Category Archives: Government Policy

Government campaign claims Trans Mountain pipeline is a “bridge to a greener tomorrow” – economists and citizens disagree

Posted on by
Reply
keepcanada working

#keepcanaddaworking social media campaign

Now that the government of Canada has bought the Trans Mountain pipeline project from Texas-based Kinder Morgan,  the governments of Alberta and Canada have launched a public relations campaign to “sell” the deal to Canadians.  The  Keep Canada Working television and  social media campaign  promotes the familiar Liberal government message that  “Developing the economy and protecting the environment are two things that can happen side by side – without choosing one over the other”, and argues that “The Trans Mountain Pipeline expansion funds green investments, shifts the transportation of oil away from more carbon intensive methods like rail or truck, and provides a bridge to a greener tomorrow.”   The full “Climate Action” defense is here .

The “Jobs and the Economy” claims are here, including endorsements by politicians and includes a quote from Stephen Hunt, Director of the United Steelworkers District 3: “Members of the United Steelworkers are proud that the pipeline will be using Canadian-made USW-built pipe.”  The other positive job arguments are sourced from an April 2018 Globe and Mail article by the CEO of the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers and the corporate website of  Trans Mountain, which are in turn based on an unnamed  Conference Board of Canada report .

What do other economists say about the benefits of the Trans Mountain pipeline?   In February 2018, the Parkland Institute summarized and critiqued the economic arguments in a still-useful  blog “Let’s share the actual facts about the Trans Mountain Pipeline” , and Canadian economist Robyn Allan has written numerous articles critical of the Trans Mountain project for the National Observer, most recently “Premier Notley’s claimed $15 billion annual benefit from Trans Mountain exposed as false by her own budget”  (June 7 2018). Other more detailed publications since the May 2018 purchase by the government:  “Canada’s Folly: Government Purchase of Trans Mountain Pipeline Risks an Increase in National Budget Deficit by 36%, Ensures a 637% Gain by Kinder Morgan”, published by the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis, describes the fiscal and financial risks and calls for more public disclosure of those details before the Purchase Agreement is finalized in August.  Similarly,  The view from Taxpayer Mountain  (June 2018) from the West Coast Environmental Law Association links to  the actual Purchase Agreement and reviews Canada’s obligations and risks.  On June 26, Greenpeace USA has published  Tar Sands Tanker Superhighway Threatens Pacific Coast Waters  highlighting the dangers of a potential oil spill on the environment,  and on coastal economies.  At risk: the $60 billion coastal economy of Washington, Oregon and California, which  currently supports over 150,000 jobs in commercial fishing and over 525,000 jobs in coastal tourism, and in the British Columbia Lower Mainland, Greenpeace estimates there are  320,000 workers in industries that rely on a clean coastline.

On the issue of climate change impacts, a widely-cited discussion paper, Confronting Carbon lock-in: Canada’s oil sands (June 2018) from the Stockholm Environment Institute,  concludes that  “The continued expansion of Canada’s oil sands is likely to contribute to carbon lock-in and a long-term oversupply of oil, slowing the world’s transition to a low-carbon future.”  And still valuable reading: David Hughes’ Can Canada Expand Oil and Gas Production, Build Pipelines and Keep Its Climate Change Commitments? (June 2016) from the Corporate Mapping Project  , and from Jeff Rubin,  Evaluating the Need for
Pipelines: A False Narrative for the Canadian Economy  (September 2017).

Tanker Bridge BlockadeDemonstrations continue:   Vancouver housing activist Jean Swanson’s  argues that the billions spent on Kinder Morgan would be better used for social housing, job creation, and renewable energy in  “Why I got arrested protesting the Kinder Morgan pipeline” in The Tyee, July 11.  Twelve Greenpeace activists mounted an “aerial blockade”  for Trans Mountain oil tankers by hanging from a bridge above the water on July 3 and 4.   And on July 11, CBC reported  “Secwepemc First Nation’s ‘Tiny House Warriors’ occupy provincial park in Trans Mountain protest” .  The Tiny House Warrior movement began in 2017, near Kamloops, to block the pipeline by  re-establishing village sites and asserting authority over Secwepemc First Nations unceded Territories.

