Market Forces

Selected tag(s): Economics

Canada’s 34,000-Job Opportunity: Finalizing Canada’s Methane Regulations

This post by Environmental Defense Fund economist Luis Fernández Intriago; Senior Campaign Manager, Canada, Ari Pottens; Senior Manager of Economics and Policy Analysis, Maureen Lackner; and former EDF intern, Chi Chia (Gina) Chen. 

  • Canada has a methane problem, but solving it with smart national regulations could create around 34,000 jobs and recover billions in revenue. 
  • The job growth would support lower-emissions energy production in the west and manufacturing in the east, helping to conserve a valuable economic commodity – natural gas – while offering economic growth throughout the nation. 

Canada’s oil and gas sector has a methane problem. The best available data suggests that the industry emitted 1.9 million metric tons of methane gas in 2023. While it only lasts in the atmosphere for a short period, this powerful greenhouse gas contributes 84 times more to near-term warming than CO2. Scientists estimate that nearly 30% of the warming experienced today can be attributed to methane from human activity. 

It’s not just a climate problem either: because methane is the primary component of natural gas, methane emissions also result in the loss of a valuable energy resource. An analysis by Environmental Defense Fund found that Alberta’s 2022 methane emissions translated to a waste of over $670 million in natural gas revenue and a loss of over $120 million in uncollected royalties and corporate taxes.

Preventing methane waste is good for Canada’s economy and good for Canada’s climate. Finalizing regulations to reduce these emissions should be included as a cornerstone in the government’s anticipated climate competitiveness strategy which will seek to capitalize on the economic benefits associated with climate change mitigation.

Canada’s proposed methane regulations could tackle methane emissions and create about 34,000 jobs.  

The methane problem can be a methane opportunity, if the Canadian government continues taking steps to seize it. In 2021, Canada announced a goal to reduce oil and gas methane emissions 75% below 2012 levels by 2030. In 2023, Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC) proposed amendments to the existing federal methane regulation that would impose strict limits on venting and flaring, mandate the installation of low- or zero-emissions equipment, and require regular monitoring for unintended emissions leaks at new and existing facilities.  

If implemented, ECCC projects that between 2027 and 2040 these rules would prevent the release of over 5 million metric tons of methane, conserving a valuable commodity that can generate revenue for producers. The rules would also prevent the release of 1.5 million metric tons of volatile organic compounds and smog-forming local air pollutants. The benefits don’t even stop with recovered gas, cleaner air and less climate pollution: we estimate that these regulations would also create approximately 34,000 total jobs, or 95,000 person-years of employment, across Canada.  

Growing Canada’s economy, sustainably  

Canada’s oil and gas industry is well-positioned to tackle Canada’s ambitious climate goal. The sector enjoyed record revenues in 2022 and 2023 and has potential to play a major role in meeting growing international demand for gas produced with minimal methane emissions.  According to the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP), the industry contributed $71.4 billion CAD (3%) to Canada’s GDP in 2022, employs 450,000 workers directly and indirectly, and supports an additional 450,000 induced jobs. 

The oil and gas industry’s efforts to limit harmful methane emissions could drive significant growth from Canada’s methane-mitigation sector. As identified in a recent report commissioned by EDF and the Pembina Institute, 81 manufacturing firms and 55 service firms provide oil and gas operators with the equipment and services needed to cut methane emissions. These firms have locations across Canada and offer high-quality, well-paying jobs. 

Jobs from coast to coast to coast: A national economic opportunity 

Our upcoming economic analysis reveals that finalizing Canada’s methane regulations would generate substantial employment nationwide.  

ECCC’s proposed regulations mandate quarterly leak detection and repair (LDAR) inspections at high-risk sites and annual checks at lower-risk ones. Large emission sources would need repair within 24 hours and smaller ones within 90 days. The rules would also restrict intentional methane releases, generally prohibiting venting and requiring flaring only when capturing the gas is not feasible. Achieving compliance with these new standards will take a lot of labor and create a lot of employment across Canada.  

These requirements create two main types of work. First, regulatory compliance demands on-site work, including installation, monitoring, and field services, which must take place at the oil and gas facilities themselves, concentrated in Canada’s energy-producing provinces, Alberta, Saskatchewan, and British Columbia. Second, it requires the purchase of new manufactured hardware (such as compressor vents and control devices), which are concentrated in Canada’s industrial heartland, primarily, in Ontario and Quebec (which make up the majority of our “Rest of Canada” or ROC economic region jobs).

