How to finance a global shift away from toxic greenhouse gases caused by burning fossil fuels was one of the key talking points during the first week of the annual United Nations climate change conference held this year in Lima, Peru.

The conference, which began Monday and is scheduled to end next Friday, started with a statement by Christiana Figueres, Executive Secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), who said negotiators must draft a new, universal climate change agreement that will hopefully be endorsed next year at COP21 in Paris.

Figueres also said negotiators “must enhance the delivery of finance, in particular to the most vulnerable” as well as stimulating “ever-increasing action on the part of all stakeholders to scale up the scope and accelerate the solutions that move us all forward, faster.”

In terms of finance, the UNFCCC published a media release saying the amount of money earmarked for climate change action globally was at least $340 billion for the period 2011-2012, but possibly $650 billion or higher.

Support from developed countries to developing countries amounted to between $35 and $50 billion annually, the media release said, adding dedicated multilateral climate funds are set to rise with the recent pledges to the Green Climate Fund
 amounting to nearly $10 billion.

According to Bloomberg, however, Figueres said at a press conference that much more money needs to be raised to effectively fight climate change.

“Although these numbers are encouraging and give us a sense of hope, the fact is that climate finance needs to be in the trillions if we’re going to get to where we need to be,” she said.

Figueres added finance will be a crucial key for achieving the internationally-agreed goal of keeping a global temperature rise under 2 degrees C and sparing people and the planet from dangerous climate change.

Another major talking point at the conference was the release of a statement by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) saying that 2014 is on track to be one of the hottest, if not the hottest, years on record.

An accompanying WMO media release said the record high temperatures are largely due to record high global sea surface temperatures, which will very likely remain above normal until the end of the year.

January to October 2014 average air temperatures. Source: WMO Report

Those high sea temperatures, the WMO said, and other factors contributed to exceptionally heavy rainfall and floods in many countries and extreme drought in others.

“The provisional information for 2014 means that fourteen of the fifteen warmest years on record have all occurred in the 21st century,” said WMO Secretary-General Michel Jarraud.

“What we saw in 2014 is consistent with what we expect from a changing climate. Record-breaking heat combined with torrential rainfall and floods destroyed livelihoods and ruined lives. What is particularly unusual and alarming this year are the high temperatures of vast areas of the ocean surface, including in the northern hemisphere,” Jarraud said.

“Record-high greenhouse gas emissions and associated atmospheric concentrations are committing the planet to a much more uncertain and inhospitable future.”

Other developments related to the climate change issue continued to occur outside of the negotiations in Lima.

UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon told CBC that Canada needs to become “ambitious and visionary” and quit stalling on setting climate change goals.

"It’s only natural that Canada as one of the G7 countries should take a leadership role,” Ban said.

“There are ways to make a transformative change from a fossil fuel-based economy to a climate-resilient economy by investing wisely in renewable energy choices.”

Earlier in the week efforts in Canada to harness the power of renewables became a prominent news story, as reported by DeSmog Canada, showing that clean energy provided more jobs in the nation last year than the oilsands.

Canada’s rapidly developing green energy industry has seen investments of more than $24 billion in the past five years while employment in the sector increased by 37 per cent during the same period, according to the report by Clean Energy Canada.

The 34-page Tracking the Energy Revolution — Canada report noted that there were 23,700 total direct jobs in the green energy sector in 2013, compared to 22,340 jobs in the oilsands.

Germany’s largest energy company, E.ON, on the first day of the Lima conference, created global headlines with an announcement that it was splitting the company into two with the largest share of employees, about 40,000, getting out of the coal and gas business and focusing entirely on renewables.

“We have seen the emergence of a new energy world,” Chief Executive Johannes Teyssen said. “E.ON’s existing broad business model can no longer properly address these new challenges.”

In the U.S., 223 companies announced their support for the Environmental Protection Agency’s proposed carbon standard for electric power plants, including industry giants such as IKEA, Mars Inc., VF Corporation, and Nestlé.

“As businesses concerned about the immediate and long-term implications of climate change, we strongly support the principles behind the draft Carbon Pollution Standard for existing power plants,” states the letter, which was sent to the EPA, the Obama Administration, and Senate and House majority and minority leaders.

“The proposed Carbon Pollution Standard represents a critical step in moving our country towards a clean energy economy,” said the letter.

Also spurring headlines was the release of a Munich Re poll that showed 83 per cent of Americans now believe the climate is changing, and 63 per cent are concerned about changes in the frequency and intensity of natural disasters, such as floods, hurricanes, and tornadoes.

“Our survey findings indicate that national sentiment over whether or not climatic changes are occurring has finally reached a tipping point,” said Tony Kuczinski, President and CEO of Munich Re America.

The Associated Press also contributed to the pressing global conversation on climate change, saying that in the more than two decades since world leaders first got together to try to solve global warming, life on Earth has changed, not just the climate.

“It’s gotten hotter, more polluted with heat-trapping gases, more crowded and just downright wilder,” the AP reported.

“The numbers are stark. Carbon dioxide emissions: up 60 per cent. Global temperature: up six-tenths of a degree. Population: up 1.7 billion people. Sea level: up 3 inches. U.S. extreme weather: up 30 per cent. Ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica: down 4.9 trillion tons of ice.”

Negotiators in Lima will no doubt be discussing these developments, and more, next week as they work towards — as they have said repeatedly in the past — an ambitious legally-binding greenhouse gas emissions agreement next year in Paris.

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

Canada’s rapidly developing green energy industry has seen investments of more than $24 billion in the past five years while employment in the sector increased by 37 per cent during the same period, according to a report released Tuesday by Clean Energy Canada.

According to the report, impressive growth in the emerging sector has been achieved despite frustratingly inadequate federal support on things such as tax incentives and research promotion.

Surging employment growth last year in the clean energy sector — encompassing manufacturing, power production, energy efficiency and biofuels — accounted for more direct Canadian jobs than in the oilsands, the report added.

