“This is the biggest challenge as we have at the moment as a company,” Ben van Beurden, chief executive of oil giant Shell, said recently. “The fact that societal acceptance of the energy system as we have it is just disappearing.”

Speaking at the annual CERAWeek energy conference in Houston on March 9, van Beurden described the growing tensions between his industry, which has created our fossil fuel dependent energy system, and the public, which is demanding a switch to clean energy: “I do think trust has been eroded to the point where it starts to become a serious issue for our long-term future.”

The world’s largest oil companies are increasingly faced with public pressure to do something about their impact on climate change. And increasingly we’re seeing their chief executives responding. The question is though, how much is for real and what's just greenwash?

It’s been just over a year since the Paris climate deal was agreed in December 2015 and slowly corporate annual reports are being filed. In these, companies take stock of the year’s changes and assess the future risks to their business. Meanwhile new strategies and corporate statements are being issued. Statoil recently released a climate roadmap and ConocoPhillips has come out in support of the US remaining part of the Paris Agreement.

But what are we to make of all of this? Do the actions of these oil giants match the big words put out by their chief executives when it comes to climate change? Has anything really changed since Paris?

Royal Dutch Shell

It feels like Shell is going through a bit of an identity crisis. On the one hand, it’s been pretty clear about the risk climate change poses to its business and the need to transition to renewable energy. But on the other hand, it sees this as a slow, decadal process and has a record of lobbying against climate action.

Last week headlines were made when Shell announced it was selling off most of its Canadian oil sands assets. Mixed in with this also was the news that it would now be tying 10 percent of its directors’ bonuses to how well they manage greenhouse gas emissions in their operations.

It also aims to invest $1 billion in renewable energy by the end of the decade.

But a look at the bigger picture shows that while these are steps in the right direction, they’re relatively small steps given Shell’s total annual spending comes to $25 billion.

And according to a recent article written by Shell’s climate advisor David Hone, the company has “no immediate plans to move to a net-zero emissions portfolio over our investment horizon of 10-20 years”.

That said, Shell appears to be somewhat ahead of the curve compared to other oil majors. Maybe it's making up for lost time, or perhaps it doesn't want to be left in the dust. Either way, it's not entirely burying its head in the sand. In its annual report last year for the year up to December 2015 it was the first company to recognize that policy action and legal risks due to rising climate change concerns are mounting. These same concerns are repeated in this year’s report.

However, this comes after the Guardian revealed that Shell knew of the impact fossil fuels would have on the climate as far back as 1991. In a film on temperature and sea level rise the oil giant accurately predicts what scientists now all agree on about climate change.

Yet, despite the company’s own data, it has spent decades investing in unconventional oil and gas projects. Projects which it has always known are incompatible with tackling climate change.

BP

Meanwhile, BP is facing significant pressure to boost production. Part of this effort means it continues to expand into more and more challenging projects in search of bigger returns. But it’s having some trouble.

After strong public opposition to its plans to drill in the pristine waters of the Great Australian Bight it pulled out of the deepwater venture. And now it’s planning a similarly controversial project: drilling for oil near a recently discovered coral reef off the coast of Brazil.

The company also isn’t performing as well as it would have hoped, with share prices currently sitting 30 percent lower than before its Deepwater Horizon disaster.  All of this has led to rumours of takeovers, with reports last week that Exxon was eyeing up the British oil giant.

And as it continues to lay off workers from its drilling operations on the North Sea, a DeSmog UK investigation shows BP has been working hard to boost its social license by putting BP-branded tutors in primary and secondary schools all across Aberdeen.

In the US, however, BP chief executive Bob Dudley seems encouraged by the change in winds that came with a new White House administration. Dudley recently said that the political situation meant business is much more open now, saying that the White House is “very interested” in BP, “more so than at any times in the last eight years”.

As BP continues to push into riskier projects – and riskier in all senses of the word, from its operations to the climate and the marine environment – it will be interesting to see what its annual report (yet to be published) makes of all of this. Last year’s simply recognizes the impact that complying with climate change regulations and laws may have on its profit margin.

Chevron

Compared to last year, Chevron’s come a long way. Whereas its chief executive John Watson boasted last year that the world will always need Big Oil this year it too has publicly recognized to its investors that climate change lawsuits can pose a risk to its profits.

In its annual report for the year up to December 2016 it states: “increasing attention to climate change risks has resulted in an increased possibility of governmental investigations and, potentially, private litigation against the company.”

But amidst growing demand from shareholders for corporate disclosure on climate risks, Chevron this month said in a quietly released report that a transition to lower-carbon energy sources would pose only a “minimal risk” to its operations because it’s investing in these options too. It then goes on to explain that oil and gas will remain the fundamental energy sources.

ExxonMobil

Like BP, Exxon fails to go beyond the impact of climate regulations on its profits. The company however continues to be in the spotlight, from investigations into its long history of funding climate denial to former chief executive Rex Tillerson becoming part of the new White House administration – the same Rex Tillerson who, as Exxon's chief, went by the alias 'Wayne Tracker' when emailing colleagues to discuss climate change.

Since Tillerson left the helm, Exxon has made some attempts to improve its climate credentials. The new chief executive Darren Woods publicly endorsed the Paris climate deal and just weeks after he took over from Tillerson, Susan Avery, a climate scientist, was appointed to the company’s board.

This comes after the company’s shareholders failed to do just that during Exxon’s annual general meeting last summer. During this meeting three other climate related initiatives were voted down including one to stress test the business to avoid 2C warming.