Canada methane jobs

Between 2027 and 2040, our analysis of the approximately 34,000 total jobs or 95,000 person-years of employment shows this national split: 

  • Installation and field operations (~16,300 unique jobs or ~70,700 person-years): Equipment installation, leak detection and repair services, ongoing monitoring, and operations at oil and gas facilities in Alberta, Saskatchewan, and British Columbia. 
  • Manufacturing and specialized services (~17,500 unique jobs or~25,000, person-years): Most of the equipment manufacturing would be in ROC producing compressors, vapor recovery units, pneumatic devices, and monitoring systems required for compliance. Engineering firms and technology companies provide specialized services both remotely and on-site. 

This distribution reflects existing industrial supply chains: equipment is manufactured where manufacturing capacity exists, while installation and operations occur at the facility.  

 

How $15.4 Billion in Compliance Spending Creates Jobs 

Our analysis is a detailed, bottom-up approach. We followed ECCC’s Regulatory Impact Analysis Statement (RIAS) and modeled how the estimated cost for industry to comply with the regulations would be spent year by year from 2027 to 2040.  

Our total jobs estimate represents the number of unique positions that would be created across Canada between 2027-2040 to fulfill the requirements under the regulations. In contrast, person-years refers to the amount of work a person will contribute in one year to support compliance with the regulations. This means that 14 person-years of employment could translate to a single person in the same job working over the 2027-2040 period. Estimates for both total jobs and person-years of employment include direct, indirect, and induced jobs.  

Employment estimates are based on economic input-output analysis using Statistics Canada multipliers and compliance cost data from the RIAS. The analysis accounts for capital and operating expenditures associated with mitigation efforts across nine emission source categories and across four regions (Alberta, British Columbia, Saskatchewan, and the Rest of Canada (ROC)). Then we allocate capital and operational costs to the appropriate Statistics Canada Business Sector (BS) Industries. Finally, we apply the input-output multipliers to the industries and location-specific costs.  

Manufacturing employment is allocated based on Statistics Canada BS 333200 (Industrial Machinery Manufacturing) employment distribution, which shows 83% of Canada’s industrial machinery manufacturing capacity is in the Rest of Canada (primarily Ontario and Quebec), 13% in British Columbia, and 4% in Alberta and Saskatchewan. Field service employment is allocated based on the facility locations where on-site work must be performed. 

Applying input-output multipliers to the full annual flow of expenditures estimated in the ECCC RIAS yields an aggregated person-years employment estimate of approximately 95,000. As noted above, this should be interpreted as the sum of full-time positions the regulations will require in each year.  

In contrast, our estimate of 34,000 total jobs created by the regulations reflects unique positions created and is based on two assumptions. First, we assume that jobs required to carry out field operations will be filled, primarily, in 2030, the first year the new standards will activate, and that operating costs in subsequent years will not generate additional jobs. Second, we assume only 70% of workers are new hires rather than internal reassignments. 

Methane Mitigation: A win for the Climate and a win for the Economy 

Tackling the methane problem is one of the fastest, cheapest ways to slow the rate of warming, and supports the growth of Canada’s economy. The government has an opportunity to grab both of those benefits and make Canada a worldwide leader in methane mitigation. 

Previous EDF reports and analyses have demonstrated that the proposed regulations are affordable, that they will generate revenue for provinces, and that they will strengthen a new sector of the economy, the methane mitigation industry.   

This analysis proves something we’ve suspected for a long time: Canada’s proposed regulations are a clear win for Canadian jobs in the energy-producing West and the industrial East. These jobs are financed through private-sector compliance expenditures rather than public funding, meaning they redistribute oil and gas industry revenues to employment across multiple economic sectors, including oil and gas itself, manufacturing, engineering services, and technical consulting.  

With 34,000 jobs at stake, billions in potential revenue recovered, and the opportunity to position Canadian energy as among the cleanest in the world, finalizing the methane regulations isn’t just the right thing to do on climate, it’s the smart thing to do for the economy.  

Posted in Economics, emissions, Energy Transition / Also tagged | Comments are closed

Multiple Roads to the 1.3T Goal: Integrating Quality Finance for Climate Action

This blog was authored by Suzi Kerr, Senior Advisor, Economics and Carbon Pricing, EDF and Juan Pablo Hoffmaister, former AVP, Global Engagement and Partnerships, EDF.

Last November at COP29 in Baku, countries agreed on the New Collective Quantified Goal (NCQG) and set a target of mobilizing $1.3 trillion annually by 2035, including a commitment of at least $300 billion from developed countries. This decision was a turning point for the climate finance conversation—allowing us to move the conversation from “how much” to “how effectively” these funds can be deployed.