The 34-page Tracking the Energy Revolution — Canada report noted that there were 23,700 total direct jobs in the green energy sector in 2013, compared to 22,340 jobs in the oilsands.

“The global clean energy revolution isn’t a future scenario. It is underway right now, and it presents huge potential benefits for Canadians,” Merran Smith, director of Clean Energy Canada, said in an accompanying media release.

Image from Tracking the Energy Revolution report.

Remewable growth and investment in Canada, 2009-2013. Image from Tracking the Energy Revolution report.

The report’s release comes during the annual United Nations climate change conference taking place in Lima, Peru.

Wind power, solar, run-of-river and biomass have grown by 93 per cent since 2009, the report said, and in 2013, Canada jumped from 12th to seventh place in the G20 countries for clean-energy investment.

As an example of the rapid growth, the report added, one new wind turbine was installed in Canada every 10 hours last year.

In all, the report said, investments in clean energy in Canada totalled $6.5 billion last year, with $3.6 billion going to wind power and $2.5 billion to solar.

Giving credit to Ontario, Quebec and British Columbia for tapping into the benefits of the booming renewable energy sector, the report noted the industry needs stronger federal backing to meet its tremendous potential across the nation.

“Despite that incredible track record, in some respects Canada is still swimming upstream,” Smith said. “Unlike our American friends, where the clean-energy opportunity is clearly a national priority, our federal government’s approach could only be described as indifferent.”  

Canada has more than enough renewable energy to provide all the energy needs of its citizens and industry, added the report.

“Like virtually every national government around the world, Ottawa could be doing more to support clean energy and cut carbon pollution,” the report said. “But unlike some of our peers, the evidence shows that Ottawa needs to be doing a great deal more. So far, federal efforts on climate and clean energy simply aren’t getting us where the government said we would go.”

To help promote Canada’s clean energy transition, the report recommended Ottawa provide the green sector with the same sort of tax incentives and research support it made available for development in the oilsands.

The report also recommended a “Building Clean Energy Fund” be established to support transmission lines, smart grids, infrastructure for electric vehicles and cutting-edge clean energy projects across the nation.

Lastly, the report said the federal government should put a price on carbon pollution, an act that would make clean energy choices more competitive and give fossil fuel users an incentive to be more efficient.

“Speeding up Canada’s energy transition would clean up our power grids and transportation systems, but would also help Canadian companies prosper in the fast-growing global clean energy marketplace,” Smith added.

DeSmog Canada wrote about a related Clean Energy Canada report in September that said renewable energy and other low-carbon technologies are now a successful mainstream business with investors spending $207 billion USD in the global sector last year.

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

Rich G20 nations are spending about $88 billion (USD) each year to find new coal, oil and gas reserves even though most reserves can never be developed if the world is to avoid catastrophic climate change, according to a new report.

Generous government subsidies are actually propping up fossil fuel exploration which would otherwise be deemed uneconomic, states the report, “The fossil fuel bail-out: G20 subsidies for oil, gas and coal exploration.”

Produced by the London-based Overseas Development Institute and the Washington-based Oil Change International the 73-page analysis also noted the costs of renewables is falling and the investment returns are better than fossil fuels.  

“Every U.S. dollar in renewable energy subsidies attracts $2.5 in investment, whilst a dollar in fossil fuels subsidies only draws $1.3 of investment,” said the report released Tuesday, just days ahead of the G20 leaders meeting in Brisbane, Australia.

The report also notes the G20 nations are creating a ‘triple-lose’ scenario by providing subsidies for fossil-fuel exploration.

“They are directing large volumes of finance into high-carbon assets that cannot be exploited without catastrophic climate effects,” the report said. “They are diverting investment from economic low-carbon alternatives such as solar, wind and hydro-power. And they are undermining the prospects for an ambitious climate deal in 2015.”

Noting that leaders of the G20 countries, which produce about 80 per cent of global carbon emissions, pledged in 2009 to phase out ‘inefficient’ fossil-fuel subsidies, the report says there is a large gap between G20 commitment and action.

So who is paying for this exploration?

According to the report $49 billion of these subsidies occurred through state-owned enterprises, $23 billion from national subsidies delivered through direct spending and tax breaks and $16 billion from public finance from banks and financial institutions.

During the same period, the report said, the top 20 private oil and gas companies, globally, invested just $37 billion in exploration – less than half of what is provided annually by G20 governments – suggesting their exploration activities are highly dependent on public finance.  

The report added global fossil fuel subsidies — of which exploration is just one portion — are estimated to be $775 billion a year. 

Key findings in the report show that the U.S. provided some $5.1 billion in national subsidies to fossil fuel exploration in 2013 – almost double the level in 2009.

Australia, meanwhile, is providing $3.5 billion for the development of offshore and inland fossil-fuel resources and Russia is provides $2.4 billion in national subsidies for fossil fuel exploration.

The report noted the Canadian government offers a wide array of national subsidies that total a minimum of $928 million annually to encourage fossil fuel exploration, including tax benefits for nearly all exploration activities.  

“Despite the widespread perception that renewables are costly, our research reveals that finding new fossil fuel reserves is costing nearly $88 billion in exploration subsidies across the G20,” the Overseas Development Institute’s Shelagh Whitley said. “Scrapping these subsidies would begin to create a level playing field between renewables and fossil fuel energy.”  

Oil Change International’s director Stephen Kretzmann said “five years ago, G20 governments pledged to both phase out fossil fuel subsidies and take action to limit climate change. Immediately ending exploration subsidies is the clearest next step on both fronts.”

The report recommended governments should price carbon to reflect the social, economic and environmental damage associated with climate change, and reduce emissions to levels compatible with the globally agreed 2oC target.

It also recommended that G20 nations should immediately phase out exploration subsidies as a first step towards a wider fossil-fuel subsidy phase out and reform.

In addition, it said governments should transfer subsidies from exploration and other fossil-fuel subsidies to support for the transition to low-carbon development and universal energy access.

