Mike Morrice knew that running for the federal Green Party wasn’t the “politically advantageous choice.” In its almost 50-year history, the party has won, at most, three seats and almost seven per cent of the popular vote. But it was the political choice Morrice felt allowed him to hold onto his integrity. 

“Green values are my values,” said the newly elected Green member of Parliament for Kitchener Centre — the first-ever Green MP elected from Ontario — before listing them one by one: social justice, participatory democracy, ecological wisdom. As one of just two Green MPs to claim victory in September’s federal election, Morrice plans to bring these values to the House of Commons. He wants to be “a respectful listener” of all ideas across party lines; “a reasonable, sober second point of view” during debates; and, most of all, a climate champion who can “align with climate science and call for decisive climate action.” 

Morrice is a new Green voice in federal politics at a time when the role of Greens in federal politics is unclear. This was the first federal election in which every party with seats in Parliament presented a credible climate plan for consideration — a fact longtime Greens and other political observers say was largely due to the Greens’ sometimes uphill battle to push the issue into the spotlight for years. But while the Greens have succeeded in making the climate crisis more than just a “Green” issue, internal divisions spurred by disagreements over how equity issues fit into the party’s mandate kept them from capitalizing on that victory in the election. Now, the battered party must figure out its role in Canada’s political discourse to survive.

If ever there was an election for Canada’s Greens to have a breakthrough moment, it was this one. The summer saw the country’s West Coast experience the deadliest heat wave on record. On its heels came the second report from the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) — a stunning glimpse into the irreversible, “unequivocal” impact of the climate crisis and the urgent need for mitigation efforts. The report helped fuel a surge of climate-centred parties in places like Germany, where the Greens won nearly 21 per cent of the national vote in its September election, and are in talks to form a coalition minority government. The same month, Norway’s Green Party won three seats, two more than it previously had. 

But although the IPCC report was released just a week before Canada’s election was announced, the Canadian Greens didn’t experience the same momentum. Not only did they lose one seat in parliament, they saw their national vote plummet from 6.5 to 2.3 per cent, the lowest voter share in more than 20 years. 

Political experts and party insiders are quick to note that European countries have a proportional representation electoral system that allows more Greens to get elected, while Canada’s first-past-the-post system remains an uphill battle for smaller parties that have to fight for resources and funding, as well as votes. Even so, the months-long turmoil the Canadian Greens remain embattled in certainly didn’t help.

The election-season controversy was spurred by an internal dispute over the party’s position on the Israel-Palestine conflict, which saw Fredericton MP Jenica Atwin cross the floor from the Greens to the Liberals in June. Noah Zatzman, an adviser to outgoing Green leader Annamie Paul, accused unnamed Green MPs of displaying antisemitism — comments that Paul, a Black, Jewish woman, did not repudiate in spite of many internal calls to do so. By the time the election was officially called in August, things were so messy that the party was unable to organize a full slate of candidates. 

Paul came second-to-last in her riding of Toronto Centre with less than nine per cent of the vote, then resigned a week after the election, deeming her party’s treatment of her as racist. Her resignation speech said, in part: “For those Green Party members who have taken great pleasure in attacking me, in calling for assaults against me, in calling for organization against me and suggesting that I’m part of a conspiracy against the party: you may take small comfort for a moment but please know that there are many more people like me than you and you will not succeed in the end.” (A spokesperson for Paul said she was not available for an interview.)

The issue of diversity and inclusion was already a source of tension well before the election, often dividing longtime members, who put environment above everything, from newer ones who believe that equity issues, including environmental racism, must be part of a broad, successful climate movement. The environmental movement has long been criticized for a lack of diversity in both leadership and membership, and the Green Party of Canada isn’t exempt. 

In April, the Toronto Star reported that Zahra Mitra, the party’s diversity co-ordinator, had filed a “scathing condemnation” of high-ranking officials who denied discrimination in the organization and hampered efforts to make it more inclusive. Mitra said the party has a “very real problem with racism.” In August, another internal report obtained by The Globe and Mail advised that “there is systemic racism at the governance level of the party, which needs to be, but is not being, addressed.”

And just this week, Kayne Alleyne-Adams, the Green Party’s 20-year-old youth co-critic, resigned: both Black and bisexual, Alleyne-Adams said it was due to the “un-countered vitriol” he experienced.“Since joining the party, I have been sexually harassed by a senior campaigner, subject to racist and queerphobic language from prominent members and former candidates, I also witnessed an unwieldy level of antisemitism from candidates, former candidates, campaigners and prominent party members,” Alleyne-Adams wrote in his resignation letter. “One former leadership candidate publicly approved of a call for me to be ‘hunted and investigated’ for my ‘constant whining about racism.”

“I think a Green Party can play an important role in federal politics. I think this Green Party as it is now, forged in the Elizabethan era, cannot represent the values that it strives to.”

Kayne Alleyne-Adams, former Green Party youth co-critic

Reactions to Paul’s resignation highlighted the two factions. Two weeks after her speech, former Green leader Jim Harris accused her of using racism as an excuse for her electoral performance. The same week, current Ontario Green Party leader Mike Schreiner put out a statement promising to “stand firmly against racism, sexism and antisemitism in all forms” and laid out his plan to combat these issues within the provincial party. 

Trevor Hancock, the Green Party of Canada’s co-founder and first leader in the 1984 election, is one of the veterans who worries that the party has lost its clear focus on climate and ecological issues in its attempt to consider social issues like housing and long-term care. Hancock is concerned the Green Party is no longer playing its key function in Canadian politics, which he sees as “questioning the basic model of our way of life.” He worries that the Green Party no longer talks about the rights of nature. 

“There’s very little we are talking about right now that we weren’t almost 50 years ago,” said Hancock, who lives in Victoria. “We have to advance a more radical agenda. We can’t just be the NDP with a green tinge. We have to present an alternative that is first and foremost based on the idea of reducing our carbon footprint by 70 to 80 per cent. The starting point has to be our ecological party and then what sort of social and economic system fits into that.”

Adrian Currie disagrees. In 2020, Currie, a longtime Green Party member and volunteer, became the first Black man elected to the party’s federal council. Currie, who lives in Toronto, believes the party is young, still-evolving and building traction along the way, that “people need time to think and consider voting Green.” To do that, his focus is clear: “Show voters how moving the conversation along, itself, is very powerful.”  That includes highlighting the party’s success at attracting its most diverse slate of candidates ever, in the 2021 election. “In 2019, we were the least diverse,” Currie said. “We went from having zero people of colour in the federal council to four. We’re growing as a party and bringing different ways of looking at policies and issues.” 

Despite this progress, Alleyne-Adams believes the party’s divisions are deep. He left a Liberal campaign to join the Greens because their core values aligned with his, and because he was inspired by Paul’s leadership race, during which she addressed social justice issues that no other leader was — such as defunding the police and guaranteed livable income — while also pushing the climate conversation. 

“So many Canadians are on the brink of financial or other hardships,” he said. “All parties, including the Green Party, need to offer solutions to that to ensure we can stand strong against the climate crisis. It’s very difficult to get someone that can’t afford their rent to buy an electric car.” 

Alleyne-Adams believed the racism and queerphobia he saw upon joining would die down after Paul was elected as leader, but his list of concerns only grew. Green Party Facebook groups are still not moderated to monitor vile language, and Black communities remain unaddressed in the Green Party policy book. He got the distinct impression that certain factions were relieved at Paul’s resignation, pleased not to have to deal with the so-called diversity issue anymore.

“A party is most divisive when it is most divided,” he said. “I decided to pull out when I saw that nothing would change.” 

With Paul’s departure, the Greens’ key voice remains the same leader who helped found the party: Elizabeth May. “I don’t see how I ever get to retire from this. It’s not just a job, it’s a movement,” May told The Narwhal in late September, weeks after Paul’s resignation. 

May agreed that internal unrest was a strong contributor to the party’s poor showing in this election. “If the leadership transition went as I hoped, we could have had 12 MPs in parliament,” she said. But she also blames what she sees as the media’s “sole” focus on the unrest as a factor.  May wished that news coverage had pushed back against claims that the Green climate plan was unfeasible, but overall, she has “no worries about the future of our party’s growth.”

Post-election, both May and Morrice have individually tasked themselves with explaining the flaws in the other parties’ plans to the public — something they both recognize the party failed to do during the election. But again, May’s focus on the need to push for adequate climate plans in her conversation with The Narwhal is very different than the approach offered by the Greens’ newest MP, Morrice, who mentioned the importance of intersections several times, and said that tackling climate change means recognizing its links with social issues like housing, poverty and racism, within the party and beyond it.

“Just because I’m not confident in the current iteration of the Green Party doesn’t mean I’m not confident in a subsequent iteration of it,” Alleyne-Adams said. “I think a Green Party can play an important role in federal politics. I think this Green Party as it is now, forged in the Elizabethan era, cannot represent the values that it strives to.”

If there’s one thing that the factions of the party agree on, it’s that the Green Party has set the federal agenda on climate. Angela Carter, a University of Waterloo political science professor, said the Green Party “is moving the goalpost in climate conversation in the country.” While there’s now agreement across parties that Canada needs some kind of carbon-pricing program, that wasn’t always the case. 

Kathryn Harrison, a political science professor at the University of British Columbia, said the Greens’ early adoption of carbon pricing played a role in normalizing discussions about how to do it. “There will be room for that in the future and a need for that in the future,” Harrison said. 

But she believes leading that discourse will be harder now that the Greens aren’t dominating the topic. Things shifted with the release of the Liberal climate plan in December 2020. “This was the first time any government in Canada could credibly meet Canada’s targets,” said Harrison, adding that this sidelined the Greens because they weren’t offering something “qualitatively different.” While the Green plan was more ambitious in terms of scale and speed, it was essentially proposing to do the same things as every other party. 

With the substance of the plans being so similar, the issue becomes which party is most able to actually implement one. This practicality is likely why several scientists and environmentalists chose to endorse the Liberal climate plan this election year, especially given the turmoil among the Greens. 

“I was very, very sad they blew this moment. I had this fundamental hope that the Greens represented the different approach we needed,” said David Suzuki, who endorsed Green candidates like Paul Manly in Nanaimo-Ladysmith this year, but also supported Avi Lewis, the NDP candidate in West Vancouver-Sunshine Coast-Sea to Sky Country. “The dominant parties are all anthropocentric; they see humans as the central. We need to change to an ecocentric perspective to get off this destructive path.”

Suzuki said he wants to support “climate champions, and it doesn’t matter from what party.” For years, he believed that a “green party” would limit environmental conversations to just one political entity. He was eventually won over by the Greens’ promise to let candidates vote on issues as they wanted, and has endorsed a full Green slate in the past. 

This year, however, he was disappointed by the internal turmoil. “The minute Annamie failed to fire Noah [Zatzman] immediately … that’s when I said the Greens are not the party I thought they were,” Suzuki said. 

Both Carter and Harrison said discounting or even dismissing the Green Party outright would be a huge loss for the Canadian political system. The fact that all the federal parties have a climate plan of varying degrees of ambition doesn’t mean they will all follow through, or still care come next election; the Greens can hold other parties accountable. 

Carter said the Greens are the only ones trying to push the debate to the next step, by arguing that pricing alone is not enough, trying to push targets (and ambition) higher and constantly alerting Ottawa to the urgency of phasing out fossil fuels. She thinks the Greens’ presence is forcing the NDP in particular to foreground the environment in their political agenda. “The Greens are keeping the pressure on,” she said.

But even if there’s a need for the Green Party to further Canada’s climate discourse, the question of whether they’re poised to meet that need moving forward remains. “Every political system has its ups and downs,” May said. “Greens have been part of the political landscape since the early 1980s. We will be back much more forcefully in the next election.”

That can’t happen if the federal Greens don’t evolve into their new role, said Schreiner, who believes the party’s mandate should be arguing to “meet Canada’s climate commitments and exceed them.” For that to happen, federal Greens have to explain how political systems can do that “in a way that protects people, communities and the economy” and advance political discourse to a new level of sophistication.

Schreiner also had a few recommendations for the federal Greens to “do some soul-searching, heal internal divisions, get serious about electing Green MPs, and put forward a detailed plan. Canada needs Greens, but we need to prove it.”

Updated October 21, 2021, at 12:38 p.m. PT: This article was updated to correct a rounding 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.

Thirty-six days after Justin Trudeau called a snap federal election, determined to secure a majority government, Canadian voters have returned the Liberals to office with another minority and a mandate to enact a suite of environmental and climate policies outlined in the party’s platform. 

Climate change was top of mind for many Canadians during the campaign, following a summer of deadly wildfires and a suffocating heat dome in the West and destructive drought in the Prairie provinces. 

The Liberals fell short of the 170 seats needed to form a majority, which means they must rely on the support of the Bloc or the NDP to form government and pass legislation. 

The Bloc’s environmental platform includes creating a “green equalization” program to reward provinces with strong climate policies, while the NDP campaigned on a promise to enact a Canadian “Environmental Bill of Rights” that will guarantee clean water, land and air for all communities, also pledging to launch a 10-year “nature plan” to reverse species loss.  

The Green Party, whose image has been tarnished by in-fighting and leadership controversy, was left with two members of parliament — former party leader Elizabeth May, representing Saanich-Gulf Islands, and new MP Mike Morrice, representing Kitchener Centre — following the defeat of Paul Manly in Nanaimo-Ladysmith. For the second time, Green Party Leader Annamie Paul did not win her seat in Toronto Centre. 