New research from EDF’s Economics team and partners show that to close the gap, we need to revolutionize our approach to climate finance. With innovative and diversified approaches, we can repair the fragmented and roadblock-riddled finance system currently in-place – while putting developing countries in the driver’s seat to design solutions that meet their needs.

Environmental Defense Fund’s research on quality climate finance highlights three critical dimensions that must be addressed: concessionality, access, and impact. Our new research adds important nuance by illustrating the multiple pathways needed, and available, to close the climate finance gap. This analysis, visualized in the compelling graph below, demonstrates that no single source of finance can meet the enormous need:

As we can see from the visualization, the 2022 baseline (panel a) shows a massive gap between current finance levels and what’s needed. The ‘Business As Usual’ scenario for 2030 (panel b) still leaves a significant shortfall even with expanded public and private finance. By integrating international carbon markets (panel c) and achieving higher leverage ratios through holistic strategies (panel d), we could come closer to bridging the gap.

This layered approach resembles what Kerr and Hu call the “mitigation avocado” framework, where effective climate finance requires:

  1. Diversified funding sources – Public finance, private capital, international carbon markets, and domestic carbon pricing must all grow substantially and be used in complementary ways to meet climate goals.
  2. Enabling environments – Host countries must take the lead in creating holistic national plans that align climate action with development priorities and provide the regulatory certainty investors need.
  3. Leverage ratios – Together, more effective combinations of capital sources, clear incentives through carbon pricing and strong enabling environments can mobilize more private capital for each dollar of public or carbon market financing.

All those engaged in negotiating and providing climate finance must embrace a multifaceted approach to blended finance while ensuring quality considerations remain central. Climate finance isn’t effective if it creates unsustainable debt burdens, fails to reach those who need it most, or doesn’t deliver measurable climate impacts.

While carbon markets offer substantial potential, they are not a silver bullet or simple fix—rather, true progress demands innovative blending mechanisms that catalyze private sector investment and domestic resource mobilization through carefully designed policy frameworks tailored to local contexts.

It is unfortunate that the current climate finance landscape remains so fragmented and riddled with barriers. We urgently need creative financing solutions that genuinely empower developing countries to craft pathways that work alongside their unique economic realities, governance structures, and development priorities rather than forcing them to conform to external terms.

As work progresses towards the Baku to Belém Roadmap to 1.3T,, developing country Parties should be in the driver’s seat of transition planning. This requires moving beyond traditional donor-recipient relationships toward true partnership models where climate and development goals are pursued together.

The future of climate finance depends not just on hitting numerical targets, but rather on ensuring every dollar mobilized works harder and smarter to deliver real climate action while supporting sustainable development.

Posted in Climate Change, Economics, International / Also tagged | Comments are closed

Insuring the transition: Underwriting as a tool on climate

This blog was authored by Andrew Howell, Senior Director of Sustainable Finance at EDF. 

This is the fourth blog in a multi-part series on how insurers can support decarbonization and the energy transition.

More than any other, the property and casualty insurance industry sits on the front lines of climate risk. Global economic losses from natural disasters in 2023 are estimated at $280 billion, with insured losses at $110 billion. So far in 2025, the economics of insurance looks set for what may be an even more challenging year, as the effects of a warming planet continue to be felt.  

But insurers are not only involved after climate-change-fueled disasters hit as funders of the recovery. Amidst the mounting impacts from extreme weather, the insurance sector is also emerging as a potentially important player in supporting and accelerating a transition to a lower-emissions future. In a series of blogs on insurance and the energy transition, EDF has discussed various ways in which the insurance industry can respond to the challenge of climate change. These include requiring climate-friendly rebuilding, and adapting insurance tools to accelerate technological innovation. To this can be added a third lever: using the underwriting process to accelerate customers’ energy transition.    

How to bring down insured emissions  Read More »

Posted in Economics, Energy Transition / Also tagged , | Comments are closed

Is California becoming Uninsurable?

This blog was authored by and Carolyn Kousky, Associate Vice President for Economics and Policy, EDF.

As wildfires burn across L.A., thousands of residents are about to face the heart-breaking, confusing, stressful, and difficult process of rebuilding after disaster. This recovery process can be incredibly costly, and the majority of Americans do not have sufficient resources to fund the recovery on their own. After losing their home, many are not in a position to take on additional debt, and federal disaster aid is often insufficient – indeed, it was never designed to make people whole after a disaster.

