Downward Google trends

"The largest upward spike in Google searches for global warming occurred just after Earth Day in April, 2007, a few weeks after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the EPA has the authority to regulate carbon dioxide to protect human health, and two months after the film “An Inconvenient Truth” won an Academy Award for Best Documentary. Since 2007, however, Google searches for the term global warming have declined to almost the same flat, relatively low level of searches for climate change."

Has climate become 'background' noise?

Overcoming crisis fatigue

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.

Critics cried foul last week after oilsands giant Syncrude was awarded the inaugural Towards Sustainable Mining Environmental Excellence Award at the Canadian Institute of Mining, Metallurgy and Petroleum (CIM) industry gala held in Vancouver on Monday, May 12.

The Fort McMurray-based company was recognized for its work in land reclamation, the attempt to re-establish ecosystems destroyed during oilsands development.

The company was specifically lauded for its work with fen wetlands, a sensitive and complex peat ecosystem that is a key part of the Boreal Forest and the local watershed, through its Sandhill Fen Research Watershed Initiative research project.

“We're quite pleased to have been selected. We see it as a demonstration of our commitment to improving our reclamation process,” said company spokesperson Will Gibson by phone. “It underscores our need to meet the public's expectations, and part of that is constant improvement.”

But, for some, labelling any work done in the oilsands as 'sustainable' may be premature, if not entirely contradictory. 

An 'industry award'

“It's industry giving awards to industry,” said Carolyn Campbell of the Alberta Wilderness Association, a conservation group working to conserve ecosystems and wilderness in the province. “It's misleading to say they are taking a significant approach to sustainable mining. Tar sands mining is inherently unsustainable. The push for fossil fuel development is destroying the boreal wetlands.”

For Campbell, attempts to bring back ecosystems that have been under pressure from mining for decades is too little too late. “This needed to be considered 40 years ago,” when the first oilsands developments began, said Campbell.

Most people may have heard of peatlands – Canada is the world's largest producer of peat moss for horticultural purposes – but few know about the importance, and uniqueness, of fens. While similar to peat bogs, fens are distinguished by a high water table and a slow, regular flow of water which makes them much more rich in minerals and much less acidic than bogs.

Fens support a specific set of vegetation and animal life and, because of these unique characteristics, are considered much more difficult to reproduce than other peatlands – which already present an enormous ecological challenge. Fens are an integral part of the northern Boreal ecosystem, which itself is tied to the health of Canada's important watersheds, like the adjacent Athabasca and Peace River watersheds. While fens are a small part of the entire Boreal forest, their loss has a significant impact on the surrounding ecosystem.

Their importance isn't lost on Gibson, who stressed in the interview that Syncrude is committed to monitoring their 52 hectare test site for the next 10 to 20 years in order to better understand and replace the fens that have been removed during oilsands development.

Gibson strongly rejects the ideas that Syncrude's reclamation work is simply window dressing. “Over half of our [research and development] spending goes into reclamation projects,” he said, adding, “would people prefer we do nothing?”

Reclamation cannot offset conservation

“Of course, they shouldn't be doing nothing,” Eriel Deranger told DeSmog Canada in a telephone interview. Deranger is a member of the Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation (ACFN), located over 200km northeast of Fort McMurry and directly downstream from the centre of oilsands development. Her traditional territory lies in the Athabasca watershed and has been significantly affected by industrial development to the south. 

“Reclamation work needs to be done. But it can't be used to justify the further expansion of the tar sands,” Deranger said. She is also a spokesperson for the annual Healing Walk, which brings together Indigenous and non-Indigenous people to visit the oilsands region and discuss industry's impacts.

For Deranger, the question isn't only about whether the fens can eventually be brought back, but the immediate and ongoing impacts that are justified through what is branded as 'sustainable development' of the oilsands.

The destruction of key parts of the northern Boreal ecosystem has a direct impact on the ACFN's and other First Nations' access to their traditional territory and to their way of life.

“The real issue,” she said, “is that these projects are going to be erasing these ecosystems for 50 to 100 years. That also means the loss of our treaty rights for 50 to 100 years.” And while it's clear that there have been advances in reclamation techniques, she said, the pace of development in the oilsands has greatly outrun any improvements.

The uncertain science 

Recent scientific reports have presented mixed results about the potential for reclamation. A 2013 study from the Université de Laval's Peatland Ecology Research Group found that the various mosses found in peat fens were able to withstand water with higher salt contents – similar to what they would be exposed to in reclamation areas – at a higher degree than expected, which researchers felt showed a strong indication that fens could be re-introduced post-mining.

At the same time, they highlighted that the study was done in limited laboratory settings, and that the complexities of a natural environment would complicate the re-establishment process.

Even if fens can be re-introduced, another peer-reviewed report questioned whether reclamation efforts could ever truly re-create or undo the damage of the original fens in the first place.

In a 2012 paper, researchers Rebecca C. Rooney, Suzanne E. Bayley, and David W. Schindler from the University of Alberta concluded that regardless of the ability to re-establish fens, the destruction of peatlands – which store a large amount of carbon in the ground, acting as a massive natural carbon sink – would result in the release of seven years worth of mining and upgrading emissions at 2010 production levels into the atmosphere.

They also noted the difficulty of recreating the water flow necessary for fens will mean that any eventual reclamation results would cover 65 per cent less territory than fens covered pre-mining.

Of the total area currently mined for oilsands, only 0.12 per cent of the land has been certified reclaimed, with some seven percent currently in progress of being reclaimed. The only certified reclaimed site is Sycrude's Gatweay Hill, which received the official reclamation distinction from Alberta Environment in 2008.

