I’ve often thought politicians inhabit a parallel universe. Maybe it’s just widespread cognitive dissonance, coupled with a lack of imagination, that compels them to engage in so much contradictory behaviour. Trying to appease so many varying interests isn’t easy.

Rather than focusing on short-term economic and corporate priorities, though, politicians should first consider the long-term health and well-being of the people they’re elected to represent. When it comes to climate change and fossil fuels, many aren’t living up to that.

We celebrate the federal government’s decision to implement nation-wide carbon pricing, even though what’s proposed won’t, without additional measures like regulations, get us to our commitments under the Paris Agreement, which is also inadequate for keeping global warming from catastrophic levels. A government could be forgiven for going slow on a measure opposed by some industrial sectors, provinces and citizens, but it’s difficult to take a government seriously when it approves or supports expanding fossil fuel infrastructure and development while the world continues to break warming records, with increasingly dire consequences.

A massive B.C. “carbon bomb” LNG project in the midst of critical salmon-rearing territory, in defiance of many area First Nations’ wishes. Likely approval of at least one more bitumen pipeline to support expanded oil sands development. A provincial government that pretty much says, “We’ll support federal efforts to fight climate change if you support our efforts to fuel it.” None of this makes sense.

As a report from non-profit Oil Change International and 14 other groups concludes, “The potential carbon emissions from the oil, gas, and coal in the world’s currently operating fields and mines would take us beyond 2°C of warming,” and “The reserves in currently operating oil and gas fields alone, even with no coal, would take the world beyond 1.5°C.” That’s without any new development!

That leaves us with three choices: managed decline, stranded assets or climate chaos. The first, which the report recommends, means no new fossil fuel infrastructure, existing supplies become depleted and replaced with clean alternatives and employees redeployed to latter. As the report’s authors point out, “This does not mean stopping using all fossil fuels overnight. Governments and companies should conduct a managed decline of the fossil fuel industry and ensure a just transition for the workers and communities that depend on it.”

Stranded assets means, “Companies continue to develop new fields and mines, governments are eventually successful in restricting emissions, and the resulting reduction in demand causes many extraction assets to become uneconomic and shut down, causing destruction of capital and large job losses.”

Under the third scenario, we keep digging, mining, fracking, building, transporting, selling and burning until we’re well beyond the 2 C threshold, resulting in “economic and human catastrophe.”

Sadly, in Canada and globally, we’ve chosen the second option, and in some cases, the third. Subsidies to the fossil fuel industry, the most profitable industry ever, continue despite a 2009 G20 commitment to phase them out. Canada alone promotes the industry to the tune of about $3.3 billion a year in tax breaks and handouts, not including provincial incentives. Politicians say they care about climate while arguing we need more bitumen, natural gas and coal to fuel growing economies and human populations, and more pipelines to get “product” to tidewater and overseas markets. Saskatchewan has Canada’s best wind and solar resources, but the government focuses on expensive and unreliable schemes like carbon capture and storage while arguing against carbon pricing and other tools to cut emissions.

It’s all a form of denial. Conserving energy, shifting to cleaner sources, reducing automobile use by improving transit and bike and pedestrian infrastructure, protecting and restoring carbon sinks such as forests and wetlands, and getting a handle on agricultural emissions are all possible, and would create numerous jobs and economic opportunities.

Most national governments have committed to the 2015 Paris Agreement’s goal of limiting global warming to 2 C above pre-industrial levels, with an aspirational goal of 1.5 C. We’re already nearing the latter, with growing consequences, including increasing extreme weather events, water and food shortages, migration crises and extinctions. We must conserve energy, quickly phase out coal power and continue to develop renewable resources.

As Oil Change International says, “If you’re in a hole, stop digging.”

Written with contributions from David Suzuki Foundation Senior Editor Ian Hanington. Learn more at www.davidsuzuki.org.

Image: Alberta oilsands by Kris Krug

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.

A court in Toronto will soon begin deliberating over whether or not to seize Chevron's Canadian assets in order to force the company to comply with an $9.5-billion judgement in Ecuador.

