It’s been a full six months since Alberta introduced its economy-wide carbon levy and the sky has not fallen.

In fact, unlike what many politicians and pundits were predicting ahead of the implementation of the $20/tonne carbon levy, the cost of gasoline at the pumps hasn’t spiked — and has in fact been consistently lower than when politicians like Jason Kenney and Derek Fildebrandt made photo ops by filling jerry cans ahead of January 1, the date the carbon tax took effect.

The question now is less about whether the carbon price is going to be implemented, and more about what the revenue — $3.85 billion over three years — is actually going to pay for.

Here are 10 ways carbon levy revenues are being used to create a better quality of life and lower emissions in Alberta.

1) Calgary’s New Green Line: $1.53 Billion

On July 6, the province committed  $1.53 billion to Calgary’s massive Green Line LRT. The investment will be released over eight years, entirely from revenue generated by the carbon levy, and lead to completion of the first stage of a brand-new north-south transit line by 2026.

2) Municipal Solar Program — $5 Million

Alberta plans to generate 30 per cent of its electricity by 2030 via renewables, which has understandably generated a lot of attention on utility-scale power plants, such as wind and solar farms.

But a considerable amount of electricity is used every day by municipal buildings throughout the province, including offices, community centres, fire halls and police stations. Many of these buildings serve as ideal settings for installing solar panels due to their large, flat roofs.

So Alberta is helping incentivize solar investments via a rebate system for every watt of installed capacity, for up to 20 per cent of expenses or $300,000 per application. A similar program has also been established for solar panels on farms.

3) On-Farm Energy Management — $10 Million

Speaking of agriculture, the Alberta government has also expanded the On-Farm Energy Management program to help subsidize energy efficiency investments that reduce emissions and increase competitiveness (to the tune of covering 70 per cent of expenses).

The list of coverable expenses includes things like: variable speed drives for pumps, fans and compressors, energy-efficient lighting, high-efficiency tankless water heaters, greenhouse energy curtains, greenhouse carbon dioxide recovery programs and high-volume low-speed circulation fans.

Originally, the program only covered 35 per cent of eligible costs to the maximum of $50,000. But thanks to the additional funding, the government now covers up to 70 per cent to the maximum for $750,000. In addition, the program now covers 100 per cent of the first three sub-meters, used to track energy consumption.

The program has been so popular that it’s no longer accepting applications, and has requested even more funding from the government to meet the demand.

4) Household Rebates — $1.5 Billion

A popular critique of carbon pricing is that it unfairly punishes lower income people, costing poor people a higher percentage of their income and leaving even fewer options to, say, buy a newer and more fuel-efficient car or furnace.

Thankfully, Alberta has integrated well-designed rebates into the design of the carbon levy, channelling $410 million in 2017-18 to household rebates.

Two-thirds of Albertan households have already received partial or full rebates, depending on their income levels. Consumers who pollute less than average actually make money from the rebates.

Over three years, the household rebates will amount to $1.5 billion.

5) Indigenous Climate Leadership Programs — $35 Million

Another huge series of investments specifically involves First Nations and Metis communities in Alberta, with a total of seven programs funded with revenue from the carbon levy.

Those programs include the Alberta Indigenous Solar Program, Alberta Indigenous Energy Efficiency Retrofit Program, Alberta Indigenous Green Employment Program and Alberta Indigenous Community Energy Audits Program.

These initiatives aim to bring many of the best opportunities in renewables and energy efficiency to First Nations reserves and Metis settlements across the province.

For instance, the solar program provides grants for up to $200,000 per project for buildings that are owned by organizations and communities, including schools, medical centres and offices. Another $14 million was specifically designated for energy efficiency projects.

6) Technology Research for Methane Reduction — $40 Million

Okay, we know this one sounds kind of boring, but stay with us because it’s funding some pretty innovative things.

Here’s the deal: methane is a huge component of natural gas. It also just so happens to be super potent for the atmosphere (with 84 times the global warming potential as carbon dioxide over a 20-year period). And Alberta generates a lot of the stuff from oil and gas activities, because it gets vented in all sorts of ways once you start digging around under the earth’s surface.  There’s also lots of methane from agriculture (cow farts, basically) and diseased trees.

Now for some good news: Large emitters that fail to cut emissions enough to meet specific targets pay into a fund for research projects to help cut methane emissions from oil and gas, agriculture, power generation and forestry.

Emissions Reduction Alberta will award $40 million to applications via a competitive bidding process, with a max of $5 million per applicant.

On July 7, Emissions Reduction Alberta announced it had picked a dozen projects, with approved funding of up to $29.5 million.

Here’s an example: ZKO Oilfield Industries got $2.8 million in funding to demonstrate an in-pipe turbine generator that uses flowing natural gas to generate electricity, which is then used to power chemical injection pumps, eliminating a large source of methane venting in natural gas production. Cool, huh?

Another example: Viresco Solutions got $1.46 million to demonstrate a feed ingredient for cattle that significantly reduces cattle-based methane emissions (aka make them less gassy).

“The ingredient can be introduced to regular feeding regimes to reduce the methane produced by each animal, enabling substantial reductions in emissions from Alberta’s beef and dairy industries,” says the project description.

