It’s July 9 and as of the moment this article was published, there are well over 100 wildfires burning across British Columbia. There have been nearly 1000 in the province this fiscal year. Air quality across the south coast is comparable to that in Beijing and the smoke over Vancouver Island and the Lower Mainland is so shockingly dense that NASA satellites are photographing it for posterity.

In a fire season that’s barely begun, the message is already set: 2015 is the summer that B.C. burned. And climate change has a lot to do with it.

“A Period of Extreme and Exceptional Drought”

“Climate change during the 21st century is expected to result in more frequent fires in many boreal forests, with severe environmental and economic consequences. Fire-prone conditions are predicted to increase across Canada. This could potentially result in a doubling of the amount of area burned by the end of this century, compared with amounts burned in recent decades.” – Natural Resources Canada

The conditions which make for a dangerous fire season are threefold: extreme drought, low humidity and high winds. Right now, British Columbia has all of that and more.

So far in 2015 British Columbia has seen record low snowpacks combined with a much drier-than-average spring rainfall season. For the first time in years, undergrowth in the coastal mountains — which holds onto rainfall moisture and impedes fire growth — is tinder dry.

According to Matthew Hurteau, assistant professor of ecosystem science and management at Pennsylvania State University, long-lasting heatwaves like the one currently gripping British Columbia are potential firestarters because they "suck the moisture out of forests, making them more susceptible to ignitions from lightning" or human carelessness. And with relative humidity lower than ever, the risk of starting fires in unexpected ways (like via exhaust from an ATV) becomes exponentially greater.

The B.C. Wildfire Service has been aware of the impact climate change will have on the province since at least 2010. Documents released to DeSmog Canada note that climate change research shows both the frequency and severity of B.C. wildfires will increase greatly over the next few decades. From the report:

“Climate change research indicates that the incidence and severity of wildfires will greatly increase over the next several decades. The evidence for this is exemplified by the increasing frequency of “record,” such as 2003 and 2009 in B.C. Temperatures in B.C. are expected to increase by 2-3 C in the south and by 4-5 C in the north.

Summers throughout the province may warm by an average of 2-3 C, and the southern and coastal regions are projected to become drier in the summer. Provincial records show that the wildfire season has been increasing in length by one to two days per year since at least 1980. At the current rate, by the middle of this century, some areas of the province may experience forest fires year-round. Science also suggests that the frequency of lightning-caused fires will increase.”

In addition to the Ministry of Forests' own research on increasing temperatures, other studies connect the dots between a warming world and forest fires. A 2012 peer-reviewed study in Geophysical Research Letters connects how a warming Arctic impacts global air and water currents to drive extreme weather events and this excellent video from The Climate Desk (produced during 2013’s devastating wildfire season in the United States) explains other climate connections to forest fires:

Budgets, Bombers and Tax Breaks

Between 1996 and 2006, an average wildfire season in B.C. saw 2,000 fires, burned 66,783 hectares and cost $96 million. Since then, every single fire season (except 2007 & 2011) has exceeded these costs. The 2009 season cost nearly $400M to fight, and the 2003 season was the most catastrophic in British Columbia’s recorded history — with nearly 2,500 fires burning more than 265,000 hectares at a cost of $375M. Coupled with additional suppression activities, the cost rose to $500M, with indirect economic costs estimated at $80 million in the central Okanagan area alone.

So far this year, 937 fires have burned in B.C. If it continues its current rate of growth of approximately 30 fire starts a day, the 2015 fire season will outpace both 2009 and 2003 in 53 days.

And yet, the provincial government only budgeted $63M for firefighting in 2015.

Speaking to CTV this past weekend, a representative from the Ministry of Forests revealed that $55M of the $63M budgeted for 2015 had already been spent — with nearly $4M spent on fighting fires one one day along last week (Thursday, July 2).

Speaking to the media five days later, Forestry Minister Steve Thomson noted that all B.C. forest fire crews are currently in the field fighting fires and that 70 firefighters from Ontario have been hired to assist with efforts in this province.

Then there’s the Martin Mars water bombers.

A familiar and comforting sight for B.C. residents during fire season, the bombers have sat idle at their airfield near Sproat Lake in Port Alberni without a provincial government contract since 2013. Instead, the Liberal government opted to contract four 'Fire Boss' skimmer planes from Conair for aerial firefighting support.

While there are significant limitations to the kind of support the Martin Mars bombers can provide (for example, their large size means they can only skim water from 133 lakes across B.C., compared to the 1,400 accessible to the Fire Boss planes), there may be other factors behind the contract decision.

As the Alberni Valley Times reported in 2014, Conair has donated $92,750 to the B.C. Liberal Party since 2006. In contrast, Coulson Flying Tankers — owners of the Martin Mars water bombers — only donated $8,450 in that same time period.

In 2013, Jeff Berry, the former head of the B.C. Forestry Service's air tanker program for the previous 17 years, joined Conair as manager of business development. The company was awarded the bomber contract the same year, over a competing bid from Coulson Flying Tankers. 

On Monday, the B.C. government announced it had reactivated its contract with Coulson Flying Tankers for use of the Martin Mars water bombers. They will begin operation this week.

In the meantime, Premier Christy Clark is on vacation — a fact only revealed by her office after #whereischristyclark trended on Twitter.

She is expected to be back in the province on July 13th when a special summer session of the legislature is convened. On the agenda: Approval of the agreement in principal between Malaysian-owned PacificNorthWest LNG and British Columbia.

If approved, the $36 Billion dollar project will see construction of an LNG terminal on Lelu Island near Prince Rupert on B.C.'s northwest coast. According to its environmental impact statement, this project alone will release 5.28 M tonnes of carbon emissions every year, equivalent to 8.5 per cent of B.C.'s current carbon emissions. If approved, the project will also receive a newly-announced 25 year grace period without tax increases.

It remains unclear where the provincial government will find the budget to cover the millions of dollars more this fire season is likely to cost.

Image credit: B.C. Wildfire Services

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.

On the same day that Bill C51 was set for a final vote in the Senate, the Canadian internet erupted into a storm of angry tweets. The message was clear: you can take our freedom, but you can never tell our Timmies not to run ads for Enbridge.

Timmies is, of course, Tim Hortons coffee, the venerable Canadian institution whose coffee and donuts have become so inseparable from the Canadian identity that Prime Minister Stephen Harper once famously blew off going to the UN for a coffee at Timmies instead. Tim Hortons has exactly the kind of patriotic sheen to it that CAPP is hoping will rub off on its ‘Raise Your Hand’ campaign.

Last week, Enbridge pipelines announced on its blog that it would be showing its latest ads on Tim’s TV (the flatscreen televisions behind the service counter). Almost immediately, online activists seized on the opportunity.

SumOfUs, an organization that rallies public pressure to encourage companies to adopt sustainable business practices, encouraged Tim Hortons to cancel an advertising buy from Enbridge, the company trying to build public support for the Northern Gateway oilsands pipeline from Alberta to the B.C. coast. 

