The Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency (CEAA) never considered the cumulative greenhouse gas emissions of the Pacific NorthWest LNG export terminal, according to documents revealed in a federal court this week.

The documents were submitted to a federal court in Vancouver during a hearing to determine whether the information should be considered as part of a forthcoming judicial review of the federal government’s decision to approve the LNG project.  

SkeenaWild Conservation Trust filed for the judicial review of the project’s approval and received 17,000 pages of federal documents under disclosure — the release of information required by law during legal proceedings. SkeenaWild hired two experts to give expert testimony on those documents.

One of those experts Kirsten Zickfeld, a climate scientist and associate professor of geography at Simon Fraser University, testified in a sworn affidavit that CEAA did not provide the federal government with an assessment of cumulative emissions from the project and that these emissions “should be assessed, especially…in terms of their share of a provincial or national ‘carbon budget.’ ”

A second expert, policy and technical analyst from the Pembina Institute Maximilian Kniewasser, testified in a sworn affidavit that Canada considered imposing conditions on the project to limit carbon pollution, such as requiring the project be powered by grid electricity rather than natural gas, but chose not to despite doing so to varying degrees for two other LNG projects, LNG Canada and Woodfibre LNG.

The federal government and Pacific NorthWest LNG asked the court to strike the affidavits from consideration as evidence on the basis that they are “inadmissible…extrinsic evidence.”  

Greg Knox, executive director of SkeenaWild, argued the two affidavits should be considered as evidence in the upcoming judicial review, likely to take place this fall.

“We are not trying to bring in new evidence,” Knox told DeSmog Canada, “just evidence to the court to show in black and white that the agency failed to provide the minister and cabinet with the proper information to make an informed decision on the project.”

Pacific NorthWest LNG To Take Up Big Chunk of Canada’s Carbon Budget

Zickfeld, an expert in climate modelling and carbon budgets, served as the lead author of the UN Special Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) on the 1.5 degree target.

Under the Paris Agreement, the majority of the world’s governments, Canada included, have agreed to limit global temperature increase to well below 2 degrees Celsius with a goal of limiting that increase to 1.5 degrees.

Efforts to work towards that goal, Zickfeld outlines, will require countries to cap their climate pollution through carbon budgets.

Depending on the type of carbon budget Canada selects, Pacific NorthWest LNG could eat up 2.5 to 11 per cent of the country’s total all-time climate pollution allowance.

“Over the lifetime of the project (here assumed to be 30 years), these annual emissions add up to about 360 million metric tons of CO2 cumulative emissions,” Zickfeld wrote.

A large part of what makes liquefied natural gas exports so carbon-intensive is the process of turning natural gas into a liquid. The process requires running massive compressor stations 24/7 to cool gas to -162 degrees Celsius, the point at which gas turns into a liquid that can be loaded onto tankers.

In the second document Kniewasser concludes the carbon emissions from the project could have been significantly reduced had the agency assessed the technical and economic feasibility of powering the LNG terminal with grid electricity, rather than with natural gas.

“I described two alternatives to power LNG projects other than burning natural gas: using grid electricity to power non-compression load, and using grid electricity to power compression load,” he wrote in his affidavit.

These alternatives could have reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the project by between six per cent and 44 per cent, or 8 and 57 megatonnes of carbon emissions, every year, Kniewasser stated.

“These potential emissions reductions are especially significant given the project’s long operating life, B.C.’s legislated long-term climate targets, and Canada’s Paris climate commitments.”

Feds Never Considered Cumulative #Climate Impacts Of Pacific Northwest #LNG, Court Docs Reveal https://t.co/CX9llm7KZ2 #cdnpoli

— DeSmog Canada (@DeSmogCanada) July 14, 2017

Much of Pacific Northwest LNG Review Conducted Behind Closed Doors

The fact that cabinet was not apprised of the cumulative climate impacts of Pacific Northwest LNG was not a matter of public knowledge, Knox told DeSmog Canada.

“In the type of environmental assessment process we had for this project, none of that was made available to the public. And it was never provided to the public until we requested it through the legal process,” he said.

Under what is know as a standard environmental assessment process, the Canadian Environmental Assessment agency conducted a review of Pacific NorthWest LNG with no public hearing, no cross examination and no full public disclosure of documents submitted during the duration of the review.

About half of the documents that were used in the assessment process weren’t on the public record, Knox said.

“When we got those documents in the spring, that is when we got some expert witnesses to comment on the complete lack of cumulative effects assessment for climate pollution and an assessment of the viability of using electricity from the grid to reduce emissions.”

“Under CEAA both of those things should have been done and the minister in cabinet should have been given that information. That poses the question: what sort of discussions and deals were done behind the scenes and why wasn’t this proper process done to reduce and assess the climate pollution from this project?”

Knox said the federal government’s decision to approve Pacific NorthWest LNG conflicts with promises to take meaningful action on climate change.

“When the government and industry are teaming up to argue against doing their due diligence on the climate impacts of this project, it’s really disconcerting,” he said.

“I think that government in this case is standing up for the interests of industry. We believe we’re bringing information and evidence forward that is in the public’s interest.”  

Kirsten Zickfeld Affidavit PNW LNG by DeSmog Canada on Scribd

Max Kniewasser Affidavit (Apr 27 2017) by DeSmog Canada on Scribd

Crown's Motion to Strike Zickfeld and Kniewasser Affidavits PNW LNG July 2017 by DeSmog Canada on Scribd

PNW LNG Motion to Strike Zickfeld and Kniewasser Affidavits July 2017 by DeSmog Canada on Scribd

Image: Federal ministers and Premier Christy Clark annouce the approval of the Pacific Northwest LNG terminal in September 2017. Photo: B.C. Government via Flickr (CC BY-NC-ND 2.0)

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 David Suzuki

The principle that polluters should pay for the waste they create has led many experts to urge governments to put a price on carbon emissions. One method is the sometimes controversial cap-and-trade. Quebec, California and the European Union have already adopted cap-and-trade, and Ontario will join Quebec and California’s system in January 2017. But is it a good way to address climate change?

