Historical CO2 emissions: Canada tops the list as the highest per capita emitter

Which countries are historically responsible for climate change?  is a new analysis released by Carbon Brief on October 5, and Canada scores high: #10 in the world for total historical emissions, and #1 as the worst offender per capita (calculated as cumulative emissions in each year divided by the current population – which implicitly assigns responsibility for the past to those alive today). Time to finally lay to rest that old chestnut that Canada’s contribution to the climate crisis is relatively insignificant, and we should wait till the bigger countries act to cut our own emissions.

Those bigger countries don’t escape blame either: overwhelmingly, the U.S. continues to rank as the #1 country for CO2 emissions since 1850, responsible for 20% of the global total. In comparison, the next highest-ranked countries are China (11%), and Russia (7%). Calculations of rankings are complex and subject to the mists of time, given that the calculations date back to 1850, and the inclusion of deforestation and land use emissions for the first time has also made a difference –   bringing Brazil and Indonesia into the top 10 emitters, and raising Australia to 13th rank, from 16th.      

Media summaries include: “The countries most responsible for climate crisis revealed” reposted from The Guardian by the National Observer;  “Any way you slice it, Canada  is one of the worst emitters on the planet” (National Observer, Oct. 7) ; and “Historical emissions tally paints clearer picture  of climate responsibility” (Energy Mix, Oct. 12).

It is significant that this analysis was released in the Carbon Brief series of articles on Climate Justice, and in the lead-up to COP26 . Historical responsibility for the climate crisis and the North-South divide will be a key issue at COP26, as briefly discussed in   “Rich Economies Face Demands for Cash to Fix Climate Damage” (Bloomberg News, Oct. 11), and foreshadowed by the “fiery” speech about global inequality by U.N. Secretary General Antonio Guterres in September. Shortly afterwards, U.S. president Biden addressed the U.N. General Assembly and  promised to double U.S. climate financing aid to $11bn by 2024.  According to  “Climate Finance Faces $75-Billion Gap as COP 26 Looms 1,000 Hours Away” (The Energy Mix, Sept. 21), Canada has one of the worst records for living up to its climate financing pledges, with an average contribution only 17% of its fair share in 2017 and 2018.

An article in Ricochet summarizes the Canadian record in “Repaying our climate debt” (May 2021),  with a focus on the African operations of Canadian countries. The Ricochet article cites other recent research on climate justice: “Quantifying national responsibility for climate breakdown: an equality-based attribution approach for carbon dioxide emissions in excess of the planetary boundary” in (The Lancet Planetary Health, September 2020)   and Confronting Carbon Inequality (Oxfam, Stockholm Environment Institute, Sept. 2020), which concluded that consumption by the richest 10% of the world’s population accounts for 24.5% of global emissions today, and half of those emissions are attributed to Canada, the U.S. and the EU.

Canada joins Global Methane Pledge and ups the target for fossil-related reductions

With a government announcement on October 11, Canada joined twenty-three other countries and signed on to the Global Methane Pledge, launched by the U.S. and the U.K. on September 18.  By signing on, Canada pledges to reduce all methane emissions by 30% from 2020 levels by 2030, and as described by the Washington Post (Oct. 11), Canada’s participation is significant because it is one of the world’s top 20 methane-emitting countries. Nine of the twenty have now signed on to the Global Pledge, but notably, Russia, China, India and Brazil have not.

The existing Canadian target for reducing methane emissions from the oil and gas sector is a reduction of 40–45 percent below 2012 levels by 2025. According to the October 11 press release, that will increase, with a commitment  “… to developing a plan to reduce methane emissions across the broader Canadian economy and to reducing oil and gas methane emissions by at least 75 percent below 2012 levels by 2030”. It is noteworthy that the Minister also states: “our approach will include regulations” , since the government has been criticized for relying more on taxpayer-funded incentives than regulation – as in “Canada supports global pledge to slash oil and gas methane”  (Oct. 13). That article quotes Julia Levine of Environmental Defence, who states: ““What we see in Canada is that despite the fact negative or low-cost (methane reductions) could be achieved through regulations, the federal government last year set up a $750-million emission reduction fund (that) is paying companies to reduce their methane emissions” …. “These are technologies that allow companies to have less leakage and, therefore, more product they can sell” …. So we’re subsidizing their ability to generate more profit from their products.”

Canada’s 75% pledge related to the oil and gas industry matches the  target called for by the International Energy Agency in Curtailing Methane Emissions from Fossil Fuel Operations , released on October 7. But as pointed out by another IEA report, Driving down methane leaks from the oil and gas industry   (January 2021), targets can only work if measurement of leaks is accurate. As scientists have proven , Canada’s methane leaks have been under-reported in the past.

Impact on labour of the electrification of vehicles: new reports from Canada and Europe

In late August, the Pembina Institute released Taking Charge: How Ontario can create jobs and benefits in the electric vehicle economy,  discussing the economic and job creation potential for Canada’s main vehicle manufacturing province. The report considers manufacturing, maintenance, and the development and installation of charging infrastructure.  Its modeling estimates that, “if Ontario were to grow its EV market to account for 100% of total light-duty automobile sales as of 2035, direct, indirect and induced economic benefits associated with EV manufacturing would include over 24,200 jobs, and over $3.4 billion in GDP in 2035. In this scenario, Ontario’s EV charger and maintenance sectors can additionally benefit from nearly 23,200 jobs, and over $2.7 billion in GDP in 2035.”

The report concludes with seven policy recommendations which centre on stimulating consumer demand and encouraging private capital to invest in electric vehicles and infrastructure, and which include the establishment of an Ontario Transportation Electrification Council. Such a council is seen as a coordinating body for “the departments responsible for transportation, economic development, energy, natural resources, and environment as well as labour, training, and skills development.”

Taking Charge includes a short discussion of the impacts on labour, relying largely on the analysis by the Boston Consulting Group, published in September 2020 as Shifting Gears in Auto Manufacturing.  That report states that the labour requirements to assemble Battery Electric Vehicles and Internal Combustion Engine Vehicles are comparable — with the example of such tasks as fuel-tank installation and engine wiring shifting to battery alignment and charging-unit installation during vehicle assembly.  However, the report sees a likely shift from assembly work to parts suppliers, in the likely event that automakers choose not to manufacture batteries in-house. In that scenario, The Boston Consulting Group analysis forecasts that labour hours would be reduced by 4%.  The Pembina discussion concludes with: 

“To maximize the potential for the shift to electrification to contribute to a just transition for autoworkers, policymakers should keep in mind changes in labour and skills requirements within the value chain, as well as the importance of keeping as much of the EV supply chain within the province as possible.”

In Europe:  The new Fit for 55 legislative proposals introduced on July 14, if approved,  will mandate that vehicles’ average emissions are reduced by 55 percent in 2030 and 100 percent in 2035. Several publications have followed, including: a Clean Energy Wire Fact Sheet,  “How many jobs are at risk from the shift to electric vehicles?”, which concludes that there is greater risk of job loss amongst the supply chain manufacturers than at the big assemblers such as VW Group (Volkswagen, Audi, Porsche, Skoda and Seat brands), Stellantis (Fiat, Peugeot, Citroen, Opel/Vauxhall), the Renault Group, BMW and Daimler (Mercedes).  

Trade magazine Automotive Logistics published “Electrifying Europe: EU ‘Fit for 55’ legislation will transform the automotive supply chain” on August  23(restricted access), emphasizing that the new policy would “completely transform” the industry.

The European Automobile Manufacturers’ Association (ACEA) published  Making the transition to zero-emission mobility: Enabling factors for alternatively-powered cars and vans in the European Union , a thorough analysis of the entire supply chain.   And following  an “auto summit” in August, involving industry, unions, and senior German government officials including Chancellor Angela Merkel, the details of a  “future fund” of one billion euros by 2025 were revealed, as summarized in “Billions in taxes for e-mobility” (Aug. 18). Despite this support for the manufacturers, concerns remain regarding the capacity of charging infrastructure – summarized in “The loading chaos remains even after the car summit: More electric cars, too few charging stations” (Aug. 20).

Principles and best practices for a Just Transition for Canada’s fossil fuel workers

Economist Jim Stanford has written a timely new report which should be required reading for politicians setting their hair on fire about Joe Biden’s stated intention to cancel the Keystone XL pipeline project on Day one of his presidency.  Employment Transitions and the Phase-Out of Fossil Fuels, released on January 18, argues that “the actual number of fossil fuel jobs and the number of communities reliant on the industry is small enough that a just and equitable transition plan for workers is very feasible” – and the key is timing.

Stanford’s report begins by setting out the statistics regarding fossil fuel employment in Canada: “under 1% of total payroll employment in Canada (or about 160,000 jobs) is located in seven industrial sectors which together comprise most of the composite fossil fuel industry. “ Using 2016 Census data, the report discusses the distribution of fossil fuel jobs by province and community, showing that Alberta  accounts for 75% of fossil-related jobs in 2016, but even there, only it accounts for  7% of all provincial employment. 18 fossil fuel-dependent communities are named, where fossil fuel jobs account for 9.5% of employment – including two well-known examples, Wood Buffalo/Fort McMurray in Alberta and Estevan in Saskatchewan.  The report continues to compare employment in the fossil fuel industry and in the health care sector, Canada’s largest employer. The aim is not to diminish the importance of fossil fuel employment, but to illustrate that employment possibilities exist in other sectors, even within fossil fuel-reliant communities.

Stanford looks ahead and states: “given weakening global demand for fossil fuels, depressed prices, continued infrastructure constraints, and aggressive cost-cutting by fossil fuel employers (shedding labour to protect profits despite lower energy prices), fossil fuel industries will see continued downsizing of their employment footprint.”   He summarizes the employment transitions of other sectors in Canada’s history, notably fisheries, auto manufacturing, manufacturing – as well as other sectors currently transitioning, including retail, transportation, and newspapers and media, and documents the overall dynamics which are always churning labour markets. All these arguments build to the report’s final section, which is to outline the principles and best practices for planning effective employment and community transitions for the inevitable decline of fossil fuels. 

Principles and Best Practices for Transition

Repeating a point he made in a similar report about Australia, Stanford speaks out for younger workers: “Fossil fuels will disappear as a major source of energy within the foreseeable future. Given that reality, it is unhelpful, and indeed cruel, to encourage more workers – including some just entering the workforce – to try to build their livelihoods in an industry that will soon disappear.”

And further

 “ …in an effective, orderly labour market transition….. Most fossil fuel workers will not end up producing solar panels or windmills; in fact, if we manage this transition effectively, most fossil fuel workers will not need to find new jobs at all. As with the climate itself, the sooner we start this transition, the lower its ultimate costs will be, and the greater its net benefits. Delaying these necessary actions only makes matters worse – including for fossil fuel workers. In this context, statements of supposed “solidarity” with fossil fuel workers expressed by some business leaders and political representatives are entirely dubious. Pretending that fossil fuel industries can carry on as “normal” for decades to come (or worse could actually be expanded) is a cruel hoax.”

Employment Transitions and the Phase-Out of Fossil Fuels  was published by the Centre for Future Work, which is a project of the Australia Institute – which also operates in Canada in collaboration with the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, housed in the CCPA’s Vancouver office.   The report was commissioned by Environmental Defence Canada, which released its own graphically-enhanced summary version, Steady Path: How a transition to a fossil-free Canada is in reach for workers and their communities . 

A Call for Skills Training to support the transition to zero-emissions freight vehicles

The transportation sector represents a quarter of Canada’s greenhouse gas emissions, and of that, movement of freight currently represents 42% nationally.  Building a zero-emission goods-movement system: Opportunities to strengthen Canada’s ZEV freight sector reviews current Canadian policies to promote zero-emission freight vehicles at the municipal, provincial and national level, and identifies ten “opportunities” to reduce emissions. A unique contribution of this report: one of the “opportunities” recognizes the need for  technical training for EV infrastructure installation and vehicle maintenance. Further, it sees a role for joint, cost-shared government/employer programs.

“Investments in labour market programs to support good paying jobs and this new energy system are essential for the successful deployment and maintenance of zero-emission vehicles in commercial fleets, especially as the sector moves to scale up from pilot to mass adoption.”   …..  “Examples of existing programs include the Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Training Program, which provides training and certification for electricians installing electric vehicle supply equipment in North America, or the Electric Vehicle Maintenance Training program offered at the British Columbia Institute of Technology. Currently these training programs are concentrated in British Columbia. At a minimum, an investment of $36 million over five years is needed to expand and create new skills-training programs to support the deployment of zero-emission trucks in high-potential and high-demand markets across Canada. Similar to existing labour market programs, a cost-sharing model could be applied between government and employers.”

Although it was only launched in 2020, this is not the first time the BCIT EV Maintenance program has been recognized. (Details of the part-time course are here).   According to “Will there be someone to fix the electric vehicle you just bought? (National Observer, Oct 2020), the program was financed with $325,000 in provincial funding through CleanBC,  and followed a pilot program developed in cooperation with the green-fleet technicians of the City of Vancouver. The National Observer article provides an overview of policy initiatives regarding electric vehicles in general (not specifically freight vehicles), and notes the Green Budget Coalition recommendations made in October 2020, which included a call for $10 million “for ZEV automotive technician training program, modelled on the provincially-supported EV Maintenance Training Program at the British Columbia Institute of Technology.”

The labour market recommendations are significant, but form a small part of the message in Building a zero-emission goods-movement system .The report discusses the ZEV policy landscape into four categories: long-range strategic planning and regulations; incentives (financial and non-financial) for vehicle procurement and widespread deployment; charging infrastructure; and fleet-capacity development.   A Technical Appendix offers an inventory of federal and provincial policies, as well as those in six major Canadian cities: Vancouver, Calgary, Edmonton, Toronto, Montreal, and Halifax. This condenses information published by the Pembina Institute in The next frontier for climate action:  Decarbonizing urban freight in Canada  (Feb. 2020). Both reports are part of a Pembina-led initiative called the Urban Delivery Solutions , a national network which includes  businesses (including UPS, Purolator and Canada Post) and researchers (including the International Council on Clean Transportation), as well as environmental organizations .

Favourable reaction by Canadians to an updated Climate Plan -including a carbon tax rising to $170 per tonne by 2030

On December 11, the federal government released its highly-anticipated new climate plan, A Healthy Environment and a Healthy Economy, announcing 64 policy measures costing $15 billion. The Plan addresses energy, energy efficiency, infrastructure,  transportation emissions, the Clean Fuel Standard, an adaptation strategy – and a centrepiece policy to increase the carbon tax by $15 a tonne each year for the next eight years, as summarized by the CBC in  “Ottawa to hike federal carbon tax to $170 a tonne by 2030 “. Taken with the proposed Canadian Net-Zero Emissions Accountability Act currently before Parliament, which formalizes Canada’s target of net-zero emissions by the year 2050, A Healthy Environment and a Healthy Economy lays out the most specific path forward for Canada since the 2016 Pan-Canadian Framework in 2016.

A Backgrounder is here,  and specific initiatives are explained in Annex documents here.  One missing piece, as pointed out in Unifor’s reaction to the new Plan: the previously-promised Just Transition Act.   Also missing: the slightest notice by the international press, even the normally climate-vigilant Guardian in the U.K.  Reaction within Canada was strong, and ranged widely (compiled by the CBC here). In the mainstream media, the conservative-leaning Globe and Mail  approved in its Editorial:  “Justin Trudeau goes all in on the carbon tax. It’s the right thing – for the environment, and the economy”. Political writer Paul Wells uses similar language and  confesses to “startled admiration” in “On climate, at last, Justin Trudeau is all in” in Maclean’s magazine . The National Observer published  “Trudeau goes it alone with new climate plan, proposes carbon price hike”, drawing the contrast with the 2016 Framework, which was drafted in consultation with all the provinces.  The Energy Mix  is less approving in “With $170/Tonne Carbon Price, $15b In New Spending, Canada’s 2030 Carbon Target Still Falls Far Short”  (Dec. 14), which summarizes reaction from environmental groups.

Reaction from Labour and Environmentalists:

Like Unifor , the Canadian Labour Congress highlights the need for more transition measures in the new Plan, and states: “Labour will be looking to the federal government to make good on its commitment to supporting local job creation, skills training, apprenticeships and decent wages for workers, especially to those historically underrepresented in the skilled trades sector, including Indigenous workers, racialized workers and women…. Canada’s unions welcome the government’s emphasis on domestic manufacturing, including developing Canadian supply chains for low-emission building materials, clean tech, and aerospace and automotive investments, and leveraging the power of public procurement. Additionally, unions are noting the crucial commitments made today towards bringing Indigenous communities into the process.”

The International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Canada (IBEW) commends the Plan and states:  “The highly skilled members of the IBEW are trained and ready to take on these important jobs, and the government’s commitment to investing in green buildings and retrofits, electrified public and private transportation and grid modernization will require exactly the sort of knowledge and skills that IBEW members demonstrate on the job every day.”

From the Climate Action Network Canada, which includes both labour and environmental groups:  “… this plan does not change the fact that Canadian governments continue to double down on fossil fuels, subjecting workers and our economy to the ever-increasing volatility of oil and gas markets…. It’s good to see policies that can, if implemented quickly and with the greatest stringency possible, take Canada’s climate ambitions further than our current insufficient Paris pledge – reducing emissions up to 40% below 2005 levels by 2030. It is also good to see a significant investment of $15B in climate action. However, these numbers pale in comparison to commitments being made by our closest trading partners in the EU and the U.S. (under a new Biden administration)”.

Similarly, from Environmental Defence: “The climate action plan released today has a more comprehensive suite of climate policies than in the past and we welcome the meaningful escalation of the retail portion of the carbon price. We’re also pleased about the portion of the $15 billion investment that is not in effect yet another fossil fuel subsidy. But that amount, which is a small fraction of what other countries are doing on a per capita basis, clearly cannot get the job done. In fact, Canada should be investing $270 billion if it was following the level of ambition of the US or EU.”  West Coast Environmental Law agrees with these points, and also  states:  “While we applaud much of this climate plan, the government continues to ignore the reality that climate leaders don’t build oil pipelines. The recent analysis released by Canada’s Parliamentary Budget Officer confirms that the Trans Mountain pipeline will lose money if any climate action is taken, let alone the action promised in this plan. If Canada is serious about acting on climate change, the government must cancel this ill-conceived project once and for all.”

Economists applaud carbon tax initiative

The federal government announcement includes a 4-page Annex document about its carbon pricing proposals. The carbon tax will rise by $15 per tonne after 2022 until 2030, when it will reach $170 per tonne. The government is banking on a favourable decision by the Supreme Court of Canada when it rules on the constitutionality of the existing federal carbon tax in 2021. In a politically shrewd change from current practice, carbon rebates will be distributed to households on a quarterly basis, and as now, most households will receive more in rebates than they pay out.

Mainstream economic voices support the carbon tax:  The Canadian Institute for Climate Choices calls the plan “a big deal”, and says: “The government’s emissions projections under a carbon price that rises by $15/tonne per year is consistent with analysis from the Parliamentary Budget OfficeClean ProsperityCanada’s Ecofiscal Commission, and our own principal economist, Dave Sawyer. This is a policy that can deliver on the emissions reductions it promises.” Clean Prosperity states “This is a bold, brave, and wise move that will set Canada on the path to decarbonization. It sends a clear message to investors around the globe that Canada is serious about climate action.…. This was not an easy choice, but it’s the right choice. The government is wisely adopting a low-cost policy option that is good for the economy.”   And Merran Smith, speaking for Clean Energy Canada, calls it a “comprehensive and honest plan…. historically and globally significant. The plan will retool and position Canada’s economy to be increasingly competitive in a low-carbon world.”

Costs of climate change in Canada go beyond wildfires and floods: a call for urgent action to build resiliency

 The Tip of the Iceberg: Navigating the Known and Unknown Costs of Climate Change in Canada was released on December 3 by the Canadian Institute for Climate Choices, providing eye-popping evidence of the damage of climate change. Using data from the Canadian Disaster Database (CDD) and the Insurance Bureau of Canada (IBC) – (provided graphically here ) –  the report states that insured losses for catastrophic weather events in Canada totalled over $18 billlion between 2010 and 2019, with the Fort McMurray wildfire of 2016 the largest single weather-related insurance loss event in Canadian history, with nearly $4 billion in insured losses and broader costs of almost $11 billion when property, infrastructure, business interruption, and other indirect economic losses are included.  The report also notes the growing trends: the number of catastrophic events has more than tripled since the 1980s, and the average cost per weather-related disaster has soared by 1,250 per cent since the 1970s.

The main message of this report is directed at policy-makers, and goes beyond costing out the catastrophic losses. It warns that other types of climate change damages are more gradual and less dramatic in extreme events, and that Canada lags the U.S. and other OECD countries in assessing the overall and complex impacts of climate change. The report hearkens back to 2011 as the  last examination of the broad range of national costs to Canada, in Paying the Price: The Economic Impacts of Climate Change for Canada, a report by the now-defunct National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy, archived in the ACW Digital Library .

