Visions for green steel production in Canada and internationally

CSPA_2_29_compressedThe Canadian Steel Producers Association released a “Climate Call to Action” for their industry on March 4 , with a goal to achieve net zero CO2 emissions by 2050.  The press release calls that goal  “the central plank” of their vision.  More details are explained in a 19-page document, Canada’s Steel Industry: A Sustainable Choice , which states:

“Canada’s steel producers have the aspirational goal to achieve net-zero CO emissions by 2050. This means that we must significantly reduce net CO emissions including through removal or offsets. In order to achieve this aspirational goal, we need to work with stakeholders, including suppliers, customers, and government, to implement transformational changes and breakthrough technologies. This includes significant capital investments, public-private partnerships, and policies that support the industry during the transition.”

The Statement emphasizes technological breakthroughs and trade policy, and the words “workers”, “jobs” or “labour” do not appear anywhere. The most relevant section relates to operational efficiencies and manufacturing processes:

“We have also adopted process control technology and other innovative technologies, such as robotics, to improve our process reliability, production yields, and overall production efficiencies to reduce losses and the amount of energy used to produce each tonne of steel. However, there is limited room for further improvement based on existing technology. The adoption of new technologies to further advance and optimize steel manufacturing software control systems will continue to drive improvements in our sector.”

Internationally:

A useful and related report is  Low and zero emissions in the steel and cement industries: Barriers, technologies and policies ,  an Issue Paper prepared for the November 2019 OECD Green Growth and Sustainable Development Forum. The paper is meant for international audience, though its author, Chris Bataille, is a prominent researcher at Simon Fraser University as well as at the Institute for Sustainable Development and International Relations (IDDRI) .  He calls for an industry transition based on  “well-designed policy packages and careful consultation with all parties involved and affected.”  Specifically,  regarding Just Transition, he states (p. 36) :

“To support change, we will need to make many modifications to existing institutions, and create new ones… A key element that is often overlooked is a transition plan for the management and labouring workforce, whose full support is required. This involves retraining for those already in the workforce, and redefinition of the curriculum in technical schools where electricians, pipefitters, heavy duty machinery specialists, etc. are trained. Oversight bodies are also required for the national transition plans, which have timetables of expected physical transitions against which they can measure progress and recommend policy adjustments and wholesale changes … At present, the UK Climate Change Commission, which recommends five year carbon budgets and parliamentary advice as required, is the best practise example of a national oversite body. It has no statutory authority to change policy, as this is the prerogative of the British Parliament, but it can monitor progress and recommend changes.”

Notably, one of the “asks” of  the Canadian Steel Producers Association visioning document is the creation of “ a Canadian steel climate council with key government departments to monitor and report on the progress of the sector’s climate strategy, to share practices, to engage with other stakeholders, and to evolve the plan as new information and insights emerge”.  (“Stakeholders” don’t include workers.)

Worldsteel , the global industry association, released its own position paper in 2020:  Steel’s contribution to a low carbon future and climate resilient societies , which emphasizes most of the same  themes of technology,  circular economy, energy efficiency, and a “level playing field” globally.  Worldsteel also recently published the Sustainable Steel: Indicators 2019 and the steel supply chain .

steel-arising-cover-01_1-1And from the U.K., academics at the University of Cambridge released  Steel Arising: Opportunities for the UK in a transforming global steel industry  in April 2019. The report was commissioned by GREENSTEEL Council which  “promotes sustainable production methods and a revitalisation of engineering and the economy” in the UK.  Steel Arising calls for  greening by “moving away from primary production towards recycled steel made with sustainable power.”  The report states: “Not only will this create long-term green jobs, it will lead to world-leading exportable skills and technologies and allow us to transform the highly valuable scrap that we currently export at low value, but should be nurturing as a strategic asset. With today’s grid we can do this with less than half the emissions of making steel with iron ore and with more renewable power in future this could drop much further.”

NAFTA becomes USMCA – what has changed for workers and the environment?

NAFTA FREELAND

Canada’s Foreign Affairs Minister Chrystia Freeland in Mexico City,  July 25, 2018. (AP Photo/Eduardo Verdugo)

On September 30, the  governments of Canada, the United States and Mexico  agreed on a replacement of the North American Free Trade Agreement –  the United States Mexico Canada Agreement (USMCA). Legislatures in all three countries must now consider and ratify the agreement before it is final; if that happens, it will automatically be reviewed after six years, at which time it will continue for a 16-year period, if all parties agree to that.

What has changed?   The new agreement runs to over 1800 pages, including annexes and side letters – a complexity that will take a while to digest.  For WCR readers,  the major changes of interest relate to the elimination of Chapter 11,  (Investor-State Dispute Resolution) for Canada, and a change to auto tariffs, so that, as of 2020, a car will qualify for tariff-free treatment  if 75 per cent of its contents are made in North America (an increase from the current NAFTA threshold of 62.5 per cent).

General summaries and reaction:  From  CBC News “Buried behind the cows and cars: key changes in NAFTA 2.0” ; an iPolitics article on October 3  is headlined  “Canada can claim at least partial success of progressive agenda in USMCA”  . From the Council of Canadians: “The Good, the bad and the ugly from NAFTA 2.0”   with #1 in the “good news” category: “at the request of the U.S., there will be no ISDS process between U.S. and Canada”;  also on ISDS,  “Canada cheers the end of corporate NAFTA challenges in the new deal”  (Toronto Star  Oct. 2) .  From The Conversation Canada:  “Winners and Losers in the new NAFTA”   by Atif Kubursi , Professor Emeritus of Economics, McMaster University, who states “ The most significant achievement by Canadian negotiators is their success in preserving Chapter 19 from the original NAFTA” (which covers  dispute resolution re tariffs and countervailing duties).

