Dorothy Macnaughton relies largely on public transportation. The retiree, who lives in Sault Ste. Marie, Ont., has dealt with vision loss since 1983 and doesn’t drive. Though her husband can take her places when he’s free, “I like to be independent,” she says. “I want to be able to go myself on the bus over to North Bay, connect with a train, [and] go up to see my sister by myself.”

The last time Macnaughton took the train to see her sister in Englehart, in northeastern Ontario, was in 2012 — one week before passenger rail service shut down. Her final trip on the Northlander was an emotional one. “That train, to me, provided such an amazing service,” said Macnaughton. “And it can in the future too.” 

In April, Premier Doug Ford boarded a train to Timmins, Ont., to announce a $75 million investment in restoring passenger rail service from Toronto to northeastern Ontario. The announcement marks a step towards fulfilling a promise Ford made in 2018 when he vowed to restore the service that was cut by the previous Liberal government because of stagnant ridership and declining sales revenue. 

“It’s been a full decade, 10 long years, since the previous government chose to close down the Northlander passenger line,” Ford said. “In doing so, they cut Timmins and northeastern Ontario from the rest of the province.”

Northerners who have advocated for the return of passenger rail service have taken kindly to Ford’s recent announcement. There is hope that the service will be restored independent of the outcome of the upcoming provincial election —the provincial Green Party and the NDP also include restoring the Northlander in their election platforms. While the NDP plan is scarce on specifics, a Green Party press release this week committed to upfront capital costs of $220 million as well as annual operating subsidies of $12 million.” 

But the circumstances that led to the closure of the rail service a decade ago haven’t changed: fares to the sparsely populated region will never offset operating costs. Still, the need for transportation options in northern Ontario might outweigh the fact that the train would need a permanent subsidy. 

Buses are cheaper, but Ontario Northland trains are less likely to be shut down during winter storms

To better understand the need for passenger rail in the region, Ontario Northland, the agency responsible for transportation in northern Ontario, has been conducting consultations with community members, First Nations and local politicians. While Ontario Northland will be responsible for operating the rail service, it’s one of three organizations that own parts of the Northeastern Rail Corridor, along with Metrolinx and Canadian National Railway. 

Last month, Ontario Northland and Metrolinx released an updated business case that assesses operations and design, and gives a cost estimate of restoring the service. It noted that while the rail service would generate economic benefits, they “are outweighed by the associated cost of delivering the service.” According to the business case, total costs to deliver the rail service for 60 years could range from $438 million to $666 million. A subsidy between $273 to $322 per new user would be required to sustain operations indefinitely — when the service ended in 2012, the per-rider subsidy was $400. 

This should not come as a surprise to anyone, said Charles Cirtwill, president and CEO of the Northern Policy Institute, which produces policy analysis about the region. “It’s highly unlikely that busing in northern Ontario or rail in northeast Ontario is ever going to be a profitable enterprise,” he said. “The simple fact is that mass transit everywhere requires some level of subsidization. It’s a very rare system that can pay for itself.” 

Critics of the government’s plan say that there are other financially prudent ways to expand transportation in the north, and that includes increasing access to bus services. “The cost of operating a train is exorbitant,” said Daniel Belisle, a municipal councilor in Cochrane, Ont., 100 kilometres north of Timmins. “What I’m in favour of is better buses everywhere.” 

Since 2020, Ontario Northland has expanded bus service across the region. In 2020, the agency added bus routes between Thunder Bay and Ottawa, and in 2021 it added two new stops in southern Ontario. 

Many say these new additions by the agency helped soften the blow for rural travellers after Greyhound announced it was shutting down operations in Canada last year. But bus service is more likely to be affected by bad weather than rail, as well as traffic: travel time from Toronto to Timmins takes about two hours longer than by train. 

And while air transportation is also an option, Statistics Canada data shows that average fares for domestic air travel increased by almost 10 per cent between 2018 and 2019. According to Ontario’s northern transportation plan, many small air carriers serving the region experienced operating shortfalls during the pandemic and have either suspended or drastically reduced the number of flights. 

“The sheer size of northeastern Ontario, the limited population and the issues regarding weather, make it critical that the infrastructure be there to move people, to connect people,” said Lucille Frith, co-chair of the Northeastern Ontario Rail Network, who has been advocating for the train’s return since 2012. 

Experts say that if affordability was the government’s only consideration, expanding bus services in the region is a more sensible option. The Northern Policy Institute put out a paper in 2020 stating that passenger rail across the north part of the province does not make economic sense given relatively low population densities, particularly if other transportation methods like buses are an option.  

“What the author said pretty clearly was, if you want to spend $75 million and get greater bang for your dollar — in other words, greater economic impact, greater social impact across a greater number of people — then you would take that money and subsidize bus extensions across northern Ontario as opposed to subsidizing rail. Of course, as we now know, the province decided to do both,” Cirtwill said. 

With both rail and bus services working together, Cirtwill said the region will see even stronger social and economic impact. 

First Nations, medical patients, people with disabilities and students all need better transportation in northern Ontario

The Northern Policy Institute paper did concede that connecting First Nations in the region is probably the strongest case for passenger rail, especially in the absence of all-weather roads. In 2020, the provincial government released the results of a survey of communities and businesses along the rail corridor between Toronto, North Bay, Cochrane and Timmins. Of the 8.3 per cent of respondents that self-identified as Indigenous, 69 per cent reported riding the previous Northlander service. 

“This has been a need for a very long time,” said Linda Archibald, community wellness worker for the Aboriginal Peoples Alliance Northern Ontario in Cochrane. She told The Narwhal the train would serve patients who need specialist cancer treatments and find it difficult to travel to Toronto to visit hospitals like the Princess Margaret Cancer Centre. 

According to the recently released business case, access to medical services is a particular priority. The provincial Ministry of Health provides travel grants for northern residents who must travel more than 100 kilometres one way to access medical care. Between 2014 and 2015, grantees took over 38,000 trips from Cochrane, Timiskaming and Nipissing Districts to destinations along the rail corridor, with a third going to Timmins and another third to the Greater Toronto Hamilton Area. 

Lauren Doxtater, a social worker based in Sault Ste. Marie said that this spring’s announcement is welcome news. In addition to connecting First Nations in the north to healthcare services, it can also provide access to other economic benefits, notes Doxtater.

“You have a passenger rail line that will potentially go all the way up to Cochrane and the rail line itself can employ Indigenous folks. So, [there are] lots of opportunities for employment and training initiatives directly related to the rail line.” 

But while the government says it has engaged in consultations with First Nations about the train, Doxtater cautions the government to respect First Nations sovereignty if the rail service is instituted. She doesn’t want it to be used to intensify resource extraction in the north without the consent of local Indigenous communities.  

“First Nations have the right to say no. They can say, ‘no, this isn’t a good thing for us,’ and be respected for that,” Doxtater said. 

Also in Sault Ste. Marie, Macnaughton said for people with disabilities, trains are more accessible than buses as there is more space for wheelchairs and guide dogs. She also mentioned weather, remembering a trip on a Greyhound bus one winter. 

“It was February and there was this blinding blizzard. The bus stops at Blind River for a break, and I went into Tim Hortons. It was a nightmare,” Macnaughton said. “When the bus door opened, the wind was so strong it almost blew the door shut.”

Post-secondary students in the north say that the train will also expand educational access. In 2017, the Ontario chapter of the Canadian Federation of Students called for the government to fund passenger rail service in the region, noting “the decline of passenger rail service and a reduction of Greyhound bus routes have made it difficult for people to live, work, and study in the north.” Four years later, Greyhound closed entirely. 

Camille Duhaime, incoming treasurer for the chapter, said that passenger rail service in the north would provide a more affordable transportation option for students coming from southern Ontario or even farther. “International students are a great example because [they] generally don’t have their own cars when they come to Canada. So, they rely on public transportation,” Duhaime said. 

There is also an enviromental consideration, notes Duhaime. According to the updated business case, Ontario Northland estimates that the restoration of the passenger rail service will lead to a reduction of 3,800 to 4,400 tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions annually by 2041, as fewer people use private vehicles.

Ford government says Ontario Northland passenger rail to Timmins can be running by 2025

During Ford’s announcement, Corina Moore, president and CEO of Ontario Northland, confirmed that the goal is to have the train in service by 2025. Cirtwill calls this timeline a “hope for the best, plan for the worst” type of scenario. 

He said, “2026, even 2027 is likely the ‘hard target’ with an internal hope that nothing goes astray, and they deliver ‘early’ – meaning 2025.” Neither the NDP or the Greens gave a specific timeline for when the service would be running if their parties were to be elected. 

The business case noted that the agency is considering three different route options: while one has Cochrane as the final station on the northern route, the Ministry of Transportation told The Narwhal that a route with Timmins as the terminus station is its preferred option. This route includes a rail connection to Cochrane, which is where passengers going even further north can catch the Polar Bear Express train that ends in Moosonee, Ont., near James Bay.

According to the ministry, the connection to Cochrane would serve an additional 5,300 residents, allowing the rail service to reach a total of 176,000 residents. The agency estimates that, by 2041, annual ridership will be between approximately 40,000 and 60,000.

However, Cirtwill noted that more than how many people are on the train, it’s who the passengers are that should matter.

“When we’re looking at ridership numbers for the rail, we want to look at not just how many people are riding it, but who is riding it. Are the tourists on the train? Are First Nations accessing it?” he said “Because, as I said, if anybody is sitting here 10 years from now thinking that the deal was these things will pay for themselves, that’s not the proposition at all.” 

Updated on May 5, 2022, at 12:26 p.m. ET: This story was updated to correct the spelling of Charles Cirtwill’s last name.

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 gearing up for a big bet on small modular nuclear reactors, or SMRs. There have been rumblings about the technology for years, but the SMR Action Plan, released in December, lays out Ottawa’s role in advancing the technology.

“Small modular reactors represent the next great opportunity for Canada — helping us to phase out coal and electrify carbon-intensive industries such as mining and petroleum extraction,” Minister of Natural Resources Seamus O’Regan said in a statement.

The governments of Alberta, Saskatchewan, Ontario and New Brunswick have also thrown their support behind SMRs, signing a memorandum of understanding last summer. 

“This safe, emerging technology has the potential to provide needed power to remote communities, to lower emissions and further to diversify Alberta’s energy sector,” Alberta Premier Jason Kenney said in an August speech announcing the agreement. 

There is a real need for new electrical and energy technologies in remote communities. Diesel fuel is the current standard for off-the-grid communities and mines, causing air pollution, service disruptions and environmental liability. But whether small modular nuclear reactors are up to the task of replacing diesel is another question. 

