On Dec. 9, after much deliberation and political theatre, the federal government, eight provinces and three territories signed the Pan-Canadian Framework on Clean Growth and Climate Change.

Saskatchewan and Manitoba were notably absent from the list of signatories.

But also absent was an explanation of just how and how much Canada will rely on emissions trading  — technically known as internationally transferred mitigation outcomes — to meet its 2030 target of cutting greenhouse gas emissions down to 524 megatonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent per year, a reduction of 30 per cent compared to 2005 emission levels.

In its framework Canada vaguely pledged to “continue to explore which types of tools related to the acquisition of internationally transferred mitigation outcomes may be beneficial to Canada.”

Yet Canada may be eyeing the offset tool as a fundamental part of achieving emissions reductions, especially if global resource prices rebound and the oilsands expand to production levels allowable under newly approved pipelines.

Simon Donner, climate scientist and assistant professor of geography at the University of British Columbia, says Canada was “definitely a leading part of the push to have a carbon trading market” included in the UN Paris Agreement, which aims to limit temperature increases to as close to 1.5 degrees Celsius as possible.

Dale Marshall, national program manager with Environmental Defence says emissions trading is “clearly something that’s being held up as not only an option but as a priority” for the Canadian government.

The new federal climate framework contains a gap, Marshall says, between expected emissions and climate targets.

“That gap can be filled by being more ambitious with regulations, it can be filled by ensuring the carbon price continues to rise…or it can be filled with the purchase of international credits.”

“The last option is certainly in the framework.”

However, emissions trading has developed a shoddy reputation over the years — which may account for the government’s decision to downplay the possibility of deploying it.

So, what exactly are emissions offsets or emissions trading schemes? How do they help reduce emissions? And what are the potential downsides?

How Does Emissions Trading Work?

If you’ve travelled on an airplane in recent years, you may have been invited to pay for offsets to mitigate the emissions associated with your flight. The money can be used to protect trees from deforestation, fund renewable power projects or cogeneration technology, or eliminate pollutants such as nitrous oxide and hydrofluorocarbon.

Governments have also participated in voluntary, one-time offsets, such as when the federal Conservatives spent $226,450 to make the 2010 Winter Olympics “carbon neutral.”

The purchase of offsets, whether personal, corporate or by government, basically amounts to a voluntary accountability mechanism.

An emissions trading scheme (ETS) is a different kind of beast, and one that arguably makes a bit more sense given there are now national climate commitments under the Paris Agreement that countries are expected to meet (as opposed to individuals who could ostensibly choose not to travel, for example).

Under a trading scheme, a jurisdiction can have an abatement opportunity “certified” by a governing body.

Investments in a wind farm or preservation of a peat forest designated for burning would be deemed equivalent to a certain number of tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent. These tonnes are then represented in the form of certificates.

Other jurisdictions can buy those certificates and the seller can use the profits to fund further emissions abatements.

The seller can’t count the sold emissions reduction towards its national commitments — but the buyer can.

So How Does this Help Climate Change Again?

Ultimately, it’s about rooting out the cheapest ways to prevent a tonne greenhouse gas destined for the atmosphere from getting there.

If a country or a province can purchase cheaper offsets elsewhere, an international emissions trading scheme opens up the market to those purchases.

For instance, Ontario and Quebec are in the process of establishing cap-and-trade schemes that will link their emissions reduction efforts to inexpensive carbon offsets in California via the Western Climate Initiative.

Blake Shaffer, doctoral student at the University of Calgary with an expertise in energy economics, says it makes sense for provinces to seek out the least expensive carbon abatement opportunities.

He points to a recent study that found Ontario would require a $157/tonne carbon tax if it tried to achieve its emissions reduction target domestically, yet could achieve those same reductions by purchasing much cheaper offsets in California.

Shaffer says that means Ontario will get an equal amount of emissions reductions for a cheaper price. That same principle applies internationally.

“International offsets are an intriguing solution because in the end, a tonne is a tonne is a tonne,” he says.

“If a country like Indonesia has reduction opportunities for less than a dollar per tonne, it’s a fair question as to why we’re paying $50/tonne in Canada.”

The cost savings are potentially very large, he says, noting that if Canada is short 100 Mt in 2030, the difference between abating between $50/tonne or $10/tonne on international markets is $4 billion a year in savings (and there’s a likelihood Canada’s carbon price could be higher by then).

Shaffer also notes there are more emissions coming from Indonesia’s peat fires in one year than all of Canada so “there’s really big-sized potential” for reductions.

Have Emissions Offsets Been Used Before?

Emission offsets have been used before — with seriously mixed results.

Donner says that although emissions offsets had been discussed since the early 1990s, it was under the Kyoto Protocol — with its binding emissions limits that entered into force in 2005 — that the idea really gained steam.