While the site has been vaunted as an industry success, Deranger sees it as a disturbing precursor to reclamation projects as the future for her people's territory. Gateway Hill, she said, is a clear sign that industry-styled reclamation projects cannot be used as an offset for protecting untouched land.

“I see fenced-in areas that have no relevance or value to First Nations people. They're fenced-in regions that they tout as a conservation zone,” she said.

"These areas were once areas that housed wild buffalo, that hunters and trappers utilized, that fishers utilized, that we considered sacred sites. And we're talking about creating a big sign that says, 'Look at the successes of this industry!' Why don't we juxtaposition it with, 'Look at what industry has destroyed.' Frankly, it's a little bit absurd and insulting."

Image Credit: Syncrude's Gateway Hill from 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.

But the federal government saw it differently, and rejected the mine a first time, based in large part on the company's proposal to drain Teztan Biny and use it as a tailings pond to hold toxic run-off from the mine, as well as the project's impact on traditional First Nations use of the land. Tetzan Biny is considered a sacred site by the Tsilhqot'in and is also known as one of the top 10 game fishing lakes in the province.

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.

Barrick Gold's shareholders will be greeted by a familiar sight in Toronto this morning: protesters are once again gathering outside the Annual General Meeting of the world's largest gold mining company to denouce the corporation's human rights and environmental abuses.

Sakura Saunders, of Protest Barrick and one of the demonstration's long-time organizers, told DeSmog that this year's AGM is happening amidst a “perfect storm” of controversies for the company.

“Everyone's angry at Barrick right now. Everyone's mad at [Barrick Chair and founder] Peter Munk because of botched deal after botched deal, fraudulent activity due to their Pascua-Lama mine, and they're also being sued in the British High Court for the killings that have happened with regularity at their North Mara mine,” she said in a phone interview.

The perfect storm

Top of the list for Canada's most prolific mining company is a $6 billion class action lawsuit – totalling over a quarter of Barrick's market capitalization – from shareholders alleging fraud over the company's Pascua-Lama mine, located on the border between Argentina and Chile. Pascua-Lama was meant to be the company's flagship operation at the centre of the largest stock offering in Canadian history in 2009. Slated to start production in 2013, the project has instead been shuttered after ballooning costs and the Chilean government's decision to suspend the mine's license for violating environmental regulations.

The lawsuit, which still needs certification as a class action by the courts, alleges Barrick executives knew and hid information about these environmental concerns from shareholders, causing them to eventually lose millions of dollars in investments.

Barrick is denying the allegations, and has said it will “defend itself against any lawsuit vigorously.”

Contravening environmental rules in Chile is just part of the accusations that human rights and environment activists have levelled against the company.

In Tanzania, there have been repeated shootings and killings of people in proximity of Barrick's North Mara mine by police who double as security. The company's subsidiary African Barrick Gold is now being sued in British courts by the families of men who have been killed by security agents, on the grounds that they used excessive force. And in Papua New Guinea, communities next to Barrick's Porgera mine are demanding the company pay for their resettlement after run-off and pollution from the site have made their villages unlivable.

With all these serious, documented abuses abroad, Saunders has mixed feelings about the fact that it is shareholders who are able to seek retribution in the courts, but not those directly impacted themselves.

“I just hope that these lies [about Pascua-Lama] expose the pathological culture at Barrick Gold. Which of course have many other consequences outside of shareholder value,” she said.

An early Barrick Gold demonstration in Toronto took place on April 24, 2014. Photo by @liezelhill via Twitter.

Shareholder activism

MiningWatch Canada is also working to bring awareness to Barrick Gold's activities. This past March they issued a notice to investors about the company's actions in Tanzania. In it, they document various shootings, killings and rapes that have allegedly been committed by security forces and police in and around the mine. They are urging shareholders to recognize the harm being committed by the company and to pressure executives at the AGM.

“[Shareholders] need to pay at least as much attention to the accusations of ongoing human rights abuses and severe environmental damage at Barrick sites around the world, as to the financial predictions of the company’s management based on reserves, pipelines and costs of production, as these severe harms caused by the company result in local-level conflict, opposition and legal action that presents real risks to their investment,” said Catherine Coumans of MiningWatch by email.

Driving this point home, Saunders and Protest Barrick organized a pre-AGM event on April 28, to "help investors bankrupt Barrick." The group distributed information detailing how to join the class action lawsuit. 

End of an era

Barrick's outspoken and controversial founder and chair Peter Munk will also be retiring this year, signalling what some have called the end of an era.

Munk has been ardent in his defense of the company's work, and in his refusal to take action to remedy the impacts of their mines, said Saunders. At the same time, neither she nor Coumans feels his leaving will mark much of a change at the company. “Maybe the company will finally agree to resettle people,” said Saunders. But the problem isn't Munk, she said, “it's that this company continues to operate.”

And while he may be out of the building, the 86-year-old's presence will probably continue to be felt, said Coumans. “[Munk's] influence is likely to continue through his hand-picked co-chair, who will now become chair, and possibly through his son who is also on the board of directors,” she wrote.

Accountability problem

While the biggest and often most visible violator of rights, Barrick is simply a reflection of problems in the mining industry. “Many of the negative impacts Barrick is causing locally, through human rights abuses and environmental degradation, and nationally through tax evasion and avoidance are quite widespread in the sector,” explained Coumans. “Because of Barrick’s sheer size and exposure globally, it is possible to expose a wide range of these harms related to one company, but we are seeing the same negative impacts by other Canadian mining companies.”