Here, we break down the details and through the spin surrounding modular nuclear reactors.

Wait, how does nuclear power work again?

Sure, just give me a second and I’ll explain *checks notes* nuclear physics. 

In a nutshell, the splitting of radioactive atoms like uranium into smaller elements releases heat. That heat is either converted to electrical energy, usually through turning water into steam to drive a turbine.

The key benefit is that nuclear energy doesn’t rely on burning fuel like oil, gas or coal. That means no carbon emissions from generating electricity, which is why it’s often classified as a “green” energy source. 

But that green label is often called into question: nuclear waste remains highly radioactive and dangerous for much longer than a human lifespan. 

The other risk is a meltdown — essentially an out-of-control chain reaction within the reactor, which generates much more heat than is needed with potentially disastrous results. And that has happened, even recently, with lingering effects: the Fukushima-Daiichi accident in Japan in 2011 has left hundreds of thousands of tonnes of contaminated water with no plan for disposal. For more information on worst-case scenarios (one might say too much information), just Google “Chernobyl.”

What makes an SMR different from a regular nuclear reactor?

For one thing, small modular reactors are, well, small. And modular. The entire facility for some of these reactors could fit into an area about the size of a microbrewery, and be shipped by rail. Compare that with the footprint of a conventional nuclear facility like Ontario’s Bruce Power, which occupies four kilometres of shoreline. Some even fit inside submarines, ships or spacecraft.

But the “small” part more importantly refers to the power output: anything under 300 megawatts is considered “small.” (Bruce Power produces around 6,232 megawatts, enough to power more than a quarter of Ontario.)

For the North, though, where most communities don’t use anywhere near 300 megawatts of energy, think even smaller. 

“In terms of use in the North, what would really qualify as ‘small’ is something in the tens of megawatts,” explained Esam Hussein, the University of Regina’s dean of engineering and applied science, who recently released an extensive review of the design of small modular nuclear reactors. 

In many cases, the reactors would be less like a conventional nuclear plant, with fuel coming and going as it gets used up, and more like a battery. “You bring them in, they function for 20, 30 years, then you take them out,” Hussein said.

All in all there are more than 100 designs currently being explored, with many different fuels, technologies and advantages. 

Remote communities in Canada dependent on diesel fuel (orange), natural gas (black) and heavy oil (purple). Map: Natural Resources Canada

Canadian governments keen to use SMRs for remote mining and fossil fuel projects

Canada has a lot to gain by pursuing small modular nuclear reactors, and powering remote communities is just a part of that. 

Another explanation for the governments’ eagerness could be the multitude of remote mining and fossil fuel projects in need of power.

“This is more about providing low-cost, reliable energy to major natural resource projects,” said Kristen van de Biezenbos, an associate professor at University of Calgary’s Haskayne School of Business. “There must be some kind of economic upside, and selling [SMRs] to rural Canada has no economic upside.” 

Indeed, part of Jason Kenney’s enthusiasm for developing the technology for Alberta has been to get oilsands projects a cleaner source of energy. In-situ oilsands mines (those that melt the bitumen underground using steam) need a great deal of power, and currently that power mostly comes from natural gas. 

Nuclear reactors also need their own fuel, and Canada —  Saskatchewan, especially —  is home to vast reserves of uranium. All of Canada’s current uranium mines are located in northern Saskatchewan and have had their fair share of environmental and human health impacts. From radiation exposure in workers to the contamination of clean lakes with radioactive water, seven underground and open-pit uranium mines in the province come at a cost. 

Many of these mining operations also displaced Cree and Dene people from their homes and territories, Jamie Kneen, communications coordinator with MiningWatch Canada, told The Narwhal.

“Eighty-five per cent of the radioactivity that is in the rock is left behind in the mine waste. Then people need to know there are hundreds of millions of tonnes of that mine waste. And that that radioactivity does not diminish for, well, literally millions of years,” he added.

While the valuable uranium that is mined in Saskatchewan is shipped off for processing in Ontario, the waste products of polonium, radium and thorium are left behind in massive tailings ponds that pose a threat to local water tables, Kneen said.

“The people who live around there aren’t very happy about that.”

Canada has the world’s largest reserves of high-grade uranium according to Natural Resources Canada, and is currently the world’s second-largest producer. And that’s at today’s prices: with the higher demand that a large small modular nuclear reactor market would presumably generate, more uranium would be economically viable for mining. 

And then there’s the tempting possibility of being a first mover internationally.

“I keep thinking that there’s an eye on an export market,” van de Biezenbos said. 

Sure enough, the notion of exporting nuclear technology to other countries, especially developing countries like India looking to get off coal, makes its way into a lot of the press releases and reports surrounding the technology. Even Erin O’Toole’s campaign platform for the federal Conservative Party leadership included a section on exporting nuclear technology: “Canada is a world leader in safe nuclear technology and should continue that leadership role, including with Small Modular Reactors (‘SMRs’) that could assist in emission reduction in remote areas using Canadian technology that could be shared with and sold to the world.”

The Key Lake site in Saskatchewan where uranium was mined from 1983 to 1997. Milling ore for uranium continues on site to this day. Photo: Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission

Are remote communities interested in SMRs?

With all the talk of how this technology can benefit remote, primarily Indigenous, communities, one might be forgiven for assuming Indigenous peoples are behind it — or, at least, consulted on these plans. But there’s little evidence that that is happening. 

“There’s been very limited consultation,” said Nick Mercer, an energy researcher who recently published a paper on the views of Indigenous people in Labrador toward alternative energies. 

“We had all kinds of findings we did not anticipate,” Mercer said. For instance, the paper found communities expressed a surprising amount of support for their existing diesel systems. 

As for small modular nuclear reactors? Almost none. Just eight adults of 211 he interviewed expressed any support for the reactors. By contrast, even large-scale hydropower, which is deeply unpopular in Labrador due to projects like the Muskrat Falls and Churchill Falls plants, had 44 adults expressing support.

“It’s an absolutely shocking finding,” he said — though the underlying premise is understandable. People were “absolutely unwilling to support generation technologies they do not understand,” he said. Nuclear technology is an exceptionally complex and high-tech form of power generation, especially compared with the relatively simple concept of burning diesel.

As one participant put it in a 2016 study from the Fedoruk Centre: “Why would Inuvik be the guinea pig?”

But the affection for the current system was also linked with its job creation: diesel plants provide several well-paying local jobs. A small modular nuclear reactor that may act as more of a battery, with little maintenance and refuelling, might leave less money behind in the community. 

Will SMRs help reduce carbon emissions?

Yes. Currently most northern and remote Canadian communities, and remote mines, are dependent on diesel for power. According to a report from the Pembina Institute diesel-dependent communities burn 682 million litres per year, at great financial and environmental cost. That requires a great deal of emissions just to get the fuel to the community, and then it’s burned. 

Compared to the rest of the country, the three territories where most remote communities are located emit a small fraction of the CO2 equivalent of other parts of the country — just 2.5 megatonnes per year, less than a quarter of the emissions coming from Nova Scotia — but they produce twice as much carbon per unit of electricity than their on-the-grid counterparts. 

Nuclear reactors, by contrast, produce no emissions except for those required to mine and transport the uranium to begin with. 

Can SMRs out-compete renewables like wind and solar?

The declining cost of wind and solar — and the ready availability of these technologies — might make the prospect of SMRs less attractive.

The question, according to Sara Hastings-Simon, senior research associate at the Payne Institute for Public Policy, is “do we need SMRs to reach a fully decarbonized power grid?”

Hastings-Simon raised the question in a recent episode of the Energy vs. Climate podcast, where she noted decarbonization could possibly be achieved with a combination of batteries, transmission lines and even hydrogen energy. 

Add in the potential for geothermal, small run-of-river hydro, tidal energy and other sustainable energy alternatives and the pros of pursuing nuclear seem to diminish. 

“I would keep [SMRs] in the back pocket as an option for the future, sure. But I think it’s being much oversold by many who are saying it’s the only answer,” Hasting-Simon said. 

Solar panel installation. Some policy experts wonder if sources of renewable energy like wind and solar might be more readily available than small modular reactors. Photo: 100% Campaign / Flickr

What happens to the nuclear waste? And is nuclear weapons proliferation still a thing?

That’s the catch; as they say, there’s no free lunch unless you’re sneaking into a conference. Eight decades into the nuclear age and we still don’t really know what to do with nuclear waste.

“Should we burden future generations for benefits we’re getting now?” Hussein asks. For him, the answer is yes, because he doesn’t see spent nuclear fuel as “waste” per se. “I wouldn’t call it waste because 500 years from now that material will be very valuable.” 

Even that rosy outlook still leaves 500 years during which the spent fuel is a potentially dangerous material that can cause all manner of health problems if not handled correctly. Currently it’s stored at reactor sites and the Chalk River Laboratories in Ontario, first in deep pools to be cooled down, and then in containers that keep them isolated. But long-term, there is still not even a site selected for the storage of nuclear waste in Canada, 10 years into the site selection process.

But even more concerning to former federal Green Party leader Elizabeth May, is the connection between nuclear energy and nuclear weaponry.

The potential development of SMRs “definitely raises new and very serious weapons proliferation risks,” May noted on the Energy vs. Climate podcast. “This term small ‘S’ nuclear reactors makes people think that they’re kind of benign.” Concerns over the connection between nuclear energy and nuclear weapons stems from the fact that uranium enrichment processes used in energy are the same as those used to create weapons. Plutonium, a by-product of nuclear energy development, can also be used in nuclear weaponry.

SMRs can contribute more to concerns about nuclear proliferation because these small reactors are less efficient than large reactors and so create more waste.

“I think [SMRs] are actually, on the nuclear weapons proliferation side, even more distressing,” May said.

May also noted that Canada has not agreed to sign the new United Nations treaty for the abolition of nuclear weapons, which comes into force Jan. 22, 2021.

Are there other environmental concerns?

Nuclear energy has a history of horrifying accidents, with lasting consequences.

But small modular nuclear reactors aren’t another Chernobyl, Fukushima or Three Mile Island waiting to happen, as some fear when they hear the word “nuclear.” At the risk of sounding like the architects of the Titanic, proponents claim the small reactors are more or less un-meltdownable thanks to the inherent safety of their designs.

“Those three were all designed in the ’60s; we have learned a lot in the meantime,” Hussein said. 

In fact, Hussein argues that the much more significant risk is failing to meet the challenge of climate change.

