The Green Party’s “Mission Possible” a cool name for a policy proposal that is not ready for prime time.

On May 16th Elizabeth May unveiled the Green Party’s Mission Possible, their 20-step “Green Climate Action Plan“. While I have to admit “Mission Possible” is a very cool name, the plan repeats what we saw with their Canadian “Green New Deal“. It is simply not ready for prime time. When you start looking at the details it becomes clear that the Green Party’s needs to assemble a policy team that understands energy issues, infrastructure development and logistics because this plan demonstrates a woeful lack of specific expertise on these topics and more. As this is only a blog post I won’t address all 20-steps here. Instead, I will address a handful of the steps on topics with which I am familiar.

To begin let’s start with the biggest challenge: modernizing the grid. This one is particularly important because many of their subsequent steps rely on easy access to copious amounts of low-carbon electricity.

9 – And modernize the grid

By 2030, rebuild and revamp the east-west electricity grid to ensure that renewable energy can be transmitted from one province to another.

While a necessary goal, if we are going to achieve our long-term climate ambitions, Canada’s vast and challenging geography has limited our ability to create a nationally integrated power grid. Even the most optimistic view has a new grid costing $25 billion and taking a couple decades to build. A more realistic appraisal puts the cost of a national backbone of 735 kV transmission lines at around $104 billion and taking 20 years to complete.

While a reasonable observer would note that $104 billion, while expensive, is doable; my biggest concern with “Mission Possible” is the time it allocates to achieve these goals. Put simply, building infrastructure takes time. Even war-time mobilizations can’t eliminate Canadian winters or the breeding/nesting seasons so unless we decide to ignore every environmental law on the books we will be limited to clearing and building over limited portions of the year.

One other thing is for certain. Building this grid will require a massive, permanent transfer of land rights. As we know from watching the pipeline debates, linear developments affect every community they go through and I can’t see affected First Nations voluntarily giving up rights to tens of thousands of hectares of land without consultation. Given recent history, I can’t see major work starting until years after the projects are proposed and, as demonstrated by the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion project, federal ownership of the project does not mean it will get a free ride through the courts. I have no doubt that any costs to build the transmission system will need to be supplemented with large sums to compensate individuals and First Nations affected by the grid upgrades.

As for the pace of the work? Well consultations take time and the court has made it abundantly clear you can’t rush consultations.

After the national backbone has been built we still will need to work on all the feeder lines that will have to go to every city, town and hamlet. Building transmission lines in Canada can be intensely expensive. Consider that the Northwest Transmission Line project in BC cost over $2 million a kilometer to build. As for the costs? If your single main line is $104 billion what will be the costs of 10’s of thousands of kms of feeder lines. Even taking into account the existing infrastructure we are talking stupendous sums to complete this task. It is simply not possible that we could achieve this goal by the year 2030.

This leads to an obvious problem, if the electricity isn’t there then where are all the electric vehicles going to get their electricity?

10- Plug in to EVs

By 2030 ensure all new cars are electric. By 2040, replace all internal combustion engine vehicles with electric vehicles, working with car makers to develop EVs that can replace working vehicles for Canadians in rural areas. Build a cross-country electric vehicle charging system so that drivers can cruise from St. John’s, NL to Prince Rupert, B.C. – with seamless ease.

Many others have written about the challenges of decreasing the number of internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles on our roads so I won’t repeat their criticisms here. Instead, let’s consider the load forecasts. As I previously calculated to simply replace the gasoline burned in BC (and accounting for increased efficiency of electric vehicles over ICE vehicles) would require approximately 15,800 GWh of electricity (or about 3 Site C dam Equivalents [5,100 GWh]). Want to replace all those diesel vehicles? That is about the energy equivalent to 11,400 GWh (2.2 Site C Dams). These are not trivial numbers and they represent British Columbia’s demand only. In combination with other steps (discussed below) the increase in electricity demand will require us to essentially double our national electricity generating capacity. Renewable are great, but the scale of this problem seems not to have been noticed by the policy folks at the Green Party. We are talking about absolutely massive increases in our electricity generation system with all the associated costs and time limitations built into those upgrades.

12- Complete a national building retrofit

Create millions of new, well-paying jobs in the trades by retrofitting every building in Canada – residential, commercial, and institutional – to be carbon neutral by 2030.