The company doesn’t deny that Texaco, which Chevron bought in 2000, deliberately dumped billions of gallons of toxic oil waste in the Ecuadorian Amazon, resulting in massive environmental devastation and a health crisis affecting thousands of people. But the company claims it did its part to clean up the rainforest.

But the settlement Chevron had with the Ecuadorian government and the state-run oil company, PetroEcuador, does not preclude citizens affected by that oil pollution from seeking damages. Ecuadorian plaintiffs first filed a suit against the company in 1993. Chevron lost a high-profile trial in Ecuador in 2011, and every Ecuadorian court that has considered the evidence since then — including an appeals court and the country's Supreme Court — has ruled against Chevron.

Yet still the company refuses to pay. Chevron has even gone venue shopping in an attempt to avoid paying for a cleanup of its toxic mess — filing an investor-state dispute at the Hague, pressing RICO charges against the Ecuadorians and their lawyers in a New York court. But the communities in Ecuador affected by Chevron’s pollution have not remained idle, and have instead pursued Chevron in Canada to try and collect on the company's debt.

The Supreme Court of Canada ruled unanimously in 2015 that the Ecuadorian plaintiffs could pursue an enforcement action against Chevron. In the majority opinion, Justice Clément Gascon wrote: “In a world in which businesses, assets and people cross borders with ease, courts are increasingly called upon to recognize and enforce judgments from other jurisdictions. Sometimes, successful recognition and enforcement in another forum is the only means by which a foreign judgment creditor can obtain its due.”

Now, in an open letter released this week, more than a dozen Canadian organizations, including Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace, Idle No More Canada, MiningWatch, Sierra Club British Columbia, United Steelworkers, and Unifor, have called Chevron out for its attempts to abuse the civil justice system and evade paying the Ecuador judgment.

“While Chevron continues its international litigation ‘shell game’ thousands of people continue to be systematically poisoned and suffer daily from Chevron's refusal to pay a $9.5 billion judgment to clean up its toxic waste in Ecuador,” the letter states. “Chevron's refusal to honor the judgment against it has forced these communities to come to Canada in a last ditch effort to seize assets to force Chevron to comply with the rule of law.”

"We are grateful that the people of Canada, just like their Supreme Court, have chosen to side with those of us affected by Chevron's deplorable actions when it polluted our communities and water supply,” Humberto Piaguaje, President of the Union of Affected Communities in Ecuador, who will be attending the court sessions in Canada, said in a statement. “The indigenous peoples of Ecuador deserve full access to justice and a healthy environment so that we and our Amazonian neighbors can live with dignity.”

There are signs, however, that Chevron is already attempting to circumvent enforcement of any ruling against the company in Canada. Recent reports have stated that Chevron is currently trying to sell several billion-dollars-worth of its Canadian assets. After insisting the original trial over its pollution in the Amazon be held in an Ecuadorian court, Chevron stripped its assets from the country, which some saw as a deliberate attempt to avoid having to pay any adverse judgement against the company. The fear is that Chevron is attempting the same thing in Canada.

Canadian Civil Society: Freeze Chevron Assets, Use To Cover #Ecuador Judgement on #Amazon Destruction https://t.co/ZL1Y4l8TNS #cdnpoli

— DeSmog Canada (@DeSmogCanada) September 13, 2016

In their letter, the groups call on Canadian authorities to stop Chevron from selling its Canadian assets before a decision can be reached in the trial, stating in the letter that it "would set a terrible precedent for other corporations intending to evade responsibility for environmental and human rights crimes."

Chevron’s tactics of delay and obfuscation are nothing new for the oil industry, of course. BP held out for two years before finally agreeing to pay $1 billion to fishermen and others affected by the Deepwater Horizon oil spill and disaster in the Gulf of Mexico. And the recent #ExxonKnew scandal erupted after it was discovered that the oil giant’s own scientists had been warning of the dangers of carbon pollution leading to runaway climate change since at least the 1970s — but Exxon continued to fund climate denial anyway.

Sierra Club BC Campaigns Director Caitlyn Vernon said that oil companies have operated with impunity for years, despite leaving a legacy of environmental destruction and human rights abuses. "Whether in Canada or around the world, oil companies such as Chevron, Enbridge and Kinder Morgan must be held accountable for oil spills, climate change impacts, and their treatment of local and indigenous populations," she said.