What can we expect on the energy and environment files under another Liberal government? Let’s start with Canada’s sexiest emissions fix: nature-based climate solutions.

The Liberal plan for conservation, nature-based climate solutions and protected areas

Canada has a huge role to play in addressing the climate emergency — simply by conserving and restoring forests, grasslands and wetlands that naturally store carbon. 

Nature United released a peer-reviewed study earlier this year showing nature-based climate solutions could reduce Canada’s annual emissions by up to 78 megatonnes in 2030 — offsetting 11 per cent of Canada’s annual emissions.

The Liberal election platform committed to protecting 25 per cent of Canada’s land and oceans for nature by 2025 and 30 per cent by 2030, in keeping with promises made by other countries such as the U.S. and the U.K. 

In June, the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society released a report card on conservation efforts which gave Ottawa an A- on land protection and a B+ on ocean protection, while assigning failing grades to many of the provinces. The report card speaks to the challenges the new government will face in securing provincial and territorial commitments to increase Canada’s protected areas — an accomplishment that would also address Canada’s growing biodiversity crisis.  

The Liberals pledged to create 10 new national parks and 10 new national marine conserved areas in the next five years. They also promised to create 15 new urban national parks by 2030. 

The party also promised to create a $50 million B.C. old-growth nature fund — something advocates for old-growth have been calling for to help resolve conflicts such as the Fairy Creek blockades.

The Liberals promised to support Indigenous communities to enhance their capacity to establish more Indigenous protected areas and programs for Indigenous Guardians, which the Liberals began funding in 2017. The party also made a vague commitment to “restore and enhance more wetlands, grasslands, and peatlands, to capture and store carbon.”

The Liberals’ pledges on carbon emissions

The Liberals have already made good on many of the party’s climate change promises. They’ve put a price on carbon, set a 2030 target date to phase out coal-fired electricity, instituted an electric vehicle mandate, legislated Canada’s target of net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, set five year-national emissions reduction targets and passed the Net-Zero Emissions Accountability Act to deliver on their commitments.

During the election campaign, the Liberals pledged to maintain Canada’s current emissions reduction commitment at 40 to 45 per cent below 2005 levels by 2030 and to reach net-zero by 2050. Independent modelling indicated that policies outlined in the Liberal election platform would achieve the 40 per cent emissions reduction target. 

The NDP committed to lower Canada’s emissions by 50 per cent below 2005 levels by 2030 and reach net-zero by 2050. But experts said the NDP’s plan was not detailed enough to assess whether the proposed policies would lead to reductions in line with the target.

There is uncertainty about Canada’s true greenhouse gas emissions, especially following a new study showing B.C.’s oil and gas facilities are producing up to 2.2 times more methane pollution than current federal estimates. The new research, published in Environmental Science and Technology, concluded that existing regulations are likely not strong enough to meet climate targets since they typically require inspections of leaking equipment with optical gas cameras that are likely failing to adequately measure methane. 

The Liberals have vowed to phase out fossil fuel subsidies, but questions remain

Subsidizing the oil and gas sector during a climate emergency has been compared to driving a car toward a cliff and putting your foot on the accelerator instead of the brake. 

The Liberal election platform committed to eliminating fossil fuel subsidies by 2023, ahead of the G20 target date of 2025. If re-elected, the Liberal Party says it will develop a plan to phase out public financing for the oil and gas sector, including from Crown corporations, consistent with the party’s commitment to reach net zero emissions by 2050. 

Jonathan Wilkinson, Canada’s minister of environment and climate change before Parliament was dissolved for the election, said a re-installed Liberal government is “firmly committed” to phasing out mechanisms that incentivize the exploration and production of fossil fuels — but that money for oil and gas well clean-up is not included in that subsidy bucket.

There’s debate over what, exactly, constitutes a fossil fuel subsidy, and it’s unclear which definition the Liberals are using. In 2009, when Canada and other G20 nations first pledged to tackle fossil fuel subsidies, a collective promise was made to do away with “inefficient” subsidies. But the term inefficient has never been defined, allowing successive governments wiggle room. 

Using the World Trade Organization’s definition of subsidy  — “a financial contribution by a government” that “confers a benefit” on its recipient — the International Institute for Sustainable Development says the Trudeau government handed out at least $600 million in fossil fuel subsidies in 2019 and at least $1.9 billion in 2020, including funding to clean-up orphaned and abandoned oil and gas wells in B.C., Alberta and Saskatchewan.  

The environmental advocacy organization Environmental Defence takes a different approach, calculating that Canada dedicated $18 billion to assist the oil and gas sector in 2020. That figure includes $3.28 billion in direct spending and $13.6 billion in public financing for oil and gas companies — primarily from the opaque crown corporation Export Development Canada, according to the Environmental Defence report, Paying Polluters: Federal Financial Support to Oil and Gas in 2020.

Both the Bloc and the NDP pledged to eliminate fossil fuel subsidies. 

Economic diversification and a responsible transition under a Liberal government

How will the new Liberal government handle the tough choices and trade-offs that come with an energy transition away from fossil fuels? 

During the election campaign, the Liberals committed to establishing a $2 billion diversification fund for oil- and gas-producing provinces. The party also said it would set five-year emissions reduction targets for the oil and gas sector so it can achieve net-zero by 2050 — starting with 2025 and 2030 milestones to ensure the oil and gas sector makes a “meaningful contribution” to meeting Canada’s 2030 climate target. 

Greenhouse gas emissions from the oil and gas sector have climbed 20 per cent since 2005 and now make up 26 per cent of our country’s total emissions, so this is an extremely important commitment. 

The Liberals also committed to moving forward with responsible transition legislation, guided by consultation with communities that began shortly before the election was called, and to launch a clean jobs training centre to help workers upgrade or gain new skills to work in low-carbon industries.

The NDP promised to expand EI benefits, retraining, job placement services and retirement benefits for workers affected by the transition away from fossil fuels and to create “over a million new good jobs.” The party said it wanted to see the federal government devote another $1 billion to the worker transition between now and 2026, in addition to money in the current government budget. 

The Liberals wouldn’t say how they’d wind down fossil fuel production

Neither the Liberals nor any other political party in the election campaign could say exactly how their platforms would address the findings of a new scientific study that concludes Canada must keep more than 80 per cent of its oil, gas and coal in the ground in order to address the global climate crisis.

Overall, the scientists concluded that nearly 60 per cent of the world’s oil and gas and 90 per cent of its coal reserves must remain untapped in order to give the global community a 50 per cent chance of limiting warming to 1.5 C by 2050.

During the campaign, Liberal Party spokesperson Alex Deslongchamps told The Narwhal in an email statement the party’s focus is getting to net-zero by 2050 by “ensuring emissions from the oil and gas sector only go down from here.”

How the Liberal government’s purchase of the Trans Mountain pipeline will dovetail with the party’s net-zero pledge remains to be seen.

The Bloc said it would put an end to the Trans Mountain project, oppose any future oilsands projects and reject new projects related to the transportation of oil across provinces. The federal NDP has not committed to cancelling Trans Mountain, which was championed by the former Alberta NDP government.

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

This story is part of Carbon Cache, The Narwhal’s ongoing series about nature-based climate solutions.

Nature-based climate solutions are having a moment this federal election, with the Liberal, Conservative and Green platforms all committing to invest in protecting and restoring natural ecosystems as a way to reduce pollution. The NDP also committed to investing in nature-based climate solutions in writing, though not in its platform. 

The fact that major federal parties are focusing on natural processes to sequester carbon is a significant win for conservation and implies people are gaining a broader understanding of nature-based climate solutions, according to Hadley Archer, executive director of Nature United.

“Nature itself is a huge ally in tackling climate change,” he said. 

The parties vary in the details of their commitments to nature-based climate solutions, but “at least we’re not debating this election whether climate change is real,” Archer said.

“We’d like to see all parties at the federal level and all provinces and territories articulate natural climate solutions as part of their climate plan,” he said.

Natural climate solutions utilize natural landscapes and processes that organically sequester carbon to mitigate carbon emissions. Landscapes can act as reservoirs for billions of tonnes of carbon: forests store carbon in tree trunks, grasslands store carbon in grass roots that extend deep underground and peatlands store carbon in organic matter. Canada is home to a quarter of the world’s peatlands.

Nature United released a peer-reviewed study earlier this year showing nature-based climate solutions could reduce Canada’s annual emissions by up to 78 megatonnes in 2030. This reduction is equivalent to cancelling out the emissions from every powered home across Canada for three years.

According to the most recent data released by the federal government in 2021, Canada’s total annual emissions in 2019 were equivalent to 730 megatonnes of carbon dioxide.

Finding natural ways to sequester carbon is timely as the International Panel on Climate Change report in August stated humans are unequivocally responsible for climate change, and even if nations take action now, many of the impacts of climate change are irreversible. Canada is warming at twice the rate of the rest of the world, on average. But Archer says there is hope in supporting natural processes.

A study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences in 2017 found nature-based climate solutions could provide more than one-third of the emissions reductions needed to stabilize global temperature increases below 2 C by 2030 and help deliver on commitments made under the Paris Agreement.

Investing in nature-based climate solutions brings co-benefits like protecting biodiversity, providing buffers to extreme weather events and creating green jobs, Archer added. It’s also popular: in a 2018 survey representative of the census, most Canadians felt 50 per cent of land and sea should be protected in Canada and globally.

Rebecca Sinclair, research and policy analyst for Indigenous Climate Action, emphasized it’s important to remain skeptical about natural climate solutions. Sinclair, who is from Barren Lands First Nation and a member of Little Saskatchewan First Nation, said Indigenous Peoples have been systemically excluded from government climate policy discussions and she’s concerned nature-based solutions could be done the same way.

She co-authored an analysis of how climate policy and planning in Canada includes Indigenous rights, and said her search showed climate policy often includes “nice, strategic words” about working with Indigenous Peoples, but rarely resulted in action.

Nature-based solutions have potential to replicate how “conservation has been historically used to take away land from Indigenous folks … [and] has made them stakeholders opposed to rights-holders,” Sinclair said in an interview.

“Indigenous folks want to be able to utilize the land for culture, language revitalization and hunting grounds, to name a few,” she said. “Nature-based climate solutions have great opportunity for meaningful change by including Indigenous people as rights-holders.”

Each of the federal parties have different priorities regarding environmental issues and how they will work with Indigenous Peoples, but nature-based climate solutions have become a common talking point in the parties’ climate plans. So how have each of the parties committed to protecting, restoring and managing carbon-rich landscapes?

How much money will each party commit to nature-based climate solutions?

“Setting ambitious targets is very important and investing to make sure that they can be delivered is critical,” Alison Woodley, senior strategic advisor for the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society, told The Narwhal.

“We can’t expect long-term returns without long-term investment.”

Woodley said federal funding can help get reluctant provinces on board. She emphasized that a nature-based climate solution is not just about how much land is protected or how many dollars are committed — it’s about the implementation, assuring the most important biodiverse areas are protected and Indigenous nations and local communities are full partners.

The Liberals have delivered historic investments to protect nature and the Conservatives promise to invest $3 billion between now and 2030 in nature-based climate solutions.

Archer said it’s still “not enough, but it’s a good amount to get started.” 

The Nature United study estimated that it would cost $10 billion to get halfway to the target of reducing emissions by 78 megatonnes by 2030 through nature-based climate solutions.

Justina Ray, president and senior scientist at Wildlife Conservation Society Canada, said a lack of investment in nature comes down to the fact that “we just don’t value our natural assets sufficiently.”

She gave freshwater as an example. A single barrel of oil from the oilsands may require three to four barrels of fresh water to produce. But that’s considered “free,” Ray said, adding that there is some nuance because water is regulated, but its contamination or use often isn’t adequately taken into account when considering the costs of industry. Agriculture is also subsidized without accounting for the costs of soil degradation and biodiversity loss, she said.

“Gross domestic product doesn’t include the degradation of those assets,” she said. “You can grow and grow at the expense of these assets, and you’ve got this false metric.”

Conservatives: The Conservatives are the only party besides the Liberals to commit a dollar-value to nature-based climate solutions in their platform. Their promise to invest $3 billion between now and 2030 would focus on managing forest, crop and grazing lands and restoring grasslands, wetlands and forests. The party says it will explore incentives for landowners to preserve and enhance natural climate solutions on their land.

The Conservatives also promise to develop a natural infrastructure plan that includes a national standard to assess the value of natural infrastructure.

Liberals: The Liberal Party’s platform commits to establishing a $50 million B.C. Old-Growth Nature Fund. They reaffirm their 2019 election campaign commitment to plant 2 billion trees, but tree planting only began in April of this year, Natural Resources Canada told The Narwhal in a statement. The statement said 30 million trees will be planted between spring and fall this year, and the exact numbers “will be available in the coming months.” The new platform also includes renewed promises to restore and enhance wetlands, grasslands and peatlands to store carbon. They promise new investments in tidal wetlands and riparian areas that store carbon.

The Liberal government made two historic investments, one of $1.3 billion to conservation in 2018 and another in the 2021 budget, committing nearly $3.3 billion to protecting oceans, lands and freshwater. Within that funding, the Liberal government invested $340 million in Indigenous guardians and Indigenous Protected Areas.

