New voices calling for climate change protections in NAFTA 2.0 – updated on May 7

NAFTA-2-0-People-or-Polluters-coverCanada’s Minister of Foreign Affairs, Chrystia Freeland, arrived in Washington on May 7 for final “make or break” talks about NAFTA, according to a CBC report.  Below, some reports reflecting concerns from Canada’s labour and climate change communities.

On April 17, the Sierra Club, the Council of Canadians, and Greenpeace Mexico released a new report, NAFTA 2.0: For People Or Polluters? A Climate Denier’s Trade Deal versus a Clean Energy Economy.   In this report, economists from the U.S., Canada, and Mexico document the obstacles to climate progress in the current North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) negotiations, and propose climate, labour, and human rights protections  in line with the Paris Accord.  Canadian contributor Gordon Laxer, founder of the Parkland Institute, states:  “NAFTA’s little-known ‘proportionality’ rule locks Canada into perpetual production of climate-polluting tar sands oil and fracked gas, while giving corporate polluters a permanent green light to build tar sands oil pipelines to the U.S.” The NAFTA 2.0 report urges elimination of the proportionality rule, elimination of the investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) tribunals under Chapter 11,  and elimination of  rules regarding regulatory cooperation that could be used to delay, weaken, or halt new climate policies, or to pressure Canada and Mexico to adopt the weaker climate standards favoured by the Trump administration.  NAFTA 2.0: For People or Polluters?  was written and researched by Dr. Frank Ackerman (Synapse Energy Economics, U.S.),  Dr. Alejandro Álvarez Béjar (Professor, National Autonomous University of Mexico), Dr. Gordon Laxer,  (Founding Director, Parkland Institute, University of Alberta, Canada), and Ben Beachy (Director of the Sierra Club’s Responsible Trade Program, U.S.). A summary appears in a Sierra Club Blog.

FreelandChrystia

Chrystia Freeland, Minister of Foreign Affairs

 

On May 2, Canada’s labour, climate, and social justice communities  sent a joint  Open Letter  to Canada’s Minister of Foreign Affairs, stating their  twelve shared principles and values on very specific NAFTA issues. They conclude: “ An alternative model of trade must be rooted in principles of equity, the primacy of human rights — including the rights of Indigenous peoples, women and girls, workers, migrants, farmers, and communities — and social and ecological justice. Furthermore, if Canada wishes to be an international champion of action on climate change, its trade policy must be compatible with its climate objectives.”  “Chrystia Freeland urged to be a climate champion at NAFTA talks” (National Observer, May 2summarizes the letter and quotes from an interview on the issue with Hassan Yussuff, President of the Canadian Labour Congress (CLC).   The CLC was one of 8 labour unions and 47  organizations to sign the Open Letter.  The others include Canadian Union of Public Employees, CWA-Canada, National Union of Public and General Employees (NUPGE), Public Service Alliance of Canada, Registered Nurses’ Association of Ontario, United Steelworkers, and Unifor amongst unions;  Climate Action Network-Canada, the Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment, Citizens Climate Lobby Canada, Oxfam Canada, and other social justice groups.

NAFTA Getting it right Council of CanadiansThe Council of Canadians have maintained a long-standing campaign against NAFTA, especially the ISDS provisions.  Their website on the issue is here; their own guide to the NAFTA Negotiations, Getting it Right:  A People’s Guide to re-negotiating NAFTA   was published in October 2017 and agrees with the new Sierra Club report in most respects, including elimination of the ISDS, and incorporation of workers’ rights.

The Canadian Centre for Policy Analysis acts as the administrative lead  in the Trade and Investment Research Project (TIRP), a coalition of NGO and labour unions. CCPA published Canada’s Track Record Under NAFTA Chapter 11  (January 2018) which tracks the cases and penalties Canada has paid under the existing  ISDS provisions, and Renegotiating NAFTA: CCPA submission to Global Affairs Canada on the renegotiation and modernization of the North American Free Trade Agreement (July 2017).