Now, environmentalists say, the Canadian court system has the opportunity to see some small measure of justice is done in this precedent-setting case.

"The Canadian environmental and human rights community has joined forces with the affected communities in Ecuador because we recognize this to be one of the most important corporate accountability cases in history," said Melina Laboucan-Massimo, Climate & Energy Campaigner with Greenpeace Canada. "Chevron must not be allowed to evade its legal and moral responsibilities simply because it has the might to fight on indefinitely in the courts.”  

Image Credit: Oil pollution in Lago Agrio, November 2007. Texaco operated dozens of drilling sites in the area before pulling out of Ecuador altogether. Photo via Wikimedia Commons.

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

The Arctic’s Baffin Bay and Davis Strait region is home to seals, bowhead whales, polar bears and up to 90 per cent of the world’s narwhals. The area’s marine waters also provide habitat for 116 species of fish, such as Arctic char, an important dietary staple for Nunavut’s Inuit communities.

Although the area is crucial to Inuit for hunting and other traditional activities, the federal government has approved underwater seismic blasting by a consortium of energy companies. They plan to fire underwater cannons from boats to map the ocean floor for oil and gas deposits, in preparation for offshore drilling.

The blasting, approved by Canada’s National Energy Board in 2014, is meeting fierce opposition.

A lower court affirmed the NEB decision in 2015, claiming Inuit were adequately consulted on the project — something Inuit dispute. To prevent destruction of their hunting grounds, the remote hamlet of Clyde River in Nunavut and the Nammautaq Hunters and Trappers Organization appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada, which agreed to hear the case later this year. A positive decision could halt seismic blasting and affirm the right of Indigenous peoples to decide their own future regarding resource development in their territories, which is central to the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, of which Canada is a signatory.

This case is in an isolated region. But the threat of massive development in yet another traditional territory is not an isolated case. Indigenous peoples are on the front lines of environmental change around the planet. Ever-expanding resource developments are degrading traditional territories that have sustained communities for millennia, from Arctic tundra to primeval rainforest to arid desert. They’re criss-crossed with roads, transmission lines and pipelines, and pockmarked by pumpjacks, flare stacks and other infrastructure for drilling, fracking and strip-mining fossil fuels. Most developments proceed without consent from local communities and with minimal benefit to them in terms of jobs, training and economic prosperity.

Numerous studies show that Indigenous communities usually bear the brunt of resource development, from declining water quality to destruction of traditional hunting and fishing grounds. The social consequences are devastating. Earlier this year I participated in the Canadian Indigenous Health Conference, which brought public health experts together with Indigenous elders, political leaders, youth, hunters and trappers. Many First Nations, Métis and Inuit communities’ social problems — including alcoholism, physical abuse, depression and suicide — are linked to the vacuum left when communities can no longer hunt, fish, trap, gather berries and otherwise live off their lands as their ancestors did.

Despite living in one the world’s wealthiest countries, Inuit face chronic food insecurity. Nearly 70 per cent of households in communities like Clyde River struggle with getting enough nutrition to stay healthy, compared to eight per cent for the country as a whole.

Traditional activities like hunting and fishing are critical to Indigenous communities’ food security, but they also support a holistic approach to the overall health and well-being of Indigenous peoples. A David Suzuki Foundation study on the importance of caribou hunting to First Nations in the boreal forest found “harvesting as a practice is not solely a process of obtaining meat for nutrition. With each hunt a deliberate set of relationships and protocols is awakened and reinforced. These include reciprocity, social cohesion, spirituality and the passing on of knowledge to future generations.”

Scientists fear high-intensity sounds from seismic blasting in the Arctic could adversely affect marine wildlife, exacerbating the food-insecurity crisis. Inuit hunters have observed altered migration patterns of some species, and reported horrific damage to the internal organs of seals and other animals exposed to underwater seismic blasts.