The main message of the report appears in this 6-page Executive summary , in the three over-aching recommendations, and in these selected quotes:

 “The imperative to reduce greenhouse gas emissions tends to dominate the debate over Canada’s progress in addressing climate change. Yet, as a climate solution, adaptation—ensuring human and natural systems can adjust to the spectrum of effects of climate change— will have a critical impact on the well-being and prosperity of all who live in Canada in the decades ahead. Current adaptation policies and investments in Canada fall far short of what is needed to address the known risks of climate change, let alone those that are still unclear and unknown. This has to change…..

……It’s essential to transition from a state of ad hoc responses to a changing climate and weather-related disasters to one of building resilience. This includes continual learning about what works, what doesn’t, and how to plan for uncertainty. Instead of waiting for more information, the uncertainty inherent in climate change requires acting decisively on what we already know while also developing improved foresight.”

 

The Canadian Institute for Climate Choices intends to follow up from The Tip of the Iceberg with other reports over the next two years, focused on health, infrastructure, macroeconomics and the North.

 

“Staggering” decline of fossil fuels reported by International Energy Agency

The complexity of the global energy landscape has been changed profoundly, according to the  International Energy Association’s flagship publication, the Global Energy Review , released on April 30.  It forecasts a minimum 6% decline in global energy demand for 2020, (9% in the United States and 11% in the European Union),  stating, “The projected 6% decline would be more than seven times the impact of the 2008 financial crisis on global energy demand, reversing the growth of global energy demand over the last five years. The absolute decline in global energy demand in 2020 is without precedent, and relative declines of this order are without precedent for the last 70 years.”   The accompanying press release describes the decline of fossil fuels as  an “historic shock to the entire energy world” and “staggering”, especially for coal, oil and gas. The IEA forecasts that renewables will be the only energy source to grow in 2020.

Here are a few of the many recent news articles which sum up the dire impacts on oil and gas in Canada:

In “For oil and its dependents, it’s code blue” (The Tyee, April 18), Andrew Nikoforuk predicts that the “great price collapse of 2020 will topple companies and transform states”.

Fossils Expect Permanent Losses, Renewables Keep Growing As Pandemic Crashes Global Energy Demand”  in The Energy Mix (May 3);

What rock-bottom natural gas prices mean for Canada’s aspiring LNG industry” in The Narwhal (May 1);

“‘We are in crisis mode’: Newfoundland calls on Ottawa to fund oil and gas exploration” in the Globe and Mail (April 29);

And Canadian Press stories reprinted by the National Observer on May 1 include:  “Precision Drilling down almost 3000 employees due to oil and gas downturn” (May 1);  “Oil and gas drilling forecast revised to 49-year low”; “Teck Resources leaves energy group CAPP citing cost cutting” ; and “Alberta oil and gas company reports include a loss of $1.3 billion for Vermillion Energy” (April 29) .

Fatih Birol, Director of the International Energy Agency has promoted clean energy in several public statements, including  a March 14 commentary: “Put clean energy at the heart of stimulus plans to counter the coronavirus crisis”, which states, “Governments are drawing up stimulus plans in an effort to counter the economic damage from the crisis. These stimulus packages offer an excellent opportunity to ensure that the essential task of building a secure and sustainable energy future doesn’t get lost amid the flurry of immediate priorities ”   The IEA promises a World Energy Outlook special report in June “that will quantify how clean energy policies and investments can create jobs, support economic recoveries and achieve emissions reductions. The report’s findings and recommendations will inform the high-level discussions at the IEA Clean Energy Transitions Summit on 9 July.”

A review of Just Transition academic research, and the contribution of think tanks, advocacy groups and unions – corrected

Correction: The research paper listed below, Who is included in a Just Transition? Considering social equity in Canada’s shift to a zero-carbon economy. by Hadrian Mertins-Kirkwood and Zaee Deshpande , was co-published by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives and the Adapting Canadian Work and Workplaces to Climate Change Project (ACW) in August 2019. It is one of several co-publications by these two organizations on the theme of Just Transition.


The Smart Prosperity Institute published a Working Paper in April as the latest in its Clean Economy Series.  A systematic review of the key elements of a just transition for fossil fuel workers  is written by three academics from the University of British Columbia, and sets out to answer the question: “What elements of a just transition for fossil fuel workers and their communities do scholars in different academic fields identify?”  The research is intended  to “provide policymakers, environmental and trade union organizations who are already invested in creating just transition strategies insight on the kinds of issues they can target in their efforts.”

The paper is the result of a systematic literature review of academic articles, along with “government commissions and international organizations”, published between 2000 and 2019, and focused on a just transition for fossil fuel workers and their communities. The authors found a total of 520 documents and selected 33 for analysis, representing varied locations— most from the United States, some international, six from  Australia , and the remainder from other countries. From Canada, only the federal Task force on Just Transition in 2018 was included in the analysis.  The authors note that most articles concern OECD countries and coal workers; they were unable to find articles focused solely on Saudi Arabia, Brazil, India, or oil and gas workers.  They conclude: “Collectively, the articles we reviewed identify 17 key elements (or strategies) of just transition ranging from requirements of long-term planning to importance of retraining. Moreover, these 17 elements vary in terms of the type of justice they further (distributional, procedural, recognition & restorative justices), spatial scales, and timeframe.”

A systematic review of the key elements of a just transition for fossil fuel workers  is a solid academic treatment of a huge and ever-growing literature. However, it does not recognize the considerable contributions of advocacy organizations, think tanks, nor labour unions – all of which have been active globally and in Canada.

Below  are a few of those documents which add important viewpoints to the  Just Transition policy debate  in Canada: (in reverse chronological order)

 

Canada’s report to the UNFCC shows an increase in GHG emissions

ghg emissions_NIR 2018As required by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCC), Canada submitted its National Inventory Report on April 14, available from the U.N. website.   The Executive Summary   at the Canadian government website  announces that the Canada’s greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions were 729 million tons of CO2 and equivalent in 2018, (the latest figures available).  This is an increase of 15 million tons from 2017, and a reduction of only 1 million tons from 2005 – making Canada’s Paris Agreement target of a 30% reduction from 2005 levels a very challenging goal. The Executive Summary attributes the 2018 performance  to “higher fuel consumption for transportation, winter heating and oil and gas extraction.” The Toronto Star summarizes the official report in  “Canada’s emissions count jumped 15 million tonnes in 2018 from previous year, report shows” (April 15) ; a summary also appeared in The National Observer, focused on British Columbia.  The federal Green Party press release points out that Canada has missed the February deadline to submit its new target for Nationally Determined Contributions, and calls for Canada  to reduce our GHG’s to 60 per cent below 2005 levels by 2030.  (In comparison, the latest EU target under debate is a 55% reduction by 2030  ).

The full National Inventory Report presents statistics since 1990, and analyses trends by region and according to industries – including energy, industrial processes, agriculture, land use (forestry) and waste management. It also measures emissions in 2018 by important gases, including carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide and methane. Carbon dioxide (CO2) accounted for 80% of Canada’s total emissions. Nitrous oxide (N2O) emissions (76% of which come from agriculture) accounted for 5%  in 2018, a 2.4% decrease from 1990 levels. Synthetic gases (HFC’s, PFC’s, SF6 and NF3) constituted slightly less than 2% of national emissions.

Canada’s other big polluter: methane

According to Canada’s National Inventory Report, methane accounted for 13% of Canada’s total emissions in 2018, an increase of  1% since 1990.  43% of those emissions are attributed to fugitive sources in oil and natural gas systems and another 31% from agriculture.  The  International Energy Agency  also tracks methane emissions from the oil and gas industry here , and in February 2020 summarized and critiqued Canada’s new policies to reduce methane emissions attributable to the oil and gas industry.   Methane (CH4) is a growing concern for global GHG emissions – as reported in an article in  Scientific AmericanMethane levels reach an all-time high” (April 12) , which summarizes recent reports by the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) .

Canada’s Ecofiscal Commission issues final annual report

ecofiscal final 2019 reportIn November 2019, Canada’s Ecofiscal Commission announced that their five-year mandate was coming to an end with the release of their final research report,  Bridging the Gap: Real Options for Meeting Canada’s 2030 GHG Target , which recommended quadrupling of Canada’s carbon tax by 2030.   On April 22, the Commission released their  2019 Annual Report , with research summaries of their work,  and metrics which attest to their strong influence on Canada’s policy debate over their five years of operation.  With a mission to: “identify and promote practical fiscal solutions for Canada that spark the innovation required for increased economic and environmental prosperity”, the Commission’s major focus was on carbon pricing –  expressed in research, publications, educational events, and in 2019, in supporting the constitutionality of carbon pricing in the court cases brought by Saskatchewan and Ontario.   Although not stated explicitly, the final Letter from Director Chris Ragan implies that the resources of the Commission will be archived – the Ecofiscal Commission website is here.  Many of the principal authors at the Ecofiscal Commission are finding a new home as part of the new government Institute for Climate Choices , announced in April 2019 – for example, Don Drummond, Stewart Elgie, Richard Lipsey, Mike Moffatt and Nancy Olewiler.  Chris Ragan (formerly Executive Director of the Ecofiscal Commission) and Mel Cappe  are both members of the Board of Directors of the Institute for Climate Choices.

Fossil fuel and LNG subsidies in B.C., and an alternate viewpoint on the issue

The International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) maintains an ongoing initiative, the Global Subsidies Initiative , to research fossil fuel subsidies worldwide.  Their most recent publication relating to Canada is  Locked In and Losing Out: British Columbia’s fossil fuel subsidies. The authors calculate that BC’s fossil fuel subsidies reached  $830 million Cdn.  in 2017–2018, with no end in sight. Despite B.C.’s clean energy image, the report documents the significant new support granted by the current B.C. government to encourage the liquefied natural gas (LNG) industry.  Locked In and Losing Out calls for the provincial government to create a plan to phase-out its own subsidies, and coordinate with the federal government in its current  G20 Peer Review of fossil fuel subsidies, launched in 2019 and administered by Environment and Climate Change Canada.   In August 2019, the IISD also released its Submission to Environment and Climate Change Canada’s Consultation on Non-Tax Fossil Fuel Subsidies calling for Canada to re-affirm its long-standing  G7 commitment to reform fossil fuel subsidies by 2025 and provide a detailed action plan to achieve the goal.  

new labor forumAn alternate view

Sean Sweeney of Trade Unions for Energy Democracy takes an alternate view on fossil fuel subsidies in “Weaponizing the numbers: The Hidden Agenda Behind Fossil-Fuel Subsidy Reform” appearing in the January 2020 issue of  New Labor Forum. As might be expected, Sweeney challenges the findings and assumptions of the International Monetary Fund (for example, in a 2019 working paper by David Coady ). He also takes issue with some progressive analysis – notably, he cites  Fossil Fuel to Clean Energy Subsidy Swaps: How to Pay for an Energy Revolution (2019) and Zombie Energy: Climate benefits of ending subsidies to fossil fuel production (2017)  – both published by the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD).  After a brief discussion of the main concepts, Sweeney concludes:

“For activists in the North, making fossil-fuel subsidies a key political target is a mistake. It buys into the IMF’s obsession with “getting energy prices right” which targets state ownership and regulation of prices. Such an approach may lead to a more judicious use of energy, but it would not address the mammoth challenges involved in transitioning away from fossil fuels, controlling and reducing unnecessary economic activity, or reducing emissions is expeditiously as possible.

The problem is fossil fuel dependency, not underpriced energy. Raising the price without alternative forms of low-carbon energy available for all will not produce the kind of emissions reductions the world needs. This does not mean that progressive unions and the left should support subsidies for fossil fuels—especially when the beneficiaries are large for-profit industrial users or billionaire Lamborghini owners cruising the strips in Riyadh or Shanghai. But there is a need to be aware of what the IMF and the subsidy reform organizations are proposing, and what these proposals might mean for workers and ordinary people, especially in the Global South.”

 

 

 

Launch of Canadian Institute for Climate Choices promises “rigorous research and original analysis”

The Canadian Institute for Climate Choices  was launched on January 21 – described in their own press release  as an independent national institute with an aim “to establish a strong foundation for decision-making on climate change policies.” CBC commentator Aaron Wherry likens the new body to the National Roundtable on the Environment and the Economy (NRTEE), disbanded by the Harper government in 2013.

Supported by $20 million funding over 5 years from the federal government, the Institute promises to “Produce rigorous research, original analysis and evidence-based insight”. It will do this through engagement with experts, business and policy leaders, as well as Canadians – and by cultivating a national network of experts from a range of disciplines.

Those experts are currently organized into three Expert Panels ,to write and conduct peer review of the promised three research reports per year. Members named so far  include: Dale Beugin, Alain Bourque , Don Drummond, Stewart Elgie, Blair Feltmate, Kathryn Harrison, Sara Hastings-Simon, Glenn Hodgson, Mark Jaccard, Richard Lipsey, James Meadowcroft, Nancy Olewiler,  and Nic Rivers.

charting course framework diagramThe launch of the Institute was accompanied by a report, Charting our Course , which uses the extended metaphor of Canada as a ship navigating to safety on the stormy seas of climate change, and requiring “all hands on deck” to reach a safe destination. It is offered as a starting point for discussion, and includes a new analytical framework, visualized in the accompanying diagram (left).

Charting our Course makes four recommendations:

#1: Canadian governments should broaden objectives for climate policy – which acknowledges that all levels of government are involved, and their policy design needs “to go beyond the narrow lenses of mitigation, adaptation, and clean growth”…” By linking objectives more directly to the welfare of Canadians, this approach can also build a broader coalition of support for action.”

#2: Canadian governments should embrace Canada’s role in global outcomes.

#3: Canadian governments should expand the scope, scale, and pace of climate policies.  (“This means expanding the coverage of policies across regions, issues, and sectors, ramping up the magnitude of change, and tightening the timeframe for achieving results.”)

#4: Those analysing and developing policy options should seek out integrated solutions that drive multiple benefits.

Although funded by Environment and Climate Change Canada, the Institute will operate independently, overseen by an eleven-member Board of Directors – including former Privy Council Clerk Mel Cappe, former Ecofiscal Commission Chair Chris Ragan, Dave Collyer, former president of the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, Bruce Lourie, now President of the Ivey Foundation, and Sybil Seitzinger, Executive Director, Pacific Institute for Climate Solutions.  A separate Advisory Council includes Catherine Abreu, Executive Director of the Climate Action Network – Réseau action climat (CAN-Rac) Canada.

The Institute has already released six blogs to flesh out the general statements.  More details also appear in articles in the National Observer, the Toronto Star , the CBC, and The Energy Mix .

Canadian youth sue federal government seeking stronger climate action

Larose plaintiffs 2019Just days after the federal election, on October 25, fifteen Canadians aged 10 to 19 launched a lawsuit in federal court, seeking a court-ordered plan for climate change based on the best available science.  The plaintiffs, from seven Canadian provinces and the Northwest Territories, announced their suit in Vancouver at the Fridays for Future climate strike alongside Greta Thunberg and recounted their personal experiences, including asthma, Lyme disease, mental health challenges, and injuries from wildfire smoke.

The Statement of Claim   in La Rose v. Her Majesty the Queen alleges that by failing to  protect essential public trust resources like air and water,  the Canadian government has violated the children’s right to life, liberty and security of the person under Section 7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It also alleges that the government has violated Section 15 of the Charter, since youth are disproportionately affected by the effects of climate change.   A press release from the David Suzuki Foundation includes quotes from some of the individuals involved; the case was widely reported in the following sources:  the CBC , The Energy Mix ,  the National Observer, Toronto Starand the Vancouver Star  .

This is the second climate change case brought by Canadian youth: in 2019,   ENvironnement JEUnesse brought  a class action suit on behalf of Quebecers under the age of 35, which argued that the Canadian government was violating the class members’ fundamental rights by failing to reduce greenhouse gas emissions sufficiently to ensure a safe climate. In July 2019, the Quebec Superior Court dismissed the petitioners’ motion because it rejected the nature of the class , namely, the age limit of 35 years. The case is under appeal.

 

The children in La Rose v. Her Majesty the Queen  are represented by the B.C. law firms of Arvay Finlay LLP and Tollefson Law Corporation, and supported by the Pacific Centre for Environmental Law and Litigation (CELL) , the David Suzuki Foundation, and Our Children’s Trust in the U.S., which pioneered the pending landmark youth case of Juliana vs. United States.  Our Children’s Trust compiles information on climate change lawsuits around the world including Australia, Belgium, Columbia, France, India, the Netherlands, Norway, Pakistan, the Philippines, Uganda, Ukraine, and the United Kingdom. The Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at New York’s Columbia Law School maintains a database of cases in the U.S., and a separate database from the rest of the world – approximately 1400 climate lawsuits against governments and fossil fuel corporations in more than 25 countries.

Protesters arrested as they demand Green New Deal policies from newly-elected Members of Parliament in Canada

trudeau electionThe Liberal party of Justin Trudeau was returned to power in the Canadian federal election on October 21 as a minority government. Enthusiasts such as the Washington Post called the election  “a victory for the planet”, based on the fact that climate change was a key issue and that a strong majority of the popular vote went to the four parties with serious plans for action (Liberals, Greens, NDP, and the Bloc). Catherine Abreu, executive director of Climate Action Network Canada , sums up a more complex situation in a National Observer article  : “With at least 63 per cent of voters casting ballots for parties that put forward strong climate platforms, it is clear that a majority of Canadians asked for more ambitious and urgent climate action…People voted out of fear of the Conservatives today, rejecting their threats to roll back climate policy. At the same time, voters did not have enough confidence in the Liberal climate record to hand them another majority.”

green new deal squadEnvironmental activists are determined to press the Liberal government to forge ahead with strong climate action –  as evidenced by the arrest of 27 protesters on October 28.  Youth activists organized by Our Time for a Green New Deal   were arrested and served with a 30-day ban from Parliament Hill after holding a sit-in in the House of Commons in an attempt to deliver “mandate letters” to newly-elected members of Parliament. The letters call for a Green New Deal, including strong climate action, respect for Indigenous rights, job creation,  and adherence to the IPCC target of limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees.  The CBC   and Common Dreams describe the protest demonstration.  The mandate letter is here, as part of the Our Time ongoing news reports.

What do environmentalists want from the new government? 

In “Climate Community Declares the Win as Polling Shows Climate Concern Driving Vote”  , Energy Mix  compiles reactions from representatives of Climate Action Network-Canada, Smart Prosperity, Clean Energy Canada, and others across Canada and the U.S.

Canada to Trudeau – We expect more on climate” is a press release  from Oil Change International which lays out four core demands: Legislate the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples; Promote a just transition for oil and gas workers and communities;  Say no to Trans Mountain Pipeline, and Eliminate all fossil fuel subsidies.

“With Climate On The Agenda, Advocates Call For Legislated Targets, Fossil Industry Phasedown” is an Opinion piece by Mitchell Beer in The Energy Mix which surveys responses of environmentalists,  including that of Environmental Defence Executive Director Tim Gray, calling for: “a legislated and more ambitious greenhouse gas target, an accountability mechanism to keep emission reductions on track, a swift end to fossil fuel subsidies, and reform of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act as first orders of business for the new government.”

McKenna wins, Sohi loses in mixed result for Liberals on green, energy files”  in the National Observer comments on the results of the Minister of Environment and Climate Change and the loss for the Minister of Natural Resources, both of whom have carried the torch of Liberal climate policy.

“What a Liberal minority government means for Canada’s environment” in The Narwhal predicts the likely policies which will survive in the minority position, including a carbon tax, incentives for electric vehicles, a ban on single use plastics, and “sooner rather than later”, a phase-out of fossil fuel subsidies.

“Minority government an opportunity for progressives” , a press release by Jerry Dias, president of Unifor , states that the union is “already making plans, in fact, to go to Ottawa and push progressive causes, including labour law reform, infrastructure funding, green transition, pharmacare, electoral reform, affordable housing and more.”

Articles addressing the election’s  other take-away, regional divisions:

Why are Albertans so damned angry?” in The Straight (Oct. 25) has been widely praised in the Twittersphere. The article is by Eric Denhoff, a self-described “Prairie boy” and a former deputy minister in B.C. and Alberta under Liberal, NDP, Conservative, and Social Credit governments. He writes that “Trudeau and his Ottawa team are mystified that having factually delivered much more cash to Alberta in four years than Harper in nine-plus, buying a pipeline at considerable political expense, they face this level of hostility.” But sparing no criticism of Alberta Conservative Premier Jason Kenney, Denhoff concludes that  “politicians find it easy to trade in a province with a median family income 25 percent or so higher than the rest of the country, with no sales tax, lower income and corporate taxes, and services Ontarians could only dream about. So, the battle will continue… more intense than ever. Ottawa will have to give, and Alberta will have to adjust. As in any relationship.”

Liberal win stokes talk of separation in Alberta” from the Calgary Herald and “Oilpatch market reaction muted after election of minority Liberal government” in The Star .

