To no one’s surprise, there’s been an awfully wide range of responses to what caused the catastrophic Fort McMurray wildfires.

Some blame climate change. Others peg it on the El Niño and forest management techniques. Still more suggest that now’s simply not the time to be having such a conversation.

But the one thing that appears to unite all sides is “our” alleged complicity in it as North American consumers.

For instance, the National Post’s Jen Gerson argued in a May 5 piece: “We are all responsible for climate change. Fort McMurray simply produces some of the products we all consume.”

On the same day, Elizabeth Kolbert — author of The Sixth Extinction and Field Notes from a Catastrophe — wrote in the New Yorker: “We are all consumers of oil, not to mention coal and natural gas, which means that we’ve all contributed to the latest inferno. We need to own up to our responsibility and then we need to do something about it.”

Such rhetoric is technically correct. There’s no question that if everyone on earth lived an average North American lifestyle, we’d need four planets to sustain the population.

But that’s only if we’re looking at “average” consumption rates.

As anyone who’s worked with stats before knows, averages can be very deceiving. In this case, language such as “we” or “our” can disguise a wide range of income and consumption habits that misplace levels of responsibility for climate change.

In the process, it assigns moral culpability for climate change to regular individuals rather than governments, corporations and wealthy North Americans.

“Think about the global justice movement: if you wore Nikes or blue jeans you weren’t allowed to protest neoliberalism,” says Patrick McCurdy, associate professor at University of Ottawa currently researching the evolution of oilsands advertising. “Then you look at the Occupy movement: if you owned an iPhone then you couldn’t be part of Occupy.”

“Now, it’s ‘she used oil so she can’t speak,’” he said. “It reinforces this binary of ‘who is empowered to speak?’”

Fossil Fuel Advertising Taken A Personal Turn In Recent Years

Recently, oil and gas companies and industry associations have harnessed such assumptions to attempt to make an airtight case for their continued unchecked growth.

McCurdy says the linking of the industry to lifestyle choices started in the 1960s with an Imperial Oil campaign suggesting “you have oil to thank for everything around you.”

Such rhetoric has spiked in frequency in the last few years.

McCurdy points to 2010 — the same year as the ruling on Syncrude’s responsibility for the death of 1,600 birds in its tailings pond — as the real beginning, with the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers launching the Energy Citizens campaign and Canada Action gearing up for its I Love Oilsands media blitz.

McCurdy says both effectively dismiss critics by suggesting that if oil is at all implicated in one’s life and employment then one should support the industry (or at least not speak critically of it).

In 2014 Enbridge launched its Life Takes Energy campaign on TV, YouTube and most infamously in the The Walrus. Each ad sported a similar premise: everything “we” enjoy in life — baking, warm baths, Thanksgiving dinners — is linked to the oil and gas industry.

Focus On ‘Average’ Individual Behaviour Ignores Roles of Government and Business

McCurdy describes such advertising as “high-consumption, aspirational, Pinterest sort of images.”

That’s a key problem.

For, in addition to ignoring technological alternatives (public transit, geothermal heating, passive solar homes) and other ways of living life (Indigenous land-based communities or inner-city attempts at minimalism like No Impact Man), such visual rhetoric implies that oil and gas companies simply provide the goods that people demand to maintain their “average” lifestyles.

But it wasn’t “average” North Americans who knowingly spread climate misinformation, funded climate denying organizations, leased record amounts of land to oil and gas companies, invested in highways over public transit, created and maintained subsidies to fossil fuel companies and promoted the construction of pipelines and export facilities that will neutralize any emissions reductions made in other sectors.

“We live in a society in which responsibility for everything is being offloaded onto the individual,” says William Rees, professor emeritus at the University of British Columbia and originator of the “ecological footprint analysis.” “It’s this ‘there’s no such thing as society.’ That’s just not true. The real things, the real game-changers here, would be regulations imposed by government.”

Fossil Fuel Companies Have Met With Liberal Government Hundreds of Times

But the “we” rhetoric  conveniently ignores the incredible access that oil and gas companies have to government via ongoing lobbying efforts.