NDP: The NDP platform promises investment in habitat restoration, but includes no financial commitments. The platform doesn’t mention nature-based climate solutions, but a group of conservation organizations sent a questionnaire to the federal parties, and in the NDP’s response, it promised to “expand investments in nature-based climate solutions” and work with climate experts to develop nature-based solutions.

Greens: The Greens also don’t commit a specific dollar amount in their platform, but promise to scale up funding for nature-based solutions and invest in restoration and protection of marine carbon sinks “such as marine sediments, kelp forests, seagrasses and salt marshes.”

Liberals, NDP, Greens commit to protecting 30 per cent of lands and oceans by 2030

According to the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society’s most recent report card on Canada’s progress protecting land and ocean, Canada has protected 13 per cent of terrestrial lands and 14 per cent of marine areas. Under the Harper government, Canada previously committed to protect 17 per cent of land by 2020, a target which it missed. 

The country now has nine years to protect 17 per cent of its lands and oceans to meet the Liberals’ target of 30 per cent protection by 2030. This is also likely to become a global commitment in the near future, since the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity is currently negotiating a new framework and drafts have included an international “30 by 30” goal. 

According to Nature United’s report, protecting lands and waters makes up 38 per cent of the potential to lower Canada’s emissions by 78 megatonnes by 2030 through natural climate solutions. 

“Protecting carbon-rich soils and forests is often the easiest and most obvious way to avoid emission reductions in the first place and ensure these ecosystems continue to store and sequester carbon,” Archer said.

Various studies estimate 30 per cent to 70 per cent of Earth’s land and waters need to be protected to halt biodiversity loss and restore natural ecosystems. Science shows the 30 per cent target is “the absolute minimum” and protecting half is more likely what’s needed, Woodley added.

“The world is moving to ambitious targets and it’s critical that Canada, which has been a champion at the global stage for this scaled up target, continue to be a leader in those discussions,” she said. 

Since habitat degradation is the primary driver of biodiversity loss and contributes to the loss of carbon storage, “protecting and restoring nature has to be at the centre of the solution” to the biodiversity and climate crises, she explained.

Ray, from Wildlife Conservation Society Canada, said some people may wonder why it’s necessary to increase the goal from 17 per cent to 30 per cent. But she explained the reality is that even 30 per cent may not be enough.

“There’s been so much lost. In truth, everything that’s left is important,” she said. 

Conservatives: The Conservatives did not commit to the 30 per cent protection goal by 2030. The party’s platform reiterates their support to protect 17 per cent of terrestrial land as the Harper government committed in 2010 under the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity. They “will seek to increase” that goal to 25 per cent.

“We will remain mindful that there is a significant risk in expressing our ambition strictly in terms of how much area is protected,” the platform reads. “If we focus solely on area, we will tend to favour the creation of large parks in remote areas and risk making it harder to protect our most endangered ecosystems, which predominantly lie in the southern working landscape.”

Liberals: The Liberals reassert their commitment to protect 30 per cent of lands and oceans by 2030 and promise to support nature-based climate solutions like the conservation of wetlands, peatlands, croplands and grasslands that sequester carbon. They promise to establish at least one new national urban park in every province and territory, with the goal of establishing 15 of these parks by 2030. 

NDP: The NDP platform commits to protecting 30 per cent of land, freshwater and oceans by 2030. It promises to expand marine protected areas, reduce threats to ocean ecosystems and implement a national freshwater strategy. It also promises to expand urban national parks but with no specifics.

Greens: The Greens have the most ambitious goal, promising to protect a minimum of 30 per cent of freshwaters and lands in each Canadian ecosystem by 2030 and extending that target to 50 per cent protection by 2050, prioritizing carbon-rich ecosystems. They promise to support marine nature-based climate solutions by protecting and restoring coastal and marine areas.

The Greens also promise to halt habitat destruction by 2030 and restore “the most negatively affected ecosystems such as wetlands by 2050,” also prioritizing carbon-rich areas.

All major parties support Indigenous Protected and Conserved Areas

Any climate solutions have to centre the “inherent protectors” of this land and value traditional knowledge as much or more than western science, Sinclair with Indigenous Climate Action said.

“We would benefit greatly if Indigenous knowledge was at the forefront,” she said. “We can come together, but Indigenous folks need to be in the driver’s seat.” 

Hadley pointed to Clayoquot Sound on western Vancouver Island as an example, where Nature United is supporting local First Nations to create protected areas by buying out forestry tenures.

“Lands that were previously going to be logged will be formally protected,” he said.

The old-growth forests of Clayoquot Sound, home to the famous ‘war in the woods,’ could store 100 million tonnes of carbon.

The Thaidene Nëné Indigenous Protected Area, led by the Łutsël K’é Dene, stores 379 million tons of carbon. The Seal River Watershed, a proposed Indigenous Protected Area that is stewarded by Cree, Dene and Inuit neighbours, holds 1.7 billion tonnes of carbon within its boreal soils, wetlands and peatlands.

Each of the platforms acknowledged the importance of Indigenous leadership and supported Indigenous Protected Areas.

Conservatives: The party platform commits to working with Indigenous communities to expand Indigenous Protected and Conserved Areas managed by Indigenous Guardians.

Liberals: As previously mentioned, the Liberals invested $340 million in Indigenous Guardians and Indigenous Protected Areas in the 2021 budget. Their platform promises to support new Indigenous Guardians programs and help Indigenous communities build capacity to establish more Indigenous Protected and Conserved Areas.

NDP: The NDP promises to support Indigenous-led conservation and climate planning, as well as Indigenous Guardians programs. 

“New Democrats will build reconciliation into the heart of our plan to address the climate crisis,” the platform reads. “Indigenous Peoples are best placed to protect cultural and biological diversity through control over their territory. We are committed to working with Indigenous governments, respecting Indigenous knowledge, and upholding Indigenous Rights to protect lands, waterways and biodiversity.”

NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh verbally committed $500 million to Indigenous-led conservation programs in August.

Greens: The Green platform promises to support and invest in Indigenous Protected and Conserved Areas and Indigenous Guardians programs. The party says it will work with Indigenous governments to develop a national framework for Indigenous Protected Areas.

It also commits to protect and restore coastal and marine areas and support marine nature-based

climate solutions while including Indigenous Peoples in decision-making.

Agriculture has a big role to play in nature-based climate solutions

According to the Nature United study, the biggest gains Canada can make through nature-based emissions reductions would come from improved management of lands, especially agricultural land. For example, no-till farming allows soil to retain its carbon, which otherwise releases up to half its stored carbon when disturbed. Cover crops are grown specifically to help fertilize and strengthen the soil.

“Cover crops, no-till farming and nutrient management are examples of supporting industry as they transition and adopt more climate-smart practices,” Archer from Nature United said.

He said there’s lots of work to be done to help farmers measure emissions reductions and qualify for carbon credits, and create other incentives to encourage more sustainable practices.

Conservatives: The Conservatives promise to encourage emissions-reducing practices in agriculture, such as low or no-till farming. The platform also says the party will “explore” the use of incentives to preserve and enhance natural infrastructure on private lands.

Liberals: The party platform commits to increasing support for farmers to create lower-emission practices that promote carbon storage, including cover cropping, rotational grazing and nitrogen management.

NDP: The New Democrats promise to work with farmers to “promote sustainable land-management techniques and methods to reduce GHG emissions.” The party also promises to work with partners to adapt to climate-induced weather changes.

Lastly, they promise to work with farmers to support biodiversity, in particular pollinator health.

Greens: The Greens say they will “act on the enormous potential of carbon sequestration in soil” by implementing incentives for sustainable practices that “do not disadvantage small farmers.” In addition, the party says it will work with provinces to help farmers protect wildlife areas, lakes and aquifers, and increase carbon sequestration and decrease water requirements.

Nature-based climate solutions and biodiversity crisis ‘intertwined,’ says expert

Alongside climate change, the world is facing a biodiversity crisis, with almost one million species at risk of extinction globally, and Canada is no exception. The list of wildlife species at risk in Canada has over 800 entries. 

“Natural climate solutions can help address both climate change and biodiversity loss,” Archer said. “Through a biodiversity lens, it’s equally compelling to move as quickly as we can.”

“The climate crisis and biodiversity crisis are completely intertwined,” Ray added. “Biodiversity has never gotten that much attention [but] it’s all interlinked, human health, biodiversity and the climate.”

Protected areas are “anchors” for ambitious policy, Ray said, and their recognition in party platforms this year “is a huge stepforward.” But as ambitious as the 30 per cent goal is, Ray said she’s worried for the other 70 per cent of land and waters facing the cumulative effects of industry and climate change.

“We are not stemming the tide of cumulative effects,” she said. “We’re making piecemeal decisions. We’re not mainstreaming biodiversity and climate in our decision-making; it’s still an afterthought.”

She said biodiversity often gets clumped into other issues and she’d like to see some specific actions from the next government, including implementing the UN Global Biodiversity Framework, which is set to be released later this year. In addition to the “30 by 30” commitment, the first draft includes using nature-based climate solutions and reducing incentives that are harmful to biodiversity.

Conservatives: The Conservative platform mentions biodiversity once, committing to recognize “existing legislation for Land Use and Biodiversity and harmonizing with provincial rules.”

Liberals: The Liberal platform states that its plan to restore and enhance wetlands, grasslands and peatlands, as well as improving agricultural practices, will “help preserve biodiversity.”

NDP: The New Democrats say they will “ensure the Species at Risk Act is enforced” and launch a 10-year nature plan to reverse species loss. They plan to establish an Office of Environmental Justice “to address disproportionate impacts of pollution and loss of biodiversity on low-income, racialized and other marginalized communities.” 

Greens: The Green platform says the party will expedite recovery plans to reverse species loss, implementing national and international commitments. They also promise to reduce threats to ocean ecosystems, in part by supporting a moratorium on seabed mining until 2030 at minimum, and promise to halt habitat destruction by 2030.

The Greens are the only party that commits in their platform to implement the UN Convention for Biological Diversity. They promise to deliver a ten-year-biodiversity strategy and action plan to “reverse biodiversity loss in the ocean by 2030.”

The Bloc Québecois

The Bloc has proposed other climate commitments, such as ending fossil fuel subsidies and phasing out fossil fuels, investing in renewable energy and creating new incentives for provinces that fight climate change, but has had little to say on nature-based climate solutions or protected areas at the federal level. 

The environmental questionnaire sent out by conservation organizations asked parties about protecting lands and waters. The Bloc responded that the federal government should focus on Crown land, the territories and oceans, while the land should be left to the provinces.

“Under the Constitution, Québec belongs to Quebecers. Its occupancy, use, development and protection are basically subject to Québec laws and regulations and municipal by-laws. The same applies to all other Canadian provinces. In addition, First Nations have inherent rights on their land and Ottawa’s unilateral protection is inconsistent with the recognition of these rights,” the Bloc’s answer reads. 

In the questionnaire, the Bloc also voiced support for Indigenous Protected and Conserved Areas. The party supports Québec’s commitment to protecting 30 per cent of the province by 2030.

What’s missing from the platforms?

Sinclair said “regardless of who is in power, it’s still a system of oppression. It’s still a colonial government.”

What she wants to see is “the dismantling of systemic barriers,” including an overhaul of how the government consults with Indigenous Nations around land use and truly obtain informed consent.

“Does my grandma understand what you’re trying to ask, or what you’re trying to do on her territory? Are you providing information that she can make an informed decision about?”

For Ray, the central thing missing from the platforms is connecting issues. Protecting areas is not enough on its own without systemic change, she said.

“Wetlands, grasslands, old-growth, forests … we’re losing ground rather than gaining ground. We’re so far from a net-positive situation,” she said. “We can put some protected areas in place but still lose ground in other ways. We’re still going to have a net negative situation.”

Archer agreed that nature-based climate solutions and climate change can’t be treated in a silo.

“Climate change is not an environmental or green issue. It’s a health issue. It’s an economic issue. It’s an everything issue,” he said.

The Carbon Cache series is funded by Metcalf Foundation. As per The Narwhal’s editorial independence policy, the foundation has no editorial input into the articles.

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.

Thirty minutes into the televised English language federal election debate, as the leaders of Canada’s major political parties bickered about climate policies, interrupting each other, Aaron Cosbey shut his laptop and walked away. 

It’s part of Cosbey’s job, as an economist with the International Institute for Sustainable Development, to hold Canada’s feet to the fire when it comes to eliminating public subsidies for the oil and gas sector, as climate change impacts intensify around the world and scientists issue a “code red for humanity.” 

But as Cosbey watched the first part of the Sept. 9 debate from the patio of his home in Rossland, B.C., he found the exchange about climate change issues, including the key issue of fossil fuel subsidies, to be “woefully inadequate.” 

“This is a top-of-mind issue for a lot of Canadians,” he says in an interview with The Narwhal. “B.C. went through some pretty harrowing times this summer. If you’re in Saskatchewan or Manitoba and you’re a farmer you’re in extreme drought conditions — looking at total crop loss in a lot of cases. A lot of parts of Canada are feeling the climate impact … ”

The choppy debate format and the poor calibre of the leaders’ responses made it impossible to understand the differences between each party’s platform, Cosbey says, and didn’t allow viewers to discern which political party will best deal with the climate crisis, including through its position on fossil fuel subsidies. “It was all soundbites and attacks … And that’s a terrible thing. Because this should be, and is, for many Canadians, one of the hottest voting issues on the table.”