A landslide win for climate politics. Now beware its nemeses” (Oct. 22) in the National Observer  states: “We have got to be self-reflective at an important moment like this, and we should beware the twin nemeses of victory — factionalism and triumphalism….We can’t allow the parties’ activists and operators to go on placing politics above planet….we need to raise the chorus demanding deeper, faster action and simultaneously convince sensible, normal people that the policies needed are completely reasonable.”

Of course Canada is divided- that’s the whole point of elections”  by Crawfod Kilian   in The Tyee (Oct. 24)  calls for us to focus on the self-diagnosis in the election results, “and explore possible remedies for all our ailments: Progressive Narcissism, the Tories’ Prairie Victimization Syndrome, the Bloc’s Passive-Aggressive Separatism, and the Liberals’ High-Functioning Climate Denialism.”

Politicians Offered a Choice between Climate Fantasies as Our Future Grows Bleaker” (Oct. 25) in The Tyee  in which Andrew Nikoforuk grimly states:  “Our pathetic politics reflects the inertia in the fossil fuel system, the moral poverty of the status quo and a popular denial about the scale of change required to prevent an unending emergency.”

Shawn McCarthy, former Globe and Mail reporter, writes in the National Observer –   “What Trudeau needs to do to win the West”.  He  calls for  “a multi-pronged approach to address the seemingly contradictory realities: the urgent need to reduce emissions, and the uneven cost that effort imposes across the country.” He argues “We tend to focus on — and argue over — the supply side of the energy equation, especially oil and gas versus renewables. The demand side requires far more attention. There is a vast amount of progress that can be made in improving our national efficiency and reducing energy consumption, thereby saving businesses and consumers money over the medium term.”

In a similar vein, Bruce Lourie ,  Director of Canadians for Clean Prosperity wrote in the National Observer before the election:  “If Scheer wins, Albertans can kiss their economic future goodbye . He promotes a Capital Plan for Clean Prosperity  and states:  “The only option for Canada is to understand and embrace the complexity of how to finance the transition to a clean economy through a measured, long-term transition investment strategy that sees the cleaning up of the fossil fuel sector in a way that demonstrates global leadership. Politicians pitting different parts of Canada against each other is about the worst possible outcome for Canadians and a sad reflection on the narrow-mindedness of our Balkanized politicians. We need to be competing with the world, not each other.”

For readers  from the international community seeking  more insight into Canadian politics,  the New York Times focuses on the regional differences in “Trudeau Re-election Reveals Intensified Divisions  in Canada”    and Jeremy Wildeman of the University of Bath, England explains “Justin Trudeau’s political setback: A surprise to the world, but not to Canada”   in The Conversation .

Climate change will be a top issue as Canada votes on October 21

canada flagOn September 11, Canadian Prime Minister Trudeau officially kicked off the  federal election, with voting set for October 21.  Throughout the summer, polls have consistently shown that climate change and environmental issues will be a high priority for voters – an August survey by Abacaus Data showed 82 per cent of Canadians say climate change is a serious problem and 42% think it is an emergency, ranking concern about climate change second only to the rising cost of living.  In September, researchers from the Université de Montréal and the University of California Santa Barbara released estimates of Canadian opinion on climate actions in almost every single riding across the country, with an online interactive tool  enabling anyone to see how their local riding compares to others across the country.

The Liberal government will be running on their climate change record – characterized by their “we don’t have to choose between the economy and the environment” approach, brought to life in their handling of the Trans Mountain pipeline .  The other party platforms are here:   Green Party: Mission Possible: The Green Climate Action Plan; New Democratic Party: Power to change: A new deal for climate action and good jobs, and Conservative Party:  A Real Plan to Protect Our Environment . “Where the four main parties stand on climate issues”  is a Globe and Mail  “Explainer” by Shawn McCarthy and Marieke Walsh (Sept 8), which quotes academic experts from all sides of the issue: Andrew Leach, University of Alberta; Jennifer Winter, University of Calgary; Mark Jaccard, Simon Fraser University;Kathryn Harrison, University of British Columbia, and Chris Ragan, chair, Ecofiscal Commission.

How to choose amongst the platforms?

Some commentators urge voting by your conscience – for example, Arno Kopecky in his Opinion Piece, “So What’s a progressive voter to do?”  in The Tyee. Others urge strategic voting – such as Mark Jaccard, energy economist and professor at Simon Fraser University, who stated in his August 1 Blog : “Climate-concerned Canadians need to vote strategically this fall to make sure they don’t elect a climate-insincere government. At the time of writing this blog, the most likely outcome is that the 65% of Canadians who tell pollsters they want a climate-sincere government will split their vote among three parties and enable the election of a climate-insincere government, just as in 2006-2015.” Activist Tzeporah Berman also warns against a split vote in a Toronto Star article “David Suzuki on climate change: ‘We have to address it as if it’s war’”  (Sept. 3), and Sandy Garossino wrote in July, “Despite Pipeline Approval, $70-Billion Federal Plan Is Canada’s Best Shot at Decarbonizing”in The Energy Mix . Garossino’s arguments were almost immediately challenged by UBC Professor Kathryn Harrison in “How ‘Serious’ is a Climate Plan that relies on Pipelines”    .

Unions are also Opinion Leaders   

The Canadian Labour Congress election positions are gathered under their webpage banner: “A Fair Canada for Everyone” , which prioritizes Pharmacare,
Retirement Security, Climate Action, Good Jobs, and Equity and Inclusion.  A statement re Climate positions calls for green manufacturing and infrastructure, better transit and electric vehicles, and green building and retrofits.

Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE)  launched their CUPE Votes website in August,  endorsing the New Democratic Party and offering information and tools for locals and individuals to get involved in the election. Informational “Notes” lay out positions on key issues, including, Climate Change and the Environment.

Unifor launched a “massive” member-to-member campaign for the election on September 4 under the banner of “Stop Scheer”.  At the national constitutional convention in August, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and Foreign Affairs Minister Chrystia Freeland addressed the full convention.

The United Steelworkers have endorsed the New Democratic Party – their Election 2019 webpage  offers news and resources, including their May 31 statement, “NDP Climate Plan Protects our Planet and our Jobs”  .  View the Steelworkers’ TV election ads here .

Some Websites to follow for climate-related Election coverage:

The National Observer Election 2019 Special Report:   will compile stories throughout the election, in addition to a special Election Integrity Project  which aims to highlight and call out disinformation – for example, on September 6  “How Maxime Bernier hijacked Canada’s #ClimateChange discussion” . These special features all feed from National Observer’s highly-regarded on-going reporting and Opinion pieces about climate change and the environment.  One relevant recent article: “Who were the winners and losers under Liberal climate policy?”   (Sept. 9)

The Energy Mix will monitor and compile news items from other sources, and publish original content under their special Canada Election 2019 banner .

The Tyee in Vancouver offers  an Election 2019 section  as well as a free election newsletter, called The Run.  It’s worth noting that The Tyee joined the global network Covering Climate Now over the summer of 2019, and in addition to its special topic on Environmental stories, promises another special section on the Climate Crisis.

Shake Up The Establishment is a non-partisan website run by youth volunteers, dedicated to monitoring and comparing the climate and environmental commitments of the main parties.  It publishes a monthly newsletter and maintains active social media sites.

Canada’s new, free Energy Information website

Energy Information bannerCanada finally has a new, consolidated source of data about energy in our country. The Canadian Energy Information Portal  launched in August – bringing together “reliable government data on Canada’s energy mix, including electricity, renewable energy and oil and gas.”  The portal, housed at Statistics Canada, was developed in partnership with the National Energy Board, Natural Resources Canada,  and Environment and Climate Change Canada , and according to the August 26 press release , “will be guided by a joint federal-provincial-territorial steering committee and will seek advice from Canadians, Indigenous peoples, industry, academics and municipalities.” The new website offers an interactive dashboard, maps, data and analysis  regarding the following topics:  Clean technology; Economic accounts; Energy efficiency; Energy markets; Greenhouse gas emissions; Imports and exports; Investment and research; Labour; Prices; Sustainable Development Goals; and Transportation. One example: energy information sample

 

$15.2 million over five years was set aside  in Budget 2019 to support the new Centre, in response to long-standing acknowledgement that Canada’s energy data collection has been fragmented and inefficient – for example, in a 2017 report by the Canadian Energy Research Institute, and the 2018 Report of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Natural Resources, Rethinking Canada’s Energy Information System: Collaborative Models In a Data-Driven Economy .

Two new articles provide history and context for the new data initiative, and emphasize the potential for accessible, reliable, impartial energy data and information to improve the polarized and sometimes misinformed energy policy discussions in Canada:  “How the launch of the Canadian Energy Information Centre could fill major gaps in energy data” in The  National Observer (September 5)  , and “Canada’s Energy Data Problem”  in Policy Options in July.

 

 

Climate policy progress in Canada suffers from an overemphasis on carbon pricing, an absence of supply-side energy policies

heating up backing downcoverHeating up, Backing Down  by Hadrian Mertins-Kirkwood was released on June 13, updating the author’s previous 2017 report Tracking Progress: Evaluating government plans and actions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in Canada.   It analyzes emissions data and policy announcements in the last two years to assess federal, provincial and territorial governments’ progress toward Canada’s domestic and international greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reduction targets.  The report identifies and discusses two new important issues in the Canadian climate policy discussion: an overemphasis on carbon pricing and an absence of supply-side energy policies. These are in addition to the three key obstacles to effective climate policy identified in the 2017 report, and still considered relevant: (1) an ambition gap between government policies and official targets; (2) Canada’s  deep economic dependence on fossil fuels, and; (3) an under-appreciation of the need to support workers in the transition to a cleaner economy.

Following a succinct overview of policy developments and emissions statistics for each province, the author concludes that positive progress in British Columbia and Quebec is outweighed by backsliding in the rest of Canada, and future progress is further threatened by the legislative reversals enacted by the recently-elected conservative governments in Alberta and Ontario, which are Canada’s two biggest carbon polluting provinces.

Heating up, Backing Down is co-published by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives and the Adapting Canadian Work and Workplaces to Respond to Climate Change research program (ACW) .

Canadian government funds new Climate Change research network

Environment and Climate Change Canada announced a new consortium on April 9, to be called the Pan-Canadian Expert Collaboration, and to be chaired by Blair Feltmate , Head of the Intact Centre on Climate Adaptation at the University of Waterloo.  The Collaboration brings together fifteen Canadian research institutes, to provide independent, informed advice to policy-makers, mainly on the issues of clean energy, carbon pricing and adaptation.  The researchers were chosen after an extensive competition, begun in October 2018, and the project will be eligible to receive up to $20 million over five years – assuming the Liberal government remains in power in Ottawa after the 2019 election.

The real nitty-gritty about the goals of the initiative are contained in the Discussion Paper  issued to solicit interest in the competition . The briefer government  Backgrounder  on April 9  sets out the goals of the Collaboration, and lists the fifteen research organizations chosen to participate.  The goals: “provide credible and authoritative advice to Canadians and their governments; develop and provide independent and expert-driven analysis to help Canada move toward clean growth in all sectors and regions of the country; develop advice and analysis spanning climate change mitigation, adaptation, and clean growth; set its own agenda and operate independently from government; and fill existing information gaps and help translate research into useful information for policy decision-making.”

The membership:

canada's changing climate coverSo far, the media have taken little notice of the group, despite the fact that it was announced only a week after the release  of the landmark and alarming  government report, Canada’s Changing Climate, which showed that Canada is warming at twice the global rate.  As  of April 10, the only item published comes from The National Observer, “Skeptical of Trudeau’s carbon pricing? There’s an institute for that” (April 9) , which  focuses on the reaction from Ontario’s Ford government – attempting to brand the group as elite academics with no understanding of the costs of climate change policies.

Canada is warming twice as fast as the rest of the world – what should we do?

 

Canada’s Changing Climate Report (CCCR), was released on April 2, documenting the  consensus of scientific experts from the federal government and academia, about how and why Canada’s climate has changed to date, with projections for the future.  The main message is tipped by the title of the government’s press release: “Canada’s climate is warming twice as fast as global average”.  Canada’s annual temperature over land has warmed on average 1.7 degrees Celsius between 1948 and 2016 (compared with the the IPCC assessment of average global warming between 0.8 C and 1.2 C). Worse, in the Arctic, temperatures have risen by 2.3C – about three times the global average. In some parts of the Northwest Territories, temperatures have risen by between 4 C and 5 C .

 

cccr graphicLike the careful scientific style of the IPCC Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5°C  (Oct. 2018), the Canadian report offers two different scenarios, based on low and high emissions futures. The general statement about the future, however,  states: “The effects of widespread warming are already evident in many parts of Canada and are projected to intensify in the near future. A warmer climate will affect the frequency and intensity of forest fires, the extent and duration of snow and ice cover, precipitation, permafrost temperatures, and other extremes of weather and climate, as well as freshwater availability, rising of sea level, and other properties of the oceans surrounding Canada.” “Scenarios with limited warming will only occur if Canada and the rest of the world reduce carbon emissions to near zero early in the second half of the century and reduce emissions of other greenhouse gases substantially.”

The report is available in English  and in French , with a 17-page Executive Summary in English   and in French .  This is the first in a series of National Assessment reports to be rolled out until 2021, including a National Issues report on climate change impacts and adaptation; a Regional Perspectives report about  impacts and adaptation in six regions, and a Health of Canadians in a Changing Climate report, assessing risks to health and to the health care system.

Are Canadians panicking? Sorry Greta, not yet anyway:  Summaries of the Changing Climate Report  include: “Canada says global carbon pollution must be reduced to ‘near zero’ to limit harsh impacts” in The National Observer ; “Environmentalists hope for action  in wake of ‘shocking and utterly unsurprising’ climate-change report”  (consisting mostly of embedded audio interviews);   CBC’s  “What you need to know about the new climate report” ; an Energy Mix summary by Mitchell Beer ; and Crawford Kilian in The Tyee, “New Climate change report should be a wake-up call”  which focuses on British Columbia.

Two Opinion Pieces may explain the lack of panic with which this report has been greeted : Thomas Walkom in the Toronto Star, “Canadian politicians are obsessed with the wrong crisis”  and  Neil Macdonald at CBC “Report on devastating Canadian climate change a far bigger issue than Jody Wilson-Raybould”  .

Reaction from the Council of Canadians Blog is constructive:  “Canada is warming faster than we thought. What can we do about it?”  –urging readers to take individual action, including support for a Canadian Green New Deal.  Such political action will be necessary, according to Julie Gelfand, Canada’s Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, who tabled her Spring 2019 audit reports in Parliament on April 2.  The environmental audits cover the topics of aquatic invasive species, the protection of fish and their habitat from mining effluent,  and subsidies to the fossil fuels sector.   In the accompanying “Perspective” statement as she leaves her position after five years, she reflects on lessons learned and concludes: “it’s the slow action on climate change that is disturbing. Many of my reports focused on climate change from various angles. We looked at federal support for sustainable municipal infrastructure, mitigating the impacts of severe weather, marine navigation in the Canadian Arctic, environmental monitoring of oil sands, oversight of federally regulated pipelines, funding clean energy technologies, fossil fuel subsidies, and progress on reducing greenhouse gases. For decades, successive federal governments have failed to reach their targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and the government is not ready to adapt to a changing climate. This must change.”

commissioner gelfand graphic

Canada’s record on climate change, and the global failure to meet Paris emissions targets

trudeau-notley-20161129An analysis of the evolution of Justin Trudeau’s  climate change policies is  summarized in “The Rise and Fall of Trudeau’s ‘Grand Bargain’ on Climate”,  published in The Tyee (Nov. 14). The article is a summary by author Donald Gutstein of his new book,  The Big Stall: How Big Oil and Think Tanks Are Blocking Action on Climate Change in Canada , which the publisher describes this way: “The Big Stall traces the origins of the government’s climate change plan back to the energy sector itself — in particular Big Oil. It shows how, in the last fifteen years, Big Oil has infiltrated provincial and federal governments, academia, media and the non-profit sector to sway government and public opinion on the realities of climate change and what needs to be done about it.” (Interesting companion reading to this argument: an October report from the Parkland Institute and the Corporate Mapping Project, Who Owns Canada’s Fossil-Fuel Sector? Mapping the Network of Ownership & Control.)  The Big Stall  concludes that by framing the challenge as an opportunity for economic growth through clean technology, the government has failed to address climate change effectively.

UN2018bridging gap coverRecent studies continue to support the assessment that the world, including Canada,  has not done enough to meet its climate change goals, let alone the urgent need to decarbonize. The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) will release its annual Emissions Gap Report 2018  in November, but in a pre-release chapter released at the Global Climate Action Summit in September, the UNEP asserted that national governments are not meeting their Paris Agreement targets, and that non-state actors and sub-national governments are crucially important in closing the gap.

Time to Get on with It: The LCEI 2018: Tracking the Progress G20 Countries Have Made to Decarbonize Their Economies  was released in early October by PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) consultants.  Their Low Carbon Economy Index (LCEI) report states that in 2017, no country was on track with the decarbonization rate needed to achieve the Paris Agreement temperature goal, and ranks Canada as 14th out of 20.

brown to green 2018The Brown to Green Report 2018  released by Climate Transparency in November rates all the G20 nations on 80 indicators regarding decarbonisation, climate policies, finance and vulnerability to the impacts of climate change.  No G20 countries are on track to meet their targets ( Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Russia are ranked as worst ).The 15-page Canada Country Report  finds that Canada’s GHG emissions per capita are the highest of any G20 country at  22 (compared to a G20 country average of 8 ). Despite encouraging coal phase-out policies, “Canada’s NDC is not consistent with the Paris Agreement’s temperature limit but would lead to a warming between 3°C and 4°C. ”

Finally, for an academic treatment of this issue: “Warming assessment of the bottom-up Paris Agreement emissions pledges”  appeared in Nature Communications on November 16. It states that India is the only country close to being on track to meet a 2 degree target, and singles out Saudi Arabia, Russia, Canada and China as laggards.

Preview of the recommendations by Canada’s Just Transition Task Force

Hassan Yussuff head shotIn a November 5 article, “ Federal panel privately urges Trudeau government to do more for coal workers”  ,  National Observer reporter Carl Meyer reveals that the Just Transition Task Force Interim Report is already in the hands of the Minister of Environment and Climate Change, though not yet publicly available. Canada’s Just Transition Task Force was launched in April 2018 – an  11-member advisory group co-chaired by Canadian Labour Congress president Hassan Yussuff,  to “ provide advice on how to make the transition away from coal a fair one for workers and communities.”  The Task Force Terms of Reference   allowed for 9 months for the report; Environment and Climate Change Minister McKenna said on  November 2 : “We’re still reviewing the report, but as we talk about the need to power past coal and our commitment in Canada to phase out coal by 2030, we know there has to be a priority to supporting workers and communities.” A formal response is expected in November, and given the Minister’s leadership role in the international  Powering Past Coal Alliance and the public spotlight of the upcoming COP24 meetings in Katowice Poland in early December, that deadline is likely to be met.

The National Observer article of November 5, along with an April 2018 article about the Task Force launch, provide good background to the Task Force.  The new article emphasizes the different needs of different provinces – notably Alberta, Saskatchewan, New Brunswick, and Nova Scotia.  Most of the article is based on interviews with a few Task Force members.

But what are the Report’s Recommendations?  One member states that  “A lot of the recommendations are directly connected to what we heard from municipalities, from workers, from unions and from communities.”  The comments about the actual  recommendations are far from earth-shattering, but include:  1. Just Transition policies should be enshrined in legislation so that they are not as vulnerable to changing governments; 2. The  government should commit to infrastructure funding for municipalities in order to attract other businesses and offset job losses; 3. Support to workers should be extended, to help people quickly and efficiently access benefits like employment insurance, retraining, and relocation assistance.  These fall along the same lines as the 2017 Recommendations from the Alberta Advisory Panel  on Coal Communities , which are more detailed and which also accounted for First Nations issues.

A list of Task Force members is here. In addition to co-Chair Hassan Yussuff, there are members from the CLC, the Alberta Federation of Labour,  United Steelworkers, Unifor, and the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers.

 

Research and opinion support a carbon tax for Canada

Carbon taxes continue to be a hot topic in Canada for many reasons, including the October Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report , the Nobel Prize in Economics  to William Nordhaus, and the report from Ontario’s Financial Accountability Officer on October 16, which estimates that the cancelling the province’s cap and trade program will drive the provincial deficit up by $3 billion, ($841 million in the first fiscal year alone).  And as provinces rebel against the federal carbon pricing plans, the January 1 2019 deadline approaches, by which the federal government will impose its “backstop” carbon pricing on any province without it own equivalent carbon pricing regime in place.

In response to these developments, there are many responses.  Recent articles emphasize William Nordhaus’ work: for example, “Nordhaus Nobel Recognizes What We’ve Long Known: Carbon pricing works” by Scott Vaughan at the IISD ;  “Nobel award recognizes how economic forces can fight climate change” in The Conversation Canada (Oct. 9); “Hurricanes, hog manure and the dire need for carbon pricing” in The Conversation Canada (Oct. 14);  and “Opinion: To avoid catastrophic climate change we need carbon pricing” from the Ecofiscal Commission , one of Canada’s strongest proponents of carbon pricing.  From the horse’s mouth: “After Nobel in Economics, William Nordhaus Talks About Who’s Getting His Pollution-Tax Ideas Right”  (New York Times, Oct. 13),  in which William Nordhaus is interviewed by Coral Davenport and states:  “…. I think the model is British Columbia. .. It would have the right economic effects but politically not be so toxic. … British Columbia is not only well designed but has been politically successful.”