For instance, since the Liberals were elected in October, Suncor has met with federal officials 54 times, including three times with Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. Imperial Oil and Shell Canada have contributed an additional 37 and 38 meetings, respectively.

Industry organizations have also done their fair share of lobbying, including the Petroleum Services Association of Canada (52 meetings), Canadian Gas Association (45 times), the Canadian Energy Pipelines Association (44 meetings) and the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (36 meetings).

‘Huge Difference’ In Emissions Levels Between Rich and Poor

Most Canadians simply don’t have that kind of pricey access to pressure governments to shape policies. Nor can many throw large amounts of money at political parties during campaigns or pay thousands for exclusive access to premiers at fundraisers.

In 2011, the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives reported the ecological footprint of the top 10 per cent of income earners in Canada is close to two-and-a-half times greater than the lowest 10 per cent.

To meet the 2020 target of 25 per cent carbon emissions below 1990 levels, the richest quintile of Canadians would need to cut 51 per cent of emissions, while the lowest only 12 per cent.

In other words, while we’re all indeed consumers of fossil fuels, “owning up to our responsibility” will look very different depending on where we fall on the income spectrum.

“Even within rich countries there’s a huge difference,” Rees says.

“If you have an extra car or extra house or extra computer equipment you’re going to be far and away more consumptive than an ordinary joe.”

Rees notes that he has a friend who lives in Texas who drives an electric car and sports a complete solar array that provides all his electricity. But that friend takes one flight to Europe and “his share of that wipes out all of his savings.”

Of course, there’s a baseline consumption rate in North America, including emissions associated with military, agriculture and buildings.

This results in levels among the poorest North Americans that exceed those created by even the richest members of “emerging economies” like China and India.

But there are particular lifestyle choices available to the richest Canadians — flying around the world for vacation, owning multiple cars, living in a large suburban home and using energy-intensive electronics — that dramatically increase emissions rates.

Courtesy of the universalizing “we,” such consumers are partially let off the hook.

So while it may be simpler to write statements like “we are all responsible for climate change” than to call out a handful of powerful people and corporations who have access to policymakers via direct lobbying and campaign donations, it ignores the powerful role that governments can and probably should play in implementing regulations and price mechanisms.

If we really want to build a more equitable and sustainable society, cutting through the blithe “we’re all responsible” lingo is a must.

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

In the coming months, European Union environment ministers are set to vote on the proposed Fuel Quality Directive (FQD), which would label tar sands oil as 'dirty' because of its higher GHG emissions in comparison to other fuels, bringing the Harper government and Alberta's years-long lobbying against the law to a decisive point.

As Jason Fekete writes for Postmedia News, this is "a critical few months for the future of Canada's oilsands industry and the environmental movement that has targeted the development."

It's hardly surprising that two senior Alberta government ministers depart Saturday "for a weeklong trip to Europe to trumpet what they say is Alberta and Canada's solid environmental credentials, and have EU countries reject a proposal that would "discriminate" against oilsands-derived fuels," as Postmedia News reports.

Canada has been actively fighting the EU proposal for years now for its labelling of tar sands oil as leaving an especially high carbon footprint. A July 2011 report by environmental group Friends of the Earth Europe documented over 110 lobbying events organized by the Canadian government on the tar sands and FQD between 2009 and 2011.

For example, in October 2011, Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver wrote to the EU Commissioner for Energy, Gunther Oettinger, warning that "if unjustified, discriminatory measures to implement the FQD are put in place, Canada will not hesitate to defend its interests."

In December 2011, David Plunkett, Canadian Ambassador to the EU, wrote to European Commissioner for Climate Action Connie Hedegaard saying that "Canada will not accept oil sands crude being singled out in the Fuel Quality Directive." He added that the Canadian government would "explore every avenue at its disposal to defend its interests, including the World Trade Organisation."