“It’s not a new idea, “ Donner says. “And there are mechanisms in place, like Kyoto. Under previous governments, under the Chretien government and then the Harper government, when we were part of the Kyoto Protocol it was assumed for a long time that the only way we could meet our targets was to purchase offsets on a trading market.”

It’s those binding limits that really give rise to market approaches. If a nation or province isn’t close to meeting its own targets, the option exists to buy your way to the finish line.

The Kyoto Protocol spawned the European Union Emissions Trading System, the largest of its kind in the world. The system had certain “flexibility mechanisms” built into it to help countries purchase different kinds of offsets to meet their targets.

But the system was plagued with problems, like the so-called Clean Development Mechanism which has been accused of inefficiency, the undermining of Indigenous rights and fraud.

Donner says a major controversy under the mechanism involved companies purposely creating hydrofluorocarbon and other human-made gases only to destroy them for money.

In a similar vein, the whole trading system was marred by major issues such as a massive oversupply of allowances on the market and huge price spikes.

In 2015, it was found that the Joint Implementation scheme created in Russia and Ukraine following Kyoto led to “significant criminal activity” and the release of 600 million tonnes of emissions that should have been abated.

Many smaller offset initiatives have hit similar pitfalls.

In February 2013, it was found that many public institutions in B.C. had been paying $25/tonne for certificates only worth between $9/tonne to $19/tonne; later that same month, conflict flared up “over the appropriateness of counting credits in [Great Bear Rainforest] where it was understood that large swaths of land would be protected anyway.”

Indigenous groups have also voiced opposition to emissions offsets, due to the historic displacement of communities for privatization and commodification of nature into property.

The #Carbon Offset Question: Will Canada Buy its Way to the #Climate Finish Line? https://t.co/L2p32ArBS9 #cdnpoli #emissions

— DeSmog Canada (@DeSmogCanada) December 13, 2016

So Why Are We Still Considering Emission Offsets?

The UN Paris climate conference changed everything.

Specifically, Article 6 of the Paris Agreement changed everything, allowing for the use of emission offsets to achieve national targets.

Former CEO of the International Emissions Trading Association, Andrei Marcu, called its unlikely inclusion a “major success and minor miracle.”

The recent UN climate summit in Marrakech expanded on that opportunity, effectively making decisions about the process for making the decisions about implementing it (that’s international geopolitical bureaucracy for you).

Marshall, who attended the climate talks in Marrakech as part of the Canadian delegation said the emissions trading scheme under Article 6 is undetermined as of yet.

“What we don’t have all the information on is how Article 6 will be articulated [in the Paris Agreement]. We still have two more years of negotiations to determine what the market mechanisms are and what the non-market mechanisms are as part of Article 6,” he says.

“Those will also determine to what extent Canada can rely on [emissions trading] as an option.”

Despite uncertainties, Canada was eager to have the option included in the agreement. Canada’s climate and environment minister Catherine McKenna chaired the negotiations on Article 6 in Paris and Canada’s senior negotiators described the element as “very dear” to them, Marshall says.

Emissions trading is expected to play an important and positive role in the way the Paris Agreement influences international climate policy.

So why such optimism?

For one, unlike with Kyoto, China is a full participant in the Paris Agreement. Shaffer suggests the momentum from its inclusion is resulting in an acknowledgment that global integrated action is cheaper than individual unilateral action.

Having China on board increases the potential of eventually equalizing abatement opportunities across the globe.

Amin Asadollahi, lead on climate change mitigation for North America at the International Institute for Sustainable Development, says the Paris Agreement specifically called for a detailed measurement, reporting and verification process.

While such a process has yet to be developed at the international level, some more localized systems, like the one serving the Western Climate Initiative, could serve as models.

Donner is also confident that we won’t see a repeat of previous problems with emission offsets.

Canada, he adds, pushed for guaranteed accounting to ensure incremental reductions that wouldn’t otherwise be performed and avoids double counting (in which both parties, buyers and sellers, take credit for emissions reductions).

“The good news is that by making mistakes in the past, the world can maybe figure out a better system this time,” he says.

Downsides of Emissions Trading

Of course, there are potential downsides associated with an international emissions trading scheme.

George Hoberg, environmental policy professor at the University of British Columbia, worries an over-reliance on offset measures could draw down ambitious climate leadership.

“Sharing technology and climate financing are also important indications of leadership, but only if they are a supplement to, not a substitute for, meeting domestic emission reduction obligations internally,” Hoberg says.

Asadollahi agrees: “Longer term, if you just rely on that and your emissions continue to go up, you’re not preparing your economy for this changing world.”