Then there’s Titanium’s project ($5 million) to design an oilsands tailings treatment system that eliminates certain tailings streams while recovering bitumen, solvent and high-value minerals. By preventing solvent and bitumen release, the vast majority of methane emissions from mined oilsands operations can be reduced.

7) Bioenergy Producer Program ($60 Million)

Of all renewable energy options on the table for country-wide deployment, bioenergy is probably the one most easily forgotten. But it already plays a notable role in Canada: at the end of 2014, it sported 2,043 megawatts of generating capacity, more than solar power with 1,843 megawatts of installed capacity.

The thing to know about bioenergy is it’s no one thing. It can include burning wood byproducts, capturing methane from landfills and converting sugars in agricultural products into ethanol. There’s a lot of research and development being done to help make it even more viable.

That’s why the Alberta government introduced the $60-million Bioenergy Producer Program. By providing 31 bioenergy companies with short-term and production-based grants — meaning that money is awarded based on the energy output — the provincial government hopes to give an additional boost to the burgeoning field.

In total, the grants are expected to reduce provincial emissions by 1.5 megatonnes and create 500 jobs.

8) Non-Profit Energy Efficiency Transition Program ($1 Million)

This one’s extremely straight-forward. Many nonprofits in Alberta are operating with razor-thin margins already, but could help cut greenhouse gases and electricity and heating costs by implementing energy efficiency measures.

The first step is a simple audit, helping organizations figure out where the biggest savings are, after which they can collaborate with the newly formed Energy Efficiency Alberta office to patch the figurative holes. The Alberta government directed $1 million to this task. The program quickly reached “full subscription,” meaning that future applications are closed for now.

9) School Rooftop Solar Program ($9 Million)

Schools often have sizable roofs. They also consume a significant amount of electricity every day with enough lighting, heat and air conditioning to create comfortable learning conditions for hundreds of students.

Combine those two facts and you’ve got yourself a fantastic opportunity for installing solar panels.

In October 2016, the Alberta government committed $9 million to the task of installing solar panels on 36 schools around the province. At the time, CBC reported that the idea was actually generated by students themselves, who submitted it to the government via a public feedback period for the climate change plan.

10) Accelerated Coal Phase-Out ($1.1 Billion)

Next to the household rebates, this is the second priciest item on the list of things the Alberta government has funded with its carbon levy revenue, costing $97 million per year until 2030 (totalling $1.1 billion).

Here’s the deal: 12 of the 18 coal-fired power plants in Alberta would have been shuttered by 2030 under former prime minister Stephen Harper’s federal regulations. That left six coal plants operating for many years afterwards, with one potentially spewing out massive amounts of carbon dioxide, sulphur dioxide, fine particulate matter and mercury until 2061.

Coal is one of the worst-polluting forms of energy on the planet, so the Alberta government introduced new rules requiring all coal-fired power plants to shut down by 2030. Predictably, the owners of the half-dozen facilities weren’t pleased, contending they deserved compensation.

A 2015 Pembina Institute report concluded this action was by no means legally necessary, nor would it result in an unfair economic burden on the companies.

But like it or not, the Alberta government decided to hand over $1.1 billion to the three companies (TransAlta, Capital Power and ATCO) to “provide investor confidence.” All that revenue will come from the levy on large industrial emitters, as opposed to the levy administered on regular Albertans.

The good news is 10 megatonnes of annual emissions will be permanently cut, Alberta’s air will be cleaner and the province is one step closer to a building an electricity system for the 21st century.

So What’s Next?

Those are the highlights for now, but Energy Efficiency Alberta will review its programs and develop new programming as needed, meaning there may be new programs next year.

We will also likely see a significant chunk of transit funding directed to Edmonton as well: after all, while it’s certainly not legislated, it’s an unwritten rule of sorts that Calgary can’t get funding without Edmonton also getting a similar dollar amount.

There’s plenty more to be done in Alberta on the climate front, particularly around oilsands emissions — but it’s difficult to dispute the incredible progress that the Alberta NDP has made in a few short years on the climate file. The architecture has been laid for many more years of expanded success.

That is, of course, assuming the newly formed conservative mega-party doesn’t win the 2019 provincial election.

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.

A renewable energy economy may emerge from the heart of Canada’s oil industry thanks to announcements made in Alberta’s provincial budget last week. The budget promises spending $51.5 billion in 2016 despite resource royalties projected to be as low as $1.4 billion, representing a 90 per cent drop.   The province pledged $2.2 billion for clean infrastructure, $645 million for energy efficiency and unveiled an expanded carbon levy that the government estimates will generate $3.4 billion for renewable energy development. An additional $195 million has been set aside to help First Nations communities transition off coal and onto cleaner sources of energy.   “We’re very proud of our climate leadership plan as a progressive way to bend the curve on carbon,” Finance Minister Joe Ceci said in a press conference Thursday.   Sara Hastings-Simon, director of the clean economy program at the Pembina Institute, commended the province’s decision to expand the carbon levy to beyond industrial emitters.   “We know it is the most efficient way to reduce emissions in the province,” she said.