In the bad news category:  An Opinion from Gordon Ritchie in The Globe and Mail on Oct. 1 says “NAFTA gets a new name but little else has changed” , reflecting a cynicism that the agreement was an exercise in “branding” by President Trump.   It has been noted that Article 32.1 would make it difficult for Canada or Mexico to negotiate any separate free-trade agreements with a “non-market country,” (shorthand for  China) . And from a broader view, the New York Times on October 3, “For Canada and U.S., ‘That Relationsip is Gone’ after bitter NAFTA Talks”  and “For Canada, a Sigh of relief more than a celebration in new Nafta deal”  (Oct. 1), which chronicles the difficulties of negotiation and includes some unique reactions.

The oil and gas industry lobbied and made gains, mostly in provisions relating to Mexico (which maintains the Investor State Dispute Resolution provisions for oil and gas investment) – explained in an article in Grist  , and explained in more detail in  “Trump’s USMCA delivers big wins to drugmakers, oil companies and tech firms”  in the Washington Post.  Energy Mix  echoes the same ideas from a Canadian viewpoint in  “Fossils cheer climate absent as Canada Mexico U.S. reach new trade deal”  (Oct. 3) .

On the key issue of the Environment: The National Observer article of October 1 notes that   the agreement does not appear to contain the terms “climate change” or “global warming” in any of its chapters, annexes or side letters. The article quotes the Sierra Club in the U.S. : it  “includes weak environmental terms that have historically enabled outsourcing of pollution and jobs, fails to make any mention of climate change, and includes special handouts to oil and gas corporations. …Much of the language appears designed to greenwash the deal, not to rectify NAFTA’s threats to wildlife, ecosystems, or clean air and water.”   Sierra Club’s “Environmental Audit of the new NAFTA deal” is here .  The weaknesses of USMCA on the environmental front are explored in “Trudeau says he still wants to talk climate change and trade with Trump” in the National Observer (Oct. 1).  The Canadian government Technical Summary of the Negotiated Outcomes:  Environment Chapter   states “Climate change remains a priority for Canada, and we remain committed to addressing this issue through ongoing negotiations of a parallel environmental cooperation agreement (ECA).”

Union Reaction to the USMCA:    The Canadian Labour Congress welcomes the elimination of Chapter 11 and is “pleased to see the side agreements on labour moved into the main agreement, now subject to a state-to-state dispute resolution process.” in “Along with key gains in the USMCA, Canada’s unions raise concern” (Oct. 1) .

Similarly, Canadian Union of Public Employees posted:  “CUPE applauds the elimination of Chapter 11, the ISDS (investor-state dispute settlement) mechanism from NAFTA, which CUPE has long fought to have removed, though it is regrettable that Mexico will remain subject to ISDS provisions” in “NAFTA gets worse for Canadians under USMCA”    (Oct. 1) . CUPE continues: “it is disappointing that the agreement does not meet or even come close to the progressive benchmarks that the Liberal government set for itself on NAFTA.”

The current tariffs against Canadian steel and aluminum remain unaffected by the new USMCA, prompting the United Steelworkers to issue a press release: “NAFTA Deal a Sell-Out for Canadian Steel, Aluminum Workers” .

“United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) should offer more protections for workers, says OFL”  in a press release (Oct. 2) .   “ The OFL calls on the government of Ontario to work alongside their federal counterparts to ensure that the immediate removal of security tariffs on Canadian steel and aluminum are a top priority.”

In a surprisingly subdued press release on September 30, auto workers union Unifor was withholding any celebrations until further study of the language of the official agreement, according to  “USMCA framework achieves auto gains: Unifor”

Official Documents related to the USMCA:  Canada’s Office of International Trade has compiled Technical summaries of the Chapters and backgrounders at its main website in English  and in French  . The government’s overview summary is in English here  ( in French here ).  Also available,  Technnical Summaries of the Negotiated Outcomes: for  Labour ; for  Trade remedies and related dispute settlement (Chapter 19) (re countervailing duties and tariffs);  for State-to-State Dispute Settlement ; Section 232 Side Letters summary re auto industry

The full text of USMCA is (so far) available only at the  Office of the U.S. Trade Representative.  Chapter 23 on Labour is here ; Chapter 24 on the Environment is here  ; Chapter 31 on Dispute Settlement is here .

NAFTA usmca-banner-eng

 

Wind energy continues to grow in the U.S.; Solar energy weathers Trump’s tariffs

Aerial view of the National Wind Technology Center; wind turbinesWind power capacity has tripled across the United States in just the last decade as prices have plunged and the technology has improved, according to new reports released by the U.S. Department of Energy at the end of August.  Three reports are summarized in a press release on August 23 , and in “U.S. Wind Power Is ‘Going All Out’ with Bigger Tech, Falling Prices, Reports Show” by Inside Climate News . The full reports are: 2017 Offshore Wind Technologies Market Update  August 2018 ; 2017 Wind Technologies Market Report  ; and 2017 Distributed Wind Market Report  .

How Much Damage are Trump’s Solar Tariffs Doing to the U.S. Industry?” (Aug. 20) in Inside Climate News concludes that the tariffs have had a dampening effect on the industry, but less than expected.  The  Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA), using confidential information provided by the companies which are its members, estimates that 9,000 jobs have been affected to date – either by layoffs or prospective jobs that were cancelled. Their initial forecast in January 2018 had been that tariff-related job losses could reach about 23,000 for 2018.  The Solar Foundation reported in February 2018 in its annual Solar Jobs Census that 250,271 Americans worked in solar as of 2017, although the number of workers had declined in 2017 for the first time since 2010.  That trend will surely turn around by 2020 when the new regulations in California take effect, requiring solar panels on almost all new homes.

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 “.