CARBON DIVIDENDS:  The issue of political acceptability of carbon taxes generated an academic discussion  in “Overcoming public resistance to carbon taxes” by Carattini  , Carvalho and  Fankhauser  in  WiRES Climate Change  in June 2018.  In Canada, a change in vocabulary in taking hold. “Carbon Dividends could save carbon pricing – and create a new national climate consensus”  say Mark Cameron (from Canadians for Clean Prosperity) and David McLaughlin (from the International Institute of Sustainable Development) in the Globe and Mail .   The commissioned studies released by   Canadians for Clean Prosperity in September showed  that most  households, regardless of income level, would receive more money in the form of carbon dividend cheques than they would pay in carbon taxes under the backstop plan.  They have produced estimates for Alberta, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Ontario, and New Brunswick, and maintain an online petition at a website called  Canadians for Carbon Dividends  .

rocky road tableIn  “The Rocky Road to Canada-wide Carbon Pricing,”  released by the C.D. Howe Institute on October 17,  author Tracy Snoddon from Wilfred Laurier University offers recommendations on how the revenues should be distributed after January 1, 2019, when the minimum carbon price backstop comes into force.  The author estimates carbon revenues of $ 2.8 billion in 2019 if the backstop was implemented in Ontario, Saskatchewan, New Brunswick, Newfoundland and Prince Edward Island. She recommends that the federal government should impose the backstop price and return the revenues as an equal per-capita rebate to residents- with the justification that such an approach minimizes intrusion in provincial fiscal matters, reinforces the environmental goals  rather than revenue generation, and is most progressive in its  distributional impacts.  A summary appears in the C.D. Howe press release  and in  “C.D. Howe Institute throws its weight behind federal carbon tax” in the Globe and Mail (Oct. 19).

put a price on itFinally, a new organization launched in October. Put A Price On It Canada promotes carbon pricing as a solution to climate change – and asks “why does Canada need another group fighting for carbon pricing?”  The difference: it aspires to be a national network to empower students on university campuses – currently at Simon Fraser University, the University of Ottawa, University of Waterloo, and Carleton University.

So in response to the  National Observer Opinion piece on October 18, asking  “Is it time to torch the carbon tax debate?” , the answer seems to be a strong “no”.

IPCC report prompts emergency debate in Canada’s House of Commons

The landmark report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in October, Global Warming of 1.5 ,  continues to generate debate and reaction around the world.  On October 15, Canada’s  House of Commons held an emergency debate on Global Warming.  Request for the debate was led by Elizabeth May, leader of the Green Party, and was joined by Members of Parliament from the New Democratic and  Liberal parties.  The Conservatives did not support the request, according to reports by both CBC  and the National Observer  .  The official Hansard transcript of the Emergency Debate is here in English  and in French  . Although the debate fell along partisan lines, it also provided opportunity for Members from across the country to highlight clean economy innovations within their own communities, and many made statements calling for actions, not just more debate.

MayElizabeth_GPFrom Elizabeth May’s website : “The issue tonight is not to debate Canada’s current carbon plan, Canada’s current climate plan. This is not a status quo debate. We should not be scoring political points because one party did this and another party did that. We should be here as humanity, human beings, elected people for our constituencies who know full well that if we do not change what we are doing as a species, we will face an unthinkable world. The good news is we still have a chance to save ourselves. ”

Further, she likens the current situation to the crisis of the Dunkirk evacuation in World War 2, and calls for  leadership like that shown by Winston Churchill:

“This is when we need our Prime Minister to go to the negotiations in Poland, or to dispatch the Minister of Environment to the negotiations in Poland, and say, “We are stepping up. We are going to rescue everybody. We are going to be the heroes in our own story. We are going to adopt what the IPCC says we must do: 45% reductions by 2030.” …. We need to tell Canadians that we have hope, to not despair or think it is too late. They should not turn away from the IPCC reports. They should not be afraid because we cannot breathe in British Columbia in the summer because of forest fires. They should not give up. We will rally and marshal every small town, every big city, every Canadian group, rotary clubs, church groups, and we will tell those naysayers who think that climate change is about a cash grab that they are in the way of our future and that they must get out of the way.”

Canada launches consultation on vehicle emissions regulations under cloud of Trump rollbacks

pick up truckOn August 20, Canada’s Minister of Environment and Climate Change published a Discussion Paper  to launch consultations on the mid-term evaluation of Canada’s light-duty vehicle greenhouse gas emission regulations for the 2022–2025 model years.  Public comments may be submitted to ec.infovehiculeetmoteur-vehicleandengineinfo.ec@canada.ca by September 28, 2018. Once comments have been reviewed, if the government determines that regulatory changes are needed, it promises a second consultation period.  One of the first off the mark with a response: Clean Energy Canada, with “Canada should explore stronger vehicle standards to cut pollution and enhance competitiveness” .

The mid-term review is required by the 2014 regulations under which Canada currently operates, but it comes at a time when Canada must decide whether to continue to align its fuel efficiency standards with the U.S., as it has done for 20 years, or follow its own path.  The current Canadian trajectory is shaped by our GHG reduction commitments under the Paris Agreement, the Pan-Canadian Framework for Clean Growth and Climate Change  , and a 2017 commitment  to develop a  national Zero-Emissions Vehicle Strategy by 2018.

But in the  U.S. ,  on August 2, the Trump administration announced the Safer Affordable Fuel Efficient Vehicle Rule (SAFER) , which proposes weakening the EPA’s greenhouse gas emissions standards and Department of Transportation’s Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards for light duty vehicles in model years 2021 through 2025. The proposed rule  would also revoke a legal waiver which allows California and 13 other states to set their own pollution standards. Based on arguments made in the document  Make Cars Great Again , published by the Wall Street Journal, the Trump plan claims it will save $500 billion in “societal costs,” avert thousands of highway fatalities and save consumers an estimated $2,340 on each new automobile.   Most of the Administration’s arguments are refuted in  “Five Important points about the Safe Vehicle Rule”  by the Sabin School of Law at Columbia University. Other critiques: from Vox: “Trump is freezing Obama’s fuel economy standards. Here’s what that could do”  (Aug. 2); and “The EPA refuted its own bizarre justification for rolling back fuel efficiency standards” (Aug. 16);  “Trump administration to freeze fuel-efficiency requirements in move likely to spur legal battle with states” in the Washington Post (Aug. 2)  ; “Trump’s Auto Efficiency Rollback: Losing the Climate Fight, 1 MPG at a Time” by Inside Climate News (Aug. 2) .

What should Canada do? Technical analysis comes in   Automobile production in Canada and implications for Canada’s 2025 passenger vehicle greenhouse gas standards, released by the International Council on Clean Transportation in April 2018, which analyzes the Canadian vehicle manufacturing market and sales patterns and describes the possible impacts if Canada  aligns weakens its greenhouse gas emission standards with the Trump administration,  or maintains its existing standards and aligns with California.  Other opinions: From Clean Energy Canada on Aug. 2 ,  “Canada should hold firm and reject Trump’s efforts to roll back vehicle standards” ;  or “On vehicle emissions standards It’s time Canada divorced the United States”   in Policy Options (April 2018); and  “Trump’s plan to scare Americans into supporting car pollution” in the National Observer (Aug. 7) .

Federal budget gets high marks for conservation initiatives but disappoints on green economy spending

Budget 2018, Equality + Growth: A Strong Middle Class   was tabled by the federal government on February 27.  The Globe and Mail published a concise overview in  “Federal budget highlights: Twelve things you need to know” .  A compilation of reaction and analysis from the Canadian Centre for Policy Analysis is here , including statements from CCPA partner organizations such as the United Steelworkers   and the Canadian Labour Congress.

budget_analysis 2018The section of the Budget which relates most to a low carbon economy is in Chapter 4: Advancement .  The Budget commits an unprecedented $1.3 billion over 5 years for conservation partnerships and the protection of lands, waters, and species at risk – prompting the Pew Trust in the U.S. to call the biodiversity targets “an example to the world” in  “With earth in peril, Canada steps up” .  Responses from the 19 environmental advocacy members of the Green Budget Coalition are compiled here , applauding the  “historic” and “landmark” investments in the Budget.  DeSmog Canada summarizes the provisions, which aim to protect 17 per cent of land and 10 per cent of oceans by 2020 under the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity, and commit to recognizing  Indigenous leadership.

But on the climate change front?

The National Observer writes: “Budget delivers new conservation fund but avoids climate commitments” (Feb. 27) , highlighting the Budget allocations announced for the  the  $2.6 Billion Low Carbon Economy Fund  (announced in 2016) : $420 million will go to Ontario, for retrofitting houses and reducing emissions from farms;  $260 million will go to  Quebec for farming and forestry best practices, as well as energy retrofitting, and incentives for industry;  $162 million will go to British Columbia, partly for reforestation of public forests; $150 million will go to Alberta for energy efficiency programs for farmers and ranchers, for  renewable energy in Indigenous communities, and for restoring forests after wildfires;  $51 million is going to New Brunswick and $56 million to Nova Scotia for energy retrofitting. Allocations for Manitoba will be announced later, and for Saskatchewan if it signs on to the Pan-Canadian Framework.

The Pembina Institute reaction is also fairly positive in  “Budget 2018 builds on last year’s commitment to climate change” . “We are pleased to see that Budget 2018 allocates $109 million over five years to develop, implement, administer, and enforce the federal carbon pollution pricing system. …Another $20 million over five years is allocated to fulfill the PCF’s (Pan-Canadian Framework on Clean Growth and Climate Change) commitment to assess the effectiveness of its measures and identify best practices. ”

Less positive reaction:  “Council of Canadians disappointed by Trudeau government’s budget 2018” (Feb.27), which  points out that the government has allocated $600 million to host the G7 summit in June 2018 in Quebec,  yet the Budget fails to phase out subsidies for the fossil fuel industry, as it committed to at the G20 meetings and in the October 2015 election.  Elizabeth May of the Green Party also “laments squandered opportunities” and points out that “Budget 2018 does not touch subsidies to fossil fuels in the oil patch and for fracked natural gas”.

In advance of Budget 2018, the Canadian Labour Congress published “What Canada’s unions would like to see in the federal budget” – a broad perspective which included a call for “a  bold green economic program of targeted investments over the next five years for renewable energy development and infrastructure” … and “ the establishment of Just Transition training and adjustment funds for workers affected by climate change and the transition to a low-carbon economy, automation, the digitisation of work, and job losses caused by trade agreements like CETA.” The CLC response  to the actual Budget emphasizes the positive  developments on issues like pharmacare and pay equity, but is silent on the green economy issues. Canadian Union of Public Employees’ reaction is similar.

 

National Energy Board is a casualty of Canada’s new legislation for environmental assessment

On February 8, following 14 months of consultation and review, the Minister of Environment and Climate Change introduced the mammoth Bill C-69 An Act to enact the Impact Assessment Act and the Canadian Energy Regulator Act, to amend the Navigation Protection Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts  . The government press release from Environment and Climate Change Canada highlights these talking points about the proposed legislation-  It will:  Restore public trust through increased public participation; Included transparent, science-based decisions; Achieve more comprehensive impact assessments by expanding the types of impacts studied to include health, social and economic impacts, as well as impacts on Indigenous Peoples, over the long-term. Also, it promises  “One project, one review” – through a new Impact Assessment Agency, (replacing the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency) which will be the lead agency, working with a new Canadian Energy Regulator (replacing the National Energy Board), as well as the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission and Offshore Boards.  Further, it will make decisions timely; Revise the project list; Protect water, fish and navigation ; and Increase funding.  The detailed government  explanation of the changes  is here ; other summaries appeared in the National Observer in “ McKenna unveils massive plan to overhaul Harper environmental regime”  ; “Ottawa to scrap National Energy Board, overhaul environmental assessment process for major projects”   in CBC News; and in the reaction by The Council of Canadians, which expresses reservations about the protection of navigable waters, and these “Quick Observations”:
“1- the current industry-friendly Calgary-based National Energy Board would be replaced by a proposed Calgary-based (and likely industry-friendly) Canadian Energy Regulator
2- it includes the ‘one project, one review’ principle as demanded by industry
3- assessments of major projects must be completed within two years, a ‘predictable timeline’ also demanded by industry
4- the bill notes the ‘traditional knowledge of the Indigenous Peoples of Canada’ but does not include the words ‘free, prior and informed consent’, a key principle of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples
5- McKenna said that no current projects (including the Kinder Morgan pipeline which crosses more than 1,300 water courses) would be sent back to ‘the starting line’
6- the government is seeking to implement the law by mid-2019.”

An overview of other reaction appears in   “New Federal Environmental Assessment Law Earns Praise from Climate Hawks, Cautious Acceptance from Fossils” from the Energy Mix.  Reaction from West Coast Environmental Law (WCEL) is here ; and from  Environmental Defence here .  The Canadian Environmental Law Association sees some forward progress but warns that “the Impact Assessment Act is marred by a number of serious flaws that must be fixed in the coming months.”    Reaction from the Pembina Institute says “Today’s legislation improves the federal assessment process by centralizing authority for impact assessment under a single agency; providing a broader set of criteria for assessing projects including impacts to social and health outcomes; and removing the limitations on public participation that were put in place in 2012…. Building on today’s legislation, we would like to see progress towards the establishment of an independent Canadian Energy Information Agency to ensure that project reviews include Paris Agreement-compliant supply and demand scenarios for coal, oil and gas.”

Companion legislation, also the product of the lengthy Environmental Regulation Review, was introduced on February 6, Bill C-68 An Act to amend the Fisheries Act and other Acts in consequence  (Press release is here ; there is also a Backgrounder comparing the old and new legislation). Most importantly, Bill C-68 restores a stronger protection of fish and fish habitat – the HADD provision – to the definition used before the 2012 amendments by the Harper government. (HADD = the harmful alteration, disruption or destruction of fish habitat).  Reaction is generally very favourable:   The David Suzuki Foundation says : “The most important changes we were looking for are part of these amendments” and West Coast Environmental Law says that the proposed legislation   “meets the mark”.  Reaction is also favourable from the Ecology Action Centre in Halifax . And from the Alberta Environmental Law Centre, some background in “Back to what we once HADD: Fisheries Act Amendments are Introduced” .

no consentAnd finally, where does the new environmental assessment process leave Canada’s Indigenous people?  The new legislation includes the creation of an Indigenous Advisory Committee and requires that an expert on Indigenous rights be included on the board of  the new Canadian Energy Regulator body, according to a CBC report, “Indigenous rights question remains in Ottawa’s planned environmental assessment overhaul” . Minister McKenna is also quoted as saying the government will “try really hard” to conform to the principles of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples   – a statement that is not satisfactory to some Indigenous leaders.    See “Indigenous consultation and environmental assessments” (Feb. 7)  in Policy Options for a discussion of the issue of “free, prior and informed consent”.  On February 7, Private member’s Bill C-262, an Act to Harmonize Canada’s Laws with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples passed 2nd reading in the House of Commons.

Canada needs a mix of reactive and proactive Just Transition policies across the country

Hadrian Decarbonization coverMaking Decarbonization Work for Workers: Policies for a just transition to a zero-carbon economy”  was released by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives on January 25th.  In light of  the federal government’s pledge to launch a Task Force on Just Transition in 2018, this report makes a unique contribution by using census data to identify the regions in each province with the greatest reliance on fossil fuel jobs. While fossil fuel dependence is overwhelmingly concentrated in Alberta, with a few “hot spots” in Saskatchewan and British Columbia, the report identifies communities from other provinces where fossil fuel jobs represent a significant part of the local economy – for example, Bay Roberts, Newfoundland; Cape Breton, Nova Scotia; Saint John, New Brunswick; Sarnia, Ontario.  The report also makes the useful distinction between “reactive”  just transition policies, which are intended to minimize the harm to workers of decarbonization, and “pro-active” just transition policies, which are intended to maximize the benefits.   The author argues that, if the broad goal of a just transition is to ensure an equitable, productive outcome for all workers in the zero-carbon economy, a mix of reactive and proactive elements is necessary. Thus,  a national just transition strategy is required for fossil fuel-dependent communities, but workers in any industry facing job loss and retraining costs will also need support from enhanced social security programs.  In addition, governments must invest in workforce development programs to ensure there are enough skilled workers to fill the new jobs which will be created by the zero-carbon economy.

Making Decarbonization Work for Workers is  a co-publication by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives and the Adapting Canadian Work and Workplaces to Respond to Climate Change research program . The author is  CCPA researcher Hadrian Mertins-Kirkwood.

Federal government releases detailed proposals for Canada’s carbon pricing system, including output-based pricing for industrial emitters

On January 15, the Minister of Environment and Climate Change and the Minister of Finance issued a press release  announcing the full draft legislative proposals relating to the carbon pricing system. Public comment will be accepted until February 12, 2018.   The full text of  Legislative and Regulatory Proposals Relating to the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act and Explanatory Notes are in English  and French versions . Comment on the legislative proposals will be accepted until April 9, 2018, with “structured engagement” and consultation with provinces and territories, Indigenous Peoples, environmental non-governmental organizations, industry, and business promised over the Winter/Spring of 2018.

Minister McKenna also released for comment the proposed regulatory framework for carbon pricing for large industrial facilities – an Output-based Pricing System (OBPS), with the aim “to minimize competitiveness risks for emissions-intensive, trade-exposed industrial facilities, while retaining the carbon price signal and incentive to reduce GHG emissions.   Emission sources covered by OBPS will include fuel combustion, industrial process, flaring, and some venting and fugitive sources – but notably, “Methane venting and methane fugitive emissions from oil and gas facilities will not be subject to pricing under the OBPS.”  The system will include emissions of all seven of the UNFCCC-designated greenhouse gases, “to the extent practicable” – carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, sulfur hexafluoride and nitrogen trifluoride. Details are  in Carbon pricing: regulatory framework for the output-based pricing system  (French version here) , and  build on the Technical Paper : Federal Carbon Pricing Backstop (French version here) , released in May 2017.

Leading up to the January release, the federal government had released clarification about the timing of  the planned backstop carbon pricing mechanism on December 20, 2017 – it  will come into effect by January 2019, bringing the carbon price to $20 per tonne in any jurisdiction that doesn’t meet the federal benchmark.  Full details are set out in:  Supplemental Benchmark GuidanceTimelines , and the Letter to Ministers . Generally positive reaction followed, from the Pembina Institute  and  Clean Energy Canada.

Initial reaction/summary of the proposed legislation released on January 15:  “Ottawa’s new carbon pricing plan will reward clean companies” from CBC,  and from the Globe and Mail, “Ottawa prepares to relax carbon-pricing measures to aid industry competitiveness” .  More substantive comment comes from the National Observer, in  “Trudeau government explains how it will make polluters pay” (Jan. 15).  Reaction from Environmental Defence came from Keith Brooks , who calls the proposed plan “an effective and fair pan-Canadian carbon pricing system.”  Reaction from  Clean Energy Canada is similar.

Meanwhile, in Alberta: Note also that the province of Alberta released their new Carbon Competitiveness Incentive Regulation (CCIR) for large industrial emitters in December 2017, also based on an output-based allocation system.  Carbon Competitiveness Incentive regulations replaced the current Specified Gas Emitters Regulation (SGER) on Jan 1, 2018, and will be phased in over 3 years.  It’s expected to cut emissions by 20 million tonnes by 2020, and 50 million tonnes by 2030.  Favourable testimonials from the oil and gas, wind energy, and cement industry are quoted in the government press release on December 6.

To explain output-based carbon pricing, the Ecofiscal Commission published Output-Based Pricing: Theory and Practice in the Canadian context , by Dave Sawyer and Seton Stiebert of EnviroEconomics in early December.  The highlights of the paper are summarized here, with a discussion of the pros and cons and challenges of implementation, with special attention to Alberta’s provisions.