“The format was terrible in terms of informing people and the responses were terrible in terms of actually enlightening debate. The whole thing frustrated me enormously.”

One day before the leaders’ debate, a study published in the journal Nature found almost 60 per cent of the world’s oil and gas reserves and 90 per cent of coal reserves need to stay underground in order to keep global warming below 1.5 C — the threshold the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change warned in 2018 would have devastating consequences. 

To avert a climate disaster, reports released this year by the International Energy Agency and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change indicate all new fossil fuel developments must stop by the end of the year and governments must immediately start phasing out the use of coal, oil and gas.

Cosbey says subsidizing the oil and gas industry during the climate emergency is the equivalent of heading towards a cliff and putting your foot on the accelerator instead of the brake. “The basic idea that you would be accelerating the development, extraction and processing of fossil fuels in a climate change crisis makes no sense.” 

Most parties say they would eliminate fossil fuel subsidies

While three out of four of the major national political parties pledge to eliminate fossil fuel subsidies, there are differences in party positions that weren’t communicated during the debate, as well as issues of credibility. Varying opinions about what constitutes a fossil fuel subsidy also make it difficult to compare platforms, as it’s sometimes unclear which definition a party is using. 

In 2009, when Canada and other G20 nations first pledged to tackle fossil fuel subsidies, a collective promise was made to do away with “inefficient” subsidies. But the term inefficient has never been defined, allowing successive governments wiggle room. “I don’t know what an efficient fossil fuel subsidy is,” UBC political science professor Kathryn Harrison points out. “So there’s the complication of what is defined as a fossil fuel subsidy and then what is an inefficient fossil fuel subsidy.”

Cosbey’s institute uses the World Trade Organization’s definition of subsidy  — “a financial contribution by a government” that “confers a benefit” on its recipient. According to the institute’s calculations, Canada handed out at least $600 million in fossil fuel subsidies in 2019 and at least $1.9 billion in 2020, including funding to clean-up orphaned and abandoned oil and gas wells in B.C., Alberta and Saskatchewan.  

Even $600 million “going in the wrong direction” is alarming, Cosbey says. “A conservative definition of fossil fuel subsidies should be enough to cause us to reform.”

The group Environmental Defence takes a different approach, calculating that Canada dedicated $18 billion to assist the oil and gas sector in 2020. That figure includes $3.28 billion in direct spending and $13.6 billion in public financing for oil and gas companies — primarily from the opaque crown corporation Export Development Canada, according to the Environmental Defence report, Paying Polluters: Federal Financial Support to Oil and Gas in 2020. 

The report notes Export Development Canada provided up to $5.25 billion in financing renewals for the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion in 2020, a publicly owned project that will cost at least $12.6 billion and comes with a hefty carbon footprint. Export Development Canada also approved a loan of up to $500 million for TC Energy, the owner of the Coastal GasLink pipeline that will supply fracked gas from northern B.C. to the LNG Canada project, one of Canada’s largest single sources of carbon pollution — on par with Teck’s mothballed Frontier oilsands mine in terms of its greenhouse gas emissions.

The main oil and gas industry lobby group, the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, has repeatedly denied the sector benefits from subsidies, saying these incentives and tax breaks don’t fit its own definition of a subsidy. The industry lobby group has also promoted offering tax breaks to create new jobs, even though scientists warn this type of growth would lead to climate disasters.

Julia Levin, senior climate and energy program manager for Environmental Defence, says eliminating fossil fuel subsidies is one of Canada’s most important climate commitments. “We’ve had a commitment to eliminate inefficient fossil fuel subsidies for a decade, and yet we’ve seen very little progress … Because of the word subsidies, because of the government not agreeing what’s a subsidy and what’s not, we tend to miss the forest for the trees. We need to eliminate all of the financial tools that the government has made available to the oil and gas sector because those undermine all climate action.”

The Liberal election platform commits to eliminating fossil fuel subsidies by 2023, ahead of the G20 target date of 2025, conveniently sidestepping any mention of “inefficient” subsidies. If re-elected, the Liberal Party says it will develop a plan to phase out public financing for the oil and gas sector, including from Crown corporations, consistent with the party’s commitment to reach net zero emissions by 2050. 

Jonathan Wilkinson, Canada’s Minister of Environment and Climate Change before Parliament was dissolved for the federal election campaign, has said a re-installed Liberal government is “firmly committed” to phasing out mechanisms that incentivize the exploration and production of fossil fuels — but that money for  oil and gas well clean-up is not included in that subsidy bucket.

While subsidies with green strings attached are often better received by the public, Harrison notes the money is still going to the oil and gas industry. “And if it’s something they were going to do anyway, or would be required to do by law anyway alternatively, then it just frees up other money within the same company to do other things — explore for more fossil fuels or lower their cost of production beyond what it would otherwise be.”

If the government is willing to provide green subsidies to corporations, Canadians should be thinking about the industries of the future they wish to encourage “and which are the ones that are likely to decline over time,” Harrison says, ” … in which case, should taxpayers be propping them up?” 

The Liberal government first committed to phasing out fossil fuel subsidies as part of the 2016 Paris Agreement, a legally binding international treaty on climate change that aims to keep global temperatures to 1.5 C below pre-industrial levels. Wilkinson’s spokesperson Moira Kelly told The Narwhal earlier this year that the Liberals had eliminated eight tax breaks for the fossil fuel sector. 

Yet, aside from starting work with Argentina on a peer review of fossil fuel subsidies to help determine the next steps in phasing them out, the Liberals were slow to follow through on their 2016 promise. Canada provides more public finance for fossil fuels on a per capita basis than any other G20 country except for China, according to Levin. “Between 2015 and 2019 we provided $100 billion to oil and gas. These are not records that Canada can hold and claim to be a climate leader.” 

Cosbey says the caveat in the Liberal platform is the party’s promise to make sure the oil and gas sector reduces emissions “at a pace and scale needed to achieve net-zero by 2050, with five-year targets to stay on track.” If emission reduction targets are achieved, it would make moot much of the discussion around fossil fuel subsidies, he points out.

In that case, “we don’t need to talk about subsidies anymore. We need to talk about what that timetable looks like. Because the only reason we care about subsidies is because they encourage production and consumption of fossil fuels.”

The Liberals have already made good on many of the party’s climate change promises. They’ve put a price on carbon, set a 2030 target date to phase out coal-fired electricity, instituted an electric vehicle mandate, legislated Canada’s target of net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, set five year-national emissions reduction targets and passed the Net-Zero Emissions Accountability Act to deliver on their commitments.

“So those aren’t promises,” Cosbey observes. “The Liberals have a credibility problem based on their years in office — but not so big a credibility problem, because we actually have meaningful and ambitious climate change policies in place that are better than almost any other jurisdiction in the world.” 

No mention of fossil fuel subsidies in Conservative platform

The Conservative Party doesn’t include any promises to eliminate fossil fuel subsidies in its election platform. Instead, the party pledges to forge ahead with plans for new pipelines, create a LNG export strategy, invest $5 billion in carbon capture and sequestration technologies and support small modular nuclear reactors. 

“… the truth is that the world will still be burning oil and gas for decades to come,” the party platform states. 

Harrison and Cosbey both say this effectively means that the Conservative platform adds up to de facto subsidies for the oil and gas industry. “A general theme in the Conservative platform is one of support for the oil and gas industry and support for maintaining oil and gas jobs,” Harrison notes. “It says a lot that the Conservative platform doesn’t even talk about phasing out fossil fuel subsidies — however narrowly defined.” 

Cosbey says a LNG export strategy is unlikely to be viable without public subsidies. “To the extent that we’ve done anything at all on LNG in Canada it’s involved huge subsidies.” 

“If you’re talking about a LNG strategy that ramps up the existing efforts then it’s more subsidies. So really the Conservative platform — even though it doesn’t say that — is talking about putting a lot more subsidies into fossil fuel production, consumption and export.”

The NDP, on the other hand, promises to eliminate fossil fuel subsidies immediately. Taking a page from the Environmental Defence report, the party’s election platform says the Liberal government spent $18 billion to support the oil and gas industry in 2020, on top of its purchase of the Trans Mountain pipeline. 

The NDP says it will fulfill Canada’s G20 commitment to eliminate fossil fuel subsidies and redirect these funds to low carbon initiatives. It will also make sure future governments can’t reverse the policy by putting legislation in place to ban any future oil, gas and pipeline subsidies.

While Harrison agrees the investment of tax dollars in the Trans Mountain pipeline benefitted the oil and gas industry, she says the NDP has been “a bit fast and loose” with the $18 billion subsidy figure and the party’s platform costing consequently doesn’t align. “Normally, if you say you’re going to stop some spending stream it would appear in new revenues,” she notes.

And how the NDP, if elected, would deal with the pipeline purchase is uncertain. “Even for the NDP that one’s complicated, because it was an NDP government in Alberta that was strongly pushing for that pipeline and was very supportive of the federal government’s purchase of it.” 

On the issue of credibility, the BC NDP — Canada’s only provincial or territorial NDP government — has championed and generously subsidized the LNG Canada project. The provincial government announced an initial $5.3 billion in subsidies for the project, which is owned by a consortium of five of the largest and most profitable multinational corporations in the world, including Royal Dutch Shell, Malaysian-owned Petronas and PetroChina Co.  

“That’s a complicated one for the NDP,” Harrison says. 

The LNG Canada project will generate four megatonnes of emissions annually and eat up one-sixth of B.C.’s total carbon budget for 2040, placing the federal NDP in a difficult position if elected.

“There’s a good reason you haven’t heard about it in the campaign,” Cosbey says. “Nobody wants to be seen as treading on provincial toes with regard to their natural resources policies.”

The Green Party also promises to eliminate fossil fuel subsidies. The Greens go one step further and promise to end the extraction of oil and gas — wrapping up oilsands production between 2030 and 2035 — and to ban fracking for natural gas. But the platform contains no detailed costing, Harrison points out. 

“I think a lot of what’s in the Green platform is aspirational. They have no expectation that they will be in government. So they are throwing everything out there. These are all the things a government should be doing in a climate emergency. Eliminating fossil fuel subsidies is one of them.”

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.

None of Canada’s national political parties in the 2021 federal election campaign can say exactly how their platforms would address the findings of a new scientific study that concluded the country needs to keep more than 80 per cent of its oil, gas and coal in the ground in order to respond to the global climate crisis.

The Narwhal reached out to the Liberal Party, the Conservative Party, the NDP and the Green Party in the wake of the study, published on Sept. 8 in Nature by scientists from University College London. While some listed examples of their climate policies and promises, none would say whether they could meet the target recommended by the peer-reviewed article.

Overall, the scientists concluded that nearly 60 per cent of the world’s oil and gas and 90 per cent of its coal must not be extracted in order to give the planet a 50 per cent chance of limiting warming to 1.5 C by 2050.

For Canada, the study, Unextractable fossil fuels in a 1.5 C world, said those numbers are higher. Approximately 83 per cent of the country’s oil reserves, 81 per cent of its gas reserves, and 83 per cent of its coal reserves must stay in the ground to achieve climate targets, the study found.

“There is an important leadership role here,” the study’s lead author, Dan Welsby, told The Narwhal by email. “A managed decline of fossil fuel production now, with government assistance in areas with high employment in fossil fuel production, will be critical.”

“Removing subsidies and tax incentives for fossil fuel producers is also an important aspect of this,” he added.

Welsby, a researcher at University College London’s Institute for Sustainable Resources, said the modelling used in the study is based on the assumption that all regions are committed to the 2015 Paris Agreement, a legally binding treaty that has a goal of limiting global temperatures to well below 2 C and preferably 1.5 C below pre-industrial levels.

“Our analysis suggests that global oil and gas production needs to have already peaked and enter decline at a global average of around three per cent a year out to 2050,” he said in an email.

Some federal election promises to slash pollution

In the federal election campaign, it was not clear how any of the parties intended to wind down oil and gas production, in line with the study’s findings, although all parties have introduced plans that they say would slash pollution from this sector.

Liberal Party spokesperson Alex Deslongchamps told The Narwhal in an email statement the party’s focus is getting to net-zero by 2050 by “ensuring emissions from the oil and gas sector only go down from here.”

The Liberals will put a cap on emissions and ensure they decline at the required pace to achieve net-zero by 2050, Deslongchamps explained. On subsidies for oil and gas, the party intends to eliminate them by 2023 instead of the previously proposed 2025. Public financing of the fossil fuel sector will also be phased out.

The Green Party’s spokesperson Imre Szemen said the party’s proposed policies include cancelling all new pipeline projects, cancelling all new oil exploration projects, ending the leasing of federal lands for fossil fuel production and retiring existing licences and banning fracking.

The Conservative Party of Canada did not respond to The Narwhal by publication time, while a spokesperson for the NDP said it was working on a response.

In their election platform, the Conservatives commit to introducing policies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions that would include finalizing regulations proposed by the Liberal government to reduce pollution from fuel and pursuing a price on pollution for industrial emissions that is tied to the U.S. and the European Union. On the other hand, the Conservatives also propose some policies that would expand fossil fuel production such as reviving the Northern Gateway pipeline project and encouraging the growth of what it describes as “renewable natural gas.” The Conservative platform also proposes to develop a new national clean energy strategy that includes nuclear, hydrogen, natural gas and renewable energy.