Although Alberta was the first jurisdiction in North America to implement a carbon tax, the levy applied only to emitters producing more than 100,000 tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions. New changes to the “polluter pays” legislation means the levy will now be economy-wide and set to scale up from $15 to $30 per tonne by 2018. 

The government forecasts the scaled-up tax will generate $9.6 billion in gross revenue over five years.   Hastings-Simon said the new legislation — which taxes all consumers at the same rate as industry — includes a rebate option for small consumers and lower income Albertans.   “At the end of the day 60 per cent of Albertans are not going to owe anything under the system,” Hastings-Simon said, adding the program is likely help the province work towards its climate targets.   “With a flat rebate you’re incentivizing folks to reduce emissions further as they end up with more money in their pockets as they reduce emissions.”   The province will also start up a new agency, Energy Efficiency Alberta, that will help homeowners reduce emissions in their households.   On Thursday Minister Ceci announced the $3.4 billion generated from the carbon levy would be dedicated to clean energy projects through a bidding system adjudicated by the Alberta Electric System Operator. Bidding will start at the end of the year.    “By combining private sector incentives, the market guides you to where you should be investing government money,” Hastings-Simon said.   Greenpeace Canada climate and energy campaigner Mike Hudema said the new tranche of funds could definitely help jumpstart the province’s renewable energy sector.   “Alberta is finally going to take advantage of the tremendous renewable energy potential that it has,” he said.   He added the government should ensure money is also available to community-based projects. Structural change, to address the way energy is owned in the province, should also part of this new system, he said.   “We need to see a prioritization on municipal, farmer association and First Nation ownership so that the benefits are flowing into our communities rather than out of them,” Hudema said.   The government did set aside $195 million specifically for First Nations’ energy transition, but there has been no indication of how that money will role out.   Jesse Cardinal of Keepers of the Athabasca said she hopes that however those funds are delivered, the process be done in consultation with First Nations.   “Consultation is making a plan together, so I would hope that’s how Alberta is going to go with that $195 million,” Cardinal said. “Different First Nations have different ideas of how they want to move away from coal.”   Cardinal was instrumental in establishing a solar program the Fort Chipewyan First Nation now operates. In 2014, securing funding for the $14,000 project was not easy, she said.   Now two more First Nations, the Beaver Lake Cree First Nation and Fort McMurray First Nation, are looking to implement their own solar projects.   The government’s current funding outline includes specific solar project targets and Cardinal hopes the road will be easier for First Nations going forward.   “That’s the next step we need to take is to ensure dollars are available for everybody,” she said. “This is one step of many steps, the beginning of a long road ahead of how we need to change.”

Image: Premier Rachel Notley and Finance Minister Joe Ceci host a pre-budget town hall in Fort McMurray, the home of the Alberta oilsands. Province of Alberta/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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Photo: Wikimedia commons

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

“Frankly, we need an army of carpenters, electricians and contractors going out to plug leaky buildings,” federal Green Party leader Elizabeth May said during the August 6 leaders debate. “Thirty per cent of carbon pollution comes from the energy we waste and the money we waste heating the outdoors in the winter and cooling it in the summer.”

The suggestion’s an awfully good one. Especially in Alberta.

For one, the thousands of contractors out of work due to the oil price slump could serve as potential soldiers in this so-called army.

There’s also enormous untapped energy-saving potential in Alberta: in fact, it’s the only province or state in North America that doesn’t sport a long-term energy efficiency program — that sure means something when 55 per cent of Calgary’s emissions can be attributed to electricity generation.

Plus, interest rates are extremely low, giving municipalities and provinces plenty of incentive to borrow for projects like energy audit grants and real-time energy feedback.

Jesse Row, executive director of Alberta Energy Efficiency Alliance and director of the Pembina Institute's energy efficiency program in the province, called the idea “low-hanging fruit.”

“I think everybody should be interested in taking some [energy efficiency] action on and seeing action taken on,” he said. Alberta “stopped doing it so we never really had that success to build on as we move forward like a lot of other jurisdictions are doing.”

Alberta’s False Energy Efficiency Starts

Alberta had a government branch devoted to energy efficiency until Ralph Klein became premier in 1993 and eliminated it.

Since then, the province has introduced two short-term efficiency programs: the most recent ending in 2012 that gave out just over $50 million in the form of 173,000 purchase rebates for newer and more efficient clothes driers ($100), hot water systems ($300) and furnaces ($600).

Nothing has since replaced it. There was a lingering promise to renew energy efficiency programs from within Alberta’s Ministry of Environment, but that idea was perpetually deferred by former Premier Jim Prentice.

Alberta is the sole jurisdiction in North America without a devoted energy efficiency program. Source: Pembina Institute

Making matters worse, the province’s leading energy efficiency non-profit, Climate Change Central (C3), closed in 2014, unable to sustain its operations after the government pulled its funding in 2009.

C3 delivered 23 programs — many of which related to energy efficiency — and helped found, among other groups, the Alberta Energy Efficiency Alliance.

“We lost a lot of capacity when C3 shut down,” Row said. “It is capacity that needs to be rebuilt to get on board with what everyone else is doing and actually having some energy efficiency programs in this province.”