The program sets an overall limit — a cap — on the amount of greenhouse gas emissions a province can emit. It then tells polluters, such as heavy industry and electricity generators, how many tonnes of carbon each can release. For every tonne, polluters need a permit or “allowance.” So, if a company’s annual limit is 25,000 tonnes, it would require 25,000 allowances. If a company exceeds its limit, it can purchase additional allowances from another firm that, because of its greater efficiency, has more allowances than it needs. This is the “trade” part of the equation.

Although an individual company can exceed its greenhouse gas limit by purchasing credits, the province as a whole can’t. The overall limit is reduced every year, so if the law is followed, cap-and-trade guarantees annual emissions reductions. The declining cap is the system’s great strength and the way it protects the environment.

How effective is it? Although the answer isn’t straightforward, there’s evidence cap-and-trade played a key role in reducing acid rain in the United States. The 1990 Clean Air Act allowed power plants to buy and sell the right to emit sulphur dioxide. Since then, U.S. sulphur dioxide concentrations have gone down by more than 75 per cent. As Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman wrote in the New York Times, “Acid rain did not disappear as a problem, but it was significantly mitigated.”

Despite this and other successes, some experts are skeptical, arguing that cap-and-trade amounts to little more than a cash grab by government, a tax in everything but name. Others say it’s a mistake to expect climate change can be addressed through markets, when the problem actually requires changing our entire approach to economics, with a commitment to a steady-state economy and an end to the commodification of nature.

Some experts have also noted that the emissions reductions it brings are often modest. A 2015 paper in Canadian Public Policy claimed Quebec’s system “is still too weak to meaningfully address the environmental imperatives as outlined in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s 2014 Fifth Assessment Synthesis Report, in which fully eliminating carbon emissions is the benchmark for long-term policy goals.” From 2013 to 2014, California’s allowance cap went from 162.8 to 159.7 megatonnes, a drop of less than two per cent.

Ontario’s proposed legislation indicates its program will have some great strengths and a number of shortcomings. It will likely have wide coverage, applying limits on most of the province’s emissions, including those from transportation fuels. (California's system did not initially include these fuels.)

Ontario is expected to reduce emissions by over four per cent a year — about twice the initial rate of California — and generate $1.9 billion annually from the plan. That money will be invested in “green” projects throughout the province with the goal of reducing carbon emissions even further.

Ontario’s proposal to give away many allowances to big emitters is less encouraging. The government says it will eventually phase out this free disbursement, but in the meantime millions of dollars in government revenue that could be used to support renewable energy and public transit will be lost.

To keep the bulk of fossil fuels in the ground — as scientific evidence says we must — we need a variety of strategies. Cap-and-trade helps reduce emissions and generates billions of dollars for other strategies to address climate change. It also embodies the polluter pays principle. But it’s not enough on its own.

The David Suzuki Foundation and others have long argued that provinces and the federal government should put a price on carbon, through carbon taxes, cap-and-trade or a combination of both. The urgent need to address global warming means provinces that have adopted cap-and-trade need to strengthen it by ensuring emissions drop faster and polluters pay a price that truly reflects the damage caused by carbon pollution.

Written with contributions from David Suzuki Foundation Climate Change and Transportation Policy Analyst Gideon Forman.

Learn more at www.davidsuzuki.org.

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.

Back in March when the prospect of a majority NDP government in Alberta was still a twinkle in Rachel Notley’s eye, the to-be premier introduced a motion to phase out the province’s use of coal for electricity by 2030.

“The evidence is clear that it is time to phase out coal powered electricity in the province in Alberta. Coal is one of the single largest pollutants in Alberta. It costs our health care millions of dollars every year and is a massive source of greenhouse gas emissions,” she said, urging then premier Jim Prentice and the Progressive Conservative party to “do the right thing.”

So now that Notley has taken the reins, will she follow through with her own ambitious plan?

Too Much Attention on the Oilsands?

According to the Pembina Institute and Clean Energy Canada, although the oilsands attract the vast majority of critical attention, Alberta’s electricity sector generates nearly the same amount of carbon pollution.

“This is due, in large part, to the province’s continued reliance on coal,” authors James Glave and Ben Thibault wrote in a report called Power to Change. “At present, Alberta burns more coal for electricity than all other provinces combined."

“On an annual basis, Alberta’s coal-fired electricity releases roughly the same quantity of greenhouse gases as half of all the passenger vehicles on the roads in the entire country, in addition to health-damaging sulphur and nitrogen oxides, mercury and particulate matter,” they wrote.

Emissions by sector in Alberta. Source: Power to Change report.

Combined with extraction of oil from the oilsands, burning coal for electricity has landed Alberta in the undesirable position of being Canada’s highest emitter — by far.

In 2011, oilsands extraction processes accounted for a combined 39.8 per cent of Alberta’s industrial emissions, while power generation finished in a close second with 35.4 per cent of the contribution. In 2013, burning coal generated nearly two-thirds of Alberta’s electricity. That’s only declined slightly since.

Alberta’s Coal Riches

The thing about coal is there’s a lot of it and it’s easy to dig out of the ground.

Alberta is parked on top of 33.3 billion recoverable tonnes of the stuff, or 70 per cent of Canada’s reserves. But like the oilsands, coal extraction and combustion comes with a host of human health and environmental costs.

When burned, coal releases an enormous amount of sulphur dioxide and mercury, in addition to nitrous oxides, lead, chromium, arsenic and fine particulates that can lead to a smorgasbord of respiratory and cardiac issues.

A 2013 report found that, when combined with annual health and environmental damages, the price consumers pay for using coal power in Alberta doubles or even triples. That report estimated the average annual tab for coal-related health costs runs as high as $300 million a year.

Then there are the climate impacts.

Coal is by far the dirtiest major source of electricity in the world.

In 2011, 44 per cent of the carbon dioxide produced around the world came from burning coal, with oil accounting for 35 per cent and 21 per cent from natural gas.

The federal government has taken very small steps to deal with emissions from coal, but many existing plants will be allowed to operate for another half-century, until around 2061, with no carbon pollution regulations. So on a national level, we’re not exactly poised to deal with the problem.

Phasing Out Alberta’s Coal

Luckily, there’s a way out, already paved by Ontario (and Nova Scotia to a lesser degree): phase out coal.

If done correctly, kicking coal to the curb could save Alberta an enormous amount of money in avoided downstream healthcare costs while also kickstarting the province’s sluggish renewable sector.

