If the BC Greens end up with the balance of power in British Columbia and choose to support the NDP, they are likely to push hard on two main climate policy issues — the consumer carbon price and liquid natural gas expansion.
These are two big policy areas where the Greens and NDP are far apart, said Kathryn Harrison, a political science professor at UBC, in an interview with ÎÚÑ»´«Ã½’s National Observer.
In this hypothetical scenario, the Greens might have some leverage to challenge Premier David Eby’s statements that his government will remove the provincial consumer carbon price if the federal system is scrapped by a future government, said Hamish Telford, associate professor of political science at the University of the Fraser Valley, in a phone interview with ÎÚÑ»´«Ã½’s National Observer.
The Greens are the only remaining ÎÚÑ»´«Ã½ party that supports the carbon price. The BC Green Party declined interview requests.
ÎÚÑ»´«Ã½ has had a consumer carbon price since 2008. Until recently, Eby supported the climate policy — before he pivoted in September, saying he would remove the province’s consumer price only if Ottawa did first.
Telford said the NDP likely recognize the carbon price is “good policy” and that, if pressured, they might renege on Eby’s promise.
The Greens and NDP are also miles apart when it comes to LNG.
The Greens’ election platform says under the party’s leadership, no new LNG projects would be approved and fracked gas production will be phased out entirely.
“The NDP's position has been that any additional terminals would have to be net-zero,” said Kathryn Harrison, in an interview with ÎÚÑ»´«Ã½’s National Observer.
“The Green position is so different from the NDP, which is basically we're going to worry about our emissions within British Columbia, the emissions downstream are someone else's problem,” Harrison said. Downstream emissions are created when fuel is burned — for example, in a vehicle.
“I don’t see the NDP backing down on LNG projects that are currently under construction, but the Greens might be able to hold out for a moratorium on future developments or at least for a more rigorous review process for new proposals,” Telford said.
“I am sure the Greens would want more, but the alternative is a lot less with the Conservatives, so they can’t afford to be dogmatic about it, in my view.”
Thomas Green, senior climate policy advisor for the Suzuki Foundation, thinks the Greens have a strong opportunity to at least force a pause on LNG approvals, similar to what happened in the United States.
Green can see a scenario where the party could force the hand of the NDP to launch a review of LNG in the province centered around a scientific panel to assess the economics and environmental impacts of increasing LNG production and exports in the province.
In their comprehensive platform, the Greens have a policy of conducting a “comprehensive and independent” health impact assessment to evaluate the health effects of LNG and fracking. The Greens have also committed to ending all subsidies to LNG in the province, which environmental critics of the NDP say siphon resources away from renewable energy industries and housing while spiking energy costs by diverting it to electrify LNG facilities.
There are currently only two LNG projects awaiting approval, the Nisga’a-led Ksi Lisims LNG, and the Tilbury LNG phase two expansion, said Kiki Wood, an oil and gas campaigner for Stand.Earth.
Along with pushing forward natural gas pipelines, the BC Conservatives would kill the government’s plans to electrify LNG facilities and scrap the emissions limits imposed on them.
“The NDP would be desperate for the help, but since it's not likely the Greens could work with the Conservatives, they don't have a whole lot of leverage with the NDP either, notwithstanding the NDP's desperation,” said Telford. Harrison agreed, adding that toppling the government too quickly would likely be unpopular with voters.
It’s likely that the NDP would seek a supply-and-confidence agreement, Telford said, because they “can’t afford to go issue by issue.”
Former Green Party leader Andrew Weaver thinks the BC Greens should hold off on inking a supply-and-confidence agreement until after the spring budget is tabled, partly due to the fact the party’s two new MLAs don’t have experience in the legislature.
“It's always good to keep people on their toes, so I would say right now, it's important that they signal that they're happy to make deals with whoever can express Green values,” Weaver said in an interview with ÎÚÑ»´«Ã½’s National Observer.
Weaver, a climate scientist, endorsed Conservative candidate Stephen Andrew in the lead up to the provincial election. As previously reported by ÎÚÑ»´«Ã½’s National Observer, BC Conservative Party leader John Rustad has a long history of doubting climate science and the need for climate action, going so far as hinting that climate policies are a plot to control people.
Harrison, on the other hand, believes the Greens would get the most bargaining power by laying out the things they will and won’t support and setting conditions for certain concessions, versus going vote-by-vote.
“They’ve each got strengths and weaknesses in their bargaining position, and it depends where they can find common ground and where the Greens might be able to push the NDP to do a little more.”
Weaver was leader during the NDP-Green confidence-and-supply agreement from 2017 to 2020. Some victories include passing the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and the CleanBC plan “that would never have happened if the Greens were not in the legislature,” Weaver said.
“They probably got more than we would have seen absent that agreement,” said Harrison. The Greens came out of the agreement looking like capable legislators willing to negotiate with the government, she said.
