A record US$367 billion was invested in renewable energy in 2015, according to a new report out today by the Clean Energy Canada initiative of the Centre for Dialogue at Simon Fraser University.

Renewables investment increased by seven percent since 2014, with China, the US, and Japan representing more than half of the total investment last year, shows the report.

The report also finds that for the first time, more money was invested in clean energy than in new power from fossil fuel ($253bn).

This unprecedented scale of investment is particularly remarkable given the significant drop in oil prices over the last year.

“Turmoil in fossil fuel markets led many analysts to suggest clean energy investment would similarly stall out. How could renewable energy possibly compete with cheap oil, gas and coal?” asks the report.

As it explains: “New clean energy deals were widely expected to stall last year as the price of oil and other fossil fuels declined around the world. Instead, growth in the clean energy sector beat expectations, delivering the best year yet.”

Lower Costs

According to the report, declining technology and financing costs have helped to spur growth in renewable energy. For example, between 2009 and 2015 the cost of wind power in the US dropped 61 percent, while the cost of solar power fell 82 percent.

Much of the speculation was the result of a lack of understanding of renewable energy technology, trends and markets, explained Dan Woynillowicz, policy director at Clean Energy Canada.

While renewable energy competes head to head with natural gas (unlike with oil) “it has a range of attributes that make it attractive,” said Woynillowicz, “energy security, zero air pollution, price certainty, zero carbon, etc.”

Woynillowicz continued: “Renewable energy costs keep falling – and will keep falling – and the long-view suggests they will outcompete natural gas.”

“It’s also worth noting,” he added, “that as the costs fall, it means we get more energy for every dollar invested. So if investment remains stable or increases, we’ll see greater amounts of renewable energy actually deployed.”

Globally, wind power deployment led the way last year, up 31 percent since 2014 with nearly 64 GW installed, with deployment in solar power growing 23 percent.

“The fuel – sun, wind, water – is free,” Merran Smith, executive director of Clean Energy Canada, said in a statement. “There’s no wonder clean energy is gaining momentum around the world.”

“Clean energy is taking off because it offers value that can’t be beat – it’s local, so it offers energy security. It’s a climate solution. It reduces health issues from smog. It’s increasingly competitive, and there’s big money to be made.”

Developing Countries

Last year also marked the first time that developing countries saw more investment in renewable energy ($167bn) than developed nations ($162bn).

India took fifth place for the most clean energy investment in 2015 ($10.9bn) behind China ($110.5bn), the US ($56bn), Japan ($43.bn), and the UK ($23.4bn). Meanwhile, renewable investment in Canada dropped 46 percent from $7.4bn in 2014 to $4bn last year.

As the report describes, 2015 saw a “geographical broadening of clean energy as more developing countries got in on the action.”

Between 2014 and 2015 investment in clean energy in Africa and the Middle East grew 54 percent, up £13.4bn.

Going forward, the report predicts that both of these regions have “significant” potential for clean energy growth due to their growing populations and abundance of wind and solar resources.

Woynillowicz also expects the “staggering rate of investment and deployment” in China to continue. Meanwhile India, which has set aggressive renewable energy targets, will also be one to watch, but Woynillowicz asks: “Will they prove effective and efficient in attracting and deploying capital?”

Going Mainstream

With more than a third of a trillion dollars invested worldwide in renewables last year, Clean Energy Canada is optimistic, stating that “clean energy is going mainstream.”

“That’s serious money,” Smith writes in the report. “Clean energy has real momentum and the commitments underpinning the Paris Agreement on climate change will keep that momentum going.”

The report’s findings are “very encouraging” agreed Woynillowicz, “especially recognising that we saw a third of a trillion invested before the Paris agreement.”

We should expect to see more money being driven into renewables over the next few years Woynillowicz predicts, due to the continued increase in cost competitiveness of renewables and progress in reducing costs of energy storage technologies, combined with the climate benefits of renewables and goals set in the Paris Agreement.

Photo: Tony Webster 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.

BY KYLA MANDEL AND BRENDAN MONTAGUE IN PARIS

Oil rich Saudi Arabia is leading a campaign to sabotage attempts by countries on the front line of climate change to include an ambitous 1.5C target for global warming in the COP21 agreement currently being negotiated in Paris. 

Wealthy nations – including Germany, France and now the United States – have all signalled support for including references to the lower target in the final text, as negotiators reach the end of the first week of negotiations.

The oil producing giant last night blocked efforts to include references in the Paris deal to a UN report that says it would be better to limit global warming to 1.5C above pre-industrial levels rather than the current 2C target.

Saleemul Huq, director of the International Centre for Climate and Development, argues that the difference between a temperature increase of 1.5 degrees and two degrees “is roughly 1.5 million people who will fall through the cracks and most of them will be in vulnerable and developing countries.”

Thoriq Ibrahim, the Maldives envoy and chair of the alliance of small island states (AOSIS), said the 1.5C was a “moral threshold” for his country.

Arab Block

Emmanuel de Guzman, head of the Philippines delegation, said: “The momentum for raising the level of ambition in Paris now opens the exciting possibility for a truly historic and transformational summit. We salute France and Germany and call for more countries to join in the call for 1.5C to protect human rights globally.”