And at the root of this widespread problem is the question of accountability. Canada has the largest mining sector in the world, in part because of weak disclosure laws and no legislation for trying Canadian companies for crimes committed abroad.

In an historic ruling last year, a case against Canadian mining company Hudbay for negligence leading to rapes and murders committed by its security personnel at its Fenix mine in Guatemala was allowed to go ahead by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice. But there are still no laws on the books clearly granting victims of Canadian companies' abuses abroad the right to sue them in Canadian court.

This has led to the Open for Justice campaign, started in 2013 and spearheaded by the Canadian Network on Corporate Accountability, to have Canadian parliament adopt legislation making it clear that Canadian companies can be sued by both Canadians and non-Canadians for offenses committed abroad, and the creation of an Ombudsperson to receive complaints and verify the compliance of Canadian extractive companies with legally-binding corporate accountability standards. It's only by bringing in this new legislation that Canada's mining sector – including Barrick – will be pushed to change their actions, said Saunders.

While waiting for legislation with more teeth, though, the plans are to continue protesting, which has seen success at pressuring Barrick and changing the debate on mining in Canada. Over the past few years, Saunders says she has seen her and fellow organizers' concerns go from fringe and rejected, to being seriously discussed in the mainstream press.

“Each year we've come, Barrick has had to admit to what we are saying,” she said. “Each year I feel a lot of validation regarding the accusations against Barrick that have finally been accepted in the mainstream.”

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.

Opposition to oil and gas exploration in the eastern arctic, around Baffin Island and the Davis Straight, may not be making headlines across the country, but it continues to grow.

Recently the Baffin Island Mayors' Forum voted unanimously to reject plans by a consortium of three multinational oil exploration companies to do seismic testing off their coasts in the Davis Straight. They hope to find evidence of oil deposits to then sell to oil companies looking for new offshore drilling projects.

The vote at the mayors' meeting is the latest in a fight by Inuit communities for control over their territory and waters as interest in oil extraction grows in the area. They are concerned that any seismic testing – and eventual oil drilling – endangers the hunting and trapping many still rely on for survival and which make up an important part of their traditional way of life. They are asking for more studies before any exploration moves forward.

“All the Baffin communities are united in this feeling,” Clyde River mayor Jerry Natanine told DeSmog Canada in an interview.

The hamlet of Clyde River, a community of 900 on the north eastern coast of Baffin Island, has been at the forefront of the fight to have the concerns of Inuit communities taken into account before any work moves forward. Both the municipal council and the Hunters and Trappers Organization of Clyde River (HTO) have passed motions, including a joint motion, against the exploration, which Natanine says represents the views of the entire community. “There's been nothing but opposition,” he said.

Seismic testing spurs controversy, concern

Seismic testing is conducted by using under-water airguns to bounce soundwaves off the ocean floor in order to determine the position of possible oil and gas deposits. A common method for underwater oil exploration, it's impact on marine mammals, including whales, and fish has been rooted in controversy. The companies wishing to conduct oil exploration in the Davis Straight have reported in their own environmental assessment that there is no cumulative impacts on wildlife and ecosystems from the sonar testing. They admit though that there is what they believe to be very short-term disruptions of marine life travel patterns due to the disturbance caused by the testing.

Seismic airgun testing infographic by Oceana.

It's this kind of disturbance, and the questions that still surround it, that are causing the most immediate concerns.

“From what we understand, it's not clear what the impact will be on sea mammals,” said Napannine. “Since we're a hunter-trapper society, this could affect how we live.”

Recent articles and reports support his concern. A 2012 study in the scientific journal Biological Conservation examined the cases of narwhals becoming entrapped in ice following seismic testing – including a case in Canada where 1,000 narwhal died. It concluded that more study should be done on how seismic testing disrupts marine mammals' travelling paths before more testing be approved. Such a a study has yet to happen.

Similar concerns have been expressed by scientists about seismic testing off Canada's Atlantic Coast. In Norway a study has shown that cod populations dropped 70 per cent following seismic testing, and didn't return for five days. And in Iceland and Scotland, there have been reports of panicked and lost pods of whales appearing in areas off their usual path.

All of this lends greater concern to the residents of Clyde River and other Baffin Island communities that seismic testing could seriously impact their livelihood and subsistence hunting by driving marine life away.

Does NEB review go far enough?

Because the area being explored falls outside of the region controlled by the Nunavut government, it is subject to a federal National Energy Board review. Opposition by community members to the seismic testing was overwhelming, as the public testimonies posted on the NEB site demonstrate.

“To think that there's any support from any communities, that is very wrong,” summed up Nigel Qaumariaq, an Inuk from Iqaluit, at the final NEB consultation in Iqaluit. “There has been moments where there's this tug and pull between modern and traditional way but I have not seen any support for this project.” Qaumariaq had attended all four community hearings held by the NEB review board.

The consultations ended in October 2013 and NEB officials cannot confirm when the board will issue its decision. While in other cases an NEB decision would then go to the federal government for final approval, because of the scope of this project, the board's decision will be the final word on the drilling, barring an appeal to the federal court.

But Baffin Island residents are concerned about the limited scope of the NEB review, which may allow for the testing to go through without taking into account the larger impacts of oil exploration and extraction in the region.

Of utmost importance is the feeling that there has been inadequate consultation by the exploration consortium with community members, and concern they are not taking Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit – Inuit traditional knowledge – into account. While a letter from the companies says that they see the integration of traditional knowledge and working with Inuit hunters and trappers as crucial, Napannine says that consultation has been extremely limited and that Clyde River residents have refused to participate in sessions or share their knowledge because of their opposition to the project going forward. 