However, no major shift on strategy was announced during Woods' first speech on March 1 since being appointed to lead Exxon. Instead, investment priorities will continue to be in oil and gas.

The company also appears to be taking full advantage of the new US administration’s warm welcome to oil lobbyists as it pushes for weaker regulations on the oil and gas industry.

Photo: Drew Kolb via Flickr | CC 2.0

[block:block=109]

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.

Norwegian oil major Statoil will be pulling out of its Canadian oilsands project after nearly a decade with an expected loss of at least USD$500 million.

In yet another sign that Canada’s oilsands – one of the most polluting fossil fuel projects on the planet – is becoming increasingly costly, Lars Christian Bacher, Statoil’s executive vice-president for international development and production, said in a statement: “This transaction corresponds with Statoil’s strategy of portfolio optimisation to enhance financial flexibility and focus capital on core activities globally.”

The 14 December announcement comes just weeks after Prime Minister Justin Trudeau approved the controversial Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain pipeline and the Enbridge Line 3 pipeline in a move to facilitate growth in the oilsands and create jobs.

The international energy giant will sell all of its oilsands assets to the mid-sized Alberta-based Athabasca Oil Corp effective 1 January 2017 in a deal that could produce about 80,000 barrels of oil a day with reserves expected to last up to 70 years. It is estimated to be worth up to CAD$832 million. The deal will also see Statoil retain a stake of just under 20 percent in Athabasca.

Statoil was one of 13 companies operating in the oilsands that had signed a long-term contract with Texas-based pipeline operator Kinder Morgan to ship oil via the Trans Mountain pipeline. However, it is now unclear what will happen with its contract, the National Observer has reported. According to Statoil Athabasca will have the option to enter the agreement.

The move is the latest in a string of losses for oilsands operators since global oil prices began to plummet in 2014, triggering other European companies such as Shell and Total to pull out of projects and resulting in tens of thousands of jobs being lost across Alberta.

And while Trudeau has said recently that tar sands and pipeline expansion will be “integral” to the country’s climate plans, Statoil’s head of sustainability, Bjorn Otto Sverdrup, tweeted on the day of the company’s announcement that Statoil’s exit from the oilsands “bends our cost and emission curves. Building resilience.”  

Today we announced @Statoil exit of oil sands which bends our cost and emission curves. Building resilience @CFigueres @IEABirol @topnigel https://t.co/WvvZYoN0q3

— Bjørn Otto Sverdrup (@BSverdrup) December 15, 2016

Photo: Lawrence Sauter via Statoil

[block:block=109]

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.

An average $2.5 trillion (£1.76trn) of the world’s financial assets would be at risk from climate change impacts if global temperatures are left to increase by 2.5°C by 2100, warns a new study by the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at the London School of Economics.

The study, published today in the journal Nature Climate Change, is the first of its kind to produce a comprehensive estimate of the total value at risk from climate change impacts. So far most of the attention has focused on the risk of climate change to fossil fuel companies.

Under the Paris climate deal, nations have agreed to limit global warming to “well below” 2°C from pre-industrial levels. However, under business as usual emissions are set to increase global average temperatures by approximately 2.5°C.

The study estimates that the value at risk would be “significantly reduced” if countries are successful in limiting warming to 2°C by the end of the century. This would see an average $1.7 trillion (£1.2trn) in financial assets at risk compared to the more dangerous 2.5°C climate change scenario.

Even when factoring in the costs of reducing greenhouse gas emissions in an effort to limit warming to 2°C the study finds that global financial assets are set to be worth $315 billion (£221bn) more than under a business as usual scenario.  

Put simply, financial assets are worth more in a world that pays to tackle climate change effectively.

“Our results may surprise investors, but they will not surprise many economists working on climate change,” said lead author, Professor Simon Dietz, “because economic models have over the past few years been generating increasingly pessimistic estimates of the impacts of global warming on future economic growth.”

However, due to the uncertainties in estimating the ‘climate value at risk’ the report finds there is a 1 percent chance that warming of 2.5°C could threaten almost 17 percent of all global financial assets worth $24 trillion ($16.8trn).

Limiting warming to 2°C would see a 1 percent chance that $13.2 trillion (£9.28trn) of the world’s financial assets are put at risk from climate impacts.

“It is important to remember there are huge uncertainties and difficulties in performing economic modelling of climate change,” Dietz noted, “so this [study] should be seen as the first word on the topic, not the last.”

As the study argues, it is important to understand the impact of climate change on asset values because “the possibility that climate change will reduce the long-term returns on investments makes it a matter of fiduciary duty towards fund beneficiaries.”

This is why, for example, many have been advocating for institutional investors such as pension funds to disclose their climate risk and divest from fossil fuel companies.

However, “levels of awareness about climate change remain low in the financial sector as a whole” the report states.

It argues that “for their part, financial regulators need to ensure that financial institutions such as banks are resilient to shocks, hence their growing interest in the possibility of a climate-generated shock.”

As Dietz said: “Our research illustrates the risks of climate change to investment returns in the long run and shows why it should be an important issue for all long-term investors, such as pension funds, as well as financial regulators concerned about the potential for asset-price corrections due to an awareness of climate risks.”

Photo: WIkimedia Commons

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.

Nearly $1 trillion (£700bn) is being invested in new coal-fired power plants worldwide despite the fact that the demand for electricity generated from coal has declined for two years in a row, shows a new report released today.