What’s not to like?

First up is to acknowledge the problem. Alberta’s previous government — the Progressive Conservatives (PC) — liked to talked big about eliminating coal, but used the opportunity to give a leg up to natural gas.

The gas industry loves to tout gas as a cleaner, greened solution to coal.

But while natural gas does indeed release far less carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide compared to coal, the process to acquire the stuff, increasingly hydraulic fracturing, can have serious negative environmental consequences. Fracking is also a huge water-waster and has been known to cause accidental contamination of drinking water sources.

From a climate perspective, natural gas also doesn’t fare much better than coal thanks to methane leaks from fracking operations and natural gas transmission lines. Because methane is an incredibly potent greenhouse, heat-trapping gas, the global warming impacts of natural gas are about as significant as coal.

A study from 2014 suggested that a reliance on natural gas as a “bridge fuel” in the transition to cleaner sources of energy — as Alberta’s PCs liked to think— only delays the development of renewables and reduces emissions by a trivial amount.

Alberta’s Clean Energy Potential

But luckily Alberta has other options. The joint Pembina-Clean Energy Canada report shows the province has enormous latent potential in solar, wind and geothermal energy.

There’s enough solar potential in Alberta to meet the province’s entire annual electricity needs. According to the one study it would only take 1,746 square kilometres — or about 0.26 per cent of the province’s total land area — to do so.

But tapping into that renewable potential will take some serious policy overhaul.

The province has been sitting on a Renewable Energy Policy Framework since 2005 that could help lead the way. In 2014 the PCs gestured toward the framework, indicating renewable energy will play a role in the province’s climate change strategy, but no concrete strides were made to advance an actual plan.

But all that could change with the province’s new leadership.

Following the NDP’s recommendation of a total coal phase out by 2030 could create the kind of incentive for renewable energy alternatives the province needs.

In fact, the elimination of coal by 2030 falls into the Pembina Institute and Clean Energy Canada’s most ambitious scenario for a clean power transformation in Alberta.

Under that scenario, the elimination of coal by 2033 would require supporting a much larger share of renewable energy in the mix and would result in a 69 per cent reduction in carbon pollution from the province’s power sector.

In order for this to become a reality, however, some big deal changes will need to come on the scene in Alberta. One such change would involve accounting for the ‘true costs’ of fossil fuel extraction and consumption, so in essence, making it more expensive to burn coal for electricity. But Alberta will also need to make it more cost effective for would-be producers of clean energy alternatives.

“Meaningful policy is badly needed,” authors Glave and Thibault wrote in their report. “It could lower barriers to clean energy development and unlock opportunities to harvest the abundant and largely overlooked renewable resources that shine down, grow from, emerge from, flow over, and blow across the province.”

Notley, at least back in March, seemed to be on the same page: “It’s time to make a tangible commitment to phasing out coal, ensuring a brighter, more sustainable future for our children and our grandchildren.”

Image Credit: Province 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.

If oil prices continue their slide downward, the cancellation of high-cost oilsands projects are likely, but just because prices rebounded in the past and investment returned, does not mean that is a guide for the future, warns James Leaton, research director of the Carbon Tracker Initiative.

Thursday night at the Royal Ontario Museum in Toronto, Leaton told the crowd of over 170 people the Alberta oilsands are a big target for investors looking to reduce risk because of the high capital expenditure (capex) costs.

“The oilsands are Canada’s elephant in the atmosphere,” said Leaton, an originator of the “carbon bubble” theory. “We see investors moving away from high-cost, high-carbon projects, so there is a challenge that capital is not going to automatically flow to Alberta anymore.”

Source: Carbon Supply Cost Curves: Evaluating Financial Risk to Oil Capital Expenditures from Carbon Tracker Initiative, May 7, 2014.

Investors and oil companies may de-leverage their portfolios of risky projects in the face of new carbon regulation or even from other factors like the decreasing costs of renewable energy, vehicle efficiency improvements in key markets, and economic growth rates in China, Leaton said.

Before the oil price started plummeting, Royal Dutch Shell PLC, Total SA, and Statoil ASA cancelled oilsands projects because of the high costs and lack of access to markets.

In a media conference yesterday finance minister Joe Oliver said the federal government has taken the drop in oil prices into account in its fiscal forecasts.

“When we took into account the oil price decline which had already occurred, we made the assumption that the prices would stay at the low level for the entire period,” Oliver said.

The sinking oil price provides companies an opportunity to re-evaluate the resiliency of their business models and projections that oil demand will keep growing, Leaton told DeSmog Canada in an interview after the talk.

Carbon Bubble theory impacting oil firms

The carbon bubble theory argues oil companies are overvalued based on their proven fossil fuel reserves — a large amount of their reserves are stranded assets because they cannot be burnt if the world is to avoid catastrophic climate change.

Once the carbon bubble, like the tech or housing bubble, pops it would bring dramatic re-evaluation of oil companies, resulting in massive layoffs and major industry restructuring. In Canada, the oilsands represents two per cent of the country’s GDP and 90 per cent of the economic benefit goes to Alberta.

Pressured by activist shareholders, ExxonMobil and Shell have publicly rejected this theory. Shell told their shareholders the methodology underpinning the carbon bubble “has significant gaps,” arguing energy demand growth will keep the world wanting oil for years to come.

In March, Exxon released a 30-page document to shareholders saying they “are confident that none of our hydrocarbon reserves are now or will become stranded.” In reviewing Exxon’s report to shareholders, the Carbon Tracker Initiative found the document, far from assuring stakeholders, underestimated the threat climate action poses to the company’s carbon reserves.

“If some of your biggest shareholders write to and say: ‘we are worried about how you are spending capital’, you should be able to write back on two sheets of paper and explain how you are spending capital, rather than 30 pages of fluffy stuff,” Leaton said.

On Tuesday activist shareholders filed a resolution seeking increased dividends or share buy backs for investors, rather than invest in expensive, carbon-intensive oil projects.

“This shows the investors are not satisfied with the response because it didn’t address their issues,” Leaton said.

Ontario is working with Carbon Tracker

In attendance at the talk, Ontario Environment and Climate Change Minister Glen Murray told Desmog Canada afterwards that his government was conducting extensive stakeholder discussions about a new approach to price carbon in Ontario.