I live in a relatively efficient 25-year old house. Like most of my neighbours, my heat and hot water are natural gas and my house was not built to passive housing standards. To re-fit my house to become “carbon neutral” would require removing and replacing the heating and hot water systems (and a lot of insulation upgrades which I won’t go into in this post) and I am not alone.

According to the National Energy Board, in British Columbia 58% of households rely on natural gas for heating, in Ontario it is 67% and in Alberta it is 79%. In order to achieve step 12 we would need to retrofit all those houses by 2030. Consider that according to StatsCan Ontario had 5,169,175 households in 2016. 67% of that number represents around 3,500,000 houses needing retrofitting or about 350,000/yr by 2030. That is essentially 1,000/day every day of the year between now and 2030, so it will certainly create jobs.

I would also note that any requirement to retrofit will require some sort of compensation to home-owners required to expend thousands of dollars to replace perfectly functional hot water heaters and furnaces. Sure one might argue that the government could simply refuse to provide compensation, but a program that alienates 67% of households in Ontario would never pass political muster. No sane government would try it and so the only way it happens is if the government pours billions of dollars into the program.

Since this blog likes to consider energy, let’s also consider what this means for load forecasts. According to our natural gas supplier the natural gas for household use represents about 64 Petajoules (PJ) of energy in British Columbia alone. Put another way 64 PJ is equivalent to about 17,750 GWhr or more than 3 Site C Dams worth of additional power in BC alone. These numbers are starting to add up pretty fast now aren’t they?…and we haven’t even considered the commercial or institutional retrofits.

13- Turn off the tap to oil imports

End all imports of foreign oil. As fossil fuel use declines, use only Canadian fossil fuels and allow investment in upgraders to turn Canadian solid bitumen into gas, diesel, propane and other products for the Canadian market, providing jobs in Alberta. By 2050, shift all Canadian bitumen from fuel to feedstock for the petrochemical industry.

A lot of people agree that it is desirable that Canada be self-sufficient in oil. While a positive idea, it ignores the geographic/infrastructure realities of Canada. In 2018, Canada produced about 4.6 million barrels per day (MMb/d) of crude oil. The problem is that western Canada produced about 95% of that oil and the vast majority of the consumption takes place in Eastern Canada. In 2017, the Hibernia, oil field generated about 220,800 barrels/day (b/d). The Irving refinery in Saint John, meanwhile consumes 320,000 b/d all on its own. Put simply all of the Newfoundland and Labrador oil production is insufficient to supply that one refinery in the Maritimes, it doesn’t come close to replacing the oil imported to supply the Maritimes, Quebec and Ontario.

The Green Party has spent the better part of a the last two decades blocking the mass movement of oil from western Canada to Eastern Canada. We simply cannot get the oil from where it is produced to where it is used absent a massive investment in infrastructure (like say an Energy East pipeline). Absent that investment we cannot end oil imports in Eastern Canada.

As for the idea of developing a 4 MMb/d petrochemical industry in Alberta? That is simply magical thinking. Due to their volatile nature petrochemicals are generally produced close to where they are consumed so good luck finding foreign investors willing to cover the costs. This would be another multi-billion dollar government investment in fossil fuel infrastructure….you know the type of subsidy the Green Party loudly supports every day. Since this blog is getting long, I won’t delve further into that topic.

14 – Switch to bio-diesel

Promote the development of local, small scale bio-diesel production, primarily relying on used vegetable fat from restaurants. Mandate the switch to bio-diesel for agricultural, fishing and forestry equipment.

This represents another case of the Green’s identifying a technology that sounds good on paper but has significant concerns when you look more deeply. It ignores the challenges of scale. Specifically, how many restaurants do the Green’s think exist in Saskatchewan to replace all the agricultural diesel?

Additionally, switching over to pure bio-diesel poses significant challenges for modern engines. Bio-diesel produces less energy per liter and has significant issues with filter plugging and engine compatibility when it represents more than about 20% of the blend. It is another case of the Green Party saying something that sounds clever until you take a close look under the hood.


I think I can stop here. I have looked at only 5 of the 20-steps and shown each one to be impossible/impracticable in the time-frame provided. I haven’t even mentioned that step 7 – “Ban Fracking” would make it impossible to develop geothermal energy resources or that the “ban fracking” statement is inconsistent with most recent science (the Scientific Review of Hydraulic Fracturing) on the topic.

Rather let’s just recognize that from my brief review it is clear that the Green Party either lacks the internal expertise to create reasonable policy or it has chosen to ignore that internal expertise when producing its policy proposals. I say this because I am not providing particularly earth-shattering insight here. The information I have noted is understood by literally hundreds, if not thousands of informed analysts across the country and any one of them could provide a detailed analysis of the flaws in this proposal to build on what I have presented here.

