This year, Canada experienced record-breaking temperatures across the nation, with a larger increase above normal temperatures in the north than in the south. Canada’s annual average temperature has warmed 1.7C since 1948, but in northern Canada it has increased by 2.3C.

The Canadian North is feeling the impacts of climate change more acutely than the rest of the country. And Indigenous communities, representing half of the residents of the three Canadian northern territories, are the most vulnerable to these climate changes.

Northern populations have observed landscape and natural resources changes like permafrost thaw, shifts in wildlife and plant diversity, and changes in water and food quality.

Indigenous knowledge is an essential asset for communities to adapt to climate change, by knowing the land, using the local natural resources, sharing capital, and taking a community approach to local issues. But it is well documented that the most vulnerable communities across the globe are excluded from decision-making processes and thus marginalized.

‘Beyond what our instruments can tell us’: merging Indigenous knowledge and Western science at the edge of the world

Indigenous groups in northern Canada, with their traditional interpersonal networks and social initiatives, seem to have developed a unique structure to cope with climate change and environmental stressors without relying on federal or local policies and infrastructure. Based on this, it seems that one way to enhance peoples’ resilience to climate change is to improve the social capital — or social networks — of populations.

Social capital at work

Social capital as a concept is not new. American political scientist Robert Putnam helped to popularize the term in the late ‘90s. Basically it is the creation and maintenance of healthy social contacts that can improve the “flow of information, trust, reciprocity, co-operation and productivity” within communities.

Knowing neighbours and exchanging various favours is a component of social capital.

This understanding of social cohesion is also used in epidemiology, public health, resource distribution and environment policy studies. The World Health Organization uses the concept of social capital to increase participation in its programs across the globe. The Canadian government also tracks trends in social capital.

The acknowledgement of the value of social networks can bring insights into how federal and local governments can guide climate change adaptation initiatives.

Nooks Lindell looks out over the frozen Hudson Bay in Arviat, Nunavut, with his son Nipi. Photo: Jimmy Thomson / The Narwhal

Although the response to climate change varies greatly across the country, Canada’s focus on creating policy to help communities adapt to climate change includes “the development of more stringent building standards for areas where heavier snowfall is expected, or limiting development in coastal areas where sea level is projected to rise.”

The current Canadian policy framework does not differentiate between northern and southern regions. Strategies to address climate change in southern Canada benefit from institutionalization and access to infrastructure. Conversely, strategies in northern Canada benefit from Indigenous knowledge and traditional social structure.

The social capital scores collected by the Canadian government are usually visualized as a scale but it does not include the nuances of the northern regions. On the scale, the Maritime and Western provinces score higher than inland provinces. Québec has the lowest score in Canada.

The differences in climate policies across Canada might be due to the regional environmental challenges, but they are also altered by the different geopolitical, social, cultural and historical contexts, which affect social capital.

The North

Small communities tend to have strong social capital, which can be seen when neighbours cut wood for elders or hunters bring meat for single mothers. Indigenous holistic approaches highlight the importance of the connection with the land, which impacts hunting methods and includes knowledge of medicinal plants.

Community sharing is another component that increases community resilience. Food sharing circles are traditional kinship-based food networks to reduce food insecurity.

One study shows how traditional social structures have deeply embedded food redistribution procedures that have adapted through history. Such redistribution of resources is not found among most southern communities in Canada.

Canada’s actions for climate changes neither mentions food security nor resource redistribution. Also, although the World Bank and the World Health Organization have developed a set of tools to assess social capital to increase the level of participation of everyday citizens, Canada has yet to adopt social capital in its approach to climate change adaptation.

Pangnirtung Fjord, Nunavut. Photo: Isaac Demeester / Unsplash

At best, Canada’s climate framework recognizes the North is particularly vulnerable to the impacts of climate change.

But Canada should learn from the experiences of northern communities and integrate social capital in its policy framework. While the North might be the most affected by climate changes, its resilience might also be the highest.

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.

Europe's coal lobby association EURACOAL paid for climate science denier Patrick Moore to speak to members of the European Parliament (MEP) and EU officials at an intimate dinner-debate last month, DeSmog UK can reveal.

As a March newsletter sent out by the European Energy Forum (EEF) details, Moore was invited as the main speaker at the dinner hosted by EURACOAL on 2 February in Strasbourg entitled “Climate Demons or Climate Gods: Coal Industry Stakes Its Future”.