Included in those discussions are conversations with the financial industry about potential stranded assets. Three of Canada’s five big banks are the largest investors in the oilsands.

“We are working with Jim and Carbon Tracker to develop that policy discussion…” to bring forward to the financial industry, Murray said.

Influencing activism

The Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers predicts oilsands production to double from nearly 2 million barrels a day to over 4 million by 2025.*

Tim Gray, executive director of Environmental Defence, also spoke at the talk and told Desmog Canada the public doesn't want the pipelines to help fuel the rapid expansion of the oilsands.

“There are two billion barrels of production there a day and that will continue to generate revenue,” Gray said. “Those are relatively low cost assets…Why not use the wealth being generated from the current level of development to invest it that [low-carbon economy] transition.”

“What the Carbon Tracker Initiative has done is show that putting all of our eggs into the tar sands basket is a very risky economic move,” Keith Stewart, climate and energy campaigner with Greenpeace Canada, said. “We could end up with multi-billion dollar white elephants which are weighing our economy down and miss out on the green-energy revolution which could lift us up.”

The event was organized by Environmental Defence and The Pembina Institute.

*An earlier version of this article stated billions, rather than millions, of barrels.

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.

Last year B.C. joined Washington State, Oregon and California in an effort to limit the causes and effects of climate change. A new poll released today shows British Columbians are eager to see the government keep its commitments under the Pacific Coast Action Plan on Climate and Energy.

The climate plan was designed to respond to “the clear and convincing scientific evidence of climate change, ocean acidification and other impacts from increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, which threaten our people, our economy and our natural resources.”

The plan was signed in 2013, with little fanfare. Yet, residents of B.C. strongly support the initiative, and the government’s commitments to limit carbon pollution.

But with the B.C. government’s big ambitions to develop and export liquefied natural gas (LNG), there appears to be a conflict brewing within the province’s own objectives.

Today’s poll, commissioned by the Pembina Institute, Clean Energy Canada and the Pacific Institute for Climate Solutions (PICS) was conducted by Strategic Communications and shows British Columbians want to prioritize five things:

1.     Transition to energy efficient buildings (91%)

2.     Hit our climate targets (89%)

3.     Maintain low-carbon fuel standard (88%)

4.     Increase electric vehicles in government and company fleets (82%), and

5.     Continue the carbon tax (69%)

So far B.C. has been successful at limiting its carbon emissions. The province has a commitment to limit emissions 33 per cent below 2007 levels by 2020 and 80 per cent below by 2050.

In 2012 the province met its interim goal of being 6 per cent below 2007 levels. The next interim goal comes up in 2016, when the province plans to be 18 per cent below 2007 levels.

But, given the province’s massive push to develop its natural gas resources and build several LNG facilities to liquefy and export the gas to Asia, experts are concerned B.C. may be in danger of failing to meet those targets.

B.C.’s failed ‘clean’ LNG promise

The B.C. Liberal government has made the development of the province’s natural gas deposits and the export of LNG a strong part of its clean energy platform.

In 2010 the province committed to having one LNG plant in operation by 2015 and three more to follow by 2020. Initially the government pledged to have these plants run on clean energy, but has since exempted LNG plants from this requirement, confusing exactly what ‘clean’ LNG might mean.

In 2012 Premier Christy Clark promised to deliver “the cleanest LNG in the world” at the World Economic Forum in China. Within a year she clarified that her “cleanest” standards would only apply to LNG facilities, and not the extraction of gas via fracking or transmission of the resource to production plants.

Then recently Rich Coleman, the provincial minister responsible for natural gas development, told the Globe and Mail the B.C. government would now only be measuring B.C.’s LNG facilities against other facilities, meaning the “cleanest” LNG in the world only has to out-perform previously existing plants to meet the province’s standards.

Coleman also dismissed the previous goal of running LNG plants on clean energy, saying “the cost to deliver the power would be so expensive that it would be ridiculous to make the investment.”

Clean Energy Canada, however, would disagree. The group recently commissioned a feasibility study to determine the reliability and affordability of regionally sourced renewable power for B.C.’s LNG development.

They found “any LNG facility on the North Coast could primarily power its production facilities with renewable energy and do so reliably, affordably and on schedule – using established commercial technologies.”

Further, they found “doing so reduces that plant’s carbon pollution by 45 per cent, and increases local permanent jobs by 40 per cent.”

Kevin Sauvé from the Pembina Institute confirmed that B.C.’s LNG ambitions stand in conflict with its own climate targets: “Multiple analyses have shown that B.C. targets are not achievable if three LNG terminals are developed by 2020, as the government intends.”

“This highlights a tension between public opinion and current government priorities, and is something that government should address as it develops its LNG regulations and the next phase of the Climate Action Plan,” Sauvé told DeSmog Canada.

There are a total of 14 proposed LNG facilities for the central coast of B.C.

As DeSmog Canada previously reported, the gas industry is seriously underreporting fugitive methane emissions – a reporting error that threatens B.C.’s ability to meet its own targets under the Climate Action Plan.

Using standard industry fugitive emissions rates, B.C. natural gas production emissions are likely 25 per cent higher than reported.

Another poll, commissioned by the same three groups and released in April of this year, found 78 per cent of British Columbians want the province to shift away from producing, using and exporting fossil fuels and to make the transition to using cleaner sources of energy.

“Given British Columbians desire to see the province transition away from both using and exporting fossil fuels, a wholesale push for LNG does not make sense for B.C.,” Sauvé said.

“Particularly given that the government’s current plans for developing LNG will make it impossible for the province to hit its climate targets.” 

Climate action and a strong economy

An analysis from the group Sustainable Prosperity shows B.C.’s carbon tax is both an “environmental and economic success story.”

The carbon tax, according to Sustainable Prosperity, has been remarkably good at limiting fuel use since it was introduced in 2008. And there have been no adverse impacts on the B.C. economy to speak of.

While B.C. reduced its fuel consumption by 17.4 per cent, its GDP kept pace with the rest of Canada.

Stewart Elgie, professor of law and economics at the University of Ottawa and the report’s lead author said, “B.C.’s experience shows that it is possible to have both a healthier environment and a strong economy – by taxing pollution and lowering income taxes.”