Row said the Climate Change and Emissions Management Fund, which houses money from Alberta’s carbon levy program, could easily be tapped to finance such endeavours; around $100 million could successfully fund a middle-of-the-road program, saving money ($460 million per year), create jobs (some 3,800) and cut emissions (up to 27 megatonnes by 2020).

There is currently around $75 million waiting to be put to use cutting greenhouse gas emissions in Alberta. But the money requires projects.

The provincial government, under the former Progressive Conservatives, issued a request for new program proposals last August, but Premier Prentice delayed the effort for unknown reasons.

Row said the failed attempt to get money flowing to new pojects was “quite a disappointment.”

But because the request for proposals is only on hold — not cancelled — the newly elected NDP government could resurrect it at any point.

In June, Premier Rachel Notley told reporters: “there’s no question that energy efficiency efforts and initiatives will be a key pillar in [our climate change] strategy.”

Row took that as a good sign.

Building Efficiency Leading the Way

But Alberta has seen some important successes.

Tanya Doran, executive director of the Alberta Chapter of Canada Green Building Council (CaGBC), pointed out that Alberta certified the second-most square footage of Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) construction in North America.

The City of Calgary was also the first municipality in Canada to implement a LEED building policy, Doran said.

“I like to think we’re getting to the point where we’re no longer talking about how much it costs if we do it, but how much it’s going to cost if we don’t,” she said.

“We’re seeing some of the large private firms start to recognize that if they’re looking for investors in their project, those investors are looking for the greening of that bricks and mortar infrastructure as well as if they see it as good, long-term investment.”

New national building code recommendations released in 2012 are only just now being adopted by Alberta. The province’s building standards haven’t been updated for three decades, so there is significant room for improvement (codes concerning large buildings will come into effect in November, while residential regulations will be implemented in May 2016).

Row said now is the time to be assessing what comes next: “looking at energy efficiency within our existing building stock, getting energy efficiency in industries and…future advancements in the building codes.”

Alberta already knows there is high provincial support for energy efficiency spending.

There are plenty of other jurisdictions to look to as role models: California, Ontario, Nova Scotia. The first step for Alberta, Row said, is simply to get started.

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.

It’s finally happening: after years of stalling by the Progressive Conservatives, Alberta’s new NDP government announced Thursday it will double the province’s meager carbon levy on large emitters by 2017.

Industry and environmentalists alike welcomed the decision, while also saying it doesn’t go far enough. 

Currently, any facility that emits more than 100,000 tonnes of greenhouse gases per year must reduce its emissions by 12 per cent below typical performance or pay $15 per tonne for emissions over the baseline. By 2017, the new framework will require companies to lower emissions by 20 per cent below typical performance, with a $30-per-tonne levy for emissions above that target.

“It’s not going to drive the meaningful reductions or give the market incentives that we need,” said Ed Whittingham, executive director of the Pembina Institute.

Pembina advocates for a $40-per-tonne levy with a 40 per cent emissions reduction target. Whittingham said the NDP had three options given the circumstances: let the regulation expire at the end of the month, kick the can down the road by renewing the current framework (as previous governments often did) or actually make some changes.

Dan Woynillowicz, director of policy at Clean Energy Canada, said the most impressive element of the announcement was its decisiveness.

“The previous government has been talking about changing the SGER, or changing the price, or changing the coverage for several years,” he said. “Within a matter of weeks, this government has come in and said: ‘We’re going to do that, we’re going to make that change.’ ”

Cenovus Wants Economy-Wide Carbon Price

Brett Harris, media lead at Cenovus Energy — which has historically supported a price on carbon — says the company is pleased the government has provided clarity on the issue. However, he says “in an ideal world” the company would like to see a pan-Canadian or pan-North American carbon pricing regime to create a “level playing field.”

Shell Canada also welcomed the new rules.

Despite support from energy companies, the concept of a carbon tax has consistently been ridiculed by Canada’s federal government.

Dale Beugin, director of research at Canada’s Ecofiscal Commission, acknowledges a national or international carbon tax should be the end goal, but notes it’s a difficult thing to achieve and that reform must happen incrementally.

“It’s great that the big industrial emitters are priced by the SGER, but that’s not the only emissions in the economy: a good carbon pricing policy is going to be broad as well as stringent, Beugin said. “You want to make sure you’re going after the small emitters, the vehicles, the buildings, the process emissions from waste and agriculture.”

How Alberta’s Carbon Levy Works

There are 103 large emitters in Alberta. While most of the sites are gas plants, a great majority of emissions come from seven coal power plants and five oilsands mines/upgraders. Such companies have three options if they exceed the target: buy carbon offsets, use Alberta Emission Performance Credits (similar to carbon offsets but rewarded based on performance) or contribute to the Climate Change and Emissions Management Fund, which funds climate change projects.

“What [this change] is going to do is drive more money into offsets in the tech fund,” Whittingham said. “There are some greenhouse gas savings or benefits to be had from that.”