Clyde River’s resistance to big oil is classic David versus Goliath. On one side, powerful corporations with money and access to politicians. On the other, one of the world’s oldest cultures, which has survived for millennia in harmony with the environment. Former Clyde River mayor Jerry Natanine said, “Inuit do not live on the land; we are part of it. We form an indivisible unity with the Arctic environment that we are fighting to preserve for our people and our culture to survive and thrive.” 

Let’s stand with Inuit and stop seismic blasting in the Canadian Arctic.

Written with contributions from David Suzuki Foundation Ontario and Northern Canada Director Faisal Moola.

Learn more at www.davidsuzuki.org.

Image: Christian Aslund, Greenpeace

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.

People have harnessed energy from moving water for thousands of years.

Greeks used various types of water wheels to grind grain in mills more than 2,000 years ago.

In the late 1800s, people figured out how to harness the power to produce electricity.

Throughout the 20th century and into the 21st, hydropower has expanded, producing about 17 per cent of the world’s electricity by 2014 and about 85 per cent of renewable energy — and it shows no signs of slowing.

According to the online magazine WaterWorld, “An expected 3,700 major dams may more than double the total electricity capacity of hydropower to 1,700 GW within the next two decades,” — including in my home province of B.C., where the government has started a third dam on the Peace River at Site C.

“Hydropower is the most important and widely used renewable source of energy,” the U.S. Geological Survey says.

But how “green” is hydropower and how viable is it in a warming world with increasing water fluctuations and shortages? To some extent, it depends on the type of facility.

The Center for Climate and Energy Solutions notes some large dams are used mainly for water storage or flood control with power generation an additional function, while some are used primarily to generate electricity. Small hydro such as run-of-river is installed on running water and doesn’t use water stored in reservoirs. Pumped storage facilities don’t generate additional energy, but store energy by pumping water from a lower reservoir to a higher one when demand and price are low, sometimes using renewable energy, and release water through turbines when price and demand are high. All have varying environmental impacts.

One of the biggest trade-offs with large-scale hydro facilities is that building them often means flooding land used for farming and human communities. Damming rivers also impedes fish — even with technologies like fish ladders — and can harm wildlife habitat and alter river temperatures, dissolved oxygen levels and flows.

While hydropower creates fewer pollution and climate problems than fossil fuel power, it isn’t entirely clean. Clearing vegetation to build a dam and flood land can release greenhouse gases. And as vegetation decays and water levels fluctuate, methane — a greenhouse gas far more potent than carbon dioxide — can build up and escape from reservoirs.

Ironically, although hydropower is seen as an energy source that helps slow global warming, in many areas its viability is threatened by climate change. Rising greenhouse gas emissions and a warming world affect the entire hydrological cycle — surface and ground water, glaciers, precipitation, runoff and evaporation. Shifting precipitation patterns and increased droughts are changing water levels in rivers and behind hydro dams.

The massive Hoover Dam on the Colorado River is operating at 30 per cent capacity, and new turbines have to be installed at lower elevation because of low precipitation and drought. In Nepal, “low water levels rendered a brand-new dam project ineffective and cut off the water supply farther downstream,” said John Matthews, director of fresh water and adaptation at Conservation International, in Scientific American.

Matthews and co-authors of a study in the journal PLoS Biology wrote that climate change puts 40 per cent of hydro development investments at risk. They recommend an approach to dams and hydro that takes climate change into account, by building projects in stages so adjustments can be made as more is known about climate patterns, or by “building with nature” rather than on top of it.

Meanwhile, as more environmentally benign power technologies become increasingly cost-effective and viable, the U.S. is removing older dams, many of which don’t have fish ladders, because costs to maintain and repair them are too high, as are environmental impacts.

Hydropower will remain part of the clean-energy equation, but we need to find the least disruptive, most efficient methods. Scientist Peter Gleick, president and cofounder of California’s Pacific Institute, says the key to supplying energy to growing populations in a warming world will be to use a diversity of power sources.

“We need to design our energy systems to be resilient in the face of growing uncertainty about technology and climate and national security and all of the factors that affect energy,” Gleick told online magazine Slate.

Written with contributions from David Suzuki Foundation Senior Editor Ian Hanington.

Learn more at www.davidsuzuki.org.