Marshall adds it is still important to focus on the hardline domestic policies and sectors that influence Canada’s emissions.

“I think the priority for those who want to see as much domestic action as possible is to continue to push for more ambitious emission reductions at home and for Article 6 to be relied on only to get Canada beyond its 2030 target, which we know is a weak target,” he says.

Critics also worry emissions trading could potentially be used to cover poor policymaking at the expense of public coffers.

Shaffer notes that offsets result in capital outflow — money leaving jurisdictions for specific reduction targets — unlike a carbon tax which results in a higher per-tonne price retained in the jurisdiction for possible investments in renewables, energy efficiency measures, rebates or tax cuts (that very debate surfaced at the Pan-Canadian Framework negotiations).

He says that requires governments to compare the trade-offs between a lower price per tonne and keeping all the money in the province.

Possibly the greatest danger of all — and this is something near impossible to assess as the federal government still hasn’t released the specific math of its 2030 plan — is the chance of overbetting on the availability of cheap offsets.

If many other countries manage to greatly reduce their emissions in the next decade-and-a-half due to strong climate policies and the falling price of renewables, the number of offsets on the global market may be fewer than expected.

That low supply of sellable certificates could drive up the price, the inverse of what happened under the European Union Emissions Trading System.

None of this takes into account the fact that the world’s combined national climate commitments don’t result in enough emissions reductions to stay within 1.5 degrees Celsius of warming.

“There are real accounting challenges in doing this,” Donner acknowledges.

With files from Carol Linnitt.

Image: Emissions rise from a processing plant in the Alberta oilsands. Photo: Kris Krug/DeSmog

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 federal government is expected to announce the details of Canada’s national climate plan Friday, Dec. 9 at a high-profile gathering of First Ministers in Ottawa.

The details of the climate plan, which amount to a balance sheet of the nation’s carbon emissions, are critical to evaluating the federal government’s recent decisions to approve major fossil fuel projects in light of Canada’s international climate commitments under the Paris Agreement.

“To have confidence in this plan’s ability we need to see credible accounting,” Catherine Abreu, executive direction of Climate Action Network Canada, said.

Trudeau has garnered significant criticism for his recent approvals of the Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain pipeline expansion and Enbridge Line 3 replacement, both of which invite increased production in the Alberta oilsands, Canada’s fastest growing source of greenhouse gas emissions.

In September the federal government approved the Pacific Northwest LNG terminal on the B.C. coast, a project that is expect to be the single largest point source of emissions in the country.

These approvals — and the increase in emissions they entail — have raised questions about the government’s ability to meet its climate targets.

Under the Paris Agreement Canada pledged to reduce emissions 30 per cent below 2005 levels by 2030.

“We know the 2030 target is the one that is top of mind for ministers,” Erin Flanagan, director of federal policy for the Pembina Institute, said. “It’s the one that [Environment and Climate Change] Minister McKenna is referring to when she says we’ll meet or exceed our climate commitments.”

Canada, unfortunately, has a long history of signing up for targets and an equally long history of not meeting them, Flanagan said.

“In fact, Canada’s best reporting through its biennial report indicates we’re a long way off from achieving those goals,” she said. “The report is quite bullish on fossil fuel development.”

By its own accounting the federal government anticipates Canada will emit 814 megatonnes (Mt) of carbon dioxide equivalent per year by 2030. To meet its commitments under the Paris Agreement, Canada must limit that number to 524 Mt.

Flanagan said the federal government has yet to release an updated plan that incorporates recent climate efforts, like the introduction of a national carbon tax, the phaseout of coal power plants and provincial climate plans, into the overall emissions accounting.

A recent analysis done by EnviroEconomics finds that climate progress made under Trudeau’s leadership will help close but not eliminate that emissions gap. The report estimates that by 2030 Canada will overshoot its 2030 target by 152 Mt (or slightly less if international carbon offset credits are used).

But those calculations are based on what can be gleaned from provincial and federal plans announced so far and not necessarily what the federal government has in store.

On Friday Trudeau will meet with ministers and provincial and territorial premiers to discuss the details of what Trudeau has called an “ambitious and achievable plan” to meet 2030 targets.

The specifics have up to this point remained elusive.

Much-Anticipated Details of Canada’s #ClimatePlan to Be Revealed at First Minister’s Meeting. Maybe. https://t.co/7b11biMXJP #cdnpoli

— DeSmog Canada (@DeSmogCanada) December 8, 2016

Steven Guilbeault, senior director of Équiterre, said the government must show its work.

“Without a balance sheet there is no way to know if this plan is delivering on what it says it does,” he said.

“What is enabling Canada’s emissions to go down? Why are they going up? To be able to adjust that plan over time and to have a genuine understanding and reassurance that we do have a plan that will put us on a path towards emissions reduction is needed for credibility,” Guilbeault said.

