Promises made by governments across the globe to limit their national greenhouse gas emissions in advance of December’s UN Climate Summit in Paris, where a binding post-2020 international climate treaty is to be struck, are insufficient to limit warming to the 2˚C threshold.

That’s the conclusion of a new analysis released last week during the final round of pre-Paris negotiations in Bonn, Germany, by a consortium of climate research organizations called Climate Action Tracker. The consortium includes Ecofys, Climate Analytics, NewClimate Institute and the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research.

In the lead-up to the summit, 29 governments have released their “Intended Nationally Determined Contributions” (INDCs), the vast majority of which are too weak to limit global warming to scientifically advisable levels.

According to Climate Action Tracker, the current plans address about 65 per cent of global emissions.

The group analyzed 15 of the 29 contribution promises and rated seven as “inadequate” (Australia, Canada, Japan, New Zealand, Singapore, South Korea and Russia) and six “medium” (China, the EU, Mexico, Norway, Switzerland and the U.S.).

Only two of the plans — from Ethiopia and Morocco — were considered “sufficient.”

On Track to Surpass 2˚C

According to Bill Hare of Climate Analytics the commitments “need to be considerably strengthened for the period 2020-2025.” 

“It is clear that if the Paris meeting locks in present climate commitments for 2030, holding warming below 2˚C could essentially become infeasible, and 1.5˚C beyond reach,” he said.

Scientists and policymakers around the world have agreed we must limit warming to within 2˚C of pre-industrial temperatures if we want to avoid catastrophic climate change (although some climate scientists, like Kevin Anderson of the Tyndall Centre, worry even a 1˚C change could bring us into dangerous climate territory).

Hare added that, “given the present level of pledged climate action, commitments should only be made until 2025.”

Canada’s Weak Climate Record

Complicating the process are countries like Canada that have submitted plans that conflict with the country’s own internal emissions projections.

To understand how a country like Canada has been handling its various climate pledges, it’s important to delve into the numbers. Canada has shifted its baseline numbers a number of times, which makes it difficult to understand how previous pledges stack up against new ones. 

In 2005 Canada signed onto the Kyoto Protocol, pledging to reduce emissions 6 per cent below 1990 levels by 2012. Canada withdrew from the Kyoto Protocol in 2011 and in 2012 reported an emission increase of 18 per cent above 1990 levels.

Canada subsequently signed onto the Copenhagen Accord, promising to reduce emissions 17 per cent below 2005 levels by 2020. That’s the equivalent of an increase of 7 per cent above 1990 levels.

The Copenhagen commitment should have resulted in reducing overall emissions to 611 megatonnes of CO2 equivalent by 2020, but according a the most recent emissions trend report released by Environment Canada, Canada’s emissions are expected to grow to 727 megatonnes in 2020 because of a dismal lack of climate policy.

In May, Canada released its late INDC, promising to reduce emissions by 30 per cent from 2005 levels by 2030. But as the Carbon Action Tracker points out, under current policies Canada’s emissions are expected to continue increasing to one per cent above 2005 levels in 2020 and eight per cent by 2050.

Based on the 1990 baseline, emissions are expected to increase 26 per cent by 2020 and 35 per cent by 2050.

No matter how you slice it, emissions are going up and Canada, as the ninth largest emitter in the world, is not doing its fair share to reduce its portion of the global warming pie.

As the World Resources Institute points out, Canada’s pre-Paris commitment works out to a mere 1.7 per cent emission reduction each year.

In comparison, other industrial nations like the EU and the United States have committed to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions by 2.8 per cent each year.

Höhne said Canada isn’t doing enough for a nation of its capacity.

“In rating Canada ‘inadequate,’ our lowest rating, we note that other governments will have to take a lot more action to make up for the hole left by Canada’s lack of ambition — if warming is to be held to 2˚C,” he said. 

The Climate Action Tracker also noted Canada plans on purchasing carbon market credits that will take the place of true emissions reductions from major emitters like the oil and gas sector.

Emissions from Canada’s oilsands, the country’s fastest growing source of greenhouse gas emissions, have increased 79 per cent since 2005. Currently nine per cent of Canada’s total emissions come from the oilsands, but that portion is expected to jump to 14 per cent by 2020.

Canada’s commitments do not address growing oilsands emissions and the current federal government has refused to regulate emissions from the oil and gas sector, despite promising rules for a decade.

