It’s 11,000 words on 60 pages, teems with glossy colour photographs and begins with a request to “consider the environment before printing this document.” 

Last week, federal Conservative party leader Andrew Scheer released “A Real Plan to Protect Our Environment,” billed as a blueprint for reducing Canada’s greenhouse gas emissions and strengthening environmental protections, “without taking money out of Canadians’ pockets.” 

An accompanying video featured Scheer strolling along a forested path in Stanley Park telling viewers “climate change is a global problem requiring a global solution” and taking aim at the Trudeau government’s “tax grab” — the much-maligned carbon tax. 

The Conservative’s environment plan, Scheer explained, focuses on “big polluters, not commuters” and “technology not taxes.” 

Catchy phrases aside, what exactly do those 60 pages say? And how realistic is Scheer’s “real plan?” The Narwhal dives in. 

Carbon tax has not failed, says political science professor

The plan has three planks: “Green Technology, Not Taxes,” “A Cleaner and Greener Natural Environment,” and “Taking the Climate Change Fight Global.” 

The green technology section expands on Scheer’s favourite bugbear: the “failed Trudeau carbon tax.” 

The plan says the carbon tax has failed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, pointing out that Canada is falling behind in meeting its Paris Agreement pledge to cut emissions 30 per cent below 2005 levels by 2030. 

“It [the carbon tax] hasn’t worked in British Columbia,” Scheer told Global News. “Emissions went up and it stopped being revenue-neutral.” 

But UBC political science professor Kathryn Harrison said peer-reviewed studies show B.C.’s carbon tax has reduced consumption of transportation and home heating fuels and increased purchases of fuel-efficient vehicles. The studies also show the tax has not harmed economic competitiveness, she pointed out.

“There’s lots of good evidence that the carbon tax has reduced B.C.’s emissions below what they would have been,” Harrison told The Narwhal. “[But] it is still the case that B.C.’s emissions have only levelled off.”

(Notably, that’s before a huge spike in B.C. emissions from the LNG Canada project, which will ship fracked natural gas to Kitimat for export.)

A revenue neutral tax means that all of the revenue earned via the tax is returned to taxpayers via other tax cuts and rebates. In B.C.’s case, the carbon tax was originally offset with equivalent decreases in corporate and personal income taxes, as well as a new tax credit for low-income earners. 

But those tax cuts haven’t kept pace with steady carbon tax increases, meaning that B.C.’s carbon tax is no longer revenue neutral. 

Plan is ‘devoid of detail’ 

Instead of a carbon tax, Scheer’s climate plan puts many of its eggs in a green technology basket. A green home tax credit, a green patent credit, a green technology and innovation fund and a green hub for innovators are among a flurry of promises. 

But the plan sidesteps the math, failing to provide estimates of how much Canada’s emissions would drop with all those green goodies. 

“I think it is a plan that is designed to appeal to a subset of voters who want to be convinced that Canada can step up and do its part without actually doing anything,” said Harrison, who studies environmental, climate and energy policy.

“It’s devoid of detail.”

The plan would set emissions targets for major emitters, defined as companies that emit more than 40 kilotonnes of carbon a year, down from the current 50 kilotonnes. 

Companies that exceed limits would be required to invest a set amount of money for every excess tonne in what Scheer, in the Stanley Park video, called “home grown emissions-reducing technologies” — which he said could then be shared with the world’s highest-emitting countries to lower global emissions. 

But once again there are no estimates of how much Canada’s emissions would drop with the new targets, no analysis explaining why the plan really is Canada’s “best chance” to meet the Paris targets, as Scheer claims, and only a vague trust-me assertion that future green technology developed in Canada will reduce global emissions.

“At this time we need political leaders who are going to put forward more detail and make the case to voters for what their plan can accomplish, what it’s going to cost and why their plan is better than the other parties,” Harrison said. “And I don’t think the Scheer plan has done that.”

No mention of ban on single-use plastics

The “Cleaner and Greener Natural Environment” section of the plan claims the Conservatives will “protect air, water, land and wildlife.” 

But again, the devil is in the details and details are scant. 

There is no mention of a ban on single-use plastics, for instance. Earlier this month, the Trudeau government announced a ban on single-use plastics — which could include straws, cutlery and bags — starting in 2021 at the earliest.

And the plans says only that Scheer will “prioritize funding for environmental compliance and enforcement” of Canada’s environmental laws. It makes no mention of repealing Bill C-69, legislation vociferously opposed by the Conservatives. 

The bill, passed last week after the Senate attempted to make sweeping changes, revamps Canada’s environmental laws after they were gutted by the former Conservative government.

A Scheer government would lead a conservation assessment “to identify the best opportunities for expanding our protected area network, including parks, marine protected areas, national wildlife areas and migratory bird sanctuaries,” the plan says.

Canmore-based scientist Laura Coristine said she did “a double take” when she read about plans for a conservation assessment.

“It’s a nice aspirational statement,” said Coristine, whose research focuses on biodiversity and climate change. 

“But it slows down the process. It’s like reinventing the wheel. It simply says we’re going to go back to where we were five years ago and do it all over again.” 

In May 2018, Coristine and 16 other Canadian and international scholars sent a policy brief to Scheer, other opposition leaders, federal Environment Minister Catherine McKenna and Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, outlining how Canada can prioritize the protection of areas with the greatest potential to reduce biodiversity loss. 

A huge amount of work on identifying the best opportunities for designating additional protected areas also occurred through the Pathway to Canada Target 1 process, a new approach to conservation in Canada that aims to meet a commitment under the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity, Coristine noted.  

The commitment requires signatory countries to legally designate 17 per cent of land and inland waters as “protected areas” closed to industrial activity. 

As of 2017, Canada had protected a mere 10.6 per cent of its land and inland waters, compared to 54 per cent in Venezuela, 30 per cent in Brazil and 17 per cent in Australia. 

The Conservative’s plan promises $15 million over three years to complete a national wetland inventory and to “study the feasibility” of an incentives-based program to protect critical wetland habitats. 

It also says the Conservatives will protect migratory birds but only mentions waterfowl — in the context of hunting them — and omits any details about how a Scheer government would tackle the country’s growing number of at-risk species. 

More than 600 plant and animal species are listed under the federal Species at Risk Act, with many more species listed in individual provinces and territories.

“The loss of species, loss of biodiversity, wildlife that is disappearing from our landscape — that is a huge and fundamental issue that Canada needs to address,” Coristine said. “To not reference it is problematic.”

Coristine pointed out that Canada and the rest of the world face two big issues right now: climate change and loss of biodiversity.

“An action plan should really be about what we are going to do.”

Plan focuses on global emissions, not Canadian emissions

And then there’s “Taking the Fight Against Climate Change Global,” a euphemism for side-stepping responsibility for our own carbon emissions. 

“The World Needs More Canadian Energy” says a t-shirt on a man chatting with Scheer in a photo. 

