Canadian government spends $4.5 billion taxpayers’ dollars to buy Trans Mountain pipeline project and push expansion ahead

justin-trudeauDespite strenuous and prolonged opposition from environmental and Indigenous activists in Canada and internationally, and two days before a deadline imposed by Texas corporation Kinder Morgan, Canada’s Liberal government announced on May 29  that it will  spend $4.5 billion to buy the existing Trans Mountain pipeline and its associated infrastructure, so that a pipeline expansion can proceed under the ownership of a Crown corporation.  The press release is here  ; details of the transaction are here in a Backgrounder  ;  the text of the speech by Finance Minister Bill Morneau is here . Repeating the mantra of the Trudeau government, Morneau claims that the project is in the national interest, will preserve jobs,  will reassure investors and improve the price for Canadian oil by expanding its market  beyond the U.S.  Morneau says the federal government does not plan to be a long-term owner and is in negotiations with interested investors, including Indigenous communities, pension funds (notably the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board)  and the Alberta government.

trans-mountain-pipelineIn fact, the expansion pipeline, if built, would almost triple the amount of dilbit transported from Alberta to the British Columbia coast, from 300,000 to 890,000 barrels a day, and increase tanker traffic off B.C.’s coast from approximately five to 34 tankers a month.  As recently as May 24, an Open Letter coordinated by Oil Change International  and signed by over 200 groups  summed up the situation, stating there is a “….  clear contradiction between Prime Minister Trudeau’s unchecked support for the Kinder Morgan pipeline project and his commitments to Indigenous reconciliation through the United Nations Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) and his obligation to address climate change through the Paris Agreement.”  The letter notes that currently planned Canadian oil production would use up 16% of the world’s carbon budget to keep temperatures below 1.5 degrees, or 7% of the budget for 2 degrees.  Canada has less than 0.5% of the world’s population.

Today’s initial reaction to the government’s decision  has called it “astounding”, “shameful”, and an “historic  blunder”.  From the CBC: “Liberals to buy Trans Mountain pipeline for $4.5B to ensure expansion is built”   and “ Bill Morneau’s Kinder Morgan surprise comes with huge price tag, lots of political risk: Chris Hall”.  From  The National Observer   “Trudeau government to buy troubled Trans Mountain pipeline for $4.5 billion”   ; “BC Will Continue Legal Strategy to Oppose Pipeline After Federal Purchase, Premier Says”  in The Tyee  .  Toronto’s Globe and Mail posted at least 6 items on the decision , including  an Explainer , and Jeff Rubin’s Opinion: “Morneau had better options for Canada’s Energy sector” .

From  Greenpeace Canada: “Federal government volunteers to “captain the Titanic of tar sands oil pipelines” and risks $4.5B of Canadians’ money in the process” ; and  West Coast Environmental Law reaction points out that “There are currently 14 legal challenges before the Federal Court of Appeal, alleging that the government failed in its constitutional duty to consult First Nations about the Trans Mountain project, and that the federal review had other regulatory flaws. Success in just one of those challenges could derail the underlying federal approvals.”

In the Victoria Times Colonist, “Green Party Leader May calls pipeline decision ‘historic blunder’” ; John Horgan, Premier of British Columbia, released an official statement  , and a jubilant Alberta Premier Rachel Notley is profiled in the CBC story, ” ‘Pick up those tools, folks, we have a pipeline to build,’ Alberta premier says  “.  Reaction from B.C. First Nations leaders is compiled in this CBC story.

Social media reaction, as compiled by CBC , is here  .  The Dogwood Initiative has mounted a  “Time for Bill Morneau to go” online petition here ; SumofUs has an online petition  here,  to urge the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board not to invest in Kinder Morgan.   Direct emails can be sent to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau at justin.trudeau@parl.gc.ca .   Opposition continues and the story is not over.

British Columbia sets new GHG reduction targets, reviews environmental assessment process

Amidst the noise and fury of the B.C.-Alberta feud over the Kinder Morgan TransMountain pipeline,  the province of British Columbia is moving forward with reform of its climate change policies. On April 25, the  B.C. Climate Solutions and Clean Growth Advisory Council released a detailed letter to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change Strategy , describing the Council’s principles, supporting much of the government’s current direction, and making recommendations, based on the 2015 recommendations of the province’s Climate Leadership Team. Shortly thereafter, on May 7, a government press release  committed to  a new provincial climate action strategy to be released in autumn 2018, including plans for GHG emission reduction  for buildings and communities, industry and transportation sectors.