Image: W.A.C. Bennett Dam on the Peace River by Jayce Hawkins

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.

Imagine a world where average temperatures are almost 10 degrees Celsius higher than today, an Arctic with temperatures almost 20 degrees warmer and some regions deluged with four times more rain.

That is the dramatic scenario predicted by a team of climate scientists led by the University of Victoria’s Katarzyna Tokarska, who looked at what would happen if the Earth’s remaining untapped fossil fuel reserves are burned.

Tokarska, a PhD student at UVic’s School of Earth and Ocean Sciences, used simulations from climate models looking at the relationship between carbon emissions and warming — including the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report — and concluded that known fossil fuel reserves would emit the equivalent of five trillion tonnes of carbon emissions if burned.

That would result in average global temperature increases between 6.4 degrees and 9.5 degrees Celsius, with Arctic temperatures warming between 14.7 degrees and 19.5 degrees, says the paper published Monday in the scientific journal Nature Climate Change.

“These results indicate that the unregulated exploitation of the fossil fuel resource could ultimately result in considerably more profound climate changes than previously suggested,” says the study.

“Such climate changes, if realized, would have extremely profound impacts on ecosystems, human health, agriculture, economies and other sectors.”

Simulated changes in precipitation are “extremely large,” according to the paper.

It predicts increases of more than a factor of four in areas such as the tropical Pacific and hefty decreases in precipitation over areas such as parts of Australia, the Mediterranean, southern Africa, the Amazon, Central America and North Africa.

Researchers used the lower boundary of estimates of known fossil fuels, Tokarska said in an interview with DeSmog Canada.

“The (amount of untapped fossil fuels) could be much higher as we didn’t consider unconventional sources, and then the warming would be much higher,” Tokarska said.

The highest temperatures would be reached by the year 2200, but, in the meantime, temperatures will steadily increase unless mitigation measures are taken, the study finds.

“Some people say that that’s so far off, but this is profound climate change if we follow the usual scenario,” Tokarska said.

“What we are doing is showing it’s relevant to know what will happen if we don’t take any action to mitigate climate change — if we don’t ever implement the Paris agreement or other such agreements. It’s a worst-case scenario if we don’t do anything now,” she said.

The Paris agreement, adopted in December last year, sets a target of limiting global warming to below two degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels and to pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5 degrees — a goal supported by Canada.

Based on previous research, the Earth is already halfway towards the two -degree increase in temperature and researchers are now looking at whether it is possible to reach that tougher 1.5 degree target, but Tokarska said they do not yet have those answers.

Worldwide there are growing calls for governments to enforce regulations to keep remaining fossil fuels in the ground and to speed up a move to green economies.

“On a personal level I can say this is kind of a warning message of the likely outcome so we can hopefully do some changes now,” Tokarska said.

Other authors of the paper include Nathan Gillett and Vivek Arora from the Canadian Centre of Climate Modelling and Analysis and Michael Eby and Andrew Weaver from UVic’s School of Earth and Ocean Sciences.

Weaver is also leader of the B.C. Green Party.

Photo: Wendy North via Flickr.

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

If people keep rapidly extracting and burning fossil fuels, there’s no hope of meeting the 2015 Paris Agreement climate change commitments. To ensure a healthy, hopeful future for humanity, governments must stick to their pledge to limit global warming to 1.5 or 2 C above pre-industrial levels by 2050. Many experts agree that to meet that goal, up to 80 per cent of oil, coal and gas reserves must stay in the ground. That makes fossil fuels a bad investment — what analysts call “stranded assets.”

Putting money toward things that benefit humanity, whether investing in clean energy portfolios or implementing energy-saving measures in your home or business, is better for the planet and the bottom line than sinking it into outdated industries that endanger humanity.

Because we still live in a fossil-fuelled world, avoiding investments in dirty fuels and infrastructure is difficult. For individuals who use mutual funds, finding viable plans with no fossil fuel holdings is challenging, but not impossible, especially as demand increases. But while individual investment choices coupled with growing demand for fossil-fuel-free options make a difference, the real momentum is in institutional investments. Even there, public pressure and campaigns have a huge impact.