Another photo features Scheer watering a tree he has planted at a refinery in Jamnagar, India.

“At the end of the day if there are increased CO2 measures in other countries we don’t do the world any favours,” Scheer told Global News. 

“Molecules of CO2 don’t have passports. They don’t worry about borders. Let’s realize that If we bring in a carbon tax and chase away jobs and investment only to see that pop up in other countries we’re not going to do the planet a favour.”

The Conservative plan states that Canadian energy can be used “to replace dirtier foreign energy sources,” pointing out that natural gas, such as LNG, is a cleaner source of fuel than coal. 

“By promoting LNG, we can support a key driver of the Canadian economy and reduce global emissions at the same time,” the plan says. 

Harrison said the argument is “very selective” because it picks the cleaner fossil fuel, “not the dirtier fossil fuels that we’re currently exporting in greater quantities.” 

“It’s also a problematic argument because the fact is that the Paris agreement as it’s currently written … assigns responsibility to the countries in which the emissions occur.”

There is also much debate about whether LNG is indeed cleaner than coal when methane emissions from fracking and liquefaction are added to the equation.

“It’s possible for liquefied natural gas to be a cleaner fuel than coal but it’s not automatic,” Harrison pointed out. “It depends on the details of how that natural gas is produced and especially on methane leakage.” 

Plan based on uncertain and expensive technology

As for the Canadian technology and products that will ratchet down greenhouse gas emissions in other countries — which the Conservatives would brand as ‘Clean Canada’ — the plan states that Canada is a “global leader in carbon capture and storage technology.” 

It posits that if China fitted just 100 of its 3,000 coal plants with carbon capture and storage it could eliminate the equivalent of nearly half of the emissions produced by Canada’s economy. 

Yet carbon and capture storage (CCS) experiments in Canada have been uneconomical and the future of such technology is highly uncertain, Harrison pointed out. 

“It’s hard to understand why CCS would be the way to go when the price of renewables has declined so dramatically in recent years and when it hasn’t been successful despite lots of investments in Canada [and] in Australia at the scale we would need at this point.” 

Harrison said it would be prudent for Canada to start to transition its economy away from fossil fuels and towards lower carbon industries, so we will be less vulnerable as other countries move away from fossil fuels.

Given the Conservatives’ focus on economic considerations, “there’s lots of economic modelling that suggests that the economic benefits of action on climate change outweigh the costs,” she said. 

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

Saskatchewan Premier Brad Wall has repeatedly argued that putting a price on carbon would be bad for the economy — but experts say Wall’s own climate change strategy will end up costing the province more per tonne than the federal government’s plan, while failing to be nearly as fair or effective as a carbon tax.   

Much of Saskatchewan’s climate strategy centres around the SaskPower Boundary Dam carbon capture and storage (CCS) project, which cost $1.5 billion to build (funded mostly by SaskPower ratepayers and a $240 million investment from the federal government).

“When we think about how we can reduce emissions most cost-effectively, [Boundary Dam] probably stands out as an example of how not to do it,” says Dan Woynillowicz, policy director at Clean Energy Canada.

Choosing a preferential technology and using public dollars to subsidize it is “quite inconsistent with the approach that most conservative politicians and economists would take,” Woynillowicz added.

Indeed, even as oil companies and conservative politicians — such as Preston Manning, Jean Charest and Jim Dinning — have spoken in favour of putting a price on carbon, Wall has worked hard to establish himself as the major voice of opposition to a federal carbon tax.

Enter Saskatchewan’s 53-page “Climate Change White Paper,” released on October 18. Carbon nerds eagerly jumped into the paper head first, anxious to learn how Canada’s highest greenhouse gas emitter per capita planned to help Canada meet its climate commitments.  

Disappointingly, the paper essentially packaged up the policy actions Saskatchewan has already taken to date.

Off the Wall: #Saskatchewan @PremierBradWall's Bizarre, Contradictory #ClimatePlan https://t.co/sWJXdJzEFd #cdnpoli #skpoli #carbontax

— DeSmog Canada (@DeSmogCanada) October 25, 2016

Carbon Capture and Storage Far More Expensive Than Carbon Tax

The Boundary Dam CCS project is intended to reduce emissions from SaskPower’s largest coal-fired power plant by capturing smokestack emissions (in the range of one million tonnes of carbon per year).

However, because one-third of those captured emissions will be sold for use in oil extraction at Cenovus’ Weyburn site, the current estimate is that Boundary Dam will remove more like 600,000 tonnes per year from the atmosphere — if it can even manage that.

With that level of emissions recovery, the cost of CCS works out to about $100 or $110 per tonne, according to Trevor Tombe, assistant professor of economics at the University of Calgary.

Only four days prior to the release of Saskatchewan's plan, on the same day as Wall argued in the Globe and Mail that “carbon-capture technology works,” a report in Science concluded that negative-emission technologies such as carbon capture storage are an “unjust and high-stakes gamble” that “should not form the basis of the mitigation agenda.”

One of the reasons carbon pricing has attracted support from across the political spectrum is because it doesn’t pick winners and losers. It puts a price on pollution and then lets the market determine the best ways to reduce carbon emissions. The bizarre thing is that Saskatchewan’s gamble on CCS is the exact opposite of that.

Woynillowicz adds there’s little evidence that SaskPower has developed any plans for monetizing their experience and technology to sell it to other jurisdictions, or securing investments from the federal government for future projects.

The One New Thing In Saskatchewan’s Climate White Paper

The only major new announcement in those riveting 53 pages was the call to redeploy $2.65 billion in foreign aid to technology subsidies within Canada.

Tombe says that recommendation mixes two separate conversations —there’s no need to tie a case for additional government investment in research with foreign aid funding.

Experts Suggest Carbon Tax Required to Spark Investments in Renewables

A more consistent approach would be the establishment of a broad-based carbon price.

Such a mechanism — which will take the form of either a $50/tonne carbon tax or cap-and-trade system by 2022 due to the recent federal decision — would address the “market failure” of unpriced pollution, something that Tombe pointed out isn’t solved by providing subsidies for R&D.

It would also incentivize investments in renewable power sources, energy efficiency measures and perhaps even carbon capture and storage (although given the current price tag of the technology — between $75 and $100/tonne just for the “capture” part of it — such a carbon price would have to be significantly higher than currently proposed to justify it).

Yet Wall completely rules out the role of taxation: he argues British Columbia’s emissions are rising despite having a carbon tax, even though many acknowledge emissions are rising precisely because Premier Christy Clark has put a freeze on the tax, preventing its increase from $30/tonne since 2012.

In the White Paper, Wall strangely suggested that “we should be focusing our efforts on innovation and adaptation” and that “a carbon tax will harm Saskatchewan.”

But Woynillowicz says suggested innovations like “new crop varieties that are better able to withstand climate change and that effectively fix GHGs to the soil” would be incentivized in part via a price on carbon.