With that same press release, the government announced Bill 34, the Climate Change Accountability Act,  which amends the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Targets Act (2007), repealing the emissions reduction target for 2020 (generally deemed unachievable)  and sets new targets: reduction of GHG’s by 40% from 2007 levels by 2030, 60% by 2040, and 80% by 2050.  Accountability looms large in the responses to Bill 34.  The Pembina Institute  notes the failure of recent GHG emissions reductions, and calls for “a robust accountability mechanism to ensure history doesn’t repeat itself ”. In addition, Pembina notes that any development of emissions-intensive industries, such as liquefied natural gas, would jeopardize the province’s climate progress.

In “Looking for accountability in BC’s Climate Change Accountability Act”,  West Coast Environment Law reviews B.C.’s emissions reduction progress , summarizes responses by other environmental groups to Bill 34, and recommends how the government can incorporate principles of accountability and transparency in its new policies.  Similar concerns are discussed in “A Carbon Budget Framework for BC: Achieving accountability and oversight”  by Marc Lee, in CCPA’s Policy Notes (May 22).

Another policy issue under review in B.C. is environmental assessment, with a 12-member advisory committee appointed in March 2018, a public discussion paper promised for May, and reforms to come in Fall.  The government portal to the “Revitalization” process is here ;  “B.C. Moves Ahead With Review of Controversial Environmental Assessment Process”  (Mar 8) summarizes the situation.   On May 9,  twenty-three environmental, legal, social justice and community organizations released  Achieving Sustainability: A Vision for Next-Generation Environmental Assessment in British Columbia , which calls for an independent environmental assessment body which will involve the public, and require decision-makers to demonstrate that their decisions are based on science and Indigenous knowledge. A summary, with links to more detailed discussion  is provided by West Coast Environmental Law.  Analysis and practical examples are provided by Sarah Cox in  “Time For a Fix: B.C. Looks at Overhaul of Reviews for Mines, Dams and Pipelines”, which  appeared in April in the newly-named newsletter from DeSmog Canada, The Narwhal.

Unifor calls for federal leadership in Just Transition and a role for collectively-bargained protections

unifor logoMore than sixty members of Unifor met federal Members of Parliament in Ottawa on May 24, to convey the union’s positions on four major issues: pharmacare, child care, public control of airports, and Just Transition.  The press release is here ; the four page Just Transition backgrounder is here . In it, the union expresses its broad support of the Pan-Canadian Framework on Clean Growth and Climate Change and carbon pricing, calls for federal policy leadership to ensure that workers do not bear the brunt of climate change-induced industrial restructuring, and offers specific recommendations.

Unifor’s Recommendations are noteworthy in that they explicitly call for a role for collective bargaining (or worker representation in non-unionized workplaces).  From the text:  “Unifor sees two potential avenues to finance Just Transition. The first means is through the new federal carbon tax, which need not be entirely revenue neutral. A portion of the proceeds could be used to create a ‘Green Economy Bank’ or some such fiscal mechanism. The second option is to bolster the Low Carbon Economy Fund, which is already explicitly committed to job creation, but should be geared towards good, green job creation, and widen its mission.” …..  Unifor calls for “Labour market impact assessments to monitor the emergent effects of climate related policy; Community benefit agreements, to support regions that are more heavily dependent on carbon-intensive economic activities; The promotion of green economy retraining and skills upgrading, through appropriate funding for postsecondary institutions. This includes mandatory apprenticeship ratio’s linked to college training programs and skills trades certification processes; Preferential hiring for carbon-displaced workers, including relocation assistance; Income support, employment insurance flexibility and pension bridging for workers in carbon-intensive economic regions and industries; Tax credits, accelerated depreciation, grants and/or investment support for firms and industries that bear an extraordinary burden of change; In unionized workplaces, there needs to be a role carved out for the bargaining agent in negotiating and facilitating workplace transition. In non-unionized workplaces we need to envisage a role for workers to provide input on adjustment processes and procedures.”