Canada’s progress on emissions reduction: New reports from OECD, UNFCCC , and policy discussion

An excellent overview article about Canada’s  “staggering challenge” and policy options to meet its emissions reduction targets appeared in The Conversation on January  11, 2018),  written by Warren Mabee, Director of the  Institute for Energy and Environmental Policy at Queen’s University and a Co-Investigator in  the Adapting Canadian Work and Workplaces to Respond to Climate Change (  ACW) project.   “How your online shopping is impeding Canada’s emissions targets”  outlines  the issues of clean electricity, transportation emissions (where your online shopping can make a difference), greener homes,  and rethinking fossil resources, and concludes that  “If we’re to succeed, Canada will need an integrated, holistic suite of policies – and we need them to be in place soon.”

oecd-environmental-performance-reviews-canada-2017_9789264279612-enOther recent publications take stock of Canada’s emissions reductions in greater detail.  In its  3rd Environmental Performance Review for Canada released on December 19, the OECD warns that  “Without a drastic decrease in the emissions intensity of the oilsands industry, the projected increase in oil production may seriously risk the achievement of Canada’s climate mitigation targets… …“Canada is the fourth-largest emitter of greenhouse gasses in the OECD [in absolute terms], and emissions show no sign of falling yet.”  Canada’s emissions actually did decrease since the last report was issued in 2004, but only by 1.5 per cent compared to reduction of 4.7 per cent by the OECD as a whole.  In addition to the impact of oil sands production, the OECD singles out a regime of poor tax incentives: “Petrol and diesel taxes for road use are among the lowest in the OECD, fossil fuels used for electricity and heating remain untaxed or taxed at low rates in most jurisdictions, and the federal excise tax on fuel-inefficient vehicles is an ineffective incentive to purchase low-emission vehicles.”

The OECD analysis finds support in a report from two researchers from the University of Toronto, in “How the oil sands make our GHG targets unachievable”   in Policy Options.  They state: “… only with a complete phase-out of oil production from the oil sands, elimination of coal for electricity generation, significant replacement of natural-gas-fuelled electricity generation with electricity from carbon-free sources, and stringent efficiency measures in all other sectors of the economy could Canada plausibly meet its 30 percent target.” The authors recommend a  gradual (12-to-15-year) phase-out of oil sands operations, with workers and capital redeployed to emerging sectors  such as renewable energy and building retrofits, and contend that  the importance of oil sands production is overstated. “….  the direct contribution of the entire oil, gas and mining sector to Alberta’s 2016 GDP was 16.4 percent, of which oil sands mining and processing was likely about one-third (or 5 to 6 percent of total provincial GDP)” ….and oil sands oil production is estimated to account for only 2 percent of Canadian GDP.”

Yet the federal government continues the difficult balancing act of a  “have-it-all” approach – for example, in a speech by Natural Resources Minister Jim Carr  in November 2017, in which he defended the approval of the Trans Mountain Pipeline with: “We need to prepare for the future, but we must deal with the present …..That means continuing to support our oil and gas resources even as we develop alternatives – including solar, wind and tidal…. new pipelines will diversify our markets, be built with improved environmental safety and create thousands of good middle-class jobs, including in Indigenous communities. They were the right decisions then and they are the right ones now. ” A recent blog by Patrick DeRochie of Environmental Defence, “Trudeau Thinks We Can Expand Oil And Still Reduce Carbon. Let’s Put That To A Test” , challenges this view .

On December 29, Canada issued a press release announcing that it has submitted its Seventh National Communication and Third Biennial Report to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change , required by the UNFCCC to document progress towards its 2030 greenhouse gas emissions reduction goal of 30% reduction from 2005 levels.  The title of the government press release, “Canada’s Climate action is Working, Report to United Nations Confirms” is justified by including estimates of the effects of policies still under development in a “with additional measures scenario”. Under that scenario, the government forecasts an emissions decline across all economic sectors,  equivalent to approximately a third of Canada’s emissions in 2015 by 2030… ”

Meanwhile, the federal government has released a number of announcements and legislative proposals in December 2017 and January 2018. Regarding  the planned carbon pricing backstop under the Pan-Canadian Framework, which will come into effect by January 2019:  Details are set out in:  Supplemental Benchmark Guidance   Timelines ,  and the Letter to Ministers in December, and on January 15, the  proposed carbon backstop  legislative framework was released as Legislative and Regulatory Proposals Relating to the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act and Explanatory Notes (French version here) .  Also on January 15, the federal government released for comment the proposed regulatory framework for  carbon pricing for large industrial facilities – an Output-based Pricing System (OBPS) described in more detail in a separate WCR post here.

On December 12, the  Clean Fuel Standard Regulatory Framework was released for comment.  The government has also committed to developing a national strategy for zero emission vehicles in 2018 to increase the supply of zero-emission vehicles.

Also on December 12, and capping six months of consultation under the banner Generation Energy,  the Minister of Natural Resources announced the creation of a 14-member Generation Energy Council to be co-chaired by Merran Smith,  Executive Director of Clean Energy Canada, and Linda Coady, Chief Sustainability Officer at Enbridge. (Bios of all members are here ). The council is tasked with preparing a  report to advise the government on an “ energy policy that ensures meaningful engagement with Indigenous peoples; aligns with Canada’s Paris Agreement commitments and the Pan-Canadian Framework on Clean Growth and Climate Change; and complements the work being done by the provinces and territories, building on the shared priorities identified at the Federal, Provincial and Territorial Ministers Meeting at the Forum.”

 

 

 

 

Clean Technology Employment in Canada – new data from two Statistics Canada releases

Aerial view of the National Wind Technology Center; wind turbines

A December 15 article in Energy Mix reported   “More Canadians working in green jobs than in oil patch”; the National Observer wrote   “ There are nearly 300,000 high-paying clean tech jobs in Canada”.      Both articles  were based on data released by Statistics Canada on December 13 from its new  Environmental and Clean Technology Products Economic Account survey.  Statistics Canada estimates that  274,000 jobs were attributable to environmental and clean technology activity in 2016, accounting for 1.5% of jobs in the Canadian economy.   This represents a growth of 4.5% since 2007 – but at a time when employment in the economy as a whole grew 8.4%.  The good news of the data shows higher than average annual labour compensation per job (including benefits) for environmental and clean technology jobs –  $92,000, compared with an economy-wide average of $59,900.  This is largely because of the inclusion of electricity and waste management – without those two sectors, the average compensation per job was $82,000.

Environmental and Clean Technology Products Economic Account, 2007 to 2016   is a 3-page summary report; full, interactive data is provided in  CANSIM tables , including a separate table for employment .

Smaller employment numbers are reported by the  Survey of Environmental Goods and Services (SEGS), most recently published on December 12, 2017, and providing data from 2015.  Amongst the findings: “Ontario ($600 million) and Quebec ($247 million) businesses exported almost $850 million worth of environmental and clean technology goods and services in 2015. This accounted for 71.7% of all Canadian exports in this sector…..  In 2015, about 11,000 people held environmental and clean technology positions in Ontario, while almost 4,000 people were employed in this sector in Quebec. Waste management services provided jobs for another 15,000 people in Ontario and 7,000 people in Quebec.”  CANSIM Tables for the SEGS are here , including a table showing employment by region of Canada.

How to explain the differences? The Environmental and Clean Technology Products Economic Account includes clean energy, waste management, environmental and clean technology manufacturing industries, and technical services, which gives it  a broader scope than the Survey of Environmental Goods and Services (SEGS), as explained here .

Corporate Climate Risk Disclosure needed to protect Pensions

To protect pensions, companies should be required to come clean on climate risk” writes Keith Stewart of Greenpeace Canada in an Opinion piece in the National Observer on November 27.  Stewart reports that Greenpeace Canada has filed a formal request under Ontario’s Environmental Bill of Rights, for the Ontario government to review the need for mandatory disclosure of climate-related risks in corporations’ financial filings. The government’s response is expected by the end of 2017.  This is the latest of recent and ongoing calls for increased corporate disclosure of the risks posed by climate change,  to protect investors and financial stability.  The issue has even made it to the conservative Report on Business of the Toronto Globe and Mail newspaper, in  “Business risk from climate change now top of mind for Canada’s corporate boards” (November 22)  . The article warns that Canada’s  stock markets are  particularly vulnerable to a potential “carbon bubble” in the valuations of fossil-fuel-dependent companies, given that the Toronto Stock Exchange is so heavily weighted with energy and mining companies (20 per cent for that category, as compared with only 2 per cent for clean technology and renewable-energy companies).  And that’s not the worst:  on the TSX Venture Exchange, mining and oil and gas companies account for 68 per cent of the index.  (Such a resource sector dependency was part of the reasoning given by the Norweigian Wealth Fund for its proposal to divest oil and gas investments (Nov. 16)).

Another related Globe and Mail article provides an excuse for the current state of climate risk disclosure in Canada in  “Companies Looking to Report Environmental Data Also Navigate Inconsistent Frameworks” (Nov. 22) . The article states that “There is a dizzying number of best-practice guidelines for climate disclosures” and lists the major ones – with information drawn largely from the Carrots & Sticks database . In fact, Carrots & Sticks lists  nine sustainability reporting instruments unique to Canada, in addition to widely-recognized international ones such as the Principles for Responsible Investment (PRI) Reporting Framework  and the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises  .  (Carrots & Sticks  is an initiative begun in 2006 by KPMG International, Stichting Global Reporting Initiative, UNEP, and the Centre for Corporate Governance in Africa, with the goal of encouraging and harmonizing financial disclosure guidelines.)

Most recently, the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures, led by Marc Carney and Michael Bloomberg, released their  landmark Final Report and Recommendations in 2016. The following Canadian pension funds have, at least on paper, supported it:  Canada Pension Plan Investment Board, Ontario Teachers’ Pension Plan, OPTrust, the Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec and the British Columbia Investment Management Corporation.  The Canadian Securities Administrators  launched a Climate Change Disclosure Review  in March 2017 to investigate and consult re Canadian practice, which will issue a report “upon completion of its review”.

And across the globe in Australia, the  Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA), the  regulator of the financial industry, has  also announced an industry-wide review of climate-related disclosure practices.  On November 29, an Executive Board member of the APRA delivered a speech, “The weight of money: A business case for climate risk resilience” , in which he outlines the Australian perspective on climate-related financial risks, and states:  “So while the debate continues about the physical risks, the transition to a low carbon economy is underway, and that means the so-called transition risks are unavoidable: changes to market sentiment, new financial or environmental regulations, or the emergence of new technologies with the potential to prompt a reassessment of the value of a large range of assets, and consequently the value of capital and investments.”  The speech is summarized in The Guardian.

66% of Canada’s energy in 2015 came from renewable sources, and other facts

NEB Revenewables coverA Canadian Press story in early May highlighted that renewable energy accounted for 66% of energy generated in Canada in 2015, and appeared widely –  for example, in  the Globe and Mail (May 2) and the Toronto Star . The information behind the news was drawn  from  Canada’s Adoption of Renewable Power Sources – Energy Market Analysis May 2017  by the National Energy Board , which provides much more detail about each type of renewable energy, and notes the factors influencing their adoption rates (including costs, technological improvement, environmental considerations, and regulatory issues).  The NEB also compares  Canada to other countries, and perhaps most interestingly,  includes a section on Emerging Technologies , which highlights tidal power, off-shore wind, and geothermal.  Canada has no existing production capacity for either off-shore wind or geothermal, although the report outlines proposed developments.

Some highlights from the Canada’s Adoption of Renewable Power Sources: the 2015 proportion of 66% renewables in our energy mix is an increase from 60% in 2005;  only five countries (Norway, New Zealand, Brazil, Austria, and Denmark) produce a similar or larger share of electricity from renewable sources; China leads the world in total hyroelectricity production – Canada is second; over 98% of Canada’s solar power generation capacity is located in Ontario.

Other useful NEB publications:   Canada’s Renewable Power Landscape (October 2016), which documents historical growth rates for renewable power in Canada, and each province and territory, and for the latest in energy projections, see Canada’s Energy Future 2016: Update – Energy Supply and Demand Projections to 2040 . These projections, which include fossil fuels as well as renewables,  were published in October 2016 and therefore don’t reflect the policies of the Pan-Canadian Framework on Clean Growth and Climate Change.

Canadian GHG emissions decreased by 2.2% from 2005, according to the latest report to UNFCCC

The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) posted the National Inventory Reports of greenhouse gas emissions from most countries of the world in the second week of April 2017, including   Canada’s National Inventory Report 1990–2015: Greenhouse Gas Sources and Sinks in Canada.   The full 3-part report, available only at the UNFCC website, is an exhaustive inventory emissions of GHG’s, including carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, perfluorocarbons, hydrofluorocarbons, sulphur hexafluoride, and nitrogen trifluoride, reported for the country and for each province and territory.  Statistics are given for five economic sectors, as defined and required by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) :  Energy, Industrial Processes and Product Use, Agriculture, Waste, and Land Use, and Land-Use Change and Forestry (LULUCF).  An Executive Summary is posted at Environment and Climate Change Canada, and includes statistics using Canadian economic sector definitions.

A few  highlights:  In 2013; Canada represented approximately 1.6% of total global GHG emissions. Canada remains one of the highest per capita emitters, although that is decreasing since 2005 and was the lowest yet in 2015,  at 20.1 tons.  In 2015, Canada’s GHG emissions were 722 megatonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent – a net decrease of  2.2% from 2005 .  The Energy Sector ( as defined by IPCC, consisting of Stationary Combustion Sources, Transport, and Fugitive Sources) emitted 81% of Canada’s total GHG emissions;  Agriculture emitted  8%; Industrial Processes  and Product Use emitted 7%; the  Waste Sector emitted 3%.

Using Canadian economic sector definitions, our Oil and Gas sector showed a 20% increase in emissions from 2005 to 2015; Transportation increased by  6% in that time.

Nationally, we posted a 31% decrease in emissions associated with electricity production. The permanent closure of all coal generating stations in the province of Ontario by 2014 was the determinant factor.

emissions by province 2015

From:  National Inventory Report 1990 – 2015 Greenhouse Gas Sources and Sinks in Canada; Figure S-9 Emissions by Province in 2005, 2010, and 2015

 

 

Is Europe on track to meet its Paris commitments? Is Canada?

Carbon Market Watch released a policy briefing report in March which found that only Sweden, Germany and France are making successful efforts towards meeting their Paris Agreement targets.   EU Climate Leader Board: Where Countries Stand On The Effort Sharing Regulation – Europe’s Largest Climate Tool  ranked the EU nations  for their actions towards meeting the Effort Sharing Regulation (ESR), currently under negotiation  to set binding 2021-2030 national emission reduction targets for sectors not covered in the Emission Trading Scheme (ETS), including transport, buildings, agriculture and waste.    “Only three member states on track to meet Paris goals“, appeared  in the EurActiv newsletter, summarizing  the report and pointing  to many failings by member nations, including some “who exploited loopholes in United Nations forestry rules to pocket carbon credits worth €600 million”.   The National Observer noted the Climate Market Watch report in “Here`s How Europe ranks in the race against climate change” ,  and  asks “Where does that leave Canada?” .  As part of its own answer, the article  cites a report in The National Post newspaper on March 30: “Secret briefing says up to $300-per-tonne federal carbon tax by 2050 required to meet climate targets” . The article is based on a briefing note to the Minister of  Environment and Climate Change in November 2015, obtained through a Freedom of Information request.  The briefing note tells the Minister that in order to meet Canada’s 2030 emissions targets, a carbon price of $100 per tonne would need to be in place by 2020, with a price as high as $300 per tonne by 2050. The current national price for those provinces who agreed to the the Pan-Canadian Framework is $10 per tonne, rising to $50 per tonne by 2022.

Another  answer to the question, “where does that leave Canada?”  might  be the report released by Environment and Climate Change Canada: Canadian Environmental Sustainability Indicators: Progress Towards Canada’s Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Target , which shows that Canada could be emitting at least 30% more GHG emissions than promised by 2030.  The report, however, is based on the policies in place as of November, 2016 –  before the current Pan-Canadian Framework on Clean Growth and Climate Change.  The government is downplaying its own report, calling it only a set of “plausible outcomes”, rather than a forecast.

 

 

 

 

How will Canada’s 2017 Budget support the environment and green job creation?

The shocking budget cuts proposed   by  the Trump administration on March 16  will make it easier for  Canada’s Finance Minister  to shine when the Canadian  Budget for 2017  is unveiled  on March 22.  Once made public, the Budget document will be available here .   Amongst the “10 Things Unions are looking for in Budget 2017” , released by the Canadian Labour Congress on March 15,   #6 is “Green Job Creation”. Mirroring the language of the Clean Growth Century initiative, the CLC states: “Canada needs to envision the next hundred years as a Clean Growth Century, and we know it can be done in a way that is economically and socially responsible, without leaving behind workers and their communities. Budget 2017 should kick off ambitious programs to expand renewable energy generation, support home and building retrofits and dramatically increase the scale and quality of public transit in Canada.” Many other proposals  were outlined in the CLC’s Submission to the House of Commons Finance Committee in the pre-Budget consultations , including:  green bonds; expanded access to Labour Market Development Assistance programs  and skills development for workers in the oil and gas, mining, steel production, and manufacturing industries; and renewable energy policies to improve access to renewable energy and facilitate local, renewable energy projects  and reduce dependency on diesel in remote and First Nations communities.

Green Budget Coalition cover 2017The Green Budget Coalition  represents sixteen of Canada’s largest environmental and conservation organizations.  Their Submission regarding the 2017 Budget (November 2016)  includes economic proposals  – including an end to fossil fuel subsidies, and a carbon tax set at a realistic level based on the Social Cost of Carbon.  With their strong, green focus, the Green Budget Coalition also includes specific proposals regarding conservation issues – freshwater resources, oceans and fisheries, habitat protection, and air quality.  One specific, unique proposal relating to air quality – because of  the link between radon and lung cancer, a federal income tax credit for individuals and small-scale landlords of 15 percent of the cost of radon mitigation work. Each recommendation is written by an expert member of the coalition, with specific, costed proposals and an indication of the federal government department needed to take the lead on action.

The Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives is well-known for its  Alternative Budget,  CCPA alternative budget 2017which takes a broader approach to the  inequalities of the economy . Some of its main recommendations in the 2017 edition:  a federal minimum wage of $15 an hour, indexed to inflation; a national pharmacare program; improved access to child care; elimination of post-secondary education tuition; and  investment  in First Nations housing, water, infrastructure and education.   The full report is titled High Stakes, Clear Choices.  Proposals relating to Just Transition are mainly outlined in the section on Employment Insurance (page 60) , which frames it as  “a major opportunity to move unemployed, underemployed, and low-paid workers into better jobs as a part of a strategic response to meeting our climate change targets. We can expand access to EI training programs with a focus on labour adjustment and transition. That way, Canadian workers could benefit from the transition to a green economy by accessing new, green jobs created by public investment programs and sector strategies.” Other (costed) proposals  regarding the environment and climate change (page 63) : an end to federal fossil fuel subsidies; reinstatement of  energy efficiency incentive programs;   assessment of the environmental impact of energy, tar sands, mining developments;  and reinstatement of water programs at Environment and Climate Change Canada and Fisheries and Oceans Canada.

Trudeau welcomes Trump’s Keystone pipeline decision – can we really have it both ways?

The House of Commons Standing Committee on Natural Resources delivered its report on The Future of Canada’s Oil and Gas Industry  in September 2016; see the WCR coverage from September here.   On January 19, the Government released its Official Response to the Committee Report, with this introductory statement: “It is clear to our Government that in order for the energy sector to continue to be a driver of prosperity and play a part in meeting global demand for energy, resource development must go hand in hand with the environmental and social demands of Canadians.”  Not surprising then, that when Donald Trump opened the door for construction of the Keystone Pipeline on January 24, Justin Trudeau and his cabinet members welcomed the news .

ccpa_extractedcarbon_shareYet author Marc Lee reinforces what others have stated in his January 25 article in CCPA Policy Notes.   “Canada can’t have it both ways on environment”  demonstrates that “the amount of fossil fuel removed from Canadian soil that ends up in the atmosphere as carbon dioxide—has grown dramatically. ”  Although not technically “counted” in our own emissions reporting under the Paris Agreement, the emissions from Canada’s fossil fuel exports, counted in the countries where they are burned, is greater than Canada’s total GHG emissions within the country.  Lee goes on: “Based on our share of global fossil fuel reserves, Canada could continue to extract carbon at current levels for between 11 and 24 years at most (the smaller the carbon budget, the less the damages from climate change). This means a planned, gradual wind-down of these industries needs to begin immediately.”

Marc Lee’s article summarizes  a more complete report he authored for the Corporate Mapping Project, jointly led by the University of Victoria, Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives and the Parkland Institute.  Extracted Carbon: Re-examining Canada’s contribution to climate change through fossil fuel exports  updates a 2011 CCPA report, Peddling GHGs: What is the Carbon Footprint of Canada’s Fossil Fuel Exports?  in the context of the Paris Agreement and Canada’s contribution to the global carbon budget.  It concludes that “Plans to further grow Canada’s exports of fossil fuels are thus contradictory to the spirit and intentions of the Paris Agreement. Growing our exports could only happen if some other producing countries agreed to keep their fossil fuel reserves in the ground.  The problem with new fossil fuel infrastructure projects, like Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) plants and bitumen pipelines, is that they lock us in to a high-emissions trajectory for several decades to come, giving up on the 1.5 to 2°C limits of Paris.”  It follows that “Canadian climate policy must consider supply-side measures such as rejecting new fossil fuel infrastructure and new leases for exploration and drilling, increasing royalties, and eliminating fossil fuel subsidies.”