On the same day the report was published, a number of high-profile economists said in a letter to a number of newspapers that governments should end fossil fuel subsidies and galvanize international action on climate change.

“Given that two-thirds of currently known reserves cannot be exploited if the world is to remain within the internationally agreed 2º Centigrade threshold, this is a bad investment for tax-payers and the planet,” said the economists. “Fossil fuel subsidies turn upside down the logic of effective action on climate.”  


Religious leaders in Australia, according to a story published Wednesday, said “world leaders must move towards a renewable energy future or there will be human suffering on an unthinkable scale.”  

Anglican Church Bishop Professor Stephen Pickard was quoted as saying there is overwhelming scientific evidence about the impact of unchecked climate change.

“To our very great shame, unthinking economic growth has become the great treasure,” Pickard said. “It has captured our hearts. It has captured our pockets. It has blinded us to the wellbeing of the planet.”

Under Prime Minister Tony Abbott, coal-rich Australia, described as “being the developed world’s worst polluter per head of population,” repealed the nation’s carbon tax earlier this year.

Image Credit: Stop sign in the oilsands region. Photo by Kris Krug.

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

Kinder Morgan has significantly overstated the benefits of its controversial Trans Mountain pipeline expansion proposal while vastly understating risks associated with increasing the flow of oil to Metro Vancouver.

That’s the conclusion of a new economic analysis by Simon Fraser University and The Goodman Group Ltd. which also recommended that the proposed expansion be rejected as it is neither in the economic nor public interest of B.C. and Metro Vancouver.

“The jobs created are nowhere near the number claimed by Kinder Morgan and the costs are grossly underestimated when the risks of a major spill, particularly one occurring in the Vancouver area, are factored in,” said Doug McArthur, director of SFU’s Graduate School of Public Policy, which co-authored the report.

“The whole project is highly questionable from a public policy point of view,” McArthur added.

The report — Economic Costs and Benefits of the Trans Mountain Expansion Project (TMX) for BC and Metro Vancouver — said Kinder Morgan maintains building the $5.4 billion expansion project would create 36,000 person-years of short-term employment in B.C.

The analysis, however, shows it would only create 12,000 person-years, or less, of employment.

“We correctly anticipated that the benefits from the pipeline would be small in the context of the overall B.C. economy and mostly short-term,” said Ian Goodman, president of The Goodman Group Ltd. and co-author of the report.

“But we were very surprised that the company has exaggerated the short-term jobs associated with building the pipeline by a factor of three,” Goodman said.

In terms of permanent jobs, the report notes Kinder Morgan says operating the expansion project would create only 50 direct full-time jobs in the province but a wide range of spin-offs could push the total up to almost 2,000 jobs.

“Once again, these claims are exaggerated: even with a wide range of spin-offs [the Trans Mountain expansion] will only create 800 long-term jobs,” the 70-page report, released Monday, said.

It also said that, on the cost side, Kinder Morgan’s miscalculations are even more dramatic with estimations of a worst-case scenario for spill damage in a non-urban, non-sensitive area costing only $100 million to $300 (CDN) million.

The analysis found, however, potential costs for a major rupture in a sensitive but non-urban setting could start at $1 billion (USD). Under a worst-case scenario involving a catastrophic rupture in an urban setting, costs could escalate to as much as $2 billion to $5 billion (USD).

The ruptured Enbridge Line 6B that sent more than three million litres of diluted bitumen into a tributary of the Kalamazoo River in Michigan came with a clean up cost of more than $1 billion after more than three years of remediation work.

Brigid Rowan, senior energy economist at The Goodman Group Ltd., said Kinder Morgan has vastly underestimated the worst-case costs for a catastrophic pipeline rupture.

“Contrary to [Kinder Morgan’s] findings, damage and cleanup costs for major accidents are highly correlated with population density,” Rowan said.

“So a worst-case scenario for [the Trans Mountain expansion] would involve a major accident in a more densely populated area (such as Metro Vancouver) damaging and disrupting key infrastructure, and possibly resulting in a spill to water and losses of human life,” he said.

Costs for that type of catastrophe could escalate to the multi-billion dollar range — more than 10 times higher than the Kinder Morgan estimates, Rowan added.

The existing Trans Mountain pipeline already ruptured in a suburban area in Burnaby in 2007 sending 250,000 litres of crude into the community and 70,000 litres into the Burrard Inlet. Over 250 residents were evacuated and more than $15 million spent on clean up.

The report also outlined a major profit disparity between the province and producers when it comes to the pipeline’s financial benefits. B.C. would receive less than 2 per cent of the increased revenues paid to tar sands producers who will retain 68 per cent of the new revenues.

“The lion’s share of the benefits flows to [Kinder Morgan and Trans Mountain], the Alberta tar sands producers and Alberta, whereas the citizens of B.C., and Metro Vancouver in particular, will bear the lion’s share of the risks and receive very small benefits,” the report said.

The Trans Mountain expansion project proposal, which is hotly contested by local residents and municipal politicians, would increase the capacity of oil flowing from Alberta to Metro Vancouver to 890,000 barrels per day from the current 300,000.

The proposed expansion is currently under a controversial review by the National Energy Board.

Image Credit: Kinder Morgan oil facilities in the Burrard Inlet. Photo by Carol Linnitt.

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

In a sign of things to come, a report by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives says Ottawa should create a new “climate migrants” immigration class to prepare for the inflow of people fleeing extreme climate change.

“Estimates of the number of climate-influenced migrants range widely, but most projections agree that in the coming years climate change will compel hundreds of millions of people to relocate,” the report says. “Climate change is one factor that interacts with many others to drive population movements."

Many countries are more vulnerable to the impacts of climate change than Canada, said the 26-page report — Preparing BC for Climate Migration — published last week. 

“Industrialized countries like Canada have disproportionately benefitted from the combustion of fossil fuels, whereas others who have contributed least to climate change will disproportionately feel its impacts,” the report states.