“Without the plusses and minuses it’s impossible for us to say whether premiers and the Prime Minister have delivered on that plan.”

This week the Canadian Press reported internal sources said the federal government will not, as expected, release detailed information regarding the country’s greenhouse gas inventory.

Minister McKenna responded to the reports, telling the CBC that Canada will indeed release an in-depth plan.

"We will show how we're going to meet our 2030 targets — what measures we've taken, what additional measures we will be taking to meet the target," McKenna said.

"You will see a specific plan. You will see, in each sector, what we're doing to reduce emissions. You'll see what investments we're making. You'll see how we're working with Indigenous communities, in particular in the north, where they have specific concerns about diesel but also about adaptation."

“We know Friday is not the end of the story,” Dr. Louise Comeau, director of climate change and energy solutions with the Conservation Council of New Brunswick, said.

Wrinkles in the climate framework as they relate to financial arrangements for green infrastructure, low carbon economy funding and equivalency agreements, which aim to standardize accounting of efforts made from province to province, will need to be ironed out moving forward, Comeau said.

Dale Marshall, climate campaigner with Environmental Defence, said he’s confident the ministers’ meeting will end with a climate agreement.

“I think there is high likelihood we’ll get an agreement,” he said.

“The federal government has spent since the last First Ministers’ Meeting in March, coordinating with the provinces, meeting with working groups and signed a number of agreements that had the signon of the country, like the carbon price, within the pan-Canadian framework.”

“Most people are feeling positive that we’re going to have a pan-Canadian framework agreed to by most if not all of the provinces and territories.”

Catheine Abreu said it’s important to ensure what is decided now, will remain relevant to 2030 and beyond.

“What we want to see on Friday is a commitment that the federal government and provinces commit to collaborate on moving forward.”

Abreu added more in-depth discussion is needed on crafting a workable accountability mechanism to ensure governments at all levels are keeping to their targets.

In addition the commitment made under the Paris Agreement isn’t just to limit emissions to 2030 but to strengthen targets every few years moving forward, Abreu said.

Canada committed to complete decarbonization by the end of the century and to work to achieve net zero emissions by 2050.

Abreu said Canada needs top-notch measuring, reporting and verification systems to not only establish emission reduction policies and regulations, but to gradually improve them over time.

“We have to totally or almost totally decarbonize our economy,” Guilbeault said. “Really 2030 isn’t the end.”

Image: Justin Trudeau and First Ministers at a March meeting in Vancouver. Photo: Prime Minister's Photo Gallery

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

This is a guest post by Dale Marshall, national energy program manager with Environmental Defence.

There’s a lot of hope for the U.N. climate change summit starting this week. And Canada can play an important role in helping to ensure the Paris summit’s success. 

The goal of the Paris summit, officially called the 21st Conference of the Parties (COP21), is for a global agreement on climate action to be finalized. The world has let so much time pass without taking strong action on climate change that many are hoping the Paris agreement will be the one that finally ensures that climate change does not reach truly dangerous levels.

Expectations are high for the Canadian government. Prime Minister Trudeau has signalled that he wants his government to play a constructive role, and contribute to a strong outcome in Paris. Our new report, Canada’s Role at COP21, shows there are several ways that the Prime Minister can lend momentum to the climate summit, where a strong, progressive, Canadian voice can propel the talks forward.

First, the federal government must signal in very clear ways that this is not just a new government but one that takes climate change seriously. The previous government’s pledge for the Paris summit was the weakest in the G7 and assessed as inadequate by two separate analyses — one by four European think tanks and one by civil society groups. The new Canadian government needs to communicate in concrete terms that it will do much more.

There will be a lot of pressure on the federal government to put a carbon reduction target on the table in Paris. This may be difficult given that the government took office just last month, and that the Prime Minister met with provincial premiers just this week. But the climate change announcement of the Alberta government removes what had been one of the biggest barriers to climate action in Canada. A signal from Canada that our current pledge will be strengthened can give forward momentum to the Paris talks.

Second, the Canadian government needs to commit international climate financing to assist poor developing countries who are facing the ravages of climate change. In Copenhagen in 2009, industrialized countries committed to mobilizing $100 billion per year in climate financing by 2020, an amount that is below the cost of the impacts already being faced by developing countries.

The Canadian government has already announced a climate financing package of $2.65 billion over five years. This is a welcome first step but the $800 million pledged in 2020 falls well short of the $4 billion that would be Canada’s fair share of the funding package in 2020. The Canadian government could make up the difference by supporting innovative forms of financing, such as a tax on bunker fuels used in international aviation and shipping. This is something that the Canadian government can do on its own, without buy-in or agreement from the provinces.