The consortium has hired Nexus Coastal Resource Management from Nova Scotia to lead the consultation process. While Nexus was contacted for comment for this piece, they did not respond before deadline. Reports filed with the NEB by Nexus in January 2013 outline the consultation process they have undertaken, listing meetings and the concerns raised by participants.

As they point out in their report on their November/December 2012 community meetings, "There appears to be consistency in the issues of concern and the inquiries made by community participants. A number of them deal with the uncertainty of the decision making process, concern for potential effects that are based on lack of information, lack of research, and lack of engagement by managers at the local level."

Also of concern is that, as in all cases, the NEB will only focus on concerns about the project at hand. While seismic testing is of concern, just as worrisome (if not more so) is the impact of eventual oil drilling.

Napannine says he hasn't seen any evidence that oil companies would be able to deal with an oil disaster in the arctic. “There's no way they can clean up a spill here,” he says.

Communities will fight for broader environmental assessment

In response to the limited scope of the NEB, the Qiqiktani Inuit Association (QIA), which administers the land claims process for the Baffin region of Nunavut, requested that the NEB carry out a strategic environmental assessment in order to evaluate the broader impact of oil industry development in the area. Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated, the Nunavut governing body, has also passed a motion supporting the QIA.

While the federal government has agreed to carry out an SEA, preliminary consultations just began in February and the process will take several years to complete. The NEB, in the meantime, operates separately from the SEA process, meaning oil exploration could begin before any broader assessment results are known. Driving this point home, Nexus has already sent job postings to Clyde River and other communities for work on the ships as mammal spotters starting in August 2014.

With no decision yet, and questions still swirling, Napinnine wonders how they could already be hiring. "It hasn't event gotten the go ahead yet," he said.

For Napannine and others in the region, the lack of consultation simply isn't acceptable. While he stressed that he and others are not opposed to any and all oil development, it needs to come with the appropriate safeguards. If not, the projects can't be allowed to move forward, and he says that his community and others are committed to continue the fight, whether the NEB grants approval or not.

“The people are united in our opposition,” he said.

Image Credit: 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.

A new court ruling means that the dozens of animal species that are at risk of extinction across Canada may finally receive the support they need.

A federal court judge found that the Canadian government has been breaking the law in not following through on its obligations under the Species at Risk Act (SARA). The act, established in 2003, obliges the government to develop and implement recovery strategies for animal species in Canada at risk of extinction.

In her ruling, federal court Justice Anne L. Mactavish found that “there is clearly an enormous systemic problem within the relevant Ministries, given the respondents' acknowledgement that there remain some 167 species at risk for which recovery strategies have not yet been developed.”

The request for judicial review was brought by the Wilderness Committee, the David Suzuki Foundation, Greenpeace Canada, the Sierra Club Of British Columbia, and Wildsight, who were represented by Ecojustice, against the Minister of the Environment and the Minister of Oceans and Fisheries, who are tasked with ensuring that SARA is implemented. And while there is a backlog of over 160 species, the case focused on four in particular: the Nechako White Sturgeon, the Pacific Humpback Whale, the Marbled Murrelet and the Southern Mountain Caribou.

Each were listed as a threatened species over five years ago, and have been waiting for a recovery strategy since. Even more important, each live in habitats that are directly impacted by Enbridge's proposed Northern Gateway pipeline, either by its route or by increased tanker traffic. The pipeline recently received approval from the National Energy Board. This made the need for recovery strategies even more pressing, but also meant that important information on the pipeline's impact on these species was missing from the hearings.

The immense backlog in establishing recovery strategies raised concerns that the government didn't take the SARA seriously enough to act on it. “One of our worries was that there seems to be a lack of political will to implement the law,” Sean Nixon, an Ecojustice staff lawyer who worked on the case, told DeSmog Canada. But the ruling gives hope that the backlog will soon be taken seriously.

“Because the language was so strong in the court decision and because the judge also had an expression of judicial disapproval in how the government was acting in regards to the recovery strategy, we're hoping that the federal government will take this seriously,” said Gwen Barlee, policy director at Wilderness Committee, when reached by DeSmog.

And it has already had an impact, at least on these four cases. After the request for judicial review was filed in 2012, the recovery strategy for the Pacific Humpback Whale was finalized, and draft strategies for the other three species in question have been posted for public comment. Once the 60 day window for public comment closes, the government should issue a final recovery strategy relatively quickly. The court will be following the process to ensure that the government follows through.

Repeat offender

This isn't the first time that the government has been taken to court over recovery strategies. Nixon says that Ecojustice has already brought at least six similar cases forward. While they have had success each time, it has become frustrating to both him and to environmental organizations to have to fight for the protection of each animal listed as at risk. Judicial supervision is about all that can be expected, since like much legislation, there are no clear penalties for when the government ignores what it is mandated to do.

“The question is what will happen if the government keeps violating the statute? The answer, sadly, is probably just public interest groups taking them back to court,” he said. Like most legislation mandating parliament, there are no clear penalties if the government takes no action. It speaks to how our parliamentary democracy is meant to function, though, says Nixon: the judicial branch of the government telling the executive branch that it is violating what the legislative branch (Parliament) has implemented as law.

“The fact is that you bring them to court, and [if| their actions are found to be unlawful, that generally, in a democracy, is enough for the federal government to respond and to remedy their unlawful behaviour," he explained.