Andrew Leach to Head Climate Change Panel

In addition to announcing changes to the carbon levy, Environment Minister Shannon Phillips reported the government is forming a climate change panel, chaired by Andrew Leach, the University of Alberta environmental economist.

"Andrew Leach is pretty much the first person I'd choose for that gig, so good job,” said Chris Turner, the author of The Geography of Hope and The Leap.

According to a feature Leach wrote for Maclean’s, the panel will examine a wide assortment of potential actions. It will deliver a report to the government in the fall, prior to Premier Rachel Notley’s trip to Paris in December to attend the United Nations climate change summit.

Many options will need to be considered. Whittingham says the province must find a way to phase out coal-fired electricity, ensure renewable energy fills a fair share of that void and implement energy efficiency programs, as well as deal with growing emissions from the oilsands.

Photo: Kris Krug via Flickr

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

Despite the federal Conservative government’s seven-year attack on carbon pricing as a “job-killing carbon tax,” Canada is actually making progress provincially on pricing carbon pollution.

Without any direction from the federal government, Alberta, British Columbia, Quebec and recently Ontario have all introduced systems that require polluters to pay for the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions they produce (as we’ve pointed out elsewhere in this series, those systems have had varying success).

But without an overarching carbon pricing system there is only so much the provinces can accomplish. [view:in_this_series=block_1]

“There’s nothing stopping the federal government from attempting to help provinces and territories strengthen and expand their existing GHG programs,” Katie Sullivan, North America policy and climate finance director at the International Emissions Trading Association, said.

“Ottawa could provide model rules, methodologies, guidance, tools and centralized infrastructure and architecture for a variety of program elements,” she said. “The federal government could play a valuable ‘enabling’ role.”

Dave Sawyer, a leading economist with EnviroEconomics, told DeSmog Canada a national system doesn’t have to be overly complicated.

“[A] national system could be just an amalgam of provincial policies that align on key administrative features and prices,” he said, adding, “long-term, we need to transition to a national system to keep costs down as we seek more [emissions] reductions.”

Every ship needs a captain.

Is A National Carbon Pricing System In The Cards?

As DeSmog Canada reported last April, the majority of Canadians want a national carbon pricing system. The latest Angus Reid poll shows 75 per cent of Canadians want a national cap and trade system, while 56 per cent support the idea of a national carbon tax. 

So where do the major federal parties stand?

GHG reductions targets according to federal party platform from Environmental Defence's climate scorecard.

Environmental Defence recently released a helpful climate scorecard that compares the four major political parties in Canada on their climate policies.

While the federal NDP and Greens both support their own versions of a national carbon pricing system — via cap and trade and fee and dividend, respectively — the Conservatives and Liberals have expressed no similar support.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper has been openly critical of carbon pricing in the past, although he did have a few positive words for Alberta’s carbon levy last year. 

Liberal leader Justin Trudeau told Calgary’s Petroleum Club last February he does not support a “one-size-fits-all solution from Ottawa” when it comes to pricing carbon. He said the choice should be left up to the provinces.

An overview of Canada's federal parties from Environmental Defence's climate scorecard.

Bridging the Provincial-Federal Divide

Philip Gass, senior researcher at the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD), said a province-by-province approach makes sense but that federal support could help encourage provinces hesitant to commit.

“Each province should be allowed to adopt its own approach,” Gass said. “Provinces should adopt whatever carbon pricing system they think will deliver the most reductions, they can administer and most importantly, a system that is politically acceptable.” 

“For provinces that are not going that way we do need some federal direction.”

“There are many of examples in Canada of issues that crossover both federal and provincial jurisdictions like pricing GHG emissions,” Nathalie Chalifour, law professor and co-director of the Centre for Environmental Law and Global Sustainability at the University of Ottawa, told DeSmog Canada.

Take the federal Species At Risk Act as an example, she said. While the provinces have jurisdiction over species at risk within their borders, the federal government is responsible for federal lands or species that fall under federal jurisdiction like fisheries.

“Given this shared power, there is a provision in the Act allowing the federal government to intervene and manage endangered species under provincial jurisdiction if the provinces are not getting the job done,” Chalifour told DeSmog Canada. 

(It’s worth nothing that in the thirteen years of the Species At Risk Act the federal government has never exercised this provision.) 

The federal government could set a minimum price on GHG emissions. This approach has been described as a “key policy leveler” for carbon pricing in Canada. It could help resolve certain disparities, like the fact that B.C.’s carbon price is currently twice as high as that of Alberta’s or Quebec’s.

But a minimum price isn’t necessary, just like a national minimum wage isn’t necessary for the federal government to enforce the Canadian Labour Code across the provinces.

According to Sullivan from the International Emissions Trading Association the federal government has an important role in ensuring the monitoring and reporting of emissions is “consistent and aligned from coast-to-coast.”

Even basic things like “establishing a centralized registry to record and track emissions data and transactions,” is a central role the federal government can play, Sullivan said.

Setting basic rules on who pays, how to track emissions and what kinds of offsets are acceptable would go a long way to bringing the existing provincial systems in line with one another.

It would also provide a foundation for other provinces to build their own systems on.