The NDP says in its platform that its policies are aimed at achieving net-zero emissions while creating a million new jobs, it also wants to boost cleantech research and incentivize environmentally friendly technology in the hopes of transitioning off fossil fuels.

Carbon budget shows Canadian energy sector is facing struggles

The Nature study examined how much carbon pollution can go into the atmosphere before global temperatures surpass 1.5 C above pre-industrial levels. Under that scenario, it estimated how much fossil fuel can be developed and how much needs to stay in the ground. Researchers and policy makers often refer to these types of calculations as a way of determining what they describe as a carbon budget.

The study also considered the cost of production of fossil fuels, the carbon intensity of extracting them, and the costs of low and zero-carbon alternative technologies in the region. As a result, Canada’s fossil fuels that need to stay in the ground are higher than the global average, particularly because of the high cost of production in the oilsands region where producers need to use large amounts of energy and water to separate bitumen, a heavy and thick oil, that is mixed with clay in the ground.

The oilsands contain massive deposits of bitumen that are part of what makes Canada home to the world’s third largest reserves of crude oil after Saudi Arabia and Venezuela, according to government estimates. The region has been both a source of significant revenues and jobs, as well as exponential growth in greenhouse gas emissions since the 1990s.

“Despite cost reductions in recent years, Canadian oilsands struggle to compete with other oil producing regions in our model in a rapidly declining market given the levels of demand reduction we see in order to keep within our 1.5 C carbon budget,” Welsby said.

The model used in the study notes carbon intensity from oilsands production is higher than conventional oil. Even if the energy involved in the production is decarbonized, it just makes for “additional costs to an already struggling position of Canada in terms of competitiveness vis-a-vis other producers.”

As Canada’s oilsands are subsidized by the federal government, “this would make subsidizing oilsands even more costly,” Welsby said.

Rapid reductions are anticipated in U.S. fossil fuel consumption

The 1.5 C scenario model also projects rapid reductions in U.S. fossil fuel consumption, which ultimately affects Canada’s oil and gas industry due to declining exports to south of the border.

This would make it harder for any Canadian oil and gas projects to achieve economic success.

“More countries are coming around to saying that they’re going to take strong climate action,” which makes it harder to sell them a carbon intensive product, said Mason Inman, oil and gas program director at Global Energy Monitor, a San Francisco-based climate research and advocacy group.

“Another part of it is that the development of renewable energy is coming along really well,” he added, which means those options are becoming cheaper.

Inman doubts any new oilsands or pipeline projects in Canada would be economical at the kinds of prices expected for them. Those new projects are at serious risk of becoming stranded assets, he added.

“Canada’s oil production sector is really going to be in trouble, because they are very high cost producers,” Inman said. “People have been warning about this kind of risk of stranded assets for several years, but the oil industry in Canada keeps continuing with adding more and more projects, nonetheless.”

Concordia University climatologist Damon Matthews’ internationally recognized research examines carbon budgets and emission allowances. He agrees that much of Canada’s oil and gas reserves are less economically viable than other global reserves.

“I think the fundamental conclusion [from the Nature study] is that there is vastly more carbon in current oil, gas, and coal reserves around the world than we are able to burn globally [in a 1.5 C world],” Matthews said. “Canada is at the higher end of that because our reserves are more carbon intensive, and more expensive, and less economically viable in the context of 1.5 degree warming.”

Matthews adds there’s a “disconnect” between “stated climate ambitions” and the policies proposed by federal parties in the upcoming election.

“Canadian governments are either not connecting the dots, and not realizing that a 1.5 degree level of emissions means winding down fossil fuel extraction in Canada over a 20-year period,” he said.

“The Conservative and Liberal policies are seeming to anticipate a world that is not following the 1.5 C scenario.”

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.

As the federal election looms, leaders of all political stripes are promising to increase the zero-emission transportation sector through incentives and investments as a key tool to tackle the climate crisis.

But there’s a catch. 

Positioning Canada as a leader in electrifying the transportation sector also means increasing mineral extraction to fuel that growth. Batteries that propel electric vehicles are powered by minerals like lithium, cobalt, graphite and nickel. 

The transition is necessary, given the implications of the alternative: continuing to burn fossil fuels as our means of getting around. The transportation sector in Canada currently accounts for around 25 per cent of national greenhouse gas emissions, around 180 megatonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent annually, according to Natural Resources Canada. As the recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report warned, “unless there are immediate, rapid and large-scale reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, limiting warming to close to 1.5 C or even 2 C will be beyond reach.” 

At the end of 2020, Canada had over 200,000 electric vehicles on the road and according to International Energy Association projections, that number could rise to over 2.5 million by 2030.

The question is: what does the growth of the electric vehicle sector look like on a landscape level?

In northern Québec, a new lithium-tantalum mine is set to start production in 2024 after receiving approval from the federal government in August, and several other Québec lithium mines are in various stages of exploration and investment. The new Critical Elements Corporation mine will emit an estimated 74,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent annually, over its 20-year lifespan. In Northwest Territories, mining companies are eyeing cobalt reserves and across the country, mining activity is ramping up as demand increases for other minerals needed for the zero-emissions transportation sector, clean energy and other emerging industries.

Advocates for responsible mining practices caution that getting those minerals out of the ground also comes with its own environmental and social impacts.

“One of our concerns is that the transition to low-carbon energy sources and electric vehicles comes at the expense of negative legacies and mining impacts,” Nikki Skuce, co-founder of BC Mining Law Reform Network, told The Narwhal in an interview. 

For example, Skuce has pointed to the ongoing impact of B.C.’s Mount Polley mine disaster in 2014, after a tailings dam failure led to 24 million cubic metres of mining waste being spilled into an important salmon watershed.

Merran Smith, executive director of Clean Energy Canada, said the growth of the electric vehicle sector could be a catalyst for Canada to address some of these issues and prevent future disasters. 

“The opportunity for battery manufacturing, which is going to require an increase in metals and minerals, is an opportunity for us to really ensure we clean up mining from an environmental and a social perspective,” she said in an interview.

Liberals and Conservatives promise to support mineral extraction for clean energy

Not all political parties acknowledge the link between mineral extraction and widespread adoption of zero-emission vehicles, but each of the four largest parties vying for federal leadership promise to support the growth of the sector. 

For example, the Green Party’s election platform highlights Canada’s opportunity to “become a world leader in cleantech and renewable energy,” noting those sectors are “where the jobs of the future are, and how we will stay globally competitive and build a prosperous sustainable future.” The party also promised to ban the sale of internal combustion vehicles by 2030.

Jamie Kneen, co-founder and communications coordinator at MiningWatch Canada, said he agrees this is necessary and important. But he also believes it would be missing the point to only focus the conversation on increasing electric vehicle sales and infrastructure.

“I think that any commitment or any discussion of zero-emission vehicles has to be in the context of our commitment to not using private vehicles,” he said in an interview. “The bigger question is, how are we going to actually shift the transportation paradigm so that it’s more accessible and more equitable and less carbon intensive? Just putting people into public transit makes a much more immediate and bigger difference, even if they’re diesel buses.”

The Green Party acknowledged this by committing to “ensure access to zero-carbon public transportation, with high-speed rail networks between major cities, and spokes of light rail and electric bus connections across the country.”

While the NDP election platform does not address mining directly, the party has promised to establish a research and development centre to “move forward related technologies such as hydrogen, batteries and energy storage solutions.” The party also committed to the Liberal government’s plan to phase out fossil fuel vehicles by 2035 and said it would increase tax breaks to make it easier for people to purchase electric vehicles.

Both the NDP and the Green Party also promised to expand charging infrastructure, including in rural communities, and invest in public transportation.

The Conservative election platform digs into the projected demand for minerals, with a promise to “take advantage of Canada’s abundant resources of the minerals needed to power our clean energy future.” The platform noted this would include “adopting policies to facilitate the responsible exploitation and mining of lithium.”

The Liberal campaign zeroed in on battery manufacturing and the connection to mining. “As the market for batteries grows, the global race is on to attract new manufacturing facilities and jobs,” the platform notes. The party has promised to “double the Mineral Exploration Tax Credit for materials on the Canadian list of critical minerals which are essential to the manufacturing of vital clean technologies, such as batteries.” This proposed tax break would cut costs for mining companies exploring for minerals associated with battery production. 

“One of Canada’s advantages is we have all the metals and minerals needed for batteries.”

Merran Smith, Clean Energy Canada

Kneen said the public should be aware of potential consequences as a result of further subsidizing mineral exploration.

“What it does is support the exploration industry, which doesn’t necessarily lead to mining,” he said. “Something like one in 1,000 exploration projects turns into a mine. What it does is keep the helicopters flying in the Yukon.”

Pierre Gratton, president of the Mining Association of Canada, told The Narwhal more exploration is necessary if Canada wants to compete for a stake in the global battery market.

“We now have one rare earth mine in the Northwest Territories, that’s it. And it’s brand new,” he said in an interview. “There has been a dearth of base metal discoveries in the past 20 years, in Canada and around the world. We do need some new discoveries to come our way if we’re going to meet this challenge.”

He added that most of the domestic mines currently extracting the metals associated with batteries aren’t actually selling them to battery manufacturers.

“There’s very little of Canada’s current production that goes into batteries,” he said. “We are the fifth largest producer of nickel and a major producer of cobalt but it’s used for other purposes.”

Kneen said the truth of where Canadian minerals end up casts a shadow on a growing narrative that mining is vital for, and inextricably linked to, green technology.

“The extent to which [the mining industry] is actually being bolstered by renewable energy demands is, I wouldn’t say marginal, but it’s not as big as industry is trying to tell us.”  

Canada needs to live up to its commitments before expanding mining sector: expert

Gratton said that Canada has an opportunity to use existing laws and regulations to support and promote responsible mining activity associated with battery production. He said that compared to other countries, Canadian mines have a significantly lower carbon footprint, given the access to hydroelectric power. As an example, he said Canada’s nickel production is second only to Finland in terms of greenhouse gases emitted per tonne of saleable product and has a fraction of the emissions per tonne released in countries like Indonesia and the Philippines.

“In terms of fighting climate change, one of the issues is all this extra material that’s going to be needed consumes a lot of energy,” he explained. “If that energy comes from fossil fuels, then we may be, on a net basis, still reducing [emissions] but not as much as we could if we derive those materials from mines that don’t use fossil fuels, or use much less.”

“I’m sure Canadians wouldn’t want Canada to be the miner to the world for all of our electric cars but I think there would be pretty good support for Canada having a piece of it, knowing that if we didn’t it would be coming from other places where they wouldn’t be done as well,” he added. 

China, for example, is well-positioned to secure a monopoly on the market if other countries don’t step up, according to Gratton. The Chinese government has less stringent rules and regulations on mining activity, both in terms of environmental impacts and human rights.

Skuce said Canada does have an advantage, if it lives up to its federal and provincial commitments.

“Like British Columbia, the federal government has now passed the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and needs to ensure that it is respecting that, which means mining companies should require free prior and informed consent on the ground,” she said.

Manufacturers are increasingly demanding assurances of responsible mining practices. Gratton said members of the Mining Association of Canada commit to a sustainable mining protocol framework, which include guidelines for climate change, biodiversity, water stewardship and more. 

“It’s an emerging global system that provides the kind of assurance that the Apples and the auto manufacturers are looking for.”

The framework, which is informed by an advisory panel that has included members of MiningWatch Canada and former Green leader Elizabeth May, has been adopted in countries like Finland, Australia, Argentina and Botswana, he said, though each is at a different stage in implementing the protocols.

Kneen agreed the association’s framework is an important part of helping the industry adopt better practices and described it as a “useful tool for companies,” but as a new BC Mining Law Reform Network and MiningWatch Canada report points out, the framework is voluntary and B.C. alone is home to dozens of mines either actively polluting watersheds or posing risk to downstream habitat and communities.

Critics warns recycling needs support as electric vehicle sector grows

While Kneen and Skuce admitted mining is likely to play a prominent role in the transition to clean energy and the zero-emission transportation sector, they both stressed the need for Canada to simultaneously focus on reduction and recycling as part of the solution.

“The easiest way to avoid mine waste problems is to make less mine waste,” Kneen said. He added current recycling facilities aren’t yet able to extract much lithium during the process.

“The cobalt or the nickel and other parts are kind of easier to separate out,” he said, suggesting that Canada could invest in research and development to reduce the amount of waste associated with batteries and support recycling facilities.

Skuce agreed.

“We need to look at reducing the waste [extracting] raw material produces and way more on recycling.”

B.C.’s Ministry of Environment and Climate Change Strategy announced last week that it will include electric vehicle batteries in the province’s five-year recycling strategy. The strategy puts the onus on producers — manufacturers, distributors and retailers — to take responsibility for the full life-cycle of products, to encourage a circular economy.

Both the Conservatives and Liberals promised in their respective campaigns to support the growth of battery recycling in Canada.

Skuce noted there are still important outstanding issues in the mining industry that federal, provincial and territorial governments need to address before supporting industry growth.

“There’s all sorts of innovations that we need to make sure we’re looking at while at the same time making sure that we’re closing the gap on regulations, laws, compliance and enforcement so that we can be a part of [the transition] without putting watersheds and communities at risk.” 

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.

In good news, at least 20 per cent of the two-hour English-language federal leaders’ debate last week centred around climate change. 