“Environment Canada is reviewing the Court’s decision to determine next steps. Our government is committed to the protection and conservation of species at risk,” wrote Danny Kingsberry, a Media Relations officer with Environment Canada, when asked for comment by DeSmog. He emphasized that the government invested $50 million in implementing the species at risk act and has finalized 85 recovery strategies in the past three years. In court, though, the government did not dispute that they have gone against the provisions of the legislation, which state that a proposed recovery strategy must be posted within one year of a species being listed as “at risk.”

Canaries in the coal mine

While legislation like SARA are essential for conservation efforts, Barlee also emphasized the importance of the links between habitat protection and the growing impacts of climate change. While these four species are linked directly to the Northern Gateway pipeline, others of the 167 that are at risk are also directly in the route of and being impacted by the fossil fuel industry. By studying the habitats and ecosystems that keep animal species strong, we're not simply protecting biodiversity, but also maintaining vigilance over our own ecosystems and quality of life.

“[These] species are telling us something: they really are the canary in the coal mine, and they are telling us when their numbers are declining that the habitat that they've relied upon for millennia is no longer healthy enough to support them," Barlee said. “They're saying that their habitat has been so badly managed that they can no longer survive, and that's eventually going to have repercussions for humans living on Earth.” 

Image Credit: mikebaird 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 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.

If Canada is to seriously confront its addiction to fossil fuels and fight climate change, we need to reframe the entire debate.

That's the message a group of protesters aimed to send when they occupied and disrupted a conference at Montreal's McGill University on Friday.

At 7:45 a.m., about 30 people entered the prestigious McGill Faculty Club where the second day of Petrocultures, a conference organized by the McGill Institute for the Study of Canada (MISC), was to take place. Instead, the conference was forced to start an hour and a half late. While most of the day's events still went ahead at the new location, the protesters saw the action — which was tied to a banner drop — as a success.

"Every slowdown of this kind of conference helps," said Mona Luxion, a McGill student and spokesperson for the occupiers, in an interview with DeSmog.

At first glance, the conference isn't an obvious target for environmental activists. While featuring several pro-oil speakers, including an oil company vice-president and the former head of the Oilsands Developers Group, the conference appeared to lean towards voices critical of fossil fuel extraction, including an Indigenous anti-oilsands activist, prominent environmentalists, and academics and artists critical of the fossil fuel industry.

But while the conference featured critics of the oilsands, a promotional video for the event featured co-chair Dr. Will Straw saying the goal of the conference was to cover all sides: "It would be very easy to have a conference on this subject that would bring together everybody who's on the same side: hard core environmentalists, anti-oil people, and so on. But we do want all sides to be heard," he said in the video produced by TV McGill.

It's this kind of false equivalency between the two sides of the fossil fuel debate that's dangerous, said Luxion. "Debate can be productive…But a debate that puts support for the tar sands as equal [to criticisms of the fossil fuel industry] isn't the debate we need to be having."

The negative impacts of the fossil fuel industry — from higher rates of cancers in First Nations communities living downstream from the oilsands, to the growing catastrophic impacts of climate change caused by greenhouse gas emissions — are well documented, Luxion said.

Instead, the occupiers argue there is an urgent need to discuss how we end our dependency on fossil fuels, and how to stop the promotion of the fossil fuel industry.

Co-chair Dr. Will Straw told DeSmog he agrees not all sides of a debate are equal, and said McGill attempted to give more space to fossil fuel critics.

"We didn't look for a balanced conference. One side already has more access to the media," he said, referencing the oil and gas industry. He also stressed that by holding the conference on campus and reducing the entry fee (in the past, McGill Institue for the Study of Canada) conferences have been held at hotels with hefty $400 registration fees), there was a much broader student and community participation.

Even with greater participation, the conference's mandate to "discuss and debate the role of oil and energy in shaping social, cultural and political life in Canada at present and in the future" still served to reinforce the status quo, said Luxion.

The protesters voiced an additional concern that invited representatives from the environmental movement weren't challenging the status quo aggressively enough. 

In a written statement, the occupiers were specific in their concerns:

"To whom does Petrocultures offer a stage? Beyond outright promoters of the tar sands and fracking: a co-founder of ForestEthics, which advocates for 'responsible industry,' a co-founder of Équiterre, which urges 'responsible consumption,' and the president of the International Institute for Sustainable Development, which campaigns to achieve 'green growth.' The common thread uniting these speakers is a commitment to making moderate adjustments to life under capitalism, adjustments which serve to extend the lifespan of an inherently violent system without abolishing it."

Steven Guilbeault of Montreal-based Equiterre was invited to speak at the conference, on a panel with Tzeporah Berman of ForestEthics, and Sun News personality and oilsands proponent Ezra Levant.

While Guilbeault agreed the debate around fossil fuels is in need of being reframed, he feels the necessary discussions on how to combat climate change are happening in the environmental movement, and that Équiterre and its allies have seen successes.

"I often debate with myself and others on what we need to do to be more effective; how do we become more radical, more effective, more inclusive," he said. The debate is shifting, he argued, pointing to 50,000 people out last year for a march in Montreal against fossil fuels, and 300,000 coming out for Earth Day in 2012, at the height of the Quebec student strike.

But Luxion says the protesters want a stronger challenge of current economic frames: "Our concern specifically was that that the people who are proposed as opponents don't veer too far from capitalism…They aren't talking about decolonizaton or about changes to our economic model."

Also reached for comment, Levant, who contends that Canadian oil is more ethical than oil imported from countries like Saudi Arabia, agreed that the debate around oil in Canada needs to be framed differently, although to different ends.