The report, by Greenpeace, the Sierra Club and CoalSwarm, warns that this problem of overbuilding is creating an “increasingly severe capacity bubble”.

Last year the global power sector added at least 84 gigawatts (GW) of new coal power capacity. This is a 25 percent increase from 2014.

As the report explains, across the world a generating capacity equal to 1,500 coal plants is either in construction or in various stages of planning. The amount of capital potentially wasted on these plants comes to US$981 billion.

Yet, the average coal plant is running fewer and fewer hours each year.

In China for example, the consumption of coal for electricity generation dropped 3.6 percent last year. Currently, the average Chinese coal plant runs less than half the time – the lowest level since 1969 – and the government recently announced plans to halt new coal plant approvals.

And in India, 11GW of thermal capacity is lying idle. Last year saw the first drop in India’s annual coal power installations since 2006 and the report expects this the drop “to be even more pronounced” in 2016.

“The era of Big Coal is clearly coming to an end,” said Nicole Ghio, senior campaigner for the Sierra Club’s International Climate and Energy campaign. “Coal use keeps falling off a cliff and plants are sitting idle, yet more money is being wasted on misguided attempts at locking in this dirty, dangerous fuel.”

Lauri Myllyvirta, senior global campaigner on Coal and Air Pollution at Greenpeace, described the situation as a “last-ditch push” by an industry which is becoming “rapidly uncompetitive”.

But while coal plant retirements may be growing globally, led by efforts in Europe and the US, this is not happening fast enough to balance out the overbuilding.

As the report warns, the danger of all this potential capacity sitting idle is that, in the end, it might be used but with significant impact on the world’s ability to meet its climate targets under the Paris Agreement.

“Even with no further building of coal plants, emissions from current coal plants will still be 150 percent higher than what is consistent with scenarios limiting warming to 2°C,” it explains, “meaning that most operating and new coal-fired plants will have to be phased out well before the end of their planned lifetime.”

Even building “high efficiency” coal plants is not a viable solution the report states, since this would lock in “large, long-lived carbon emitters, interfering with the need to fully decarbonize the power sector by 2040 in order to limit warming to 2°C”.

Instead, the report argues that the amount wasted on the coal capacity bubble should be direct towards alleviating energy poverty and investing in clean energy such as wind and solar power.

It notes that the nearly $1 trillion wasted is equivalent to the total level of investment needed to provide electricity to the 1.2 billion people currently lacking access to energy according to the International Energy Agency.

This would also be enough money to increase the amount of solar and wind power installed globally by 39 percent, the report finds.

“The hundreds of billions being thrown at coal could instead go toward the booming clean energy sector, helping more than a billion people get access to the clean, reliable electricity that fossil fuels have failed to deliver,” explained Ghio.

In addition to its significant climate impact, the report finds that the additional new proposed coal capacity would result in over 130,000 more premature deaths worldwide each year due to air pollution.

“The clock is ticking on the transition to clean energy,” said Ted Nace, director of CoalSwarm. “Although this research has revealed hundreds of billions being squandered on unneeded coal plants, there’s more at stake here than money.”

Photo: Tennessee Valley Authority 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.

Europe's coal lobby association EURACOAL paid for climate science denier Patrick Moore to speak to members of the European Parliament (MEP) and EU officials at an intimate dinner-debate last month, DeSmog UK can reveal.

As a March newsletter sent out by the European Energy Forum (EEF) details, Moore was invited as the main speaker at the dinner hosted by EURACOAL on 2 February in Strasbourg entitled “Climate Demons or Climate Gods: Coal Industry Stakes Its Future”.

An EEF press officer confirmed to DeSmog UK that coal lobbyists EURACOAL invited Moore to speak. The Canadian climate science denier is known for promoting the idea that “We should celebrate CO2 as the giver of life it is”. EURACOAL describes itself as “the voice of coal in Europe” and acts as an umbrella group for associations and research groups across 20 countries.

When asked whether EURACOAL paid for Moore to present that evening, Brian Ricketts, secretary-general of EURACOAL, told DeSmog UK: “Yes, you are correct.  EURACOAL did cover Dr. Moore’s travel expenses from Canada and the time he devoted to preparing and giving his presentation to a small group in the European Parliament.”  

“Unfortunately, I cannot disclose exactly what was paid [to] Dr. Moore as that would not be very professional,” he wrote via email. “However, it reflected c.5 days’ work for preparation time and long-haul travel.”   According to Moore’s agent’s site, it seems to cost between CAD$5,000 and $7,000 (£2,631 – £3,684) to have Moore speak at an event.

Climate Ambition

The EEF, which organises events for industry stakeholders and MEPs, describes the dinner-debate on its website: “With COP21 concluded, the EU must make an important decision: to continue its high-ambition climate change agenda or to moderate its ambition. This decision will have a profound impact on the future of coal in Europe.”

However, Ricketts added that “For your information, EURACOAL gave no advice or instructions on what Dr. Moore presented or on what he said during the Q&A session – he was free to say whatever he wanted.  So, for example, I don’t recall him saying anything in particular about coal and lignite.”  

Among those in attendance at the February dinner were Paul Rübig, Austrian MEP and member of the EU’s committee on industry, research and energy, Eero Ailio, deputy head of coal and oil retail markets unit for the European Commission's Director-General for Energy (DG Energy), and Jo Leinen, a German MEP.

MEPs are responsible for representing their city or region to the European Union, and when necessary, lobbying the European Commission on relevant issues.