Unifor is Canada’s largest private sector union, with more than 315,000 members across the country in climate-vulnerable sectors such as energy, mining, fishing, as well as automobile and auto parts manufacturing.   Some of its existing collective agreements, compiled in the ACW database, have long-established workplace environment committees.

U.S. energy employment report: statistics by gender, age, race, and union status

USEER May 2018 reportThe 2018 U.S. Energy & Employment Report (USEER) was released in May, reporting that the traditional Energy and Energy Efficiency sectors employ approximately 6.5 million Americans, with a job growth rate of approximately 133,000 net new jobs in 2017 – approximately 7% of total U.S. new job growth.   The report provides detailed employment data for energy sectors including Electric Power Generation and Fuels Production (including biofuels, solar, wind, hydro and nuclear) and Electricity Transmission, Distribution and Storage. It also includes two energy end-use sectors: Energy Efficiency and Motor Vehicle production (including alternative fuel vehicles and parts production).  It is important to note that, unlike many other sources, this survey includes only direct jobs, and not indirect and induced jobs.

In addition to overall employment totals, the report provides an in-depth view of the hiring difficulty, in-demand occupations, and demographic composition of the workforce – including breakdowns by gender, age, race and by union composition.  As an example for solar electric power generation: “about a third of the solar workforce in 2017 was female, roughly two in ten workers are Hispanic or Latino, and under one in ten are Asian or are Black or African American. In 2017, solar projects involving PV technologies had a higher concentration of workers aged 55 and over, compared to CSP technologies.”

The previous USEER reports for 2016  and 2017  were compiled and published by the U.S. Department of Energy.  In 2018, under the Trump Administration, two non-profit organizations,  the National Association of State Energy Officials and the Energy Futures Initiative, took over the task of compiling the data, using the identical survey instrument developed by the DOE.  Timing was coordinated so that year over year comparisons with the precious surveys are possible.  Peer review of the report was performed by Robert Pollin, (Political Economy Research Institute) and  James Barrett, (Visiting Fellow, American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy).  The overview website, with free data tables at the state level, is here   .

How to increase women`s representation in green industries

women in trainingTwo  new reports were released in May in the Smart Prosperity Clean Economy Working Paper Series.  Identifying Promising Policies and Practices for Promoting Gender Equity in Global Green Employment by Bipasha Baruah, synthesizes and analyses existing literature  on women’s  employment in manufacturing, construction and transportation –  “brown” sectors which are important in the transition to a green economy. From the paper: “The literature points to four overarching barriers that exist for women who seek to enter and remain in these fields: lack of information and awareness about employment in these sectors, gender bias and gender stereotyping, masculinist work culture and working conditions, and violence against women. … Most policies designed to address women’s underrepresentation in these fields tend to be reactive responses that do not engage adequately with broader societal structures and institutions that produce and maintain inequality. Improving lighting in construction sites in order to prevent sexual assaults against women and requiring women to work in pairs instead of alone are classic examples of reactive policies that end up reinforcing social hierarchies rather than challenging them… …. Raising broader societal awareness about the benefits of gender equity, and about women’s equal entitlement to employment in all fields, is as crucial as policy reforms and state or corporate actions that protect women’s interests and facilitate their agency. “ The discussion includes interesting observations about women’s challenges  in engineering professions and in apprenticeships.

The second paper, also by Bipasha Baruah, is  Creating and Optimizing Employment Opportunities for Women in the Clean Energy Sector in Canada .  This paper has been released previously and was highlighted in April 2018 in the Work and Climate Change Report, along with  Women and Climate Change Impacts and Action in Canada: Feminist, Indigenous and Intersectional Perspectives , published by Adapting Canadian Work and Workplaces in Canada`, the Canadian Research Institute for the Advancement of Women and the Alliance for Intergenerational Resilience. Both reports note the underrepresentation of women in the clean energy industry and call for improvements in workforce training and hiring; the working paper by Bipasha Baruah emphasizes the need for change in societal attitudes.

The publisher, Smart Prosperity is  based at the University of Ottawa, and announced major new funding at the end of  March 2018 , which will enable new research in a “Greening Growth Partnership” initiative.  Click here for information about the funding and the international experts who will be participating in Smart Prosperity research.