Another new report from PICS shows that, despite the government’s decision to exempt the agricultural sector from the carbon tax, there is “little evidence that the carbon tax was associated with any statistically significant effects on agricultural trade or competitiveness.”

Even in areas where the carbon tax was assumed to have negative impacts, there appears to be little damage done.

“The first phase of BC’s climate action plan has been an environmental and economic success,” Sauvé said, “and now is the time to build on it.”

“Government needs to lay out a road map for how we will meet our 2020 climate target as part of the second phase of its Climate Action Plan. Following through on the commitments it’s made in the Pacific Coast Action Plan would be a good start, particularly as those commitments appear to be popular with British Columbians.” 

Image Credit: Rich Coleman speaks at the B.C. LNG Conference. Photo by the Province of B.C. 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.

Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Australian Prime Mininster Tony Abbott took turns Monday criticizing efforts by governments to make polluters pay for greenhouse gas emissions.

Abbott, who is visiting North America, and Harper, both said their respective governments weren’t trying to avoid dealing with the problem, but suggested they were trying to avoid damaging the economy.

The comments were immediately challenged by one of the Harper government’s former political advisers, David McLaughlin, who headed a panel that warned Canada would pay an economic price by not taking action to address climate change.

McLaughlin wrote on his Twitter account that the message from Harper and Abbott was reinforcing a “meme” that dealing with the environment, comes at the expense of the economy.

‘Either/or’ construct on combatting climate change heard today reinforces meme that dealing with environment comes at expense of economy.

— David McLaughlin (@DavidMcLA) June 9, 2014

@mikedesouza Economic impacts on Canada from NOT arresting climate change. Other side of coin we heard today in Ottawa. #cdnpoli

— David McLaughlin (@DavidMcLA) June 9, 2014

McLaughlin, a former chief of staff to the finance minister, is now a strategic advisor on sustainability at Waterloo University’s Faculty of Environment.

Harper’s government abolished the panel headed by McLaughlin, the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy, in its 2012 budget, stating that it no longer needed its advice since it believed it could find the expertise elsewhere. The cut was projected to generate savings of about $5 million per year.

The government later deleted the panel’s website, but moved its reports and research over to a website hosted by Library and Archives Canada.

Harper also said that President Barack Obama’s proposal last week to limit carbon pollution from coal-fired power plants “do not go nearly as far” as actions already proposed by Canada in the electricity sector.

Coal plants are one of the most challenging and significant sources of carbon pollution in the U.S. economy.

Harper’s government hasn’t yet taken action to address carbon emissions from the oil and gas industry, including in the oilsands which are the fastest growing source of heat-trapping greenhouse gases in the country.

Here’s a transcript (edited for grammar) of the comments by Abbott and Harper at a joint news conference in Ottawa in response to a question from an Australian reporter who asked whether Obama’s recent announcement to crack down on carbon pollution from coal plants was putting pressure on their own governments to do more to fight climate change:

Tony Abbott:

“As you know, the Australian government believes in strong action to deal with climate change. We think that climate change is a significant problem. It’s not the only, or even the most important problem that the world faces. But it is a significant problem and it’s important that every country should take the action that it thinks is best to reduce emissions because we should rest lightly on the planet.”

“I am encouraged that President Obama is taking what I would regard as direct action measures to reduce emissions. This is very similar to the actions that my government proposes to take in Australia. We should do what we reasonably can to limit emissions and avoid climate change – man-made climate change. But we shouldn’t clobber the economy and that’s why I’ve always been against a carbon tax or an emissions trading scheme because it harms our economy, without necessarily helping the environment.”

Stephen Harper:

“Look, I don’t feel any additional pressure other than the pressure we all feel to make progress on this important issue. I think it’s important to lay out the facts here and certainly our officials can give you more of the facts. The measures outlined by President Obama, as important as they are, do not go nearly as far, in the electricity sector, as the actions Canada has already taken, ahead of the United States, in that particular sector. Now that particular sector is obviously, and the effects of climate change regulations in that particular sector in the United States, are obviously more sensitive to the overall American economy than they are in Canada. The reason I mention these things, is just to make the point that, as I think Tony has also made, that it’s not that we don’t seek to deal with climate change. But we seek to deal with it in a way that will protect and enhance our ability to create jobs and growth, not destroy jobs and growth in our countries. And frankly, every single country in the world: This is their position.”

“No country is going to undertake actions on climate change, no matter what they say, no country is going to [take] actions that are going to deliberately destroy jobs and growth in their country. We are just a little more frank about that, but that is the approach that every country is seeking.”

This article originally appeared on mikedesouza.com and was republished here with permission.

Image Credit: Prime Ministers Stephen Harper and Tony Abbott via Twitter

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.

Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) development in British Columbia could produce 73 million tonnes of carbon pollution per year by 2020, according to the Pembina Institute. This would bring the carbon footprint of LNG development in B.C. to three-quarters as much as that of the oilsands, currently Canada's fastest growing source of climate pollution.

Alison Bailie of the Pembina Institute writes in The Tyee, that the estimate is at the "lower end" of the development scenario required to realize the B.C. government's hopes for annual revenue from LNG exceeding $4 billion. The province would need to produce four to six trillion cubic feet of shale gas per year by 2020 to reach that number.

The scale of that kind of natural gas production would require five to seven LNG facilities and over 10,000 wells with an accompanying network of roads, pipelines, compressors and gas processing plants.

Pembina's estimate for the industry's carbon pollution refers just to LNG production in B.C. This includes pollution from extraction and processing of the gas from shale gas fields, transportation of the gas to LNG facilities on the coast, and liquefaction and storage of the LNG until it is loaded onto carriers (tankers).

The figure doesn't take into account carbon pollution released from burning the natural gas in Asia, which could produce additional carbon pollution exceeding 200 million tonnes a year.

Image: From Pembina Institute infographic titled "British Columbia's LNG Boom."

B.C. has a legally binding target for carbon reduction which requires the province's annual carbon pollution from transportation, buildings, agriculture, forestry and other industry to be below 43 million tonnes by 2020, and below 13 million tonnes by 2050.