Within a day, more than 28,000 people had signed the SumOfUs petition encouraging Tim Hortons to dump Enbridge. Hours later, Tim Hortons did just that. And a few hours after that, this happened:

Familiar Faces urge Canadians to #BoycottTims

The most powerful voices in this call for a boycott are unsurprisingly familiar. Stephen Taylor, formerly of the National Citizen Coalition, has tweeted (not counting replies and retweets) more than 30 times today about #boycotttims. He is the de facto leader of the movement, and his message is clear:

Ezra Levant, creator of Ethical Oil, has a rich history of turning the principled stances of companies into moments for consumer uproar. In 2011, he jumped on a decision by Chiquita brands to avoid the use of ‘fuels from tar sands refineries’ after public pressure from a Forest Ethics campaign. Levant responded with a call for a consumer boycott of Chiquita bananas using the hashtag #bloodbananas and citing the company’s human rights record. He uses similar logic against Tim Hortons here:

Cody Battershill and his not-for-profit Canada Action also chimed in. Battershill, a Calgary realtor, says he got his start in pro-oil sands activism in 2010 when LUSH, a U.S.-owned company, set up displays in all of its Canadian stores showing the environmental impacts of oilsands extraction.

Thanks to their efforts, #boycotttims has been trending in Canada all afternoon. Even Conservative MPs Michelle Rempel, Jason Kenney and Pierre Poilievre have chimed in with their support. Levant has launched a petition and is crowdfunding radio ads.

Sound and Fury, Signifying … ?

#BoycottTims is not a singular online moment. Twitter is a popular place to launch or promote consumer-driven campaigns. So while all of this was happening on Canadian Twitter, other boycotts elsewhere raged on as well. These were the three most popular today:

• #boycottespn (a deplorable campaign to punish the network for awarding Caitlyn Jenner the courage award at its annual ESPY ceremony)
• #boycottorange (a consumer response to a French telecom giant threatening to cut ties with Israel over their illegal occupation of Palestinian territory)
• #boycottbrew (encouraging UK cafe-goers to avoid a chain owned by a guy who attacked a cyclist)

So, let’s recap. Elsewhere in the world, people are using Twitter to fight for (or against) transgender rights, ending illegal occupations in Palestine and for basic human decency.

And in Canada, we’re filling up timelines because one company changed its mind about running ads for another company inside its establishments.

If you find that hard to swallow, you’re not the only one.

When we roll back the rim on this moment in time, there’s isn’t likely to be a prize for anyone (well, except maybe for SumOfUs).

Tim Hortons isn’t legally required to run anyone’s ads on their closed circuit networks. Enbridge will find other places to spend its advertising budget. And there are dozens of coffee shops, gas stations and cafes eager to take the money of the 100,000 oil sands workers who reportedly consume Tim Hortons brew every day.

It’ll be at least a month or more until Tim Hortons — sorry, Restaurant Brands International — releases its Q2 financials and we find out if today’s hashtag wars made any difference to the bottom line.

In the meantime, it’s #hugyourcatday.

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.

After a rough year of collapsing oil prices and the embarrassing dethroning of Alberta’s longtime Progressive Conservative government, the oil and gas industry could use a win. The latest campaign from the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP) was probably designed to be one.

Alas.

Developed as part of CAPP's ‘Energy Citizens’ movement, the ‘Raise your Hand’ campaign is well-designed and clearly expensive. Online and off, it features smiling multiracial faces with hands raised — overlayed with hand-drawn outlines of patriotic maple leaves. There are cheerful videos, interactive bus shelter ads and an online submission form to stay connected. It even has a hashtag (#ryhcanada), the extremely limited Twitter impact of which must be giving at least one advertising executive an ulcer right now.

As Mark Hume noted in the Globe and Mail this weekend, an ad campaign that attempts to co-opt patriotism for its own ends is hardly something new. NGOs have done it for years. So have McDonalds, Molson's beer and Roots. And yet, as Hume says, “CAPP’s slogan — 'Raise your hand because you are proud of Canada’s oil and natural gas' — doesn’t quite have the same ring as one that urges you to raise your hand against racism, ignorance or disease.”

Hume writes that the campaign could have been more successful, had it not been launched in the same week as a massive oil spill in Santa Barbara, which reminded “Canadians — and especially British Columbians where two new oil pipelines are proposed — what happens when one of those .001-per-cent accidents happen.”

I’m not so sure.

While the campaign is not a failure on par with the spectacular collapse of BC Ferries ‘#NameAFerry’ contest, its inability to spark public enthusiasm is not surprising. Even without the Santa Barbara oil spill, it’s reasonable to wonder if pipelines and patriotism fit together as naturally as the industry would have us believe. After all, it’s hard to raise our hands in blind allegiance when the failures and questionable behaviour of industry executives are so hard to ignore.

• Raise your hand if you remember that two years after it became public, CNRL is still unable to stop a slow leak at its Cold Lake in-situ drill site.
• Raise your hand if you recall how Plains Midstream — the Canadian analogue of Plains All American (the company whose failed pipeline spilled all that oil in Santa Barbara) — was fined $1.3 million for two giant pipeline spills in Alberta and was recently ordered to undergo an independent review of their safety procedures?
• Raise your hand if you remember how the industry leaders in oil and gas fought hard to keep employing temporary foreign workers, limiting opportunities for those smiley Canadians featured so prominently in their advertising?
• Raise your hand if you’re doubtful of the capabilities of Western Canada Marine Response Corporation touted by CAPP in the campaign after its slow response to Vancouver's relatively minor English Bay oil spill?
• Raise your hand if you saw the news this week that federal Industry Minister Greg Rickford spoke to an October 21, 2014 closed-door meeting of CAPP executives encouraging them to "work harder and spread the message of the oil industry?"

I could go on.

If recent polling is correct, 72 per cent of Canadians want to see more jobs created in the renewable energy industry. Fifty-eight per cent of Canadians go even further, wanting to see oil and gas use phased out in favour of renewable solutions. And even the Harper government has publicly acknowledged that climate change demands at least a little immediate attention.

So to the folks at CAPP and their marketing agency of record, may I humbly suggest an edit to your ask? Something a little more measured, a little more Canadian.

Raise your hand if you acknowledge that while oil and gas and other extractive industries are a big part of the Canadian energy mix now, they don’t have to be forever. That pipelines fail and transporting oil and gas is inherently dangerous. That if Canadians want to meet our climate goals without having to buy carbon credits from other countries, we need to start investing more in renewables.

Raise your hand if you agree we all deserve a more nuanced conversation about Canada's energy future.

Image Credit: CAPP

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 Economist says Vancouver is liveable, but boring. Clearly they haven’t read its latest evidence against Kinder Morgan’s Trans Mountain pipeline expansion.

As part of its final package of evidence in the NEB’s review of the proposed Trans Mountain pipeline and tanker expansion, the City of Vancouver solicited expert testimony on how air quality would be impacted by a spill in Burrard Inlet.

The 53-page report prepared by Richmond-based Levelton Consultants has the same underlying thread of doom featured in much of Vancouver’s other evidence. The key difference? This time there’s a possible human body count.

Benzene, Bitumen and the Human Body

In order to make bitumen transportable it is diluted with a mix of natural gas condensates. This mixture often includes toxic impurities like hydrogen sulphide, cyclohexane and aromatics like benzene, toluene and xylene.