Ricketts and Roger Helmer, an MEP for the East Midlands and climate science denier, were also at the dinner. They are pictured above standing with Moore.

Ricketts made headlines at the end of last year for his post-Paris statement that the fossil fuel sector “will be hated and vilified, in the same way that slave traders were once hated and vilified”.

In a response to the Guardian article on his comments, Ricketts clarified EURACOAL's and the industry's stance on climate change: “While we do question the future potential of renewables, EURACOAL has no view on climate science. However, it is fair to say that many in the coal industry are climate sceptics.”

‘Open Discussion’

EEF states that its aim is to provide “open discussion” between MEPs, industry, and others active in the energy sector ahead of decisions taken on energy related EU legislation so as to “ensure the decisions are based on accurate information reflecting a variety of points of view.”

Among EEF's members are at least 30 MEPs and oil giants Shell, BP, ExxonMobil, and Chevron along with Centrica, Lukoil, and Statoil. Trade associations and lobby groups, including EURACOAL, are also members.

And as the EEF’s website describes, EURACOAL’s aim “is to discover the truth behind climate science”.

Moore, however, believes that humans are not to blame for global warming and is known for promoting misinformation when it comes to the science of climate change.  

Recently Moore, who works at the Frontier Centre for Public Policy in Canada, appeared at the Paris climate conference with known US climate-denial groups the Heartland Institute, the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT), and the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) to hold a ‘counter-conference’ to discourage action on climate change.

Moore also achieved fantastic notoriety after he claimed on camera in March 2015 that glyphosate – the active ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide – is safe to drink.

Although a World Health Organization study had recently concluded that glyphosate is “probably carcinogenic,” Moore boasted to the filmmaker: “People try to commit suicide with it and fail fairly regularly.” But Moore refused to follow through on his suggestion by drinking a glass of the herbicide, saying “I'm not an idiot”.

When asked to comment on his EURACOAL presentation Moore said: "I consider DeSmog to be a hate site. So bugger off." 

This isn't the first time Moore has used offensive language against those he disagrees with. In October 2014, when Moore was speaking at Amherst College in Massachusetts, he described the students who walked out in protest as having a "Taliban mindset".

Moore’s Presentation

Moore's EURACOAL dinner speech saw him promoting his "celebrate CO2" catchphrase. He gave the dinner guests “an unconventional interpretation of the whole climate and energy issue,” as the EEF states in its newsletter.

And as a photo from the event shows, it appears the presentation he gave that night was similar to a speech given at the climate sceptic Global Warming Policy Foundation’s (GWPF) annual lecture last October in London entitled “Should we celebrate CO2?”

Moore’s February presentation is described as having “fostered an inclusive policy discussion based on a broad scientific basis, questioning the selective use of science which, in Dr Moore’s view, has led in some cases to widely accepted myths.”

EEF’s account of the dinner states that Moore told MEPs that “there is no definitive scientific proof that human emissions are the dominant influence on climate” and that carbon dioxide in fact benefits the planet by increasing plant growth.

The myth that ‘CO2 is good for the planet’ has been trotted out by the GWPF and its members several times. DeSmog UK debunks this claim here and here.

‘Options for Thinking’

Moore’s speech was followed by a presentation from Mark van Stiphout, deputy head of unit for new energy technologies, innovation and clean coal at DG Energy.

Van Stiphout argued that “coal is still an important provider of electricity in Europe,” according to the March newsletter.

He also noted that “research and investment are being encouraged to adapt coal to the increasing need for flexibility in power generation and to develop CCS [carbon capture and storage] solutions.”

According to dinner attendee and Austrian MEP Rübig, the night’s discussion provided participants with “options for thinking”.

EU Climate Targets

The EURACOAL dinner-debate was held in advance of a meeting in Brussels on 4 March where environment ministers discussed the EU’s next steps after the COP21 climate summit.

In anticipation of this meeting, and another planned for 17-18 March, EURACOAL has urged the European Commission to implement a less ambitious climate target.

In a 15 February statement, EURACOAL President Wolfgang Ceislik said: “EURACOAL calls on President Tusk and all 28 EU leaders to reject the 40% target and to adopt a less ambitious, more realistic target that can deliver more for Europe.”

While the European Commission initially did not put forward a more ambitious climate target in line with the Paris Agreement’s aim of reducing warming to “well below” 2C, last week Europe’s chief climate negotiator, Artur Runge-Metzger, confirmed that he is open to increasing the EU’s carbon target for 2030.

This followed calls from ministers from 10 countries including the UK, Germany, France, and Luxembourg for the Commission to increase its climate ambition. However, it is unknown whether climate change will be on the agenda for this week's summit.  

Photo from left to right: Ricketts, Helmer, and Moore via EEF.

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.

A record US$367 billion was invested in renewable energy in 2015, according to a new report out today by the Clean Energy Canada initiative of the Centre for Dialogue at Simon Fraser University.

Renewables investment increased by seven percent since 2014, with China, the US, and Japan representing more than half of the total investment last year, shows the report.

The report also finds that for the first time, more money was invested in clean energy than in new power from fossil fuel ($253bn).

This unprecedented scale of investment is particularly remarkable given the significant drop in oil prices over the last year.

“Turmoil in fossil fuel markets led many analysts to suggest clean energy investment would similarly stall out. How could renewable energy possibly compete with cheap oil, gas and coal?” asks the report.