ILO Report projects 18 million net new jobs in a green economy, and highlights policy role for social actors, including unions

ILO 2018 Greening with JobsThe International Labor Organization released its annual World Employment and Social Outlook Report for 2018 on May 14, with the theme:  Greening with Jobs.   In an economy where global warming is limited to 2°C , the report projects job losses and job creation, both within and amongst sectors, to 2030.  A net increase of approximately 18 million jobs globally  will result from  adoption of sustainable practices, such as changes in the energy mix, the projected growth in the use of electric vehicles, and increases in energy efficiency in existing and future buildings.

This landmark report also includes analysis and  discussion of climate impacts on working conditions, job quality, and productivity, (including estimates of impacts of extreme weather conditions),  and the need for social dialogue and a legal and policy framework which  promotes just transition. Of particular interest is the discussion of the role of social dialogue, which includes examples of green provisions in international and national agreements – and on page 94, highlights green provisions in Canadian collective agreements, based on the database compiled by the Adapting Canadian Work and Workplaces to Climate Change project.

Other key findings from the press release :

Of the 163 economic sectors analysed, only 14 will suffer employment losses of more than 10,000 jobs worldwide –  hardest hit: petroleum extraction and petroleum refining (1 million or more jobs).

2.5 million jobs will be created in renewables-based electricity, offsetting some 400,000 jobs lost in fossil fuel-based electricity generation.

6 million jobs can be created by transitioning towards a ‘circular economy’ which includes activities like recycling, repair, rent and remanufacture.

A 5-page summary is available in English   and in French  . The full report, Greening with Jobs, is here   .

ETUC Guide to best practices for union impact on EU climate change and Just Transition policies

etuc logoAt a conference in Brussels on May 15, the European Trade Union Confederation (ETUC) released  Involving trade unions in Climate action to build a Just transition,  a Guide which makes the arguments for why unions should care about climate change, and provides recommendations and best practice examples from unions in the European Union.  The ETUC press release summary is here, in which the ETUC General Secretary states: “The ETUC’s new guide is about the policies, initiatives and governance involved in a just transition. At the end of the day our key message is that there is no just transition without workers participation. Imposed solutions do not work, we need dialogue to make climate progress.” A YouTube summary from ETUC is here.

The 48-page guide is packed with information and examples where trade unions have made impacts on national policies.  It began with a questionnaire circulated to ETUC affiliates, and also includes insights from five workshops involving experts from EU  unions and “relevant institutions”, organized around five thematic areas: employment and working conditions; governance and trade union participation; education; training and skills; social protection; and internal capacity building for trade union organizations (how to mobilize and prepare unionists to engage in the transition).

The Guide offers analysis about the role of trade unions, and states that union involvement in climate change policy development is on the rise, though it varies widely across EU member countries. The main message is that a Just Transition requires workers’ participation and dialogue. Some of the specific thematic recommendations include:

Promote economic diversification in regions and industries most affected by the transition;

Negotiate agreements at sectoral and company level to map the future evolution of skills needs and the creation of sectoral skills councils, using the ETUC guide on “Restructuring and collective competences” (2013) ;

At sectoral and workplace levels, extend the scope of collective bargaining to green transition issues to discuss the impact on employment and wages of the decarbonisation process and the impacts on skills needs and health and safety at work;

Establish dialogue with all relevant stakeholders and regional authorities to identify and manage the social impacts of climate policies;

In line with the ILO guidelines on a just transition , promote the establishment of adequate social protection systems based on the principles of universality, equal treatment and continuity, providing healthcare, income security and social services;

Encourage internal union capacity and increase members’ participation by developing and strengthening a network of  green representatives at the workplace level,  and involve workers in concrete actions aiming to reduce the environmental footprint of their company.

Air pollution savings by substituting Videoconferencing for airline travel

According to a ranking by Project Drawdown, businesses around the world could eliminate 82 billion hours of  air travel time for employees by substituting travel to meetings with high-quality video conferencing systems –  a work practice with the potential to cut atmospheric carbon dioxide by 1.99 gigatons by 2050.  This solution, dubbed Telepresence,  is ranked as 63rd out of 100 solutions to global warming  in the Project Drawdown  study which compares the cost and GHG savings of three adoption scenarios  (ranging from 16% – 50%)  in the period  2020-2050.