An EEF press officer confirmed to DeSmog UK that coal lobbyists EURACOAL invited Moore to speak. The Canadian climate science denier is known for promoting the idea that “We should celebrate CO2 as the giver of life it is”. EURACOAL describes itself as “the voice of coal in Europe” and acts as an umbrella group for associations and research groups across 20 countries.

When asked whether EURACOAL paid for Moore to present that evening, Brian Ricketts, secretary-general of EURACOAL, told DeSmog UK: “Yes, you are correct.  EURACOAL did cover Dr. Moore’s travel expenses from Canada and the time he devoted to preparing and giving his presentation to a small group in the European Parliament.”  

“Unfortunately, I cannot disclose exactly what was paid [to] Dr. Moore as that would not be very professional,” he wrote via email. “However, it reflected c.5 days’ work for preparation time and long-haul travel.”   According to Moore’s agent’s site, it seems to cost between CAD$5,000 and $7,000 (£2,631 – £3,684) to have Moore speak at an event.

Climate Ambition

The EEF, which organises events for industry stakeholders and MEPs, describes the dinner-debate on its website: “With COP21 concluded, the EU must make an important decision: to continue its high-ambition climate change agenda or to moderate its ambition. This decision will have a profound impact on the future of coal in Europe.”

However, Ricketts added that “For your information, EURACOAL gave no advice or instructions on what Dr. Moore presented or on what he said during the Q&A session – he was free to say whatever he wanted.  So, for example, I don’t recall him saying anything in particular about coal and lignite.”  

Among those in attendance at the February dinner were Paul Rübig, Austrian MEP and member of the EU’s committee on industry, research and energy, Eero Ailio, deputy head of coal and oil retail markets unit for the European Commission's Director-General for Energy (DG Energy), and Jo Leinen, a German MEP.

MEPs are responsible for representing their city or region to the European Union, and when necessary, lobbying the European Commission on relevant issues.

Ricketts and Roger Helmer, an MEP for the East Midlands and climate science denier, were also at the dinner. They are pictured above standing with Moore.

Ricketts made headlines at the end of last year for his post-Paris statement that the fossil fuel sector “will be hated and vilified, in the same way that slave traders were once hated and vilified”.

In a response to the Guardian article on his comments, Ricketts clarified EURACOAL's and the industry's stance on climate change: “While we do question the future potential of renewables, EURACOAL has no view on climate science. However, it is fair to say that many in the coal industry are climate sceptics.”

‘Open Discussion’

EEF states that its aim is to provide “open discussion” between MEPs, industry, and others active in the energy sector ahead of decisions taken on energy related EU legislation so as to “ensure the decisions are based on accurate information reflecting a variety of points of view.”

Among EEF's members are at least 30 MEPs and oil giants Shell, BP, ExxonMobil, and Chevron along with Centrica, Lukoil, and Statoil. Trade associations and lobby groups, including EURACOAL, are also members.

And as the EEF’s website describes, EURACOAL’s aim “is to discover the truth behind climate science”.

Moore, however, believes that humans are not to blame for global warming and is known for promoting misinformation when it comes to the science of climate change.  

Recently Moore, who works at the Frontier Centre for Public Policy in Canada, appeared at the Paris climate conference with known US climate-denial groups the Heartland Institute, the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT), and the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) to hold a ‘counter-conference’ to discourage action on climate change.

Moore also achieved fantastic notoriety after he claimed on camera in March 2015 that glyphosate – the active ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide – is safe to drink.

Although a World Health Organization study had recently concluded that glyphosate is “probably carcinogenic,” Moore boasted to the filmmaker: “People try to commit suicide with it and fail fairly regularly.” But Moore refused to follow through on his suggestion by drinking a glass of the herbicide, saying “I'm not an idiot”.

When asked to comment on his EURACOAL presentation Moore said: "I consider DeSmog to be a hate site. So bugger off." 

This isn't the first time Moore has used offensive language against those he disagrees with. In October 2014, when Moore was speaking at Amherst College in Massachusetts, he described the students who walked out in protest as having a "Taliban mindset".

Moore’s Presentation

Moore's EURACOAL dinner speech saw him promoting his "celebrate CO2" catchphrase. He gave the dinner guests “an unconventional interpretation of the whole climate and energy issue,” as the EEF states in its newsletter.