“You need either dollars to do that if it’s going to be the government making those strategic investments in R&D, or you need to send a price signal that creates the incentive for private sector actors to invest in R&D,” Woynillowicz says.

“You can do that through a price on carbon pollution.”

Climate Plan Quietly Recommits to Carbon Tax on Large Emitters Despite Premier’s Apparent Opposition

Even odder is the fact that Saskatchewan’s White Paper includes a commitment to “[move] ahead with plans for a fund supported by a levy on large emitters, with the fund’s expenditures limited to new technologies and innovation to reduce GHGs and not for general revenue” when the resource economy rebounds.

Tombe says that whether or not Wall likes to admit it, the notion of a “levy on large emitters” is indeed a tax, similar to what Alberta implemented with the Specified Gas Emitters Regulation (SGER) in 2007.

“Roughly speaking, that places that Saskatchewan carbon tax on about 50 per cent of what could be subject to a carbon tax,” he says. “It’s roughly the equivalent of half the coverage of Alberta and B.C.”

Carbon pricing can be designed in many different ways; Alberta’s Climate Leadership Plan offers up a recent example of how to insulate low-income residents and “energy-intensive, trade-exposed” sectors from the economically damaging byproducts of a tax.

“That’s more what I’m disappointed with: that [Wall] sets up straw men and then knocks them down on the carbon tax front,” Tombe says.

“It’s fine: if he wants to have more costly action through the CCS or through the large-emitter levy and leave a lot of low-hanging fruit unpicked, that’s something that will be up to the Saskatchewan people to decide.”

Saskatchewan Has ‘Excellent Renewable Resources’  

Woynillowicz says the one bright spot of the White Paper was the re-commitment to double SaskPower’s generation capacity of renewables by 2030, although that announcement was already made in November 2015.

However, he emphasizes it’s a pledge for 50 per cent generation capacity, not actual generation, meaning it’s more in line with Alberta’s target of 30 per cent renewable generation by 2030 (for contrast, Iowa generated 31 per cent of its electricity from wind power in 2015).

Saskatchewan has “really excellent renewable resources,” Woynillowicz says.

As part of its plan, SaskPower intends to develop 1,600 megawatts of power between 2019 and 2030. But as mentioned, such a transition would be greatly accelerated by a commitment to a broad-based carbon price.

“Really, I’m just left scratching my head, wondering why Premier Wall has made this decision to oppose [carbon pricing] so vocally and aggressively,” Woynillowicz concludes.

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.

This is a guest post by Benjamin Thibault and Andrew Read of the Pembina Institute. 

Coal Association of Canada (CAC) president, Robin Campbell is currently touring Alberta with a series of “ACT information meetings.” He is making a number of assertions about the province’s coal industry and Alberta’s Climate Leadership Plan. We feel that some of the points being raised by Campbell need to be addressed. This is the second blog post to address those claims and to reiterate the importance of Alberta’s pledge to phase out coal power pollution.   As our first fact check showed, the CAC has been disseminating some misinformation on coal’s contribution to air pollution in Alberta. Another bucket of inaccuracies centres around the long-term future of coal — both locally and internationally — and the potential for coal with carbon capture and storage (CCS) in particular.

The outlook for coal is not what it once was

According to an Edson Leader article reporting the kick-off of the CAC’s Alberta tour, “Campbell said the world will continue to burn coal and make steel and that's not going to stop.” He goes on to say that Alberta has “enough coal to employ four more generations of miners.”

In contrast to the flowery vision of a 21st century coal boom, the last few years have brought bad news for coal at every turn. Demand has collapsed across much of the developed world, as seen in the 45-year low for coal power production in the United States. According to the International Energy Agency, even in countries like China — oft-touted as coal’s hope for the future — “coal demand is sputtering” and renewables are “significantly curtailing coal power generation, driven not only by energy security and climate concerns but also by efforts to reduce local pollution.”

Analysts have predicted that coal consumption has peaked and the recent declines will only continue with environmental constraints and the renewed global commitment to address climate change.

Clearly, the global trends do not look kindly on the coal industry.

Clean coal myth redux 

“One of the biggest myths is that coal cannot be burned clean,” Campbell told the Leader. “We can burn it clean.” But the realities of so-called “clean coal” deeply undermine the concept, which has been championed strongly by the flagging U.S. coal industry.

Carbon capture and storage (CCS), for example, is very expensive technology used to burn some of the world’s fossil fuels for energy with much lower emissions. The process helps reduce both air pollution and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions compared to installations that burn freely. But questions addressing how clean is “clean” and the associated costs continue to make the benefits of the technology uncertain.

CCS may play a critical role in the future in helping to decarbonize industrial processes that are GHG intensive; however, its usefulness in coal-fired electricity appears very limited. This is due to poor economic performance at a number of commercial-scale demonstration projects and the fact that low carbon alternatives for producing electricity are readily, and more economically, available.

Challenges with the deployment of CCS technology are evident from Canada’s flagship coal project, SaskPower’s Boundary Dam 3 refurbishment. The project received $240 million in federal subsidies and enjoys captive ratepayers who must absorb project costs and cost overruns through their electricity bills. The project has suffered from ongoing operational challenges, which have been linked to issues with the original design.

When operations began in 2014, SaskPower representatives — and even Premier Brad Wall — touted their successes. It was some time before it was revealed that the facility started by running at only 40 per cent of capacity, so SaskPower was made to pay penalties to Cenovus for failing to provide the CO2 that the oil company was promised to help get more oil out of the ground.

Difficulties are accumulating in other attempts at applying CCS to coal as well. In Mississippi, the Kemper County power plant has seen major cost overruns, bringing the latest total to US$6.6 billion — more than double initial projections. Much of this cost overrun will fall to electricity customers. Like the CAC, the coal industry has beenpointing to plants like Kemper to demonstrate the possibilities of these technologies. But with over two years in delays and more cost overruns possible, it is unclear how this remains a useful example.

Meanwhile, in the U.K. — which Campbell points to as an example of where CCS is being applied to power generation — government cancelled its nearly $2-billion competition for CCS technology back in November, just days after the U.K. announced that it would phase out dirty coal by 2025. Despite Campbell’s comments, the U.K. is actually offering a model for a coal phase-out rather than for “clean coal.”

Like what you're reading? Sign up for our email newsletter!

Even the coal industry appears to be conflicted on the likelihood that coal CCS will be viable anytime soon. Since 2012, Canadian coal plants have faced an obligation to reduce their emissions when they reach their 50-year useful-life limit. While they could keep operating if they deployed CCS, observers on all sides have assumed they would close instead.

Similarly, the Alberta government announced in its Climate Leadership Plan last November that there would be “no pollution from coal-fired electricity generation by 2030.” The province is allowing for “using technology to produce zero pollution.” Yet, according to Campbell’s comments, the “NDP government [is] planning to shut down all coal-fired [plants] by 2030.” Campbell may be inadvertently revealing that — like many observers and industry itself — “clean coal” technology is not on course to become economically feasible, even 15 years out. At least, not without massive government subsidy.