Kinder Morgan, Keystone pipelines move closer to reality as Canada is warned about its carbon budget

Prime Minister Trudeau set off an outcry in Alberta with these comments at the start of his cross-country tour in Peterborough, Ontario : “You can’t make a choice between what’s good for the environment and what’s good for the economy. We can’t shut down the oilsands tomorrow. We need to phase them out. We need to manage the transition off of our dependence on fossil fuels.”  In Calgary on January 24,  Trudeau defended his remarks in a town hall meeting in Calgary, summarized in “Calgary crowd cheers and boos Trudeau in showdown with oilsands supporters”   in the National Observer (Jan. 25) .

On January 11, British Columbia’s Premier Clark waived B.C.’s original five objections and approved the Kinder Morgan pipeline project (albeit with 37 provincial conditions) . Alberta’s Premier Rachel Notley responded with:  “Working families shouldn’t have to choose between good jobs and the environment. World-class environmental standards and a strong economy that benefits working people must go hand-in-hand. The Kinder Morgan pipeline offers us an historic opportunity to demonstrate that these values can – and must – go hand in hand.”   Reaction to B.C.’s decision from West Coast Environmental Law is here ; or read “Did Christy Clark just betray British Columbia?” from Stand.earth, which continues to organize resistance to Kinder Morgan.

As anticipated, President Donald Trump wasted no time in approving the Keystone XL and Dakota Access pipelines, signing  Executive Orders on January 24.  Negotiations and further state-level approvals are still ahead, but Canada’s Trudeau government welcomed the news, according to a CBC report which quotes Natural Resources Minister Jim Carr : “it would be very positive for Canada — 4,500 construction jobs and a deepening of the relationship across the border on the energy file.”   In a joint response by Greenpeace USA and Greenpeace Canada, Mike Hudema of Canada stated:   “The question for Canadians is: will the Prime Minister continue to align himself with a climate denying Trump administration, or will he stand with the people and with science and start living up to his own commitments to the climate and Indigenous rights?”

According to a January report by Oil Change International (OCI), “Ultimately, the carbon mathematics is such that the Canadian government simply cannot have it both ways . There is no scenario in which tar sands production increases and the world achieves the Paris goals.”  Climate on the Line: Why new tar sands pipelines are incompatible with the Paris goals  continues with: “Cumulative emissions from producing and burning Canadian oil 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.” ” There is no future in expanding tar sands production. Instead, the government should begin serious efforts now to diversify the economy, supporting a just transition for workers and communities.”  Andrew Nikoforuk summarized the report in The Tyee (Jan. 10); CBC Calgary interviewed experts in its analysis, “Could the oilsands really be phased out? Here are the possibilities” (January 21).

Clean Energy is unstoppable – and China is in the lead

January 2017 began with an attention-getting report from Bloomberg New Energy Finance: “Solar Could Beat Coal to Become the Cheapest Power on Earth” .  Similarly, the Renewable Infrastructure Investment Handbook published  by the World Economic Forum states:   “ renewable energy technology, especially solar and wind, has made exponential gains in efficiency in recent years, enough to achieve economic competitiveness and, in an increasing number of cases, grid parity.”   A January 5 post by Clean Energy Canada,  “Clean Energy is too good a deal for Trump to Pass up ” , documents the economic and political  forces driving clean energy in the U.S., and offers this chart comparing the number of jobs in solar to the fossil fuel industries.

jobs-in-solar-vs-oil-and-gas-jan-2017

from Clean Energy blog post, “Clean Energy is too good a deal for Trump to pass up” (January 5, 2017)

And in an unprecedented move for a sitting President of the United States, Barack Obama has written “The Irreversible Momentum of Clean Energy”  in Science (Jan. 9), with an overview of his energy policy legacy, and making the case that market forces in the U.S. will carry it on.

A general consensus is that the clean energy train  has left the station, and China is driving that train.  A January 2017  report from the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis (IEEFA) is the latest to document the growing dominance of China in the renewable energy industry in   China’s Global Renewable Energy Expansion: How the World’s Second-Biggest Economy Is Positioned to Lead the World in Clean-Power Investment.  The report  states:   “The change in leadership in the U.S. is likely to widen China’s global leadership in industries of the future, building China’s dominance in these sectors in terms of technology, investment, manufacturing and employment. ” According to the IEEFA,   Chinese global investment in clean energy exceeds $100 billion annually, (more than twice that of the U.S.), and is expanding beyond Asia to Africa, Europe, the Middle East, North America and South America. It cites the International Energy Agency’s World Energy Outlook 2016 report ( Nov. 2016) to state that China holds 3.5 million of the 8.1 million renewable energy jobs globally. Small wonder when five of the world’s six largest solar-module manufacturing firms, and five of the ten top wind-turbine manufacturing firms are owned by  Chinese companies.  Between 2015 – 2021,  “China will install 36% of all global hydro electricity generation capacity … 40% of all worldwide wind energy and 36% of all solar.”See a summary of the details of the IEEFA report in “China cementing Global Dominance of Renewable Energy and Technology”   in The Guardian ;  the Globe and Mail  summary   “U.S. and Canada falling behind China in race for renewable energy” (Jan. 6) rather badly understates the case .

The trend  seems set to continue.  On January 5, the Chinese National Energy Agency announced its plans for the next phase of energy investment: see “China Aims to Spend at Least $360 Billion on Renewable Energy by 2020 ” in the New York Times.

In Canada, the latest major report tracking clean energy investment was published by Clean Energy Canada in June 2016.   Tracking the Energy Revolution    reported reduced investment in 2015 (from $12 billion to  $10 billion), although renewable generation capacity grew by 4% in that time.  Even before the announcement of the Pan-Canadian Framework, Clean Energy Canada called this a “pivotal time” for renewables, and sets an optimistic tone.  That boosterism is also apparent in   “Challenge 2017: Rays of hope shine on solar industry despite ‘Trump digs coal’ mantra” in the Financial Post (Jan. 3) – a mostly anecdotal story of Canadian solar manufacturers, and  “Canada can cash in on a cleantech boom“, in the Toronto Star (Jan. 5). The Star article  applauds  a recent clean energy-focused trade mission to China by the Minister of Environment and Climate Change, the clean-tech incentives announced in the December 2016 Pan-Canadian Framework on  Clean Growth and Climate Change, and recent federal and provincial policies that set aggressive targets for renewable energy use in government buildings and operations.

Environmental Rights in Alberta and in Canada: do we have the rights we need? A legal discussion and some practical examples

In December 2016, the Environmental Law Centre in  Alberta  published a series of reports to review the current state of environmental rights in the province, drawing on examples and information from other jurisdictions.  These reports are intended as educational materials;  the website  is open for comments and input.  The first report,    Do we have the rights we need? , identifies deficiencies:   “Narrow standing tests for legal reviews and hearings; gaps and insufficiency in cost awards to support participation and informed decision making; failures to adequately recognize and manage cumulative environmental effects;  insufficient review or hearing options for policies, regulation and administration of environmental decision making; and insufficient tools for engaging public participation in enforcement.”

While most Environmental Rights discussions are about procedures for establishing and enforcing rights, the report Substantive Environmental Rights relates to the right to a specific environmental condition, such as a “healthy”, “healthful” or “clean” environment.  This report discusses definitions, which can be set in statutes or regulations.  The report includes a helpful comparative table of language from other Canadian jurisdictions.

Third Party Oversight and Environmental Rights reviews and analyzes the use of administrative third party oversight bodies in various frameworks and other jurisdictions. The report makes recommendations for the design of a third party environmental oversight system for Alberta, where currently the provincial Auditor General does not have a specific environmental mandate, but conducts financial audits or process/system audits of various environmental matters.

The latest report, published on December 19,  Citizen Enforcement considers the question of who can enforce environmental laws and what types of enforcement mechanisms are available to them – in Alberta, but also Ontario, Quebec, Yukon Territory, the Northwest Territories and Nunavut, and the U.S.    The  report concludes that citizen enforcement  in Alberta relies primarily on the use of private prosecutions and the ability to request an investigation of an alleged violation, and  recommends additional citizen-based enforcement tools to bolster  enforcement capacity and to ensure accountability.

As for practical examples of the need for citizen involvement in environmental assessments and decision-making, Canadians need look no further than the federal government’s  current review of the Environmental Assessment Processes .  “EA Review – Report back from a public workshop” at Evidence for Democracy describes one person’s experience at the Environmental Assessment public consultations and summarizes the main concerns of attendees – including the need for transparency, community and traditional knowledge, and open and independent science.  In two recent articles in DeSmog Blog,  scientists describe how their input has been ignored in past environmental assessments and decisions, including the TransMountain pipeline expansion decision.  Read  “Canadian Scientists Say They’re Unsure What Trudeau Means When He Says ‘Science’ ”  (Dec. 15)  and “Open Science: Can Canada Turn the Tide on Transparency in Decision-Making?”  (Dec. 20) .  Yet there is an eagerness amongst young Canadian scientists to become involved;  an Open Letter  to the Prime Minister in November, signed by 1,800 young scientists and researchers, calls on the government to return scientific integrity to the environmental assessment process, and outlines five ways to do that, including the use of best available evidence, making information and data available to the public, evaluating cumulative impacts of projects and eliminating conflicts of interest. See “Five Ways to Fix Environmental Reviews: Young Scientists to Trudeau” in DeSmog Blog (Nov. 15 2016) .

2017: what lies ahead?

canada 150.jpgBecause 2017 is Canada’s 150th anniversary, dozens of progressive organizations, including unions,  have proposed an agenda for “ Canada’s Clean Growth Century” , under the slogan “Out with the old and In with the new”.  Read their proposals for a green economy, including Just Transition,  here  .  Clean Growth Century Facebook page is here.

For Canadians watching the environmental performance of the Trudeau government, one of the most important markers will be the outcomes of the Review of Environmental and Regulatory Processes, which is reviewing the National Energy Board, the Fisheries Act and the Navigation Protection Act, and the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012 . The report of the Expert Panel is scheduled for March 31, 2017.  Discussions and implementation of the Pan-Canadian Framework on Clean Growth and Climate Change will roll along, debating carbon pricing policies – with the first  “deliverable” said to be an assessment of best practices to address the competitiveness of emissions-intensive, trade-exposed sectors.

Other articles that look ahead to the coming year’s events around the world – acknowledging but not dwelling on the Trump-effect, include: 2017 Climate Calendar: Key dates  at Climate Change News  ;  “In 2017, disruptive forces will shape climate action”  for an international overview with a European perspective ; and  “Where is environmental movement going in 2017?”    from Environmental Health News, which  looks at the Flint water crisis and Standing Rock pipeline protests and predicts “expect the push for environmental justice to center more around the issue’s intersections with racial, economic and environmental equality.”

Four Critical Energy Issues to watch in 2017”   highlights U.S. policies, including  the end of the U.S. coal leasing moratorium; repeal of the Clean Power Plan;   continued support for renewables, especially wind power;  and continued  massive transformation  in the U.S. electricity sector, led by state initiatives. And given President-elect Trump’s previous statements, one might add the approval of the Keystone Pipeline as a fifth likely development.

New study of Comprehensive Wealth shows Canada’s fossil fuel economy is unsustainable

In a pioneering report, the International Institute for Sustainable Development in December released the first national study of “comprehensive wealth”, by examining  Statistics Canada data from 1980 to 2013. The concept of comprehensive wealth goes beyond the usual wealth measure of Gross Domestic Product and also includes natural, human and social capital.  The IISD study, Comprehensive Wealth in Canada—Measuring what matters in the long run  states that natural capital is the largest component of Canada’s comprehensive wealth  at 80 per cent, but did not grow at all between 1980 and 2013.  What does this mean for Canada?  The report states:  “The need for Canada to measure and understand comprehensive wealth has never been greater. Its development model is based heavily on the exploitation of natural capital, and the country cannot sustain another 30 years of natural capital depletion. Short-term commodity price volatility and the longer-term global shift to a cleaner, knowledge-driven economy mean that future reliance on fossil fuels to underpin the country’s growth is risky. The current debate about fossil fuel projects and pipelines needs, therefore, to include a vision of transformation toward a low-carbon economy.” The IISD  cites a United Nations report which ranks Canada first among G7 nations in terms of the level of comprehensive wealth per capita  but last in terms of growth in comprehensive wealth.

Report Highlights are at the IISD website  ;   the National Observer also summarized the report in “Canada’s slipping national wealth addicted to oil and gas“.  A Commentary article by the report’s  author Robert Smith  appears as “Why Canada’s resource wealth should fuel the economy” in the Globe and Mail ROB  (Dec. 7).

November 4: An historic day for climate action, but UNEP report calls for stronger IDNC targets

paris-agreement-into-force-nov-4As the Paris Climate Agreement enters legal force on November 4, 2016 , 100 Parties have ratified the agreement, representing 69.47% of the world’s emissions, according to the Paris Agreement Tracker at World Resources Institute.  Carbon Brief provides an “Explainer” of the Paris Agreement process , The Guardian summarizes the significance, and Environmental Defence sums it up with  Now comes the hard part for Canada .

To set the stage for  the world’s climate experts who are  gathering  in Marrakesh for COP22 from November 8 to 17, the United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP)  released its annual Emissions Gap Report , the first assessment to calculate the emissions that will occur under all the pledges made in Paris.  It shows that, even under those reduction pledges, the world is heading to a temperature rise of 2.9 to 3.4oC this century. The UNEP underlines the urgency and seriousness in its press release: “If we don’t start taking additional action now, beginning with the upcoming climate meeting in Marrakesh, we will grieve over the avoidable human tragedy. The growing numbers of climate refugees hit by hunger, poverty, illness and conflict will be a constant reminder of our failure to deliver. The science shows that we need to move much faster.”  Understandably, the Emissions Gap report generated a lot of reaction: see Inside Climate News   , and from Carbon Brief, a warning about the reliance on negative emissions which are included in most scenarios for emissions reduction.

Will Canada heed the UNEP call to countries for stronger  IDNC targets for emissions reduction at into the COP 22 meetings at Marakkesh  ?  There has been no signal of that.  On the clean energy file, however,  the Liberal government  released its Fall Economic Statement  on November 1, including plans for more transit support and a new infrastructure bank with $35 billion of public and private sector money to support green initiatives such as electricity transmission lines and energy storage capacity . Clean Energy Canada commended the government  though few details are available yet.  The National Observer report emphasizes  that lack of detail to date.  The Minister of Transportation has released the Transportation 2030 Plan  , with a section related to  greener transport.  Finally, the federal government announced   on November 2  that it will reduce its own greenhouse gas emissions by 40% by 2030 (with an aspirational goal of accomplishing that by 2025). This will be done  “by strategic investments in infrastructure and vehicle fleets, green procurement, and support for clean technology”. By 2030, the government will  source 100% of the electricity for its buildings and operations from renewable energy sources.  The release also notes that a new group is being established – the Centre for Greening Government – that will track emissions centrally, coordinate efforts across government and drive results to make sure these objectives are met.  See the  Greening Government Backgrounder  here .

Prime Minister Trudeau is scheduled to meet with the provincial and territorial  leaders in early December to advance the  pan- Canadian Framework on Clean Growth and Climate Change. Meanwhile, all eyes are also watching the federal decision on the Kinder Morgan pipeline project, also due in December.

 

Carbon Pricing now covering 13% of global GHG emissions; Canadian and U.S. developments

The World Bank released  the State and Trends of Carbon Pricing 2016 report on October 18,  which  measures the growing momentum of carbon markets: in 2016, 40 national jurisdictions and over 20 cities, states, and regions are putting a price on carbon, including seven out of 10 of the world’s largest economies.  About 13 percent of global GHG emissions are now covered by carbon pricing initiatives.  Drawing on new economic modelling, the report also predicts that this coverage could increase by the largest leap ever in 2017, to between 20 – 25 percent,  if the Chinese national Emissions Trading System (ETS) is implemented in 2017 as planned .

Carbon pricing in Canada continues to draw opinion and reaction, including  from Toby Sanger, a Senior Economist at CUPE and  a member of the Federal Sustainable Development Advisory Council, who reiterates a call for Just Transition and equity considerations in “How to offset the hardship of carbon pricing”  in the Ottawa Citizen (Oct. 6) . Andrew Gage at West Coast Environmental Law (Oct. 17) asks important questions about the price levels, scope, and timing of the national carbon price proposals currently under consideration  in “Will Canada’s national carbon price clean up our climate mess?” . His blog includes consideration of the impact  on B.C., and sends a message for  Saskatchewan: “So suck it up, Mr. Wall – it’s time to pay the carbon price and get on board with a national plan to deal with Canada’s climate mess”.   And a blog from Keith Brooks at Environmental Defence takes issue from an Ontario viewpoint with a recent Fraser Institute criticism of the Trudeau carbon pricing proposal in “Stupid or Just Lying? What’s up with the Fraser Institute?” (Oct. 13).

In the U.S., all eyes are on the State of Washington, where a ballot question in the November 8 election will decide whether Washington becomes the first state in the U.S. with a  carbon tax.   The Washington Carbon Emission Tax and Sales Tax Reduction question, known as Initiative 732 (I-732)  is modelled after B.C.’s carbon tax, but has divided traditional left and environmental allies, with the Alliance for Clean Jobs and Energy and the Washington District Labor Council opposed to the initiative, and the Sierra Club and others taking a “do not support” position.   For background, see the excellent overview (with links) at Ballotpedia, or “How a tax on carbon has divided Northwest climate activists” in the Los Angeles Times (Oct. 13) .

Proposals for carbon pricing designs:    A new policy brief released by the Centre for International Governance Innovation (CIGI)  in Waterloo, Ontario  proposes  a carbon-fee-and-dividend (CFD) program , which has been advocated by the Citizens’ Climate Lobby.  How the United States Can Do Much More on Climate and Jobs  envisions a federal program which would  collect a carbon fee from coal, oil and natural gas producers and importers, and distribute  all the revenue (after administrative costs) directly to American households in equal per capita monthly dividends.   To address fears of carbon leakage, the  program would include a border adjustment,  authorizing  a special duty on imports from countries lacking equivalent carbon pricing.   The paper concludes with arguments as to why this is the most likely- to- succeed political option.

Another U.S. discussion paper, from Resources for the Future,  Adding Quantity Certainty to a Carbon Tax, defines and discusses  the multitude of design elements for a Tax Adjustment Mechanism for Policy Pre-Commitment (TAMPP) –  which would adjust the tax rate of a carbon tax  at intermediate benchmark points if emissions reductions deviate sufficiently to threaten the long-term targets . The paper argues that the approach should be rule-based with a clear and transparent adjustment process to reduce unnecessary uncertainty for investment.

 

 

Canada votes to ratify the Paris Climate Agreement

The Paris Climate Agreement will enter into force on November 4, 2016, now that 73 nations accounting for nearly  57%  of GHG emissions have formally ratified it: most recently, India, the European Union and Canada.  According to an October 5 article in The Guardian, even if Donald Trump were to win the U.S. presidency, the U.S. would be locked into the commitment for four years at least. See also “The Paris Climate Agreement is entering into force. Now comes the hard part ” from the Washington Post (Oct. 4). Next step: the COP 22 meetings scheduled for Marrakesh, Morocco from November 7 – 18, which  will  include the first meeting of the Parties to the Paris Agreement (CMA 1).

In Canada,  Members of Parliament voted by a margin of 207 to 81 to approve the Paris Agreement on October 5  – see the brief  government press release, or  read  the CBC report; or  coverage at the National Observer , or the Globe and Mail .  Transcripts of the debates in the House of Commons are here,  for October 3  (Trudeau’s carbon pricing speech) , October 4 and October 5  (when the vote was held) .

Leading up to the Paris vote, in what has been called a “bombshell”, “ultimatum”, and “his government’s most consequential and surprising day to date”   , Prime Minister  Trudeau announced  the “Pan-Canadian Approach on Pricing Carbon Pollution”  in the House on October 3, requiring  that provinces implement either a carbon tax (at a  minimum price of $10 a tonne in 2018, rising each year to $50 a tonne by 2022) or a cap and trade system.  “If neither price nor cap and trade is in place by 2018, the government of Canada will implement a price in that jurisdiction” . Provinces will retain revenues from whichever system they choose to implement.

An article at the CBC   states that, “Trudeau’s pre-emptive announcement landed like a grenade”  in the midst of the the Canadian Council of Environment Ministers’  meeting in Montreal, being chaired by Environment and Climate Change Minister McKenna.     Delegates from Saskatchewan, Newfoundland and Nova Scotia walked out of the room.  For a summary of the political fight, see “Premiers draw battle lines as Trudeau seeks support for carbon-pricing plan”  in the Globe and Mail (Oct. 4). And see the Alberta government press release   of October  3,  which states , “Alberta will not be supporting this proposal absent serious concurrent progress on energy infrastructure, to ensure we have the economic means to fund these policies…..Albertans have contributed very generously for many years to national initiatives designed to help other regions address economic challenges. What we are asking for now is that our landlock be broken, in one direction or another, so that we can get back on our feet.”   A tough demand to meet, according to David Hughes’ report in June  “Can Canada Expand Oil and Gas Production, Build Pipelines and Keep Its Climate Change Commitments?” .