In bad news, it was pretty tough for voters to gain a whole lot of, um, clarity on the differences between the party platforms during that 23-minute-long climate change section. That’s unfortunate because there’s a lot at stake for the environment in the 2021 federal election. 

“Right now, climate policy and environmental policy isn’t just a nice-to-have — it’s not something you do if you have time for it,” said Merran Smith, executive director of Clean Energy Canada. 

“If you look at the world’s leading economies, they’re using climate policy as their economic policy … Good, ambitious climate policy is linked to investing in the industries of the future, not rooted in the industries of the past.” 

We spent hours poring over the federal platforms of the Liberals, Conservatives, NDP and Greens for the 2021 election so you don’t have to and have done our best to boil down three key points to help you make your choice at the ballot box. 

1) Conservation, nature-based climate solutions and Indigenous protected areas

Let’s start with a topic that gets overlooked a lot in the media: plans to protect Canada’s vast wild spaces. 

With Canada being home to 25 per cent of Earth’s wetlands and boreal forests, as well as endangered Prairie grasslands and the world’s longest coastline, we have a vital global role to play in the fight against climate change. 

A study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences in 2017 found protecting and restoring these landscapes, known as nature-based climate solutions, could provide more than one-third of the emissions reductions needed to stabilize global temperature increases below 2 C by 2030 under the Paris Accord.

“We have this extraordinary treasure trove of carbon that plays a global role,” said Justina Ray, president and senior scientist at Wildlife Conservation Society Canada. 

Liberals: The Liberal election platform commits to protecting 25 per cent of Canada’s land and oceans by 2025 and 30 per cent by 2030. The Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society released a report card on conservation efforts in June, which gave Ottawa an A- on land protection and a B+ on ocean protection, while giving many of the provinces failing grades. This speaks to the challenge of any federal commitment on protected areas, which is that meeting those targets requires cooperation from other levels of government. 

That may be why the Liberals emphasize new national parks in their platform, committing to creating 10 new national parks and 10 new national marine conserved areas in the next five years. They also promise to create 15 new urban national parks by 2030. 

On the federal election campaign trail, the Liberals have also promised to create a $50 million B.C. old-growth nature fund — something that advocates for old-growth have been calling for to help resolve conflicts, such as the Fairy Creek blockades, which have continued for more than a year under B.C.’s NDP government.

The Liberals also promise to support Indigenous communities to build capacity to establish more Indigenous protected areas and Indigenous Guardians programs. The Liberals started funding Indigenous Guardians in 2017. The party also makes a vague commitment to “restore and enhance more wetlands, grasslands, and peatlands, to capture and store carbon.”

Conservatives: The Conservative election platform commits to reaching the previous Conservative government’s target of protecting 17 per cent of Canada’s land and water and to “work towards 25 per cent,” but doesn’t name a date by which it intends to do so.

The party’s federal election platform highlights the importance of working with Indigenous communities to expand the creation of Indigenous protected areas managed and stewarded by Indigenous Guardians and makes a general commitment to “develop parks and protected areas in all parts of Canada.” The Conservatives also emphasize the importance of protecting endangered ecosystems in the “southern working landscape.”

“Much of the land is already in productive use, making it harder and more expensive to set aside, but protecting this land is essential: it can significantly benefit local communities and is important for things like flood and drought protection and carbon sequestration,” the platform notes.

In terms of nature-based climate solutions, the Conservatives commit to investing an additional $3 billion between now and 2030 focused on management of forest, crop and grazing lands and restoration of grasslands, wetlands and forests. They also commit to continuing work that’s currently underway to establish a national carbon offset market.

NDP: The NDP election platform commits to the same target as the Liberals: protecting 30 per cent of our land and oceans by 2030. The party also commits to support Indigenous-led conservation and Indigenous Guardian programs, but doesn’t mention nature-based climate solutions. Much of the platform is vague. Case in point:  “We will expand urban national parks and restore urban biodiversity, and ensure the Species at Risk Act is enforced.”

In a more concrete proposal, the NDP say they’d create a new Civilian Climate Corps that creates new jobs supporting conservation efforts by undertaking activities such as helping restore wetlands, and planting trees. They also commit to enshrining the right to a healthy environment in a Canadian Environmental Bill of Rights.

Greens: The Green election platform also pledges support for Indigenous-led protected areas and commits to protecting 30 per cent of land and oceans in each Canadian ecosystem by 2030. The Greens ratchet up that target to protecting 50 per cent of Canada’s land and waters by 2050, prioritizing carbon-rich ecosystems and also promise to scale up funding for nature-based climate solutions. 

2) Climate targets

While this subject received a bit of play in the debate, it was so confusing, it deserves re-visiting. After all, a lot hinges on the level of climate ambition (and sincerity) of the next government. 

“There’s no time left for delay,” said Smith of Clean Energy Canada. “We need to move forward, not go backwards. That’s the bottom line. We have three major federal parties that want to move forward, and one that wants to move us backward.” 

For the first time, all parties have put forward real climate plans with credible policies, but the Conservatives dialled-back climate target “means a step backwards for Canada’s long-term economic competitiveness,” according to Smith. 

It’s worth noting that U.S. President Joe Biden has committed to cutting his country’s emissions by 50 per cent below 2005 levels by 2030. Meanwhile, the European Union has promised to reduce emissions by 55 per cent below 1990 levels by 2030.  

Liberals: The Liberals have committed to maintain Canada’s current emissions reduction commitment at 40 to 45 per cent below 2005 levels by 2030 and to reach net-zero by 2050. Critics point out that under the Liberals, emissions have actually increased since signing the Paris Agreement in 2016. The Liberals have also come under fire for purchasing the Trans Mountain oilsands export pipeline at a time when emissions need to rapidly ratchet down. All of that said, independent modelling indicates that the Liberal platform includes the policies required to achieve the 40 per cent emissions reduction target. 

Conservatives: The Conservatives have committed to lower Canada’s emissions by 30 per cent below 2005 levels by 2030, which is a step backward from our current target. Modelling indicates the policies in the plan could reach the lowered 30 per cent target, but only if the industrial carbon price increases to $170 a tonne by 2030, something the party has only said it will do if Canada’s trading partners do the same. 

NDP: The NDP has committed to lower Canada’s emissions by 50 per cent below 2005 levels by 2030 and reach net-zero by 2050. Their plan is not detailed enough to assess whether the proposed policies would lead to reductions in line with the target, according to experts. 

Greens: The Greens committed to lower Canada’s emissions by 60 per cent below 2005 levels by 2030 and to reach net-zero before 2050. But experts say their plan is also not laid out in enough detail to assess how the party would reach the targets. 

For a further breakdown of the policy proposals, check out Marc Jaccard’s analysis in Policy Options. 

3) Economic diversification and a responsible transition

This is where the rubber hits the road on any climate plan: how will the federal parties handle the tough choices and tradeoffs that come with an energy transition? Tens of thousands of jobs may disappear in the coming decades and could be replaced with new clean energy jobs or jobs in other new sectors. The billion-dollar question is where those jobs will be located and what opportunities workers will have to retrain to access new opportunities. 

“Let’s not forget: this is where the world’s leading economies are going,” Smith said. “We are seeing the U.S., the UK, the EU that have at least the level of ambition that we’re seeing in the Liberal, the NDP platform and Green platform, if not more. They’re going to be looking for low-carbon products. I’m looking for a platform that understands this is the way the world’s economy is going.” 

Liberals: The Liberal election platform commits to establishing a $2 billion diversification fund for oil- and gas-producing provinces and sets five-year emissions reduction targets for the oil and gas sector to achieve net-zero by 2050 (starting with 2025 and 2030 milestones to ensure the oil and gas sector makes a “meaningful contribution” to meeting Canada’s 2030 climate target). Greenhouse gas emissions from the oil and gas sector have risen 20 per cent since 2005 and now make up 26 per cent of our country’s total emissions, so this is an extremely important (and previously missing) piece of the puzzle. 

The Liberals also commit to move forward with just transition legislation, guided by consultation with communities that launched shortly before they called the election, and to launch a clean jobs training centre to help workers upgrade or gain new skills to work in low-carbon industries.

Conservatives: The Conservative election platform is a mixed-bag on this front, with some good commitments to help workers transition, such as a training loan that would help workers pay for skills upgrading and a $250 million investment to establish a “Canada Job Training Fund.”

But other parts of the Conservative platform seem to indicate the party plans to stick its head in the sand where the energy transition is concerned. A section of the platform titled “support for western Canadian jobs” outlines how the Conservatives would undo the changes ushered in by Bill C-69, which modernized how Canada reviews major resource projects. The legislation was massively watered down after intense lobbying by the fossil fuel industry. The Conservatives also promise to repeal Bill C-48, which banned oil tankers on B.C.’s North Coast, which could re-open the door to the Enbridge Northern Gateway oilsands pipeline. 

The Conservatives also say they’d make oil export pipelines a priority and implement a federal LNG export strategy. Liquefied natural gas exports rely on the controversial process of fracking in B.C. and Alberta and are extremely emissions intensive. And the cherry on top? The Conservatives vow to pass a Critical Infrastructure Protection Act to increase punishment for protestors blocking key infrastructure

NDP: The NDP election platform commits to creating a million new, good jobs in all regions. This will include jobs building green infrastructure, which will require the use of Canadian-made steel, aluminum, cement and wood projects “because products produced by Canadian workers have some of the lowest carbon emissions in the world.”

The NDP also promises to provide expanded employment insurance benefits, re-training and job placement services, ensuring companies retain and redeploy their workers when in transition. The party commits to supporting investments in community-owned and operated clean energy projects and to work in partnership with Indigenous and northern communities to move off diesel. 

Under an NDP government, an Office of Environmental Justice would be created to address the disproportionate impacts of pollution and loss of biodiversity on low-income, racialized and other marginalized communities.

Greens: The Greens would phase out oil and gas operations, with bitumen production phased out between 2030 and 2035, cancel all pipeline projects and ban fracking. To help deal with the impacts of such a phase-out the Greens would implement a Just Transition Act, and use wage insurance, retraining programs and early retirement plans to replace “every high-paying fossil fuel sector job with a high-paying green sector job.”  

The Greens would also enact legislation on green jobs training programs, such as a youth climate corps, and would create an Office of Environmental Justice. They’d also increase investment in research and development to 2.5 per cent of GDP, in line with other OECD countries.

Looking for more resources to assess the candidates? Check out CBC’s platform tracker and recommendations from GreenPAC, a non-partisan organization that endorses political candidates across the political spectrum who have demonstrated environmental leadership.

Updated Sept. 22, 2021, at 4:40 p.m. PT: The article was updated to reflect the fact the European Union’s emissions reductions target for 2030 is based on 1990 levels, not 2005 levels.  

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 Luisa Da Silva began her career as a geoscientist 14 years ago, she had no idea that she’d someday move from the oil and gas sector to advocating for fossil fuel workers to shift into renewable energy careers. Her journey reflects one of the core tenets of a movement that is promoting a responsible transition for oil and gas industry workers. 

“What it is that [we] were doing 10 years ago, or five years ago, or 15 years ago, doesn’t have to be what [we’re] doing tomorrow.”

Da Silva worked first in oil and gas, then in the mining and exploration industry, then in education and at an Ontario conservancy. 

It was the culmination of this journey that led her to become executive director of Iron & Earth — a non-profit organization that says it started in 2016 “around the lunchroom tables of the Canadian oilsands.”

She says oil and gas workers wanted a safe place to discuss their concerns about the decline of the fossil fuel industry, job security and the climate crisis — without putting their careers in jeopardy for engaging in difficult conversations. This is where Iron & Earth came in. The organization not only advocates and lobbies to promote a smart transition for fossil fuel workers, but it also provides training and guidance to help those eager to make the jump into renewables. 

“Iron & Earth really sits at the middle of the oil and gas industry and being concerned about climate change — we bring everybody to the table to have the discussion together,” Da Silva explains. 

In early August, Iron & Earth published its Prosperous Transition Plan, which consulted oil and gas workers on what a responsible transition should look like, and detailed the resulting recommendations for the federal government.

Da Silva also says the federal government has taken some positive steps by starting consultations on a proposed Just Transition Act, but notes it’s happening two years after a promise to introduce this legislation. She says she hopes the consultations lead to concrete action and were not just introduced as a pre-election exercise.

Da Silva sat down with The Narwhal to discuss what the federal government and fossil fuel industry need to do to facilitate a responsible transition. The following is a transcript of that conversation, edited for style and brevity.

What kinds of fears and concerns are oil and gas workers facing right now, in terms of the climate crisis and the fossil fuel industry? 

Fossil fuel workers are no different from anyone else: they just want to take care of the family, of the community, to put food on the table, a roof over their head, and they want to be proud of the work that they do.

[They] are concerned about having their wages reduced, losing their job, having their hours reduced. Be it from climate change, economic or other external factors, they can see the writing on the wall — the transition to net-zero is happening. [But] a lot of these people, they don’t know what else to do. Their biggest concern is that they’re going to get left behind. And they’re concerned about how they’re leaving the world.

How can the idea of ‘just transition’ address these concerns? 

In order to implement the net-zero economy, there’s already this enormous skilled workforce. We know that we can move into this transition that will provide stable jobs, reliable jobs, well-paid jobs, that won’t be subject to boom-and-bust cycles. Fossil fuel industry [workers] and Indigenous workers’ skills are needed in the net-zero economy.