As it explains: “New clean energy deals were widely expected to stall last year as the price of oil and other fossil fuels declined around the world. Instead, growth in the clean energy sector beat expectations, delivering the best year yet.”

Lower Costs

According to the report, declining technology and financing costs have helped to spur growth in renewable energy. For example, between 2009 and 2015 the cost of wind power in the US dropped 61 percent, while the cost of solar power fell 82 percent.

Much of the speculation was the result of a lack of understanding of renewable energy technology, trends and markets, explained Dan Woynillowicz, policy director at Clean Energy Canada.

While renewable energy competes head to head with natural gas (unlike with oil) “it has a range of attributes that make it attractive,” said Woynillowicz, “energy security, zero air pollution, price certainty, zero carbon, etc.”

Woynillowicz continued: “Renewable energy costs keep falling – and will keep falling – and the long-view suggests they will outcompete natural gas.”

“It’s also worth noting,” he added, “that as the costs fall, it means we get more energy for every dollar invested. So if investment remains stable or increases, we’ll see greater amounts of renewable energy actually deployed.”

Globally, wind power deployment led the way last year, up 31 percent since 2014 with nearly 64 GW installed, with deployment in solar power growing 23 percent.

“The fuel – sun, wind, water – is free,” Merran Smith, executive director of Clean Energy Canada, said in a statement. “There’s no wonder clean energy is gaining momentum around the world.”

“Clean energy is taking off because it offers value that can’t be beat – it’s local, so it offers energy security. It’s a climate solution. It reduces health issues from smog. It’s increasingly competitive, and there’s big money to be made.”

Developing Countries

Last year also marked the first time that developing countries saw more investment in renewable energy ($167bn) than developed nations ($162bn).

India took fifth place for the most clean energy investment in 2015 ($10.9bn) behind China ($110.5bn), the US ($56bn), Japan ($43.bn), and the UK ($23.4bn). Meanwhile, renewable investment in Canada dropped 46 percent from $7.4bn in 2014 to $4bn last year.

As the report describes, 2015 saw a “geographical broadening of clean energy as more developing countries got in on the action.”

Between 2014 and 2015 investment in clean energy in Africa and the Middle East grew 54 percent, up £13.4bn.

Going forward, the report predicts that both of these regions have “significant” potential for clean energy growth due to their growing populations and abundance of wind and solar resources.

Woynillowicz also expects the “staggering rate of investment and deployment” in China to continue. Meanwhile India, which has set aggressive renewable energy targets, will also be one to watch, but Woynillowicz asks: “Will they prove effective and efficient in attracting and deploying capital?”

Going Mainstream

With more than a third of a trillion dollars invested worldwide in renewables last year, Clean Energy Canada is optimistic, stating that “clean energy is going mainstream.”

“That’s serious money,” Smith writes in the report. “Clean energy has real momentum and the commitments underpinning the Paris Agreement on climate change will keep that momentum going.”

The report’s findings are “very encouraging” agreed Woynillowicz, “especially recognising that we saw a third of a trillion invested before the Paris agreement.”

We should expect to see more money being driven into renewables over the next few years Woynillowicz predicts, due to the continued increase in cost competitiveness of renewables and progress in reducing costs of energy storage technologies, combined with the climate benefits of renewables and goals set in the Paris Agreement.

Photo: Tony Webster 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.

Canada’s oil exports increased by 65 per cent in 10 years under former Prime Minster Stephen Harper’s leadership according to analysis of the most recent figures issued by BP’s annual Statistical Review of World Energy.

Between 2004 and 2014, Canadian exports soared from 2,148,000 barrels per day to 3,535,000 barrels per day.

The BP data, compiled by Carbon Brief in its Global Oil Trade interactive, shows that the majority of this oil went south of the border — exports to the United States increased by 60 per cent during this time from 2,119,000 barrels per day to 3,388,000 barrels per day.

Exports to U.S. and the EU

In fact, almost 96 per cent of all Canadian crude exported in 2014 went to the U.S. The U.S. shale gas boom saw a rapid decline in the amount of oil the country imported, particularly from Mexico, Africa and South America. But this didn’t stop the flow of oil coming in from Canada.   The next biggest recipients of Canada’s oil over the last 10 years have been Europe, Japan, and South and Central America.

Europe is the second largest export market for Canada. Recently, the EU came close to labelling oilsand’s crude as high-carbon due to its energy-intensive extraction and refining process.

So it’s interesting to note that Canadian crude represents just a small fraction of the total oil imported by Europe (86,000 barrels per day in 2014 compared to 162,000 barrels per day from India, 1,575,000 barrels per day from West Africa, and 6,028,000 barrels per day from former Soviet Union countries).

Ultimately, the move to label the oilsands a highly carbon-intensive energy source was thwarted by serious lobbying efforts by the Canadian and Albertan governments under the former Conservative majority under Stephen Harper.

Harper’s Legacy

Since 2006, the Harper government pushed aggressively for the country to become an “energy superpower."

In 2014, Canada was the world’s fifth largest oil exporter, behind China, the U.S., Russia and Saudi Arabia.

While Canada's oil exports increased many environmental protections were weakened or eliminated, under the Harper government, including protections for fish, rivers and lakes. Legislative changes made under omnibus bills C-38 and C-45 eliminated thousands of environmental assessments and repealed Canada's only law for reducing greenhouse gas emissions.    During roughly the same 10-year period that Canada’s oil exports increased, not a single meeting was held between provincial, territorial and federal government ministers to specifically discuss climate change.