Canada is the fourth highest per-capita greenhouse gas emitter in the world according to 2008 World Resources Institute climate data (this estimate does not take into account emissions resulting from the burning of exported coal, oil and gas).

Report co-author Tim Takaro, a health sciences professor at Simon Fraser University, said Canada has a moral responsibility to people who migrate due to climate change — not just as a matter of charity or generosity, but of justice and reparation as well.

“The federal and provincial governments, rather than ignoring the issue, should develop a comprehensive policy framework to manage climate migration,” Takaro said.

The world is already witnessing the impacts of climate change on lives and livelihoods, the report says.

Global damage from climate change itself and fossil fuel development is estimated at $1.2 trillion per year, or 1.6 per cent of world GDP in 2010, and is projected to rise to 3.2 per cent in 2030.

Canada has acted to thwart international negotiations on climate change, and has not supported UN-sponsored measures that would provide financial assistance to countries affected by global warming.

Canada admits about 250,000 immigrants of all classes per year, the report said, a number that has changed little since the early 1990s. New permanent residents span three major categories: family class (spouses and other family of Canadian citizens and permanent residents), economic immigrants (workers and business immigrants) and refugees.

The number of refugees has dropped from more than 50,000 in each of 1991 and 1992 to fewer than 25,000 per year since 2008, the report says. Refugees constituted 23 per cent of new immigrants to Canada in 1991, but that number had fallen to nine per cent by 2012. In contrast, about two-thirds of immigrants are now from the economic immigrant category. Most of these are skilled workers and their families, while another group includes “investor” immigrants and their families.

“While there is scope for climate migrants to be accepted under this existing framework of law, greater clarity and certainty could be provided by creating a new immigration class of ‘climate migrant’ along with targets and programs to ensure Canada lives up to its moral responsibilities,” said the report.

Key settlement services should be made accessible to climate migrants, the report recommended, adding more funding should also be allocated to reduce strain on these already-overloaded systems and to allow increased migration.

“Given that most climate migrants will remain in the Global South, Canada should substantially increase its support to developing countries shouldering the burden of climate displacement,” the report added.

“Canada owes a ‘climate debt’ to the nations bearing the greatest impacts, including countries that will assist and settle climate migrants.”

Image Credit: Villagers wade through floodwater in Bihar, India in 2008. Photo by Balazs Gardi via Flickr.

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

The European Union has reached a new legally-binding climate change agreement that would see greenhouse gas emissions drop by at least 40 per cent of 1990 levels by 2030.

The agreement, signed off in Brussels two weeks ago by the EU’s 28 member nations, is designed to ensure Europe meets its objective of cutting emissions by at least 80 per cent by mid-century.

It also puts Europe in the lead position to help persuade other nations trailing far behind the EU’s emissions-reduction goals to reach a long-sought global climate change accord next year in Paris.

The 2030 climate and energy plan also calls for the share of renewable energy to increase to 27 per cent of 1990 levels while seeing a 27 per cent increase in energy efficiency.

In an official statement, European Commission President José Manuel Barroso said the 2030 package is very good news for the fight against climate change.

“No player in the world is as ambitious as the European Union when it comes to cutting greenhouse gas emissions,” Barroso said.

“Indeed, the proof that it is ambitious is that we are now going from a goal of 20 per cent cut by 2020 compared to 1990 to 40 per cent by 2030, so, doubling the effort.”

Connie Hedegaard, Commissioner for Climate Action, said she was pleased the 28 EU leaders, despite economic uncertainty and other severe international crises, agreed to the package.

“The EU leaders’ decision . . . is an ambitious and important step forward,” Hedegaard said.

“Important not only to Europe and the Europeans, but also to the rest of the world. We have sent a strong signal to other big economies and all other countries: we have done our homework, now we urge you to follow Europe’s example.”

Bold climate leadership

A DeSmogBlog posting recently noted that Europe is already a world leader in emissions reductions. By way of comparison, under the Copenhagen Accord, Canada, the U.S. and other nations only committed to reducing domestic greenhouse gas emissions by 17 per cent from 2005 levels by 2020.

Global greenhouse gas emissions grew astronomically between 1990, the year Europe’s climate targets are based on, and 2005, the year the Copenhagen’s Accord’s targets are based on — making the European targets far more meaningful than those of Canada and the U.S.

The new agreement will drive continued progress towards a low-carbon economy, according to the official statement.

“It aims to build a competitive and secure energy system that ensures affordable energy for all consumers, increases the security of the EU’s energy supplies, reduces our dependence on energy imports and creates new opportunities for growth and jobs,” a statement accompanying the report said.

The New York Times noted the new accord makes the European Union the first major global emitter to put its position on the table ahead of the important United Nations climate meeting in Paris at the end of 2015.

The NYT story added that German Chancellor Angela Merkel said the new target “will ensure that Europe will be an important player, will be an important party, in future binding commitments of an international climate agreement.”

The Guardian newspaper noted that a clause was inserted into the agreement text that could trigger a review of the EU’s new targets if other countries do not come forward with comparable commitments in Paris.

Still not enough clean energy emphasis

Despite praise, some point out the agreement not only provides a back-out clause but remains non-binding while failing to provide concrete steps for moving to clean and renewable sources of energy.

The new 40 per cent emissions-reduction target falls far too short of what the EU needs to do to pull its weight in the fight against climate change, Natalia Alonso, Oxfam International’s deputy director of advocacy and campaigns, said.

“Insufficient action like this from the world’s richest countries places yet more burden on the poorest people most affected by climate change, but least responsible for causing this crisis,” Alonso said.

EU leaders had an opportunity to shape a smarter, fairer, more sustainable future through a clear shift towards renewable energy and energy efficiency, she said.

“Instead, they have been held back by the fossil fuel industry and their friends, settling for an underwhelming response that keeps the EU stuck in the energy and climate crisis.”

Brook Riley, climate justice and energy campaigner for Friends of the Earth Europe, described the agreement as dangerously irresponsible.