These chemicals are liquid at room temperature, but evaporate quickly when exposed to air, and are extremely toxic to humans. Benzene in particular can cause major, permanent and irreversible damage to immune system cellular function. Possible health impacts of exposure include drowsiness, dizziness, irregular heartbeat, headaches, tremors, confusion, unconsciousness and death. It also adheres to mucous membranes like those in the eyes, nose, lungs and skin, causing irritation.

Air quality experts measure potential impacts by PAC (Proactive Action Criteria) exposure levels, with 1 being the lowest and 3 the highest.

According to Levelton Consultants modelling of a possible major bitumen spill at the Lion’s Gate Bridge:

“There are predicted benzene PAC-2 exceedances over water and land areas, however, not in areas where people live according to the Statistics Canada census data (2011). The exceedances of the benzene PAC-2 levels have been predicted for areas where people may be present including Stanley Park, Lions Gate Bridge, Second Narrows Bridge and over water.”

In simpler terms: If people were overcome by the effects of the benzene and were unable to leave the contaminated area and seek medical help — for example, drivers on the Lions Gate bridge stuck in traffic or pedestrians and cyclists on the Seawall — there is a risk of severe permanent health impacts, including death.

Two other figures in the report are worthy of concern.

The first is 31,400 – the number of potential people living within the 42 square kms around the spill area who would be exposed to benzene levels above PAC 1 and may require hospitalization. Side fact: The Vancouver Coastal Health region has only 1,384 beds available in their 'acute care' department. How they would accommodate the sudden possible influx of 31,400 patients is unclear.

The second figure is 133,100 to 1,077,700 — the range of people living in Vancouver who would be exposed to levels of benzene that exceed acute exposure limits (or the maximum safe amount a person can be exposed to without adverse health impacts). The estimates are based on 2011 Census data, and do not account for tourists or visitors who may be in the exposed area at the time of a spill.

While the maximum predicted one-hour concentrations of benzene decrease below PAC level 1 threshold six hours after an oil spill, its levels still remain above the maximum safe amount.

"The Risks and Costs Outweigh the Benefits"

This new research is coupled with information released earlier this month including spill modelling, impacts on wildlife, negative impacts on real estate values, etc. In short, city staff concluded that the pipeline was ‘not needed in a carbon-constrained world’ and that the Kinder Morgan’s assessment has fundamental flaws that ‘systematically underestimates’ the very real risks to Vancouver.

In their opinion, a major oil spill would be a disaster for Vancouver’s environment, economy, health and reputation, with even a less than ‘worse case’ spill being disastrous. And since the pipeline project was designed with an oil price of $94/barrel in mind, there is a real risk of the expanded pipeline becoming a stranded asset if oil prices remain where they are.

Vancouver City Council will reconvene in two weeks to decide on Mayor Gregor Robertson’s motion to accept the evidence and formally recommit its stance against Kinder Morgan.

These revelations come a day after the Tsleil-Waututh Nation revealed its independent assessment of the Kinder Morgan proposal. The massive report commissioned by the Tsleil-Waututh Sacred Trust, concludes:

“That the proposal does not represent the best use of Tsleil-Waututh territory and its water, land, air, and resources to satisfy the needs of our ancestors, and the needs of present and future generations. It has the potential to deprive past, current, and future generations of our community control and benefit of the water, land, air, and resources in our territory. The assessment recommends that Chief and Council continue to withhold Tsleil-Waututh Nation’s support.”

Oral hearings for the Kinder Morgan TransMountain proposal are scheduled to begin in September with a final recommendation from the National Energy Board expected on Jan 25, 2016.

Image Credit: Rob Sinclair 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.

With the May 27 deadline for evidence submission to the National Energy Board’s review of the Kinder Morgan pipeline expansion project fast approaching, the cities of Burnaby and Vancouver are stepping up.

Last Wednesday, the City of Burnaby quietly released a report [PDF] outlining the risks and possible implications of a fire at the Burnaby tanker terminal. The results, to quote Mayor Derek Corrigan, are “comprehensive and jarring.”

“It is remarkable that Kinder Morgan is even asking the citizens of Burnaby to assume such risks, but even moreso that the National Energy Board is willing to consider expanding this storage site in this location — on a hillside near thousands of residents and a busy university, and adjacent to an urban conservation area. This report clearly demonstrates that questions about the safety of this proposed tank farm expansion should be answered prior to any decisions being made by the NEB and that the Board should consider this an essential priority.”

Encompassing 60 pages, the report explores several scenarios where oil could spill and ignite at Kinder Morgan’s tank storage facility off Hastings Street, including a tank fire, explosion and a major earthquake.

Too Many Tanks, Too Little Space

According to the report, the largest potential risk to Burnaby lies in the addition of a large number of new tanks to the existing farm. In order to accommodate the increased output of the twinned pipeline, Kinder Morgan would need to increase the number of tanks at its storage facility from 12 to 26, adding 14 new larger tanks (one of which is a replacement). 

Adding in the proposed new storage tanks on the existing site greatly reduces the buffer zone between the tanks, and moves them significantly closer to the public. 

When a fire occurs at the tank farm — and the report makes it clear that no company can make a 100 per cent guarantee they won't — it will have the potential to be more severe in magnitude, and pose a much greater risk to the public. The closer the tanks are, the more likely it is that nearby storage tanks could to catch fire as well. The report notes that “the distance between storage tanks is a key design and engineering feature provided to allow firefighters to effectively isolate an active tank fire, preventing a multiple tank fire event” and that many of the potential tank fire scenarios within the Trans Mountain Tank Farm facility would be inextinguishable due to lack of safe firefighting positions.

"In order to extinguish a tank fire within the Trans Mountain Tank Farm, emergency responders could be forced to significantly risk their personal safety in order to overcome the design inadequacies of the facility. Specifically, the configuration of the tank farm on a hillside in such a tight footprint would require firefighting personnel to operate in elevated positions above the tank, exposing them to potentially excessive heat and smoke outfalls. In these instances emergency responders would likely be forced to allow the tank fire to burn out while adjacent tanks are protected." – Burnaby Fire Department

A worst case scenario tank farm fire, as set out in the report, is legitimately terrifying: a fire breaks out in one or more of the tanks. It spreads quickly through the close-set tanks, as flames burst across the tops of nearby trees and into the Burnaby Mountain Conservation Area. This cuts off road access to Simon Fraser University, exposing the thousands of people living, studying and working there to noxious burning bitumen fumes, including extremely toxic hydrogen sulfide.

The possible impact of an earthquake dumps even more fuel on the nightmare pyre. According to the report: “The potential liquid product release scenario stemming from an expected regional area seismic event would be catastrophic in nature, and has potential to release the contents of several if not all of the storage tanks simultaneously, overwhelming the facilities' retention provisions and flowing unrestricted to highly populated residential areas and sensitive environmental habitats.”

A Bitumen-coated Shoreline in Less than 72 Hours

On Friday morning, the City of Vancouver released their first new piece of evidence — a 2D computer spill model encompassing four scenarios of how oil might spread if spilled in Burrard Inlet. The City of Vancouver, City of Burnaby and Tsleil-Waututh Nation commissioned the report by spill modelling experts Genwest Systems.