“It's not that a common model…and guidance across the provinces can't be done without Ottawa's support, but it would be a heck of a lot more efficient and less-costly to governments and business if Ottawa could step-in to provide this support and common infrastructure at the federal level,” Sullivan told DeSmog Canada.

Federal Leadership Needed

Policy analysts across the board agree carbon pricing on its own cannot solve Canada’s soaring GHG emissions problem. Yet it’s still a step in the right direction and likely won’t be done without strong leadership.

“It takes leadership, courage and vision to stand up and deliver a carbon pricing policy,” Merran Smith, executive director of Clean Energy Canada, said.

Clean Energy Canada, an energy think tank, recently took an in-depth look at the implementation of B.C.’s carbon tax and Quebec’s cap and trade program. They found the climate leadership of the premiers at the time — Gordon Campbell in B.C. and Jean Charest in Quebec — was “one of the key requirements to getting a carbon price in place,” Smith told DeSmog Canada.

“Those leaders also told us that putting in place a price on carbon was the (or one of the) thing they were most proud in their careers — which will hopefully encourage others to step forward,” she said.

The federal government also has an important role to play in implementing long-overdue oil and gas sector regulations, phasing out the use of coal and demanding greater efficiency in the transport sector — all of which nicely align with carbon pricing.

Beyond that, as a recent report from Clean Energy Canada demonstrated, Canada could do much, much more to support the clean energy sector.

Matt Horne, associate B.C. director at the Pembina Institute, said the federal government could simply begin by changing the conversation around carbon pricing.

“The first and easiest step the federal government could take is offer a more constructive voice on the issue, instead of regularly talking about a ‘job killing carbon tax.’”

“Talk about B.C.’s successful experiment or Quebec’s experiment — any of that will help facilitate a conversation in the country that is way more productive and way more constructive than what they have done to date which has been to attack and demonize carbon pricing approaches,” he said.

Image Credit: Clean Energy Canada

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.

Cap and trade is in the new kid in town as far as carbon pricing goes in Canada. In April, just before the Premiers' Climate Summit, Ontario made headlines by announcing it will join Quebec’s cap and trade system, which is linked to cap and trade in California.

So just how does it work? Here's our short primer.

The system was first adopted by Quebec in 2013 (although it’s worth noting the province did impose a tax on gas and diesel fuel back in 2007).

“The benefits of emissions trading, beyond ensuring the climate goal is reached in a measurable manner, is that business has flexible compliance options and ‘carrots’ — incentives for making smart, economic business decisions,” Katie Sullivan, director for North America and Climate Finance at the International Emissions Trading Association, said.

Like Alberta’s carbon levy, Quebec’s system puts a price on emissions above a certain level.[view:in_this_series=block_1]

The limit in Quebec is 25,000 tonnes of carbon pollution annually — an amount significantly lower than the limit in Alberta. Emitters unable to keep their emissions productions below this level must either buy allowances (also referred to as credits or units) or offsets to cover all emissions they produce, not just those emissions over the 25,000 limit.

A flexible and critical tool for keeping costs in check is the ‘offset,’ Sullivan explained.

“[The offset] allows an economy’s non-regulated players, such as farmers, foresters and other clean project developers, to join the climate solution while generating new revenue streams associated with eligible low-carbon — ‘offset’ — projects.”

Carbon offsets are investments in projects that either reduce GHG emissions or draw carbon pollution out of the atmosphere. Planting trees is an example.

Offsets are meant to be like emissions reductions because in theory they cancel out carbon pollution.

There is some dispute about whether offsets actually reduce emissions or simply are a cover to produce more carbon pollution.

“Offsets are probably one of the most contentious parts of a cap and trade. In Quebec and California's system, offsets can only make up to eight per cent of total compliance obligations,” Sarah Petrevan, a senior policy advisor at Clean Energy Canada, said.

The other 92 per cent must be paid for in the form of allowances and this is where the price on carbon comes in.

Allowances can be purchased from the Quebec government or traded for with another company that is below the GHG limit and has allowances to spare. Quebec ‘caps’ the amount of allowances available for purchase and the cap is lowered gradually each year.

Where cap and trade significantly differs from B.C.’s carbon tax and Alberta’s carbon levy is in the price of allowances. These prices actually fluctuate based on supply and demand in an auction-style system.

In order to keep that fluctuation in check, Quebec imposed a “price floor” at $12 per tonne of GHG emissions but increases that floor by five per cent each year, adjusted for inflation.

“One of the things [Quebec] did learn from the EU program was having that price floor, which is very important,” Sullivan wrote in a report. “The safety valve at the top end also gave comfort to industry that prices wouldn’t go skyrocketing in the near-term.”

Although it’s administratively complex and at times difficult to understand, cap-and-trade is the world’s most popular carbon pricing system.

The European Union’s Emissions Trading System is the world’s largest cap and trade market — for now. China plans on introducing cap and trade next year.

“The biggest pro to cap and trade is the flexibility it presents to industry. There’s trading, offsets, etc., and this allows industry to meet their reductions in a number of ways,” Philip Gass from the International Institute for Sustainable Development told DeSmog Canada. 

Quebec’s cap and trade system is still in its infancy, but it looks promising: more emissions are covered in Quebec’s system than the other provincial systems.