CCS subsidies for coal: been there, (not) done that

There is, of course, a potential solution to CCS’s costliness: public funding. “We would like the government to spend money on research and technology to reduce emissions then patent it and sell the technology worldwide,” Campbell said. “Canada can become a leader in clean burning coal technology.” 

Whatever the merits of government-owned patents for “clean coal” technology, Campbell knows very well that massive government subsidies for coal power CCS projects have not worked in Alberta.

The year after Campbell was first elected to government as a PC MLA, in 2008, the PC government committed $436 million to a group of companies to deploy CCS at TransAlta’s Keephills 3 coal facility. Called “Pioneer,” the project was promised another $343 million from the federal government. Despite more than three-quarters-of-a-billion dollars in pledges of public money — representing over half of the total estimated $1.4 billion project cost — the companies cancelled their plans for the project in 2012 because it was still not economic.

The only other plan for applying CCS to coal in Alberta — the Swan Hills in-situ coal gasification project, backed with a $285 million provincial pledge — was cancelled the following year.

Fool me once, Mr. Campbell.

Photo: Steel industry in Benxi, China, by Andreas Habich. 

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 summer of 2010 was a bad year for Saskatchewan. Record floods, winds, and hailstorms led to 175 communities declaring states of emergency, and costing the province over $100 million. “The Summer of Storms” also made it the worst year ever for insurers, with $100 million in crop insurance payouts.

Premier Brad Wall, a man once described by Maclean’s as “standing athwart history yelling ‘I’m not sure about this!’” responded to the string of natural disasters with a telling quote: “The one thing the province cannot control is the weather,” he said.

Unfortunately for Saskatchewan, the type of extreme weather that cost it so dearly in 2010 is symptomatic of what models predict for the province under a changing climate.

Sure enough, extreme weather was yet again making headlines and shutting down entire cities in 2014.

On carbon emissions, the province is Canada writ small: both are small emitters in their larger contexts, yet large emitters per capita. Saskatchewan is the biggest carbon source per capita in the country, with three quarters of the province’s energy coming from coal and natural gas, although it plans to reduce that to 50 per cent by 2030.

Wall’s philosophy on climate change appears to be to downplay the significance of actual emissions while encouraging innovation in Canada that can be exported to larger emitters — tackling carbon on a larger scale than what can be done in the Canada’s relatively small arena.

Frustrated during last year’s Paris climate conference by his characterization in the media as being out of step with the rest of the premiers, he defended his province, saying he was actually offering a solution: carbon capture and storage (CCS). His flagship endeavour in this regard is the CCS facility at SaskPower’s Boundary Dam coal power station, which he regards as a model for the world’s developing nations as they bring more and more coal-fired plants online.

“We can talk all we want about cap and trade or carbon taxes in Canada, but we’re three per cent of global emissions,” he told Alberta Oil Magazine before the Paris conference. “So why don’t we, as Canadians, decide to lead the world and develop technologies that can be applied in places like China and India and Indonesia and Europe where coal is being turned on right now?”

The Saskatchewan government hypes the Boundary Dam project for capturing 90 per cent of the emissions from one of the station’s units. However, what is captured doesn’t all stay that way; some is lost in the capturing phase and some is sold for use in oil extraction, meaning that only about half of what is captured is actually stored on a permanent basis when the CCS process is working — which it only is about 40 per cent of the time.

Reducing part of a coal power station’s emissions by almost a fifth, however, is still no mean feat if it can be done in a way that would encourage emerging economies to follow the example, i.e. by being cost-effective.

But that doesn’t seem to be the case: the economics of the CCS technology at Boundary Dam have not borne out, and given that the project is projected to lose about a billion dollars over its lifespan, energy reporter David Roberts called the $1.47 billion price tag a “very high carbon tax” on provincial and federal taxpayers as well as anyone paying for power in Saskatchewan.

Perhaps, then, it’s because the province already has a de facto carbon tax that Wall has promised to refuse to sign any carbon tax put forth at this week’s premiers’ meeting.

He has consistently criticized the idea of carbon taxes, worrying that the money would be directed into federal coffers (like the equalization payments his province already pays), and that the low price of oil is already hitting the oil industry hard.

His stance that oil companies are too fragile to support a carbon tax, however, is undermined by industry statements like Suncor CEO Steve Williams’ assertion last year that he believes “a broad-based carbon price is the right answer.”

Wall nearly missed the 2015 premiers’ meeting because his province was on fire, but decided to attend at the last minute to make sure the other premiers knew that “oil and gas is not something we should be ashamed of.”

It appears his message will remain the same this year, fighting the rest of the premiers and the federal government on behalf of an industry that seems to itself be coming around to the other side of the argument.

If the premier can’t control the weather, in other words, he could certainly benefit from knowing which way the wind blows.

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 single mention in 25 pages — that’s how frequently “public transit” was referenced in the Alberta NDP’s recent election platform.

But the brief mention was couched in a massively ambitious plan to redirect huge subsidies from sketchy carbon capture and storage (CCS) projects to the province’s neglected public transportation system. But that plan might be more complex than the party realized due to contracts with companies nearly ready to put major CCS facilities online.

On an online forum, the NDP made this campaign pledge: “We will end the Progressive Conservative’s costly and ineffective Carbon Capture and Storage experiment and reinvest the 2015/16 component of this project into construction of public transit, which will help reduce families’ transportation costs and reduce greenhouse gases and other air pollutants.”

Transportation is hugely significant contributor to climate change. The sector expected to account for 24 per cent of Canada’s emissions by 2020 according to the most recent Environment Canada projections (second only to the oil and gas sector at 27 per cent). So the availability of public transportation, which means less individual vehicles on the road, can help municipalities deal with growing emissions.

Unfortunately, there are few details as to what the NDP’s plan actually entails.

And new Energy Minister Marg McCuaig-Boyd isn’t speaking up.

CCS Expensive, But No Sure Bet

The idea is simple in theory.

Carbon capture and storage (CCS) is a technology that collects waste carbon dioxide from industrial facilities and compresses it into a dense fuel. That fuel is used for enhanced oil and gas recovery, where it is pumped underground to force out low-pressure oil and gas, before it is sequestered in deep underground reservoirs.

Once championed as a climate solution, CCS has proven extremely costly and more risky than once thought. An alleged leakage of sequestered carbon in Saskatchewan raised serious questions about the guarantee of CCS. The leaks in particular raised concerns about the long-term certainty that once carbon has been stored in the ground that is where it will remain in perpetuity. 

A 2012 study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences found there is a “high probability” that earthquakes could break the seal of underground carbon repositories, ultimately releasing trapped emissions back into the atmosphere.