The new report finds two key faults with the oil spill models submitted by Kinder Morgan as part of their application to the National Energy Board. Firstly, that Kinder Morgan’s models do not account for beached oil refloating after an initial spill, and secondly, that the supplied modelling of a spill at the Westridge Marine Terminal was ‘unrealistic’ and relied too much on the assumption that containment booms are always properly placed and always work.

The time-lapse video below shows how bitumen and condensate would spread if one of Kinder Morgan’s Aframax-sized tankers spilled 1/5th of its bitumen cargo into Burrard Inlet near the Lion’s Gate Bridge.

In all of its scenarios, Genwest Systems noted how quickly oil spreads in the confined space of Burrard Inlet. Within 72 hours, spilled oil would spread throughout Burrard Inlet to Indian Arm, the Port Moody Arms and to the outer harbour and beyond, with winds and tides spreading them even further. 

100,000 Seabirds and the Pacific Orca Pod at Risk

An additional study on the impact of a Kinder Morgan bitumen spill on local wildlife was released on Monday. Titled “Fate and Effect of Oil Spills from the Trans Mountain Expansion Project in Burrard Inlet and the Fraser River Estuary,” the report finds that the “extraordinarily high densities and numbers of sea‐ and shorebirds, marine mammals, and fish make them especially vulnerable to potentially devastating mortalities should a major oil spill occur in Burrard Inlet or the Fraser River estuary.” 

With 90 per cent of spilled oil likely to reach shorelines within 48 hours, the intertidal zones of beaches and shorelines become “effective killing zones” for sea and shorebirds. In particular, a large diluted bitumen spill near the Fraser River estuary, could potentially kill more than 100,000 birds, plus other nearby mammals. At the same time, large numbers of marine mammals including Harbour seals and porpoises — plus the southern resident Orca population — could perish. The orca pod, if affected, may risk extinction altogether. 

Kinder Morgan Responds

As media began to cover the release of the reports, Kinder Morgan forwarded an email comment to Burnaby Now. It reads: 

"The terminal in Burnaby has been operating safely for 60 years and through our maintenance, prevention and emergency preparedness programs, we are confident in our ability to prevent and respond to all kinds of incidents,” said Michael Davies, a senior director with the company. “Trans Mountain filed a preliminary risk assessment for Burnaby terminal as part of the National Energy Board review of our proposed expansion. It concludes that through design and good management practices the risk of a fire at the terminal is low. We encourage feedback on our proposed expansion and will be reviewing the report from the Burnaby Fire Department in more detail and would welcome a discussion with them to better understand and address their concerns and questions."

It is worth noting that while Kinder Morgan’s preliminary risk assessment is available online, their accident/spill preparedness plans cannot be compared against the reports from the Burnaby Fire Department or the City of Vancouver as the company has filed legal documents to prevent the public from seeing them.

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.

After a week of voting in three different cities, the message from the Lax Kw’alaams Nation to Pacific NorthWest LNG is clear: even $1.15 billion dollars cannot purchase social license. 

Malaysian-owned energy company Petronas is in the process of securing permission to build and operate a liquefied natural gas pipeline and terminal near Prince Rupert on the northwestern B.C. coast. While the provincial government is extremely supportive of the project, Petronas has faced challenges convincing First Nations, including the Lax Kw’alaams. 

The small 3,600 member band is extremely concerned about the environmental risks of the project, particularly how it would impact Flora Bank on Lelu Island — a thriving habitat for young salmon and the largest eelgrass forests on Canada's west coast.

Eelgrass and a small salmon fry near Flora Bank. Photo: Travis Campbell

Hoping to buying consent from the small 3,600 member band, Petronas offered $1.15 billion in cash payments over 40 years, plus a transfer of 2,200 hectares of Crown Land from the B.C. government.

But the Lax Kw’alaams were unmoved. Over a series of three votes, the band voted almost unanimously to reject Petronas’ offer. 

“The terminal is planned to be located in the traditional territory of the Lax Kw’alaams. Only Lax Kw’alaams have a valid claim to aboriginal title in the relevant area — their consent is required for this project to proceed. There are suggestions governments and the proponent may try to proceed with the project without consent of the Lax Kw’alaams. That would be unfortunate.” – Mayor Gary Reece

According to Global News, Premier Christy Clark feels an agreement with the Nation will eventually be reached, citing its existing pipeline-benefits agreements with 28 other B.C. First Nations. 

While Mayor Reece and the 12 elected councillors of the Lax Kw’alaams make the final decision on Petronas’ proposal, the message from their constituents will be hard to ignore. 

In the meantime, the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency is expected to decide the fate of the project by October, 2015.

If approved, Petronas plans to begin operation in 2019. 

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.

Late Saturday afternoon, Transport Canada officially cleared the Marathassa to leave Canadian waters. As it slowly moves out of the Salish Sea, the bulk carrier leaves angry mayors, a combative coast guard, a distrustful public and many, many questions in its wake.

Even U.S. authorities are anxiously looking north wondering if Canada knows anything about marine oil spill response. 

What we know about this spill is important, but there’s a lot more we don’t know, and might never know, about what happened in English Bay.

We Don't Know the Total Volume of Fuel Spilled, and Maybe Never Will 

In his first press conference after the April 8th spill, Commander Roger Girouard of the Canadian Coast Guard stated that the volume of the spill was 2,700 litres, or approximately 17 barrels of bunker C fuel. He reiterated this point several times at media appearances and press conferences in the weeks following the spill. Federal Industry Minister James Moore echoed his comments.

Vancouver City Manager Penny Ballem disagrees. In her presentation to Vancouver City Council after the spill, she quoted officials saying that figure is incorrect and the real volume is likely in the range of 3,000 – 5,000 litres spilled.

Similarly, there’s the reality that even the most successful oil spill cleanup efforts only recover a small portion of the oil. In 2010, Gerald Graham, president of Worldocean Consulting, a marine oil spill prevention and response planning firm based in British Columbia, told LiveScience.com that recovering between 10 and 15 per cent of conventional oil spilled in seawater is a ‘best case’ scenario.

Except bunker C fuel — the product spilled in English Bay — is not conventional: it is denser, more viscous and heavier than conventional crude oil. Unlike conventional crude oil, bunker C fuel is not certain to float on water surfaces, nor does it weather and dissolve as easily. On average only five to 10 per cent of the bunker C fuel will evaporate in the first 24 hours after a spill. Instead it breaks into tarballs and settles lower in the water column, sometimes as far down as one to three metres below the surface.

On April 9, Commander Girouard reported that cleanup crews had recovered approximately 1,400 litres of the oil spilled. A few days later, a statement from Coast Guard Commissioner Jody Thomas stated that cleanup crews recovered 80 per cent of fuel spilled within 36 hours after the spill.