 

 

U.K. government releases strategy to reduce transportation emissions, stimulate clean vehicle manufacturing

Posted on by
Reply

The U.K. Committee on Climate Change (CCC) submitted its 2018 annual report to the British Parliament on June 28, marking ten years since the Climate Change Act became law in 2008.  On the plus side, the report highlights a decoupling of economic  growth:   since 1990, emissions have fallen by 43% and the economy has grown by over 70%. Since 2008, the UK has achieved a 59% reduction in emissions from electricity generation. Yet despite that progress, other sectors, notably transport, agriculture and the built environment, have not achieved reductions – transport emissions have actually grown and at  28% of total UK emissions, are now the single largest emitter.    Reducing UK emissions – 2018 Progress Report to Parliament  outlines four high-level, messages for government and calls for immediate policy action in residential energy efficiency, development of Carbon Capture and Storage, and stronger consumer  incentives for electric vehicles.

black cabsNo sooner said than done: on July 9, the British Ministry of Transport  released  a long-awaiting document, The Road to Zero Strategy , with the goal that all new cars and vans will be effectively zero emission by 2040, at which time the government will end the sale of new conventional gas and diesel cars and vans. The press release highlights and summarizes the proposals .  Some specifics: commitment to continue consumer purchase incentives for plug-in cars, vans, taxis and motorcycles; commitment that all  the central Government car fleet will be zero emissions by 2030; the  launch of a £400 million Charging Infrastructure Investment Fund and  as much as £500 incentive for  electric vehicle owners to help them install a charge point at their home; increasing the grant level of the existing incentives for Workplace Charging stations.

Stimulating the motor vehicle industry:  Notably, the strategy aims to improve emissions in road transport in the U.K. while putting the U.K.  “at the forefront of the design and manufacturing of zero emission vehicles.”  Measures announced to support industry include: public investment in auto technology R & D, including £246 million to research next generation battery technology; and  working with the industry training group,  Institute of the Motor Industry,  “to ensure the UK’s workforce of mechanics are well trained and have the skills they need to repair these vehicles safely, delivering for consumers” .

However, “Road to Zero or Road to Nowhere: Government revs up green vehicle ‘ambition’ ”  in Business Green newsletter compiles reaction from business and environmental sources, all of which agree that the 2040 target date is too late. The quote from the Policy Director of Green Alliance sums up reaction:  “It’s rare for the oil industry, mayors and environmentalists to agree on something, but we all think 2040 is far too late for a ban on conventional vehicles…Moving it to 2030 and setting a zero emissions vehicles mandate would encourage car companies to build electric cars in the UK, and give the country a head start on its competitors across Europe. While there are some welcome measures, including on charging infrastructure, the Road to Zero strategy is on cruise control. As it stands, it won’t help the UK build a world leading clean automotive industry.”

The full Road to Zero policy document is here ; the accompanying technical report,  Transport Energy Model   provides data about the GHG emissions, energy requirements, and pollution associated with cars, trucks and double decker buses using conventional fossil fuels as well as biofuels, hydrogen, and electricity.

 

Expert Panel proposes 54 measures for climate adaptation

Posted on by
Reply

The Expert Panel on Climate Change Adaptation and Resilience Results was commissioned  by the federal government in August 2017, and on June 26, the Panel released its report,  Measuring Progress on Adaptation and Climate Resilience.   The press release is here , the French version is here .

The mandate of the Expert Panel was to propose indicators to the Government of Canada to measure the overall progress on adaptation and climate resilience, aligned with the thematic pillars of the   Pan-Canadian Framework on Clean Growth and Climate Change. Accordingly, the Panel winnowed down their recommendations to 54 indicators, presented in five themes/chapters: Protecting and Improving Human Health and Well-Being; Supporting Particularly Vulnerable Regions; Reducing Climate-Related Hazards and Disaster Risks; Building Climate Resilience through Infrastructure; and Translating Scientific Information and Indigenous Knowledge into Action.   “It’s essential that Canadians act now’ on climate change: federal report” appeared in the National Observer as a summary.

Stepping briefly beyond the adaptation mandate, the report also states: “While the focus for this report is on monitoring and evaluating progress on climate change adaptation, the Expert Panel stresses the importance of Canada’s role in mitigating greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and advocates for resilience measures that reflect the transition to a low carbon society.”