Many banks and investment advisers are warning clients about the dangers of fossil-fuel-related portfolios, noting that climate agreements, government regulations, reduced demand and market volatility make them risky. Some, such as HSBC, suggest divestment as one route, but note some investors may just want to pull their money from the riskiest sectors, such as coal and oil, or keep investments so they can influence company decisions.

McGill University’s board of governors touted the latter as one reason for rejecting a widespread call to withdraw about $70 million in fossil fuel money from its $1.3-billion endowment fund. But the university appears blind to the problem. In a report to the board, the McGill Committee to Advise on Matters of Social Responsibility wrote, “The Committee is persuaded that the beneficial impact of fossil fuel companies offsets or outweighs injurious impact at this time.” In response, many McGill alumni, including David Suzuki Foundation Quebec and Atlantic Canada director-general Karel Mayrand, returned their degrees.

The inability of students, faculty, staff and the public to convince boards at McGill, the University of British Columbia, Concordia University, Dalhousie University and the University of Calgary to divest shows how entrenched the fossil fuel industry is when it comes to large investors. But it also shows that individuals play a major role in getting institutional money out of the industry. Although these campaigns haven’t convince those boards to divest — yet — they’ve raised awareness about fossil fuel investments.

The divestment campaign has also won numerous successes. A growing number of universities, banks, pension funds, unions, churches, cities, insurance companies, individuals and even the U.K.’s Guardian newspaper have pulled funds — which makes fossil fuel investments even shakier. The David Suzuki Foundation works with Genus Capital to ensure that none of its endowment fund is invested in fossil fuel-related funds, and to develop strategies for ethical investing — which hasn’t harmed returns. In fact, Genus reports, “fossil fuel free investing is proving more profitable than conventional investing.”

According to 350.org, the major force behind the divestment movement, “more than 500 institutions representing over $3.4 trillion in assets have made some form of divestment commitment” as of late 2015.

Divesting is just the start. As 350.org notes, reinvesting in “renewable energy, energy efficiency, and climate mitigation and adaptation infrastructure” not only helps the world shift away from fossil fuels, but is also financially wise. One option besides stock portfolios is to reinvest in initiatives that help the climate and the bottom line, such as making buildings more energy efficient. According to the Guardian, “One conservative report calculated that investing $400,000 on efficiency in a 100,000 square-foot building would deliver $1.50 per square foot in reduced energy costs over a similar building without the efficiency” — for an annual saving of $150,000!

Wastefully exploiting and burning fossil fuels is outdated. There’s no reason to put money into industries that destroy the natural systems that make human life possible. But there are many reasons to stop giving them money. It’s time to invest in a healthier future.

Written with contributions from David Suzuki Foundation Senior Editor Ian Hanington.

Learn more at www.davidsuzuki.org.

Image: Jack Haskell/Flickr

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

By Aimée Slangen, Utrecht University and John Church, CSIRO

Global average sea level has risen by about 17 cm between 1900 and 2005. This is a much faster rate than in the previous 3,000 years.

The sea level changes for several reasons, including rising temperatures as fossil fuel burning increases the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. In a warming climate, the seas are expected to rise at faster rates, increasing the risk of flooding along our coasts. But until now we didn’t know what fraction of the rise was the result of human activities.

In research published in Nature Climate Change, we show for the first time that the burning of fossil fuels is responsible for the majority of sea level rise since the late 20th century.

As the amount of greenhouse gases we are putting into the atmosphere continues to increase, we need to understand how sea level responds. This knowledge can be used to help predict future sea level changes.

Measuring sea level

Nowadays, we can measure the sea surface height using satellites, so we have an accurate idea of how the sea level is changing, both regionally and in the global mean.

Prior to this (before 1993), sea level was measured by tide gauges, which are spread unevenly across the world. As a result, we have a poorer knowledge of how sea level has changed in the past, particularly before 1960 when there were fewer gauges.

Nevertheless, the tide gauge measurements indicate that global mean sea level has increased by about 17 cm between 1900 and 2005.

What drives sea level rise?