[But] they need to have upskilling, so that they can move into the net-zero economy. They face economic barriers — it’s quite expensive to upskill to go into a new career. It comes down to being out of pocket: needing to invest money into retraining, and needing to invest time. Depending on where they’re at in their career, they might not be able to afford that. That’s part of why having a just transition is so very important. 

How do the interests of oil and gas workers looking to upskill relate to the interests of oil and gas companies themselves?

I do think that these oil and gas companies also want to see themselves thrive through a just transition. They want to come out the other side, knowing that they still have a place in the Canadian economy. And really what that speaks to is a refocusing and repositioning of these enterprises.

What it boils down to is, there are things that the oil and gas companies can pivot towards, that are less polluting, that are better for the environment, they still will have a place in the economy. Fundamentally, what exists currently there doesn’t have to be completely stripped away and overhauled. The key is that [renewable energy infrastructure] can be built upon what already exists. 

But the reality is, businesses will take their cue from what the federal government does. So the government needs to provide the funding for people to be able to go through training and upskill, so that Canada can move into the new economy, but it is on the businesses to ensure that they have jobs in net-zero technologies for these workers.

What should the federal government be doing to facilitate a responsible transition? 

First and foremost, we believe that the workforce needs to be upskilled. We believe it’s going to be about $10,000 per person to upskill the workforce. So we’re looking at about a cost of $10 billion over 10 years in order to upskill all the workers that are going to be needed in the net-zero economy.

In terms of retooling and upgrading facilities: if we retool and upgrade about 10,000 enterprises across Canada, across 10 years — so we’re pushing to 2030, really — that’s a federal investment of about $20 billion. [For example,] installing solar panels on existing infrastructure: in Alberta, there are around 178,000 abandoned or inactive drill wells, which occupies about 160,000 hectares of land. And so the idea behind [our project] RenuWell is let’s use this disturbed land to be putting these solar panels on to generate electricity. Retooling and repurposing is very much about looking at something that has been used for years or decades from a different perspective: how is it that it can be, now, manufacturing something else? 

Tax offsets and green strings — zero-emitting technologies, negative-emitting technologies that you’re investing into, bringing these technologies into your organization effectively — [are] about a $10 billion investment. And then finally, the nature-based solutions: these are projects that can address social challenges, and also build resilience into the economy. These projects range from forest protection to restoration initiatives, even into incorporating natural ecosystems into industrial operations. We think that that will be a cost of $22 billion to the country. 

Indigenous-led nature-based solutions projects, if done correctly, provide an opportunity to both advance reconciliation with Indigenous nations, and create and implement carbon-neutral or carbon-negative climate solutions. And many Indigenous nations in Canada are already interested in advancing nature-based solutions in their traditional territories. It is paramount that [these] projects on Indigenous land have the consent of and leadership from the people of those communities. 

What kind of obstacles have you faced already, or do you foresee, in trying to facilitate this adoption of a responsible transition? 

[With RenuWell,] we’re racing against time to keep that infrastructure there in terms of roads, and electricity running to the site to power the installation. We can’t be having red tape to cut through just to be able to do what we need to move towards net-zero and reach our climate targets. It has to be simpler, it has to come from the federal government.

We don’t really have the luxury of waiting to put a just transition into place, to pivot towards net-zero. Many of these steps can be achieved by 2030. The sooner we start putting these into place, the more widely accepted it will become, the more time businesses will have to innovate and create their own solutions that fall into these categories. And then effects will snowball and we’ll be able to reach 2050 in the net-zero economy.

On July 20 this year, the federal government announced an ‘engagement process’ to consult on how best to facilitate a just transition for workers. What are your thoughts on this announcement and process? 

I think the Canadian government is taking the right steps and using the right language in terms of moving the process of just transition along towards becoming a Just Transition Act. What we’re concerned about at Iron & Earth is that an advisory board can be ignored, and that they would just be advisory. 

Any delay in acting will only delay the process. We already see that the Just Transition Act was promised in 2019; we’re in 2021, and we’re starting the consultation. So we’re already two years behind. We really hope that this consultation process will, in the end, have concrete steps and actions towards creating policy, and that it’s not just being done as a pre-election exercise.

What do you think is the best way to pursue serious discussions about transitioning workers in a context of polarization, extreme political rhetoric and partisan attacks?

I believe the best way to have these talks is exactly what Iron & Earth has been doing for over five years — listening to everyone, through polls, surveys, interviews, events and consultations — from the concerns of the workers to the oil and gas companies. It’s the people on the ground who know what the reality is, rather than trying to guess from behind a political curtain. 

Climate change should be a non-partisan issue. The fate of the Canadian energy sector rests on how well we can transition, and the fate of our survival as humans’ rests on how quickly we can react to and enact stops to the runaway climate crisis unfolding before us. It doesn’t matter which side of the political spectrum you sit on — climate change will still be climate change. Political tactics and games will only serve to label and divide people rather than uniting everyone together on what needs to be seen as the greatest threat to human existence. 

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

This essay is excerpted from Arno Kopecky’s forthcoming book on humanity’s engagement with the crisis of our times. The Environmentalist’s Dilemma (ECW Press) arrives in bookstores this October; pre-orders are available here.

Set against the magnitude of this crisis, our inescapable smallness. There’s just no way around it: I can swear off the internal combustion engine, renounce meat, cover my roof in solar panels, touch no plastic, and plant a hundred trees a day for the rest of my life, and none of it will bring the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide any closer to 350 parts per million, nor ease the world’s biodiversity crisis. Those things will only happen when hundreds of millions of people change their consumption habits. And that will only happen when governments pass the right laws.

That’s why focusing on government and industry, as opposed to individual behaviour, has become the default position of the environmental movement. For too many years, governments and corporations alike urged us puny citizens to do our part without bothering to do theirs. Reduce, reuse, recycle, and shop green while you’re at it; refrains like these have allowed the big players of industrial society to shift their ecological responsibility onto our frail shoulders.

They’re still doing it. In fall 2020, Shell Canada launched its “Drive Carbon Neutral” program, kindly giving drivers the option of paying two extra cents per litre of gasoline on carbon offsets, in the form of a forest conservation project. This means, if Shell’s done the math right (a palatial if, but let’s grant it for the sake of argument), that for every molecule of carbon dioxide released through your exhaust, an equal number of molecules will be inhaled by a tree whose life was saved by your two cents per litre. Never mind that there’s no contingency plan should the forests Shell has chosen to sequester your carbon burn down because of climate change. Never mind that offsets like these encourage people to use gasoline and thus slow the transition to electric vehicles and public transportation. And never mind that Shell spent US$49 million in 2019 lobbying governments not to enact climate legislation, second only to BP among the world’s oil and gas companies — BP being the company that introduced the very notion of a carbon footprint into our lexicon through a brilliantly devious marketing campaign in 2000, designed to make the public think of carbon emissions as a personal responsibility. Despite these objections, one might still find it in one’s credulous heart to suppose Shell was trying to do the right thing. Where the line got irreparably crossed, however, was whenCanada’s environment minister, Jonathan Wilkinson, used his office to advertise the program (that is, advertise for Shell) and urge Canadians to use it. “It’s forward thinking initiatives like this that will help Canada reach its goal of net-zero emissions by 2050,” Wilkinson tweeted out to his followers, provoking the only good thing to come out of this embarrassing affair, which was a flurry of entertaining replies.

To be clear: It is the responsibility of high-office holders to put policies in place that will facilitate positive systemic change; it’s also their responsibility to hold large polluting companies to account. If Canada were anywhere close to meeting its own climate targets, Wilkinson’s support of Shell’s advertising ploy might have been forgivable. But we’re not. And until we are, the only message we should be hearing from politicians like Wilkinson or companies like Shell is what they are doing to decarbonize.

That being said, let’s not forget who’s been choosing our politicians while the world burns down around us.

Nothing illuminates the vital importance of individual behaviour like an election. We know, objectively, that no single ballot is remotely likely to decide an election. Yet millions of us go to the trouble of voting anyway. We hold the principle of democracy in sufficiently high esteem that we’ve convinced ourselves, collectively, that it’s our moral obligation to engage in what reason insists is a purely symbolic act.

But a vote is not a symbol. A ballot — that slip of paper — is a physical thing. We ought to regard it as a trophy, because to hold a ballot is to physically touch a profound human victory: the overthrow of all those kings and emperors who dominated so much of humanity for so much of our history. We’ve gotten so used to being able to choose our own government that we tend to take it for granted; in most of the world, it’s not uncommon for half the electorate to stay home on election day. The consequences of that apathy can get stark in a hurry. The presidency of Donald Trump exposed that risk like nothing else, jolting Americans awake and bringing more of them to vote than in any U.S. election since 1900.

Yes, almost half of them voted for Trump. That’s because everyone, even the supporters of a wannabe tyrant, intuitively grasp the strange magic that comes into force during an election: If enough of us believe our votes matter, they miraculously do. Maybe faith is a better word than magic, because the outcome of any given election truly is a matter of belief. It’s worth thinking about that for a moment, especially for an atheist like me: Democracy is an exercise that translates pure belief into material reality.

Nobody knows this better than those who’ve been denied the right to participate. “The vote is the most powerful nonviolent tool we have,” said John Lewis, the late congressman and civil rights icon, who described the right to vote as “almost sacred.” One of John Lewis’s ideological heirs, the Georgian legislator and activist Stacey Abrams, picked up on that thread in June 2020, when the Black Lives Matter protests were at their height and everyone was talking about how to channel outrage into policy. While that was happening, Republicans throughout America were conniving to suppress the Black vote in advance of the coming election. In an op-ed for the New York Times, Abrams reiterated Lewis’s belief and said he hadn’t gone far enough — the act of voting wasn’t almost sacred. “As the child of ministers, I understand his hesitation to label a simple, secular act as sacred,” Abrams wrote. “Voting is an act of faith. It is profound. In a democracy, it is the ultimate power. Through the vote, the poor can access financial means, the infirm can find health care support, and the burdened and heavy-laden can receive a measure of relief from a social safety net that serves all. And we are willing to go to war to defend the sacred.”

Neither Lewis nor Abrams ever suggested that voting is enough on its own. You don’t show up once every four years and hope for the best. But voting is an essential part of our social contract, both an opportunity and a responsibility, and when the difference between winning an election comes down to less than 1 percent of the vote, as it did in Georgia and other key states, voting becomes the perfect example of how every little thing we do can matter.

Democracy wasn’t the only example that 2020 brought into sharp relief. Think of the struggle Lewis and Abrams embody. The fight against racism isn’t one we just leave to the higher powers. Nobody says, What difference does it make if I’m racist or not when systemic racism is so vast? Quite the opposite. The first thing we do is the one thing in our grasp as common citizens, which is to treat our fellow humans with respect. In addition to that, by all means, let’s pursue whatever means are available to each of us, according to our station in life, to advocate for policies that put an end to discrimination. But it starts with the daily habit of indiscriminate respect.

COVID-19 also highlighted this dynamic. Containing the pandemic is an urgent matter for policy-makers and corporations alike — there’s nothing I can do to make sure hospitals have enough masks, or that unemployed citizens receive financial relief, or to hasten a vaccine’s creation. When the powerful shirk those primary responsibilities, it becomes outrageous for them to advocate for “personal responsibility” instead. But the idea that individual behaviour has no bearing on the pandemic’s spread is equally absurd. I wear a mask; I wash my hands; I limit my personal contacts. Canada’s response may not have been perfect, but our federal leadership did seem to be trying their best under extremely trying circumstances. That gave them some authority to ask us to do the same. When the second wave began to rise, it struck me as reasonable for Canada’s chief public health officer, Theresa Tam, to remind Canadians in early November 2020 that “every little thing that you do helps.” One week later, Tam was echoed by President-Elect Biden, who urged all Americans to wear masks until he had the power to enact the policies Trump had belittled. “Small acts add up to enormous achievements,” Biden said. “It’s the weight of small acts together that bend the arc of history.”

If one reason for politicians to do their jobs is that it gives them the credibility to ask us to do ours, then surely the reverse is true as well. The more individuals act like they believe in something, the more pressure it puts on our leaders to act like they believe it, too.

In 1978, in the country my father would have grown up in were it not for Hitler and the Great Depression, a playwright named Václav Havel wrote an eighty-page essay called “The Power of the Powerless.” He published it as illegal samizdat, the name for all subversive literature printed underground in Czechoslovakia and throughout the Soviet Bloc.

“The Power of the Powerless” laid out a psychological road map for the overthrow of what Havel called “the post-totalitarian system” in which he and some 250 million of his fellow Soviet citizens were trapped. “I do not wish to imply by the prefix ‘post-’ that the system is no longer totalitarian,” he clarified. “On the contrary, I mean that it is totalitarian in a way fundamentally different from classical dictatorships.” The difference was that the Soviet dictatorship no longer relied on force to assure everyone’s good behaviour. After several generations of state control and ubiquitous propaganda, the general population had internalized Soviet ideology.

To live in this post-totalitarian system was to live “in a world of appearances trying to pass for reality,” Havel wrote. To illustrate that supremacy of appearance, he put an imaginary greengrocer at the heart of his essay. This grocer, like all his neighbours, placed a sign in his window every day that read “Workers of the world, unite!”Why did he do that? Was it because he ardently believed in the common plight of workers around the world? No. “The overwhelming majority of shopkeepers never think about the slogans they put in their windows, nor do they use them to express their real opinions,” Havel wrote. The grocer put that sign there “because it has been done that way for years, because everyone does it, and because that is the way it has to be.” Of course, the grocer also knows that “if he were to refuse, there could be trouble,” but in a post-totalitarian society that threat has receded to the background, which is the crucial point. Fear of violence had been replaced by a numb acceptance of the status quo. “By this very fact, individuals confirm the system, fulfill the system, make the system, are the system.”