And as a photo from the event shows, it appears the presentation he gave that night was similar to a speech given at the climate sceptic Global Warming Policy Foundation’s (GWPF) annual lecture last October in London entitled “Should we celebrate CO2?”

Moore’s February presentation is described as having “fostered an inclusive policy discussion based on a broad scientific basis, questioning the selective use of science which, in Dr Moore’s view, has led in some cases to widely accepted myths.”

EEF’s account of the dinner states that Moore told MEPs that “there is no definitive scientific proof that human emissions are the dominant influence on climate” and that carbon dioxide in fact benefits the planet by increasing plant growth.

The myth that ‘CO2 is good for the planet’ has been trotted out by the GWPF and its members several times. DeSmog UK debunks this claim here and here.

‘Options for Thinking’

Moore’s speech was followed by a presentation from Mark van Stiphout, deputy head of unit for new energy technologies, innovation and clean coal at DG Energy.

Van Stiphout argued that “coal is still an important provider of electricity in Europe,” according to the March newsletter.

He also noted that “research and investment are being encouraged to adapt coal to the increasing need for flexibility in power generation and to develop CCS [carbon capture and storage] solutions.”

According to dinner attendee and Austrian MEP Rübig, the night’s discussion provided participants with “options for thinking”.

EU Climate Targets

The EURACOAL dinner-debate was held in advance of a meeting in Brussels on 4 March where environment ministers discussed the EU’s next steps after the COP21 climate summit.

In anticipation of this meeting, and another planned for 17-18 March, EURACOAL has urged the European Commission to implement a less ambitious climate target.

In a 15 February statement, EURACOAL President Wolfgang Ceislik said: “EURACOAL calls on President Tusk and all 28 EU leaders to reject the 40% target and to adopt a less ambitious, more realistic target that can deliver more for Europe.”

While the European Commission initially did not put forward a more ambitious climate target in line with the Paris Agreement’s aim of reducing warming to “well below” 2C, last week Europe’s chief climate negotiator, Artur Runge-Metzger, confirmed that he is open to increasing the EU’s carbon target for 2030.

This followed calls from ministers from 10 countries including the UK, Germany, France, and Luxembourg for the Commission to increase its climate ambition. However, it is unknown whether climate change will be on the agenda for this week's summit.  

Photo from left to right: Ricketts, Helmer, and Moore via EEF.

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 could become 100 per cent reliant on low-carbon electricity in just 20 years and reduce its emissions by 80 per cent by 2050, a new study shows.

The report calls for bold policies to be adopted immediately in order for Canada to transition to a sustainable society.

“Twenty years ago Canada was a leader on the climate change file. But today our reputation on this issue is in tatters,” James Meadowcroft, political science professor at Carleton University and one of the report’s authors told DeSmog Canada. “It is time for us to get serious and take vigorous action to move towards a low carbon emission economy.”

The report is a collaboration between 60 Canadian scholars and outlines a 10-point policy framework to achieve dramatic emission reductions. At the top of the list is the need to put a price on carbon which was unanimously recommended by the report’s authors.

“While the Canadian federal government has dragged its feet on the climate issue, there is good news from many of the provincial governments,” notes Meadowcroft, the Canada Research Chair in Governance for Sustainable Development.

He pointed to British Columbia’s carbon tax and Quebec’s cap and trade system linked to California as examples where provinces are forging their own promising initiatives.

“But Canada needs a carbon pricing mechanism that extends from coast to coast,” he emphasised. “And there are many other initiatives we can take to fully decarbonizes the electricity system, promote low carbon transport systems and more sustainable cities.”

Transition Process

Other immediate goals recommended by the report include eliminating subsidies to the fossil fuel industry and fully integrating the oil and gas sector into the country’s climate policies.

Green infrastructure must also be supported and aggressive goals for low-carbon electricity must be incorporated into federal and provincial climate action plans.

These short term targets will help trigger wider climate action and reduce emissions, the study explains. Long-term goals should include decarbonising the transport sector and creating a participatory and open governance system to better engage the public.

The transition process must start immediately it emphasises: “As with other past and future major transitions, e.g. industrialization or electrification, there will be controversies and setbacks. Some economic sectors will contract as others expand. The most important aspect of Canadian climate policies is to build a sustainable future starting today.”

As part of this decarbonisation process Canada should adopt an interim target of a 26-28 per cent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2025 relative to a 2005 baseline the report argues. This would be “in keeping with its historical position of aligning with U.S. targets.”