Some reactions to the federal carbon pricing announcement:  From the Canadian Labour Congress:   “The CLC applauds carbon pricing targets …. “As a next step, the CLC calls for a federal strategy to guarantee new opportunities for workers and communities impacted by the transition to a low-carbon economy.”  From the Climate Action Network ;  from the Pembina Institute  (“Pan-Canadian carbon price is big, positive news for economy and environment” );   from DeSmog Canada   (The Good, bad and the ugly)   .  Generally supportive reaction also came  from Smart Prosperity, a group composed of  twenty-two prominent business and civil society leaders (including WWF, Broadbent Institute, Clean Energy Canada, and the Pembina Institute) .   Yet Marc Lee of the Canadian Centre for Policy Analysis  nails it in  “A Reality Check on a national carbon price”  ( October  4) :    “It’s good news that Canada is starting to listen to climate science, but we are still left with a problem around the climate math”  – which requires  no new fossil fuel infrastructure.    Bill McKibben, populizer  of the term “climate math”, also panned the Trudeau announcement in the National Observer on Oct. 3.  Read McKibben’s article  “Recalculating the Climate Math: The numbers on global warming are even scarier than we thought”   in the New Republic (September 22),which updates his earlier, frequently cited piece.

A useful overview  to understand the Canadian situation: Race to the Front,  released by the Pembina Institute on September 28, with recommendations for the politicians and policy-makers  in their Fall  working meetings to finalize  a “Pan Canadian”  policy.  Race to the Front summarizes Canada’s progress at reducing carbon pollution over the last decade, evaluates trends in Canada’s greenhouse gas emissions inventory, and summarizes existing national and provincial  climate policy .

 

 

 

Canada falling behind in the Parade to Ratify the Paris Climate Agreement

cop21 logoAfter a special ceremony at the United Nations on September 21, 2016, with 31 nations participating, the U.N. announced  that 60 countries representing 48% of GHG emissions had formally joined the Paris Agreement. Brazil had already ratified on September 13,  and Theresa May, Britains’s new Prime Minister, had also pledged to ratify the agreement before the end of the year. Video messages from nations including Germany, France, the EU, Canada, Australia and South Korea all promised to ratify the Paris accord in the coming months.  Importantly, a Reuters report  on September 25 states that India, representing approximately 4% of global emissions, will ratify the agreement on October 2, the anniversary of Ghandi’s birthday. See also the Times of India report .    Watch the Paris Agreement Tracker  for the status of ratification as the world pushes to reach the trigger point of 55 nations which produce 55 percent of the global carbon dioxide pollution.

Where does Canada, responsible for  approximately 1.9% of emissions, stand? Text of Justin Trudeau’s speech at the United Nations on September 20  focused more on the needs of  Syrian refugees than on our climate commitments.  Official statements have not been forthcoming, but interviews indicate  “Canada to ratify Paris climate deal while still working on national plan” (CBC, Sept. 16). Federal Environment Minister Catherine McKenna is scheduled to meet her provincial and territorial counterparts on October 3 in Montreal to discuss the options put forward by the four working groups formed at the Vancouver meetings last April.   Their recommendations were due by the end of September. On September 18, the Globe and Mail reported  that the federal government may impose a national carbon price plan, and that the emissions reduction target will not exceed that of the previous Conservative government: 30 per cent below 2005 levels by 2030.  See also “Federal government sends mixed messages on how provinces can price carbon” from the National Observer (September 25) for an update.

Parliament has now returned from summer recess, but a meeting between the Prime Minister and the premiers is not expected before the COP22  UN climate conference in Marrakech,  Nov. 7-18.

Not only scientific urgency is pushing the recent global rush to ratify .  On September 20, 2016, 375 members of the National Academy of Sciences of the U.S., including 30 Nobel laureates, published an Open Letter  warning that the consequences of opting out of the Paris agreement would be severe and long-lasting for the planet’s climate and for the international credibility of the United States.   “The political system also has tipping points. Thus it is of great concern that the Republican nominee for President has advocated U.S. withdrawal from the Paris Accord. A “Parexit” would send a clear signal to the rest of the world: “The United States does not care about the global problem of human-caused climate change. You are on your own.” Such a decision would make it far more difficult to develop effective global strategies for mitigating and adapting to climate change. The consequences of opting out of the global community would be severe and long-lasting – for our planet’s climate and for the international credibility of the United States.”

Recommendations by House of Commons committee is at odds with GHG reduction

The House of Commons Standing Committee on Natural Resources  released its second report, The Future of Canada’s Oil and Gas Sector: Innovation, sustainable solutions and economic opportunities  on September 21. The report summarizes the comments from 33 witnesses who appeared before the committee in 7 meetings, and makes recommendations, including: “1. The Committee recommends that the Government of Canada continue to promote the benefits of investing in Canada’s Natural Resources sectors, including oil and gas, which shall include the continued encouragement of innovation, research and development.” And “2.The Committee recommends that the Government of Canada work in collaboration with industry and the indigenous, provincial, territorial, and municipal governments to develop the supporting infrastructure needed to create a favourable environment for natural resource development and transportation, and to deliver oil and gas products to strategic domestic and international markets.”    The Dissenting Report from the Conservative members goes even further to support the fossil fuel industry, making 5 recommendations which include:   “We strongly encourage the government not to impose any additional tax or regulation on the oil and gas sector or the Canadian consumer that our continental trading partners and competitors do not have. This includes measuring the upstream greenhouse gas emissions from pipelines…”  The Opinion statement by the New Democratic Party members of the Committee calls for speedy, permanent changes to the National Energy Board assessment process, and for the Government to honour its obligation for a Nation to Nation relationship with Indigenous peoples, including proper consultation and accommodation on all energy projects and the protection of Indigenous rights.   The NDP also states its support for the testimony of Gil McGowan, President of the Alberta Federation of Labour, calling for support for  value-added development of the oil and gas industry, “because these kinds of investments not only create jobs directly in upgrading, refining, and petrochemicals but also create other jobs”.

Contrast these recommendations with the message released on the next day, September 22,  by Oil Change International in its report,  The Sky’s Limit  .  The report states that developed reserves of oil and gas alone would take the world beyond 1.5°C, even if coal were phased out immediately, and lists examples of some of the biggest projects around the world that cannot go ahead – in the U.S., Canada, Australia, India, Russia, Qatar and Iran .   It concludes that “To stay within our carbon budgets, we must go further than stopping new construction: some fossil fuel extraction assets must be closed before they are exploited fully. These early shut-downs should occur predominantly in rich countries.”   (This urgency is in the spirit of a recent Dutch parliamentary vote in favour of closing down all remaining coal-generation power plants, even though 3 of them were just opened in 2015: see the article in The Guardian ).

The Sky’s the Limit states further, “extraction should not continue where it violates the rights of local people – including indigenous peoples – nor should it continue where resulting pollution would cause intolerable health impacts or seriously damage biodiversity.”  Finally, in a discussion of Just Transition, “ The most critical questions lie in how industry and policymakers will conduct an orderly and managed decline of fossil fuel extraction, with robust planning for economic and energy diversification.”

50% Clean Power by 2025: 3 Amigos Summit sets tone of international cooperation

3 amigos waving.jpgOn June 29, 2016 the Three Amigos – the leaders of Canada, Mexico and the U.S.,  issued a  “North American Climate, Clean Energy, and Environment Partnership Action Plan”   , summarized by Clean Energy Canada here .  The Plan sets a target of 50 per cent clean power generation by 2025 for North America – with “clean” including energy from nuclear, fossil fuels if produced with carbon capture and storage technologies, and improvements in energy efficiency. The Plan also calls a for shared vision for a clean North American automotive sector, including harmonized regulations, and for collaboration on cross-border electricity transmission projects, specifically naming the Great Northern Transmission Line, ( Manitoba to Minnesota), and the New England Clean Power Link, (Quebec to Vermont). The recent Brexit vote loomed large over the leaders’ meetings; as  the Institute for Energy Economics & Financial Analysis stated: “As Europe is disintegrating, North America is integrating, and it’s integrating in a way that I think provides real and substantive and tangible benefits to the citizens of the three countries.” In a similar vein, Inside Climate News verdict was, “Whatever their respective individual contributions, the three nations’ vow to work in concert is what most excites advocates of strong climate action. And the possibility of a common price on carbon. ”

What might excite advocates of Just Transition for workers is the final statement of the joint press release , which pledges to:  “Invest strategically in communities to help them diversify economies, create and sustain quality jobs, and share in the benefits of a clean energy economy. This includes promoting decent work, sharing best practices, and collaborating with social partners such as workers’ and employers’ organizations and nongovernmental organizations on just transition strategies that will benefit workers and their communities….Protect the fundamental principles and rights at work of workers who extract and refine fossil fuels, and who manufacture, install, and operate energy technologies.”

A group of economic think tanks, including Pembina Institute, Canada 2020, and the World Resources Institute collaborated on Proposals for a North American Climate Strategy   in advance of the Summit meetings. Their recommendations are mostly recognized,if not resolved:  “.. . the United States, Canada, and Mexico should consider the cost of carbon in long-term decision-making; commit to a methane reduction goal and cooperate to reduce black carbon; coordinate their leadership efforts in international forums; work to ensure effective carbon pricing throughout the continent; collaborate to accelerate the shift to clean energy; develop a North American strategy for sustainable transportation; work to strengthen resilience and equity in a changing climate; and develop a coordinated forest and land use strategy.”    For some reaction, see “Dirty or Clean, politics drive cross-border energy deals”    in the Globe and Mail (July 4) , or “ Steering toward a North American electric auto pact ”   in  Policy Options  (August) .  And from the Montreal Gazette, an Opinion piece to bring things back to earth: “After the Three Amigos summit, Canada has work to do on carbon pricing”  .

Ceremonial Signing of the Paris Climate Agreement, Earth Day 2016

cop21 logo As widely reported, over 170 national representatives took part in a ceremonial signing of the Paris climate agreement    at the U.N. in New York on April 22, Earth Day.  The Paris Agreement comes into force when countries representing at least 55% of total global greenhouse gasses, and 55% of the population, join the agreement.  See “US and China lead push to bring Paris climate deal into force early”   in The Guardian for details of each country’s proportion of emissions, and national ratification prospects.  “The Key Players in Climate Change” in the  New York Times (April 21)  provides an overview of the major emmiters: U.S., China, EU, Brazil, Russia, India, Indonesia.  Although Canada is one of the highest per capita emitters in the world, it represents approximately 1.6% of total global GHG emissions in 2012.

A brief  press release from Canada’s PMO is here.   Prime Minister Trudeau pledged that Canada’s House of Commons would ratify the agreement by the end of 2016 – matching the date pledged by the U.S. and China, in an article in  the Globe and Mail. The Prime Minister spoke against a backdrop of  two recent reports about Canada’s emissions. The  National Inventory of  Report of GHG Emissions 1990 – 2014 , released by  Environment and Climate Change Canada, is an annual compilation of statistics mandated by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). It shows that total GHG emissions decreased overall between 2005 and 2014, but have increased by 5.2% from 2009 to 2014. Six provinces’ emissions have declined since 2005, but emissions in  Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Newfoundland  have increased.    81% of Canada’s GHG emissions in 2014 originated in the energy sector (which the IPCC  broadly defines to include the fossil fuel industry, electricity, industrial production, transportation, agriculture and more).  Emission intensity for the entire economy (GHG per GDP) has declined by 32% since 1990, which the report attributes to “fuel switching, increases in efficiency, the modernization of industrial processes, and structural changes in the economy”.   The French version of the National Inventory Report  is here.

The Conference Board gives Canada a “D” grade overall on three dimensions it measured in its April 21 report:  How Canada Performs: Environmental Report Card  : climate change, air pollution, and freshwater management.  Canada ranks 14th among the 16 peer countries, with only the U.S. and Australia worse.

Canadian Climate Change Policy: The Vancouver Declaration and Subsequent Federal budget

The First Ministers meeting in Vancouver raised enormous expectations, culminating on March 3 with the release of  an 8-page  Vancouver Declaration on Clean Growth and Climate Change  ,  (in French here ). The Declaration pledged immediate federal investment in green infrastructure, public transit infrastructure and energy efficient social infrastructure; investing in clean energy and clean tech R & D, as well as electric vehicles and clean electricity. It creates working groups to report by October 2016, in four areas: Clean Technology, Innovation and Jobs; Carbon Pricing Mechanisms; Specific Mitigation Opportunities; and Adaptation and Climate Resilience.  Acknowledging that ANY federal-provincial discussion represents progress from the Harper years,  reaction to the meetings was generally optimistic – for example, Four Reasons the First Ministers Meeting on Climate Matters  from Clean Energy Canada, and Vancouver Declaration Moves Canada Closer To A National Climate Plan  from DeSmog Blog.   The Council of Canadians disappointment is explained in “Council of Canadians protest as first ministers fail to take needed action on climate change”  , and the outrage of some Indigenous leaders marred the meetings, see “Indigenous leaders shocked at exclusion from climate change meeting”  in The National Observer  . For a simple, balanced overview, read “From Paris to Vancouver: What happened at the First Ministers meeting on climate” by Marc Lee at Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives  , who rightly points out that achieving a clean economy is a  political problem, not a technical problem, and who advises us to “watch the budget”.

Action on climate change is listed as one of the top 10 things Canadian unions want to see in the federal budget, according to the Canadian Labour Congress.  And the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives included a call for a national carbon price of  $30 per tonne  in their Alternative Budget  .  When the actual federal Budget  was delivered on March 22 by  Finance Minister Morneau, he characterized the new government as a “champion of clean growth and a speedy transition to a low-carbon economy.”   Spending allocations include: $2.5-billion for public transit; $1.8-billion on green infrastructure; $574-million for energy and water efficiency upgrades in social housing;  $401-million for a variety of clean-tech development efforts;  $1.7-billion for climate and environmental protection, and an additional $1-billion in  each of 2018 and 2019 to establish a low-carbon economy fund for provinces and territories that sign on to a national climate agreement.   The Budget did NOT eliminate  fossil fuel subsidies, and DID include a provision to allow LNG producers to write off their capital investments at an accelerated pace for the next 10 years.  For an overview, see “Liberals unveil spending as ‘Champion of Clean Growth”  in the Globe and Mail (March 22).  Read CUPE’s response here .

Canada’s investment in Clean Energy decreased in 2015

Clean Energy Canada released the 2016 edition of its Tracking the Energy Revolution: Global Survey  on February 29, subtitled: A Year for the Record Books because 2015 was the first year in which more money was invested in clean energy in developing countries than in developed ones.  Further, investment in renewable power totalled a record US$367 billion, a 7%  increase over 2014.  More than half of that amount was invested in China, the United States and Japan.  For specific examples of U.S. progress, read  the White House briefing, America is Building a Clean-Energy Economy with Unprecedented Momentum  , which summarizes the accomplishments of the U.S.  Department of Energy’s Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy (ARPA-E)  in promoting clean energy investment and research.

At a total investment of $4 billion, Canada ranked 8th globally in the Clean Energy survey – and investment decreased by 46%.  Yet  consider the projections of the Solutions Project , led by Marc Jacobsen at Stanford University, which has developed plans for 100 percent renewable energy for 139 countries around the world, including all U.S. states and Canada .

Also of interest, the International Energy Agency released its review of Canada’s energy policies , on March 3 – the first update since 2009. It states that Canada was the fifth-largest crude oil and fourth-largest natural gas producer in the world in 2014; in 2014, the energy sector contributed 10 per cent of gross domestic product, employed about 280,000 people and accounted for about 30 per cent of Canada’s exports.

Electricity Industry in the U.K. Sees the Green Light

Reported in The Guardian on February 28   as a “watershed moment”,  the biggest energy lobbying group in the country, Energy UK,  has shifted its position on green energy and will start campaigning for low-carbon alternatives. The shift in policy follows the publication of Pathways for the GB Electricity Sector to 2030 , commissioned by Energy UK and written by consultants KPMG. (For comparison purposes, see the Canadian Electricity Association documents   Vision 2050  ( 2014) , and Adapting to Climate Change  (2016).

The U.K. Budget delivered on March 16  initially imposed a VAT increase from 5 – 20% on solar panels and other energy-saving products, but Chancellor George Osborne was forced to backtrack by political opposition.  Small comfort when the  Petroleum Revenue Tax was effectively abolished  and a supplementary charge on oil and gas extraction dramatically reduced – the government claims that it has provided tax support worth 1 billion pounds to the oil and gas industry.

North American Memorandum of Understanding on Energy; U.S. Governors sign Accord for a “New Energy Future”

On February 12, 2016, Canada, the U.S. and Mexico signed a Memorandum of Understanding establishing a formal process for sharing energy data and collaborating on climate change, energy, and innovation, including low-carbon grids, renewables and efficiency standards.   A blog by Clean Energy Canada dubbed the MOU “Clean-XL” and describes what the trinational cooperation could look like on the ground; CBC described it as the first step to “Green NAFTA” . In February, governors of seventeen states representing 40% of the U.S. population, (including California, Massachusetts, Michigan, Nevada, New York, Oregon, and Pennsylvania) signed the Governors Accord for a New Energy Future,  to reduce emissions and expand renewable energy, energy efficiency, and to integrate solar and wind generation into electricity grids.

Powering Climate Prosperity: Canada’s Renewable Electricity Advantage  , released by the Canadian Council on Renewable Electricity in February, provides a snapshot of renewable energy in Canada today, and concludes that for Canada to meet its GHG reduction targets, we must reduce energy waste, more than double renewable electricity generation capacity, and make electricity the “clean fuel of choice”. The Council report draws heavily on the analysis and prescriptions of the Canadian report of the Deep Decarbonization Pathways Project . The DDPP states: “By more than doubling the use of electricity for industrial activity, the carbon intensity of the sector can drop by 85 percent between 2010 and 2050, even as output continues to grow apace.”    For a statistical update to the U.S. renewables scene, see the Sustainable Energy in America Factbook 2016  , produced for the Business Council for Sustainable Energy by Bloomberg New Energy Finance .

Canadian Green Building Industry employs more workers than Oil and Gas, Mining, and Forestry Combined

A press release on February 3  reported on the growth of the green building industry in Canada: a total of 527 LEED projects were certified in 2015, bringing the total of certified projects in Canada to 2,576. On February 10, the Canada Green Building Council released Green Building in Canada: Assessing the Market Impacts & Opportunities (Executive summary only available) , which states that it has generated $23.45 billion in GDP and supported 297,890 full-time jobs in 2014, exceeding the 270,450 jobs found in Canada’s oil and gas extraction, mining and forestry industries combined. Ontario (at 2.1% of total labour force) and British Columbia (at 1.6%) led green building employment, “due in part to greater market leadership, progressive building code requirements and green building policies”. The report suggests four pathways to accelerate industry growth and maximize economic opportunities, including “Supporting Industry Training and Continuing Education”. “What is currently lacking is a multi-pronged approach to training that supports all of the different programs to help the construction industry understand, design, and build greener buildings. More investment in this space is required to support structured and modernized internship, mentorship, or apprenticeship programs, as well as recognized credentials for professions such as building operators.”     In January 2016, CAGBC also released National Energy Benchmarking Framework: Report on Preliminary Working Group Findings, with proposals for a Benchmarking Framework, to encourage consistency across the country and streamline the application process for building owners and managers. Stakeholders consulted in the working group included federal, provincial and municipal government departments, as well as the Toronto Atmospheric Fund, and industry associations such as the Building Owners and Managers Association (BOMA). No unions were represented.

Canada’s Climate Change policy: Trudeau needs Unions

In an OpEd in The Hill Times , (February 1) Carla Lipsig Mumme argues that “Trudeau Needs Unions to Achieve his Ambitious Climate Agenda” pointing out that unions can identify opportunities for GhG reductions in work processes , bargain collectively for change, and educate members in climate literacy. Canada’s Climate Action Network , which includes the Canadian Labour Congress, as well as CUPE, NUPGE, and the Ontario Secondary School Teachers’ Federation, called on all governments to make job creation the priority for Canada’s climate action plan and released a backgrounder: One Million Climate Jobs: A Challenge for Canada . With a similar message, BlueGreen Canada published “Just Transition Needed for Canada’s Climate Change Plans” . Formal discussions by Federal and Provincial-Territorial Environment ministers on January 29 launched the post COP21 process to achieve Canada’s new national framework to fight climate change. On March 2, Prime Minister Trudeau will discuss climate change with First Nations, Inuit and Métis leaders, followed by another meeting with the Premiers on March 3; both meetings will be in Vancouver. An overview of provincial positions, especially on carbon pricing, appeared in The Globe and Mail (Feb. 17) “Ottawa seeks to set National Minimum on Carbon Pricing”  .

Federal Grants and loans to Municipalities for Green Projects

Speaking at a meeting of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM) on February 10, 2016, Environment and Climate Change Minister McKenna announced $31.5 million in funding for capital and planning expenses for green projects. The FCM Budget Submission makes specific proposals regarding housing, transit, infrastructure and public safety; it calls for an expansion in the $550 million federally-funded Green Municipal Fund, and a new Green Infrastructure Fund, with dedicated, predictable funding for projects designed to mitigate and adapt to climate change and make other green improvements related to drinking water, stormwater and wastewater infrastructure.