Project Drawdown describes its  work as “the most comprehensive plan ever proposed to reverse global warming”.  In an April 25  New York Times interview , Paul Hawkin, Project Drawdown’s executive director, states:  “A primary goal of Drawdown is to help people who feel overwhelmed by gloom-and-doom messages see that reversing global warming is bursting with possibility: walkable cities, afforestation, bamboo, high-rises built of wood, marine permaculture, multistrata agroforestry, clean cookstoves, plant-rich diet, assisting women smallholders, regenerative agriculture, supporting girls’ ongoing education, smart glass, in-stream hydro, on and on.”   The solutions have been proposed and researched by an international collaboration of “ geologists, engineers, agronomists, researchers, fellows, writers, climatologists, biologists, botanists, economists, financial analysts, architects, companies, agencies, NGOs, activists, and other experts” .

The complete list of 100 proposals  was published by Penguin Books in 2017  and is available at the Project Drawdown website.  Canadian news outlet The Energy Mix  is currently posting  excerpts from Project Drawdown, and highlighted Telepresence in its May 11 issue.

Workforce implications of innovation in Canada’s Forest Sector

On May 4th, the House of Commons Standing Committee on Natural Resources  released its report,    Value-added products in Canada’s forest sector : cultivating innovation for a competitve bioeconomy . The report  is the latest discussion of  advancing Canadian value-added forest products and a forest-sourced bioeconomy, and addresses five themes: (1) protecting Canadian forests and primary resources (which recognizes the threats of climate change and beetle infestation); (2) advancing industrial integration, innovation and talent development; (3) strengthening partnerships with Indigenous peoples; (4) maximizing market opportunities in Canada and abroad; and (5) a case study on building with wood, with a focus on advanced mass timber construction.

Discussion of the issue of training and talent development (beginning on page 18), calls for  more internships and employment opportunities for engineering and science students and highly trained post-graduates;  the need to develop a well-educated forest-sector workforce in rural areas; and the need for diversity and gender equity.  Employment implications are present in the discussion of wood-based construction of homes, where witnesses talk about transforming wood construction from a craft-based industry to a more mainstream manufacturing process, where “prefabrication in a factory environment would make wood construction more cost competitive and less wasteful, with greater potential for automation, customization and design accuracy.” The report also provides a case study of two Canadian examples of “tall wood buildings”: including Brock Commons, a new 18-storey student residence at the University of British Columbia , and Origine, a 13-storey building in Quebec City’s Pointe-auxLièvres eco-district.

The United Steelworkers , who represent over 18,000 forestry workers after their 2004 merger with the  Industrial, Wood and Allied Workers of Canada (IWA), presented a Brief to the Committee in November 2017.  The Brief identifies  the main challenges facing the sector, as low harvest volumes, insufficient infrastructure funding, and decreasing raw log exports, and concludes  that, although it’s a provincial jurisdiction,  “The Steelworkers submit that Canada needs a national forestry strategy that recognizes while the challenges within the lumber, pulp, paper, or value added sector are unique, … the whole sector is highly integrated, and dependent on each facet of the sector succeeding. “  The Brief also states  “The costs that the industry as a whole faces will further increase with the federal government’s plan to roll out a $50/tonne price on carbon by 2022. This new carbon pricing regime will not only risk further impacting tight margins in regions like Ontario, but also risks leading to carbon leakage. Canadian companies are now operating in the southern USA which does not have a carbon pricing regime.”

Unifor, which represents approximately 24,000 forest workers, also issued a report (not submitted to the Committee)  in October 2017:  The Future of Forestry: A Workers Perspective for Successful, Sustainable and Just Forestry .  A key message from Unifor is the need to involve workers in a in  a national  policy-making process: “forestry ministers must lead efforts to bring together business, government, labour, Indigenous leaders, environmental organizations and community leaders in a reinstated National Forestry Council.”  Also on this topic, a 2017 report by the Innovation Committee of the Canadian Council of Forest Ministers,  A Forest Bioeconomy Framework for Canada . 