“This deal does nothing to end Europe’s dependency on fossil fuels or to speed up our transition to a clean energy future,” Riley said. “It’s a deal that puts dirty industry interests ahead of citizens and the planet.”

Samantha Smith, leader of WWF’s Global Climate and Energy Initiative, said the new targets are thoroughly inadequate.

“We are facing what is likely to be the warmest year ever, heat waves and flooding are already hitting Europe, and the developing world is experiencing even more dire impacts,” Smith said.

“European countries need to deliver targets that will drive a rapid and just transition out of fossil fuels and into renewables and energy efficiency. Until they have done so, they cannot continue to claim to be climate leaders.”

Right direction for reduced emissions

On Tuesday, the European Environment Agency (EEA) said greenhouse gas emissions in the EU fell almost two per cent between 2012 and 2013. According to an EEA analysis, the EU is likely to cut emissions by at least 21 per cent of 1990 levels by 2020, surpassing its 20 per cent target.

The analysis shows the EU is also ahead of the planned trajectory to hit 20 per cent renewable energy by 2020. Likewise, the EU’s energy consumption is also falling faster than would be necessary to meet the 2020 energy efficiency target.

“Our analysis shows that Europe is on track towards its 2020 targets,” Hans Bruyninckx, EEA Executive Director, pointed out.

“Even against the backdrop of economic recession in recent years, we can see that policies and measures are working and have played a key role in reaching this interim result. But there is no room for complacency. The analyses we are publishing today also highlight countries and sectors where progress has been slower than planned.”

Image Credit: Connie Hedegaard, Commissioner Climate Action via Flickr.

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

Oil companies and fossil fuel investors seeking further developments in the Alberta tar sands have been dealt another setback with the publication of a report showing producers lost $17.1 billion USD between 2010-2013 due to successful public protest campaigns.

Fossil fuel companies lost $30.9 billion overall during the same period partly due to the changing North American oil market but largely because of a fierce grassroots movement against tar sands development, said the report — Material Risks: How Public Accountability Is Slowing Tar Sands Development.

A significant segment of opposition is from First Nations in Canada who are raising sovereignty claims and other environmental challenges, added the report, which was produced by the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis (IEEFA) and Oil Change International (OCI).

“Tar sands producers face a new kind of risk from growing public opposition,” Tom Sanzillo, director of finance at IEEFA, and one of the lead authors on the report, said. “This opposition has achieved a permanent presence as public sentiment evolves and as the influence of organizations opposed to tar sands production continues to grow.”

Opposition to tar sands unexpected

Steve Kretzmann, executive director of Oil Change International, added industry officials never anticipated the level and intensity of public opposition to their massive build-out plans.

“Public opposition has caused government and its administrative agencies to take a second and third look,” Kretzmann said. “Legal and other challenges are raising new issues related to environmental protection, indigenous rights and the disruptive impact of new pipeline proposals.”

He added anti-pipeline protests are keeping carbon in the ground, and changing the bottom line for the tar sands industry. 

“Business as usual for Big Oil – particularly in the tar sands – is over,” Kretzmann said.

The report said market forces and public opposition have played a significant role in the cancellation of three major tar sands projects in 2014 alone: Shell’s Pierre River, Total’s Joslyn North, and Statoil’s Corner Project.  

“Combined, these projects would have produced 4.7 billion barrels of bitumen that would in turn have released 2.8 billion metric tonnes of carbon dioxide (CO2) into the atmosphere,” the 28-page report said. “This is equivalent to the emissions of building 18 new coal plants that would last 40 years each.”

Growing First Nations voices take tar sands story international

“I think it’s pretty inspiring and also uplifting to see the recognition of First Nations that have been very vocal and have articulated their staunch opposition to tar sands expansion in our traditional homelands,” Melina Laboucan-Massimo, a Greenpeace Canada campaigner from the Lubicon Cree, told DeSmog.

Laboucan-Massimo and other representatives from local First Nations like Eriel Deranger from the Fort Chipewyan have been campaigning for years to bring greater awareness to the human health and environmental impacts of rapid tar sands expansion. Laboucan-Massimo said she spent a lot of energy campaigning outside of Canadian borders, speaking to parliamentarians in the U.K., across Europe, as well as to U.S. Congress and the shareholders of major companies.

“We wanted to tell the story on the outside and really put that pressure on the Canadian government to do its due diligence and be accountable to its own citizens,” she said.

“I think that’s a part of what’s been effective in this campaign of accountability, that people not only in Canada but around the world were asking what is happening in Canada? Why is Canada such a climate laggard? Why is the Canadian government not listening to the voices of their own people?”

The growing environmental movement, she said, has been better at incorporating the voices of local First Nations living on the front lines of the tar sands. The movement also now represents a much wider range of social perspectives.

“When we work in coalitions – the environmental movement, First Nations and the labour movement – there’s such a convergence of diverse voices…we’re really starting to see growing public accountability and public opposition being seen and taken seriously.”

She added the future of the tar sands under the Harper government is “tenuous” because “you can see he has a very pro-tar sands agenda,” she said. But, she added, even five or 10 years ago very few Canadians knew what the tar sands were and had little awareness of the switch from conventional to unconventional, extreme forms of energy.

“Now people are quite aware that that’s what been happening and there has been a public dialogue created on that and there has been more pressure on the government to really address the environmental concerns, the health issues and indigenous rights violations. I feel like people really are a lot more aware of these issues now than in the past.”

Keystone XL delay shows tar sands "weakness"

The report says the proposed Keystone XL tar sands pipeline is one of the most talked about North American energy and political issues of the era.

“Once thought inevitable, the project and Canada’s plan to expand tar sands production have been confronted by an accumulation of economic and political risks creating a veritable ‘carbon blockade.’”

Project delays are taking a financial and political toll on proposed tar sands projects, the report said.

“The delays and cancellations have exposed the fact that tar sands investments, once thought to be highly lucrative, are showing signs of financial weakness. With growing public awareness and market hesitancy, expansion of tar sands production in Canada will remain contested terrain for the foreseeable future.”  