“Right now we are facing a very stark choice between finding a way of dealing with climate change and simply disappearing as a species,” he said. “Every single energy source has a price — and it has benefits. And it’s a decision as a society we have to take.”

— With files from Carol Linnitt

Update January 13, 2021 1:45 p.m. PST: This article was updated to reflect the fact that polonium is left behind in tailings ponds and not plutonium as previously stated. Small letters. Big difference. We very much regret that editor’s error.

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.

Environmental groups welcomed the introduction of climate accountability legislation in the House of Commons Thursday but warned the bill as written doesn’t have the teeth needed to ensure Canada meets its climate targets. 

Bill C-12 requires the Minister of the Environment to set five-year emissions reductions targets starting in 2030 in order to reach net-zero emissions by 2050 and to develop plans for meeting each goal. 

But if the government fails to meet one of its legislated targets, the minister is only required to explain why and describe the actions the government is taking or will take to meet it.

While the public reporting requirements could add pressure on the government to take needed climate action, “to be truly accountable, the bill needs to go one step further and actually require the minister to ensure that those plans will meet the specific targets,” said Anna Johnston, a staff lawyer with West Coast Environmental Law.

Lawyer wants legal requirement to meet targets made clear in legislation

Canada has so far failed to meet its international climate targets and the federal government’s own data shows the country is currently on track to miss its 2030 target as well.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau reiterated his commitment Thursday that Canada would not only meet, but exceed its existing 2030 emissions reductions targets and said “ultimately the accountability for government’s actions or inaction is from Canadians themselves.”

Canada has failed to meet its international emissions target and also appears to be on track to miss its 2030 target. In response to the federal government’s new net-zero emissions legislation, experts are calling for more near-term targets and accountability measures. Photo: Garth Lenz / The Narwhal

Johnston, however, said “Canadians shouldn’t bear the burden of making sure their elected representatives do what they say they will do.”

Accountability for establishing targets and meeting them should be enshrined in the legislation so the government can be held to account in the courts, she said.

As it stands, the proposed bill doesn’t quite meet the standards set by the United Kingdom’s climate accountability legislation, which, according to Johnston, sets clearer requirements for the government to follow expert advice, establish carbon budgets and achieve targeted emissions reductions.

“It is a good first step,” Johnston said, but she and others hope the legislation will be strengthened before it becomes law.

Environmental groups call for 2025 climate target

Catherine Abreu, executive director of Climate Action Network Canada, was among those who called for the government to add a 2025 emissions reduction target to the bill and to set a more ambitious target for 2030.

“If this piece of legislation is going to drive climate ambition — and that’s what we need it to do — it needs to do that in the near-term, not just in the long-term,” she said.

If the bill passes as written, the federal government will have up to nine months after the legislation is enshrined to establish a 2030 target and to develop a plan to meet that goal.

But the Trudeau government would not have to report on its own progress toward meeting that goal during its current term, as the first progress report would only be required by the beginning of 2028.

The government’s plans to meet its emissions reductions goals will have to include a description of the key measures the government will undertake to reduce emissions and a description of relevant sector-specific strategies.

The bill also requires the government to report publicly on its progress towards each five-year target and further requires the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development to assess and report on the government’s progress at least once every five years.

The legislation will also establish an expert advisory body to advise the minister on measures to reach net zero emissions. 

While Abreu is happy to see the creation of an expert committee included in the bill, she noted that expert advice is needed to inform the establishment of interim targets and development of plans to reach those targets as well as the government’s ultimate 2050 net-zero emissions goal.

Dale Marshall, national climate program manager at Environmental Defence, also raised concerns that the bill doesn’t require regular assessment of the government’s progress by independent experts.

“The climate accountability legislation introduced today unfortunately has major deficiencies that will, at best, hold future federal governments accountable for Canada’s climate commitments,” Marshall said in a statement. 

Meeting Canada’s climate targets requires support from provinces, territories

Experts say there is an urgent need to address the role provinces and territories have to play in meeting Canada’s legislated climate targets.

“That’s a big barrier to progress on climate change in this country and something that we are going to need to confront,” Abreu said.

She noted there’s a “huge variation” in the climate ambition of different provinces.

“Figuring out how we balance the level of effort fairly across the country is not an easy conversation to have but it is a conversation we are going to have to have if Canada is going to be a good global player,” she said.

But shifts in the global economy could make the prospect of major emissions reductions more palatable across the country. 

According to the United Nations, 120 countries, more than 1,000 businesses and 45 of the largest investors have so far committed to achieving net-zero emissions by 2050.

Sara Hastings-Simon, a research fellow at the University of Calgary’s school of public policy, said that reality could shift the tone of the conversation in Canada.

“If the world is net-zero in 2050, then it’s not a burden to have an economy that is aligned with that net-zero world,” she said.

“It’s really a requirement in order to have a successful, vibrant and prosperous economy.”

Gas flaring in Alberta. The new legislation would require support from all provinces and territories. However, there is currently a lot of variation between each jurisdiction’s climate ambitions. For instance, Alberta, Saskatchewan and Ontario have long opposed the federal carbon tax. Photo: Jasonwoodhead23 / Flickr

In Alberta for instance, which accounts for the largest share of greenhouse gas emissions amongst the provinces, the conversation may shift from the need to reduce oil production to meet Canada’s climate targets because demand for the product may decline naturally as the world moves towards its 2050 target, Hastings-Simon explained.

Alberta, along with Saskatchewan and Ontario, have long resisted the federal carbon tax, one of Trudeau’s key climate measures. The provinces challenged the constitutionality of the tax in a legal battle that reached the Supreme Court of Canada in September. The court has yet to issue a ruling on the matter.

But Alberta Premier Jason Kenney has also recognized that climate action is becoming more important for oil and gas companies to access capital, The Western Producer and CBC reported in October.

Climate accountability legislation provides certainty for businesses

Canada’s climate accountability legislation will provide certainty for businesses that greenhouse gas emissions reductions will remain on the agenda in Ottawa regardless of a change in government, some observers said.

Isabelle Turcotte, the federal policy director at the Pembina Institute, said Bill C-12 will enable businesses  “to confidently make investments needed today to create jobs in the competitive economy of tomorrow.”

“Nations are racing to attract billions of dollars in global capital that are being mobilized to generate a safe, low-carbon economy,” she said. “ [The] bill ensures that Canada will have a place at the starting line by eliminating business concern that policies put in place by a government today might be scrapped tomorrow.”

Bank of Canada Governor Tiff Macklem warned this week that Canada needs to move quickly to both minimize the threat climate change poses and to take hold of the business opportunities it presents.

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.

British Columbians naturally assume they’re using clean power when they fire up holiday lights, juice up a cell phone or plug in a shiny new electric car. 

That’s the message conveyed in advertisements for the CleanBC initiative launched by the NDP government, which has spent $3.17 million on a CleanBC “information campaign,” including almost $570,000 for focus group testing and telephone town halls, according to the B.C. finance ministry.

“We’ll reduce air pollution by shifting to clean B.C. energy,” say the CleanBC ads, which feature scenic photos of hydro reservoirs. “CleanBC: Our Nature. Our Power. Our Future.” 

Yet despite all the bumph, British Columbians have no way of knowing if the electricity they use comes from a coal-fired plant in Alberta or Wyoming, a nuclear plant in Washington, a gas-fired plant in California or a hydro dam in B.C. 

Here’s why. 

BC Hydro’s wholly-owned corporate subsidiary, Powerex Corp., exports B.C. power when prices are high and imports power from other jurisdictions when prices are low. 

In 2018, for instance, B.C. imported more electricity than it exported — not because B.C. has a power shortage (it has a growing surplus due to the recent spate of mill closures) but because Powerex reaps bigger profits when BC Hydro slows down generators to import cheaper power, especially at night.

“B.C. buys its power from outside B.C., which we would argue is not clean,” says Martin Mullany, interim executive director for Clean Energy BC. 

Branding materials from CleanBC, the province’s strategy for reducing emissions. Photo: Province of B.C. / Flickr

“A good chunk of the electricity we use is imported,” Mullany says. “In reality we are trading for brown power” — meaning power generated from conventional ‘dirty’ sources such as coal and gas. 

Wyoming, which generates almost 90 per cent of its power from coal, was among the 12 U.S. states that exported power to B.C. last year. (Notably, B.C. did not export any electricity to Wyoming in 2018.)

Utah, where coal-fired power plants produce 70 per cent of the state’s energy, and Montana, which derives about 55 per cent of its power from coal, also exported power to B.C. last year. 

So did Nebraska, which gets 63 per cent of its power from coal, 15 per cent from nuclear plants, 14 per cent from wind and three per cent from natural gas.   

Coal is responsible for about 23 per cent of the power generated in Arizona, another exporter to B.C., while gas produces about 44 per cent of the electricity in that state.  

Counting carbon emissions from B.C. power imports

That adds up to a lot of carbon.

In 2017, the latest year for which statistics are available, electricity imports to B.C. totalled just over 1.2 million tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions, according to the B.C. environment ministry — roughly the equivalent of putting 255,000 new cars on the road, using the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s calculation of 4.71 tonnes of annual carbon emissions for a standard passenger vehicle. 

These figures far outstrip the estimated local and upstream emissions from the contested Woodfibre LNG plant in Squamish that is expected to release annual emissions equivalent to 170,000 new cars on the road.

Import emissions cast a new light on B.C.’s latest “milestone” announcement that 30,000 electric cars are now among 3.7 million registered vehicles in the province.

In November of 2018 the province announced a new target to have all new light-duty cars and trucks sold to be zero-emission vehicles by the year 2040. Photo: Province of B.C. / Flickr

“Making sure more of the vehicles driven in the province are powered by BC Hydro’s clean electricity is one of the most important steps to reduce [carbon] pollution,” said the November 28 release from the energy ministry.

Mullany points out that Powerex’s priority is to make money for the province and not to reduce emissions.

“It’s not there for the cleanest outcome,” he said. “At some time we have to step up to say it’s either the money or the clean power, which is more important to us?”

Electricity bought and sold by little-known, unregulated Powerex

These transactions are money-makers for Powerex, an opaque entity that is exempt from B.C.’s freedom of information laws. 

Little detailed information is available to the public about the dealings of Powerex, which is overseen by a board of directors comprised of BC Hydro board members and BC Hydro CEO and president Chris O’Reilly. 

According to BC Hydro’s annual service plan, Powerex’s net income ranged from $59 million to $436 million from 2014 to 2018. 

“We will never know the true picture. It’s a black box.” 

Powerex’s CEO Tom Bechard — the highest paid public servant in the province — took home $939,000 in pay and benefits last year, earning $430,000 of his executive compensation through a bonus and holdback based on his individual and company performance.  