"Right now the framing of it is: imperfect oilsands oil versus the fantasy fuel of the future that's perfect in every way (except it doesn't exist yet)," he wrote. "I'm trying to reframe the debate towards real-life choices: ethical oil from Canada versus conflict oil from OPEC."

The ethical oil argument, however, fails to address the problematic aspects of oil development in Canada, leaving the important questions unaddressed. Ethicaloil.org has deep ties to the oil and gas industry and the Conservative party.

Levant's presence at the conference became a lightening rod for criticism. Straw said if he was to redo the conference, he may not have invited the controversial pundit. Guilbeault said Levant's presence served to reduce the credibility of the event.

For Luxion and other occupiers, though, the mere presence of Levant wasn't what made the conference more problematic. Rather, it's that the discussion continues to reflect a status quo that places pro- and anti-fossil fuel positions on the same footing, a status quo which is also reflected prominently in mainstream media and Canadian politics.

"The fact that all the federal parties support fossil fuel extraction to a degree points to the fact the debate is about how to exploit oil and gas, and not whether or not we should," said Luxion.

* Correction Notice: This article originally stated that the Petrocultures Conference was forced to change venues. That was not the case.

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 groundbreaking report shows that Quebec cannot afford to be green-lighting fossil fuel projects, such as Enbridge’s Line 9B reversal or increased gas and oil extraction within the province, if it hopes to play its part in avoiding catastrophic climate change.

Quebec has run an 11 megatonne (Mt) carbon deficit since at least 2011, will do so for the foreseeable future, and must decrease its carbon emissions by 3.6 per cent a year until 2100 in order to help avoid a global two degree Celsius temperature increase, concludes the report from the Institut de recherche et d’informations socio-économique (IRIS), a Montreal-based think-tank.

“[This shows] the policies proposed by the government are not only insufficient, they go in the wrong direction,” said Maude Prud’homme, an organizer with Tache d’huile (Oil Slick), which organizes against growing oil extraction in the Gaspésie region of Quebec. “Allowing the growth of the tar sands via new pipelines is definitely backwards. The eventual exploitation of [oil and gas in] Anticostie, the Gaspé peninsula or the St-Laurence River all go against reducing our climate footprint,” she told DeSmog.

Quebec's Carbon Budget

The study is based on a 1,340 gigatonne (Gt) global “carbon budget” from the year 2000 and 2100, as established by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The carbon budget represents the maximum total carbon emissions in order to avoid a two degree Celsius increase in global temperatures, which has been set by scientists as the cut-off mark in order to avoid the most catastrophic impacts of climate change.

As the report notes, though, two degrees Celsius provides a long-term guidepost, but we are already seeing major impacts of climate change world-wide with only a 0.8 degree Celsius rise in temperature.

Quebec has already set the goal of reducing carbon emissions by 25 per cent compared to 1990 levels by 2020, but that objective has never been placed side-by-side with a global goal of carbon emission reduction. “We are emitting too many greenhouse gases compared to our size in relation to the rest of the world,” the report’s author Renaud Gignac told DeSmog. “What we see is that Quebec's actions are insufficient in relation to the physical reality of the climate.”

The study makes no effort to hide the enormity of the challenge facing Quebec. The province is currently reducing emissions by only 0.8 per cent per year, much less than the 3.6 per cent that IRIS prescribes. And while the Quebec government says it is on track to meet its goal of a 25 per cent reduction, IRIS’ study says the province must actually be aiming for a reduction of 40 per cent below 1990 levels by 2020 in order to play its fair part.

Over the long term, this means that Quebec must move from its current per capita annual emissions of 9.1t per person, to 1.4t per person in 2050, and further to 0.2t per person in 2100.

To calculate these targets, Gignac applied the “contraction and convergence” theory of carbon emission reduction, established in 1997 during the Kyoto climate change negotiations. Under contraction and convergence, industrialized countries (including Quebec) must at first contract their emissions more quickly than industrializing countries, to make up for the historical over-exploitation of carbon used in their industrialization process. IRIS estimates that this contraction period should go on until 2050. At that point—assuming all countries have had a chance to increase their level of industrial development—all countries would then decrease their use of carbon at the same rate.

For the province to meet this goal, there is a need for immediate and systemic action, said both Gignac and Prud’homme. For example, said Gignac, the provincial government’s favourable stance towards Enbridge’s Line 9B pipeline reversal, which could see tar sands crude piped to Quebec and refined in Montreal, will have an immediate, negative impact on Quebec’s emissions. “The refining process of oil from the tar sands is more polluting [than conventional oil] and it also results in residue like petroleum coke that is then used as fuel in cement factories. So the Quebec government does not seem to realize its responsibility in the climate crisis.”

A Holistic Change

Beyond immediate decisions, argues Prud’homme, Quebec must revisit its long-term plans. This includes everything from transportation infrastructure to industrial development. “We need to be focusing on a reduction of all the sectors that have a strong dependence on oil. We need to absolutely avoid extracting more hydrocarbons. What is currently in the ground needs to stay there." To accomplish this, she says, we need to take a holistic approach.

For example, when discussing reducing emissions in transport, the province needs to also be talking about food sovereignty and the electrification of vehicles, she argues. Or when talking about the overall energy needs of the province, it’s necessary to consider the needs of communities: feeding ourselves, adequate lodging, cultural needs, and see how we can plausibly meet those needs within the physical realities of the climate.