The efficacy of the process has also been called into question by Alberta’s auditor general, Merwan Saher, who said CCS has failed to live up to its promise and is only expected to reduce emissions by 10 per cent of its original goal.

Alberta initially promised $2 billion to four CCS projects in the province. Two projects, Swan Hills Synfuels and TransAlta, were eventually ditched when their proponents found them ‘uneconomic.’ That left $1.3 billion, which Alberta promised to the Shell and Alberta Carbon Trunk Line projects over the next 15 years.

The NDP argued the majority of the $315-million — $250 million in total — that would be spent this year on two CCS projects (Shell Quest and Alberta Carbon Trunk Line) could instead be invested in public transit.

“More stable funding” will be set aside for cities “in future years,” the pledge stated, “as we carefully review the existing capital plan in a transparent manner.”

It’s unclear how the NDP government views its commitment to the two remaining projects.

Kevin Jabusch — the president of Enhance Energy, the company responsible for the Alberta Carbon Trunk Line development — told the Calgary Herald his company has a binding contract with the province and is continuing with construction. The project is near complete and is expected to come online next year.

McCuaig-Boyd’s press secretary indicated to the Calgary Herald that they will make an announcement about the specifics in the coming months.

Alberta’s Lackluster Public Transit

Alberta is in a bit of a bizarre situation when it comes to public transit. On one hand, it features two of four light rail systems in the country. However, in a 2014 study, Calgary ranked nine of ten major Canadian cities with more than 500,000 residents for the “best Canadian cities for public transit” — the highest rankings were found in Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver. Edmonton ranked a single point higher than Calgary, putting it in eighth place.

Alberta’s cities receive no funding from the provincial government for operating costs; most money comes from fares and property taxes, with the small remainder coming from fines, parking tickets and advertising dollars.

Conversely, the Manitoba government is responsible for 20 per cent of Winnipeg Transit’s operating expenses, with the Ontario government providing 14 per cent of Mississauga’s budget and seven per cent of Ottawa’s budget in 2011.

Calgary Transit’s revenue-to-cost ratio has been declining over the past few years; since 2007, the average cost of providing a trip has spiked by one-quarter while the average fare had only increased by 12 per cent.

The federal government stepped up its role slightly in 2008, committing part of revenue from gas taxes to transit infrastructure. The New Building Canada Fund also lends assistance, up to one-third of project funding (with the remainder coming from the province and municipality).

However, those options aren’t stable or consistent sources of funding for year-to-year costs, meaning that many transit agencies can make short-term improvements such as new stations but have a tougher time budgeting for the long term. In 2013, the New Building Canada Fund was extended to grant $14-billion in funding over 10 years. But so much more is needed given Alberta’s rapidly growing cities and infrastructure debt.

According to the 2011 National Household Survey, 74 per cent of Canadians commute to work using a private vehicle. Only 12 per cent used public transit — almost two-thirds of those via bus, and another quarter on subway or elevated rail. Unfortunately, “cars, trucks and motorcycles” contribute by far the most CO2 to the atmosphere compared to any other transport type in Canada, a trend that is projected by Environment Canada to continue into 2020.

In late April, the federal government announced in its 2015 budget that it would be committing $750-million over two years to public transit beginning in 2017.

However, the next federal election takes place this October, meaning that the current government may not have the chance to oversee the implementation of such goals. In March, mayors from across Canada called for stable funding of $1-billion per year for public transit. Both the federal NDP and Liberals have stated that transit and infrastructure spending will be key components in their platform.

Currently, Canada is the only G7 country without a national transit funding strategy.

Image Credit: Premier of Alberta

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

In a stunning and historic move, Alberta elected a majority New Democrat government on Tuesday.

The Progressive Conservatives, which finished in third place, consistently mismanaged the environmental and climate change file.

Ralph Klein, controversial premier from 1992 to 2006, despised the Kyoto Protocol and infamously flipped the bird at an activist who was protesting against a new Al-Pac pulp mill. Subsequent premiers often talked about improving environmental regulations, but seldom acted on it.

It’s yet to be known how different things will be under the NDP, but their win certainly marks a significant shift in sentiment.

“Together, we need to start down the road to a diversified and resilient economy,” newly crowned Alberta Premier Rachel Notley said in her victory speech. “To end the boom-and-bust roller coaster ride we’ve been on for far too long. It won’t happen overnight. But we must start, and we will.”

Notley also noted that she looks forward to working with Prime Minister Stephen Harper and other premiers on a “national approach to the environment and to Canada's energy sector that builds bridges and opens markets.”

Notley has said she won’t continue to promote the TransCanada Keystone XL and Enbridge Northern Gateway pipelines, but is in favour of Kinder Morgan’s Trans Mountain and TransCanada’s Energy East.

“It’s unclear, so far, what the NDP will do with the oil and gas sector, particularly the oilsands which is the fastest growing source of GHGs in Canada,” said Ed Whittingham, executive director of the Alberta-based Pembina Institute. “We’re eagerly awaiting their plan for dealing with it.”

The NDP’s platform was vague when it came to greenhouse gas emissions, saying the party “will take leadership on the issue” and “first steps will include an energy efficiency strategy and a renewable energy strategy.”

Those are both crucial policy points, especially when one considers the PCs have delayed the release of their renewable energy strategy since 2008. The climate change framework — originally intended for release last October — was allegedly being released in June. It’s unclear what the change in government will mean for that, or what the NDP’s plan is for augmenting the current, esoteric carbon levy.

“What we want now is for the new government is to really show the immediacy of the problem and tell the bureaucrats that those plans have to get done,” Whittingham said regarding the framework.

The NDP also committed to phasing out coal-fired power stations (the incredibly polluting fossil fuel is currently used for 43 per cent of electricity generation in the province) and expressed an intention to implement a green retrofitting loan program to help Albertans reduce energy usage via installation of solar and new furnaces, windows and doors.

The NDP also committed to diverting remaining money allocated to carbon capture and storage — a controversial technology former premier Jim Prentice once dubbed a “science experiment” — to public transit.

A more contentious component of the NDP’s platform involves a review of non-renewable resource royalties — called the “Resource Owners’ Rights Commission” — which would examine the amount of money the province makes from its oil and gas resources. While such a review wouldn’t automatically translate to increases in royalties (which sunk former premier Ed Stelmach), it does have energy sector CEOs concerned.

Any money made from “incremental royalty revenue” would be channelled into the Heritage Savings Trust Fund, the province’s sovereign wealth fund, which would then be used to invest in renewables or diversify the economy. That particular idea was critiqued by Andrew Leach, professor of energy policy at the University of Alberta, in a detailed Maclean’s feature on the NDP’s energy policies.

“If the premise is to use resource revenues to provide low-cost capital to otherwise non-viable economic activity in the province today, I’d call that spending and dispense with the need to flow the dollars through a fund,” he wrote.