“The problem is that all of the trade goes on at Powerex and Powerex is an unregulated entity,” Mullany says. 

“We will never know the true picture. It’s a black box.” 

In 2018, Powerex exported 8.7 million megawatt hours of electricity to the U.S. for a total value of almost $570 million, according to data from the Canada Energy Regulator. That same year, Powerex imported 9.6 million megawatt hours of electricity from the U.S. for almost $360 million. 

Powerex sold B.C.’s publicly subsidized power for an average of $87 per megawatt hour in 2018, according to the Canada Energy Regulator. It imported electricity for an average of $58 per megawatt hour that year. 

In an emailed statement in response to questions from The Narwhal, BC Hydro said “there can be a need to import some power to meet our electricity needs” due to dam reservoir fluctuations during the year and from year to year.

‘Impossible’ to determine if electricity is from coal or wind power

Emissions associated with electricity imports are on average “significantly lower than the emissions of a natural gas generating plant because we mostly import electricity from hydro generation and, increasingly, power produced from wind and solar,” BC Hydro claimed in its statement. 

But U.S. energy economist Robert McCullough says there’s no way to distinguish gas and coal-fired U.S. power exports to B.C. from wind or hydro power, noting that “electrons lack labels.” 

Similarly, when B.C. imports power from Alberta, where 48.5 per cent of electricity production is coal-fired and 38 per cent comes from natural gas, there’s no way to tell if the electricity is from coal, wind or gas, McCullough says.

“It really is impossible to make that determination.” 

The Gillette coal pits in Wyoming, one of the largest coal-producers in the U.S. Photo: NASA Earth Observatory

Neither the Canada Energy Regulator nor Statistics Canada could provide annual data on electricity imports and exports between B.C. and Alberta. 

But you can watch imports and exports in real time on this handy Alberta website, which also lists Alberta’s power sources. 

In 2018, California, Washington and Oregon supplied considerably more power to B.C. than other states, according to data from Canada Energy Regulator. 

Washington, where about one-quarter of generated power comes from fossil fuels, led the pack, with more than $339 million in electricity exports to B.C. 

California, which still gets more than half of its power from gas-fired plants even though it leads the U.S. in renewable energy with substantial investments in wind, solar and geothermal, was in second place, selling about $18.4 million worth of power to B.C. 

And Oregon, which produces about 43 per cent of its power from natural gas and six per cent from coal, exported about $6.2 million worth of electricity to B.C. last year. 

By comparison, Nebraska’s power exports to B.C. totalled about $1.6 million, Montana’s added up to $1.3 million,  Nevada’s were about $706,000 and Wyoming’s were about $346,000.

Clean electrons or dirty electrons?

Dan Woynillowicz, deputy director of Clean Energy Canada, which co-chaired the B.C. government’s Climate Solutions and Clean Growth Advisory Council, says B.C. typically exports power to other jurisdictions during peak demand. 

Gas-fired plants and hydro power can generate electricity quickly, while coal-fired power plants take longer to ramp up and wind power is variable, Woynillowicz notes. 

“When you need power fast and there aren’t many sources that can supply it you’re willing to pay more for it.”

Woynillowicz says “the odds are high” that B.C. power exports are displacing dirty power.

“As a consumer you never know whether you’re getting a clean electron or a dirty electron. You’re just getting an electron.” 

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.

So far in the Alberta election, much of the conversation related to the environment has revolved around two political hot potatoes: the carbon tax and pipelines.

On the latter, all parties agree. “Build that pipeline!” is an oft-repeated refrain here in Alberta.

There is, of course, more to a well-rounded energy and environment platform than just these two policies.

“The conversation around climate and environment — and even energy — is almost entirely ideological,” Ian Hussey, research manager at the Parkland Institute at the University of Alberta, told The Narwhal.

Duncan Kenyon, Alberta regional director of the Pembina Institute, agrees.

“We’re falling back into these dogmatic tribal discussions,” he told The Narwhal. “We need to get back to having hard, honest discussions.”

Now that the parties’ platforms have been released — and the leaders’ debate is over —  Albertans may be left wondering where the two major parties stand on other issues related to energy and the environment.

So we took a closer look at what’s at stake for the environment in this election — and what the two major parties are planning to do about it.

1. Energy efficiency

United Conservative Party (UCP) leader Jason Kenney is not a fan of the province’s energy efficiency program, describing its services as, “sending bureaucrats into our homes to change showerheads and lightbulbs.”

Energy Efficiency Alberta was created in 2017 and uses revenues from the carbon tax to fund measures to reduce emissions — in homes and businesses.

The NDP’s platform boasts the program has saved Albertans $510 million in its first year of operations and the organization has said its programs mean three million tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions were avoided in the first nine months of its operations.

“There’s really strong merit to having an energy efficiency program,” Kenyon told The Narwhal. “It’s much more efficient to save a kilowatt of energy than to build a new power plant to meet growing demand.”

According to Kenyon, prior to the creation of Energy Efficiency Alberta, the province was the only jurisdiction in North America without an energy efficiency organization. “We haven’t exactly been leaders in this space,” he said.

As for the UCP’s plan to scrap the program? “Don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater,” Kenyon warned.

2. The oilsands emissions cap

In 2016, the Alberta government passed Bill 25, which sought to limit the total greenhouse gas emissions from oilsands development to 100 megatonnes. Oilsands emissions are currently around 70 megatonnes each year, according to government figures — and many worry they’re poised to increase.

The NDP’s platform is clear the cap isn’t going anywhere if the party stays in power, noting, “we will keep the firm cap on oil sands carbon emissions.”

Advocates for the cap say there’s still work to be done. “Alberta’s oilsands’s emissions cap is not operating in practice,” said Hussey, who notes that the “legislation is sitting on a shelf,” and regulations have not yet been put into place. (The NDP’s platform doesn’t mention implementing regulations.)

The UCP makes no explicit mention of the cap in their platform, but leader Jason Kenney has said he’ll lift the cap the first week he takes office, and during the debate said that he would “absolutely” take the cap off oilsands emissions.

Alberta oilsands release an estimated 70 megatonnes of emissions each year, according to government figures. Photo: Kris Krug

3. Environmental liabilities in the oil and gas sector

“We have a trillion litres of oilsands tailings ponds,” Hussey of Parkland told The Narwhal. “We have no plan to deal with that. How is that not an election issue?”

Liabilities don’t end with tailings ponds.

On Monday, the Alberta Liabilities Disclosure Project found Albertans are at risk of being on the hook for an oil well cleanup bill between $40 and $70 billion — two to 3.5 times more than the $18.5 billion publicly reported estimate — and those are just liabilities for wells. That doesn’t include the cleanup tab for pipelines, tailings ponds and all other oil and gas infrastructure peppering the landscape today.

Companies are able to move their liabilities around, in what The Globe and Mail dubbed a “brisk trade in junk assets.” In some cases, financially precarious companies are permitted to take on liabilities they can’t afford in the long run.

Some of those companies end up bankrupt. The Redwater decision sought to provide some clarity on this issue, but problems remain.

For its part, the NDP says it will “implement new corporate health measures on asset sales to prevent liability dumping as we continue to work with industry.”

The UCP makes no similar specific commitments, saying that it will “work jointly with the AER and industry to overhaul the liability management framework in Alberta, ensuring liabilities are covered without unduly discouraging new investment.”

This issue could become increasingly important, as the number of inactive wells is on the rise.

The Narwhal recently reported that internal documents obtained from the Alberta Energy Regulator showed that senior staff project that, without a change in policy, the number of inactive wells in the province could double by 2030.

There are currently hundreds of thousands of wells across the province.

4. Wilderness and parks

Neither party has made much mention of the Bighorn proposal in their platforms (save the UCP’s assertion that “the NDP government ignored Indigenous groups on the creation of Bighorn park.”)

The Bighorn proposal — to create a network of various levels of protected areas on the eastern slopes of the Rockies near Rocky Mountain House — was big news earlier this year as vocal opposition to the proposal made headlines.

Both parties’ platforms talk about increasing partnerships with outdoor recreation groups and park societies in their platforms.

Neither explicitly mentions plans for any new parks. Under what are known as the Aichi Targets, Canada has committed to protect 17 per cent of land and freshwater by 2020 — and that includes Alberta.

5. Reclamation

Reclamation is the last step in any extractive industrial life cycle here in Alberta — it occurs once the resource no longer has any productive value, or is used up. Companies are required by law to clean up after themselves, but there are concerns about enforcement of these obligations.

As The Narwhal reported last fall, the provincial government’s own pilot project found that the vast majority of sites studied didn’t meet standards for adequate reclamation.

Neither parties’ platform goes into much detail about reclamation, with the UCP highlighting its goal to “streamline” the process and to “reduce costs.”

On the issue of how and when to ensure companies clean up after themselves, the parties’ platforms differ.

The NDP’s platform says the party will implement timelines for reclamation of oil and gas sites, noting it will also, “require them to justify delays in reclaiming sites.”

The UCP’s platform proposes requesting tax incentives from the federal government, and also highlights that it will rapidly accelerate the approval of new drilling.

A flooded and inaccessible oil lease site in Wainwright, Alta. Photo: Amber Bracken / The Narwhal

6. Methane regulations

According to the Alberta government, the impact of methane as a greenhouse gas is, “25 times greater than carbon dioxide over a 100-year period.”

In 2014, Alberta’s oil and gas sector emitted 31.4 megatonnes of methane (measured in carbon dioxide equivalent).

Both Alberta and Canada released plans for new regulations to deal with methane emissions last year, but there have been vocal critics of Alberta’s methane regulations to date.

According to the Pembina Institute, “Alberta’s methane regulations will allow oil and gas companies to release far greater volumes of harmful methane pollution than if they followed the federal methane regulations enacted . . . by Environment and Climate Change Canada.”

The NDP claims it has “invested over $200 million to reduce methane gas emissions,” and pledges in its platform that the province under an NDP government would “achieve a 45 per cent reduction in methane emissions by 2025.”

The UCP platform does not mention methane.

7. Okay, so about that carbon tax (and lawsuits and the question of Alberta’s self-determination)

The UCP’s position on the carbon tax is well known: scrap it.

The party’s platform makes it clear: “Bill 1 of a United Conservative government will be the Carbon Tax Repeal Act,” while claiming the carbon tax “currently costs Alberta’s families and employers about $1.4 billion per year.”