Eighty-five per cent of Quebec’s GHG emissions are subject to the system versus only 50 per cent in Alberta and 75 per cent in B.C. 

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.

It may come as a surprise to some that Alberta pioneered carbon pricing — not just in Canada, but for all of North America.

That’s right: the province with the fastest growing greenhouse gas emissions in Canada was the first place on the continent to put “polluter pays” legislation into place almost exactly eight years ago.

“Even back in 2007, Alberta was getting pressure over its environmental management, particularly of the oilsands. This may have been in response to that,” Matt Horne, associate B.C. director at the Pembina Institute, told DeSmog Canada.

Since then, three other provinces have joined the carbon pricing club: British Columbia with a carbon tax and Quebec and Ontario with cap and trade.

Each system is meant to, in theory, shrink provincial carbon footprints while allowing economies to remain strong and competitive. (If you want to totally geek out on the differences between Canada's carbon pricing systems, check this paper out).

With support for a national carbon pricing system growing, Canada need look no further than these provinces to learn some lessons. So, let's start with the first: Alberta.

Canada’s First Carbon Price: The Alberta Carbon Levy [view:in_this_series=block_1]

Although a pioneering system, Alberta’s carbon levy or Specified Gas Emitters Regulation (SGER) has not been effective in decreasing emissions in the province.

The carbon levy goes after the big emitters in the province — those producing more than 100,000 tonnes of GHG emissions. Mainly oilsands operations and coal-fired power plants — which make up roughly 50 per cent of the province’s total carbon footprint — fall into this category.

Rather than requiring emitters to make overall reductions in GHG emissions, the Alberta system requires a 12 per cent reduction in GHG-intensity of their product.

That means that as long as a project or facility produces 12 per cent less GHG emissions per dollar or barrel of bitumen than it did in the baseline year, the overall carbon footprint of that project is free to grow.

“Alberta’s system is an intensity-based system, which means you can potentially increase your total emissions as long as your intensity goes down,” Philip Gass, a senior researcher at the International Institute for Sustainable Development, said.

Companies unable to make the 12 per cent reduction in energy intensity pay a $15 levy per tonne of GHG emissions.

Source: Pembina Institute

The Alberta system also allows for carbon offsets — the option to purchase the right to emit from other large emitters that have met their reduction targets. 

However, the flexibility provided to polluters in Alberta is both the system’s strength and weakness.

“The short answer is Alberta’s carbon levy has not been effective,” Horne said.

“But that is not an indictment of the system itself. The problem stems from the relatively weak parameters they’ve used to populate it.”

Alberta’s carbon levy may need to toughen up as international pressure to limit emissions grows.  

As the world prepares for the upcoming UN climate summit in late 2015, some countries have turned their attention to the oilsands, asking how Canada plans to curtail the resource’s growing emissions. A recent report argues development of the oilsands stands at odds with Canada’s climate targets.  

For more on Alberta's carbon levy read How Carbon Pricing Currently Works in Alberta from the Pembina Institute. For a more detailed analysis of the levy read Andrew Leach's analysis in the Canadian Tax Journal (pdf).

Image Credit: Kris Krug

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.

For the first time in several years, carbon pricing in Canada is back on the national radar.

Recently a group of more than 60 Canadian experts published a report, Acting on Climate Change, that outlined Canada's path to a low-carbon future. Their first recommendation? Put a price on carbon. The idea seems to be gaining serious traction with Canadians, the majority of which support carbon pricing according to a recent Angus Reid poll. 

In the lead up to this month’s Premiers’ Climate Summit in Quebec City, Ontario’s premier Kathleen Wynne announced her province would join Quebec’s cap-and-trade agreement with California — putting major stock in a carbon-pricing solution to provincial emissions.

The conservative Manning Centre conference was praised for holding an “adult conversation” about carbon pricing in March just after a collaboration between oilsands majors and green groups working together for a carbon tax hit the press.[view:in_this_series=block_1]

Even Preston Manning and David Suzuki can agree that pricing carbon is at least one important part of addressing climate change.

The vast majority of Canadians think the federal government, not the provinces, should take the lead on establishing carbon pricing in Canada, according to a recent Nanos poll. Meantime a new Angus Reid poll shows a slight majority across the provinces are in support of a national carbon tax system.

Source: Angus Reid

So what’s keeping Canada from a serious national price on carbon?

The Job Killer: Canada’s Controversial Carbon Price Past

To answer that question, you need to look back to 2008 when Stephen Harper’s Conservatives defeated the Liberals and their national carbon tax proposal by claiming the tax would be a job-killer.

It seemed the very mention of a carbon tax had, rather unfortunately, become politically toxic.

But there’s now ample evidence that pricing carbon doesn’t hurt economies.

British Columbia is Canada’s most championed example of a successful carbon tax regime. It has been called the “most significant carbon tax in the Western Hemisphere by far.”

The province’s tax has been in place for seven years and B.C. continues to perform above the national average in terms of economic activity (more on B.C.’s carbon tax in Part 2 of this series).

Internationally, no economy has crashed due to placing a price on carbon pollution.