That system was built on a foundation of untruth: “It falsifies the past. It falsifies the present, and it falsifies the future. It falsifies statistics. It pretends not to possess an omnipotent and unprincipled police apparatus. It pretends to respect human rights. It pretends to persecute no one. It pretends to fear nothing. It pretends to pretend nothing.”

Some of this sounds familiar, and not only to readers of Nineteen Eighty-Four. It happens to also bear a striking resemblance to the parallel reality Fox and other far-right media have been building in the United States for two decades, a system that has now ensnared tens of millions of Americans, including several of my relatives. But even those of us who find the Fox world view repugnant, who are horrified by the assault on truth and democracy that’s unfolded before our eyes in the United States and elsewhere — even we are bound up in the system that produced Trump; our system, too, is based on a lie.

Our system — let’s call it modern capitalism — is the one that brought us climate change and the world’s sixth great extinction. Our system is the one that tried to bury its legacy of genocide and slavery beneath the prosperity that grew out of those crimes. We all have a different relationship with that system, and every day more of us are in open revolt. But given the direction that the world’s ecosystems are headed, given the fact that not a single country on Earth is anywhere near to meeting its climate targets, let alone challenging the logic of a global economy built on infinite growth — given all that, it doesn’t strike me as a wild exaggeration to compare our system’s grip on our individual lives to the grip Communism had on Vaclav Havel’s greengrocer. Which was, of course, the grip it had on Vaclav Havel himself. The crucial difference being that Havel was aware of it.

Our lives may be better than that of Havel’s greengrocer by almost any measure. We may be free to hang any sign we like in our windows, and write what we like without fear of reprisal. But as anyone who’s tried living without email or a credit card knows, we are ensnared, too. It’s a wonderful trap, and it’s leading us to ruin.

In 1978, when I was two years old, Havel foresaw the risks we ran. He perceived that the willingness to live within a lie wasn’t a function of Soviet ideology so much as an aspect of the human condition — not an inescapable trait, but one we ignore at our peril. “Is it not true that the far-reaching adaptability to living a lie,” he asked, “has some connection with the general unwillingness of consumption-oriented people to sacrifice some material certainties for the sake of their own spiritual and moral integrity? With their vulnerability to the attractions of mass indifference? And do we not in fact stand as a kind of warning to the West, revealing to [the West] its own latent tendencies?”

Indeed you did, and four decades later here we are. For all the enormous differences between our system and Havel’s, some critical similarities are worth emphasizing. Not just the way we are both ensnared in a system with deadly consequences but also the internal, psychological tension both systems produce. I have described that tension as a paradox: the uncomfortable dissonance that arises when we become aware of the incalculable damage our way of life is inflicting on this planet, and on future generations. Havel described his internal tension like this:

In everyone there is some longing for humanity’s rightful dignity, for moral integrity, for free expression of being and a sense of transcendence over the world of existence. Yet, at the same time, each person is capable, to a greater or lesser degree, of coming to terms with living within the lie. Each person somehow succumbs to a profane trivialization of his inherent humanity, and to utilitarianism. In everyone there is some willingness to merge with the anonymous crowd and to flow comfortably along with it down the river of pseudolife. This is much more than a simple conflict between two identities. It is something far worse: it is a challenge to the very notion of identity itself.

When I read those words, I think of the pandemic that swept across the so-called Western world long before COVID-19 and which will be here long after COVID is gone: anxiety, and its sibling, depression. The World Health Organization calculates some 300 million people around the world suffer from an anxiety disorder, including almost one in five Americans; the same number of people report depression. These numbers have gone up, not down, as development and democracy sweep the world. It would be facile to declare that our declining mental health is a direct result of ecological calamity, but wouldn’t it also be naive to suppose there’s no connection? We evolved, like all species, to be in relationship with the natural world. Severing that relationship is going to have consequences, and these consequences can only grow more severe as evidence mounts that we’re incinerating the future.

There is a profound dissonance built into our daily lives. It’s not the only thing making us anxious and depressed, but it surely plays a major role. It’s not helping our politics, either.

Havel’s greengrocer, too, suffered under the weight of his own life’s contradictions. But he wasn’t helpless. Though he had no hope of overthrowing the system that enveloped him, he could take steps to liberate himself, and in so doing rattle the chains just a little. He could take down the sign and stop pretending he cared whether the workers of the world united or not.

A system based on a lie “works only as long as people are willing to live within the lie,” Havel wrote. The moment the greengrocer took that sign out of the window, he started a micro-revolution. He “shattered the world of appearances, the fundamental pillar of the system. He has upset the power structure by tearing apart what holds it together. He has demonstrated that living a lie is living a lie.”

I don’t want to take the comparison too far. The consequences for a simple act of dissent in 1978 Czechoslovakia were much harsher than anything comparable in modern North America. The grocer risked losing his shop, imperiling his children’s education, or being sent to jail if he persisted. What do any of us suffer if we choose to become a vegetarian, or stop using plastic bags, or cease taking our children to Disneyland? Inconvenience, raised eyebrows, heavy sighs. But shouldn’t this lack of consequence serve to encourage us?

Clearly, it’s not fear of repercussion stopping us. Instead, a sense of impotence has yielded apathy; that familiar fear of inconsequentiality, of knowing that nothing I do will slow climate change, has a profoundly paralyzing impact. If nothing I do makes a difference, why should I do anything at all? Why should I suffer the inconvenience of living a simpler life?

I submit that the chief benefit of doing whatever little things we can is personal. Becoming aware that every little thing we do has some impact, and acting accordingly gives our lives purpose. It imbues our humdrum daily routine with a little hit of meaning. To eat with intention, to reduce our consumption of material goods, to drive a little less and walk a little more, and to choose our leaders carefully — none of these things are guaranteed to change the world. But they’re likely to make us feel better.

And you never know. Sometimes, the world does change as a result of these multitudinous actions.

Vaclav Havel believed this in 1978, the year he published “The Power of the Powerless,” when there was really no reason to think so; the Soviet Union’s grip on its empire appeared total, and people like Havel had never felt so powerless. And yet he had the faith to write, “It is never quite clear when the proverbial last straw will fall, or what that straw will be.”

Immediately after he wrote that essay, he came under unbearable pressure from the Czech authorities. They put him under constant surveillance and interrogated him twice a day for months. Then they threw him in jail for four years. Five years after he was released, the Velvet Revolution culminated in the peaceful overthrow of Czechoslovakia’s communist government. The Soviet Union was collapsing. One month later, on December 29, 1989, Vaclav Havel became president.

Not everyone has to risk imprisonment or run for high office. History is awash with movements that prevailed because enough greengrocers took down their signs and started talking to their neighbours. When the moment of transformation arrives, it often seems sudden as a shore-breaking wave, but in reality change was gathering beneath the surface all along, swelling imperceptibly toward its breaking point, one person at a time.

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.

Erin O’Toole’s Conservative Party is proposing to amend Canada’s Criminal Code to stop protests that disrupt key infrastructure such as pipelines or railways — a federal election proposal that many say will unfairly target Indigenous land defenders. 

The proposal is repeated twice in the party’s 160-page platform released Tuesday. It appears once in a section on energy and again in a section about public safety. The paragraph proposes passing the “Critical Infrastructure Protection Act to prevent people from blocking key infrastructure” by amending Canada’s Criminal Code to offer more severe punishment to demonstrators.

The proposal mentions the 2020 pipeline and railway demonstrations that occurred in opposition to the construction of the Coastal GasLink pipeline through the Wetʼsuwetʼen First Nation territory in British Columbia, land that is unceded. It notes these events “demonstrated the importance — and vulnerability — of the infrastructure that ties our country again.” Under the proposed Conservative law, protesters could be punished “by either summary conviction of indictment, depending upon the severity of the crime.”

“Peaceful protest is a fundamental right in Canada, but respect for the rule of law means that illegal blockades that shut down critical infrastructure, threaten access to vital supplies, or endanger lives cannot be tolerated,” the Conservative proposal reads.

The platform doesn’t provide any details about what would be included in a proposed law, how broad it would be or how the Criminal Code would be amended. The platform also fails to explain why a new law would be needed to stop what the party describes as an “illegal blockade” or how such a law could be effective. 

The Conservative Party declined The Narwhal’s request for more information. A spokesman said that the party would provide more details during one of its daily announcements on the campaign trail.

After this story was published, a reporter asked O’Toole about the promise at an Aug. 20 campaign stop in Winnipeg. The Conservative leader reiterated that the right to peacefully protest is “a fundamental part of our democracy” but that it “does not extend to blockading railroads, bridges, the things we need in the public good for people to get to work, for our economy, for our exporters to reach new markets.” 

“Critical pieces of infrastructure like rail and like bridges should not be illegally blockaded to make a political point,” O’Toole said. “In fact, when that happens it hurts Indigenous communities the most, many of whom are developing resources and for the first time in generations creating wealth and jobs for Indigenous communities.” 

“I think our plan is a common-sense approach to keep the economy moving,” he said in concluding his answer. 

O’Toole did not elaborate or provide detailed examples to explain how protests on key infrastructure sites might hurt Indigenous communities the most, or how his proposed solution would address this.

In light of the promise, some Indigenous leaders, lawyers and environmental groups told The Narwhal they were concerned, wondering if this is part of a rising trend of suppression of opposition against fossil fuel projects. 

“It seems like a wide-ranging, political posturing, when there are already remedies to get court injunctions and criminal charges against so-called disruptive behaviour,” said Cynthia Callison, founding partner of Callison & Hanna, a Vancouver law firm which represents Indigenous governments in legal matters. These remedies include what is already codified in Canadian criminal law: penalties and punishment for things like vandalism and trespassing. 

Alberta passed a similar law last year; it is now facing a constitutional challenge. Eighteen U.S. states have also passed similar laws since 2016. Indigenous land defenders and those standing in solidarity with them have been arrested during protests against the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion project and more. In one case in Washington state, a woman who disrupted a railway line is facing terror charges. 

There is a broad recognition that most protests around infrastructure development in Canada are rooted in solidarity with Indigenous Peoples, who don’t consent to some of these projects and aren’t properly consulted. 

Emmett Macfarlane, a political science professor at the University of Waterloo who specializes in constitutional law, questioned how this proposed law would work in tandem with Indigenous land rights and the state’s duty to consult on environmental projects. While the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the right to protest and peaceful assembly, there are already limits to it to ensure that right is carried out reasonably. 

“If the law is crafted properly, it would still allow some protest activity on these sorts of sites,” Macfarlane said. “I think it’s definitely motivated by concerns over our inability as a country to build more pipelines, which seems to be a big feature of the Conservative discourse. It’s certainly seeking to privilege those industries. That said, the train blockades and the like were highly disruptive and I think a lot of Canadians would support laws that limit protests like that.”

“I think we have to wait to see details because it’s certainly possible for laws like this to overreach.”

Some say that nothing can stop an increase in civil action for stronger climate policies in the wake of the latest report by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which finds that the planet is hotter now than it has been at any moment in the last 125,000 years and some of the changes can only be slowed not reversed.

“The fact is, we’re going to see a heck of a lot more escalation on the part of people power movements that want to see change and transition on the issue of climate,” said Clayton Thomas-Müller, a senior campaign specialist with 350.org. “People are going to hit the streets regardless of the draconian measures these lawmakers place, because the gravity of the climate crisis is too great.” 

Chief Allan Adam of the Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation urged the Conservatives to reconsider its proposal because “the more the state tries to repress defenders and people supporting Indigenous people, the more pushback they’ll get.” 

“If you look around the world right now — at all of these climate catastrophes that are happening — people are becoming more and more aware and people are becoming more and more determined to save what we have left, because our lives depend on it,” Adam said. “And no amount of state repression is going to be able to stop that.”

The Narwhal also contacted several energy companies; only Trans Mountain — a company owned by the federal government — responded to say they have no comment on any political platform. “Trans Mountain respects the right to peaceful, lawful expressions of interest,” a company spokesperson said in an email.

The Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers also declined to comment. A spokesperson said “We are unable to comment this week. However, please check in with us again next week as we will likely be able to offer general commentary on our vision for our industry.”

Tony Maas, director of legislative affairs at Ecojustice, believes the counter approach to this proposal would be for the Conservatives to show their plan for engaging people in big decisions about the energy economy, climate change and more. Right now, there are legal routes for people to take — from courts to regulatory processes like the challenge of permits and land ownership — but for most Canadians, protesting is the easiest way to oppose such large-scale projects.

“The proposal really seems to be focused on trying to divide, when what we really need to be doing is putting in place laws and policies that inspire us and empower people to come together and confront the climate crisis,” he said. “We need to create tools and legal mechanisms that allow people to participate in decision-making but also hold governments and polluters accountable.”

“Right now, the Conservatives are pointing in the wrong direction.” 

Updated Aug. 20, 2021 at 11:49 a.m. PT to correct spelling of Tony Maas and to add new comments made in Winnipeg on Aug. 20, 2021 by Conservative Leader Erin O’Toole about his platform promise.

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.