New research on climate change impacts on mental health

nature climate change special issue mental healthThe April Issue of Nature Climate Change focuses on the relationship between climate change and mental health. The introductory editorial  summarizes the three articles on the topic and makes the case that 1. Mental health issues are often neglected in the general research about the health impacts of climate change, and 2. more research is needed.  (Please note that all articles have restricted access and are available only for a fee. )  The first article in the issue, “Ecological grief as a mental health response to climate change-related loss” discusses the personal grief experienced by people as their natural world changes,  illustrated by the experiences of Indigenous people in  Northern Canada and the Australian wheatbelt.  The second article, “The case for systems thinking about climate change and mental health” examines the current state of research about climate change and mental health from a policy perspective, arguing for a more epidemiological research.  The third article, “Mental health risk and resilience among climate scientists” discusses whether climate scientists themselves face unique mental health risks because they are immersed in depressing information.  Dr. Susan Clayton, author of the third article, is also co-author of the influential 2014 report Beyond Storms & Droughts: The Psychological Impacts of Climate Change, published by the American Psychological Association and ecoAmerica.   In March 2017, the APA, ecoAmerica and Climate for Health  updated Beyond Storms & Droughts with   Mental Health and Our Changing Climate: Impacts, Implications, and Guidance .

 

Energy efficiency programs can create 118,000 jobs per year in Canada, says new report

Less is more jobs map_20180501_TMA new report from a new organization:  on May 3, Clean Energy Canada announced that it had partnered with a new national policy organization, Efficiency Canada, to  publish a study of the economic impacts of energy efficiency for Canada.  The report’s title tells the story:   Less is More: A win for the economy, jobs, consumers, and our climate: energy efficiency is Canada’s unsung hero  .

There are two scenarios reported: The first, modelling energy efficiency programs in the Pan-Canadian Framework (“PCF”) , estimates that every $1 spent on energy efficiency programs generates $7 of GDP,  and an average of 118,000 jobs per year will be created between 2017 and 2030.  Jobs would be spread across the country and the economy, with about half of new jobs produced in  the construction, trade and manufacturing sectors, peaking in 2027 and 2028.  The  overall economic impact is largely driven by energy cost savings – for  consumers,  $1.4 billion per year (which  translates into $114 per year per household).  For business, industry and institutions, the savings are estimated at  $3.2 billion each year.  Importantly, the PCF energy efficiency programs could  reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by approximately 52 Mt by 2030, or 25% of Canada’s Paris commitments.

For the second, more ambitious policy scenario, “PCF+”, the net increase in GDP grows to $595 billion, employment gains are  over 2,443,500 job-years in total from 2017 to 2030, and  greenhouse gas emissions are reduced by 79 Mt, or 39% of Canada’s Paris commitment.

Less is More is only 8 pages long.  The detailed results, as well as explanation of the modelling assumptions, are found in the Technical Report ,  produced by Dunsky Energy Consulting of Montreal, commissioned by Clean Energy Canada and Efficiency Canada.  The technical report  modelled the net economic impacts of energy efficiency measures related to  homes, buildings and industry (not included: the transportation sector, nor  electrification and fuel switching in the building sector). Modelling was done for two scenarios: implementation of programs in  the Pan-Canadian Framework on Clean Growth and Climate Change (PCF), and a PCF+ scenario, which includes all the PCF programs plus  “best in class” efficiency efforts , derived from exemplary programs across North America.

Efficiency Canada , the national policy organization launched on May 3, is  based at Carleton University in Ottawa and is the new incarnation of the Canadian Energy Efficiency Alliance.  From the new website: “Efficiency Canada advocates to make our country a global leader in energy efficiency. We convene people from across Canada’s economy to work together to advance policies required to take full advantage of energy efficiency. And we communicate the best research out there to build a more productive economy, sustainable environment, and socially just Canada.”   To read their full story, go to their webpage, Who is Efficiency Canada ?

Corporate Disclosure of climate change risks, and shareholder action by BCGEU on sustainability

The British Columbia Government and Services Employees’ Union  (BCGEU) issued a press release on April 20 to announce its partnership with the global advocacy group SumOfUs (Fighting for people over profits).  Over the summer, on behalf of BCGEU, SumOfUs will file proposals at annual general meetings of Canadian companies,  calling  for greater fairness in corporate governance and increased scrutiny around human rights and labour practices as well as of the impacts of deforestation.

BCGEU President Stephanie Smith stated “As a union, we need to make sure that funds our members count on, such as the strike fund, are financially healthy and this requires careful and responsible investment decisions. …Calling for greater corporate responsibility as a shareholder is not only financially prudent, but it allows us to pursue our values as a labour union as well.”  This is not the first time BCGEU has taken initiative  – in 2014,  the union divested its strike fund and general reserves from fossil fuel equities, and saw in increase in values.