The NDP’s infatuation with refining raw bitumen is something else that Leach (as well as fellow Maclean’s columnist Colby Cosh) has critiqued. In addition to being potentially uneconomical due to sheer investment costs and lack of comparative advantage (contrasted with, say, Texas or Louisiana), refineries would only increase Alberta’s reliance on petroleum products and services, writes Leach.

A surprising omission in the NDP’s platform was details about oilsands monitoring and regulation, something the PCs were often criticized for. The Alberta Environmental Monitoring, Evaluation and Reporting Agency was created in 2014 as a joint agency between the federal and provincial government, with funding from the energy sector.

But in the October 2014 auditor general’s report, it was noted that the agency’s annual report for 2012-2013 was delayed 15 months, “lacked clarity and key information and contained inaccuracies.” As a result, the auditor general suggested the governments could “fail to carry out their plan for monitoring the environmental impacts of oil sands development.”

At this stage, there are more questions than answers about what the NDP will mean for Alberta on the energy and environment file — but one thing’s for sure: those concerned about climate change have more reason to hope today than they did yesterday. 

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 side event at the UNFCCC COP20 climate negotiations in Lima, Peru was disrupted Monday when climate activists and individuals representing communities on the frontlines of energy development flooded the presentation hall and staged a ‘walk out’ on fossil fuels.

The event was hosted by the International Emissions Trading Association (IETA) and the Global CCS Institute and featured Lord Nicholas Stern and David Hone, Shell’s chief climate advisor, as speakers.

The talk, originally entitled “Why Divest from Fossil Fuels When a Future with Low Emission Fossil Fuel Energy Use is Already a Reality?,” was inexplicably renamed “How Can we Reconcile Climate Targets with Energy Demand Growth” and focused on the use of carbon capture and storage (CCS) as a technological solution to carbon emissions that cause global warming.

A citizen group formed outside the venue holding a banner that read “get fossil fuels out of COP” and used the acronym CCS to spell out “Corporate Capture ≠ Solution.”

Civil society groups gather outside a fossil fuel sponsored event discussing carbon capture and storage. Photo by Carol Linnitt.

The protest was designed to “defend our rights from these companies and corporations that are attacking our people,” Ana Maytik Avirama, from the Corporate Europe Observatory Foundation, told a crowd gathered outside the presentation pavilion.

“We need to keep the fossil fuel lobby out of these negotiations, out of our governments and out of the decisions that are trying to protect our livelihoods and our lives,” she said.

Godwin Uyi Ojo, executive director of environmental rights action in Nigeria attended the action to protest Shell’s presence at the climate negotiations.

“Enough is enough,” he said.

Godwin Uyi Ojo speaks to a crowd gathered outside the IETA event. "Leave the oil in the soil, the coal in the hole, the tar sands in the sand," he said. Photo by Carol Linnitt.

“Shell is in that conference promoting dirty energy. They say dirty energy has a place in the future…what you see there is greenwashing. That’s why people are so angry at Shell. We are tired of these antics.”

Bronwen Tucker, a member of the Canadian Youth Delegation said the event, which was sponsored by Shell and Chevron, was designed to discredit grassroots fossil fuel divestment campaigns and tout CCS as a climate solution.

“CCS has been labeled the unicorn of the climate change world because instead of taking emissions out of the atmosphere it would just store them, but it’s an unproven technology that’s prohibitively expensive, much more expensive than renewable energy and other solutions that have been put forward,” she said, adding the event is emblematic of a long-term problem at COP of fossil fuel industry influence in the climate decision-making process.

Bronwen Tucker from the Canadian Youth Delegation told DeSmog CCS is an "unproven technology" that directs investment funds away from renewable energy. Photo by Carol Linnitt.

Lord Nicholas Stern, Chair of the Grantham Research Institute of Climate Change and the Environment at the London School of Economics, told DeSmog CCS has the potential to play a huge role in climate action.

“We have to take 50 billion tonnes of CO2 equivalent now, globally, down to about zero by the end of this century.”

“We’ve not got many options. And in my view energy efficiency can do the half of it, and the more it does, the better,” Stern said, adding renewables will play a major role as well as some nuclear.

Lord Nicholas Stern discusses CCS with DeSmog Canada. Photo by Carol Linnitt.

“The rest will have to be CCS. That’s all we’ve got. The problem is so big and so important that we’ve got to do all we can.”

He added that CCS removes particulates in dirty emissions coming from sources of energy like oil and, especially, coal.

“The climate emissions we produce now kill people down the track,” Stern said. “Particulates…are killing people now on a major scale. We’ve got to deal with both of them and CCS does both of them.”

According to a report recently put out by the New Carbon Economy, particulate matter from the burning of fossil fuels contributes to both lung and heart disease. According to the World Health Organization particulate pollution plays a substantial role in nearly 4 million premature deaths each year that are attributed to outdoor pollution.

Stern acknowledged there is some uncertainty associated with the technology but he added “you’ve got to pursue all the options because some are going to do better than others and you can’t tell for sure what those are going to be. From the point of view of managing risk, it makes sense to go after more than one [solution].”

Mike Monea, president of the carbon capture and storage initiatives for SaskPower, Saskatchewan’s main power provider, also attended the event to talk about CCS viability in the wake of Boundary Dam, the world’s first coal plant retrofitted with carbon sequestration technology. The project went live in October 2014.

Carbon capture and storage infographic from SaskPower.

Monea argued CCS technology is no longer in question and should play a critical role in the new climate era. And although Monea highlighted the positive climate effects of CCS usage, the position of SaskPower is that CCS “is making a viable technical, environmental and economic case for the continued use of coal.”

Saskatchewan local, Megan Van Buskirk, a member of the Canadian Youth Delegation said the $1.35 billion Boundary Dam project won’t do much at all to address climate change.

“There are lots of issues involved with that project in terms of its reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, for example, SaskPower which is a monopoly in Saskatchewan – which owns that power plant – their emissions are 15 million tonnes per year and that storage facility is only reducing their emissions by 1 million tonnes.”

Van Buskirk adds that SaskPower already has a plan to sell much of that captured carbon to Cenovus Energy for enhanced oil and gas recovery.

“So we see that issue there where we’re touting this as a solution to climate change but really we’re using it to extract more oil and gas which will ultimately mean more greenhouse gas emissions,” she said.

“We really believe this is a false solution to climate change.”

Brad Page, the CEO of the Global CCS Institute, said he feels CCS is a necessity if we’re going to meet global climate targets. He points to the fact that the Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change (IPCC) acknowledges CCS will play a role in preventing carbon emissions from entering the atmosphere. 

He added negative public perception is due to a lack of understanding – something industry needs to remedy.

“At a very simple level, CCS puts carbon dioxide back underground where it came from. Many of the people I talk to think CCS is putting carbon into big caverns or something. It’s in fact back into the porous spaces in rocks that the oil and gas originally came from. So it’s actually not a threat.”

Page did not speak to concerns that failed CCS projects could re-release carbon back into the atmosphere.