Then there are elements that are being discussed in the international climate talks that the Canadian government can support to improve the final agreement. One is a way for global carbon reduction commitments to be strengthened in the near future. Many hope that the Paris summit will deliver everything that is needed to avoid dangerous climate change, but the gap between what has been pledged and what is needed is wide enough that it is unlikely to be bridged at COP21.

As a result, there is a need for a ratcheting-up mechanism to increase ambition and make sure the Paris agreement does not lock in a long period of low ambition. That’s why commitments in the Paris agreement will need to be reviewed, both individually and collectively, on a regular basis. And the first review needs to happen before 2020. By supporting this, Canada would ensure that the global community increased commitments and action until emission reductions were sufficient to avoid dangerous levels of climate change.

Another important element expected in the Paris agreement is a long-term goal the global community will take on. Various options are on the table including a commitment to decarbonize the global economy by 2050. This would mean replacing all existing fossil fuels with 100 per cent renewable energy and sustainable energy access for all. This would go after the root of the problem of climate change — the burning of fossil fuels.

This goal is technologically possible and it appears to be politically possible. Many countries are supporting this goal in the U.N. negotiations. G7 countries almost agreed to it at their most recent meeting in Germany in June, but the former Canadian government played a spoiler role. In this and other ways, the current government can reverse course and support a strong Paris outcome that reflects the science of climate change.

At COP21 in Paris, it won’t be enough for Canada to be a different government. It has to be a different kind of government, one that embraces the important role it can play in the fight against climate change.

Image: Twitter

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

Canada’s provincial leaders finalized the Canadian Energy Strategy Friday with a document many onlookers are criticizing as too reliant on traditional carbon-based sources of energy.

The strategy, intended to guide the integrated development of Canada’s energy resources across the provinces, places no restrictions on the release of greenhouse gas emissions and takes a proactive approach to building oil and gas pipelines.

According to officials who spoke with the Globe and Mail the strategy was meant to strike a balance between the energy ambitions of each province with growing concerns over global climate change.

“We have a path to pursue two critical national priorities,” a senior Alberta official said, ”how are we going to keep building our energy industry and how are we going to address climate change?”

Commitment to Cleaner Energy Long-Overdue

The Canadian Energy Strategy, although acknowledging the need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the provinces, maintains an equal opportunity approach to all energy sources — an element of the document that weakens Canada’s stance in the rapidly evolving clean energy economy according to alternative energy analysts.

Clean Energy Canada, a climate and energy think tank, said the energy strategy lacks the strong commitments needed to advance low-carbon sources of energy.

“Today’s strategy recognizes the role that renewable electricity and pricing carbon will play in this shift, but still leans heavily on traditional fossil-based energy sources,” Sarah Petrevan, senior policy advisor with Clean Energy Canada, said.

Petrevan said the document merely gives a nod to clean energy without outlining any meaningful policy for its real-world development.

“This is 2015, and we need to do better,” she said. “We need deeper reductions, and a clear plan to deliver them, we hope [the premiers’] work over the next year will yield that.”

As DeSmog Canada has previously reported, Canada has no national climate legislation and has failed for years to deliver promised regulations for the oil and gas sector. According to Environment Canada, the country is on track to miss its greenhouse gas reduction targets agreed to under the Copenhagen Accord. 

Last year Environment Commissioner Julie Gelfand released a scathing critique of Canada after she found the nation has no plan in place for reaching its climate targets and has “no climate vision” whatsoever.

Canada Missing Economic Benefits of Clean Energy

Petrevan added: “If the global economy were a baseball game, a home run would be heading straight for the clean-energy industry — but Canada hasn’t even left the dugout.”

“We’ve lost out on nearly $9 billion in clean-energy export opportunities in 2013 alone. We need a plan to transition our economy and reap the benefits of the growth and jobs that come with it.”

Petrevan and others are pointing to an absence of federal leadership as a critical weakness in Canada’s fight against climate change.

In late 2013 Canada 2020 released a poll that showed while the vast majority of Canadians (84 per cent) think the federal government has a responsibility to the take lead on combatting global climate change, very few (16 per cent) believed it was an actual priority for the government.

Diana Carney, associate with Canada 2020, said the poll results confirmed a common public sentiment across the nation: “there is a leadership vacuum when it comes to fighting climate change in this country.”

Louise Comeau, executive director of Climate Action Network Canada, said Canada should make more effort to enter into the clean energy transition, arguing that is where the future job market lies.

The strategy’s ‘non-discriminatory’ approach to all forms of energy is out-of-touch, according to the network. “What’s needed is public policy favouring clean, renewable energy over the oil, coal and natural gas unbalancing the climate system,” the group stated in a press release.