The Chair of the Expert Panel was Dr. Blair Feltmate, Head of the Intact Centre on Climate Adaptation at the University of Waterloo, Ontario.   The Panel members, listed here,    were drawn  from academia, Indigenous organizations and governments, the private sector, municipal government, NGO’s and the youth organization Starfish Canada .

Federal government sets out new requirements for Infrastructure funds – climate lens, community benefits

Posted on by
Reply

The Investing in Canada Plan of the federal government will invest more than $180 billion over 12 years for public transit projects, green infrastructure, social infrastructure, trade and transportation, and Canada’s rural and northern communities. Two recent press releases define how the program funds will be awarded:  at the start of June , Infrastructure Canada announced that proposals under the Investing in Canada program, as well as the Disaster Mitigation and Adaptation Fund,  and those submitted to the Smart Cities Challenge,  will be required to use a “climate lens”, to assess “how their projects will contribute to or reduce carbon pollution, and to consider climate change risks in the location, design, and planned operation of a project.”  The General Guidance document for Climate Lens is here  .

A  second press release,  on June 22,  announced a new Community Employment Benefits requirement – under which applicants for major projects will be required to set targets for training and employment opportunities for at least three groups targeted by the CEB initiative: Indigenous peoples, women, persons with disabilities, veterans, youth, apprentices, and recent immigrants, as well as procurement opportunities for small-to-medium sized businesses and social enterprises.  The  General Guidance document for Community Enterprise Benefits   explains the administrative details.

Mowat report community benefits agreements Ontario became the first Canadian jurisdiction to promote community benefits, through the Infrastructure for Jobs and Prosperity Act 2015 , and in May 2018, the province announced five new community benefits projects under its Long-term Infrastructure plan.

Engage and Empower , an April 2018 report from the Mowat Centre at University of Toronto,  discusses the Ontario Community Benefits framework, and sets out principles which are applicable outside Ontario.  It states: “it is essential to engage that community to understand the types of benefits that are most aligned with its priority needs, and to continue this engagement throughout the project as impacts are being measured and evaluated. This process of defining and engaging the community requires an ongoing relationship built on trust and collaboration … It is critical that governments avoid an overly prescriptive approach and recognize, instead, that communities are dynamic and robust ecosystems – with existing networks and capabilities – and desire autonomy in the process of defining, articulating and negotiating the benefits to accrue through an infrastructure project.”

 

Standing Committee recommendations for a greener built environment include training

Posted on by
Reply

passive house exterior VancouverOn June 18, the House of Commons Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development presented their latest and 17th report, Better Buildings for a Low-Carbon Future .  The Committee mandate included the collective of  residences, commercial buildings, and institutional buildings – which are responsible for approximately 12% of  total greenhouse gas emissions in Canada.

The research for the Standing Committee report began in February 2018 and consisted of  four meetings, during which Committee members heard from 19 witnesses and received five written briefs from witnesses – including government officials, industry associations such as the Building Owners and Managers Association, real estate developers such as Landmark Homes,  Canada Green Building Council, Passive House Canada – but no labour unions or worker organizations .  Testimony is available from this link , and a Brief from the Royal Architectural Institute of Canada  has also been made public.

The report summarizes the provisions related to the built environment in the Pan-Canadian Framework on Clean Energy and Climate Change, also available in the federal 2018 Status Report on the Framework),  discusses the building codes in Canada, and addresses the unique situations of heritage buildings and buildings in Canada’s North. The Committee makes 21 specific recommendations, including:

#1  “the National Research Council, working with the Canadian Commission on Building and Fire Codes, publish the national model energy codes for both new and existing buildings as soon as possible, and for existing buildings no later than fiscal year 2022-23”;

#4 “The Committee recommends that Employment and Social Development Canada ensure that programs exist or are established to address the labour transition required so that skilled personnel are available to implement netzero energy ready codes;

#6 “The Committee recommends that Infrastructure Canada work to provide significant funding in order to accelerate energy retrofits of commercial, institutional, and multi-residential buildings in the public and private sectors, such as through the Canada Infrastructure Bank”;

#10 “The Committee recommends that Natural Resources Canada, the National Research Council, and Environment and Climate Change Canada include building operator and building inspector training as part of federal funding, research, and incentive programs aimed at improving energy efficiency and reducing greenhouse gas emissions from the built environment”;

#16 “The Committee requests that the federal government focus more attention on its Greening Government Strategy and report back to the Committee on its progress by the end of 2018 .”