He added, “I think that environmental groups are really from their heart concerned about continuing the use of fossil fuels and I think many of them want to actually see CCS take off and prove that it can actually be one of those viable technologies.”

Page pointed to Boundary Dam as an example of viable CCS and said there are about four more projects underway in their early construction stages.

“By 2050 though, with the sort of climate targets we’ve got we can’t achieve those emission outcomes without all the technology. Renewables are really important in this, as it energy efficiency. Nuclear is a fairly unloved duckling as well, but it’s going to be needed. And so is CCS.”

“I don’t see that there’s another option here.”

Peter Frumhoff, director of science and policy and chief scientist at the Union of Concerned Scientists, said we’ve “dallied so long on moving toward aggressive emissions reductions that we really need to explore every possible opportunity to constrain emissions below 2 degrees C.”

Frumhoff added efficiency and renewables may not be enough in themselves to limit warming to that 2 degree level.

“Therefore we need to consider other technologies including some that some of us might not love and that may themselves pose some risks. But we’re simply not at a point where we can ignore the much greater climate risks of going above 2 degrees C.”

But for Tucker, the conversation about CCS at the ongoing UNFCCC climate talks should not be dominated by industry.

“It would be the same as having tobacco companies at a conference on lung cancer. There’s a clear conflict. They already have so much sway outside of discussions like this. There’s no room for companies to be holding official UN events."

Jamie Henn from the climate advocacy group 350.org described CCS as a "smokescreen."

"The fossil fuel industry can run from divestment, but they can't hide from the reality that 80 per cent of their reserves need to stay underground. Here in Lima, world leaders are finally talking about targets that are in the realm of what's needed, namely going to zero carbon by 2050. If we're going to meet that goal, we need to start now. If Big Oil wants to research CCS, fine, but that shouldn't distract us from the urgent need to transition away from fossil fuels and towards 100 per cent renewable energy." 

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 can reduce its carbon footprint by 90 per cent, play its part in the fight against climate change and grow its economy at the same time according to a recent report by the United Nations Sustainable Development Solutions Network. 

“This is a really important piece of analysis for Canada. It shows that we can cut our carbon pollution dramatically by 2050, making a strong contribution to tackling climate change, while growing our economy by over 200 per cent,” Clare Demerse, a senior policy advisor at Clean Energy Canada says.

By powering transportation, buildings and electricity with largely renewable energy (water-power, wind, solar) and biofuels and applying wide spread use of greenhouse gas (GHG) capturing technologies such as carbon capture and storage (CCS) in the oil and gas sector the report argues Canada can cut its GHG emissions production by 90 per cent by 2050 based on 2010 levels.

The catch is none of this can happen unless Canada implements policies effectively regulating the production of GHG emissions, something the federal government has so far been unable to do.

“Many of the major changes described in the Canadian decarbonization pathway will not occur without strong policy signals, which will require public support and in many cases will be driven by public pressure,” the UN network concludes. 

Electrification of the Economy Is the Key to Reducing GHG Emissions 

Reducing GHG emissions of transportation and buildings sectors by 97 per cent and 96 per cent respectively are the “two of the core foundations of the Canadian deep decarbonization pathway.” The key to reaching these targets is a substantial shift to renewable energy.

Canada's projected GHG emissions by sector by 2050 in a 90 per cent GHG emissions reduction scenario. Source: UNSDNS

“Decarbonizing electricity production is essential, since it is a precondition to reducing emissions throughout the rest of the economy through electrification,” the report states.

Water-power (Canada’s largest source of renewable energy), biomass, wind and solar are projected to lead the way in decarbonizing Canada’s electrical supply with wind and solar generating as high as 17 per cent and 10 per cent of Canada’s electricity respectively.

Oil consumption for transportation will need to plummet with the majority of Canadian vehicles running off of biofuels, hydrogen or electricity in the 90 per cent GHG emissions reduction scenario. The report sees a slight shift to mass transit (trains, buses) over personal vehicles and a large transformation from trucks to trains for freight.

Electricity production (left) and fuel consumption (right) by source by 2050. 

“The results the modelers presented are one way to hit the target they were given, but they’re not a prescription. As they point out, Canadians and our governments will need to make policy choices about what kind of low-carbon path makes the most sense for us,” Demerse told DeSmog Canada.

British Columbia’s successful and surprisingly popular carbon tax and Quebec’s cap-and-trade system are two homegrown Canadian climate policy examples Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s government could follow to fulfill Canada’s international responsibilities to cut global warming GHG emissions.

Report Surprisingly Projects Oil and Gas Output Will Double by 2050

The report assumes Canada can remain an oil and gas “energy superpower” in a world that has gone nearly zero-carbon. The report predicts Canadian oil and gas production will double by 2050 as well.

“The report’s assumptions on global oil demand seem a little unrealistic. Studies have shown that demand will drop as countries transition to low carbon economies,” Professor Mark Jaccard, an energy economist at Simon Fraser University says.

Canada's GHG emissions by sector (2010 baseline). Source: UNSDSN

“If Canada is able to power its cars and buildings with virtually zero fossil fuels by 2050, why wouldn’t the rest of the world want to do the same? If global demand for oil drops, oil prices will drop too — and then we would see far lower production than the oilsands industry is counting on today,” Demerse told DeSmog Canada.

To keep the oil and gas sector in play in a near zero-carbon scenario the report recommends Canada employ widespread use of technologies such as carbon capture and storage (CCS) in the sector. CCS captures carbon emissions, and converts them into a dense fuel that can be transported to sites below ground for storage.

Canada only has one operational CCS project. The Pembina Institute, an energy policy think tank, predicts Alberta alone will need twenty-five large-scale CCS projects to meet its own GHG emissions reduction targets.

“Why would companies adopt expensive CCS (carbon capture and storage) technology if at the moment they can dump waste into our atmosphere for free?” Jaccard says.

The authors of the report admit CCS is not “commercially viable” in Canada at the moment given “current climate policy stringency.” The low price on carbon and lack of regulations on GHG emissions in the Canadian oil and gas sector provide very little financial incentive for companies to invest in expensive technologies that decrease the carbon footprints of their operations.

“Until there are regulations on carbon in Canada technologies like CCS are going nowhere,” Jaccard told DeSmog Canada.

Unclear If the Oilsands Have A Place In A Decarbonized Canada

The UN network behind the report is unable or unwilling to say if the oilsands (also called tar sands) industry, the fastest growing source of GHG emissions in Canada, has a future in a low carbon Canada. The report cites “literature conflicts on whether production from the oil sands can be cost-effective in a deep decarbonization scenario.”

Image Credit: Blue Green Canada, United Nations Sustainable Development Solutions Network

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.

Days after another delay by the Obama administration on TransCanada's Keystone XL pipeline, members of the Alberta government are hitting the U.S. circuit to promote the oilsands and boost their “green” credentials.