The two largest contributors to rising seas are the expansion of the oceans as temperatures rise, loss of mass from glaciers and ice sheets, and other sources of water on land. Although we now know what the most important contributions to sea-level rise are, we did not know what is driving these changes.

Changes in sea level are driven by natural factors such as natural climate variability (for example El Niño), ongoing response to past climate change (regional warming after the Little Ice Age), volcanic eruptions, and changes in the sun’s activity.

Volcanic eruptions and changes in the sun affect sea level across years to decades. Large volcanic eruptions can cause a temporary sea-level fall because the volcanic ash reduces the amount of solar radiation reaching the ocean, thus cooling the ocean.

Humans have also contributed to sea level rise by burning fossil fuels and increasing the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

Separating the causes

We used climate models to estimate ocean expansion and loss of mass from glaciers and ice sheets for each of the individual factors responsible for sea level change (human and natural). To this we added best estimates of all other known contributions to sea level change, such as groundwater extraction and additional ice sheet contributions.

We then compared these model results to the observed global mean 20th century sea-level change to figure out which factor was responsible for a particular amount of sea level change.

Over the 20th century as a whole, the impact of natural influences is small and explains very little of the observed sea-level trend.

The delayed response of the glaciers and ice sheets to the warmer temperatures after the Little Ice Age (1300-1870 AD) caused a sea-level rise in the early 20th century. This explains much of the observed sea-level change before 1950 (almost 70%), but very little after 1970 (less than 10%).

The human factor

The largest contributions to sea-level rise after 1970 are from ocean thermal expansion and the loss of mass from glaciers in response to the warming from increasing greenhouse gas concentrations. This rise is partly offset by the impact of aerosols, which on their own would cause a cooling of the ocean and less melting of glaciers.

The combined influence of these two factors (greenhouse gases and aerosols) is small in the beginning of the century, explaining only about 15% of the observed rise. However, after 1970, we find that the majority of the observed sea-level rise is a direct response to human influence (nearly 70%), with a slightly increasing percentage up to the present day.

When all factors are considered, the models explain about three quarters of the observed rise since 1900 and almost all of the rise over recent decades (almost 90% since 1970).

The reason for this difference can be found either in the models or in the observations. The models could underestimate the observed rise before 1970 due to, for instance, an underestimated ice sheet contribution. However, the quality and number of sea level observations before the satellite altimeter record is also less.

Tipping the scales

Our paper shows that the driving factors of sea-level change have shifted over the course of the 20th century.

Past natural variations in climate were the dominant factor at the start of the century, as a result of glaciers and ice sheets taking decades to centuries to adapt to climate change.

In contrast, by the end of the 20th century, human influence has become the dominant driving factor for sea-level rise. This will probably continue until greenhouse gas emissions are reduced and ocean temperatures, glaciers and ice sheets are in equilibrium with climate again.

Aimée Slangen, Postdoctoral research fellow, Institute for Marine and Atmospheric Research, Utrecht University and John Church, CSIRO Fellow, CSIRO

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article. Main image: A glacier at South Georgia Island. Credit: Flickr/DavidStanley

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.

No one has a better handle on the effect climate deniers have on the socio-political stage than science historian and author Naomi Oreskes.   Her book Merchants of Doubt charts the path of many of the world’s most notorious deniers, skeptics, shills, PR men and experts-for-hire. Plus, as a trained historian and professor of earth and environmental sciences at Harvard, Oreskes has the ability to take a 10,000-foot view when it comes to climate politics and the turning tide of public opinion.   Oreskes recently visited Vancouver to discuss climate change and climate denial in Canada at a talk organized by the Peter Wall Institute for Advanced Studies.     For Oreskes, understanding how climate denial is active in places like Canada involves acknowledging the expansiveness of climate change as an issue, one that cuts across boundaries between government, society and market power.   We asked Oreskes what she makes of Canada’s current political situation — a situation in which our  prime minister announces impressive climate targets on the world stage but then quietly approves B.C.’s first LNG export terminal on a Friday afternoon.   “Of course there is a long road ahead,” Oreskes said. “[Climate change] is a very big issue that reaches into economics, politics and culture.”