If B.C. sticks to its plans for LNG and ends up producing 73 million tonnes of carbon pollution from a single industry, there's little doubt that the province will miss its reduction target. Bailie notes that even Minister of Energy and Mines Rich Coleman, responsible for the province's natural gas development, admitted on CBC's Early Edition that "meeting our [reduction] goals will be a challenge" in the face of LNG development plans.

The B.C. government could, like other governments, choose to simply ignore or alter the reduction targets, or add special accounting for LNG. But with evidence of of the real-world impacts of missing reduction targets building up, including declining fisheries, flooded coastal communities and increasingly vulnerable forests in B.C., ignoring the target seems particularly unwise.

Provincial MLAs will be debating rules for carbon pollution and taxes for LNG development in the upcoming legislative session this month.

As Bailie points out, when it comes to LNG development, there are still options the province could take that wouldn't involve abandoning its climate commitments.

For example, the government could prioritize creating jobs in lower-carbon sectors like clean, renewable energy — a sector that is growing globally. This would reduce the need to expand LNG production for economic growth, and "less LNG development means lower carbon pollution with jobs and GDP growth elsewhere," writes Bailie.

Restricting LNG projects so as to make a smaller carbon footprint, instead of making as many plants as possible, would also significantly reduce the projected carbon pollution levels.

The BC government would also be better equipped to make choices on how to balance LNG projects with climate concerns if it undertook a strategic environmental assessment on LNG development, instead of separate assessments for each proposed project.

Following the success of the provincial carbon tax and establishing an LNG tax could encourage the industry to minimize its carbon pollution. Standards and taxes set by the government could also encourage innovative technology to aid renewable energy goals, such as capturing and storing carbon pollution at shale gas processing plants, writes Bailie.

If LNG development proceeds according to the B.C. government's current plans, it could create a climate challenge on par with the oilsands. But the government still has the option to limit the growth of the natural gas sector and control its carbon emissions, while prioritizing low-carbon job creation in the clean energy sector.

"The implications for our climate must be an important part of those decisions," writes Bailie, because "British Columbians will live with the consequences — whether positive or negative — in the decades to come."

Image Credit: Province of British Columbia / Flickr

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

Canada and every other rich country need to crash their CO2 emissions 10% per year starting in 2014 to have any hopes of ensuring a not-super-dangerous climate for our grandchildren, said Kevin Anderson of Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research at the University of Manchester.

"We can still do 2C but not the way we're going," Anderson said on the sidelines of the UN climate talks, in Warsaw, Poland.

Anderson wasn't just referring to the lengthy-and-acronym-laden COP 19 process held inside Warsaw's 58,000-seat soccer stadium. It's too late for any normal approaches to emissions reductions. Preventing climate disaster requires a radical measures and our economic system is not up to the task he said.

"Massive amounts of capital needs to be directed towards a low-carbon future straight away."

Not only does that mean governments redirecting the more than $500 billion they spend subsidizing fossil fuels, it means financial institutions and pension funds need to pull their money out of dirty energy and put it into green projects. If they're not willing, then governments will have to make them he said.

And for the next five years most of that money should go into reducing energy consumption. Alternative energy can't be built fast enough or at the scale needed to 100% replace dirty energy sources.

Automobile manufacturers like Kia and BMW already have non-hybrid, non-electric vehicles with double the fuel efficiency of the typical car on the road today. If governments put in tough new efficiency standards, CO2 emissions could fall 40-50% in 10 years he said.

As "pushers of petroleum" the Harper government isn't about to do anything like this said David Cadman, President of ICLEI (Local Governments for Sustainability), the only network of sustainable cities operating worldwide.

"They don't understand science and are willing to leave future generations with a bleak and nasty world," Cadman told DeSmog in Warsaw.

The practical alternative vision is a green low-carbon future that is different but far better than the present. And cities are leading the way. Currently a group of 441 cities representing 15% of people on the planet are taking concrete action to reduce their emissions said Cadman, a Vancouver city councilor.

Cities like Vancouver, Mexico City, Hyderbad India, Osaka, Japan, and Bangkok have registered their efforts to reduce emissions on an official Cities Climate Registry. The idea is to raise the global level of ambition through taking measurable, reportable, verifiable local climate action. After only two years these cities have now found ways to reduce their collective CO2 emissions by 2.2 billion tons a year.

Cities are amongst the biggest source of emissions but equally important is their role in giving birth to a low-carbon global culture that we need to thrive said Cadman.

"The green way of living will be fairer, more compact, create more jobs, reduce energy and other costs, and be more in harmony with nature and our own true natures. It's the opposite of where we are now where a few get rich."

The climate action by cities and subnational governments (regional and provincial) is finally being noticed at the UN climate talks that are dominated by national governments. Thursday, 21 November was “Cities Day”, a first-of-its kind initiative that bundles numerous city-focused events.

"Cities are central in tackling climate change. They are proving grounds for our efforts in ensuring a low carbon future that benefits people and the planet,” said UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon at the opening in Warsaw.

Now that cities are finally inside the UN tent, Cadman hopes their actions will help inspire generally fearful national governments to take ambitious action.

"That won't be enough however. Climate is simply not a priority of national governments. Cities and regional governments have to mobilize the public," he said.

This mobilization means working with civil society organizations, First Nations, business and especially young people.

"We have to work together to motivate national governments to help create a green future for all of us," Cadman told a packed audience on Cities Day.

Time is short. There are just two years before the new climate treaty is signed in Paris. That agreement needs to be the turning point.  We can’t wait for a second chance to keep global temperatures below the 2C threshold.

"Everyone must be involved. Nothing else is more important.”

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 oil and gas industry in Canada claims opposition to the oilsands, the world’s second largest reserve of oil and Canada’s fastest source of greenhouse gas emissions, is merely “ideological,” according to new internal documents released under Access to Information legislation (attached below).

In the documents the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP), Canada’s largest oil and gas lobby body, suggested that because “the objection to the oil sands is ideological” and “not a concern that Alberta’s current framework is not stringent enough,” there is no guarantee that a stricter regulatory regime for the development of the oilsands will “’secure’ social license and forestall negative policy action.”