Last week the New Democratic Party, the official opposition, promised to strengthen Canada’s INDC pledge and indicated the new target would be in line with the party’s pledge to reduce emissions 34 per cent below 1990 levels by 2025, and 80 per cent by 2050. (For comparison, the current federal government’s pledge is equivalent to reductions of 51 to 63 per cent below 1990 levels by 2050, but as Climate Action Tracker points out, this aspirational target has never been legislated for).

During a campaign stop Friday Prime Minister Stephen Harper said he did not see climate policy as an election issue.

Stronger Policy Needed to Meet Targets

“One would have expected all the new government climate targets combined to put the world on a lower emissions pathway, but they haven’t,” Louise Jeffery from the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research said. 

“One contributing factor is the fact that Russia, Canada, and New Zealand’s INDCs are inconsistent with their stated long term (2050) goals.”

Climate Action Tracker found many countries, Canada included, don’t have the policies in place to actually implement the emissions reductions necessary to meeting their own INDCs.

China and the EU are the exception in this case with only minimal policy adjustments needed to meet their contribution targets.

“With current policies being insufficient to limit emissions even to the INDC levels by 2025, it is clear that ramping up greater policy action needs to be encouraged as part of the Paris Agreement,” professor Kornelis Blok with Ecofys said.

“Most governments that have already submitted an INDC need to review their targets in light of the global goal and, in most cases, will need to strengthen them,” Niklas Höhne of NewClimate Institute said.

"Those still working on their targets need to ensure they aim as high as possible.”

Image: Prime Minister Stephen Harper 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.

Months after most countries revealed national climate targets in the lead up to the December 2015 UN climate summit, Canada has finally announced its contribution to global emissions reductions — and its commitment is getting a failing grade from the climate community.

The NewClimate Institute rated Canada's target as "inadequate."

“In rating Canada ‘inadequate,’ our lowest rating, we note that other governments will have to take a lot more action to make up for the hole left by Canada’s lack of ambition — if warming is to be held to 2˚C,” said Niklas Höhne of the institute.

Canada is promising to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by 30 per cent from 2005 levels by 2030.

According to Climate Action International, Canada is unlikely to meet that target, even though it is much weaker than commitments made by other industrial nations.

Beyond that, Canada is relying on some fancy ‘climate credit’ footwork to avoid limiting emissions from its fastest growing source of carbon pollution: the Alberta oilsands.

Climate Action International said Canada is planning on using forestry credits “to avoid reducing emissions from other sources such as fossil fuels.” Because Canada is home to 10 per cent of the world’s forests that could translate into credits for an estimated 63 megatonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent, or about as much carbon emissions as the entire country of Sweden produced in 2011.

If you exclude forestry credits from Canada’s climate profile, emissions are actually projected to surpass 2005 levels — by one per cent in 2020 and by eight per cent in 2030.

Image from Climate Action International's Canada climate profile. Click image for more detail.

Emissions from the oilsands, Canada’s fastest growing source of greenhouse gas emissions have increased 79 per cent since 2005. They currently account for nine per cent of Canada’s total emissions and that portion is expected to jump to 14 per cent by 2020.

Louise Jeffery from the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research said Canada is relying heavily on its forests while skirting its responsibility to curtail emissions from the oilsands.

 “The accounting options Canada proposes using are fraught with difficulties,” he said, “not least because Canada is no longer a party to the Kyoto Protocol, so it can use much looser rules.”

Canada used its withdrawal from the Kyoto Protocol in 2012 to weaken its climate targets.

Climate Action International argues Canada’s accounting approach is “fraught with difficulties, including substantial potential for double counting [and] asymmetric accounting” because it doesn’t adhere to the same standards as other polluters still signed on to the Kyoto Protocol.

Bill Hare from Climate Analytics said although Canada has announced its climate target, the country is avoiding introducing meaningful climate legislation.

“It’s clear Canada is not serious about climate action,” he said. “Without any new policies in place, its emissions are expected to balloon through to 2030, with the tar sands taking up a significant proportion.“

Others have pointed out that Canada, on top of not doing its fair share, is also missing out on the opportunity to transition to cleaner sources of energy.

Comparison of emissions reductions from the World Resources Institute.

With this inadequate target, Canada will not tap into its large potential to reduce fossil fuel consumption,” said Kornelis Blok, of Ecofys. “Canada risks becoming a laggard in clean innovation, such as energy efficiency.”

A report released by Clean Energy Canada in late 2014 showed the alternative and low-carbon energy sector is making significant gains in the Canadian economy and jobs market, but isn’t getting the support from the federal government it needs.

“Every major industrial sector in Canada — from the aerospace industry to the oilsands —has gotten off the ground with support from the federal government. But in the clean-energy sector, the federal government is really missing in action,” Merran Smith, director of Clean Energy Canada, said.