The UCP proposes to replace the carbon tax with what it calls a Technology Innovation and Emissions Reductions (TIER) fund. This plan would target large industrial emitters, requiring them to reduce their emissions intensity — notably, this is different from their total emissions, as it is dependent on economic output — compared to their own recent annual averages.

On the flip side, the NDP plans to continue its current carbon-pricing system.

Advocates for carbon pricing say it’s a realistic and business-friendly approach to reduce emissions. And, they point out, Alberta isn’t really in a position to eliminate a carbon tax altogether.

“In a state of the world where the UCP wins and eliminates the Alberta carbon tax, we’d maybe have a few months of no carbon pricing,” Jennifer Winter, assistant professor of economics at the University of Calgary, told The Narwhal.

That, she said, wouldn’t last long. “Then the federal system is put in place.”

For Winter, a made-in-Alberta policy means the policy can be tailored to suit the province’s needs.

“It’s about whether we think Alberta should have control of our policy and revenues.”

She points out that shifting to the federal system would result in a “shift in who’s affected by the carbon prices.”

Alberta’s system, she said, is “means tested,” meaning that rebates are based on income. In the federal system, she added, “everyone who files taxes receives a rebate.”

She also notes that Alberta has negotiated a temporary exemption for some aspects of conventional oil and gas production from having to pay carbon taxes. That sector, she said, represents “a substantial amount of Alberta’s emissions.”

Moving to the federal carbon tax means the end of that temporary exemption, and could actually increase the amount those producers pay.

Kenney’s response to the imposition of a federal carbon tax if he scraps Alberta’s plan? “We will sue.”

8. Emissions trends

According to the NDP’s platform, Alberta’s greenhouse gas emissions have dropped 16 per cent since the party implemented its climate leadership plan — a plan the party plans to continue to implement.

The UCP’s platform says it is “committed to responsible energy development and that includes action to mitigate greenhouse emissions and reduce their contribution to climate change.”

Either party will face a momentous challenge, with recent reports indicating Canada is warming twice as fast as the rest of the world, the earth’s glaciers are shrinking faster than previously thought, the Arctic is entering an “unprecedented state,” and more climate-related extreme weather events are happening in Alberta.

And that’s just the beginning.

“The Alberta NDP have done a lot relative to previous governments,” Hussey noted of the party’s environmental track record, “but way less than is scientifically necessary to address the size of the climate crisis.”

“On the other hand, for their main competitor — the UCP — their plan is to undo everything the NDP has done.”

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.

When it comes to the oilsands, there’s a particular gloss that accompanies industry’s presentation of in-situ extraction.

Unlike the pronounced nature of open-pit mines, with the accompanying heavy haulers and seemingly endless horizons of tailings ponds, in-situ — meaning in ground or in place — operations have a much less visible footprint.

Cenovus has gone so far as to dub these operations — which require the injection of steam underground to heat viscous oil, allowing it to be pumped to surface — “a different oil sands.”

While they certainly do represent the future of the oilsands — in-situ projects have already outpaced mining production and are set to increase by one million barrels per day by 2030 — they also come with their own set of problems.

In-situ oilsands operations are incredibly greenhouse gas-intensive — requiring copious quantities of natural gas, often obtained from fracking, to produce the steam that’s injected underground.

Operations require extensive roads and seismic lines that expose threatened caribou to an increased risk from wolves and create habitat disturbances that are connected to low reproduction and calf survival rates. These compounding impacts to caribou are part of the underlying justification of the province’s controversial wolf cull.

And the proposed use of solvents as a substitute for steam has given new rise to long-held concerns about groundwater contamination from steam-injection processes.

The cumulative impacts of in-situ operations are extensive, which is why many onlookers are scratching their heads as Ottawa allows for their exemption under new environmental assessment laws — leaving reviews entirely in the hands of the province.

“To have the country’s main environmental assessment law leave the highest-carbon projects off the list is just unacceptable to us,” Patrick DeRochie, climate and energy program manager at Environmental Defence, told The Narwhal.

“The notion that provinces are able to step in and do this is not true. It doesn’t hold water.”

New legislation keeps Harper’s project list

As The Narwhal reported in April, Canada’s proposed environmental assessment rules — designed to restore public trust in the federal process for reviewing major projects — were released without any details on what kinds of projects would trigger review under the new legislation.

Back in 2012, the Harper government radically overhauled the country’s environmental assessment processes and introduced the use of a “project list” to determine whether a project — like a dam, power plant or oilsands mine — would be subject to a federal review.

Unlike the previous regime, which relied on automatic “triggers,” the project list dramatically narrowed the activities eligible for federal assessment and accorded a great deal of discretionary power to the federal environment minister.

Thousands of projects per year were no longer reviewed by Ottawa.

Outcry ensued.

The current federal government’s solution, Bill C-69, a new and controversial impact assessment bill currently under debate in the Senate, will overhaul the 2012 legislation — but keep the project list intact.

The contents of that list remain undisclosed to the public. But from the get-go Environment Minister Catherine McKenna indicated in-situ oilsands projects would be exempt from the list.

In a statement e-mailed to The Narwhal, a spokesperson for the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency confirmed this is still the case: “At this time, the approach to draft regulations to support the Impact Assessment Act remains unchanged.”

Last week, the federal environment ministry confirmed to The Globe and Mail that in-situ projects “fall within the exemption eligibility.”

Anna Johnston, staff lawyer at West Coast Environmental Law, said that the case for not returning to the previous approach of “triggers” in Bill C-69 was premised on the expansion of Harper’s project list.

The exemption of in-situ operations seriously undermines that expectation, Johnston said, adding many of the impacts of these operations, including those affecting Indigenous rights, fall under federal jurisdiction.

According to Johnston, Ottawa can and should assess factors like health and safety of nearby communities and workers, the potential use of solvents and impacts on species from habitat fragmentation.

Many in-situ projects occur within the critical habitat of boreal caribou, she said, and the federal government has made it “very clear” that Alberta isn’t doing a sufficient job to protect habitat.

“Why would it then entrust the provincial government to assess in-situ for its effects on boreal caribou when Alberta has demonstrated it hasn’t been doing that job adequately?” she asked.

In-situ emissions 43 per cent higher than mining

According to a recent analysis by the Pembina Institute, in-situ extraction produced an average of 43 per cent more emissions per barrel than mining in 2016. That’s a serious concern for climate policy analysts given that all new oilsands production after roughly 2022 will come from in-situ projects.

Ambitious claims are frequently made by industry and government that per-barrel emissions will soon plummet with the implementation of new technologies.

But Pembina analyst Jan Gorski told The Narwhal that most emissions reductions have occurred in upgrading, not extraction, with little signs of improvement in mining or in-situ extraction.

Furthermore, the most promising technologies are still in early stages and will only apply to new projects, not expansions (which is where production is set to grow).

“The greater question is that it hasn’t yet been shown how oilsands emissions, even as they are today, would be compatible with our emissions targets,” Gorski said.

“You take into account that there’s going to be more growth and it just makes the problem worse.”

Recent studies have also questioned current estimates of methane leakage from extraction of natural gas, used heavily by in-situ producers. A journal article in Elementa from earlier this year indicated that emissions from operations near Red Deer may be 15 times higher than reported.

Alberta Premier Rachel Notley touring the Nexen Long Lake facility in September. The Long Lake facility is expected to produce 26,000 barrels of oil per day at full capacity. Photo: Chris Schwarz / Government of Alberta

Alberta won’t introduce emissions cap regulations before election

Complicating matters, the federal government has justified exemption of in-situ extraction from the project list because of Alberta’s 100-megatonne oilsands emissions cap.

But recently Alberta announced that, despite the fact the cap was legislated in 2016, it will delay the implementation of final regulations for the cap until after the next provincial election.

This puts the future of the cap itself in a precarious position, given the potential for a United Conservative Party victory in 2019.

The United Conservative Party is a loud and vocal opponent of both the 100-megatonne emissions cap and the idea of capitulating to the federal government’s national carbon levy.

Party leader Jason Kenney vowed to scrap Alberta’s carbon levy and fight Ottawa’s pan-Canadian climate framework, including requirements for a carbon tax. Kenney’s stance could end up pitting Alberta against the federal government, much like the current battle taking place between Saskatchewan and Ottawa.

At the heart of these federation feuds is the question of whether or not greenhouse gas emissions fall under the authority of the federal government or the provinces, said Stephen Hazell, former director of legislative and regulatory affairs at the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency.

The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal will soon rule on the constitutionality of the federal government’s plan to impose a carbon tax on the province, he said.

Hazell, now director of conservation with Nature Canada, said that should the matter rise to the level of the Supreme Court of Canada, he has no doubt that a requirement to assess projects on their carbon emissions would be upheld.

“I reject the idea that greenhouse gas emissions are not a matter of federal interest and authority,” he said.

Latest oilsands mega mine proposal a reality check for Alberta’s emissions cap

Hazell said in-situ operations fit neatly within the category of major projects likely to have significant adverse environmental impacts — a trigger under former environmental assessment rules.

“Given that climate change could destroy human civilization, maybe it might be a good idea to include high-carbon projects for assessment under the new legislation,” he said.

DeRouchie of Environment Defence said that Canada has made a promise to the international community to limit greenhouse gas emissions.

“The federal government has responsibility for the entire country to meet its climate targets,” DeRouchie said.

“We’ve seen provinces failing in the past, and continuing to put in place plans that will fail in the future. There’s actually a requirement for the federal government to meet those national commitments, and that means bringing the provinces along.”

Oilsands emissions are expected to hit 115 megatonnes of annual emissions by 2030, consuming 22 per cent of Canada’s carbon budget under the Paris Agreement.

The Pembina Institute has calculated that if all currently approved oilsands projects are built, they will add up to 131 megatonnes per year.

New environmental assessment rules allow for multi-jurisdiction collaboration

Were in-situ projects to be included under federal environmental assessment rules, it would be a first, Martin Olszynski, associate professor of law at the University of Calgary and expert in environmental assessments, told The Narwhal.

In-situ operations have never been captured by the federal environment assessment regime and it would be a significant change to include such projects in the process, he said, adding he would be surprised to see such a move given the high tension between Alberta and Ottawa.

Olszynski said, however, that in-situ oilsands extraction should be subjected to rigorous environmental assessment processes, especially if conducted at the provincial level.

“Alberta claims that it has those,” he said in an interview.

“My own sense, based on my own research, is there are a lot of things that aren’t being done very well. We are reasonably decent at documenting impacts but it’d be hard to imagine that the assessment process really changes the outcome or the way we approach these projects.”

It devours our land

Some have pointed to a collaborative solution. The new federal impact assessment framework is designed for collaborations between different levels of government.