The International Institute for Sustainable Development has published  Can Investor-State Dispute Settlement Be Good for the Environment?  which reviews the European Energy Charter Treaty as well as NAFTA; Environmental and Public Interest Considerations in NAFTA Renegotiation (November 2017); and A Wish List for an Environmentally friendly NAFTA  (April 2018) .

 

Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain pipeline ignites a trade war between Alberta and British Columbia

trudeau-notley-20161129Pipeline politics have ignited a trade war between the governments of Alberta and British Columbia – both led by NDP Premiers  – with the Prime Minister clearly siding with Alberta and the construction of the Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain pipeline, as recently as February 1 .  The latest episode in the longstanding interprovincial feud was triggered on January 30,  when the B.C. government announced the formation of an independent scientific advisory panel to determine whether diluted bitumen can be effectively cleaned up after being spilled in water, and  “Until that committee reports, the government will impose a regulation prohibiting any expansion, either by pipeline or rail, of heavy oil sands crude.”  Details are in “B.C. announces oil transportation restrictions that could affect Kinder Morgan”  in the National Observer (Jan. 30); “B.C.’s Action on Bitumen Spills ‘Finds Kinder Morgan’s Achilles’ Heel’ (Feb. 5).

Alberta’s reaction was strong. First, in what Toronto’s Globe and Mail described as a “spat” on February 1:  “Alberta suspends electricity talks with B.C. over pipeline fight“. In a few days, The Energy Mix wrote ” Sour Grapes: Alberta to stop importing B.C. wine over Kinder Morgan feud” (Feb. 6) and  “Alberta Declares Boycott of B.C. Wine in Escalating Kinder Morgan Dispute” (Feb. 7 ) . CBC News reports reveal the escalating emotions: “The Alberta vs. B.C. pipeline fight. Now it’s war.” (Feb. 3) and “Weaponizing wine: Notley’s engineering a federal crisis in her battle with B.C.” and  “Oil, water and wine: “Escalating Alberta-B.C. feud threatens future of Trans Mountain pipeline” (Feb. 7); DeSmog Canada wrote “This might get Nasty: Why the Kinder Morgan standoff between Alberta and B.C. is a Zero-Sum Game” (Feb. 2). On February 9, Alberta’s Premier announced “a task force of prominent Canadians to respond to B.C.’s unconstitutional attack on the Trans Mountain Pipeline and the jobs that go with it”. The Market Access Task Force is loaded with government representatives and oil industry executives.

If you only have time to read one article about this dispute, read the analysis of Alberta’s Parkland Institute, in Let’s share actual facts about the Trans Mountain Pipeline. The three claims being made by the Alberta government are: 1. the  pipeline would generate $18.5 billion for “roads, schools, and hospitals”;  2.  it would create 15,000 jobs during construction, and 3. it would create 37,000 jobs per year. With deep expertise in the oil and gas industry, Parkland explains how these numbers were derived and why they are mostly outdated and selective.

Kinder-Morgan-Protest_Mark-KlotzWikimedia-Commons-800x485

Protests against Kinder Morgan will continue in B.C., with the Tsleil-Waututh First Nation  calling for a mass demonstration on Burnaby Mountain in March. – see the CBC summary here.

Stepping back,  see Andrea Harden-Donahue‘s January 24  blog for the Council of Canadians, “#StopKM: State of Resistance” , which details past resistance and demonstrations against KM,  and states that “the Pull Together campaign recently reached the fundraising target of $625,000 towards Indigenous legal challenges.” For a view of the legal issues and lawsuits (including First Nations’) in this longstanding fight, see a West Coast Environmental Law blog published on January 17, before this war erupted: “Whose (pipe)line is it anyway? Adventures in jurisdictional wonderland “.

