Doctors, nurses and health care professionals from across Canada are urging the federal government to phase out coal-fired power plants within the next decade because of coal’s harmful effects on human health and its contribution to climate change.

The unusual activism from groups such as the Canadian Lung Association, the Asthma Society of Canada and the Heart and Stroke Foundation, led by the Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment, comes on the heels of growing global recognition of the damage caused by greenhouse gas emissions from coal-fired power generation.

“We urge the government of Canada to phase out coal-fired power plants by 2025 as a critical and immediate action toward achieving Canada’s emissions commitments and as a means to reap significant health benefits for Canadians,” reads a submission from 15 health organizations, representing more than 300,000 health professionals.

Despite the troubling impacts coals has on health and the environment, Canada is taking its time in weaning itself off the use of traditional coal-fired power plants to produce electricity, but the country could set an example to the rest of the world, suggests the letter to a Ministry of Environment and Climate Change federal-provincial working group. 

“With an ambitious commitment to coal phase-out in hand, Canada can enter this year’s COP22 international climate negotiations in Marrakesh, Morocco (to be held in November) as a leader on this issue. Canada’s action to eliminate coal-fired power would be a significant global victory,” the letter says.

Coal-fired power plants are responsible for up to 43 per cent of greenhouse gas emissions globally and their closure is seen as one of the fastest ways to dramatically reduce emissions. The majority of plants are in China, but coal consumption is starting to drop as the country restricts construction of new coal plants and closes those with the biggest pollution problems.

Coal generated about 10.6 per cent of Canada’s electricity in 2014 — mainly is Alberta, Saskatchewan, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick — and is responsible for about 8.4 per cent of Canada’s emissions of greenhouse gases and for 72 per cent of greenhouse gases emitted from the electricity sector.

Ontario and Alberta have already taken steps to phase out coal plants, with Ontario closing its six plants between 2003 and 2014 — and seeing health benefits estimated at $300 million a year — while Alberta is starting to phase out coal-fired plants in 2018 with a target of having them all closed by 2030.*

The letter from the health professionals says “Each year, air pollution from coal-fired plants in Alberta, is giving rise to approximately 100 premature deaths from long-term exposures, 700 visits to Alberta’s emergency departments, 80 hospital admissions for respiratory and cardiovascular ailments from short-term exposures and 4,800 asthma symptom days…The health impacts have been valued at approximately $300 million per year or $3-billion when extrapolated over a 10-year period.”

Canada’s doctors & nurses urge critical & immediate action on #coal powerplants https://t.co/OuNS3L4GAk #cdnpoli pic.twitter.com/qvbHprrP6q

— DeSmog Canada (@DeSmogCanada) June 20, 2016

In addition to problems directly related to pollution from coal plants, there are equally alarming health consequences expected from climate change in Canada as people will have to deal with higher levels of smog and pollen as temperatures increase, a wider range for insect and tick-borne diseases such as West Nile Virus and Lyme disease, more avalanches, mudslides, thunderstorms, droughts, hailstorms and tornadoes, contaminated drinking water and food-borne illnesses, says the letter, which describes climate change as the ultimate health equity and social justice issue.

“Countries with poor health infrastructure and low incomes that are already struggling to feed their residents are the hardest hit by climate change, while countries with the highest standards of living, such as Canada, are among the largest emitters of the greenhouse gases that are contributing to climate change,” it says.

Terrie Hendrickson, coordinator of the B.C. Health Coalition — one of the organizations which signed the letter — said all the health professionals felt there was so much evidence showing the health consequences of using coal that consensus was reached.

“I think doctors are starting to get involved with climate change from a health care perspective,” she said.

“We are already starting to see the outcomes of climate change and we are seeing how it’s going to affect the most vulnerable in society.”

Although B.C. does not have any coal-fired power plants, together with Alberta, it is responsible for mining and exporting more than 80 per cent of the 60-million tonnes of coal produced in Canada each year and coal makes up almost half the shipments through the Port of Vancouver.

A B.C. government website says coal is a mainstay of the province and represents more than half of the total mineral production revenues.

“Coal is B.C.’s largest single export commodity,” the site states.

That means B.C. bears some responsibility for the health and climate problems from coal use world wide, says the non-profit Dogwood Initiative in a recent report that criticizes the B.C government for not including emissions from coal mined in the province in its emissions targets.