Johnston said that if the federal government joins in existing provincial assessments, it could ensure oversight while maintaining the practice of “one project, one review.”

The new legislation also allows for integration of Indigenous environmental assessment processes.

According to Johnston, exemptions undermine a strong feature of the new rules: allowing for substitutions. The new legislation provides for the option of substituting a provincial assessment for a federal one, when and where it makes sense to do so.

“If Alberta believes that its processes are that good, then it can just rely on these substitution provisions,” she said. Johnston added a benefit of having a substitution provision as opposed to an exemption is that the federal government retains decision-making authority when it comes to how an assessment will be conducted and by what agency.

Olszynski said there’s also a fair bit of malleability with the future of the project list.

Because it’s a cabinet regulation, with the legislation offering no clear criteria about what can go on or off the list, a new government can add or subtract from the list — or even scrap it entirely — with very little effort. That could be very good or very bad, depending on one’s perspective of whoever forms the next government, he said.

Johnston said that while the bill may go to committee as early as next week, actual considerations won’t commence in any way until February — meaning there’s still time for people to voice their concerns about the exemption of in-situ. (You can find your MP’s contact information on this website)

She emphasized that much of the criticism about Bill C-69 is missing the mark and undermining the potential for improvements.

“If everybody could just step back and take a deep breath and think a little bit more realistically about this bill, then maybe they’d recognize that impact assessment has a really key role to play in ensuring responsible development — and it’d actually be beneficial to have more projects subject to it because it’s almost never used to stop projects but to design projects more responsibly,” she said.

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.

After more than a year of public hearings, the federal government unveiled its new and improved environmental assessment legislation in February 2018 with much ado.

But the new rules — designed to restore public trust in Canada’s process for reviewing major projects — didn’t contain any details on what kinds of projects would trigger a review under the new legislation.

Environment Minister Catherine McKenna skirted the issue, saying her ministry was still evaluating what kinds of activities would show up on a yet-to-be-released “project list” that was pending further consultation with Canadians.

But when pressed on the issue, McKenna told reporters she didn’t believe oilsands projects developed via in-situ methods should be included. McKenna reasoned that because Alberta already has a hard cap on emissions, future oilsands projects would be exempt from federal environmental review.

The implications of excluding new oilsands projects because of a provincial emissions cap (which is controversial) weren’t lost on Adam Scott, senior advisor with Oil Change International.

Unbelievable and unacceptable. @cathmckenna proposes exempting #tarsands in-situ projects from any federal environmental assessment because ‘Alberta has a hard cap on emissions’ #cdnpoli

— Adam Scott (@AdamScottEnv) February 8, 2018

“It’s just appalling,” Scott told DeSmog Canada in an interview. “There’s no other way to say it.”

Unlike the more familiar open-pit mines of the Alberta oilsands, in-situ projects extract the region’s viscous bitumen by injecting steam into the ground, which softens the oil that is then pumped to the surface.

In-situ development represents the future of the oilsands. Between 2016 and 2040, in-situ is expected to double in daily production reaching 2.9 million barrels per day.

And while the process is less visible than its open-pit counterpart, in-situ oilsands mining has greater greenhouse gas emissions and significant land disturbance that clashes with the rights of local Indigenous peoples.

NDP MP Linda Duncan said by not releasing the project list the federal government has left everyone in the dark.

Duncan, who serves as vice-chair of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development which is responsible for reviewing the new legislation, said in-situ projects were exempted from federal assessments under the previous Harper government during dramatic cuts to Canada’s environmental rules. The new proposed federal legislation, bill C-69, was meant to make the gutted rules more robust.

“Everybody agrees that this bill should not be finalized until everybody knows what the project list is,” Duncan told DeSmog Canada.

“Who is it going to apply to? It’s ridiculous that they didn’t have the consultations simultaneously. This is a really serious matter. One of the things that we heard from industry today was that they’re just fed up.”

In-situ projects expected to emit 65 megatonnes of emissions by 2030

In-situ projects don’t result in the same level of visual devastation as open-pit mining: there are no toxic tailings lakes or gargantuan trucks needed.

But they have their own set of significant impacts, which critics argue should fall under the purview of federal assessment.

For one, they emit far more greenhouse gases that mining on a per-barrel basis. A 2016 assessment by the Pembina Institute found the “emissions intensity” of in-situ is about 60 per cent higher than mining. That’s because natural gas is burned to create the steam used in the process, making it extremely emissions intensive.

By 2030, in-situ projects are expected to emit 65 megatonnes of emissions per year: almost equivalent to all passenger transport in the country.

Sharon Mascher, law professor at the University of Calgary and expert in environmental law, said in an interview with DeSmog Canada that such climate impacts from in-situ projects warrant federal assessment.

“I would argue that the federal government has the constitutional power to deal with greenhouse gas emissions and they need to show some leadership if they’re going to purport to be acting in a way that’s consistent with their obligations under the Paris Agreement,” she said.

“They need to exercise that jurisdiction to make sure that over the long term Canada’s greenhouse gases are not increasing  but are decreasing and eventually reaching carbon neutrality.”

Alberta’s emissions cap allows for a 40 per cent expansion in emissions, up to 100 megatonnes. But that doesn’t include electricity cogeneration, oilsands that doens’t require steam extraction and new or expanded upgraders — which combine for another 15 megatonnes of emissions.

As noted in the recent collaborative report by Canada’s auditors general, Alberta is one of nine province and territories that doesn’t even have a 2030 emissions goal in place.

Mascher said the only way an exemption for new in-situ projects would make sense would be if the federal government conducted a strategic assessment of all existing legislative frameworks in order to provide assurance that new production fits within Paris Agreement obligations.

However, strategic assessments aren’t legislated — meaning they’re completely at the discretion of cabinet.

No environmental assessments for in-situ oilsands projects under the federal government’s new rules. @cathmckenna https://t.co/WjhonE2XgN

— DeSmog Canada (@DeSmogCanada) April 3, 2018

Without federal assessments, ‘there’s no credibility to the system at all’

Greenhouse gas emissions aren’t the only potential impact of in-situ projects.

As recently reported by DeSmog Canada, Fort McKay First Nation in northeast Alberta is currently fighting a proposed in-situ project that is feared to jeopardize a nearby sacred region.

Specific concerns include the introduction of linear disturbances like roads and cutlines — which can further endanger caribou — and constant water withdrawals.

“They’re massive water polluters with large impacts on land and endangered and threatened species like woodland caribou,” Scott said. “They obviously need to be part of any review. It’s just essential. Without that, there’s no credibility to the system at all. They need to be on the project list as a default.”

There’s growing interest by oilsands producers in the use of “solvents” for in-situ projects, which would greatly reduce the amount of natural gas required for extraction but have unknown impacts on groundwater quality.

Duncan emphasized it’s the primary responsibility of the federal government to address Indigenous rights.  In addition, she emphasized that only the federal government can regulate navigable waters, fisheries and trans-boundary waters.

Even though the previous environmental impact system implemented under Harper exempted in-situ projects, Duncan said it’s imperative that they be included in the project list.

“It’s still having a huge impact on the landbase that is by and large traditional Indigenous lands,” she said.

Committee required to review legislation without knowing what it will apply to

The proposed legislation is currently being reviewed by the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development. After it’s approved, it’ll return to the House for third reading and eventually royal assent.

In late February, the Liberals introduction a “time allocation” motion over bill C-69 in the House of Commons, limiting debate to only two days before sending it off to the Liberal-stacked committee.

But Duncan said the committee process itself is also being fast-tracked, with limitations on hearing witnesses and proposed amendments.

In response, she gave notice of a motion to break up the bill for review and send sections to relevant committees: parts addressing the Canadian Energy Regulator to the Natural Resource committee and parts about navigable waters to the Transport committee.

Those calls were rebuffed.

Now, her committee has to review over 800 clauses by late April.

Some have speculated that the continued exemption for in-situ for Alberta is a subtle trick to ensure the emissions cap remains regardless of who wins the next provincial election.

Scott suggested that would be a “terrible strategy.”

“The Alberta cap is an ineffective way of dealing with climate impacts of oil and gas operations,” he said. “Exempting projects with the environmental impacts of in-situ tarsands projects really shows the impact system was broken entirely.”

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 B.C. government unveiled a new natural gas development plan Thursday in an attempt to trigger a final investment deal with LNG Canada, the proponents of B.C.’s largest proposed liquefied natural gas export terminal, located in Kitimat.

The NDP’s new framework offers LNG Canada and other companies tax reprieves and exemptions and a cheaper electricity rate than the previous B.C. Liberal government extended to the industry. The government is also offering a carbon tax break to LNG companies if their facilities can meet the “cleanest” operating standards in the world.

In a press briefing Premier John Horgan claimed the new plan carves a way for the province to develop a $40 billion LNG facility and still meet climate targets and obligations to Indigenous peoples. LNG Canada’s own estimates say $25 to $40 billion for a “four-train project” while today’s announcement only considers a two-train first phase of the project (‘trains” refers to natural gas processing units).

However, the province has yet to release a climate plan that demonstrates what steps would be taken to counter significant greenhouse gas emissions from the LNG Canada facility — representing 10 per cent of B.C.’s 2050 emissions target, according to the government.

Exporting liquefied natural gas involves fracking for gas in B.C.’s northeast, shipping that gas via pipelines to the coast and then cooling the gas via massive compressors to -162 degrees Celsius, the point at which gas turns into liquid and becomes easier to transport via tanker. LNG Canada would burn its own natural gas for the energy-intensive compression process, resulting in enormous greenhouse gas pollution. (B.C. doesn’t allow the burning of natural gas to create electricity because of these emissions.)

The government said LNG Canada will emit four megatonnes of carbon emissions each year — the equivalent of adding 856,531 cars to the road.

The Pembina Institute, however, has pointed out that when both phases of the project are built the LNG Canada project would emit 8.6 megatonnes of carbon per year in 2030, rising to 9.6 megatonnes in 2050. The government’s emissions estimate only includes the first phase of the project, although its investment figure of $40 billion is for all project phases.

No clear climate plan

B.C.’s new “framework” to attract an LNG industry was slammed by the B.C. Green Party, which called the plan “race to the bottom economics.”

Green Party leader Andrew Weaver pointed out that the more favourable electricity rate the NDP is offering the LNG industry is a “ratepayer subsidy” of Site C dam power that would go to LNG Canada “at less than half of what it would cost to produce.”

At a press conference, Weaver said “there is profound concern” that LNG plants would be exempt from further increases in B.C.’s carbon tax.