Unsurprisingly, then, our own research confirms that households with insurance tend to have better recoveries. In a recent paper, we document that households with insurance are less likely to report high financial burdens in both the short and long term, and they are less likely to have unmet funding needs. We also find in our work that when more households have insurance, it has positive spillovers for local economies, with visitations to local businesses increasing. 

These important financial benefits are at risk when households cannot find or afford insurance. Since the devastating wildfires of 2017 and 2018–the state’s most damaging until the recent blazes–the California insurance market has been under stress, putting more residents in that position. In response, the state has recently adopted regulatory reforms that are important steps toward improving the California insurance market. But with the ever-increasing risk of climate disasters, can insurability be preserved?

We summarize the dynamics in the California insurance market that have been unfolding through six sets of graphs, providing context for the current insurance issues facing the state as recovery begins. 

Read More »

Posted in Economics / Also tagged | Comments are closed

Insured solutions: How insurance-based tools can unlock climate tech

This blog was authored by Peter Tufano, Baker Foundation Professor at Harvard Business School and Senior Advisor to the Harvard Salata Institute for Climate and Sustainability, with support from the Environmental Defense Fund, including Andrew Howell, Senior Director for Sustainable Finance.  Any references below do not constitute an endorsement of the firms or products mentioned.  

This is the second in a multi-part series on how insurers can support the energy transition. The series explores climate-related opportunities and challenges and highlights emerging insurance innovations. This will help us build a greater understanding about how the insurance industry can support emissions reductions and new climate solutions. In this second post of the series, we discuss how insurance can support the emergence and scalability of clean tech solutions and innovations.

To combat climate change and adapt to a warming planet, we need new technologies that have yet to be invented, piloted, or commercialized. According to the International Energy Agency’s 2020 estimates for its Sustainable Development Scenario of net-zero by 2070, nearly three-quarters of the innovations needed to reduce emissions by 35 gigaton (billion tonnes) per year by 2070 are still far from commercialization. If we include innovations to help us adapt to the changing world, the technological gap is likely much larger, with a recent Global Adaptation & Resilience Investment (GARI) working group study suggesting that only 11% of firms offer “adaptation solutions” products. This call for innovation may not sound immediately relevant to the insurance industry, but it is.  

Conversations around insurance and climate change typically focus on how insurers can reduce emissions from firms that they finance or insure (in their roles as investors and insurers, respectively). They examine how insurers measure climate risks and signal these risks through premia they charge, or how insurers can make coverage more available and affordable as climate intensifies extreme weather. But insurers in the climate space have another role: to support needed technological innovation through “insured solutions.”   

How can insurers help support innovators? Surely, it’s not possible to “insure” the success of new ventures? Correct! But to make projects easier to finance, insurers can derisk climate innovations by applying risk engineering approaches and offering new contracts to offload certain risks.  

  Read More »

Posted in Economics, Technology / Also tagged , | Comments are closed

Clearing the Air: How New Rules for Oil & Gas Facilities Offer Major Wins for the Environment and Economy

This blog post was authored by Lauren Beatty, High Meadows Postdoctoral Economics Fellow and Aaron Wolfe, Senior Economics and Policy Analyst.

Image by freepik

Methane pollution caused by oil and gas production in the U.S. is a major contributor to climate change and releases health-harming pollution into nearby communities. New EPA rules are projected to slash methane emissions from covered sources by 80%.  

Between 2024 to 2038, EPA projects a reduction of 58 million tons of methane—equivalent to removing nearly a billion cars from the roads for a year—along with slashing 16 million tons of smog-forming volatile organic compounds (VOC) emissions and 590,000 tons of air toxics. Many of the common-sense measures in the rules will lead to economic and environmental benefits for Americans and have already been adopted by leading states and operators. They also result in capturing otherwise wasted gas. EPA estimates that by 2033, increased recovery of gas will offset $1.4 billion per year of their compliance costs. 

In response to arguments from the oil and gas industry that the rules will harm operators, EDF’s Economics team analyzed the economic impacts of the regulations, including their effect on small producers, marginal wells, and consumers. We found that: 

  • The regulations have low compliance costs, which are further offset by profits from captured gas and are not expected to influence operational decisions by oil and gas producers;  
  • Marginal wells are provided significant flexibility and are not expected to face significant compliance difficulties; and   
  • The regulations will cause no perceivable oil and gas price increase for consumers. 

Our conclusions are consistent with EPA’s own analysis and bolstered by the experience in leading states where similar methane regulations have been in effect for years without hindering production or harming the industry. 

Read More »

Posted in air pollution, Economics, Energy Transition / Also tagged | Comments are closed