Comeau said it is not uncommon for governments to restrict the entry of harmful products into the market.

“Governments discriminate against smoking and toxics in food and consumer products,” she said. “What’s needed now is discriminatory policy against fossil fuels if we are going to drastically reduce the carbon pollution putting our health and well-being at risk.”

In early 2015 Clean Energy Canada released a report on the state of renewable energy, finding global investment in alternative energy increased by 17 per cent from 2013.

The report concluded Canada, by directing enormous subsidies and tax breaks towards the fossil fuel industry, is holding Canada’s clean energy revolution back.

Major Pipeline Rupture in Alberta Emphasizes Fossil Fuel Risks

This week a pipeline owned by oilsands operator Nexen ruptured near the company’s Long Lake facility southeast of Fort McMurray, releasing 32,000 barrels or 1.32 million gallons of bitumen emulsion into the surrounding environment.

The spill is a reminder of the high-stakes risk major oil pipelines pose to the environment, according to Peter Louwe from Greenpeace.

“Alberta has a long way to go to address its pipeline problems,” Louwe said, adding “communities have good reasons to fear having more built.”

The Enbridge Northern Gateway pipeline and Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain pipeline expansion both plan on carrying increased oilsands crude to the coast of British Columbia. The National Energy Board refused to consider the climate impacts of the pipelines during public hearings, claiming upstream impacts were not relevant to the project’s application.

A similar argument has been made by the regulator regarding TransCanada’s Energy East pipeline, currently the largest proposed pipeline on the continent.

According to the Pembina Institute the Energy East pipeline could generate up to 32 million tonnes of additional oilsands emissions from the crude it will transport, the equivalent of adding seven million more cars to Canada’s roads.

Dale Marshall, national program manager with Environmental Defence, said the premier’s energy strategy ignores the climate impacts of pipelines and is falling out of step with the rest of the world.

Marshall described the strategy as “a big step backwards.”

“By lending support to pipelines, the strategy will put Canada further out of step with the rest of the world where climate change is being treated as a serious matter,” he said.

“We in Canada need to come to grips with the fact that it’s practically impossible to grow the tar sands and reduce carbon pollution.”  

Image Credit: Government of Ontario 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.

An estimated 25,000 took to the streets of Quebec City Saturday to protest the federal government’s lack of leadership on climate change and unfaltering support for increased production in the Alberta oilsands.

“Our message is simple — yes to climate equals no to the tar sands,” Christian Simard, executive direct of Nature Quebec, said. Nature Quebec along with Greenpeace, Equiterre and the David Suzuki Foundation and other eastern Canadian environmental groups organized the demonstration — already being called the largest climate protest in Canada's history.

Demonstrators filled the streets of Quebec City’s historic quarter demanding the nation's premiers be climate leaders and reject proposed pipeline projects like TransCanada’s Energy East and Kinder Morgan’s TransMountain.

“We don’t want to see the premiers under the cover of a national energy strategy agreeing to help Alberta expand the tar sands. A national energy strategy needs also to be a climate strategy,” Adam Scott, climate and energy program manager at Environmental Defence Canada, told DeSmog Canada.

All premiers will be in Quebec City next week, save Nova Scotia's Stephen McNeil, for the annual premiers’ summit.

Update April 15: B.C. premier Christy Clark and Alberta premier Jim Prentice also declined to attend the climate summit. For details on the province's role in the summit read our DeSmog Canada Primer: How is Your Province Acting on Climate? A Primer for the Premier's Climate Summit.

Discussions on new oil pipeline projects will feature prominently during this year’s meeting which has the sole focus of addressing climate change. The oilsands and pipeline industry has run up against roadblocks in recent years in British Columbia, the United States and now Quebec while seeking public approval for major projects designed to export oilsands bitumen to international markets.

Thousands march on the streets of Quebec City. Photo: Derek Leahy

“Quebec and Ontario are facing the prospect of the largest tar sands pipeline in North America in Energy East. Ontario and Quebec need to decide if they will take climate change seriously and say no to Energy East,” Scott told DeSmog Canada.

Ontario premier Kathleen Wynne and Quebec premier Philippe Couillard have both professed a desire to be ‘climate leaders.’ Both also support the 1.1 million barrels-a-day Energy East pipeline expected to travel through their provinces.  

The turnout in Quebec City for the ‘Act on Climate’ march may be an indicator Wynne and Coulliard, by supporting Energy East, may find their positions offside in their respective provinces. According to a recent poll, one in two Canadians are against the west-to-east pipeline project.

“There is no compromise between climate change and tar sands expansion — it is just not possible,” Simard told DeSmog Canada.