If these figures are correct, then without counting the oil which washed up on Vancouver and West Vancouver beaches or the large ‘bathtub ring’ of bunker fuel oil encircling the Marathassa, the Coast Guard should have recovered approximately 2,200 litres of spilled oil in the first 36 hours (based on lower spill estimates). This is definitely possible, but extremely unlikely given past precedent of what constitutes a ‘best case’ cleanup.

But if total spill volumes are incorrect — as City Manager Ballem and others suggest — there is a lot of oil still unaccounted for.

It is worth noting that in the first 24 hours after the spill, oil traveled 12 kilometres to foul at least 10 beaches in Vancouver, West Vancouver and North Vancouver.

Would an Operational Kits Coast Guard Station Have Helped? Who Knows

In 2013, the federal government closed the Kitsilano Coast Guard station, consolidating operations with the Coast Guard Station in Delta, B.C. Both the City of Vancouver and the province of B.C. publicly objected to the closure, citing its importance in oil spill and disaster response efforts.

“The Kitsilano Coast Guard base has been one the most important public safety resources in and around the City of Vancouver, responding to over 300 calls each year. Vancouver is one of the busiest harbours in North America and has depended on robust search and rescue services that are professionally-trained and fully-resourced by the federal government. In the event of major freighter, cruise ship, or aviation emergency, we remain very concerned that the Kitsilano closure will put many additional lives in danger.” – Vancouver Mayor Gregor Robertson

Both Commander Girouard and Federal Industry Minister James Moore stated they believe the Kitsilano Coast Guard Station being open would have made no difference in the cleanup of this spill. Speaking to the media on April 12, Girouard said the station was never manned with environmental response experts, and would not have been called on in this scenario. James Moore echoed his comments.

According to Commander Girouard, the Kitsilano Coast Guard station had less than 100 metres of oil-absorbing booms, and that they were likely too old to be useful.

Retired Coast Guard Captain Tony Toxopeus, who served at the base, disagrees. So does Mike Cotter, General Manager of the Jericho Sailing Centre, which is located next door to the shuttered station. In an interview with CKNW’s Shane Woodford, Captain Toxopeus confirmed that the Kitsilano Coast Guard Station had two ships (a pollution response vehicle and an Osprey cutter), along with oil spill response equipment and staff trained in pollution response.

At the same time, an operational Kitsilano Coast Guard Station would have greatly reduced the response time for the spill.

As it stands, it took the Coast Guard more than three hours from the time the spill was reported to send a ship to investigate, a further four hours to set up an absorbent boom and a total 12 hours to completely encircle the Marathassa in a containment boom. In an open letter to Minister Moore, Mr. Cotter said:

“Had the Kitsilano Coast Guard Station remained open, the Osprey could have been on scene within 10 minutes in direct contact with the boater who originally reported the spill just after 5 pm on April 8. Her crew would’ve assessed the scene (the boater says he could tell the fuel was coming from the aft section of the source ship) and activated the PRV crew who would’ve been on scene and commenced spill containment within an hour of the report.”

Late last week, the federal government announced that it would also be closing the Vancouver office for its Marine Communications and Traffic Services. Now everything from marine safety communications co-ordination with rescue resources, vessel traffic services and waterway management, broadcast weather and sail plan services for the entire south coast and most of Vancouver Island will be managed out of the Victoria office.

As the Globe and Mail recently reported, officials in Washington State have serious doubts about the Canadian government's ability to address oil spills in the Puget Sound. The Washington Department of Ecology told the state's Governor that "B.C. lacks authority over marine waters, and their federal regime is probably a couple decades behind the system currently in place in Washington State."

A U.S. maritime lawyer also said if the U.S. Coast Guard scored an eight or nine on a worldwide 10-point spill response scale, Canada would score a one or two. 

We Don’t Know Who is Responsible for Monitoring Burrard Inlet for Long-term Spill Impacts

To be clear, the Burrard Inlet and the Salish sea have not been pristine waterways for a long time. E.coli contamination regularly closes local beaches to swimming in the summer, and the waterway is a working port. All of that considered, Vancouver beaches attract millions of people every year, and many people fish its waters for recreation or subsistence.

On April 15, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans banned fishing for shellfish and groundfish in Burrard Inlet, citing concerns about the Marathassa spill. DFO calls the closure a precautionary measure, and gives no indication of when the fisheries may reopen.

The closure makes sense, of course. While the Marathassa spill was minor,  toxins from bunker C fuel can stay in the water for a very long time. A study done by U.S. Department of Fisheries scientists on a 2007 bunker C fuel spill in San Francisco harbour found the spill had decimated local herring stocks and left surviving fish with extensive birth defects and short life spans. This persisted for at least three years after the spill.

But Vancouver’s waters are different. According to Dr. Peter Ross, director of the Vancouver Aquarium’s Ocean Pollution Research Program, there’s no baseline data for English Bay’s waters, nor is there a cohesive long-term monitoring program. Both of these deficiencies make it hard to measure long term impacts.

Since coastal waters fall under the purview of the federal government, it should be the responsibility of the DFO to monitor long-term impacts. But millions of dollars in cuts by the federal government have decimated DFO budgets, closing programs and leaving at least 50 scientists out of work. This included Dr. Ross, who used to run a marine toxicology program through DFO. It no longer exists.

The Vancouver Aquarium, the City of Vancouver and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans have all collected water samples independently following the spill. Unfortunately, as Dr. Ross says, "There is no official clarity around who is to monitor the effects of a spill."

WWKMD? We Don’t Know What Kinder Morgan Would Do Differently

For all the opacity of the government response, one thing is crystal clear after the Marathassa spill: we could, and must, do better by these waters. As the National Energy Board considers approval of the Kinder Morgan TransMountain tanker and pipeline expansion, both parties could be learning from the Marathassa response and ensuring that future spill preparedness and response is truly ‘world-class.' But, as always, there’s a problem.

Namely, that Kinder Morgan refuses to publicly reveal any of its oil spill cleanup plans for Burrard Inlet — even though the company owns 50.9 per cent of Western Canada Marine Response Company, the lead party responsible for cleanup operations on the Marathassa spill and the primary subcontractor for any future oil spills on the B.C. south coast.

This leaves all levels of government in the dark about what might happen if the new twinned Kinder Morgan pipeline ruptures again (as it did in 2007), or one of the hundreds of new Aframax-sized tankers (40,000 tonnes larger than the Marathassa bulk carrier) leaks diluted bitumen into English Bay.

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.

On Friday afternoon, federal Environment Minister Leona Aglukkaq sent a letter to Canadian premiers detailing how each of their provinces are falling short on targets to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 2020.

In her message Aglukkaq notes that the provinces of Alberta and British Columbia are the furthest from reaching their targets. Ontario, Saskatchewan and Quebec are next on the list.

Unfortunately, neither B.C Premier Christy Clark nor Alberta Premier Jim Prentice will be attending tomorrow’s Premiers' Summit on Climate Change in Quebec City.

Bloomberg News reported on Friday afternoon that Clark would be skipping the meeting to attend a World Bank meeting. On Monday morning the Office of the Premier of Alberta confirmed to DeSmog Canada via phone that Prentice would not be attending the summit either.