The report also noted that the tar sands sector faces a growing constellation of risks as project economics become pressured by low oil prices and shrinking revenues, rising costs, smaller profit margins, tougher capital markets, transport constraints, environmental challenges and protectionist legislation.

Nine of 10 leading tar sands producers in Canada have underperformed the stock market in the last five years, it said, adding industry experts have recently downgraded their outlook for future tar sands production.

“Tar sands pipeline campaigns are a recent example of how public advocacy efforts can alter capital investment decision making,” the report said.

“The Keystone XL campaign has managed thus far to delay a final governmental decision on the project while raising public awareness about the environmental costs of tar sands development.”

“These citizen interventions have resulted in increased diligence by government agencies with public health and environmental mandates, impaired the project development process of the capital markets and mobilized a permanent, political constituency in support of alternatives to tar sands expansion.”

The report noted there was an expectation that the TransCanada Keystone XL pipeline would receive necessary approvals quickly when it was originally proposed in 2008 and be up and running by late 2011.

“Time and events changed this storyline,” the report added. “By 2011 Russ Girling, the CEO of TransCanada, said ‘There is no way we could have ever predicted that we would become the lightning rod for a debate around fossil fuels and the development of the Canadian oil sands.’”

According to a report in the Guardian, Canada has staked its energy future on a massive expansion of tar sands, which hold the world’s third largest reserve of crude after Saudia Arabia and Venezuela.

“But the huge amounts of water and solvents needed to extract oil from bitumen dramatically boost greenhouse gas output and, on latest production forecasts, will increase Canada’s CO2 emissions by 56 megatonnes by 2020,” the Guardian said.

Image Credit: People's Climate March by Zack Embree

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

In its starkest warning yet about the challenges facing humanity, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said Sunday humans are responsible for all of the planet’s warming since 1951.

The Fifth Assessment Report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change includes a strict carbon budget for governments for the first time. More than two-thirds of that carbon budget has already been used up and at current rates the world would burn through the rest in less than 30 years, the panel warned.

“With this latest report, science has spoken yet again and with much more clarity. Time is not on our side,” said UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon. “Leaders must act.”

For the best chance of avoiding severe levels of warming, governments will need to peak emissions, rapidly phase fossil fuels down to zero and transition to 100 per cent renewable energy, the report said.

This transition is not only possible, but economically viable, according to the IPCC. Since 2007, clean energy costs have dropped dramatically and continuing down a path of investing in renewable energy will be cheaper than paying a growing bill for "severe, pervasive, and irreversible impacts.”

The report sets governments a clear choice: “Either put policies in place to achieve this essential shift, or they can spend the rest of their careers dealing with climate disaster after climate disaster.”

“We have the means to limit climate change,” said R. K. Pachauri, chair of the IPCC. “The solutions are many and allow for continued economic and human development. All we need is the will to change, which we trust will be motivated by knowledge and an understanding of the science of climate change.”

The media release said the Synthesis Report confirms climate change is being registered around the world and warming of the climate system is unequivocal.

“Our assessment finds that the atmosphere and oceans have warmed, the amount of snow and ice has diminished, sea level has risen and the concentration of carbon dioxide has increased to a level unprecedented in at least the last 800,000 years,” said Thomas Stocker, Co-Chair of IPCC Working Group I.

The Synthesis Report makes a clear case that many risks of a warming world unfairly burden the least developed countries.

“Many of those most vulnerable to climate change have contributed and contribute little to greenhouse gas emissions,” Pachauri said. “Addressing climate change will not be possible if individual agents advance their own interests independently; it can only be achieved through cooperative responses, including international cooperation.”

Still, while climate impacts will be felt the most by poorer countries, the effects of global warming are already being felt here in North America.

Overall yields of major crops in North America are expected to decline steeply by 2100 without adequate adaptation. The productivity of California crops are projected to decline between nine and 29 per cent by 2097, with large declines in suitable land for grape and wine production. Meanwhile, corn and wheat production is projected to be negatively impacted in the northeastern and southeastern U.S.

Warm winters in western Canada and the U.S. have increased winter survival of the larvae of bark beetles (also known as mountain pine beetles), helping drive large-scale forest infestations and forest die-off. In British Columbia alone, mountain pine beetle outbreaks have already severely affected over 18 million hectares (44.5 million acres) of pine forests and are continuing to expand.

Reaction to the IPCC’s latest report was swift and voluminous.

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry described the report as another canary in the coal mine.

“We can’t prevent a large-scale disaster if we don’t heed this kind of hard science,” Kerry said. “The longer we are stuck in a debate over ideology and politics, the more the costs of inaction grow and grow. Those who choose to ignore or dispute the science so clearly laid out in this report do so at great risk for all of us and for our kids and grandkids.”

May Boeve, Executive Director of 350.org, said the scientists have done their job.

“Now it’s the politicians’ turn,” Boeve said. “World leaders have everything they need to act: clear scientific evidence, a strong economic case, and huge public support. The only thing they lack is the will.”

Merran Smith, director of Clean Energy Canada, said renewable energies are an essential ingredient in the world’s efforts to tackle climate change.

“Canada has a strong foundation in clean energy, but we’re only scratching the surface of our potential,” Smith said. “Our governments and companies must take the IPCC’s findings to heart and strengthen their commitment to clean energy.”

The IPCC report provides governments a roadmap to a new global climate agreement, which is due next December in Paris. Governments are expected to pen a draft agreement this December at the UN climate talks in Lima and follow up with national climate action plans by March.

Image Credit: Anthony Citrano via Flickr

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

At least $83 billion USD in financing was provided to 65 coal mining and energy companies last year by 92 of the world’s leading commercial banks, according to a Dutch report published Wednesday.

Leading banks provided $500 billion in financing for the coal industry through 2,283 lending and underwriting transactions between 2005 and April 2014, said the report Banking on Coal 2014, which was released by BankTrack in Nijmegen.