He said the Greens will not support any legislation brought forth to back the changes to B.C.’s terms to LNG producers, but stopped short of saying the three Green MLAs will bring down the NDP government over the issue.

“This is not about toppling the government at this juncture,” Weaver said. “Our confidence in government is predicated on government developing a climate plan to meet our targets. Government has been in power for eight months and we have not seen such a plan put forth.”

If LNG Canada sets up shop in B.C. and “you are going to add eight to 10 megatonnes of greenhouse gas emissions,” Weaver said all other aspects of the economy must make up the difference if B.C. is to meet legislated climate targets.

“By 2030 all other aspects of our economy — apart from LNG Canada — would have to cut emissions by 50 per cent. And by 2050 it means that all other aspects of our economy would have to cut emissions by 95 per cent.”

Horgan said the $40 billion LNG Canada project has the support of 16 local First Nations, some of which have signed economic benefits agreements with Shell Canada, which owns a 50 per cent stake in the project alongside PetroChina, Korea Gas Company and Mitsubishi.

The LNG Canada plant would require 670 new kilometres of pipeline, linking Dawson Creek to Kitimat, and would spur up to 700 new tanker visits a year, according to Pembina.

Bringing remaining First Nations onside with the project is the responsibility of LNG Canada, Horgan said.

“It’s not going to be easy,” Horgan told reporters at a press briefing. “Industrial activity and reconciliation with Indigenous peoples are difficult issues. Meeting our climate change objectives are primary and fundamental to the new government’s approach.”

“Rather than skirt those issues, like the previous government did — rather than ignore those issues of reconciliation and climate action — we want to marry industrial activity with those two key government objectives.”

NDP take up ‘cleanest LNG in the world’ mantle

The previous BC Liberal government promised to develop an LNG empire that would export “the cleanest LNG in the world.”

Yet claims of “clean LNG” have been thoroughly debunked and a glut in the global natural gas market led to a major slow down in investment in B.C.

Of the 19 export LNG projects proposed under the previous government, only one, the relatively small Woodfibre LNG, has received a final investment decision.

Former Premier Christy Clark also promised 10,000 jobs in the LNG industry, which failed to materialize.

“They got zero [LNG plants], we may get one,” Horgan said at the press conference.

The NDP is now singing from the Liberal songsheet on jobs, claiming that the LNG Canada investment would create 10,000 jobs and provide training opportunities for younger people as long-time members of the construction trade unions retire.

LNG Canada is expected to make a final investment decision in late 2018 and now, under the newly announced framework, B.C. has offered incentives if the company makes its decision by November.

The new plan offers LNG developers temporary relief from the provincial sales tax, new emissions standards, elimination of the LNG income tax and rebates for penalties paid under the carbon tax if the facility meets best-in-world standards.

According to the government, best-in-world standards would be met by electrifying fracking operations in natural gas fields, using new technology to reduce emissions in the LNG cooling process and by electrifying ancillary LNG operations.

“Energy-intensive trade-exposed industries already have an opportunity to reduce their emission profile and therefore potentially reduce their emissions cost,” Horgan said. “That’s not to absolve them of their responsibility. It’s to help them transition as carbon pricing goes up and their industry transforms.”

Exerpt from B.C.’s technical briefing on LNG Canada and the new natural gas framework.

Horgan said should the new project come online it will require “radical electrification” of B.C.’s economy, adding the province has an abundance of hydroelectric power.

“There is no intention to give anyone a free pass,” he said.

Yet, Weaver said government has yet to put a credible climate path forward.

“I’ve spent 25 years in the field of climate science…frankly I don’t know how you are going to be able to get to 40 per cent reductions and add 8 megatonnes.”

Weaver said measures like the carbon tax, which are designed to help B.C. meet its climate targets, are undermined by proposals that exempt industry from planned increases to the tax.

The LNG Canada plant was approved in 2015 by both the B.C. and federal governments, with 74 conditions. None of the conditions relate to carbon emissions or place a limit on emissions.

Weaver waiting on fugitive emissions price

Another major obstacle to B.C.’s ability to carve a credible climate path forward are fugitive emissions, Weaver said.

A recent peer-reviewed study by the David Suzuki Foundation and St. Francis Xavier University found methane emissions from B.C.’s oil and gas industry are two-and-a-half times higher than reported.

A follow up study found wells in the Montney region, which would supply the gas to LNG Canada, release more than 11,800 tonnes of methane into the air annually — the equivalent of burning 4.5 million tonnes of coal or putting two million cars on the road.

B.C. does not currently price these fugitive emissions under the provincial carbon tax.

Weaver said the Green Party’s agreement with the NDP stipulates the province put a price on fugitive emissions.

In a previous interview with DeSmog Canada, Weaver said he would topple the government if the NDP pushed for the development of an LNG industry.

He reiterated Thursday that the Green Party’s confidence in the minority government is “firmly embedded” in a credible climate plan.

With files from Sarah Cox.

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.

Figures in a B.C. greenhouse gas inventory released quietly before Christmas show emissions have risen for four of the last five years.

Previously the province released a full public report on emissions, including inventory methodology, every two years but in December the government released a excel spreadsheet simply listing emissions figures for the second year in a row. The spreadsheet was published without any formal announcement or news release.

By law the province is required to reduce emissions 80 per cent from 2007 levels by 2050. In 2008 the province created a benchmark within that reduction, committing to get to 33 per cent reductions by 2020.

But the new figures show B.C. is not on course to meet that 2020 target. Instead emissions are only 2.1 per cent lower than the baseline year of 2007 and are on the rise.

The government needs to take drastic steps if there is any hope of meeting targets designed to keep global warming below two degrees, Jens Wieting of Sierra Club B.C. told DeSmog Canada, adding it is distressing the emissions inventory was updated without a public announcement.

"Why is it an environmental organization that has to put out a press release telling the public this information is now available?" Wieting said.

Wieting said robust reports are needed to help decision makers effectively work to reduce the province's emissions adding this was the first time in 10 years the government has released only excel files. 

"We should be informed by more detailed not more superficial information," he said. “What we have seen in B.C. for years is noble rhetoric about the need to confront climate change, but a lack of meaningful action.”

“We have not heard from the B.C. government how serious this is and that we are not close to meeting our reduction targets,” Wieting told DeSmog Canada.

A decade after B.C. committed to its 2020 target the province is essentially in the same place, Wieting said.

The government is planning to introduce a legislated target of a 40 per cent reduction in emissions by 2030, a spokesperson from the Ministry of Environment and Climate Change Strategy told DeSmog Canada. The province will introduce targets and plans for the industry and transportation sectors, including helping emissions-intensive industries reduce emissions while remaining competitive.

“Underscoring these actions is the appointment of the new Climate Solutions and Clean Growth Advisory Council, which is advising government on how to achieve our climate objectives efficiently and effectively while growing our clean economy,” the spokesperson said in an e-mailed statement.

“What we have seen in B.C. for years is noble rhetoric about the need to confront climate change, but a lack of meaningful action.” https://t.co/zMvjpcZ8QE

— DeSmog Canada (@DeSmogCanada) January 12, 2018

Natural Gas Industry, Fracking Under Emissions Scrutiny

Sierra Club B.C. is calling for decisive changes in the way the province deals with greenhouse gas emissions, including a public inquiry into the impacts of hydraulic fracturing — often referred to as fracking — which annually releases 118,000 tonnes of methane, a greenhouse gas 84 times more potent than carbon dioxide.

The province has promised a review of fracking, a process used to extract natural gas, but a coalition of community, First Nations and environmental groups wants it broadened to a full public inquiry.

“If we increase fracking we can’t make any further progress,” said Wieting, who is concerned that Premier John Horgan is heading to Asia on a trade mission later this month without committing to delivering a clear message that new liquefied natural gas (LNG) and other fossil fuel projects would compromise B.C.’s efforts to meet emissions targets.

“People are making changes in their lives. There are bike lanes and public transit, but all that will be overshadowed by new industrial development,” Wieting said.

B.C. has a history of considering projects, like the Pacific Northwest LNG facility, that would make it impossible to meet climate targets. The climate impacts of the Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain pipeline project were not considered by the provincial or federal governments during the project’s environmental assessment.

Sierra Club B.C. is recommending that all major industrial projects undergo a climate test, including a carbon footprint breakdown, as part of the environmental assessment process.

B.C. Emissions Reporting in Need of Overhaul

There should also be changes to the way in which the province releases emissions data, Wieting said.

Previously, a detailed report was released every second year, but, for the last two years, the information has come through a spreadsheet that no longer shows emissions related to logging.

Emissions from slash burning — a process used to eliminate wood debris in logging operations — are shown as being ‘under review’ and not available. Slash burning would have accounted for 13 per cent of B.C.’s total emissions in 2013, according to previous government inventories. That’s the equivalent of over 1.7 million cars on the road for one year.

However, despite their significance, forest emissions are not included in the official provincial count.

A practical solution would be to protect old-growth tracts of forest that store large amounts of carbon while ending the practice of slash burning, Wieting said.

Image: B.C. Premier John Horgan. Photo: Province of B.C. 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.

It just might be the best climate policy you’ve never heard of.

It’s called the Clean Fuel Standard. Proposed back in December 2016 when the landmark Pan-Canadian Framework was signed by most provinces and territories, it’s since been vastly overshadowed by other, splashier policies, such as carbon pricing, the federal coal phase-out and methane regulations.

But as outlined in a brand new report by Clean Energy Canada — a think tank based at Simon Fraser University — the policy has incredible potential to cut Canada’s annual greenhouse emissions: upward of 30 megatonnes per year, compared to 18 megatonnes from the carbon price.

So why hasn’t anyone heard of it? DeSmog Canada took a look at the details to help you make sense of the situation.

What is the Clean Fuel Standard?

Simply put, it’s a federal requirement for fuel suppliers to cut their annual emissions by a certain percentage every year. It’s a way of accelerating the switch to cleaner fuels and technologies such as biofuel, clean electricity, carbon capture and storage and “renewable natural gas.”

By fuel suppliers, we mean mostly oil refineries and natural gas suppliers.

With that said, the policy will impact every producer and consumer of fuels, which include gasoline, diesel, natural gas, heating oil, coal and petcoke.

The key thing about this particular policy is that it won’t just include transportation. A fair few other jurisdictions have crafted clean fuel standards for transportation, including B.C. and California. But if unveiled as expected, Canada’s policy will include fuel used in buildings and industry, two considerable sources of emissions not dealt with by the current B.C. standards

“If implemented the way that the federal government says they would implement it, it would be the first of its kind in the world,” Dianne Zimmerman, director of the Pembina Institute’s transportation and urban solutions program in Ontario, told DeSmog Canada.