Paris Climate Conference

The aim is to use these recommendations as the basis for Canada’s planning over the next six months in the run up to the Paris COP21 climate negotiations in December. The report calls for an “intense period of consultation and policy development” until then.

“We believe that putting options on the table is long overdue in Canada and hope that our input will help governments at all levels to make ambitious and thoughtful commitments to emissions reductions before December 2015 and the 2015 Paris-Climate Conference,” the report’s authors write.

Canada has repeatedly failed to back strong climate action at past international climate conferences and has yet to submit its climate targets – known as intended nationally-determined contributions (INDCs) – for the COP21 conference, with the deadline of March 31 fast approaching.

“The time is now ripe to initiate ambitious climate change mitigation efforts,” the report states, noting that “in virtually all cases, our proposals are in line with a number of international and national analyses of viable policy options to decarbonize.”

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.

Ontario may have shut down its last coal plant earlier this year, but the province still needs to make major cuts to the amount of greenhouse gas emissions it produces if the provincial government is serious about tackling global warming, according to a new report.

“The provincial government hasn’t even delivered on commitments it made seven years ago,” Ontario’s Environmental Commissioner Gord Miller said in a statement on Wednesday.

Miller, who is Ontario’s independent environmental watchdog, did not mince words in his report on the province’s slow progress in reducing its overall carbon footprint. He says Ontario will not meet its 2020 greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets “because [Ontario] has taken very little additional action to implement the Climate Change Action Plan it released seven years ago.”

“We need to limit the increase in global temperatures to 2 degrees Celsius. But that can only be done if we leave two-thirds of the existing oil and natural gas reserves in the ground. People need to understand that brutal fact,” Miller warns.

Ontario’s 2007 Action Plan on Climate Change requires the province to cut its output of greenhouse gas emissions by six per cent by this year and 15 per cent by 2020 (from 1990 levels). Ontario will achieve its 2014 reductions goal largely because of the province-wide coal phase out, but is off track in meeting its 2020 target: 

“GHG emissions will exceed the target by 28 Mt (megatonnes) in 2020. This is a significant amount; it is almost twice the total emissions from the electricity sector in 2012,” according to Miller’s report.

Ontario GHG emissions measured in megatonnes.

Transportation Is Ontario’s Achilles Heel

Despite Ontario’s coal phase out — the “single largest regulatory action in North America” to reduce greenhouse gas emissions — and a 21 per cent decrease in greenhouse gas emissions produced by industry in Ontario since 1990, the province’s overall carbon footprint remains relatively unchanged.

Ontario's GHG emissions by sector.

“Partially offsetting these reductions, however, has been the 24 per cent increase in emissions from the transportation sector since 1990. The transportation sector remains the largest contributor to the overall provincial inventory,” the report states.

 “The 2007 Action Plan said the government would reduce transportation emissions by 19 megatonnes (Mt) by 2020. That goal, unfortunately, has now been cut by almost 80 per cent. I have been given no reason why, and no explanation about what the Ontario government plans to do instead,” Miller writes.

Transportation currently accounts for 34 per cent of Ontario’s carbon footprint. The provincial government revised its greenhouse gas emission reduction targets in 2012 for the transportation sector from 19 megatonnes to barely four megatonnes. The report insists “it is incumbent” upon the provincial government to explain why the targets for the transportation sector have been so “severely downgraded.”

Transportation GHG emissions by type of vehicle.

A shift from cars to sport utility vehicles (SUVs), pickup trucks and minivans in Ontario spurred on by low oil prices account for much of the increase in emissions within the transportation sector between 1990 and 2005 according to the Environmental Commissioner.

Ontario Needs the Same Type of Leadership That Pushed For the Coal Phase-Out

Miller says that in order for Ontario to take appropriate action on climate change the province needs the same type leadership that led to the coal phase out and to follow the examples of other provinces such as Quebec and British Columbia:

“British Columbia has brought in a carbon tax, Quebec has implemented a cap-and trade system for carbon credits. Meanwhile, Ontario appears to have lost the ambition it once had and won’t even look at directives to ensure more compact urban development or a serious commitment to using electricity for transportation,” Miller says.

Sink or Swim: Ontario Needs to Adapt to Climate Change Too

The Environmental Commissioner also recommends Ontario begin implementing strategies to adapt to a changing climate, particularly in regards to improving stormwater management practices. 