Image Credit: Environment Minister Leona Aglukkaq via Metro News

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.

Failure by Canada, the US and other industrialized countries to act on their promises to reduce climate-heating emissions has put us on the very dangerous path to 4C of global warming scientists warned in an update at the UN climate treaty talks in Bonn, Germany that ended last week.

Canada was singled out for doing little to reduce emissions and for substantially under reporting fugitive emissions (leakage) from the natural gas sector.

"Canada appears to have vastly underestimated fugitive emissions from gas exploration in British Colombia, putting into question its entire emissions reporting on fugitives," according to the "Climate Action Tracker" report released last week in Bonn.

"We looked into this after reading your (DeSmog) article and wondered if this might be a global problem," said Marion Vieweg of Climate Analytics, a Germany climate research organization.

Russian reports more accurate than Canada

The US also appears to have underreported their emissions from the natural gas sector but far less so than Canada. Russia and Germany were in the right ballpark based on recent studies of fugitive emissions rates Vieweg told DeSmog.

A two-part DeSmog investigation published in May revealed that British Columbia's fugitive emissions were very likely 7 to 10 times greater than reported. Natural gas (methane) is a powerful greenhouse gas and leaks out of hundreds of thousands of points from the wellhead to final use the industry acknowledged.

It is very difficult to get good data on fugitive emissions and the links in the DeSmog story were very helpful she said.

Total greenhouse gas emissions in British Columbia are probably 16- 70% above the levels currently reported based on analysis by Climate Analytics, the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research and Dutch-based energy institute Ecofys, the three organizations that produce the Climate Action Tracker (CAT) updates. That analysis is based on the latest findings on the real share of gas leaking into the atmosphere.

CAT updates compare countries' carbon emissions reduction pledges and their actions to assess progress in reaching the universally agreed on goal of keeping warming below 2C.

Last year's CAT update said Canada was "playing with numbers" and exaggerating its progress in reducing emissions.

This year analysts at CAT took a close look at Canada's fugitive emissions reporting and discovered they were impossibly low – less than half of the very lowest science estimates. Canada is legally obligated to accurately report its annual emissions the UN.

Canada 'Forgot' to Count Up to 212 Million Tonnes of CO2

Canada reported just 24 million tonnes (Mt) of CO2 equivalent emissions from fugitives in 2010. A CAT analysis reveals those emissions were likely between 52 and 236 Mt.* That's a huge difference of between 28 to 212 Mt. It would be like forgetting to count emissions 5 to 22 million cars. (Avg: 5.1 ton CO2/vehicle/year)

Canada told the UN its total emissions were 692 Mt in 2010 but were more likely 8 to 31% greater.

"The climate warming from those emissions is real even if you fail to accurately count them," said Vieweg.

This failure to accurately account for fugitive emissions also means Canada has not reduced its emissions by 6% from a 2005 baseline as claimed. It also means Canada is unlikely to reach the Harper government's 2020 emission target of a 17% reduction compared to 2005. Climate experts say Canada's reductions need to be far higher than Harper’s target to do its share in keeping temperatures below 2C.

"Canada is going in the wrong direction," when it comes to tackling climate change she said.

Natural gas has been widely promoted in Canada and the US as a way to lower carbon emissions if  replacing coal. While coal has a higher carbon content than gas, the fugitive emissions problem may negate this said Niklas Höhne, Director of Energy and Climate Policy at Ecofys.

As a result of abundant and cheap natural gas the amount of coal used in the US has declined. However US coal exports are up 50%. Simply shifting from coal to natural gas locks countries into continued use of fossil fuel technology and may be a barrier to scaling up renewable energy said Höhne.

"We're facing a great paradox," said Bill Hare a senior climate scientist at Climate Analytics.

"Governments commitment to action on climate is unwinding at a time when the latest science shows the impacts of climate change will be greater," Hare said in a press conference in Bonn.

Carbon emissions keeping rising and billions of dollars continue to be spent expanding fossil fuel infrastructure when we should be going in the opposite direction he said.

“We can easily get to 4C. I'm more sceptical than ever that countries will meet their reduction pledges.”

*CAT used the "'global warming potential" (GWP) of 21 to calculate CO2 equivalents (CO2e), the same as the UN and Canada currently use. This means natural gas (methane) traps heat in the atmosphere 21 times better than CO2. Recent science suggests this is really closer to 33 times. And some scientists say that to properly protect the climate the multiplier should be 105.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Filthy Fourteen

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

The Impacts

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

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

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

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

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

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