Hedegaard has called the FQD a "science-based and non-discriminatory proposal," and stressed that “studies on the lifecycle GHG intensity of various fuels have been conducted" for it, in a 2011 letter to Minister Oliver.

A 2013 briefing by Friends of the Earth Europe details more recent instances of Canada's lobbying for the tar sands in Europe, including sending two Albertan government ministers on tour in Europe this January to hand out fliers assuring the 11 countries visited that Canada was showing "global leadership in the fight against climate change" despite leaving the Kyoto Protocol and pushing for the tar sands.

The aggressive lobbying efforts by Canada and its EU supporters like the UK have continued unabated since reduction targets were decided on in 2009, forcing the European Commission to undertake an Impact Assessment on the FQD and delaying the vote on the proposal from June 2012 to later this year.

"It has got to be fair, it can't be discriminatory, and it should be based on the facts and the science – and this is not. This is my definition of bad policy," Minister Joe Oliver said of the FQD in an interview last Friday.

Oliver made a similar claim that the proposal "is not based on science and so discourages disclosures and will not achieve its stated objectives," last month in an email to the Canadian Press.

The repeated refrain from the Canadian government that the FQD is not scientific doesn't address the fact that the proposal is based on a 2011 Stanford University study commissioned by the European Commission. The study found that average lifecycle GHG emissions from tar sands oil are 23 per cent higher than conventional fossil fuels.

Image: 'Upstream greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from Canadian oilsands as a feedstock for European refineries,' by Adam R. Brandt.

Since then, research by NGO Oil Change International has indicated that emissions from tar sands oil could be even higher than thought before, because of emissions released by the burning of tar sands refinery byproduct petroleum coke, or petcoke, which is also used as a cheap fuel.

According to the Stanford study, "GHG emissions from oil sands production is significantly different enough from conventional oil emissions that regulatory frameworks should address this discrepancy with pathway-specific emissions factors that distinguish between oil sands and conventional oil processes."

The Pembina Institute also published a June 2013 report confirming that "average oilsands production is significantly more GHG-intensive than conventional oil production," and calling tar sands GHG emissions "the fastest growing source of climate change pollution in Canada."

The FQD sets a mandatory six percent reduction in GHG emissions from transport fuel suppliers by 2020, and assigns default emission values to different fossil fuel feedstocks (the raw material from which the fuels are made).

Tar sands oil production requires more energy than conventional fossil fuels because of its extraction and refining process from bitumen. Because of this, the FQD would give tar sands oil a higher default emission value, making it unattractive to European fuel suppliers, who would be hit with financial penalties and higher carbon offsets if importing it.

The Harper government's plan of making Canada a global energy superpower by opening up the tar sands oil reserves via international trade would be adversely affected by the FQD, which guarantees that the federal government and the Albertan oil industry will continue lobbying against it, and for the tar sands, in full force in the months to come.

Postmedia News reports that EU environment ministers are set to vote on the FQD in mid-October or mid-November. If approved, the proposal would need to be ratified by the European Parliament in 2014.

Image Credit: Pembina Institute / 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.

Failure by Canada, the US and other industrialized countries to act on their promises to reduce climate-heating emissions has put us on the very dangerous path to 4C of global warming scientists warned in an update at the UN climate treaty talks in Bonn, Germany that ended last week.

Canada was singled out for doing little to reduce emissions and for substantially under reporting fugitive emissions (leakage) from the natural gas sector.

"Canada appears to have vastly underestimated fugitive emissions from gas exploration in British Colombia, putting into question its entire emissions reporting on fugitives," according to the "Climate Action Tracker" report released last week in Bonn.

"We looked into this after reading your (DeSmog) article and wondered if this might be a global problem," said Marion Vieweg of Climate Analytics, a Germany climate research organization.

Russian reports more accurate than Canada

The US also appears to have underreported their emissions from the natural gas sector but far less so than Canada. Russia and Germany were in the right ballpark based on recent studies of fugitive emissions rates Vieweg told DeSmog.