The top 20 financiers provided 73 per cent of this amount alone, added the report, released just days ahead of the publication of the fifth United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) assessment.

The report said JPMorgan Chase was the top financier between 2005 and this year, lending more than $27 billion, while Citi, in second place, lent $25.8 billion and third-place RBS provided $22.9 billion to coal-related borrowing.

Bank finance for coal is increasing rapidly, the report said, adding 2013 was a record year for coal finance, with commercial banks providing more than $88 billion to the main 65 coal companies – over four times the amount provided in 2005.

Yann Louvel, BankTrack’s climate and energy campaign coordinator, said the new data shows that rising coal financing continues to provide a vital lifeline to the increasingly beleaguered coal industry, while at the same time placing the planet in climate jeopardy.

“This is the most extensive data ever compiled on commercial bank financing of both coal mining and coal power, and even though we’re probably only covering little more than half of the global banking sector’s true financial support for the sector, the conclusion is stark: the lending figures have been rising steadily since 2005, and last year was a record year,” Louvel said.

The report said JPMorgan Chase remains the world’s biggest ‘coal bank’ over the period 2005 to April 2014, in spite of its oft-stated claims to be “transitioning to a low-carbon economy” and its commitments to initiatives such as the Carbon Principles.

It also said a major trend recently has been the growing role of Chinese banks in coal financing.

Between 2011 and 2014, six of the top 20 coal banks are Chinese, including the top three, the report states.

By comparison, between 2005 and 2014, only four Chinese banks are in the top 20, and none in the top three.

Banks headquartered in just three countries — China, U.S. and U.K. — were responsible for the majority (62 per cent) of coal financing between 2011 and 2013, the 28-page report added.

It also noted that coal is the single greatest source of man-made carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions heating up our planet.

“According to the [International Energy Agency], 44 per cent of global emissions from fossil fuels come from coal. Since the year 2000, global coal production has grown by over 69 per cent and now amounts to a staggering 7.9 billion tons annually.”

The report said commercial banks must stop bankrolling climate change by ending support for new coal extraction and delivery projects, as well as for new coal-fired power plants.

“Banks must also start becoming responsible asset managers and divest from the coal companies in their portfolios,” the report said. “Banks must finally stop trading coal – both ‘physical coal’ and coal derivatives.”

It also said banks must finally calculate and disclose the financed emissions associated with their loans, investments and other financial services.

“The next step must be to rapidly decrease these financed emissions, in line with global and national climate targets, and shift their energy finance from fossil fuels to energy efficiency and renewables.”

BankTrack is a global network of civil society groups tracking the operations and investments of private sector banks and their effect on people and the planet. It has also published Bankrolling Climate Change and Banking on Coal 2013.

Alex Scrivener, policy officer at the UK-based World Development Movement, which works with BankTrack, said banks all over the world are fuelling a whole new round of coal mines and coal-fired power plants when humankind needs to be rapidly pulling back from coal in order to avoid the worst impacts of climate change.

“Any notion of ‘ethical banking' is incompatible with financing an energy source like coal,” Scrivener said. “It’s not only a disaster for the climate, it’s also responsible for all manner of injustice inflicted on communities in the global south who have been devastated by the impacts of coal mining.”

Image Credit: Scholven coal fired power plant by Guy Gorek via Flickr.

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

As the mid-term elections in the United States continue to heat up, a new report released Wednesday shows that Canadian corporations have registered at least $15.3 million USD in spending on direct lobbying of the U.S. federal government in the first nine months of 2014.

That includes $2.87 million by Canadian National Railway Company in the face of increasing regulatory attention to the rail transport industry on both sides of the border, said the report — Are Canadian corporations spending to influence the U.S. political process?

Written by The Shareholder Association for Research and Education (SHARE), the 13-page report noted that the TransCanada Corporation, well aware that the controversial Keystone pipeline project is up for approval at the federal level, spent $1.07 million on political lobbying from January to September.

The author of the report, Kevin Thomas, SHARE’s Director of Shareholder Engagement, said in a telephone interview that Canadian companies are clearly involved in political spending in the U.S.

“The problem is there’s no real requirement for disclosure on either side of the border that can quantify the extent of that spending,” Thomas said.

There needs to be transparency and proper oversight when it comes to companies trying to get involved in the political process, he added.

“Investor interest here [in Canada] is not necessarily being well served by lobbying.”

Other Canadian companies involved in U.S. lobbying include Blackberry ($2.59 million), Manulife Financial ($1.67 million), Bombardier Inc. ($1.39 million) and Barrick Gold Corporation ($1.26 million).

“As in Canada, corporations and unions are barred from contributing directly to U.S.  federal political candidates,” the report said. “However, they have multiple means of contributing funds to political activity that do not run afoul of this limit, and due to incomplete disclosure regimes, much of that spending is not transparent.”   

The report notes corporate contributions to political campaigns in the U.S. occur through direct contributions by a corporation’s Political Action Committee (PAC), contributions to so-called Super PACs, and indirect contributions to non-profit organizations and trade associations.

PACs pool money donated by members and contribute funds to political campaigns, the report said, while Super PACs can raise and spend unlimited sums on campaigns but cannot contribute directly to candidates or coordinate their spending activity with a candidate’s campaign.

Non-profit organizations can spend unlimited amounts on political advertising, and while their own spending must be disclosed, their source of funds can remain secret.

“This has given rise to widespread concerns about ‘dark money’ in U.S. elections,” the report said. “So far this year, dark money has already accounted for over $100 million in spending, and some observers expect it to top $200 million by the time the election is held.”

The veil was lifted on one of these non-profit organizations this fall when a technical glitch exposed a list of the Republican Governors’ Association (RGA) contributors. The organization offered perks for corporations that donate, including “intimate gatherings” with governors and other VIPs, the report details.