Todd Stern, the US special envoy for climate change, told reporters today that concerns raised by island nations over passing a 1.5C global warming temperature rise threshold are “legitimate”.

“We are in active discussions with the islands and others about finding some way to represent their interests in having 1.5C referenced [in the Paris text] in some way,” Stern said. “We haven’t landed anywhere yet but we hear the concerns of those countries and we think these concerns are legitimate.”

Former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg has also come out in favour of a strong target. When asked about the 2C target today at the COP21 conference, Bloomberg said: “I don’t know if that’s the right target. The target should be zero [emissions] or reducing.”

But Saudi Arabia is now being accused of prioritising its oil-based economy over the survival of vulnerable nations. This goes efforts by a coalition of vulnerable countries to push the global community to adopt a new 1.5 degree global warming target.

The Climate Action Network tonight named Saudi Arabia "Fossil of the Day". A spokesman said: "The Saudi delegation here in Paris is doing its best to keep a meaningful mention of the 1.5 degree global warming limit out of the agreement. 

"The Saudi’s are trying to torpedo three years of hard science, commissioned by governments, that clearly shows 2 degrees warming is too much for vulnerable communities around the world. Saudi Arabia is fighting tooth and nail to ensure the Paris agreement basically says, 'thanks, but no thanks' to 1.5 degrees warming."

Substantive Discussions

Sven Harmeling, CARE International’s climate change advocacy coordinator, explained: “Saudi Arabia is blocking these very substantive discussions going forward and [from] allowing ministers to understand what’s going forward.”

"Overall we see increasing support for including the 1.5 limit in the Paris Agreement, with more than 110 countries in support, although some countries see it only in connection to below 2 degrees language. That adds pressure to those who see their fossil future threatened by a truly ambitious target," Harmeling told DeSmog UK.

"However, Saudi Arabia may also want to use this to bargain on other issues which the vulnerable countries might not, e.g. in relation to other issues of the mitigation ambition package (such as long-term emission reduction goal), or response measures which is about the impacts of emission reduction i.e. reduction of fossil fuel consumption."

Meanwhile, OPEC oil producing countries are also attempting to block language on turning economies away from fossil fuels – something generally agreed by everyone else in the negotiations.

Saudi Arabia is the 13th richest country in the world yet it refuses to make any financial contribution to the fight against climate change – this is despite claims to represent the poorest developing nations and support the end of fossil fuels.

In contrast, countries with smaller economies than Saudi Arabia – including the UK, EU, France, Canada, Australia, Sweden and Germany – have already contributed climate finance and will continue to do so.

King Salman bin Abdulaziz, the Saudi leader, did not speak at the COP21 opening on Monday. But Ali bin Ibrahim Al-Naimi, the Saudi Minister of Oil, has said: “In Saudi Arabia, we recognise that eventually, one of these days, we are not going to need fossil fuels. I don’t know when, in 2040, 2050 or thereafter.

“The kingdom [plans] to become a ‘global power in solar and wind energy’ and could start exporting electricity instead of fossil fuels in coming years."

Saudi Arabia says it will make some investment in renewables and slowly reduce its dependence on fossil fuels. The country is the world’s 10th largest CO2 emitter – more than the UK, Canada, Brazil, Australia, Indonesia and France – and it has failed to make any emission reduction pledge.

What's more, there is a strong caveat within Saudi's climate pledge, which points out the country still relies on a “robust contribution from oil export revenues to the national economy”. 

Saudi is also looking to water down language about aligning broader financial flows to be compatible with climate objectives – ensuring that revenues raised by oil do not go back into polluting investments – which will be essential if there is to be a managed and orderly clean economic transition.

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 Gus Van Harten, professor at the Osgoode Hall Law School and author of Sold Down the Yangtze: Canada's Lopsided Investment Deal with China. This post originally appeared on the Globe and Mail.

For years, Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s government told Canadians that it could not act on climate change until China joined in. Yet, in 2014, the government quietly finalized a 31-year investment treaty that, in essence, gives Chinese oil companies an advance bailout against a range of steps that Canada may need to take on climate change.

Take, for example, the call by more than 100 scientists for limits on oilsands expansion until a serious Canadian plan on climate change is in place. What is a serious plan? The scientists said it would need “to rapidly reduce carbon pollution, safeguard biodiversity, protect human health and respect treaty rights.”

Now, consider Canada’s new Foreign Investment Promotion and Protection Agreement (FIPA) with China. 

The deal gives Chinese companies powerful rights to frustrate even modest steps that reduce the value of their oilsands holdings. That is, if governments in Canada put new limits on the oilsands, they face major liabilities under the FIPA’s system of foreign investor protection. Worse, Canadians cannot know reliably how the FIPA is being used – and whether it is affecting government decisions – because the agreement makes special allowances for confidential settlements with Chinese investors.