As Glen Murray, Ontario’s Liberal minister for environment and climate change recently told The Canadian Press: “The previous government in 10 years couldn’t produce a paragraph [on climate policy], never mind a framework, so there’s a lot of work going on [now].”

Climate Challenge

Canada has pledged as part of the Paris climate deal agreed in December to cut its annual greenhouse gas (GHG) pollution to 524 megatonnes by the end of the next decade.

But as the most recent emissions data released last month by Environment and Climate Change Canada shows, the country is way off course in meeting the weak greenhouse gas reduction targets set under the previous Conservative government.

Under Harper, Canada indicated it would reduce its greenhouse gas output only by roughly 14 per cent by 2030 based on 1990 levels.

The Trudeau government said it plans to improve on this target, but has yet to state by how much. Canada currently exceeds 1990 levels by 18 per cent. Canada has also agreed to phase out the use of fossil fuels by the end of the century and eliminate net carbon emissions by 2050. 

The federal government is set to meet with Indigenous leaders and premiers in Vancouver on March 2-3 in the hopes of laying out the framework for a national climate strategy. And as part of this, Canada’s oil production, and its ever-increasing global exports, will undoubtedly have to be factored into the decision making process.

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.

More than 60 organisations from around the world are calling for a carbon levy on fossil fuel extraction to help pay for the climate change impacts on the most vulnerable countries.

The Carbon Levy Project declaration argues that fossil fuel companies are causing approximately 70 per cent of the climate change experienced today.

As a result, these companies should have to help mobilise funds to provide compensation for the damage, it says. This would be done through a tax on extraction (as opposed to emissions) the declaration explains.

Renowned climate scientist Naomi Oreskes, author Naomi Klein, 350.org’s Bill McKibben, and Greenpeace’s Kumi Naidoo, along with Ronny Jumeau, the Seychelles Ambassador to the UN, and Yeb Sano of the Philippines, have all signed the declaration following this month’s historic Paris Agreement.

On December 12, the world agreed to keep global warming to “well below 2°C” with the aim of trying to keep the global average temperature increase to just 1.5°C.

However, even these temperature goals will not stop some climate impacts already being felt by the most climate-vulnerable nations.

“Vulnerable communities on the frontline of climate change are already suffering worse droughts, more intense storms, and their homes are already being encroached upon by rising sea levels. They are already suffering loss and damage from climate change,” reads the declaration.

Not only are fossil fuel companies responsible for climate change, but many of them have, for years, supported campaigns denying climate science, in order to slow government action.

The most prominent example is ExxonMobil, which is currently being investigated in New York for its climate denial efforts.

“These big oil, coal and gas companies are continuing to reap millions in profit, while the poor are paying with their lives.  While the Paris Agreement sends a strong signal that fossil fuels must be kept in the ground, on the way to that goal, these companies should be paying for the damage they’ve already caused,” said Julie Anne Richards of the Climate Justice Programme, campaigning for a carbon Levy.

She added: “We support work by allies on legal strategies to bring the fossil fuel industry to account for the damage their product is causing. And it is crucial to ensure that fossil fuels are phased out and replaced by renewable energy by mid-century.”

Photo: Wikimedia commons

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.

BY KYLA MANDEL AND BRENDAN MONTAGUE IN PARIS

An historic deal to limit global warming to “well below 2C” and to make every effort to keep temperate increase to 1.5C will be agreed by 195 nations today in Paris.

The Paris Agreement will be ambitious, differentiated and legally binding, with five year review mechanisms to scale up efforts to reduce carbon emissions.

French President Francois Hollande said: “It is rare in a lifetime to have the opportunity to change the world. You have this opportunity so that our planet can live a long time, so that we can live a long time.”

After two weeks of continuous, intense negotiations, often going well into the night, the atmosphere in the plenary room this morning was positive and hopeful.

 “The text is ambitious but it’s also realistic,” Hollande described, noting that it must be viewed in a global context and not read through the lens of individual interests.

“This is something that is unprecedented in the history of climate negotiations,” he said. “This will be a major leap for mankind.”  

End Of Fossil Fuel Era

The Paris Agreement will not just be historic because it is the first of its kind but also because it signals the death-knell for fossil fuels with the language firmly grounded in science.

Laurent Fabius, the French COP21 president, said when opening the plenary on December 12: “We are almost at the end of the path and no doubt embarking upon another.”

“The reduction of greenhouse gas emissions has become the business of all,” he asserted.

In July, Hollande emphasised the need to keep 80 per cent of known fossil fuel reserves in the ground in order to achieve a “viable” global climate deal here in Paris.

Adopting a global warming target of 2C above pre-industrial levels – as the world seems poised to do today – will enable the final transition away from fossil fuels the President of France said.

And in fact, while this COP21 was underway in Paris there was news that global greenhouse gas emissions have peaked and are now falling. With a new, strong treaty signed perhaps this trend will continue.

Reacting to the Paris Agreement, Greenpeace's Kumi Naidoo said: “The wheel of climate action turns slowly, but in Paris it has turned. This deal puts the fossil fuel industry on the wrong side of history."

Ban Ki-Moon, head of the United Nations, said today: “[The deal] promises to set the world on a new path to a low emissions, climate resilient future.”

“We have to do what science dictates. We must protect the planet that sustains us,” he continued. “The solutions to climate change are on the table, they are ours for the taking now. Let us have the courage to grasp them.”