“The total global pollution from B.C. coal in 2008 — a total of 61.4 million tonnes — almost doubles B.C.’s reported contribution to global warming,” the report states. “While all the attention is focused on green energy, B.C is quietly becoming a major global player in perhaps the dirtiest, most polluting industry on the plant — coal.”

“Dialogue needs to begin about the relationship between being a climate leader and exporting polluting resources like coal.”

*Change Notice: Sept. 27, 2016: This article originally incorrectly stated that the health benefits of Ontario's coal phase-out were valued at $3 billion a  year. The actual figure is $300 million per year, or $3 billion extrapolated over a 10-year period.

Image: Coal Power Plant, Battle River, Alberta. Photo: Benjamin Thibault, Pembina Institute

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

For more than two decades, Mark Jaccard has been penning “report cards” about Canada’s environmental track record. The results haven’t been pretty.

Jaccard, a veteran professor in Simon Fraser University’s School of Resource and Environmental Management, notes his annual evaluations were harnessed in the mid-2000s by Stephen Harper (then serving as federal opposition leader) as arguments for why the Conservatives deserved a shot at governing the country.

Those report cards were used as “a way of saying ‘look how incompetent the Liberals are, they haven’t done anything on climate, we’re not going to achieve Kyoto but let us get into power and we will set a new target in 2020 and implement regulations immediately to achieve that target,’” Jaccard recalls.

The Conservatives eventually formed a minority government in 2006 and became the majority government after the 2011 election.

Jaccard’s latest report card, released on October 6, concludes the Conservative Party has since “implemented virtually no policies that would materially reduce emissions” despite making significant emissions pledges for 2020 and 2050.

The five-page report notes the Conservative government has scored a “failing grade” for neglecting to introduce easily realizable policies in the sectors of transportation, electricity generation, construction and industry. Jaccard concludes the absence of such actions shows “they must have had no intention” of dealing with climate change.

“I know there are a lot of people in the Conservative Party — because they talk to me — who are disgusted that the current leader is so against implementing policies that would have no political cost to him but would reduce emissions,” he says. “I don’t know what [Harper’s] issue is, I don’t try to guess what’s in his mind, but he could do so much more.”

Harper’s Climate Policies Insignificant

Of course, the Conservative government has consistently told a different tale, pointing to regulations on coal-fired power plants built after 2030 and vehicle energy efficiency rules as instances of action on the climate change front.

However, Jaccard notes there are no new coal plants planned in the near future and that vehicle efficiency standards introduced under Prime Minister Harper don’t have nearly the same impact as regulations introduced in jurisdictions like California.

In short: the policies that Harper has introduced technically exist but are by no means enough to get Canada as close as it needs to be to emissions targets.

“Any academic will give you the same answer I did,” Jaccard says. “It’s got nothing to do with partisanship.”

In the report, Jaccard outlines three primary reasons why politicians like Harper don’t act on environmental policy: the absence of compulsory policies such as carbon taxes or sector-by-sector regulations, the global nature of climate change (requiring far larger jurisdictions such as China to cut emissions before seeing obvious impacts) and the absence of an independent monitoring service that provides feedback about progress.

It’s the latter factor that Jaccard has attempted to change with the annual “report card.”

Canada’s 2020 Climate Target Now Unachievable

Jaccard also notes his conclusions aren’t born from a particular animosity towards conservative parties, pointing out that Gordon Campbell, long-time premier of British Columbia, introduced very effective climate change policies such as the Clean Energy Act while sharing similar ideological stances as Harper.

Canada’s 2020 target is now unachievable due to the country’s laggard approach, Jaccard writes.

The 2050 target, requiring a 65 per cent cut in emissions, would require “an almost complete transformation” of the economic system. As a result, every day counts.

If the country opted for an economy-wide carbon tax — a move favoured by many economists — Jaccard estimates it would need to be introduced at $50/tonne, increasing to $150/tonne by 2020 (for reference, B.C. taxes carbon at $30/tonne).

But for Jaccard, the technicalities of a future transition — whether it’s a carbon tax, cap-and-trade or sector-by-sector regulation — doesn’t matter so much as some sort of move being made. The longer the country waits, he warns, the more economically catastrophic such moves will be given the potential stranding of fossil fuel assets and compounding of climate change-related costs.

“If the Conservative Party had overthrown [Harper] in the last year, I would be saying ‘let’s see what they do,’” Jaccard concludes.

“But because they have not and given the idea of him continuing as prime minister, any of the other parties would be better.”

Image: Mark Jaccard via Running on Climate

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.