On a close study of the FIPA’s terms, a key purpose of the deal was to open Canadian resources to China and to preserve the value of Chinese assets in Canada. In the case of the oilsands, there are already billions of dollars in Chinese-owned assets and expected profits that would be affected by a tougher response on climate change. If China is not on board for how we decide to regulate in Canada, we will have a problem, owing to the FIPA.

Read DeSmog Canada's in-depth interview with Gus Van Harten on the Canada-China FIPA

China-Canada Investment "Straightjacket": FIPA Interview with Trade Investment Lawyer Gus Van Harten

Can we expect FIPA arbitrators to award billions of dollars in compensation to Chinese companies? The short answer is yes. In the past few years, there have been huge awards to oil companies under similar investment deals: $2-billion (U.S.) against Ecuador, $50-billion (U.S.) against Russia.

True, these cases differ from potential disputes about climate change in Canada’s resource sector. But it is not unrealistic to expect FIPA arbitrators to (1) issue compensation orders against Canada, since they’ve done so in various North American free-trade agreement cases already, and (2) order vast amounts to be paid by Canadians, since they’ve done so against other countries, and the amounts reflect the value of the foreign investor’s assets, not the Boy Scoutishness of the condemned country.

At the least, the FIPA has made it more difficult for governments in Canada to take action on climate change, assuming that governments are (usually) careful with billions of dollars in public money. Put differently, the challenging question of how to respond to climate change in the oilsands is a danger zone under the FIPA, because much of the oilsands are Chinese-owned and because the Chinese owners will not take kindly to government interference with their business plans.

You may ask, why would the federal government agree to a FIPA with China that puts an uncertain and uncontrollable price tag on Canada’s options to respond to climate change – and other important issues too? Why would the government move power over our future from Canada’s legislatures, governments, and courts to Chinese investors and FIPA arbitrators?

I think the straightest answer is that Mr. Harper seems to have wanted it that way. If one accepts climate change as a pressing concern, it is hard to imagine a more epic fail than the FIPA.

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.

Beijing’s 21 million residents live in a toxic fog of particulate matter, ozone, sulphur dioxide, mercury, cadmium, lead and other contaminants, mainly caused by factories and coal burning. Schools and workplaces regularly shut down when pollution exceeds hazardous levels. People have exchanged paper and cotton masks for more elaborate, filtered respirators. Cancer has become the leading cause of death in the city and throughout the country.

Chinese authorities, often reluctant to admit to the extent of any problem, can no longer deny the catastrophic consequences of rampant industrial activity and inadequate regulations. According to Bloomberg News, Beijing’s Centre for Disease Control and Prevention says that, although life expectancy doubled from 1949 to 2011, “the average 18-year-old Beijinger today should prepare to spend as much as 40 percent of those remaining, long years in less than full health, suffering from cancer, cardiovascular disease, and arthritis, among other ailments.”

China’s government also estimates that air pollution prematurely kills from 350,000 to 500,000 residents every year.* Water and soil pollution are also severe throughout China.

The documentary film Under the Dome, by Chinese journalist Chai Jing, shows the extent of the air problem. The film was viewed by more than 150 million Chinese in its first few days, apparently with government approval. Later it was censored, showing how conflicted authorities are over the problem and its possible solutions. The pollution problem also demonstrates the ongoing global conflict between economic priorities and human and environmental health.

Rather than seeing China’s situation as a warning, many people in Canada and the U.S. — including in government — refuse to believe we could end up in a similar situation here. And so U.S. politicians fight to block pollution-control regulations and even to remove the power of the Environmental Protection Agency, or shut it down altogether! In Canada, politicians and pundits argue that environmental protection is too costly and that the economy takes precedence.

Some people even point to China as a reason for Canada not to do anything, arguing that what we do or don’t do to confront climate change and pollution will make little difference because our contributions pale in comparison to countries like China and India. But while Canada’s air quality is better than many places, half of us live in areas where we are exposed to unsafe levels of air pollution.

According to the Heart and Stroke Foundation, “Short and long term exposure to air pollution are estimated to result in 21,000 premature deaths in Canada in 2008 as well as 620,000 doctor visits, 92,000 emergency department visits, 11,000 hospital admissions and an annual economic impact of over $8 billion.”

And, as we know, air doesn't stay within national boundaries. The global atmosphere is being loaded with the sum of all nations' activities.

As for greenhouse gas emissions, Canada may contribute less than two per cent of overall global emissions, but we have the highest emissions per capita — more than the U.S. and Russia and close to three times the global average. Even with a small population compared to many countries, we’re in the top 10 for overall emissions. Don't we have a moral responsibility to reduce our share?

We can and should do more to curb pollution and greenhouse gas emissions, especially as demands from industry and a growing population continue to increase. That means making homes and workplaces more energy-efficient and driving less. Transportation is a major contributor to air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. But, despite the fact that a large percentage of the emissions and pollution come from SUVs, trucks and vans, sales of those vehicles are rising while car sales are decreasing.

As individuals, we can take action to reduce pollution and emissions, but greater gains should be made at the policy level. Creating good transit and transportation infrastructure that gets people out of their cars is a huge step, as is offering incentives to improve energy efficiency in homes and buildings. Regulations to limit industrial pollution are also necessary.