Civil Society Responds

Meanwhile in central Paris, activists gathered to call for stronger climate action. Many remain critical of the Paris Agreement and emphasised that governments must now turn words into action.

Noel Douglas, 45, a artist and designer from Peckham in London, was among the thousands of demonstrators who assembled close to the Arc de Triomphe and under the Eiffel Tower. Protesters voiced anger human rights were removed from the text and feared the ambition of holding climate change to 1.5 degrees would not be met. One leader vowed to occupy coal mines in Germany next year. 

He said: “We were not expecting the agreement to solve the problem of a living planet and a future for us all. So now we need to find ways to bring more people into the climate justice movement and prepare for bigger battles ahead. We cannot trust corporations and the establishment to stop climate change.”

“This deal alone won’t dig us out the hole we’re in, but it makes the sides less steep," said Naidoo. "To pull us free of fossil fuels we are going to need to mobilise in ever greater numbers… For us, Paris was always a stop on an ongoing journey. Ultimately our fate will be decided over the coming decades by the collective courage of our species. I believe we will succeed.”

Photos: Brendan Montague

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 end of the fossil fuel era is being signalled loud and clear here at the Paris climate conference as ministers enter the final hours of negotiations.

It's crunch time and everyone is saying the elements needed for an ambitious deal are still on the table. An essential part of this includes establishing a clear long-term goal to guide investor confidence toward a low-carbon society.

And with a 1.5C degree target option currently alive in the text, along with words such as ‘decarbonisation’ and ‘carbon neutral’, the signal couldn’t be clearer.

“The message that we expect this conference to send investors in the fossil fuel industry is get out now,” said Michael Brune, executive director of the Sierra Club. “There is no future in fossil fuels.”

Pointing to the 1.5C target, Kasia Kosonen from Greenpeace added: “We are now for the first time really having a serious debate around strengthening the temperature target to 1.5C and recognising that 2C is already too much. This de facto means that we are talking about moving away from fossil fuels in a short period of time.”

Policy Framework

And it’s not just those inside the negotiations that are looking for clarity. Businesses have also been calling for a clear long term goal, stressing its importance for investors.

As Michael Jacobs, senior advisor at the New Climate Economy project, explained: “Emissions will be cut through the application of investment and technology in a whole series of infrastructure projects… that’s how you actually do this. And the piece of paper that will be signed is a push to those processes but it doesn’t guarantee them."

“The way it pushes them is it requires government to respond to goals by putting in place policies which will then help drive investment, and demand creation, and technological innovation.”

Alden Meyer, strategy director at the Union of Concerned Scientists, agreed – and he’s been to virtually all the major climate talks since 1995.

He explained that a Paris deal must send a clear signal to the global industry that investments can shift from high-polluting industries towards clean energy – a trend he said we were already witnessing. 

“That will affect their decisions on trillions of dollars of asset investments,” Meyer told The Guardian. “If they think that governments are serious about going where the science says we need to go, then they will respond in kind. If they think that governments are wishy-washy, and are wobbling or uncertain, then they will hedge their bets.”

It seems the oil and gas industry is at the very least hearing what’s being said. But will it listen?

The Industry's Future

We’re already seeing dramatic shifts in the energy market signalling the end of coal. According to estimates by commercial intelligence company Wood Mackenzie more than 65 per cent of the world’s coal production is unprofitable as prices decline for the fifth year in a row.

Last Friday at a side-event inside the COP21 delegates’ space, oil executives from Shell, Total, and Statoil, along with industry trade bodies, sat down to discuss the future of their industry. While there was little talk of renewables, the industry figures recognised that there was strong global pressure to cut fossil fuel emissions.

Elliot Diringer, executive vice president of Virginia-based non-profit C2ES – and who was described as being close to negotiators – explained: “Paris has already sent many signals… The [pledges], the presence of world leaders, the agreement itself… [and] the debate on long term goals such as the decarbonisation of the economy.”

He continued: “If all of that comes together what we’ll have is a reshaped, reframed political and policy context. The question for all stakeholders is how do we engage coming out of Paris to achieve the transformation we keep talking about?”

Jean-Francois Gagne, head of technology policy division at the International Energy Agency, told industry figures in the room: “We have to realise the rate at which we decarbonise is going to have to increase, so we need to think about [what we invest in] in the future.”

Solutions which “would give credibility” to the industry, he said, included energy efficiency and renewables, as well as ending coal and reducing methane emissions from gas.

As Margaret Mistry, sustainability communications leader at Statoil, added: “We need to relate to the climate goals that people are talking about outside of our industry. Whether it’s two degrees or net zero emissions. It’s important to speak the same language.”

“From our point of view,” she continued, “the stronger the agreement the better. What we’re seeking is predictability and investment signals. The more certainty… the better it is for us to plan our business.”

Photo: UN Climate Change 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 issue of loss and damage has emerged as one of the top issues for negotiators at the Paris climate talks.

Swedish and Bolivian ministers have been leading the discussions on loss and damage, trying to iron out the issues.

But big polluters and wealthy nations refuse to be held liable for compensating climate-vulnerable nations for future impacts of climate change.

So what exactly does ‘loss and damage’ mean and why is everyone talking about it? And most critically, will we see a deal that everyone can agree to by the end of the week?

What is loss and damage?

There are some impacts of climate change to which it will not be possible to adapt – instead, we will be faced with residual ‘loss and damage’. This is when the efforts to try and mitigate or adapt to the impacts of climate change are not enough. Examples include Peoples and communities obliged to leave their countries and homes permanently; or the losses associated with destroyed ecosystems.