As of writing this, neither the Quebec government not any elected officials had contacted IRIS to discuss their findings. But in an email to DeSmog, a Quebec government spokesperson re-iterated the province’s commitment to its goal of a 25 per cent reduction below 1990 levels by 2020. The email also highlighted the establishment of a cap and trade system to encourage emission reductions in all sectors. They did not, however, directly comment on the carbon deficit or whether they feel that these objectives continue to be valid considering IRIS’ findings.

While many environmentalists have already argued that Quebec has been under-performing in its efforts to reduce carbon emissions, the hope is that this report serves as a wake-up call for Quebec, says Gignac.

Facing the Challenge

“There are other countries that are way ahead of Canada and Quebec. Quebec also has a tendency to say things are much worse in Alberta, but that here we are leaders. But finally when we look at the rest of the world, Quebec is more on the side of countries that exceed their carbon budgets,” said Gignac. “So, if we really want to be on the side of the solution, maybe inspire other Canadian jurisdictions to adopt a carbon budget and be more ambitious, we shouldn't compare ourselves to the worst, but rather compare ourselves to the physical limits of the atmosphere, of what the atmosphere can absorb, based on the latest scientific data.”

Marc Lee, a researcher with the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives who has written about the implications of the IPCC’s carbon budget for Canada, sees this report as being a new, useful tool in analyzing Canada’s piece of the global carbon emissions pie, and what needs to be done. By focusing on the science, he says, “the report gives clarity to the challenges we face.” And those challenges will be large.

According to Lee, the upper limit of Canada’s portion of the carbon budget is most likely around 24 Gt. But Canada has over 90 Gt worth of carbon emissions locked up in known fossil fuel reserves, and Canadian industry and the governments are hoping to exploit these reserves within in the coming decades.

While these numbers help to clarify the challenges ahead, they also show how deeply we need to change society in order to surpass them, said Prud'homme.

“The fact the this report sounds the alarm, that more and more scientific bodies are sounding the alarm about the urgency to drastically change our priorities as a society, and that the governments, the powers that be, aren't necessary [to sound the alarm] — I think it's symptomatic of larger issues, of structural decisions in society,” she said. “If these structures are not at the service of the community, that if they are not at the service of future generations, it should lead us to seriously question those democratic decision-making structures.”

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 Quebec parliamentary commission has given its stamp of approval to Enbridge Inc.'s plan to reverse the flow of its Line 9B pipeline, recommending to the provincial government that it go ahead, pending certain conditions.

If the reversal of the pipeline goes ahead, it will send crude oil from the U.S. and Alberta, including oilsands bitumen, to Montreal.

Environmental groups immediately denounced the report, saying it ignored the majority of concerns raised at the commission, questioning the hastiness of the commission and accusing the Quebec government of turning its back on its environmental responsibilities.

"Quebec has abdicated its responsibilities to the Harper government, which has destroyed environmental protections and limited public participation in order to accelerate the approval of dirty energy projets," said Patrick Bonin of Greenpeace Quebec in a press release. "Quebec has become complicit in the increase in Canadian emissions and the acceleration of climate change by driving us into the murky economy of the tar sands."

The report, released Friday following six days of hearings, lists 18 conditions the commission would like the company to meet to respond to concerns raised during the hearings. These requests range from the economic (giving assurance that any oil would not be piped further than Quebec, thereby ensuring the oil is refined in the province), to the environmental. 

Those suggestions include:

• Establishing an oversight committee composed of federal, provincial and Enbridge representatives that would ensure all relevant information about pipeline security and environmental concerns be shared with parties affected by the pipeline reversal.
• That Enbridge provide the Quebec government with its studies regarding the integrity of the pipeline for review by an independent inspector.
• That the company establish an adequate plan in the case of leaks, that the plan be made public and that they provide the required access and information for the independent monitoring of water in proximity of the pipeline.

The pipeline reversal is also being studied by the federal National Energy Board, which wrapped up hearings in October. Their report is expected in early 2014.

Since the pipeline project falls under federal jurisdiction, the conditions from the provincial government aren't actually binding on the company, admitted a government spokesperson. “We hope that [Enbridge] will take this report into consideration as it moves forward,” said Pierre-Luc Desaulniers, the spokesperson for the deputy minister of industrial development, who oversaw the commission.

The hastiness of the report led some groups to question whether the Quebec government actually took the process seriously. Even before the commission began, many groups questioned the commission and called on the government to have a more extensive public consultation. Concern grew even further when Quebec Environment Minister Yves-François Blanchet admitted the government had already taken a postion of "yes, but" going into the commission, viewing the pipeline as a fait accompli with just the details to work out.

Calling the report “short-sighted” and “embarrassing,” the Quebec Association for the Fight Against Atmospheric Pollution questioned whether Quebec, like the federal government, is in the pocket of the oil lobby. "We need to realise that Quebec is also being taken hostage the by financial and petroleum communities and is being dragged to the bottom of the tar sands barrel by lobbyists representing the fossil fuel industry," said president André Bélisle in a release.

For their part, Enbridge says they have met their promise to consult the Quebec public. In a press release sent after the report was released, they say that during the past 18 days they have heard from more than 700 people and organizations, and that they will comment on the report itself once they have a chance to read it more closely.

The proposal to change the direction of the flow of the Line 9B pipeline between North Westover, Ont., and Montreal has been met with considerable opposition from environmentalists and First Nations communities. The reversal will allow Enbridge to bring crude oil from Alberta and United States to the east coast. This would allow the company to send oilsands bitumen to the east for export, just as western routes like Enbridge's Northern Gateway run up against tough opposition.