We may never experience the kind of deadly pollution China is struggling with, but we can do a lot to make sure our air, water and soil are as clean as possible, now and into the future. We must do our part.

* This sentence has been corrected for accuracy.

Written with contributions from David Suzuki Foundation Senior Editor Ian Hanington.

Learn more at www.davidsuzuki.org.

Image credit: V.T. Polywoda 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.

By Josha MacNab, regional director for British Columbia at the Pembina Institute.

When world leaders gathered in Lima, Peru, for global climate change talks, British Columbia’s environment minister, Mary Polak, was among them. She shared the province’s successful experience in implementing commendable climate policies, like B.C.’s carbon tax — a policy that the president of the World Bank hailed as a “powerful example” of carbon pricing.

However, Minister Polak also included the province’s liquefied natural gas (LNG) export aspirations as part of B.C.’s climate success story, arguing that LNG will displace coal in Asia. Unfortunately, the evidence doesn’t support this claim.

LNG versus coal

Compared against each other, a coal-fired electricity plant will produce more carbon pollution than a gas-fired electricity plant on a life-cycle basis if methane emissions from natural gas extraction are well managed. But research from the Pembina Institute and the Pacific Institute for Climate Solutions shows that, without strong climate policies, increasing the supply of gas in the global market does not lead to the displacement of more polluting energy sources like coal. It simply feeds an increasing energy demand with additional fossil fuels, putting the world squarely on track for dangerous climate change.

A study published recently in Nature supports this conclusion. For natural gas to displace carbon-intensive forms of energy like coal there need to be climate policies in place that shift investment decision-making. A strong carbon price, for example, would provide an incentive to replace coal plants with lower-carbon energy alternatives.

Click image for larger version.

The recent China-U.S. climate agreement is an example of a step in the right direction towards what is needed to encourage the development of climate policies that could result in LNG replacing coal in China. However, the same climate policies that shift investments towards lower-carbon choices ultimately result in a decrease in the demand for all fossil fuels, including natural gas. In fact, as part of that agreement, China plans to increase the share of non-fossil fuels in its primary energy consumption to around 20 per cent by 2030.

Gas as a “bridge fuel”

Our research shows that less natural gas will be used in a world with strong climate policies. In the short term, and in the context of strong climate policy, natural gas can act as a “bridge fuel” that helps the transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy and more energy efficiency. To keep the planet below an average of 2°C of global warming (the internationally recognized limit to avoid dangerous climate change) that bridge must be very short: by 2030 natural gas demand would peak, and by mid-century it would fall below current levels.

Governments and industry also need to get better at measuring methane emissions that result from the extraction of natural gas. Recent studies have concluded that this carbon pollution is higher than previously estimated. This means that the role for natural gas as a bridge fuel in a carbon-constrained world could be even shorter, unless methane management practices improve significantly.

An economic risk

Not only is it inaccurate to claim that LNG is a “climate solution”, it’s also economically unwise. Tying B.C.’s economic engine to a resource that will decline in 15 years if governments around the world implement strong climate policy is a recipe for a major boom and bust — something many B.C. communities are unfortunately all too familiar with.

Instead of focusing so intently on LNG, B.C. should look at what types of energy solutions will be needed with strong climate policies in place, and figure out how to supply those needs. In such a world, the International Energy Agency predicts that by 2035 demand for renewable energy would increase by 127 per cent over 2011 levels. Meanwhile, total energy demand is predicted to go down globally by 20 per cent relative to a world without strong climate policies, thanks to the rise of energy efficiency and conservation.

This represents a massively growing global market for clean energy technology and services, one in which B.C. already has an advantage. For example, analysis from consulting firm KPMG found 200 clean technology companies operating in the province, employing over 8,000 people and generating $2.5 billion in annual revenue, primarily from exports. Many of these companies are well positioned to take advantage of a growing market for clean energy.

There are many ways B.C. can and should play a productive role in global climate change initiatives. Fortunately, with its track record of implementing credible climate policies, a global reputation for climate leadership and a growing clean energy sector, B.C. has a lot more to offer the world than more fossil fuels.

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.

At least $83 billion USD in financing was provided to 65 coal mining and energy companies last year by 92 of the world’s leading commercial banks, according to a Dutch report published Wednesday.

Leading banks provided $500 billion in financing for the coal industry through 2,283 lending and underwriting transactions between 2005 and April 2014, said the report Banking on Coal 2014, which was released by BankTrack in Nijmegen.

The top 20 financiers provided 73 per cent of this amount alone, added the report, released just days ahead of the publication of the fifth United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) assessment.

The report said JPMorgan Chase was the top financier between 2005 and this year, lending more than $27 billion, while Citi, in second place, lent $25.8 billion and third-place RBS provided $22.9 billion to coal-related borrowing.

Bank finance for coal is increasing rapidly, the report said, adding 2013 was a record year for coal finance, with commercial banks providing more than $88 billion to the main 65 coal companies – over four times the amount provided in 2005.