How much emissions reduction are we talking here?

The equivalent to removing seven million cars from the road.

Overall lifecycle carbon intensity is expected to drop by 10 to 15 per cent by 2030. That means removing upward of 30 megatonnes of greenhouse gas emissions per year, according to modelling by Clean Energy Canada. In a webinar hosted by Clean Energy Canada on Tuesday, senior analyst Jeremy Moorhouse indicated that could come from 19 megatonnes from transportation reductions and another 15 million tonnes from buildings and industry.

It’s still not enough for Canada to actually meet its Paris climate targets. In fact, Environment Commissioner Julie Gelfand recently calculated that Canada is expected to miss its 2030 market by 44 megatonnes, even if all policies from the Pan-Canadian Framework are fully implemented.

Wait, wasn’t this what the carbon tax was for?

Yes and no.

Warren Mabee, geography professor and Canada Research Chair in Renewable Energy Development and Implementation at Queen’s University, noted in an interview with DeSmog Canada that he sees the carbon price as setting a floor. A minimum price of sorts.

But he says the Clean Fuel Standard will accelerate emissions reductions in certain sectors, especially where there are cleaner technologies and fuels already available. Mabee actually described the standard as essentially “setting an alternative price for carbon.”

It’s similar to what Simon Fraser University economist Mark Jaccard was getting at in his 2016 paper about ‘politically viable’ solutions to emissions reductions. In it, he argued that flexible regulations “approximate the incentives and flexibility of emissions pricing, but comparative surveys of climate policy acceptability… indicate that they are likely to be less politically difficult.”

That approach also helps explain how a Clean Fuel Standard can potentially interact with existing policies known as “renewable fuel mandates” in provinces like Ontario, B.C. and Alberta.

While the jargon might seem a bit redundant, the latter requires fuel producers to integrate a certain percentage of renewable fuel — mostly biofuels — into their product.

The Clean Fuel Standard on the other hand is concerned specifically with the actual carbon intensity of the fuel right at the source.

The two policies work best together in tandem, according to Mabee.

“Honestly, there is no one policy that’s going to solve these problems,” he said. “If there’s going to be a real solution, we’re going to need multiple policies to help push us there. This is one way we can differentiate those.”

The Best Canadian #Climate Policy You’ve Probably Never Heard Of https://t.co/EL9wAhGoLb #cleanfuelstandard @Pembina @cleanenergycan

— DeSmog Canada (@DeSmogCanada) November 8, 2017

What will the standard actually look like?

That’s entirely up to the federal government.

One thing that’s often overlooked is just how customizable climate policies — like carbon pricing or zero-emission vehicle mandates — really are.

Sure, there’s a basic framework required. But governments can handpick prices, exemptions, incentives and penalties.

For that reason, it’s tough to say at this point how new rules will roll out. The federal government has been delaying the release of key parts of the framework and final regulations aren’t due until 2019. But a good place to look for clues is a similar existing policy in B.C.

The B.C. Low Carbon Fuel Standard was adopted back in 2008, requiring carbon intensity of transportation fuels to be cut by 10 per cent by 2020. According to the province, that cut 6.4 megatonnes of emissions between 2010 and 2016.

The controversial 2016 Climate Leadership Plan raised the standard, requiring a carbon intensity cut of 15 per cent be implemented by 2030.

Fuel suppliers have three ways of doing that. They can just cut emissions intensity during production. Or they can buy credits from another fuel supplier: think of a carbon trading system of sorts.

The third option includes entering into a “Part 3 Agreement” with the province, in which a fuel supplier has to take certain actions, which are deemed to be equivalent to actually cutting fuel intensity. That can include building a new pump station that sells gasoline with biofuels mixed in, or testing certain additive formulas for cold weather operability of biodiesel-blended diesel.

This is what’s known as a “flexible” regulatory approach. That’s opposed to a more prescriptive policy, in which emitters clean up or pay (think the carbon price). As a result, fuel suppliers are expected to find the most cost-effective and technologically innovative solutions that work for them.

If things go as planned, Canada could implement a 10 per cent reduction of transportation fuels by 2030 from 2015 levels like B.C. has already done. Then, throw in a 3.5 per cent cut in fuels for buildings and industry, or a five per cent renewable natural gas mandate.

According to Clean Energy Canada, that would result in the 30 megatonnes in reductions.

Hold up…renewable natural gas?

It’s natural gas that comes from landfills and water treatment plants! Pretty neat, actually. It currently escapes and adds to fugitive methane emissions in the atmosphere — but could be captured.

In fact, Moorhouse said in the webinar that if you had a renewable natural gas station at every landfill across Canada, we could meet a good portion of the Clean Fuel Standard using waste.

What would this new standard mean for jobs and fuel prices?

It could be a net plus!

According to Clean Energy Canada, it’ll generate a net growth of 11,100 jobs and $4.1 billion in economic activity.

Indeed, growth would slow in some sectors such as refining and service stations, but would increase in building new biofuel facilities and cleantech investments: between $200 million to $2 billion a year between 2020 and 2030.

As for impacts on fuel prices: it’ll be minimal, between $2 and $5 per month in direct household energy bills including cars, furnaces and electricity by 2030. The important thing to keep in mind is that energy efficiency measures between now and then will greatly cut costs for households.

In the end, Canadians will end up saving between $17 and $82 a month by 2030, depending on things like how efficient your furnace and cars are.

Alright, what’s the catch?

There are certainly challenges.

Zimmerman of the Pembina Institute notes that one of their concerns is that the new fuel standard could be delayed and not be implemented. She calls the schedule by which they’re attempting to get it regulated under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act as “very aggressive.” But we’re already seeing the government fall behind. They also delayed implementing methane regulations on oil and gas producers until well after the next election.

Those delays have consequences.

“Every year there’s a delay of climate policy has implications to further decades,” she said.

There’s also the big question mark about counting reductions, especially related to credit trading. Mabee of Queen’s University noted it’s still unclear how reductions will actually be verified: whether it will be a government agency or something more independent.

“That’s your danger,” he said. “You get a powerful industry lobbying group that says ‘I’m buying so many litres of this biofuel or this low-carbon oil source and therefore I should be getting this benefit.’ But if there’s no proof that it’s actually doing that, and if there’s disputes, who do you go to to resolve the dispute? That isn’t clear yet.”

Now, we just have to hold our breath and wait for the actual policy.

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.

What does climate change have to do with economic growth? Canada’s prime minister and premiers signed a deal in December to “grow our economy, reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, and build resilience to the impacts of a changing climate.” The Pan-Canadian Framework on Clean Growth and Climate Change outlines plans for carbon pricing, energy-efficient building codes, electric vehicle charging stations, methane emission regulations and more.

Is the framework correct in assuming we can reduce greenhouse gas emissions and grow the economy? If not, which should be given precedence?

These questions come at a pivotal moment in Canadian climate action. The Pan-Canadian Framework marks the first time Canada’s first ministers have endorsed a national plan to tackle climate change. It opens the door to a game-changing carbon price that will make reducing greenhouse gas emissions the smart, cost-saving choice for businesses and individuals.

However, a recent Nature Climate Change article claims, “No major advanced industrialized country is on track to meet its pledges to control the greenhouse-gas emissions that cause climate change.” Canada pushed for ambitious targets during the 2015 Paris climate negotiations, but even the framework won’t put us on track to meet our pledged reductions.

Rather than being an outcome of climate action, economic growth may prevent us from reaching climate targets. A July 2017 study in Nature Climate Change concluded that the world only has a five per cent chance of keeping global average temperature from increasing beyond 2 C. On a positive note, the authors found economies worldwide will likely become more energy-efficient, and low-carbon sources like wind and solar will make up a growing share of the mix.

But economic growth will likely cancel out these advances. For every megatonne of emissions reduced through efficiency and clean energy, another megatonne will be produced because of economic expansion. Our economies will get bigger almost as fast as they get cleaner and emissions will not drop quickly enough to stave off catastrophic climate change.

Can #Emissions Actually Shrink While the #Economy Grows? https://t.co/yDoIYW2WpJ #cdnpoli #climate #pancanadianframework @DavidSuzukiFDN

— DeSmog Canada (@DeSmogCanada) September 13, 2017

Economic growth has been the primary goal of every Canadian government, provincial and federal, for decades. Leaders’ speeches are peppered with references to it. Election campaigns are filled with promises of economic expansion. Pity the politician who presides over an economic downturn.

Rarely do we stop to ask what economic growth means. In short, it’s a year-to-year increase in production, distribution and consumption, as expressed by gross domestic product.

If GDP strikes you as a poor indicator of well-being, you’re not alone. The late U.S. politician Robert F. Kennedy once remarked that GDP “measures everything, except that which makes life worth living.” It’s a flawed indicator of progress.

The Pan-Canadian Framework expresses optimism that we can reduce emissions while expanding the economy. This promise of “green growth” is popular because it offers something for everybody. It maintains a commitment to economic growth while claiming greenhouse gas emissions will drop. But, as the Nature Climate Change study asserts, “green growth” is likely an oxymoron.

“Degrowth” advocates argue that tackling climate change requires shrinking the economy. A planned slowdown of the economy would be achieved by implementing shorter workweeks and more holidays and encouraging low-consumption lifestyles.

“Agrowth” advocates such as environmental economist Jeroen van den Bergh argue that we should ignore GDP altogether, and instead evaluate progress using indicators such as literacy, employment, rates of diabetes and heart disease, water and air quality and climate stability. If GDP happens to go up while these indicators improve, so be it. If GDP goes down while other measures of well-being increase, what have we truly lost?

When the Pan-Canadian Framework is implemented, some economic sectors will likely grow. Companies that offer low-carbon energy sources, energy-efficient products and opportunities to offset or store greenhouse gas emissions will prosper. Other sectors, like coal mining for power production, will shrink. We may or may not have “clean growth,” but we will have a cleaner economy and a better shot at preventing or mitigating climate change’s most harrowing effects.

If moving beyond the Pan-Canadian Framework is at odds with growing the economy, let’s make sure our elected officials have their priorities straight. Reducing greenhouse gas emissions should take precedence over economic growth.

David Suzuki is a scientist, broadcaster, author and co-founder of the David Suzuki Foundation. Written with contributions from David Suzuki Foundation Research Fellow Brett Dolter. Dolter is co-editor of the recently released Handbook on Growth and Sustainability.

Learn more at www.davidsuzuki.org.

Image: Justin Trudeau at the Canada Games opening ceremonies in Winnipeg. 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.