A two-part DeSmog investigation published in May revealed that British Columbia's fugitive emissions were very likely 7 to 10 times greater than reported. Natural gas (methane) is a powerful greenhouse gas and leaks out of hundreds of thousands of points from the wellhead to final use the industry acknowledged.

It is very difficult to get good data on fugitive emissions and the links in the DeSmog story were very helpful she said.

Total greenhouse gas emissions in British Columbia are probably 16- 70% above the levels currently reported based on analysis by Climate Analytics, the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research and Dutch-based energy institute Ecofys, the three organizations that produce the Climate Action Tracker (CAT) updates. That analysis is based on the latest findings on the real share of gas leaking into the atmosphere.

CAT updates compare countries' carbon emissions reduction pledges and their actions to assess progress in reaching the universally agreed on goal of keeping warming below 2C.

Last year's CAT update said Canada was "playing with numbers" and exaggerating its progress in reducing emissions.

This year analysts at CAT took a close look at Canada's fugitive emissions reporting and discovered they were impossibly low – less than half of the very lowest science estimates. Canada is legally obligated to accurately report its annual emissions the UN.

Canada 'Forgot' to Count Up to 212 Million Tonnes of CO2

Canada reported just 24 million tonnes (Mt) of CO2 equivalent emissions from fugitives in 2010. A CAT analysis reveals those emissions were likely between 52 and 236 Mt.* That's a huge difference of between 28 to 212 Mt. It would be like forgetting to count emissions 5 to 22 million cars. (Avg: 5.1 ton CO2/vehicle/year)

Canada told the UN its total emissions were 692 Mt in 2010 but were more likely 8 to 31% greater.

"The climate warming from those emissions is real even if you fail to accurately count them," said Vieweg.

This failure to accurately account for fugitive emissions also means Canada has not reduced its emissions by 6% from a 2005 baseline as claimed. It also means Canada is unlikely to reach the Harper government's 2020 emission target of a 17% reduction compared to 2005. Climate experts say Canada's reductions need to be far higher than Harper’s target to do its share in keeping temperatures below 2C.

"Canada is going in the wrong direction," when it comes to tackling climate change she said.

Natural gas has been widely promoted in Canada and the US as a way to lower carbon emissions if  replacing coal. While coal has a higher carbon content than gas, the fugitive emissions problem may negate this said Niklas Höhne, Director of Energy and Climate Policy at Ecofys.

As a result of abundant and cheap natural gas the amount of coal used in the US has declined. However US coal exports are up 50%. Simply shifting from coal to natural gas locks countries into continued use of fossil fuel technology and may be a barrier to scaling up renewable energy said Höhne.

"We're facing a great paradox," said Bill Hare a senior climate scientist at Climate Analytics.

"Governments commitment to action on climate is unwinding at a time when the latest science shows the impacts of climate change will be greater," Hare said in a press conference in Bonn.

Carbon emissions keeping rising and billions of dollars continue to be spent expanding fossil fuel infrastructure when we should be going in the opposite direction he said.

“We can easily get to 4C. I'm more sceptical than ever that countries will meet their reduction pledges.”

*CAT used the "'global warming potential" (GWP) of 21 to calculate CO2 equivalents (CO2e), the same as the UN and Canada currently use. This means natural gas (methane) traps heat in the atmosphere 21 times better than CO2. Recent science suggests this is really closer to 33 times. And some scientists say that to properly protect the climate the multiplier should be 105.

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 the first part of a two-part series on methane emissions in British Columbia. Read Part 2, BC LNG Exports Blow Climate Targets Way, Way Out of the Water.

Methane emissions from British Columbia's natural gas industry are likely at least 7 times greater than official numbers blowing BC's Climate Action Plan out of the water. Natural gas is nearly all methane and since methane is such a powerful climate warming gas these unreported emissions mean the total CO2 equivalent emissions for the entire province are nearly 25% higher than is being reported.

The province's legislated climate plan is to reduce CO2 equivalent emissions (CO2e) 33% below 2007 levels by 2020. The booming natural gas sector may make that target an impossibility.