Alberta, required to renew its oil and gas emissions regulations in 2014, is proposing a new greenhouse gas target that would see a reduction of 40 per cent per barrel of oil produced and a maximum penalty price of $40 per tonne of CO2 above that level by 2020. Currently Alberta enforces a reduction of emissions by 12 percent with a max price of $15 per tonne.

According to the newly released documents CAPP is fighting for a weakened regulatory position, one that requires a 20 per cent reduction with a $20 penalty fee.

As the Pembina Institute points out, CAPP's proposed regulatory fees would be merely tokenistic, only just keeping up with the price of inflation.

In the collection of documents released to Greenpeace’s Keith Stewart – containing correspondence records between the government of Alberta and CAPP from January to May of this year – CAPP says stricter regulations might cost industry a lot without winning over the public.

In a section of a document entitled “Framing the Right Questions” CAPP questioned Alberta’s proposed emissions targets:

“Will higher stringency requirements ‘secure’ social license and forestall negative policy action elsewhere? Unlikely. The objection to the oil sands is ideological; not a concern that Alberta’s current framework is not stringent enough. Put another way, if the 40/40 guidelines were enacted, oil sands opponents would claim that they too were insufficient.”

Beyond concerns with public perception, CAPP argued that a more advanced set of regulations on greenhouse gas emissions wouldn’t necessarily lead to a reduction in CO2 pollution. The lobby group also warned that stricter environmental regulations could restrict investment in oilsands research and development.

“Will higher stringency requirements deliver greater GHG reductions? Unlikely. The challenge with the oil sands is that current technology is not yet available for deployment to a significant degree.”

CAPP, however, threatened new regulations might be disadvantageous to industry operating in Canada.

“Will higher stringency requirements impact production and revenue? Very likely. Adding a regressive charge to the oil sands, one that bites harder at low prices than high prices, introduces additional cost and risk. This will impair recovery of marginal resource associated with existing projects. And make new projects less competitive from a portfolio perspective. And the higher costs associated with additional stringency can also impair the resources devoted to research.”

Yet a growing carbon pollution problem might in fact be the largest looming threat to the oil and gas industry, rather than tougher emissions standards.

Recently a group of 70 investors worth $3 trillion publicly pressured 45 of the biggest oil and gas companies to respond to the concern of ‘stranded assets’ – oil and gas reserves made un-exploitable due to international efforts to manage global climate change.

Investments in fossil fuel reserves have become increasingly insecure in the move toward a low-carbon economy.

Canada is heavily invested in the oil and gas sector, with a total market capitalization of $400 to $500 billion.

Despite CAPP’s positioning on the issue of “opposition to the oil sands,” it may be anemic oil and gas regulations that actually threaten the industry.

Without strengthened emission’s standards, oil and gas reserves will become an increasingly dangerous investment, compromising financial markets.

And the absence of a more ambitious regulatory regime guarantees that both Alberta and Canada will continue to fail to meet greenhouse gas emissions targets.

As the Pembina Institute reports, CAPP’s proposed standards “would see oilsands emissions grow from 55 million tonnes (Mt) today to between 95 and 98 Mt in 2020. The cost to companies would grow from 10 cents a barrel today to a maximum of 23 cents a barrel. Overall, the proposal would fail to even achieve Alberta’s 2020 target – a goal that’s far weaker than the 2020 target that Ottawa has adopted.”

Alberta accounts for 48 per cent of Canada's total greenhouse gas emissions. 

A new poll also shows a majority of Canadians feel climate leadership on the international stage should be a high priority for the nation.

Image Credit: 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.

In its latest report the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) gave global greenhouse gas emissions a worldwide limit, know as the global ‘carbon budget.’ In order to prevent temperatures from rising above the 2 C threshold scientists have designated to avoid “dangerous” climate change, total global emissions need to stay within about 921 billion tonnes or gigatonnes (Gt).

As Marc Lee, senior economist with the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives recently pointed out, the carbon budget “should be a wake-up call for Canada.”

“With a development model based on ever more fossil fuel extraction, Canada’s economy and financial markets are on a collision course with the urgent need for global climate action,” he said.

As Lee explains the global carbon budget of 921 Gt gives the planet a 66 per cent chance of staying within the 2 C limit. But that chance gets drastically worse if we surpass the budget: emitting as much as 1068 Gt leaves us with a mere 50 per cent chance.

The warming potential of all global carbon assets via the Carbon Tracker Initiative's report Unburnable Carbon.

Canada’s portion of the emissions pie would depend on negotiations, but would likely end up being between 4 (given our population size) and 24 Gt (given our gross domestic product).

When pooled together, however, Canada’s proven reserves of bitumen, oil, natural gas and coal add up to 91 Gt. If you add our probable reserves in you end up with a whopping grand total of 174 Gt.

Even if Canada’s negotiators were shrewd, Lee allows, and end up with a 30 Gt national budget because Canada relies on fossil fuel exports, still two-thirds of Canada’s proven reserves, and 83 per cent of proven-plus-probable reserves would need to remain unburnt.

As Lee writes, this has significant impact on Canada’s financial market:

"This math should alarm institutional investors, and pension funds in particular – because stock market valuations are premised on fossil-fuel-producing companies extracting those resources. Analysts have called this a 'carbon bubble' in our financial markets.

This is bad news for the Toronto Stock Exchange (TSX), which is highly weighted toward the fossil fuel sector, with total market capitalization of fossil fuel companies of about $400-billion to $500-billion. Fossil fuel companies account for about 24 per cent of the total value of the S&P/TSX composite index."

A report recently released by the Carbon Tracker Initiative shows that “currently financial markets have an unlimited capacity to treat fossil fuel reserves as assets.” This unchecked incorporation of what are already considered unburnable carbon reserves is a major market failure, write the report’s authors, that is “creating systemic risks for institutional investors, notably the threat of fossil fuel assets becoming stranded as the shift to a low-carbon economy accelerates.”

The concept of “stranded assets” made international headlines last week after a coalition of 70 investors worth $3 trillion pressured 45 of the biggest oil and gas companies to deal with this concern.

The very real limitations placed on the value of Canada’s carbon assets due to their impact on climate change also casts the Harper Government’s position on resource development in a new light.

Recently Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver told the World Energy Congress in Daegu, South Korea that “expanding and diversifying our energy exports is a top priority of the Canadian government.”