“Ontario has always experienced storms; however, the province has recently faced more intense and frequent extreme weather, as well as unprecedented damages costs,” the Environmental Commissioner’s report states.

A rainstorm in Toronto last summer saturated the city in a two-hour period with twice the amount of precipitation Toronto usually gets for the entire month of July (126 millimetres). That resulted in 1.3 billion litres of bypassed sewage flowing into Lake Ontario over 28 hours without residents being notified.

In total, 4.2 billion litres of sewage bypassed treatment plants and flooded into waterways in Toronto alone last year.

“We are having changes to our climate here, so we’re seeing more and more intensive rain than we have in the past,” Mark Mattson, president of Lake Ontario Waterkeeper told DeSmog Canada.

“The latest scientific evidence shows that the pace of climate change is accelerating. Extreme weather events have increased dramatically around the world,” Miller says. 

Image Credit: Environmental Commissioner of Ontario

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 moratorium on any new oilsands expansion is imperative given Canada’s failure to properly assess the total environmental and climate impacts Canadian and U.S. experts say in the prestigious science journal Nature.

Even with a moratorium it will be very difficult for Canada to meet its international promise to reduce CO2 emissions that are overheating the planet according to government documents as previously reported by DeSmog.

“Continuing to approve pipelines and new projects guarantees Canada will not meet the Harper government’s Copenhagen emissions reduction target,” said Wendy Palen, an ecologist at Simon Fraser University. 

“These are the plain facts Canadians need to be aware of,” Palen, a co-author of the Nature commentary, told DeSmog.

Canadians also have no idea of the overall ‘big picture’ of the impacts of oilsands production and transport because each project is assessed in isolation.

In total more than 280 square kilometres of boreal forest and peatlands have already been eliminated to make way for oilsands development. That amounts to an area more than twice the size of the City of Vancouver.

According to a 2012 study the destruction of this region of the boreal forest – a natural carbon sink –released about 100,000 tonnes of CO2 that had been safely stored underground. And it also meant the end of the region’s ability to absorb some 58,000 tonnes of CO2 every year. Over a 20-year time span that’s 1,161,000 tonnes of CO2 that stays in the atmosphere – close to half the annual emissions of the City of Vancouver.

This does not include CO2 emissions from developing oilsands projects themselves nor the emissions from burning millions of barrels of oil produced there each year. 

This piecemeal approach is like determining the risk of cigarette smoking by only looking at the potential harm from smoking one cigarette, environmental economist Mark Jaccard said.

As critics have pointed out during recent pipeline review processes, regulators like the National Energy Board do not consider the climate impacts of pipelines and oilsands projects. It’s considered ‘out of bounds’ Jaccard, another coauthor of the report, said.  Each project is presented as an ultimatum: approve the project or lose an economic opportunity, he said.

“This approach artificially restricts discussion to only a fraction of the consequences of oil development,” Jaccard and 7 co-authors argued in the report. The authors represent an interdisciplinary group of experts in environmental science, economics, policy development and decision science.

What Canada and the U.S. need is a “more coherent approach" to evaluate all oilsands projects and pipelines in the “context of broader, integrated energy and climate strategies.”

But first Canada and the U.S. need to impose an immediate halt to new oilsands developments and related pipeline construction, the authors write. (The U.S. is considering developing its own oilsands in Utah and elsewhere). Then the two countries can jointly develop a strategy that allows energy developments to proceed only if they are within environmental limits and respect other national commitments to human health, social justice and biodiversity protection.

However this strategy would need a formal, legislated acknowledgement of the reality that oilsands development impacts the climate. It also should create either a carbon tax or cap-and-trade mechanism to ensure the oil industry absorbs "the full social costs of carbon combustion."

Finally this strategy should assess the full range of potential impacts compared to alternatives. And it should include the options of saying ‘no’ to a project.

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said Canada and the U.S. need to co-ordinate their climate policies in an interview on the CBC’s The National last week. She acknowledged we need to get beyond project-by-project approvals.

With new regulations on power plants, the U.S. may be on its way to meeting its Copenhagen emission reduction target, which is identical to Canada’s.

While Prime Minister Harper “clearly doesn’t care about climate change,“ Jaccard told DeSmog,  President Obama does and could make approval of the Keystone XL pipeline contingent on Canada meeting its 2020 target.