Each year the BC gas industry "loses" about 20% of the natural gas between pumping it out of the ground and its final destination. That was 7.4 billion cubic meters in 2010 out of a total production of 36.4 billion cubic meters according government statistics (BC's Natural Gas Exports). If a cubic meter was a second, 7.4 billion seconds equals 240 years.

While this gas was "lost in the field, the plant or during distribution and export" the report says most is not actually 'lost' but used by the industry to power equipment, pump the gas through the pipelines and so on.

But some of this gas escaped into the atmosphere through leaks, deliberate venting and what the industry calls fugitive emissions. According to senior official in the BC Ministry of Environment just 0.3 to 0.4% was lost to the atmosphere in 2010. However, recent US studies of the gas industry show these losses or fugitive emissions are between 2% and 9%.

BC Methane Leak Estimate 0.3%; Actual US measurements 4% to 9%

[view:in_this_series=block_1]

Actual measurements of the amount of methane escaping gas fields and pipelines are rare and not done by the Ministry. Recent in-field measurements at two different locations in Colorado and Utah found methane leakage ranging from 4% to 9% according to a report in the science journal Nature.

Robert Howarth and colleagues at Cornell University in New York State estimated that between 3.6% and 7.9% of all shale gas produced leaks in studies published in 2012 and 2011. Shale gas obtained through hydraulic fracking is believed to be leakier than traditional drilling methods. About half of BC gas is obtained by fracking. Most of BC's gas is exported to Alberta and the US.

BC's reported methane leaks are "absurdly low" Howarth told DeSmog. 

"The very, very lowest numbers ever published, and they were published by industry, were 0.67%," Howarth said.

"As more field measurements are made, our numbers (mean of 5.8%) are looking like they might even be low."

It is hugely important to know how much methane is leaking. When methane is burned to heat your home the waste product is CO2. While CO2 lives for centuries in the atmosphere, unburned methane has a shorter life but is much better at trapping heat than CO2. Initially this heat-trapping power was considered 21 times greater than CO2 over a 100-year time period. Later this was increased to 25 times which is widely used and this is expected to be raised to 33 times. These metrics are called “global warming potential” or GWP.

However, new research shows over a 20-year-time span methane's global warming potential (GWP) is up to 105 times greater than CO2.

"Given the urgent need to reduce methane emissions globally to keep global temperature rise below the critical value of 1.5 to 2 degree C. many Earth System scientists believe the 20-year time frame is the appropriate one to use," said Howarth.

One of the world's leading methane experts agrees.

"If you believe limiting near-term climate change is an important goal for society, than it makes sense to pay attention to the 20-yr value (105X)," Drew Shindell at the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies told DeSmog.

Methane Leaks Like Adding At Least 3 Million Cars to BC Roads

If BC's leaks are in reality 3% then that's roughly 1.1 billion cubic meters of methane that escapes into the atmosphere each year. That means these leaks are equivalent to pumping out 15.5 million tonnes (Mt) of CO2 based on GWP of 21 that the province uses, and is the current international standard until later this year. That's equivalent to the emissions from operating 3 million cars for one year (Avg: 5.1 ton CO2/vehicle/year). The province has 2 million licensed passenger vehicles.

Using the climate protection metric of a GWP of 105 then BC's methane leaks is the same as pumping 77.5 Mt of CO2 into the atmosphere every year, more than doubling the province's carbon footprint.

Emissions for the entire province from all sources, transport, energy, home, industry etc. was 62 Mt in 2010 (most recent year available). Of that total just 2.2 Mt of CO2 were attributed to methane emissions from the natural gas industry according to a senior official at the Ministry of Environment.

The main reason for the huge gap between BC's reported methane emissions of 2.2 Mt vs. the more realistic emissions of 15.5 to 77.5 Mt appears to be under reporting by the industry.

End part one. In part two the gas industry responds, and what fugitive emissions mean for BC's hopes to become an LNG export giant.

Image Credit: By Nexen Inc. in BC's Natural Gas Strategy Report.

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.