Three government officials are heading to key regions in the U.S. to push for continued market access and advertise what Albertan energy minister Diana McQueen calls “our commitment to clean energy development.”

Alberta hopes to showcase investment in carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology as part of a successful emissions reduction plan.

Critics say the Alberta government’s talk about “sustainability” and “clean energy” is not in line with reality.

“If you’ve been following the Canadian government’s sales pitch for the Keystone XL pipeline, you’ve probably heard this claim before: ‘Emissions per barrel have been reduced by 26 per cent between 1990 and 2011,’” writes P.J. Partington, senior federal policy analyst with the Pembina Institute.

However, the reality, Partington writes, is that “since 1990, oilsands production has quintupled, while GHG emissions from production and upgrading have quadrupled.”

Partington writes: "[The above graph] shows the close relationship between annual GHG emissions and the rate of production — especially in recent years."

University of Alberta energy economist Andrew Leach wrote this week that Canada's incoherence on climate change has killed Keystone XL.

"As an antidote to our lack of ambition on policies, our governments both in Edmonton and in Ottawa have decided to work on an ambitious program of wordsmithing," Leach wrote in Macleans.

Partington notes the oilsands sector already emits as much carbon pollution as the entire province of British Columbia, and production is projected to double within a decade. Trends in the sector’s GHG performance will therefore have a huge impact on emissions levels and major consequences for Canada.

The sales team

Cal Dallas, Alberta Minister of International and Intergovernmental Relations, is in Seattle, Wash., this week to attend the Pacific Energy Forum (April 23-25). According to the Alberta press release, Dallas will use the opportunity to drum up foreign investment interests in the oilsands and advertise extraction technologies.

“We want to work with Asian partners to better understand how to unlock their unconventional resources in an environmentally sustainable way while encouraging investment in our energy resources,” Dallas said.

“Alberta is known to be at the forefront of responsible, sustainable and innovative energy development.”

Dallas will discuss the “importance of energy trade to future economic prosperity” although it is unclear how he will address Alberta’s emissions problems, or the threat climate change poses to heavy hydrocarbon assets.

As DeSmog Canada recently reported, ExxonMobil will soon begin disclosing the risk its carbon assets face given international pressure to address climate change.

Leach recently outlined how the oilsands will quickly become unviable in the face of carbon market policies the Alberta and Canadian governments will have little control over. According to Leach’s analysis the oilsands would become uneconomic with even $50/tonne price on carbon.

According to Nicole Leonard, Canadian oil energy analyst at Bentek, oilsands production is expected to increase by 400,000 barrels a day by 2017.

Concerns are mounting, however, that Alberta's failure to adequately address emissions output will create undue risk for potential oilsands investors.

“All leading energy system analysts agree that the oil sands, and other unconventional oils, should not be rapidly expanding,” said energy economist Mark Jaccard. International efforts are geared toward limiting global temperature increases below 2 °C.

Energy Minister Diana McQueen will also travel this week to Pittsburg, Pa., to deliver a keynote speech at the 13th annual Carbon Capture Utilization and Storage Conference (April 28-May 1) and then to New York to promote Alberta to the investment community.

David Dorward, MLA for Edmonton-Gold Bar, will be in Washington, D.C., April 27 to May 2 to meet with the Port-to-Plains Alliance, a business and government consortium representing the economic corridor from Alberta to Texas.

Dorward will work to advance the “Building Alberta Plan,” a provincial project that hopes to strengthen trade by “opening new markets for Alberta’s resources.”

CCS uncertain

At the carbon capture event, McQueen will discuss how Alberta’s two CCS projects demonstrate Alberta’s “commitment to clean energy development.”

Alberta has committed to invest $1.3 billion over 15 years in the Shell Canada Quest carbon capture project to capture waste carbon from its Scotford upgrader and the Enhance Energy Inc. Carbon Trunk Line to capture waste carbon to be used in enhanced oil recovery operations. Shell is half-way completed its project and Enhanced said it would begin constructing its carbon pipeline this spring.

Despite the two projects moving forward, Alberta originally committed to investing in four CCS projects, but two were cancelled after the companies involved deemed the return on investment insufficient.

With only two CCS operations, Alberta is expected to sequester at best three or four million tonnes of carbon a year by 2020 — just a tenth of the province’s CCS target.

“Those two CCS projects are crucial areas of research that are necessary to develop the technology and it is great that the Alberta government has taken action,” says Andrew Read, technical and policy analyst at the Pembina Institute, adding that it was “unfortunate” the investment in CCS hasn’t come with other actions to help cut greenhouse gas emissions in Alberta.

Emissions still rising rapidly

Today, emissions from the oil and gas sector are the largest source of emissions in Canada, surpassing the transportation sector, according to a recently released Environment Canada report, covering the period from 1990 to 2012.

Alberta has also worked to develop a favourable regulatory framework for future CCS projects, but new projects are unlikely without either continued massive government support or a market-altering price on carbon. To be viable, Alberta needs a price on carbon of at least $70 a tonne for CCS technology on upgraders and rising to between $120 to $160 a tonne for CCS technology to be possible for new steam-assisted oilsands operations, according to ICO2N, a Canadian industry-funded group working to advance CCS technology.

“[CCS] is one of the tools in the tool box but it is at the bottom of the toolbox,” John Bennett, executive director of the Sierra Club Canada Foundation told DeSmog Canada. “There are a thousand things that are more cost effective and useful before we [employ CCS] and as long as it is used to extract more fossil fuels, it is not a solution to the problem.”

GHG regulations?

Since 2007, Alberta has required heavy emitters to pay $15 a tonne into a technology fund if they don’t reduce the intensity of their emissions by 12 per cent from baseline levels.

“Alberta’s plan allows companies to pay a small fee to put carbon into the air and then it gives them back the money, so it is not a system that is moving investments into alternatives,” Bennett says. “Any policy that allows the net amount of carbon dioxide emissions to increase is wrong.”

This time last year, Alberta shocked the federal government and the oil industry with a plan to demand a 40 per cent reduction in per-barrel emissions and a $40 per tonne price on emissions that exceed that amount. The plan has since failed to be implemented while Ottawa announced a delay of federal oil and gas greenhouse gas regulations until they can be done “in concert with” the United States.

“The reality of the situation isn’t aligning with [the Alberta government’s] speaking points,” says Read. “I am not sure what they are reporting to decision makers [in the U.S.] because there hasn’t been any progress on developing oil and gas GHG regulations.”

The environmental movement in the United States has seized on Alberta’s environmental record in opposing the Keystone XL pipeline. The $5.4 billion pipeline is proposed to pump 830,000 barrels a day from Alberta to the U.S. Gulf Coast. Currently, the southern leg is in operation, but the approval of the northern leg crossing the border sits with the Obama administration for final approval.

After the recent delay, a final decision isn’t expected until 2015.

Image Credit: Julia Kilpatrick, Pembina Institute

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.