A new report released this week by Environmental Defence and Greenpeace argues it is highly unlikely Canada can meet any greenhouse gas emission reduction targets and grow the oilsands at the same time. If the oilsands continue to grow, by 2020 Alberta will produce as much greenhouse gas emissions as B.C., Ontario and Quebec combined. Alberta compromises only eleven per cent of Canada’s total population.

“It’s ridiculous that politicians claim to want to address climate change while also wanting tar sands production to grow. These are totally incompatible goals,” Dale Marshall, national program manager at Environmental Defence and co-author of the report, said.

Act on Climate rally. Photo: Derek Leahy

As part of the upcoming United Nations climate talks in Paris this year, Canada was suppose to table plans on how the country will make deep reductions in emissions output. No such plans surfaced from Ottawa. South of the border, the U.S. and Mexico agreed to a joint task force on climate policy. Canada decline to participate in that agreement.

“We march today for a Canada we can be proud of again. It’s time for climate policy to be developed in Ottawa, not in the oil patch,” Tzeporah Berman, co-founder of ForestEthics, said.

Photo: Derek Leahy

Students groups, First Nations, unions and other segments of civil society all participated in today’s march.

Image Credit: Derek Leahy

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 U.S. and Mexico appear to have joined Canada in its fight to prevent a North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) investigation of the more than 176 square kilometres of tailings ponds holding waste from the Alberta oilsands near Fort McMurray.

In 2010 a group of citizens and environmental groups petitioned NAFTA’s Commission on Environmental Cooperation to investigate whether Canada is breaking its own federal laws, in particular the Fisheries Act, by failing to adequately manage the massive tailings ponds which hold a toxic mixture of water, silt and chemicals.

“It was important for us to know whether this was happening and whether environmental laws were being broken and whether the government is upholding those laws or ignoring them,” Dale Marshall from Environmental Defence, one of the organizations behind the compliant, said.

A 2012 federal study confirmed the tailings ponds are seeping waste into the local environment and Athabasca River. In 2013 an internal memo prepared for then Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver confirmed groundwater toxins related to bitumen extraction and processing are migrating from the tailings ponds.

“The studies have, for the first time, detected potentially harmful, mining-related organic acid contaminants in groundwater outside a long-established out-of-pit tailings pond,” the memo reads. “This finding is consistent with publicly available technical reports of seepage (both projected in theory, and detected in practice).”

A separate Environment Canada study released in late 2014 confirmed tailings ponds emit toxins into the atmosphere at rates nearly five times higher than previously reported.

The NAFTA environmental commission was established in 1994 to investigate public concerns and resolve environmental disputes related to international trade in Canada, the U.S. and Mexico.

A decision on whether or not to investigate complaints is made by a council comprised of environmental ministers from the three countries. A vote on whether or not to recommend a ‘factual record’ or in-depth investigation is expected to come down within the next week.

Yet in an email to the CBC Environment Canada spokesman Danny Kingsberry said “through a council resolution in December 2014, Canada, Mexico and the U.S. unanimously voted to terminate the submission.”

The statement raised concerns that Canada has already guaranteed success in its protracted fight against the investigation even though the official vote has yet to take place. U.S. and Canadians officials described the statement as “highly unusual” although Canada’s effort to shut down the investigation has been explicit throughout the process.

Previously Dan McDougall, the assistant deputy minister for Environment Canada’s international affairs branch, instructed the commission to “proceed no further with this submission.” McDougall argued a related pending court case ruled out the need for an investigation. When the commission pushed back, McDougall instructed the body to “cease this analysis.”

According to Hugh Benevides, legal officer for the commission, Canada’s efforts to thwart the investigation are unprecedented.

“To my knowledge we have never received such a firm position as we have from Canada as we have in this case,” he told the CBC. “I think it’s safe to say it’s a new approach.”

Canada has blocked previous NAFTA investigations, however, aided in part by Mexico’s vote. In 2014 Canada prevented two investigations, one into B.C. salmon farms and the other into the protection of polar bears.

According to Benevides the council has successfully stopped four investigations in the last 20 years. If Canada prevents an investigation of the oilsands it would bring the total to five, the majority of which will be led by Canada within the last three years.

Debra Steger, international trade law expert at the University of Ottawa, told the CBC that countries are eager to avoid this kind of oversight.

“[A NAFTA investigation] produces a report that can be critical of what the government is doing and no government wants that scrutiny,” she said

Steger added this is especially the case with such politically contentious issues as the Alberta oilsands.

“This is an issue that the three parties probably just don’t want to go too near at this point,” she said.

For Environmental Defence’s Marshall the blocked investigation has everything to do with the pending Keystone XL pipeline decision south of the border.

“It’s clear that President Obama is looking at Canada’s record when he is thinking about approving or not approving certain pipelines going through the U.S.,” he said. “If this is one more stain on Canada’s record then that plays into his decision potentially.”

