossil supply and demand. Both low and high world oil prices cause conniptions in Alberta. Without gas tanks, the oil industry will falter in Canada because road transport is their main market. EVs entering the market by the millions after 2025 ... it's hard not to see this as an anatomy lesson in demand destruction, especially when a "fill up" costs a fraction of a tank of gasoline.

I don't see EVs replacing the entire car and light truck fleet because there isn't enough electricity generation capacity built up yet to power all of them as well as heat pumps, green steel mills, more electric transit and so forth.

The ripples in the world oil supply caused by Putin's aggressive stupidity could be a catalyst to get consumers to have a major rethink. Buying an EV is expensive. Families and individuals may well choose to go carless if they live in a compact town or neighbourhood with decent transit, diverse work opportunities, schools, public services, shopping and entertainment. That is why some of us see urbanism as having the highest potential of all to address a lot of issues like climate change, economic health and poverty.

If Trudeau were serious about reducing emissions, he wouldn't be going through the sham-dance of continuing on with TMX and CGL. Ditto for reconciliation.
Someone needs to tell the entire parliament how it works:
1990 is the base year
Emissions are calculated from the beginning of extraction to the end of product use.
You can't claim another country's emissions reduction, or require someone else to bear your own emissions.
I've known pre-kindergarteners who could understand that.