Yann Louvel, BankTrack’s climate and energy campaign coordinator, said the new data shows that rising coal financing continues to provide a vital lifeline to the increasingly beleaguered coal industry, while at the same time placing the planet in climate jeopardy.

“This is the most extensive data ever compiled on commercial bank financing of both coal mining and coal power, and even though we’re probably only covering little more than half of the global banking sector’s true financial support for the sector, the conclusion is stark: the lending figures have been rising steadily since 2005, and last year was a record year,” Louvel said.

The report said JPMorgan Chase remains the world’s biggest ‘coal bank’ over the period 2005 to April 2014, in spite of its oft-stated claims to be “transitioning to a low-carbon economy” and its commitments to initiatives such as the Carbon Principles.

It also said a major trend recently has been the growing role of Chinese banks in coal financing.

Between 2011 and 2014, six of the top 20 coal banks are Chinese, including the top three, the report states.

By comparison, between 2005 and 2014, only four Chinese banks are in the top 20, and none in the top three.

Banks headquartered in just three countries — China, U.S. and U.K. — were responsible for the majority (62 per cent) of coal financing between 2011 and 2013, the 28-page report added.

It also noted that coal is the single greatest source of man-made carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions heating up our planet.

“According to the [International Energy Agency], 44 per cent of global emissions from fossil fuels come from coal. Since the year 2000, global coal production has grown by over 69 per cent and now amounts to a staggering 7.9 billion tons annually.”

The report said commercial banks must stop bankrolling climate change by ending support for new coal extraction and delivery projects, as well as for new coal-fired power plants.

“Banks must also start becoming responsible asset managers and divest from the coal companies in their portfolios,” the report said. “Banks must finally stop trading coal – both ‘physical coal’ and coal derivatives.”

It also said banks must finally calculate and disclose the financed emissions associated with their loans, investments and other financial services.

“The next step must be to rapidly decrease these financed emissions, in line with global and national climate targets, and shift their energy finance from fossil fuels to energy efficiency and renewables.”

BankTrack is a global network of civil society groups tracking the operations and investments of private sector banks and their effect on people and the planet. It has also published Bankrolling Climate Change and Banking on Coal 2013.

Alex Scrivener, policy officer at the UK-based World Development Movement, which works with BankTrack, said banks all over the world are fuelling a whole new round of coal mines and coal-fired power plants when humankind needs to be rapidly pulling back from coal in order to avoid the worst impacts of climate change.

“Any notion of ‘ethical banking' is incompatible with financing an energy source like coal,” Scrivener said. “It’s not only a disaster for the climate, it’s also responsible for all manner of injustice inflicted on communities in the global south who have been devastated by the impacts of coal mining.”

Image Credit: Scholven coal fired power plant by Guy Gorek 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.

Coal, the fossil fuel that largely sparked the industrial revolution, may be facing the beginning of the end — at least in terms of generating electricity.

There are increasing signs of the demise of the world’s dirtiest fossil fuel, from a global oversupply to plummeting prices to China starting to clean up its polluted air.

Last week, the Carbon Tracker Initiative published an analysis — Carbon Supply Cost Curves: Evaluating Financial Risk to Coal Capital Expenditures — identifying major financial risks for investors in coal producers around the world.

Saying the demand for thermal coal in China, the world’s largest emitter of toxic greenhouse gases, could peak as early as 2016, the analysis also highlights $112 billion of future coal mine expansion and development that is excess to requirements under lower demand forecasts.

“In particular it shows that high cost new mines are not economic at today’s prices and are unlikely to generate returns for investors in the future,” said an accompanying media release.

“Companies most exposed to low coal demand are those developing new projects, focused on the export market . . . With new measures to cap coal use and restrict imports of low quality coal in China, it appears the tide is turning against the coal exporters.”

The analysis added that China’s desire to reduce imports will impact prices and asset values for export mines in the U.S., Australia, Indonesia and South Africa.

“King Coal is becoming King Canute, as the industry struggles to turn back the tide of reducing demand, falling prices and lower earnings,” Anthony Hobley, CEO of Carbon Tracker Initiative, said.

A recent article in Mining Weekly also says the coal industry is indeed facing tough times.

The article noted Coal Association of Canada president Ann Marie Hann agreed that about half of the global coal output at current pricing was being produced at a loss.

“Until a global rebalance between demand and supply takes place and the global economy rebounds, the coal industry will unfortunately probably see some more bad news over the coming months,” Hann said.

The story added that the prices for thermal coal, which is used to generate electricity, had fallen in recent years from about $190 per tonne in mid-2008 to $75 per tonne this year, while metallurgical coal (used to make steel) had dropped from a high of more than $300 per tonne in late 2011 to less than $120 per tonne.

To perhaps make matters worse for the coal industry, it is being publicly attacked by the oil and gas sectors, which are trying to position themselves as cleaner fossil fuels.

According to the Responding to Climate Change website, a number of the world’s leading oil and gas companies voiced their concerns about climate change at last week’s UN Climate Summit, arguing they can offer a future coal cannot.

“One of our most important contributions is producing natural gas and replacing coal in electricity production,” Helge Lund, Statoil’s chief executive, was quoted as saying.