If the Green Party wants to be taken seriously in October, it has to start imagining that its signature polices are going to be looked at more closely than they were in the past. This “Mission Possible” document makes it clear they are not yet ready for such scrutiny.

This entry was posted in Climate Change, Climate Change Politics, Renewable Energy, Site C, Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

14 Responses to The Green Party’s “Mission Possible” a cool name for a policy proposal that is not ready for prime time.

  1. Dave Hiley says:

    Blair….great writing as ALWAYS. Should “Many others have written about the challenges of increasing the number of internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles on our roads so I won’t repeat their criticisms here.” be EV not ICE?


  2. David Middleton says:

    Great deconstruction of the Green Party policy. I look forward to your next blog post if you are going to deal with the rest of their platform. Thanks for digging in and doing your analysis, I appreciate your thoughtful and practical analysis.

    Liked by 1 person

  3. Alison Malis says:

    So whenever I point to the massive amount of electricity even a minor move to EVs would entail (courtesy of my commercial electrician brother who knows firsthand the limits of the grid in Victoria), EV proponents point to BC Hydro’s public statement that they’re well positioned to handle almost a 100 percent switch. That’s what BCH is claiming. That sits at complete odds with your comments above and with what people who understand power and electricity, like my brother, can see for themselves. So who is the fibber here? Or is this a matter of BCH massaging the facts at bit.


  4. Neodymigo says:

    For the Greens, and actually any political party, much planning is spent about what they have to SAY they are going to do about a problem to get votes, and much less planning about what they technically have to do to solve the problem. The plan just has to sound functional-“ish” and it’s golden. Very few politicians have STEM competency, but have a strong ability to tell people what they think they want to hear.


  5. RG says:

    I’ve come to my own conclusions about the future of BEV’s, and I don’t view them as very promising either. Can you please post some links so I can compare my thoughts with those of other people?


  6. mdander says:

    As an occasional contrarian who shows up in your comments section, I feel I should chime in, just so that people know that you’re not just in an echo chamber. On this occasion, your analysis is pretty accurate. To say Mission Possible is “aspirational” would be charitable.

    Meanwhile, the NDP have done a vague, uninspiring job of trying to find the middle ground between the Greens and the Liberals. The Conservative policy is pretty non-existent aside from an adamant rejection of carbon taxes — a position that they clearly only have because it opposes the Liberals and because they like including the phrase “taxes are bad” in as many sentences as possible.

    I am aghast that the Liberal climate policy (along with it’s slow-motion-train-wreck-of-bureaucracy implementation) is the closest thing to evidence-based that any party can manage for the most important issue of the coming election.

    The only thing in this post that I am a bit puzzled at is the obvious hate-on for BEVs. They’re kind of an ecomodernist wet dream.


    • Blair says:

      Not sure where you are coming from on that one. I love BEVs and when one comes out that fits my needs I will purchase it. My issue is people who claim BEVs won’t affect our electricity demand. If we are going to plan for a future where there are no more ICEs then we need to make sure we have enough electricity to power them all.


      • mdander says:

        Thanks for clarifying. Seems a missed opportunity to not point out how a BEV on electricity from LNG still emits considerably less carbon than an ICE. I’d argue we should ramp up renewables, nuclear and BEV production/sales as fast as industrially possible and fill in with LNG generation if the need arises.

        As an aside, don’t sell ecomodernism to apartment dwelling millenials, there is no upside since they already have a low carbon footprint. The people buying new vehicles are generally relatively affluent and probably also own a single family dwelling. For each person that switches from bragging about how well they tuned their Hemi, to bragging about how efficient their BEV is, its another person that may put solar panels on their roof for even better bragging rights.


  7. Andrew Roman says:

    My understanding is that the Green Party cannot “By 2030, rebuild and revamp the east-west electricity grid” because there is no such grid. Our major transmission lines run north-south. Yes, there are some cross-province inter-ties, but no way to transmit electricity from the west coast of Canada to the East coast. An east-west electricity grid would have to be built afresh.

    And what about northern cities and First Nations communities off that grid? Would they be expected to burn fossil fuels or freeze in the dark?


  8. Pingback: Winding Down BC’s Fossil Fuel Industries – another CCPA report that just doesn't cut it | A Chemist in Langley

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.