As part of its 2020 targets, British Columbia pledged to reduce its annual greenhouse gas emissions from 62 gigatonnes per year to 42 gigatonnes per year. Environment Canada predicts British Columbia’s emissions will actually rise to 69 gigatonnes per year by 2020. More distressingly, these figures do not account for the new emissions that would be created by new liquefied natural gas development or the two oilsands pipeline and tanker projects under consideration.

Alberta projects its emissions will increase from 232 gigatonnes per year to 260 gigatonnes per year by 2020. Environment Canada expects emissions will rise to 287 gigatonnes per year instead.

In total, the gap between B.C. and Alberta’s targets and their projected emissions is 54 gigatonnes per year, or approximately 0.1 per cent of the world’s total GHG emissions in 2010.

Finding ways to reduce these emissions through collaborative action is the focus of tomorrow’s climate summit in Quebec City. Organized by Quebec Premier Phillipe Couillard, the one-day summit is also an opportunity to finalize the Canadian Energy Strategy.

Earlier today, Ontario and Quebec signed a groundbreaking cap-and-trade deal to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The plan — which shares many elements of the one implemented by Quebec in January of this year — requires companies to reduce their emissions or purchase credits from other companies as an offset and is co-managed with the U.S. state of California.

Nova Scotia's Premier Stephen McNeil also confirmed they will not attend the Premiers' Climate Summit.

To find out more about where each province stands on climate action, read our DeSmog Primer.

Image Credit: Province of British Columbia 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.

In the lead up to December’s UN climate talks in Paris, most countries are approaching their promised emission reductions with new national regulations. Canada’s Conservative government is taking a different path.

Instead of considering a federal carbon tax, Environment Minister Leona Aglukkaq has asked premiers to submit their own cuts and how they will achieve them. In a letter submitted to all premiers on Friday afternoon, Minister Aglukkaq notes that Canada is falling far short of its promised 2020 emission cuts and suggests it is up to individual provinces to fill in the gaps.

Those reductions — plus working out the details of the Canadian Energy Strategy — form the agenda for Tuesday’s Premiers' Climate Summit on Climate in Quebec City.

On Saturday afternoon, more than 25,000 people filled the streets of Quebec City asking provincial leaders to take the action the federal government seems obstinately set against. And these marchers are not outliers: a new poll commissioned by Canada’s Climate Action Network revealed 70 per cent of Canadians want the country to become global leaders in protecting the climate.

That’s why this Premiers' Climate Summit is so important — it is their leadership (or not) that could make the difference in Canada finally taking climate action. But who are the premiers leading the way and who could hold back progress yet again? Read on.

Provincial Leadership by the Numbers

British Columbia

• Premier: Christy Clark
• Annual GHG emissions (2012): 60.1 Mt CO2
• Percentage of Canadian total emissions (2012): 8.6 per cent  

Much has been written about British Columbia’s progressive and award-winning carbon tax. Since its inception in 2008, B.C. has reduced its annual CO2 emissions by 2.2 gigatonnes, taking strides towards its goal of a 33 per cent reduction from 2005 levels by 2020. Christy Clark, in the lead up to the summit, challenged other governments to 'meet or beat' the province's carbon tax.

Unfortunately, Clark promised to freeze the carbon tax for five years as part of her 2013 election campaign. At the same time, Clark also pledged to reinvigorate B.C.’s economy by developing a $100 billion industry around the export of liquefied natural gas to Asian markets. Neither of these actions are likely to help B.C. meet or exceed its emission reduction targets.

On the plus side, Clark is lukewarm on two proposed pipeline and tanker projects that would carry diluted bitumen from the Alberta oilsands to the B.C. coast. She has pledged to deny provincial operating permits to both Northern Gateway and Kinder Morgan’s TransMountain expansion unless they meet five conditions ranging from safety to profit sharing. After the dismal response to this week’s relatively small spill of toxic bunker fuel in Vancouver’s English Bay, the most important condition — a ‘world class’ oil spill response plan — seems unlikely to be met anytime soon.

Premier Clark will not attend the summit and will be speaking at a World Bank event instead.

Alberta

• Premier: Jim Prentice
• Annual GHG emissions (2012): 249.3 Mt CO2
• Percentage of Canadian total emissions (2012): 35.7 per cent  

Alberta is the source of the lion’s share of Canada’s emissions, thanks largely to the Athabasca oilsands. After more than a decade of high global oil prices fueled rapid growth in the industry, the market for oil futures (with the high prices that kept the oilsands profitable) collapsed last fall.

The expansion of Alberta’s oilsands infrastructure is the source of much discussion and contention. Premiers of B.C., Quebec and Ontario have all set conditions before allowing any of the three large pending oil pipeline and tanker projects to proceed through their provinces, and the Obama administration in the U.S. has said it will not allow the Keystone XL pipeline to proceed if it contributes to climate change.

In 2007, the Alberta government implemented a small carbon levy of $15/tonne for large emitters. The tax will expire on June 30, 2015.

Premier Jim Prentice (a former Federal Minister of Environment in the Harper Conservative cabinet) has said he supports the idea of “the provinces [finding] common ground on energy and the environment, and [enforcing] fair, clear, well thought-out rules,” but has yet to reveal any plans.

Premier Prentice is currently running for re-election. His office confirmed he will not attend Tuesday’s summit.

Saskatchewan

• Premier: Brad Wall
• Annual GHG emissions (2012): 74.8 Mt CO2
• Percentage of Canadian total emissions (2012): 10.7 per cent

Since becoming Premier in 2007, Brad Wall has said or done little about climate change. He actively supports development of pipeline infrastructure, particularly TransCanada’s Energy East and Keystone XL pipelines. In 2014, he travelled to Washington, D.C., to lobby for the approval of the latter.

In a March 2014 roundtable interview with Canadian journalists he floated the idea of a moderate carbon tax as a being a means of encouraging the U.S. government to approve the pipeline. "I think you start slow and see what impact it has on the economy… I don't think you want to kneecap your economy with a carbon tax."

A few months later in November 2014, he approached the idea of CO2 emissions with a more fatalistic view, saying “If you want to get serious about (reducing) GHGs in Canada, we’d all stop driving cars.”

Premier Wall will not attend the summit.  

Manitoba

• Premier: Greg Selinger
• Annual GHG emissions (2012): 21.2 Mt CO2
• Percentage of Canadian total emissions (2012): 3.03 per cent  

Since taking office in 2009, Premier Greg Selinger has been outspoken on climate change and Manitoba’s need to adapt and take action. His administration held knowledge-sharing sessions with experts in neighbouring Wisconsin; he’s spoken at sustainability conferences in India and committed to a robust set of climate adaptation goals, including reducing greenhouse gas emissions to six per cent below 1990 levels, to about 17.5 megatonnes.

That said, after five years his administration has yet to table any large-scale legislation or programs to make these reductions a reality. A planned cap-and-trade program expected for implementation in 2012 has not materialized. In the meantime, climate change impacts continue to add up. As Scott Forbes wrote in a Winnipeg Free Press op-ed last summer:

“Even the most powerful politicians cannot hold back the rain. But they can plan for a rainy day. With higher spring and summer river levels now the new normal, lowering river levels is going to be harder than ever. So build the walkway higher. Rack up the cost to our changing climate.”