With a similar strategy, the Fonds de Solidarité des Travailleurs du Québec (FTQ), empowered SHARE (Shareholder Association for  Research and Education), to file a shareholder proposal at the April 27 annual meeting of Imperial Oil, requesting better disclosure on its exposure to and management of water-related risks in its oil and gas operations.

Even Canada’s financial regulators are moving in the direction of increased transparency and disclosure for corporations. The Canadian Securities Administration,  concluding a process which had stretched out for over a year, issued a press release on April 5, announcing   CSA Staff Notice 51-354 Report on Climate change-related Disclosure Project.  The report announced  its intention to consider new disclosure requirements relating to material risks and opportunities and “how issuers oversee the identification, assessment and management of material risks.  This would include, for example, emerging or evolving risks and opportunities arising from climate change, potential barriers to free trade, cyber security and disruptive technologies.”

And on April 12, Minister of the Environment and Climate Change announced  the creation of an  Expert Panel on Sustainable Finance. Part of the mandate of the Expert Panel will be to  explore the issue of  voluntary standards for corporate disclosure of the financial risks associated with climate change, and to provide  recommendations to the federal government by the fall of 2018. Full Terms of Reference are here .  The Expert Panel is expected to build upon the work of the CSA Task Force, and the earlier, international Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCDF), led by Michael Bloomberg,  and chaired by  Mark Carney. Canada’s new Expert Panel will be chaired by Tiff Macklem, Dean of the University of Toronto’s Rotman School of Management and former Senior Deputy Governor of the Bank of Canada; the other three members are Andy Chisholm, member of the Board of Directors of the Royal Bank of Canada; Kim Thomassin, Executive Vice-President, Legal Affairs and Secretariat, Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec; and Barbara Zvan, Chief Risk and Strategy Officer, Ontario Teachers’ Pension Plan.

For context on the issue of corporate disclosure, read “Investigation finds nearly half  of Canadian failing to  Disclose Climate-Related Risk” from the National Observer (April 5), and, in the opposite direction in the United States, In ‘Attack on Shareholder Rights,’ SEC Seeks to Sideline Activist Investors .

Facts, not politics: Parkland Institute report plans for Canada’s transition from fossil fuels

Parkland canadas energy outlook_coverOn May 1, the Parkland Institute and the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives co-released the latest report for the Corporate Mapping Project. Canada’s Energy Outlook: Current Realities and Implications for a Carbon-constrained Future is described in the press release as “ a definitive guide to Canada’s current energy realities and their implications for a sustainable future, taking a detailed look at Canadian energy consumption, renewable and non-renewable energy supply, the state of Canada’s resources and revenues, and what it all means for emissions-reduction planning.”

The title of the press release is instructive: “Pipeline feud underscores need for evidence-based energy strategy” – Canada’s Energy Outlook is an attempt to inject facts into the  current emotion-charged debate about the TransMountain pipeline and the role of oil and gas in Canada; in doing so, it counters many of the pro-pipeline claims, including the job creation claims.  For example, Chapter 2, “Non-renewable energy supply, resources and revenue” states:  “Oil and gas jobs are a relatively minor overall component of the Canadian economy: 2.2% of Canada’s workforce was employed in oil, gas and coal production, distribution and construction in 2015. Of these jobs, 52% were involved in construction, most of which were of a temporary nature. In Alberta, 6.3% of jobs were involved in fossil fuel production and distribution, and a further 6.6% in related construction.”

A commentary titled “Politics versus the future: Canada’s Orwellian energy standoff” discusses the pro-pipeline arguments being made by Alberta and the federal government in light of their incompatibility with our emissions reductions targets, but acknowledges the insufficiency of our renewable energy supply as yet.  It concludes: “ Some environmental groups assert that it will be relatively easy to swap out fossil fuels for renewable energy – wind, solar, biomass, biofuels and geothermal energy. That is unlikely given the scale of such a transition. Renewable energy can certainly be scaled up a lot, along with geothermal energy for heating and cooling, but we will likely need fossil fuels for decades to come as we make the transition.”

The report was written by David Hughes, an earth scientist,well-known energy expert, and author of several related  reports, including Can Canada Expand Oil and Gas Production, Build Pipelines and Keep Its Climate Change Commitments? (2016).