Opponents say any plan to pipe oilsands bitumen east will allow for an unacceptable expansion of what is becoming known as the dirtiest oil on the planet. They also allege that it presents considerable risks for leaks, given that the pipeline was not constructed to carry heavy oil like oilsands bitumen, and point to Enbridge's spotty record for pipeline breakages.

This includes the worst on-land spill in U.S. history, when more than three million litres of dlitued bitumen from the Alberta oilsands leaked from Enbridge's Line 6B into the Kalamazoo River in Michigan. Line 9 and Line 6 were constructed at nearly the same time and to nearly the same specifications, raising concerns a similar accident could happen.

While Quebec environmental groups haven't yet said what their next steps will be, there appears to be growing opposition. This past week, members of Rising Tide Toronto locked themselves down to an Enbridge construction site to oppose the plan, shutting down work for the day. A small solidarity rally was held in Montreal and citizens tried to access the deputy minister of industrial development's office to express their concern about the pipeline, but were stopped when the building was locked down.

Participants at both protests said they will continue to organize against the pipeline reversal.

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.

Three environmental organizations are taking aim at what they call the “systemic” contravening of British Columbia water usage laws in favour of the province's natural gas industry.

A lawsuit (PDF) recently filed in the Supreme Court of BC alleges that the BC Oil and Gas Commission has been violating the provincial Water Act in its granting of licenses to natural gas companies engaged in hydraulic fracturing (fracking) in the province. The suit is being brought by environmental law charity Ecojustice on behalf of the Wilderness Committee and Sierra Club BC.

“Given that water is an increasingly scarce and precious resource, and that in a climate changing world we need to be managing it carefully, the first step is for the government to do what they are legally required to do by their own laws,” Caitlyn Vernon of Sierra Club BC told Desmog in an interview.

Currently, companies can be granted 24 month permits for water use as a short term arrangement (that's up from the 12 month limit that was in place until last spring). These permits come with little review and are meant for short-term, low-impact projects. For longer term undertakings that will last several years – such as oil and gas extraction – companies are supposed to apply for a water usage license, which involves a more rigorous review and monitoring process. The lawsuit alleges that the commission has been consistently renewing short-term permits, and thereby contravening the law.

Data received by Ecojustice from the BC Oil and Gas commission which forms the basis of the lawsuit, shows that some permits have been renewed up to six times, and that some permits are granted for more than 24 months at a time. The commission's actions, they say, clearly shows a systemic avoidance of the law.

Also named in the lawsuit is gas company Encana Corp. While there are no allegations that Encana has violated permitting laws itself, the suit hopes to quash two water permits that the company was granted, on the basis that the permits last more than one term and that some exceed the 24 month limit laid out in the Water Act. While Encana is only one of many companies operating fracking sites in the province, it is one of the largest, and their situation provides clear evidence of the contravention of the Water Act, explained Karen Campbell of Ecojustice in a phone interview with Desmog.

Long-term water usage licenses require oversight necessary to preserve the province's freshwater, and especially drinking water, according to Campbell. Already there are concerns that communities in northern BC are experiencing water shortages. For example, the three organizations point to Encana drawing on massive amounts of water from the Kisktinaw River, from with the town of Dawson Creek draws their water.

Over the past three years, the company has used the equivalent of 880 Olympic-sized swimming pools – the same amount the town uses in one year.

“The more water industrial users take, the less water there is to sustain ecosystems or for people to drink,” said Campbell in a Q & A released by Ecojustice. “What’s especially concerning is that no one seems to know exactly how much water industry operations are consuming.” Those concerns were echoed by Vernon, who explained that no government official has been able to provide them with exactly how much water is being used by the natural gas industry in the province.

Video from Common Sense Canadian.

What is known is that fracking uses huge amounts of water: by some estimates 11 million litres per well. With over 7,300 wells already in operation in the province, and the BC Liberal government pushing plans to significantly grow the industry, critics say it's clear that there needs to be more oversight before a water crisis strikes.

“If we're looking at the management of water in BC, in light of all the fracking that's currently happening, we want to make clear that any focus on liquid natural gas is going to require massive increases in fracking operations, with its associated impacts to water availability, water contamination and green house gas emissions,” said Vernon. Those concerns were echoed in an article published as part of a recent series on water issues in BC, also produced by Ecojustice and published by The Tyee, which showed that water shortages in the province are more probable than many would expect.

The concern about water use is just one piece of the puzzle, though. The fracking industry in BC is one of the largest in Canada. As Campbell points out, while there are moratoriums on fracking in Quebec and Newfoundland and Labrador, and protests and blockades against fracking in New Brunswick, the process has been happening without contention in BC for a decade now. Beyond water usage, there are concerns about water contamination from the chemicals used, the impact that the fracturing of shale may have on local geology (studies have blamed fracking for small earth quakes in the US), and lack of consultation with First Nations on use of their unceded territory.

Public concern and opposition seems to be growing though. Earlier this month, protesters with Rising Tide Vancouver Coast Salish Territories took to BC Premier Christy Clark's front lawn to set-up a “rig” to “frack” her land. And thousands turned out to a demonstration in Vancouver against pipelines on November 16. While primarily targeting oil pipelines like Enbridge's Northern Gateway, there was also visible opposition to fracking.

“I think this lawsuit is a really important piece of increasing public concern about this industry and their practices. And I think that in some point in time we will be looking at trade-offs, and what are we prepared to trade off? Are we prepared to trade off our water for gas?” asks Campbell. “Or is our water going to be a more valuable and previous asset to us at some point down the road than gas? Certainly I think that the answer is water, myself.”

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.