At present it is unclear if Premier Selinger will attend Tuesday’s summit.

Ontario

• Premier: Kathleen Wynne
• Annual GHG emissions (2012): 166.9 Mt CO2
• Percentage of Canadian total emissions (2012): 23.9 per cent  

Ontario is the second-largest source of GHG emissions in Canada, and has, in recent years, taken its reduction very seriously. Before leaving office in 2012, Premier Dalton McGuinty passed the Green Energy Act, and pushed forward legislation to end urban sprawl, protect clean drinking water and limit toxic chemicals in manufacturing.

Premier Kathleen Wynne seems poised to take things even further. Her administration has already made Ontario completely free of coal-fired power and pledged seven conditions before new pipeline infrastructure projects such as Energy East will be allowed to go forward.

Together with Quebec Premier Philippe Couillard, she has led the development of the Canadian Energy Strategy — the framework for the Premier’s Climate Summit.

On Monday, Premier Wynne signed a cap-and-trade agreement with Quebec Premier Couillard in advance of Tuesday’s climate summit.

Quebec

• Premier: Philippe Couillard
• Annual GHG emissions (2012): 78.3 Mt CO2
• Percentage of Canadian total emissions (2012): 11.2 per cent  

Couillard is a climate action champion in his own right. He has worked closely with Ontario Premier Wynne on developing the Canadian Energy Strategy and his administration implemented a cap-and-trade scheme in partnership with California starting in January of this year. He opposes the Energy East pipeline plan for a terminal in Quebec (which fortunately for Quebeckers and belugas, has been dropped in TransCanada’s latest plans) and as of December 2014, supports continuing a moratorium on hydraulic fracturing in the province saying "if there’s no segment of the population that approves of the practice, then I don’t see the interest in developing it."

He’s also repeatedly said that he hopes for Quebec to have an important voice at December’s UN Climate Summit in Paris.

“I will ensure that Quebec is not only present, but also that it has the opportunity to make its voice heard.”  

New Brunswick

• Premier: Brian Gallant
• Annual GHG emissions (2012): 16.4 Mt CO2
• Percentage of Canadian total emissions (2012): 2.35 per cent  

Premier Brian Gallant’s leadership on climate and energy is inconsistent. Despite imposing a moratorium on fracking across the province, he is an active and vocal supporter of the Energy East pipeline. This proposed pipeline would carry diluted bitumen from the Alberta oilsands to a deepwater port on the Bay of Fundy for export to international markets.

Speaking at January news conference, Gallant said:

"There's no doubt as a nation we have to do a better job on climate change…On top of that, we also have to have a conversation about developing our economy throughout the country in a responsible way. We believe the Energy East pipeline is one that will help us grow our economy, create jobs; it's one we that we can do, we believe, in a sustainable way."  

Premier Gallant will attend the summit.

Nova Scotia

• Premier: Stephen McNeil
• Annual GHG emissions (2012): 19.0 Mt CO2
• Percentage of Canadian total emissions (2012): 2.7 per cent

After implementing a law in 2010 that required the province to meet 25 per cent of its energy needs from renewable sources, the province is now on track for a second goal: generating 40 per cent of its electricity by 2020.

In fall 2014, the province also imposed a moratorium on onshore fracking, except for research or testing purposes.

Speaking to delegates at a conference, Premier McNeil said, "Nova Scotia is a small province with a big future in sustainable energy. We're addressing climate change and the need for a lower carbon future by embracing change through innovation that focuses on one of our greatest advantages — our proximity to the ocean and its tides."

Premier McNeil will not attend the summit; he's sending Environment Minister Randy Delorey instead.

Prince Edward Island

• Premier: Wade MacLauchlan
• Annual GHG emissions (2012): 1.9 Mt CO2
• Percentage of Canadian total emissions (2012): 0.27 per cent  

Wade McLauchlan took the Premier’s oath of office less than 50 days ago. In his speech accepting the title of premier designate, Mclauchlan called P.E.I. a world leader in renewable energy, but said we can do more as “an important first step as we turn our attention to climate change.”

At press time, it is unclear whether Premier MacLauchlan will attend Tuesday’s summit.

Newfoundland & Labrador

• Premier: Paul Davis
• Annual GHG emissions (2012): 8.7 Mt CO2
• Percentage of Canadian total emissions (2012): 1.2 per cent  

Elected premier by a narrow margin in fall 2014, Paul Davis won his seat by pledging to protect the province’s offshore oil and gas extraction industry and ensure the billions of dollars it generates in royalties are better shared around the province.

On Friday April 10, Premier Davis announced his plan to attend the climate summit, citing an opportunity “to discuss best practices and future solutions in the fight against climate change and strengthen intergovernmental cooperation.”

Yukon Territory

• Premier: Darrell Pasloski
• Annual GHG emissions (2012): 0.4 Mt CO2
• Percentage of Canadian total emissions (2012): 0.06 per cent  

Despite promising to do so back in 2009, the Yukon has yet to set targets for territory-wide emission reductions.

In 2012, Premier Darrell Pasloski’s government announced that it would be impossible to predict future industrial and economic growth, and recommended the following action instead: “Rather than commit to an arbitrary target based on estimated projections of Yukon’s economic growth, the government is working with key players in the electricity, building and energy efficiency, industrial, and transportation sectors to identify actions that will lead to realistic and measurable outcomes to minimize growth in Yukon’s overall GHG emissions.”

Instead, the government has committed to a reduction in emissions for its own internal operations — 20 per cent lower than 2010 levels by 2015.

Pasloski does not support mandatory carbon pricing and just last week announced plans to explore fracking in the territory’s Liard basin, provided it had the support of First Nations in the region.

Premier Pasloski will attend the summit.

Northwest Territories & Nunavut

• Premier (NWT): Bob McLeod
• Premier (Nunavut): Peter Taptuna
• Annual GHG emissions (2012): 1.7 Mt CO2
• Percentage of Canadian total emissions (2012): 0.24 per cent  

Belying their huge size, both the Northwest Territories and Nunavut release approximately the same amount of GHG emissions as tiny Prince Edward Island. Despite this, their residents are disproportionately affected by rising seas and melting permafrost compared to Canadians in other provinces.

In 2014, the Premiers of the Northwest Territories and Nunavut met in Iqaluit to develop a strategy document for northern Canada, entitled ‘A Northern Vision.’ In it they agree that “clean, reliable, affordable energy is the backbone of a sustainable economy, is essential for the well-being of northerners, and fosters investment and economic growth in the North.”

At present it is not clear if either Premier McLeod or Premier Taptuna will attend the summit.

Image Credit: All images via Canada's Premiers

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.

When Vancouver Mayor Gregor Robertson set the goal of making his city the world’s greenest, he meant it.

A year after starting his first term in 2008, Robertson began implementing his “Greenest City 2020 Action Plan,” with the goal of becoming an environmental world leader by 2020. The award-winning plan tackles everything from energy efficiency to building standards to waste reduction to encouraging residents to grow their own food.

And it’s working.