Kevin Washbrook, a director for Voters Taking Action on Climate Change, a Vancouver organization that has fought against a proposed new coal export facility at Fraser Surrey Docks, agrees the thermal coal sector is in decline.

“I think coal is in everyone’s sights these days because coal is climate change,” Washbrook told DeSmogBlog. “Coal has to be on the chopping block for sure.”

Washbrook added the UN, the International Energy Agency, big banks and insurance companies are acknowledging that the vast majority of coal must stay in the ground if humankind is to avoid catastrophic, runaway climate change.

“We need to see this current downturn [in the thermal coal sector] for what it really is — our last good opportunity to leave coal behind and start the transition to emission-free energy sources.”

Photo Credit: Arnold Paul, 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.

Although the heads of 125 states are gathering at UN Headquarters in New York today to discuss global commitments to reducing greenhouse gas emissions that cause climate change, Stephen Harper will be elsewhere.

Instead Canada’s prime minister will arrive in New York in two days time to attend the UN’s Every Woman, Every Child event on September 25th.

The UN Climate Summit is intended to “galvanize and catalyze climate action” in advance of the Paris COP climate talks in 2015 where countries will form binding agreements to address global warming.

President Barack Obama will announce a new executive order today that directs all federal agencies to include climate concerns in international aid and development initiatives.

China’s president Xi Jinping, India’s prime minister Narendra Modi and Australian prime minister Tony Abbott have also announced they will not attend the summit.

China announced vice premier Zhang Gaoli will attend in the president’s place and Canada will send environment minister Leona Aglukkaq in Harper’s stead.

China is the number one emitter of greenhouse gas emissions, followed by the U.S. and India. Canada and Australia are eighth and fourteenth, respectively, according to data released by the European Commission.

In the lead up to the summit UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon said “this is the time for decisive global action.”

“I have been pleased to see climate change rise on the political agenda and in the consciousness of people worldwide,” he said. “But I remain alarmed that governments and businesses have still failed to act at the pace and scale needed.”

UN climate chief Christiana Figueres said the absence of a few world leaders will not affect the credibility or outcomes of the summit.

“This is not something that will stop on September 24,” Figueres said, adding, “rather what is important is the strength of commitments and action of all governments moving forward up and until we deliver a new universal agreement in Paris.”

On Sunday an estimated 400,000 people participated in what is being heralded as the largest climate march in history. Support for the People’s Climate March came from across many sectors of society, showing a growing climate concern from religious, youth, business and investment groups.

Figueres said that growing involvement in cross-sector climate action is also represented in climate summit participants.

“The inclusion of business at the summit and over the past few years is frankly a recognition that climate change is not a one person or one sector issue,” she said.

“It cannot be solved by one country, one sector or one level of government. Climate is an every-person issue, and it requires everyone to work collaboratively in order to reach the solutions to the level and at the speed we need to find.”

Recently prime ministers Harper and Abbott hosted a press conference in Canada where they criticized government actions to make polluters pay for carbon emissions.

At the press gathering Harper said, “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.”

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 frequently used talking point from Prime Minister Stephen Harper is that Canada will only tackle the issue of climate change if countries like China agree to take action as well. 

Looks like that time has come.

A new study released this week that examines nearly 500 pieces of legislation in 66 countries finds Canada lags behind many countries, including China, when it comes to advancing a plan to reduce climate change pollution and fossil fuel usage. 

According to Globe International, the organization behind the study, Canada currently "has no comprehensive federal climate change legislation."

In China on the other hand, "it was announced in 2010 at the GLOBE International legislators’ forum in Tianjin that China would begin work on [climate] legislation. A first formal draft of the law is expected to be produced in early 2014, after which a comprehensive formal consultation will begin with government ministries, industry and other stakeholders, with passage likely by 2015."

Image taken from a "Canada extract" of the larger study showing Canada has "no flagship legislation."

Globe International also reports new investments in energy efficiency to reduce China's use of coal:

"Since 2012 China has invested CNY 4.9 billion (USD 804 million) within the central government’s budget and CNY 2.6 billion (USD 427 million) of the central fiscal bonus to support 2,411 projects on high-efficiency, energy-saving technologies, model products and industries, contracted energy management, developing energy-saving monitoring institutions, energy-saving buildings and green lighting."

While China clearly has a long way to go, this report shows that government leaders in that country are taking the issue seriously, beginning to invest funds and put in place long term goals to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. 

We are coming into a new round of international negotiations on climate change, kicking off with a world leader summit in September of this year hosted by the UN Secretary General, Ban Ki Moon, in New York. This sets of a series of major negotiations that will culminate December, 2015 in Paris, where leaders have committed to finalizing a new global framework on climate change. 

China is clearly ramping up to have something significant on the table at the Paris talks. As the Globe International report shows, Canada isn't immune to the international spotlight and Prime Minister Harper is fast running out of excuses for the country's failure to address the climate change file. 

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.

Canada's tar sands are one of 14 energy megaprojects that are "in direct conflict with a livable climate."