“Economists around the world now agree the costs of carbon pollution far outweigh the benefits,” Jaccard said.

Image Credit: Aerial view of the Alberta oilsands. Copyright Alex McLean with the Pulitzer Center for Journalism.

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.

Several provincial initiatives to reduce greenhouse gas emissions are closing the gap created by the federal government’s continuing lack of climate legislation. This patchwork of provincial policies may be the future of climate policy in Canada, according to a review of Canadian climate or carbon policy in 2013.

“If we have learned anything about carbon policy in Canada, it is that top-down national systems are lost to the federation and we need to embrace bottom-up subnational systems,” argues the review released recently by the prestigious International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) in Winnipeg.

The Institute found in 2013 the federal government’s will to implement greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reducing regulations “evaporated," but several Canadian provinces had “major successes” in adopting measures to reduce their own provincial carbon footprints. BC’s carbon tax, Quebec’s cap and trade system and Ontario phasing out coal-fired power plants are a few highlights of 2013 filling the lack of federal climate policy gap mentioned in the report.

“In 2012 the carbon policy Lego was strewn across the floor waiting to be built. In 2013 we walked on it with bare feet. Looking forward to 2014, one has to wonder if the Lego will be put back in the box and forgotten in the basement until yet another federal plan emerges. In the meantime, look to the provinces to take it upon themselves to start building something from all of the pieces,” concludes the report.

Eighty-four percent of Canadians want the federal government to take action on climate change according to a November 2013 survey.

Climate Policy Highlights in 2013

The year of 2013 was a dismal for federal climate policy in Canada. The federal government quietly admitted to the U.N. Canada was nowhere near meeting its weak GHG reduction targets for 2020. Prime Minister Stephen Harper announced Canada’s long awaited oil-and-gas sector emissions regulations were years away from becoming a reality. Many had hoped the Harper government would implement those regulations to win over U.S. President Barrack Obama on the Keystone XL pipeline at the very least.

But the year was not all bad according to the IISD report.

While the federal government in Ottawa may loathe the idea of a carbon tax east of the Rockies, B.C. decided in 2013 to keep its successful and popular carbon tax going. The price on emissions will remain at $30 per tonne as well. B.C. also decided to extend its Clean Energy Vehicle Incentive, which offers up to $5,000 off on the purchase of electric, hybrid or natural gas powered vehicles.

Back in Ontario, (in Toronto, not Ottawa) premier Kathleen Wynne announced in 2013 the shut down of all coal-fired power plants in the province will be complete by the end of this year. The Institute describes this as the “single largest regulatory action in North America” to reduce GHG emissions. Wynne followed this up with a bill to ban the use of coal for power generation in the province in the future.

And in Quebec, the province launched its cap and trade system – trading permits on allowable GHG emissions – last year. Quebec linked its system with California’s successful cap and trade system to create a bigger market to trade permits. Hopes are high that the Quebec-California emissions trading market will serve as an example for other provinces and states to use this market-based approach to reducing GHG emissions.

“Learning from our provincial policy labs and building on successes now need to be ongoing objectives of those helping to shape future policy,” IISD argues in the report.

The report also commends the actions taken by other provinces in 2013. Newfoundland and Labrador's guaranteeing a $5 billion loan for the Muskrat Falls hydroelectric project and Nova Scotia’s approval of the Maritime Link – Nova Scotia buying water power from Labrador – were “major milestones in energy development in 2013." Even Alberta received recognition for reviewing how the province could make its oil and gas emissions regulations stricter.

Provincial Patchwork Policy Could Be the Future of Canadian Climate Policy

The IISD argues in absence of a unified national climate policy a fragmented climate policy made up of a “patchwork” of provincial policies is emerging in Canada.

“Against this backdrop of federal inaction and provincial patchwork, it is perhaps time to embrace policy fragmentation within the federation. The path forward for 2014 and beyond is therefore one of seeking provincial alignment to minimize long-term administrative and compliance costs,” states the report.

A fragmented provincial policies approach in the absence of federal policy is not a new concept to Canada. Canada’s current health care system of free and accessible health coverage for all Canadians was adopted by Saskatchewan before the federal government would even consider it.

The trick for an effective patchwork climate policy, according to the Institute, will be to find commonalities and linkages in the various provincial policies so they can work in cooperation with one another. 

Image Credit: International Institute for Sustainable Development Policy Brief

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.