 

Trump’s solar tariffs may impact solar jobs worldwide

solar installers on roofDonald Trump’s decision to impose tariffs on solar panels and washing machines on January 23  was roundly criticized on many grounds – most frequently, the impact on jobs in the solar industry, as stated in the  New York Times Editorial on January 23 ,“Mr. Trump’s Tariffs will not bring back manufacturing jobs”.   The Times supported their opinion with several articles, including  “Trump’s Solar Tariffs are clouding the industry’s future” (Jan. 23) , which states: “Far more workers are employed in areas that underpin the use of solar technology, such as making steel racks that angle the panels toward the sun. And the bulk of workers in the solar industry install and maintain the projects, a process that is labor-intensive and hard to automate.” The Solar Energy Industries Association in the U.S. response is here, and their Fact Sheet (Feb. 2)  explains the terms and impact of the decision. The Solar Foundation released its 8th annual Jobs Census on February 7, revealing the first-ever year of decline in the number of jobs, but still a census of over 250,000 workers.    For a thorough overview, see the Fact Checker article by the Washington Post,  “Trump says solar tariff will create ‘a lot of jobs.’ But it could wipe out many more” (Jan. 29).

Three Canadian solar companies immediately filed a suit against the tariffs in the U.S. Court of International Trade, arguing that they violate NAFTA. The EU, China, South Korea, and Taiwan have also filed complaints at the World Trade Organization.  For a deeper look at the possible implications for other countries, including Canada, consider the complexity of global trade:  From an excellent overview in  The Energy Mix: “Trump Solar Tariff may be opening salvo in trade war”: “Although China appeared to be Trump’s intended target, the tariff on solar cells and panels will mostly hit workers in other countries. Thanks to dispersed supply chains—and partly in response to previous U.S. tariffs—solar photovoltaic manufacturing is a global industry. Malaysia, South Korea, and Vietnam all hold a larger share of the U.S. market than China does directly. And all are entitled to seek remedies under various trade agreements.”   The Energy Mix item refers to “U.S. tariffs aimed at China and South Korea hit targets worldwide”    in the New York Times (Jan. 23), which adds:  “Suniva, one of the American solar companies that had sought the tariffs, filed for bankruptcy protection last year, citing the effects of Chinese imports. But the majority owner of Suniva is itself Chinese, and the company’s American bankruptcy trustee supported the trade litigation over the objections of the Chinese owners.” From Reuters,  “Why the US decision on solar panels could hit Europe and Asia hard”  states that Goldman Sachs estimated that the tariffs implied “a 3-7 percent cost increase for utility-scale and residential solar costs, respectively …. Two key exclusions with respect to technology and certain countries (Canada/Singapore, among others) were included as part of the (initial) recommendation.” Canadian Solar , founded in Canada but a multinational traded on NASDAQ,  is one the world’s biggest panel manufacturers.

For an overview of the current state of the U.S. renewable energy markets and labour force, including solar, see  In Demand: Clean Energy, Sustainability and the new American Workforce  (Jan. 2018) , co-authored by Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) and Meister Consultants Group.  Highlights:  there are  4 million clean energy jobs in the U.S., with wind and solar energy jobs outnumbering  coal and gas jobs in 30 states.  Quoting the IRENA Renewable Energy and Jobs Annual Review for 2017 ,  the In Demand report states that: “The solar industry grew 24.5 percent to employ 260,000 workers, adding jobs at nearly 17 times the rate of the overall economy in 2016.”  The coal industry employs 160,000 workers in the U.S.  In Demand  compiles statistics from the U.S. Department of Energy, International Energy Agency, International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) and many others, about current and projected clean energy markets and employment in the U.S.: renewable energy, energy efficiency, alternative vehicles, and energy storage and advanced grid sectors.

 

Local Content Requirements Promoting Green Growth in China and Around the World

A paper released on June 3rd by the International Centre on Trade and Sustainable Development “attempts to refocus the LCR debate around the ultimate question of whether this measure can play a role in achieving green industrial growth in general, and RE deployment and innovation in particular. ” The authors set out the arguments for and against the use of LCR’s, examine their use by China in the wind energy industry, and describe (in less detail) examples in Ontario, Quebec, Spain, Italy, France, Greece, Croatia, the US, India, Brazil, South Africa and Turkey. A concluding section deals with the WTO role. Ultimately, the authors call for more rigorous research into the effect of local content requirement policies on the creation of jobs in the renewable energy industry.

LINK

Local Content Requirements and the Renewable Energy Industry – A Good Match? By Jan-Christoph Kuntze and Tom Moerenhout is available at: http://ictsd.org/i/publications/165193/?view=details