Wind and Solary Energy in Canada, U.S., and Renewables in 2030

In a press release on January 12, 2016, the Canadian Wind Energy Association (CanWEA) announced a five year annual average growth rate of 23 per cent per year for the industry, led by investments in Ontario and Quebec  . The Association anticipates continued growth, especially with the policy announcement in 2015 from Alberta (already the 3rd largest wind market) to replace two-thirds of coal generation with renewable generation. CanWEA also released a report by Compass Renewable Energy Consulting in December 2015. Wind Dividends: An Analysis of the Economic Impacts from Ontario’s Wind Procurements   forecasts that from 2006-2030, wind energy in Ontario will have stimulated more than $14 billion in economic activity, including 73,000 full-time equivalent jobs and $5 billion in wages and benefits. The report warns, however, that Ontario “currently has no plans for new wind energy purchases, and risks losing many of the good-paying, wind-related jobs it has created.”

Canada ranks 7th in the world for the installed wind generation capacity, which meets 5% of Canada’s electricity demand. In contrast, Denmark announced on January 19th, that it has set a new world record for wind energy generation with nearly 40 % of the country’s overall electricity consumption in 2014). For a thorough statistical overview of the wind energy industry and employment in the U.S., see Wind Vision, released by the U.S. Department of Energy in March 2015. According to the 6th annual U.S. Solar Jobs Census  ( January 2016) by industry-group The Solar Foundation, the industry created 1.2 percent of all new jobs in the U.S. in 2015, nearly 12 times faster than the national rate. Total solar industry employment was 208,859 , with installation as the single largest solar employment sector. Women in solar jobs increased by 2% and now represent 24% of the solar workforce. Prospects for growth in U.S. wind and solar are greatly improved after the renewal of the renewable energy tax credit system in December 2015 , with spillover benefits expected for Canadian manufacturers as well: see “U.S. tax move brightens picture for Canadian wind, solar firms”  in the Globe and Mail (Dec. 21).

A January report from the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (NREL) and the U.S. Department of Energy updates the on-going NREL analysis of clean energy policy impacts in the U.S. . Examining state-level Renewable Portfolio Standards policies in 2013, the authors found an average of $2.2 billion in economic benefits from reduced greenhouse gas emissions, and another $5.2 billion in benefits from reductions in sulfur dioxide and other air pollutants. Further, the report estimates nearly 200,000 jobs were created in the renewable energy sector, with over $20 billion in gross domestic product.   Read A Retrospective Analysis of the Benefits and Impacts of U.S. Renewable Portfolio Standards .

A new report released at the sixth Assembly of the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) in Abu Dhabi on January 17 quantifies the macroeconomic impacts of doubling the global share of renewables in the energy mix by 2030. Renewable Energy Benefits: Measuring the Economic Impact  states: “Doubling the share of renewables increases direct and indirect employment in the sector to 24.4 million by 2030. Renewable energy jobs will grow across all technologies, with a high concentration in the same technologies that account for a majority of the employment today, namely bioenergy, hydropower and solar.” …“The jobs created are likely to offset job losses in sectors such as fossil fuels because the sectors involved in the renewables supply chain are usually more distributed and labour-intensive than the conventional energy sector. For instance, solar PV creates at least twice the number of jobs per unit of electricity generated compared with coal or natural gas. As a result, substituting fossil fuels for renewables could lead to a higher number of jobs overall.” (p. 16-17). The report also states that “training is essential to support the expansion of the renewable energy sector. This requires systematic access across all layers of the society to education and training in relevant fields, including engineering, economics, science, environmental management, finance, business and commerce. Professional training, as well as school or university curricula must evolve adequately to cover renewable energy, sustainability and climate change. Vocational training programmes can also offer opportunities to acquire specialisation and take advantage of the growing renewable energy job market. The elaboration of specific, certified skills and the categorisation of trainees based on their level of experience and training is recommended.” (p. 79).

Banking Executive Compensation should measure Performance in GHG reduction

 A new report from Vancouver-based SHARE (Shareholder Association for Research and Education) examines the impacts that climate change-related risks could have for the banking sector, including their exposure to carbon-intensive assets, but also considering their own administration and operation as corporations. Banking on 2°: The Hidden Risks of Climate Change for Canadian Banks focused on Canada’s five largest banks: Bank of Montreal, Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, Royal Bank, Scotiabank and Toronto-Dominion Bank. Amongst the recommendations: banks should have a climate change statement which delineates the steps being taken to reduce the climate impacts of its operations and its financing activities; performance targets to reduce operational and financed GHG emissions should be established and aligned with IPCC models to limit warming to 2°Celsius; and executive compensation and incentive packages should include performance in reducing GHG emissions from operational and financed sources.

Public Opinion about Climate Change policies: Alberta and Canada

In September, 2015  Pembina Institute released an opinion poll of Albertans, conducted by EKOS Research. Of the 1,885 respondents, 50% would support an economy-wide carbon tax, rising to 72% if the proceeds were invested in low-carbon projects; 70% want stricter enforcement of the existing environmental rules and safeguards in the oilsands; 70% support investing in renewables to reduce coal use, and 86% want the province to increase support for clean energy and clean technology.  
 
Other opinions were expressed at the 2015 Alberta Climate Summit, convened on September 9 by Pembina Institute. Discussions centred on the economy and jobs, carbon pricing, energy efficiency, and renewable energy.
 
The Climate Change Advisory Panel of the Alberta government invited submissions from Albertans in August and September. Views of individuals, companies, academics, advocacy groups and associations, and three labour unions are available: A list by name helps to locate items of interest amongst over 400 documents. The union submissions are: #94, by the International Association of Heat and Frost Insulators and Allied Workers Local 110 (Alberta); #387, by the Alberta Federation of Labour and #494, a 1-page statement by the Business Agent of International Union of Operating Engineers Local 955.
 
Environics Institute, partnered with the David Suzuki Foundation, released Canadian Public Opinion about Climate Change, showing that support for the B.C. carbon tax is at an all time high in that province, and has increased to 60% in other provinces – notably Atlantic Canada, and amongst women. 74% of Canadians say they believe it is possible for their province to shift most of its energy requirements from fossil fuels to clean renewable forms of energy.

Chronicling the Destruction of Canadian Environmental Laws

Canada’s Track Record on Environmental Laws 2011 – 2015 was released by West Coast Environmental Law on October 14. On the same day, Centre Québécois du droit de l’environnement released the french language version, Bilan des changements apportés aux lois environnementales fédérales. The report catalogues “the repeal or amendment of most of Canada’s foundational environmental laws since 2011”, beginning with Bills C-38 and C-45 in 2012. It notes that socio-economic considerations can now be more easily ignored or excluded under the new Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, damaging Canadian livelihoods. A summary at Desmog Blog and the website Environmental Laws Matter complement the report.

Canada’s new Liberal government: What lies ahead for climate change policy?

Justin TrudeauAccording to the CBC at “New Liberal Government: Where does it get started?”, Prime Minister-elect Justin Trudeau’s first order of business is to meet with the Premiers to discuss climate change policy before COP 21. For slightly more detailed information, we can also refer to the Liberal platform statement, or a very complete analysis by  West Coast Environmental Law (Oct. 22) . Read reactions,  ranging from the positive and optimistic by Environmental Defence; to the factual “What Your New Liberal Majority Government Means for Climate, Environment, Science and Transparency” by DeSmog Canada; to the pessimistic “After Harper: Confronting the Liberals” at RankandFile.ca.  Internationally, see reaction from The Guardian: “Trudeau victory may not signal a U-turn in Canada’s climate policy”; Politico; and the New York Times. In Canada, optimism is tempered, and 350.org is organizing Climate Welcome demonstrations, from November 5 – 8 in Ottawa, to remind the new Prime Minister of the urgency of climate change policy reforms.  Justin Trudeau will be sworn into office on November 4th.

Community Input to the Sustainable Canada Dialogue on a Low-Carbon Economy

In March 2015, Sustainable Canada Dialogues (SCD) released Acting on Climate Change: Solutions from Canadian Scholars – a “consensus paper” which compiled proposals for a national climate action plan from 60 Canadian academics. On October 8, SCD followed up with the release of Acting on Climate Change: Extending the Dialogue Among Canadians – which compiles the formal responses from First Nations, businesses, NGOs, labour, youth and private citizens, organized into topics which include Employment and Labour, Social Justice, Indigenous Perspectives, Reinventing Cities, Renewable Energy Challenges, Youth, and more. Highlight papers: “The role of workers in the transition to a low-carbon economy”; “Protect the Environment by Doing More Work, Not Less” by Lana Payne and Jim Stanford of Unifor, Comments by Andrea Harden-Donahue on behalf of the Council of Canadians; and “Envisioning a Good Green Life in British Columbia: Lessons From the Climate Justice Project” by Marc Lee of the CCPA. The report was accompanied by an Open Letter to the Leaders of Canada’s federal parties, and is signed by the participating academics. Catherine Potvin from McGill University, who spearheads Sustainable Canada Dialogues, states that the goal was to “provide the seed for an inclusive, country-wide consultation on the best ways for Canada to transition toward a low-carbon, sustainable economy and society”. The overview report, Agir sur les changements climatiques: vers un dialogue élargi à la société civile canadienne, and individual papers are available in French.  

Climate Change Issues in the Canadian Federal Election

Canada is in the midst of a federal government election, with voting on October 19, 2015.  The climate change issue was stated early, by Jeff Rubin and David Suzuki in “Canada’s Carbon Moment has arrived”   . From their article:  “Mr. Harper’s carbon-fuelled energy agenda hasn’t worked out, and that’s put the Canadian economy in precarious shape. But this critical moment of economic and environmental crisis is an opportunity for Canada to confront the reality, costs and urgency of climate change, and find solutions that will both reduce greenhouse-gas emissions and contribute to the economy. This is a challenge that every party in the current campaign should address.”

leap manifesto coverOn September 15, prominent environmentalists stepped into the campaign with the release of the LEAP Manifesto Canada: A Call for Canada Based on Caring for the Earth and One Another. The Manifesto puts Aboriginal rights at the forefront of the climate debate, calls for energy democracy and a bottom-up revival of democracy, declares austerity “ a fossilized form of thinking that has become a threat to life on earth”, and enumerates clean energy projects and means to pay for them. LEAP is supported by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, which published a companion report, We Can Afford the Leap , offering more detail about specific sources of revenue to accomplish the Manifesto goals .   The Canadian Union of Public Employees has also endorsed the Manifesto.  An article in The Guardian is titled: “The Leap Manifesto isn’t Radical: It’s a way out of Canada’s head-in-the-sand Politics ” .

Some websites dedicated to climate issues in the election: Green PacEnvironmental Laws Matter  , 350.org Campaign , or Anyone but Harper, a guide to strategic voting to defeat the Harper government.

G7 MEETINGS HISTORIC FOR UNANIMOUS AGREEMENT TO PHASE OUT FOSSIL FUELS

Globe-Net answers the question: “Just what did the G-7 Leaders Decide about Climate Change, Energy, and the Environment?” in a thorough summary of the communiques from the G7 meetings in Germany in June 2015. All the official documents from the meetings are here.  In “ G7 Fossil Fuel Pledge is a Diplomatic Coup for Germany’s ‘Climate Chancellor’ ”(June 8), The Guardian calls the leaders of Japan and Canada, “ climate recalcitrants” and applauds the fact that even Canada has agreed to the G7 plan to phase out fossil fuels by the end of the century. The press release from Prime Minister Harper’s office on June 8 however, doesn’t mention that pledge amongst the achievements of the G7. “Canada commits to G7 plan to end use of fossil fuels” in the Globe and Mail (June 8) hints at Mr. Harper’s lack of enthusiasm.

MISSED OPPORTUNITIES: HOW AN INDC BASED ON 100% RENEWABLE ENERGY COULD BENEFIT CANADA, U.S., EU, CHINA AND JAPAN

A report by the New Climate Institute in Germany provides an overview of the general co-benefits that climate action can achieve: reduced oil imports and fossil fuel dependency, lives saved from lower air pollution, and jobs created from growing the renewable energy sector. Assessing the Achieved and Missed benefits of Countries’ National Contributions: Quantifying potential Co-benefits  then presents scenarios for the U.S., China, the EU, Canada and Japan , comparing the impacts of each country’s stated Intended Nationally Determined Contribution targets (INDCs) with those that could be achieved through targets of 100% renewable energy in 2050. For Canada, the report projects that shifting to a 100% renewable energy system by 2050 could prevent 700 premature deaths, compared to 100 premature deaths under Canada’s INDC target , and could create approximately 5,000 additional jobs in the domestic renewable energy sector, compared to the 3,000 jobs predicted under Canada’s target scenario. The Canadian results are summarized in a separate 3 page document .

New Canadian Association for Renewable Energy industry

The Canadian Council on Renewable Electricity was launched on May 6, 2015.  Founding members are Canadian Hydropower Association, Canadian Solar Industries Association, Canadian Wind Energy Association, and Marine Renewables Canada. The council “aims to engage and educate Canadians on the opportunity to expand renewable electricity and strengthen our nation’s position as a global renewable-energy leader”.  Each of the associations continues to maintain its own website, and the new Council  website is available at http://renewableelectricity.ca/.

Reaction to Canada’s GHG Reduction Target to the UNFCC

On May 15 2015, Canada’s Environment Minister announced the submission of Canada’s overdue Intended Nationally Determined Contribution to the UNFCC , pledging to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 30% below 2005 levels by 2030.   The government also announced  that it will introduce regulations to reduce emissions from methane, chemical and nitrogen-fertilizers, and natural-gas fired electricity. Jeffrey Simpson’s article in the Globe and Mail (May 19th) sums up reaction: “Having utterly failed to meet its previous GHG reduction target, no one should put any credence in the Harper government’s latest one.”  “Weak” and “Inadequate” were frequent judgments in other reactions to the announcement: from the the Pacific Institute for Climate Solutions  ; from Environmental Defence ; from Natural Resources Defence Council; from the Pembina Institute ; from the Climate Action Network  ; from the World Resources Institute .

An Update on Canadian Climate Change

At the end of June, Natural Resources Canada released the latest in its climate change assessment reports, updating the 2008 version. Canada in a Changing Climate: Sector Perspectives on Impacts and Adaptation synthesized over 1500 publications since 2007, and includes chapters on natural resources, food production, industry, biodiversity and protected areas, human health, and water and transportation infrastructure.

Editors of the compilation are F.J. Warren and D.S. Lemmen of the Climate Change Impacts and Adaptation Division of Natural Resources Canada; over 90 authors and 115 expert reviewers contributed to the document. See http://www.nrcan.gc.ca/environment/resources/publications/impacts-adaptation/reports/assessments/2014/16309 for the 2014, 2008, and 2004 assessment reports.

LNG Production Powered by Renewables would Create More Jobs, Less Pollution, without Sacrificing Competitiveness

lock in jobsOn January 15, CleanEnergy Canada released the latest in its reports regarding the production of Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) in British Columbia. Lock in Jobs, Not Pollution urges the government of British Columbia to use renewable electricity to power the LNG facilities. The report explains that the heart of LNG facilities are their compressors, which can be powered by the traditional technology of gas turbine drives (also called direct drives or D-drives), or by the more innovative electric motor drives (E-drives), now in use in Norway. The report contends that, in comparison to the use of fossil fuels, the use of renewable energy to power e-drives would “increase regional permanent employment by 45 percent, decrease carbon pollution by 33 percent, reduce smog, and build the foundations of a renewable energy economy in Northwestern British Columbia.” The report contains detailed appendices of the methodology by which job projections and estimates of cost and competitiveness were calculated.

The report quotes numerous government statements that claim that the LNG initiatives will be the “cleanest in the world”; notably, Premier Clark stated at the World Economic Forum in China in 2012, “We want our LNG plants to be principally fuelled by renewables.” Yet in a radio interview in response to the report’s release, the B.C. Minister of Energy stated, “If we were to introduce a brand new condition, at this stage of our discussions with these LNG proponents, it would first of all be foolhardy, it would be unprofessional.” Two government-industry agreements for LNG development were announced in January, one for Kitimat and one for Prince Rupert.

For a broader discussion of the many potential sources of carbon emissions from LNG production (including the extraction of shale oil gas and transportation to the LNG processing facilities), see a recent OpEd by Alison Bailie. According to Pembina Institute estimates, if LNG development is to achieve the revenue claims made by the B.C. government, B.C.’s LNG sector would produce three-quarters as much carbon pollution as the oil sands, by 2020. The author contends that the government could reduce the carbon footprint by limiting the growth of the LNG sector, prioritizing low-carbon job creation, and setting high standards for emissions reductions technology for any projects that are allowed to proceed.

LINKS:

Lock in Jobs, Not Pollution is at CleanEnergy Canada at: http://cleanenergycanada.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Lock-in-Jobs-Not-Pollution.pdf, with links to previous CleanEnergy Canada reports about LNG at: http://cleanenergycanada.org/category/news-coverage/

Carbon Footprint of B.C. LNG Boom Could Rival Alberta’s Oilsands, OpEd by Alison Bailie, from Pembina Institute, originally posted at The Tyee, (Jan. 13), at: http://www.pembina.org/op-ed/2515

B.C. Government press releases re industry agreements for LNG facilities are at: http://www.newsroom.gov.bc.ca/2014/01/major-lng-contract-awarded.html (Jan. 13, Kitimat) and http://www.newsroom.gov.bc.ca/2014/01/second-lng-agreement-reached-for-grassy-point-with-woodside.html (Jan. 16, Grassy Narrows, Prince Rupert).

Radio interview with Energy Minister Bennett in response to the CleanEnergy report is at: http://www.cknw.com/2014/01/16/energy-minister-says-no-to-electricity-powered-lng-plants/, with response from CleanEnergy Canada at: http://cleanenergycanada.org/2014/01/16/media-statement-re-minister-bennett-remarks-powering-lng-plants/

Canada’s Environmental Prestige at a New Low

Two new reports reflect the global dismay for Canada’s environmental performance. Climate Change Performance Index Results 2014, released by the Climate Action Network Europe and Germanwatch, ranks Canada at 58th in their index, “the worst performer of all industrialised countries”. Even China, the world’s highest CO2 emitter, ranked 46th, thanks to its heavy investment in renewable energies. See Climate Change Performance Index Results 2014 at: http://germanwatch.org/en/download/8599.pdf . And in Race to the Bottom, the 2014 report of the international Climate Action Tracker project, Japan, Australia and Canada are singled out for poor performance. See: http://climateactiontracker.org/news/151/In-talks-for-a-new-climate-treaty-a-race-to-the-bottom.html with the 8 page policy brief at:http://climateactiontracker.org/assets/publications/briefing_papers/CAT_Policy_brief_Race_to_the_bottom.pdf.

Climate Change Initiatives of Canadian Companies

The 2013 Canadian report of the CDP (formerly the Carbon Disclosure Project), was released on October 1, ranking the Canadian companies doing the best job of investing to cut greenhouse gas emissions and preparing for climate change. The report was prepared by Accenture on behalf of the non-profit CDP, and is based on questionnaires sent to the 200 largest Canadian companies by market capitalization (the “Canada 200”), as listed on the Toronto Stock Exchange (TSX). Key results: 85% of respondents say that climate change is integrated into their business strategy (an increase from 77% in 2012); 64% of respondents offer incentives for “climate performance” (from 14% from 2012). The five top Climate Performance Leadership companies are: ARC Resources Ltd., Thomson Reuters, Bank of Montreal, Suncor Energy, and TD Bank. 

See the Canadian Report at: https://www.cdproject.net/CDPResults/CDP-Canada-200-Climate-Change-Report-2013.pdf. The U.S. version of this report is based on the 500 S & P-listed companies and is available at: https://www.cdproject.net/CDPResults/CDP-SP500-climate-report-2013.pdf

Carbon Management in Canada: Can we Revive a Civil Debate?

On April 17th in Ottawa, the think tank Canada 2020 convened a meeting “because of our concern over the disintegration of constructive debate about carbon management at a national level in Canada. The current deadlock is not good for our country, our democracy or for our planet.”  With a goal “to begin to define a constructive and positive course of action”, presentations were made Jean Charest, (former Liberal Premier of Quebec), Elizabeth May (Leader of Canada’s Green Party), Kathryn Harrison (UBC professor), Eric Newell, (former CEO of  Syncrude), and Bob Inglis, (former Republican member of the U.S. Congress).

The background paper on which discussion was based, Why would Canadians Buy Carbon Pricing?  is at http://canada2020.ca/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Canada-2020-Background-Paper-Carbon-Pricing-April-2013.pdf. It provides an overview of the current provincial mechanisms and concludes that the B.C. Carbon tax offers the best model for a national policy. The event website at http://canada2020.ca/event/the-canada-we-want-carbon-pricing/  provides links to all documents and to videos of each presenter.