Those countries facing such impacts argue that there should be a specific stream of work to deal with them, referenced within the Paris agreement. Resistance comes from big polluters, who fear that establishing such provisions will open the door to future compensation claims.

So what’s the status of loss and damage going into the second week?

For small island states and some of the least developed countries, the question of loss and damage has become one of the most important aspects of the climate negotiations.

Tied into this discussion are other key elements of the Paris deal including climate finance for mitigation and adaptation as well as trying to keep the mention of an ambitious 1.5C global warming target in the text. The logic is that, if addressed, these issues on ambition and finance would mean countries hopefully wouldn’t suffer as much loss and damage.

At the end of the first week of climate negotiations one of the key issues was where loss and damage will be placed in the Paris package.

Developing countries want it in the binding agreement that is expected to form the core of this package. But some rich nations have been pushing for it to be included in a set of accompanying decisions that will not have legal force.

In a recent version of the text submitted on Saturday December 5th there were two proposals laid out for loss and damage.

The first option, proposed by the G77 – which has been described as a strong proposal – outlines a process mechanism for how to deal with issues such as displacement as well as permanent and irreversible loss and damage.

The second option is weaker “but if we have [both] on the table they’re both good to move forward on” described Julie-Anne Richards, international policy manager at Climate Justice Programme.

Sven Harmeling, CARE International’s climate change advocacy coordinator, described the text as “something technically manageable” adding that there have been improvements throughout the first week.

The issue of loss and damage has in the past provoked heated arguments and walkouts at previous conferences. For example, at COP19 in Warsaw in 2013, discussions over the issue broke down and the poorer countries walked out. An international mechanism on Loss and Damage did however emerge out of the Warsaw talks and it’s hoped this will be included in the Paris deal in some way.

“In terms of substance, this proposal would put the Warsaw international mechanism more at the centre and not establish a new one… It would provide a framework for going forward without defining what exactly needs to happen,” Harmeling explained. “If parties start to engage on that basis then I’m more optimistic we’ll get something useful.”

So what do the wealthy nations think?

The idea that developed nations bear a responsibility to compensate vulnerable nations for those extreme climate events which they cannot adapt to is very controversial for wealthier nations.

Many such as the US and EU are concerned that if liability and compensation were linked to this, it could become a massive legal and financial headache.

Both the UK and US have confirmed here in Paris that they will not accept the notion of ‘compensation and liability’ to be included in a climate deal

However, as with the nature of negotiations, compromises are struck. Ahead of the Paris summit, developing nations agreed to drop contentious words like compensation and liability. “The idea was to engage very constructively,” said Harjeet Singh of ActionAid.

This helped Washington and the European Union to recognise the importance of including loss and damage in the outcome of the Paris talks – but how to do that remains a sticking point.

Todd Stern, US special envoy on climate change, told reporters in Paris last week that the US accepts the concerns of vulnerable nations on this issue.

“We’re a supporter of dealing with loss and damage in an effective way,” he said. “We are working in a very co-operative and constructive way right with both the islands and the G77 on developing an outcome and a solution here, there are many players in this but we have been very engaged on this issue.”

“There’s one thing we don’t accept and won’t accept in this agreement,” he added, “and that’s the notion that there should be liability and compensation for loss and damage. In that regard we’re in the exact same place as virtually all developed countries.”

What can we expect going forward?

As the second week progresses many are optimistic that loss and damage will be inserted in the main body of the agreement.

Alden Meyer, director of strategy and policy for the Union of Concerned Scientists, described the “landing ground” as “some reference in the core agreement so it’s clear this is a core part of the agreement going forward.”

Meyer added that there is also a process underway to get the Warsaw mechanism reviewed and expanded upon during the next COP22 meeting in Morocco 2016.

Given that the issue of loss and damage is “younger” compared to discussions on mitigation and adaptation as E3G describes, any mention in the text is likely to be “brief and to the point”.

But we’re “at a very very critical moment” warned ActionAid’s Singh on the morning of Tuesday December 8. “This is a real life issue it is not a bargaining chip.”

Singh criticised the US for bringing the issue of ‘compensation’ back into the discussions after developing countries agreed to let that go in September.

“We don’t have time for any bargaining tricks, he said, adding it’s time to “engage really meaningfully” on issues such as displacement and permanent loss and damage.

“We’ve seen the Syrian refugee crisis and we have heard how it was [partly] fuelled by climate change. That was just a preview. We are going to see a lot more such realities and we need to prepare for that.”

Maina Talia, part of Vaitupu Island Youth and Tuvalu CAN emphasised the existential risk faced by the most vulnerable nations whose land is being devoured by the sea.

“I want to stress the connection between us and the land,” he said at a side-event in Paris. “There is a concept back home called ‘Fanua’. That same word we give to the land is the same word we give to the placenta to a mother.”

“If you give birth on the island we bury the fanua and plant a coconut tree on top signifying our connectivity to the land…this is how important it is for us not to go, not to leave…because we are connected, we are rooted to the land.”

“If we are to leave Tuvalu, it will become very different for a nation like Tuvalu to exist within another nation.”

He continued: “The loss of cultural heritage for us simply equals to death…losing someone’s culture and losing someone’s tradition simply equals to death.”

This post also appears on Energydesk.

Photo: UNESCO Jakarta 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.