A vote on the tailings pond investigation is expected as soon as Friday.

Image Credit: Tailings pond at Suncor mining site by Alex MacLean.

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 is “flying under the radar” at this year’s UNFCCC COP20 climate talks in Lima, Peru according to Canada Youth Delegation member Brenna Owen.

Canada’s negotiators are working hard to sidestep the issue of the country’s growing greenhouse gas emissions from the oil and gas sector according to Owen, while simultaneously keeping quiet about the oilsands as nations come up with their “intended nationally determined contributions” (INDCs) in the global climate agreement.

“They’re not going to be able to do that much longer,” she added. “And they’re not going to be able to avoid talking about the tar sands.”

Aleah Loney, another member of the 10-person youth delegation, said the group is eager to push Canada’s ministers and negotiators to address the issue of oil and gas emissions rather than employing evasive tactics to avoid the concerns outright.

On Tuesday, as ministers and delegates from around the world continued to arrive at the climate talks to negotiate an internationally binding climate agreement, Prime Minister Stephen Harper told the House of Commons he would not regulate emissions from Canada’s oil and gas sector.

“Under the current circumstances of the oil and gas sector, it would be crazy – it would be crazy economic policy – to do unilateral penalties on that sector,” he said. “We’re clearly not going to do that.”

The oilsands are Canada’s fastest growing source of greenhouse gas emissions. In October, Canada’s environment commissioner Julie Gelfand said the country has “no overall vision” when it comes to oil and gas regulations and as a result will not meet its 2020 international greenhouse gas reductions targets agreed to in Copenhagen.

In the House of Commons Harper also claimed “nobody in the world is regulating their oil and gas sector.”

“I’d be delighted if they did, Canada will be there with them. But we are not going to impose unilateral penalties.”

Harper’s comments add another layer of insight into the activities of Canadian negotiators in Lima who are actively skirting the issue of national responsibility by pointing fingers at other nations.

Environment Minister Leona Aglukkaq told delegates at the climate talks Canada is interested in an agreement “that would see all major emitters commit to do their fair share.”

Dale Marshall, national program manager with Environmental Defence, told DeSmog that Canada “for the longest time has been trying to…talk about all major emitters to put everyone in the same boat.”

“On the one hand you could argue there are major developing countries that could do more, but from what I see in terms of historical responsibility countries like Canada have much, much greater responsibility to act and much greater resources to act and should take on greater commitments.”

“When you point at countries like China and India,” Marshall said, “you’re essentially deflecting blame and making it easy for Canada to stay with very weak targets.”

Christian Holz, international policy director with the Climate Action Network, said Canada has “maneuvered itself into a corner of insignificance,” at UNFCCC talks.

He said instead of talking about oil and gas regulations and growth in the oilsands, Canada is redirecting attention to a new commitment to reduce hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), which are used in air conditioning and heating.

“They decided to focus on one of the smallest areas of Canada’s emissions profile. HFCs account for about one per cent of Canadian emissions and the oil and gas sector is about 25 per cent right now. So of course, we’re not picking the right areas to focus on.”

Holz said this kind of diversion tactic isn’t even generating controversy within the negotiations or at home because “nobody’s really taking Canada seriously anymore.”

“I guess that’s why you don’t see the outrage that you would expect from bait and switches like that if Canada was considered a genuine participant in this global effort to address climate change.”

Loney from the Canada Youth Delegation said her group is putting effort into keeping the oil and gas sector relevant to Canada’s participation in the climate negotiations.

“We really want to talk about the oil and gas sector as a whole and that includes fracking. But we feel it’s important to highlight the tar sands as well,” she said. “We’re talking at a very high level at the UNFCCC and people know what the tar sands are here.”

Kelsey Mech from the Canadian Youth Climate Coalition and a member of the youth delegation in Lima said it’s important for their group to keep the pressure squarely on Canada.

“We’re linking the two worlds,” between Lima and Canada, Mech said, “trying to bring back to Canada what’s going on here.”

“One of the reason why it’s important for folks like us to be here is to put that pressure on internationally on our own government. They’re not going to bring something strong to the table internationally if there isn’t that pressure back home domestically.”

“We’re here to put tar sands back on the table.”

Loney added that this process benefits from being complicated. “They take climate negotiations to such a high-brow that it cuts people off.”

“It’s been important for me to bring these issues back down,” she added.

On Tuesday, Loney brought the question of the oilsands to the negotiations, asking Canadian representatives, “what can I bring back to my friends in Alberta? What can I take back to my friends in Fort McMurray and my friends in treaty territory that are dealing with the effects of living downstream of the tar sands?”

“These are real things that impact real people.”

Image Credit: Environment Canada via Twitter

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