According to the latest Greenest City report, Vancouver water consumption is down by 18 per cent, 23,400 new trees have been planted, 3,200 green and local food jobs have been created — all contributing to a reduction of community CO2 emissions by 6 per cent from 2007 levels and keeping the city atop global rankings for livability and health.

And, in Wednesday’s unanimous council decision, Vancouver City Council decided to go even further: recommitting to a long-term goal of deriving 100 per cent of its energy from renewable sources.

Canada’s First 100% Renewable City

In adopting this resolution the City of Vancouver becomes only the fourth city in North America — and the first in Canada — pledging to decarbonize. San Jose, San Diego and San Francisco have all pledged to get off fossil fuels, starting in 2022, 2035 and 2020 respectively.

When Vancouver would go 100 per cent renewable is still to be determined. Now that the motion has passed representatives from City Hall will work with specialists and experts over the next six months to figure out how soon Vancouver could phase out its use of fossil fuels. They’ll report back to Council in the Fall, after which implementation will begin in earnest.

Fortunately, As other cities pursuing a low carbon future have learned, going green has huge potential for local value creation.

For example: After committing to 100 per cent renewables by 2050, the city of Frankfurt reduced its emissions by 15 per cent and grew its economy by 50 per cent.

Where Cities Lead, Will Nations Follow?

Getting to a complete elimination of fossil fuels powering Vancouver’s transportation, heating and cooling is a huge step — particularly when both Canada’s federal government and the B.C. provincial government seem reluctant to implement the kind of bold policy needed for transformative climate action.

Despite pressure from the UN to put forward an aggressive emission reduction pledge in advance of December’s Paris climate summit, carbon reductions from Canada’s Conservative government remain among the lowest in the developed world. Environment Canada recently revealed that Canada is likely to exceed its own 2020 emission reduction targets by at least 20 per cent.

Even though British Columbia is home to one of the most progressive carbon taxes in the world, Premier Christy Clark pledged to freeze the tax for five years as part of her 2013 re-election campaign. Instead, her administration is focused on building infrastructure to ship BC LNG to Asian markets.

In the absence of other leadership, it makes sense why Vancouver City Council is compelled to act. As Mayor Robertson said to council before the historic vote:.

“Cities, as the most direct level of government, need to take action. The world can’t wait for national governments to finish their negotiations. It’s time we get on the path of figuring out how to eliminate fossil fuels in as aggressive of a timeline as is realistic.”

Councillor Andrea Reimer echoed his urgency: “We have a moral imperative to act.”

NB: It is worth noting that should the Kinder Morgan pipeline and tanker expansion proposal be approved, Vancouver’s energy and emission savings through the Greenest City program would be wiped out by one day of operation.

Full disclosure: The author worked for Vision Vancouver during the Fall 2014 municipal election.

Image Credit: Juan Alberto Garcia Rivera 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.

Editor’s Note: This article is more than 9 years old. To get latest updates and news on the federal carbon tax, or carbon pricing, visit this page.

Last night Prime Minister Stephen Harper and his house band, the Van Cats, took to the stage at a Conservative Christmas Party in Ottawa. Seated at the keyboard, the Prime Minister warbled through a performance of the Guns n’Roses classic ‘Sweet Child of Mine.’

Less than 24 hour earlier that the Prime Minister was singing a different tune.

Earlier in the day, the Harper railed against the concept of carbon taxes and regulation of the fossil fuel industry during Question Period in the House of Commons. In response to questions from NDP environment critic Megan Leslie about the Conservative’s 2007 pledge to regulate greenhouse gas emissions, he replied:

“Under the current circumstances of the oil and gas sector, it would be crazy — it would be crazy economic policy to do unilateral penalties on that sector; we’re clearly not going to do that. …In fact, Mr. Speaker, nobody in the world is regulating their oil and gas sector. I would be delighted if they did. Canada would be there with them.”

All of the above are indeed words, but when used by the Prime Minister in this combination they give a result that’s completely and egregiously incorrect.

In reality, more than half of the world’s population lives in places where CO2 consumption/production is regulated in some form — including a large portion of Canada. Here’s a rundown:

Countries with National Carbon Taxes or Emission Trading Schemes:

· Finland, Sweden, Norway, Denmark and Ireland established national carbon taxes in 1990, 1991, 1991, 2002 and 2010, respectively.

· The Netherlands has taxed carbon since 1990. In 2007 it enacted a further tax on carbon-based packaging.

· Costa Rica’s carbon tax funds forest protections for indigenous communities. It began in 1997.

· Since 2001, Great Britain has charged a ‘climate change levy’ on industry, commerce and public sectors.

· The New Zealand Government set up an emissions trading scheme in 2008.

· India has charged a nationwide carbon tax on coal since 2010.

· Switzerland has both a carbon incentive tax and an emissions trading system.

· Since 2010, all new vehicle sales in South Africa have been subject to a carbon tax.

· In 2012 Mexico implemented a carbon tax on fossil fuel imports and sales.

· Japan’s carbon tax has been in effect since October 2012.

· In 2012, Australia instituted a groundbreaking, innovative carbon tax. However, it was repealed two years later by the newly-elected Conservative government, headed up by Stephen Harper’s protege, Prime Minister Tony Abbott.

· France began taxing carbon emissions from gas, heavy fuel oil and coal on April 1, 2014.

Regional Carbon Taxes or Emission Trading Schemes:

· China: Starting in 2013, the Chinese Government enacted emission trading schemes in the Guangdong province and cities of Shenzhen, Beijing, Shanghai, Tianjin, the Hubei province and the city of Chongqing. After 2015, the government will work towards a nation-wide tax (potentially as part of its new partnership with the United States).

· United States: Starting in 2009, Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Rhode Island and Vermont have traded emissions through a Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative. California’s emissions trading scheme was instituted in 2013. Also in 2013, President Obama issued an executive order to strengthen the power of the Environmental Protection Agency to regulate US power plants.

· Canada: Canada does not have a federal carbon tax, but Quebec, Alberta and British Columbia do. The latter’s carbon tax has been recognized as one of the most effective in the world.

Other countries or regions with pending carbon taxes or emission trading schemes under consideration or in the process of implementation:

· In 2018, Chile’s newly enacted climate pollution tax will take effect, levying a charge of $5/tonne of CO2 on 55 per cent of the nation’s emissions.

· Starting in 2015, The Republic of Korea will start an emissions trading scheme covering facilities producing more than 25,000 tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions – approximately 450 of the country’s largest emitters. A planned ‘smog tax’ on vehicle emissions has been pushed back to 2020.

· Starting in 2016, all new homes built in the United Kingdom are required to have zero emissions for heating, hot water, cooling and lighting.

· South Africa expects to begin its national carbon tax in 2016.

· Kazakhstan, Thailand, Taiwan, Brazil, the Ukraine and Turkey all have plans on carbon taxes or emission trading in various stages of consideration.

With a majority of nations at the UN Climate Talks in Lima agreeing to put wholesale elimination of fossil fuel energy by 2050 on the negotiating table, and crude oil prices dropping below $62 USD per barrel for the first time in five years, smart countries aren’t singing the praises of fossil fuels any longer.

They’re stepping up with regulations like their futures depend on it.

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.