“Canada is well placed to meet the growing demand for oil and gas. Canada is the world’s fifth-largest producer of oil and has the third-largest proven reserves – 172 billion barrels, of which 168 billion are from the oil sands. Canada is the world’s fifth-largest producer of natural gas, with recoverable gas resources approaching 1,300 trillion cubic feet – some 200 years of production at current rates,” he said.

In addition to having enormous carbon reserves, Canada is failing to adequately manage its current emissions output. According to a new Environment Canada report, Canada’s carbon emissions in 2020 will be 20 per cent higher than the Harper Government’s promised reductions under the 2009 Copenhagen Accord.

Canada’s emissions are set to be 66-107 per cent higher than its required reductions to avoid more than 2 C of warming.

Image Credit: Cover image from the Carbon Tracker Initiative's report Unburnable Carbon.

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 decision on the proposed northern half of the Keystone XL pipeline – under review since 2008 – hinges on a final environmental review by the State Department now taking into consideration the importance oil-by-rail transport might have on growth of Alberta's tar sands.

US officials are evaluating the impact Keystone XL will have on expansion of the tar sands and whether or not the pipeline will worsen climate change. According to a new report by Reuters the evaluation has created a balancing test, “zeroing in on the question of whether shipment by rail is a viable alternative to the controversial project.”

The test's crux: “if there is enough evidence that the oil sands region will quickly grow with or without the 1,200-mile line, that would undercut an argument from environmentalists that the pipeline would turbocharge expansion,” Reuters reports.

President Barack Obama's State Department is asking rail executives to report on logistics, market dynamics and what obstacles oil-by-rail alternatives face in delivering 830,000 barrels of Canadian oil to Cushing, Oklahoma – the "pipeline crossroads of the world" – where Keystone XL's northern half will link up with Keystone XL's southern half which is expected to be up and running by the end of October.

In other words, could rail realistically provide an alternative to the Keystone XL, aiding in the expansion of Canada's highly-polluting tar sands?

With numerous pipeline proposals facing opposition all across Canada and the US, oil-by-rail transport alternatives have picked up some slack. But the high costs associated with rail and the dangers associated with oil-by-rail transport suggest there are real limitations to a full scale tar sands-by-rail revolution.

As Reuters reports, even rail operators admit tanker trains can supplement but not substitute the movement of crude by pipeline.

“We can move large volumes, but it will always be a niche service,” Gary Kubera, owner of Caneuxs, a company expected to move 100,000 [barrels per day] by the end of 2014, told Reuters.

Stew Hanlon, president of Gibson Energy Inc., echoed the sentiment: “We remain very, very confident that rail is here to stay not as a replacement for pipelines, but as a supplement of pipelines.”

Within Canada the oil-by-rail sector has grown tremendously, with five new loading terminals in western Canada and an estimated national transport capacity of 450,000 bpd by next year.

North American Class 1 railways.

Life on the Rails?

Yet the rapid increase in rail transport of crude has led to a series of high-profile accidents in Canada, the most publicized being the Lac-Megantic disaster that saw 47 people incinerated in a small Quebec town after an unmanned tanker train derailed and crashed in a residential area. Fires from the accident burned for more than two days.

Just 10 days ago, another tanker train carrying propane and oil derailed outside of Edmonton, Alberta causing an explosion and the evacuation of a small community.

In September a Canada Pacific Railway train carrying oil products derailed in Calgary leading to an evacuation. In July another Canada Pacific Railway train carrying petroleum products slumped over a river after flooding caused a rail bridge to partially collapse.

Yet another Canada Pacific Railway train full of tanker cars carrying oil derailed in Saskatchewan leaking 575 barrels of oil on May 5. The company also had a derailment in Ontario that saw 400 barrels of oil spill, as well as a derailment in March in Minnesota that spilled 24 barrels of oil after 14 cars went off the tracks.

In 2008 trains carried less than 20,000 barrels of oil per day. They now carry roughly 500,000 barrels of oil per day, as of the end of 2012.

According to the State Department, trains have a death rate 3 times higher than pipelines and have a fire and explosion rate 9 times that of pipelines when carrying liquids.

Although groups are quick to point out pipeline disasters happen with less regularity they are often of high-consequence, such as the Enbridge Kalamazoo disaster in 2010 that leaked 20,082 barrels of oil into Michigan waterways. That spill has so far cost more than $1 billion, making it the most expensive onshore oil spill in US history.

Rail Costs Nearly Double Pipelines

According to the Environmental Protection Agency, high costs associated with oil-by-rail transport might pose the largest challenge to operators hoping to gain a larger share of the market. It costs roughly $10 to transport a barrel of oil in a pipeline while the same will cost about $17 via rail.

The industry also has a shortage of terminals capable of refining heavy crude, such as tar sands bitumen from Canada.

The high costs, lagging infrastructure, and dangers associated with rail make the industry an unlikely alternative to the Keystone XL, meaning tar sands transport is unlikely to meet industry expectations should the pipeline be turned down.

For oil producers operating in the tar sands, this inevitably means a shipping glut.

A Risky Investment

Increased oil production in the US has also contributed to dwindling prices for Canadian producers. In June the research firm Wood Mackenzie warned that falling oil prices would lead to break-even points for Canadian energy companies developing one of the costliest forms of oil in the world.

The tar sands are Canada’s fastest growing source of greenhouse gasses and have some investors concerned that the globe’s urgent need to reduce carbon pollution in the atmosphere might diminish the resource’s value.

Just last week a coalition of investors worth $3 trillion pressured 45 of the biggest oil and gas companies to deal with the real concern of "stranded assets," carbon pools that cannot be developed due to the threat of climate change.

A decision on Keystone XL's northern half is due in early 2014. President Obama – who approved the southern half via a March 2012 Executive Order – has indicated he will not approve the northern segment if found to significantly contribute to carbon pollution.

Given the access the pipeline will grant tar sands oil to overseas markets and the advantage pipelines have over rail, the Keystone XL will undoubtedly support tar sands production, promote continued tar sands investment, and contribute to Canada’s already-significant greenhouse gas output.

So, if the decision really comes down to the pipeline's climate impact – and not something else – the choice is clear.

Image Credit: Wavy1 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.