According to a new report released today by Greenpeace, the fossil fuel industry has plans for 14 new coal, oil and gas projects that will dangerously increase global warming emissions at a time when massive widespread reductions are necessary to avoid catastrophic climate change. In conjunction these projects make it very likely global temperature rise will increase beyond the 2 degrees Celsius threshold established by the international community to levels as high as 4 or even 6 degrees.

"The disasters the world is experiencing now are happening at a time when the average global temperature has increased by 0.8 degrees Celsius, and they are just a taste of our future if greenhouse gas emissions continue to balloon," the report states.

The report, "The Point of No Return: The Massive Climate Threats We Must Avoid," [PDF] emphasizes the urgent need to move beyond dirty energy if we are to avert catastrophic global warming and includes research provided by Ecofys, a consulting firm specializing in sustainable energy and climate policy.

The research focuses on 14 megaprojects slated to produce as much new carbon dioxide emissions in 2020 alone as the United States produces in an entire year. Together these projects would add 300 billion tonnes of CO2 equivalent into the atmosphere by 2050, through the "extraction, production and burning of 49,600 million tonnes of coal, 29,400 billion cubic metres of natural gas and 260,000 million barrels of oil." By 2020, these projects would increase global CO2 emissions by 20 percent, placing the world on the path of a 5 or 6 degree Celsius temperature rise.

According to the International Energy Agency (IEA), global emissions increased by 5 percent in 2010 and 3 percent in 2011, right on track for a 5 or 6 degree long term warming. What will guarantee that level of warming is the continued construction of dirty energy projects. What could mitigate the dangerously high temperature rise is the halt of such projects in the next five years.

The Filthy Fourteen

The world's largest and dirtiest energy projects include coal production in Australia, China, the U.S., and Indonesia, oil production in Canada's tar sands, the Arctic, Brazil, the Gulf of Mexico, Iraq, and Venezuela's tar sands, and gas production in the U.S., Kazakhstan, Africa, and the Caspian Sea.

The Impacts

Ecofys estimates that a business-as-usual approach to energy production would entail "a clear scenario for climate disaster with a 5-6 degree celsius increase in average global temperature." An alternative scenario would involve a carbon budget designed to keep the global average temperature increase below 2 degrees.

"To stay within this carbon budget," according to Ecofys, "cumulative emissions between 2010 and 2050 cannot exceed 1,050 gigatonnes of CO2 equivalent (Gt CO2e), and global emissions need to start decreasing at the very latest by 2016." Cumulative emissions associated with the 14 megaprojects are estimated to be 2,340Gt CO2e, far beyond the acceptable rate if any progress is to be made to avoid "climate chaos."

The report states "the problem is that investment in energy infrastructure for fossil fuels locks the world into using coal, oil and gas for decades. The IEA estimates that 590 Gt CO2 is already locked in by existing fossil fuel-dependent infrastructure, and building new coal, oil and gas based infrastructure must stop by 2017 to avoid locking in more emissions than can be emitted without overshooting 2 degrees celsius warming."

"After that, the only way to stay below 2 degrees celsius warming is to shut down the many new coal, oil and gas power plants and the new coal mines and oil operations that could be operating, making the task of meeting the target hugely expensive and politically difficult."

The 14 projects would bind us to new carbon intensive investments, further entrenching the problem of fossil fuel reliance within the global economy. The solution, as recommended by Ecofys, is to make a quick and committed switch to clean energy projects which would "provide almost one third of the reduction needed to have a 75 percent chance of avoiding climate chaos."

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 Canada-China Foreign Investment Promotion and Protection Agreement (FIPA) may be ratified as soon as tomorrow, November 1. This despite a massive demonstration of Canadian opposition to the investment trade deal that will lock the federal government into a dangerously undemocratic agreement with China and Chinese investors for 31 years.

The proposed agreement, signed by Stephen Harper in Russia on September 9 and kept secret until September 26, is being strong-armed through the house of commons after the required 21-day session in Parliament.

Political action and environmental groups, opposition party leaders and experts in the field of international trade law are urging the Harper government to reconsider the agreement’s immediate ratification, demanding an open parliamentary debate before the trade deal’s future is decided.

So far all requests to throw out the deal, host a national debate, investigate the deal in emergency Parliamentary discussions, or indefinitely delay the deal’s ratification, have gone unheeded by the Harper government.

Under FIPA the federal government is obliged to protect investor rights and profits, even to compensate for lost profits. That means when it comes to disputes involving Chinese investors, like the one over the future of Enbridge’s Northern Gateway Pipeline, the Canadian government will have a duty to protect investor profits and not necessarily the jurisdictional rights of the British Columbian government, people or First Nations.

But as West Coast Environmental Law (WCEL) pointed out yesterday, First Nations people in Canada have a unique constitutional standing in the country, a standing that restricts the federal government from making decisions — without prior consultation — that affect First Nations’ constitutionally-protected Aboriginal Rights.

It appears the Stephen Harper government has not fully considered the fact that, as WCEL puts it, “by giving new rights to Chinese investors, the treaty risks undermining Canada’s obligations to deal in good faith with First Nations.”