TransCanada Corporation ($50,000) was also listed among the contributors, the report said.  “Other known donors to the RGA are Barrick Gold, who gave $25,000 in 2012 and Encana, which gave $50,000 in 2013.”

Another non-profit organization with significant corporate support is the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), a group that drafts and promotes legislation.

“ALEC came under intense scrutiny for advocating the adoption of ‘stand your ground’ laws (legalizing the use of lethal force by civilians if they believe they face an imminent threat of serious bodily harm) across the U.S. even after the tragic Trayvon Martin shooting in Florida in 2012.”

ALEC has also advocated the expansion of “right-to-work” laws, and has been accused of climate-change denial, the report added.

“A number of U.S. companies including Google and Facebook took a reputational hit when they were found to be supporting the organization. Although its membership is still largely secret, TransCanada has recently been shown to sponsor ALEC’s activities.”

The report said the lack of effective disclosure regulations in the U.S. and in Canada means Canadian investors have no idea to what extent their companies have been contributing to U.S. political campaigns, or why.  

“What we do know is that although foreign corporations are banned from directly contributing to a candidate’s campaign, their U.S. subsidiaries are allowed to form a Political Action Committee and solicit contributions from their managers or shareholders.”

In many cases, as the report outlines, amounts disclosed at both the federal and state level by Canadian corporations are likely financially immaterial to shareholders. “The problem is that they may represent only a small part of what the company spends to influence political outcomes in the U.S.”

“Too much is still hidden from view.”

The report added there is also a real need for disclosure of corporate associations with particular political positions so that investors can decide whether the company’s political activity is consistent with their own long-term interests, and whether the company is vulnerable to reputational risks as a result of that spending.

The report notes that the Vancouver-based SHARE is engaged in a three-year project looking at how Canadian corporations’ influence on public policy debates and decision-making affects the interests of long-horizon investors.

“Institutional investors in the United States have been raising concerns about disclosure of corporate political spending for years,” the report said.

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

Wind power has become so successful that it could provide 25 to 30 per cent of global electricity supply by mid-century if vested interests don’t get in the way, according to a new report published Tuesday.

The report — Global Wind Energy Outlook 2014 — said that commercial wind power installations in more than 90 countries had a total installed capacity of 318 gigawatts (GW) at the end of 2013, providing about three per cent of global electricity supply.

By 2030, the report said, wind power could reach 2,000 GW, supply up to 17 to 19 per cent of global electricity, create over two million new jobs and reduce CO2 emissions by more than three billion tonnes per year.

The report published by the Global Wind Energy Council and Greenpeace International noted that while emissions-free wind power continues to play a growing role in international electricity supply, political, economic and institutional inertia is hampering attempts to deal with the consequences of climate change.

“The fossil fuel industry, the most powerful vested interest in the world today, continues to do everything it can to obfuscate the science and slow down political progress,” the report said.

“Not their least pernicious influence is on the politicians they own, particularly those in the U.S. Congress – and in the places where the fossil fuel industry is a family business masquerading as a national government in the Persian Gulf – and in the places where fossil fuel exports have become a blunt political and military instrument to bludgeon recalcitrant neighbours into submission.”

Using the International Energy Agency’s New Policies scenario from the World Energy Outlook as a baseline, the 58-page Global Wind Energy Outlook (GWEO) report developed both a moderate and an advanced scenario to explore the future of the wind energy industry from 2020 to 2050.

Under the moderate scenario, which takes into account all policy measures to support renewable energy either already enacted or in the planning stages around the world, wind energy potential will quadruple between 2020 and 2050 from 712 to 2,672 GW.

(For detail junkies, the projected increases are as follows: 712 GW of cumulative wind power capacity by 2020, 1,479 GW by 2030, 2,089 GW by 2040 and 2,672 GW by 2050.)

The advanced scenario outlines the extent to which the wind industry could grow in a best case ‘wind energy vision,’ but still well within the capacity of the industry as it exists today and is likely to grow in the future, assuming an unambiguous commitment to renewable energy. Under this advanced scenario, cumulative wind energy capacity could increase by nearly five times, from 800 GW in 2012 up to 4,042 GW in 2050.

(The details: It would see 800 GW by 2020, 1,933 GW by 2030, 3,024 GW by 2040 and 4,042 GW by 2050.)

Wind power has a potentially massive role to play in the elimination of fossil fuel emissions. Swapping one month’s use of fossil fuels for 100 kWhs of wind power is the equivalent of taking one car off the road for 2,400 miles or 3,862 kilometres according to How Stuff Works.

In a media release accompanying the report, Steve Sawyer, CEO of GWEC, said wind power has become the cheapest cost option when adding new capacity to electricity grids in an increasing number of markets.

“Given the urgency to cut down CO2 emissions and continued reliance on imported fossil fuels, wind power’s pivotal role in the world's future energy supply is assured,” Sawyer said.

In a related Greenpeace International blog posting, Sven Teske, the organization’s senior energy expert, said that by 2020, wind power could prevent more than one billion tonnes of carbon dioxide from being emitted each year by dirty energy.

“That’s equivalent to Germany’s and Italy’s emissions combined, or Africa’s total CO2 emissions, or those of Japan, or two-thirds of what India pumps out,” Teske said.

The report noted that science indicates global greenhouse gas emissions need to peak in the next five years if humankind is to have any reasonable chance of avoiding the worst ravages of man-made climate change — i.e. keeping global mean temperature rise below 2°C above pre-industrial levels.

The power sector is the largest single contributor to global greenhouse gas emissions – about 40 per cent of energy-related CO2 emissions, and about 25 per cent of overall greenhouse gas emissions — the report said.

Massive implementation of existing energy-efficiency and energy-saving technologies is needed in the next five to 10 years, no new coal plants should be built, and natural gas should be used wherever possible, it added.

In addition, the report predicted that while solar power may be the largest power source by mid-century, the biggest contribution to emission-reductions in the next decade will come from hydro and wind.

Image Credit: Lillgrund wind farm by Vattenfall via Flickr.

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.