So it was something of a surprise when Harper said late last year that “it would be crazy” to regulate the oil and gas sector.

The comments came after Harper’s very public condemnation of carbon tax alongside Australian Prime Minister and notorious climate villain Tony Abbott.

Just months later, however, Harper vocalized support for Alberta’s carbon levy, saying “we’re very open to see[ing] progress on this on a continental scale.”

The new tone seems to indicate the 2015 federal election will carry a very different carbon price tune. As it currently stands, all federal parties support carbon pricing to varying degrees this time around.

The debate will now shift to a conversation about how Canada should move forward on pricing carbon pollution.

What Does a Carbon Price Do?

“Carbon pricing lets you provide an incentive across the economy to reduce GHG emissions and lets, to some extent, the markets figure out where the most cost-effective solutions are,” Matt Horne, associate regional director at the Pembina Institute, told DeSmog Canada.

The idea behind carbon pricing is simple — put a price on using or burning GHG-producing fossil fuels (oil, natural gas, coal) and an incentive is created to produce fewer emissions.

The ‘polluter pays’ principle signals to companies, governments and individuals that the ‘business-as-usual’ scenario — freely emitting carbon pollution — is no longer acceptable.

“Carbon pricing is about correcting the true costs of burning fossil fuels to account for damages,” Nic Rivers, Canada research chair in climate and energy at the University of Ottawa, said. “Right now, we don’t pay for dumping CO2 (carbon dioxide) and other greenhouse gas emissions [into the atmosphere].”

So if you want to make polluters pay, “carbon pricing meets the criteria,” Dave Sawyer, one of Canada’s leading environmental economists, told DeSmog Canada.

“If you believe we need to go much deeper in our [emissions] reductions, as most of the world does and clearly the science indicates, you want to do it in a cost-effective manner.”

An effective carbon price can really help a government or industry achieve greenhouse gas reductions, Sawyer said. More importantly, “you can do it cost effectively, while minimizing adverse impacts on households and businesses.”

Key Elements Of A Good Carbon Pricing System

Getting to the appropriate ‘cost’ of carbon is where major divergences in pricing schemes seem to appear.

“When I am looking at a carbon pricing system, I am more interested in the design and the policy details as opposed to whether it is a carbon tax or cap and trade. How stringent is the system?” Rivers said.

“What emissions does it cover? How fast does it ratchet down [those emissions]?”

Canada currently uses a blend of carbon-pricing approaches.

B.C. has its carbon tax, Alberta’s system is called a carbon levy and Quebec and Ontario have adopted another variation known as cap-and-trade in cooperation with California.

A well-designed carbon pricing system should have two outcomes: reducing GHG emissions and allowing businesses, industry and the economy to remain competitive. Much of this hinges on the per tonne charge a system puts on emissions.

Carbon Price Outcomes: The Specifics

Take B.C.’s carbon tax, which currently charges polluters $30 for every tonne of carbon pollution they emit.

When the tax was implemented in 2008, the ‘carbon price’ was $10 per tonne and slowly increased over time. This low price on GHG emissions at the start was meant to give companies the opportunity to adapt to the new economic realities and modernize their business practices to low-carbon and low-energy consumption.

Slowly increasing the price also has the advantage of strengthening the incentive to produce less GHG emissions as time goes on.

Quebec and Ontario’s cap and trade system works along the same lines with some notable differences (more about that in Part 2).

A good carbon pricing system will also want to avoid placing a seemingly ‘unfair’ or ‘burdensome’ financial penalty on everyday Canadians. But that doesn’t mean consumers aren’t implicated in carbon prices.

In B.C., prices went up at the pump and on home heating bills. But for British Columbians, there was an acceptable balance between costs and rewards.

“It made climate action real to people,” Merran Smith, the head of Clean Energy Canada, told Grist.

“I think it really increased the awareness about climate change and the need for carbon reduction, just because it was a daily, weekly thing that you saw.”

One of the keys behind broad support for B.C.’s carbon tax is that it’s revenue neutral, meaning taxes have been cut in other areas, resulting in B.C. now having the lowest personal income tax in Canada.

The same Nanos poll that found Canadians want the federal government to lead on carbon pricing, also found around 60 per cent of Canadians do not want to see fuel and heating prices go up even if it is to combat climate change.

Yet, in B.C. the majority of residents support the carbon tax.

“Polls have shown anywhere from 55 to 65 percent support for the tax,” Stewart Elgie, director of the University of Ottawa’s Institute of the Environment, said.

“And it would be hard to find any tax that the majority of people say they like, but the majority of people say they like this tax.”

Carbon Pricing ‘Not A Silver Bullet’

“We certainly would not look at carbon pricing as a silver bullet solution, but it is an important contributor to an overall solution,” Horne said.

If Canada is going to meet its international obligation to drastically reduce its carbon footprint, new GHG emissions reduction initiatives are needed in addition to a price on carbon.

The federal government could play a game changing role here — something we’ll take a closer look at in Part 3 of this series.

“You would want [carbon pricing] to be complimented with other policies and regulations where appropriate,” Horne said.

Image Credit: PM Photo Gallery

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.