When it comes to the China-Canada Investment Deal, not only has the Harper government failed to deal in ‘good faith’ with First Nations, but has failed to deal with First Nations at all. For this reason, the details of the treaty may be inconsistent with Canadian law.

According to WCEL Canada is hoping to ratify the trade deal through an “Order of Council,” which will see the deal implemented via Cabinet without any legislation. However, Canada is only meant to implement international treaties this way “once the treaty is consistent with Canadian law.”

Treaty implementation occurs in Canada this way because we’ve got what is called a dualist model: “a treaty that has been signed and ratified by the executive still requires incorporation through domestic law to be enforceable at the national level…Canada cannot ratify an international treaty until measures are in place to ensure that the terms of the treaty are enforceable in Canadian law.”

(This is different than America’s monist system where Congress has the power to ratify treaties, making them, in principle, U.S. law, adds WCEL).

So, are the terms of FIPA ‘enforceable’ in Canada?

Well, no. Not according to Section 35 of the Canadian Constitution which states that the Crown must make decisions “leading to a just settlement of Aboriginal claims.” The Crown also has a duty to consult and accommodate First Nations before adversely impacting Aboriginal Title and Rights.

Aboriginal Title and Rights include the right to exercise sovereignty over territorial lands, to fish and hunt traditional foods and to partake in ceremonial practices. What is immediately obvious to BC First Nations is that Canada’s duty to protect and ensure these rights runs into conflict with Canada’s proposed duty and obligation to promote and protect the rights of Chinese investors eager to make a profit of the country’s production and export of tar sands oil.

Yesterday the Union of BC Indian Chiefs addressed Stephen Harper directly on this issue.

As they outlined in an open letter, BC’s First Nations are concerned Canada’s ability to honour negotiations with aboriginal peoples will be limited while the legal threat of international arbitration hangs over the government’s head. This is especially pertinent to the development of the tar sands and the construction of bitumen pipelines — both of which pose a significant threat to First Nations’ territorial sovereignty and traditional, land-based ways of life.

“On behalf the Union of BC Indian Chiefs, we are writing to firmly express, advise and direct the Government of Canada to reject the Foreign Investment Promotion and Protection Agreement with China as the Government of Canada has breached its fiduciary duty to consult First Nations on our respective constitutionally-enshrined and judicially-recognized Aboriginal Title, Rights and Treaty Rights.

Furthermore, as both Canada and China have adopted the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, both countries are bound by Article 19 which states: “States shall consult and cooperate in good faith with the indigenous peoples concerned…in order to obtain their free, prior and informed consent before adopting and implementing legislative or administrative measures that may affect them.”

As designed, we believe that through the ratification of this agreement, China will be granted protection and would thus greatly increase their investment in the development of the Alberta tarsands, pipelines, mining projects and possibly future offshore drilling projects, all at a great cost to our Aboriginal Title, Rights and Treaty Rights.”

Source: Globe and Mail

As this map illustrates, the pipeline traverses the territories of numerous First Nations in both Alberta and British Columbia and will supply Asia-bound supertankers with tar sands bitumen to ship through territorial waters.

When it comes to deciding whose rights ought to be protected, WCEL suggests FIPA could lead the government to favour foreign investors over First Nations:

“FIPA itself may violate the constitutionally-protected process of negotiations between the Crown and First Nations. There is a reasonable probability that the threat of multi-million dollar investor-state suits under FIPA will create a disincentive for the Crown to negotiate honourably with First Nations (for example, regarding environmental and cultural protection measures in treaties or other legal agreements). The question is whether this effect is so significant that it can be said that FIPA therefore ‘substantially interferes’ not just with First Nations preferred outcomes, but the very process of negotiation. If so, then on the basis of Charter jurisprudence in Canada, a court could hold any legal action taken by Canada to ratify or implement FIPA to be unconstitutional, and it is possible that a First Nation could seek an interim injunction preventing its ratification until they have their day in court.”

WCEL adds “given the lack of consultation with First Nations on FIPA it is very difficult to see how Canada could justify its infringement of First Nations constitutional rights.”

What can you do?

The countdown is running low, with the deal’s potential ratification expected as early as tomorrow.

If you haven’t already signed a petition, or you are looking to sign another, be sure to check out these options:

Leadnow.ca and SumofUs.org’s Stop the Sellout: Canada is Not for Sale

David Suzuki’s Stop the China-Canada Trade Deal

Change.org’s Prime Minister Harper: Stop FIPPA Deal with China NOW and allow debate in House of Commons

The Council of Canadians Open Letter to Stephen Harper

Sustainable Living and Urban Gardening Anti-FIPA Petition

You can also email these pivotal members of the Standing Committee on International Trade:

Rob Merrifield rob.merrifield@parl.gc.ca

Ron Cannan ron.cannan@parl.gc.ca

Russ Hiebert russ.hiebert@parl.gc.ca

Ed Holder ed.holder@parl.gc.ca

Gerald Keddy gerald.keddy@parl.gc.ca

Bev Shipley bev.shipley@parl.gc.ca

Devinder Shory devinder.shory@parl.gc.ca

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.