“But that does not mean we should discount the very substantial gains that are now being made, especially here in Canada, with the great breakthrough in Alberta.” 

Although new governments on both the provincial and federal level have reinvigorated the prospect of nationwide climate action, Canada has yet to make substantial headway in limiting carbon pollution, Oreskes admits.   A February report from Environment and Climate Change Canada shows the country is not on track to meet its climate targets. Development of oil and gas in both Alberta and B.C. is expected to prevent Canada from getting back on course.   Oreskes says straight-up climate denial is less visible in Canada than it once was, but that doesn’t mean the interests of the fossil fuel industry have disappeared.   A new form of climate denialism is at work, Oreskes argues, one meant to persuade the public that fossil fuels are necessary and renewables unreliable. Alternatives to fossil fuels, Oreskes recently wrote in The Guardian, “are disparaged by a new generation of myths.”   Those myths include the idea that countries like Canada are dependent on new fossil fuel infrastructure for prosperity.   Canada has been beset by a new collective of industry advocacy groups, like British Columbians for Prosperity, Resource Works, Canada Action and Oil Respect, that advance this kind of thinking.   Asked what Canadians should be on the lookout for, knowing that climate denial groups and pro-industry organizations continue to advance a fossil fuel agenda, Oreske said awareness is the first step.   “A lot of groups now are saying, well, yes, maybe there is a bit of climate change, but we can't afford not to fill in the blank: develop tar sands, frack for gas, build new pipelines, etc.”   “This is not a new argument,” Oreskes added. “We've heard it since the early 1990s. I wrote about it back in the 2000s. But we can expect it to be made more strongly post Paris.”   The myths don’t stop there, Oreskes said.   “We are also seeing a line of argument that goes like this: yes renewables are nice, but they are too intermittent and unreliable to be our primary source of power.”   “There are several important recent studies that show this is not true, especially in North America where we have so much solar, wind and hydro.”   One such study, recently published by The Solutions Project research team at Stanford University, outlines how Canada could achieve 100 per cent renewable energy by the year 2050 with a mixture of solar, wind, existing hydro, wave and geothermal energy.   The idea that renewables aren’t reliable has gained a lot of traction, Oreskes said. She added a particularly “egregious and sexist version” of that argument was on full display in Shell’s highly criticized video campaign that compared renewable energy to a fickle woman.   According to a new report by the UK-based Influence Map, Shell spent USD$22 million in 2015 lobbying against climate legislation.   Despite industry-sponsored attacks on clean energy, renewables have taken off in recent years. Nearly $500 billion was invested in clean energy in 2015.   But that figure is overshadowed by global fossil fuel subsidies. The International Monetary Fund estimates government subsidized the fossil fuel sector to the tune of USD$5.3 trillion in 2015 by failing to charge for the climate, environmental and human health impacts of oil, gas and coal combustion.   Oreskes cautions that “because energy is not a free market” we cannot simply rely on market mechanisms to solve the climate conundrum.   “Fossil fuels are still gigantically subsidized,” she said. “So we need to eliminate those subsidies.”   Oreskes added these combined social and political influences driving fossil fuel interests make it dangerous to think the era of climate denial has come to an end.   “It ain't over till its over.”     Image: Naomi Oreskes/TED

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.

A record US$367 billion was invested in renewable energy in 2015, according to a new report out today by the Clean Energy Canada initiative of the Centre for Dialogue at Simon Fraser University.

Renewables investment increased by seven percent since 2014, with China, the US, and Japan representing more than half of the total investment last year, shows the report.

The report also finds that for the first time, more money was invested in clean energy than in new power from fossil fuel ($253bn).

This unprecedented scale of investment is particularly remarkable given the significant drop in oil prices over the last year.

“Turmoil in fossil fuel markets led many analysts to suggest clean energy investment would similarly stall out. How could renewable energy possibly compete with cheap oil, gas and coal?” asks the report.

As it explains: “New clean energy deals were widely expected to stall last year as the price of oil and other fossil fuels declined around the world. Instead, growth in the clean energy sector beat expectations, delivering the best year yet.”

Lower Costs

According to the report, declining technology and financing costs have helped to spur growth in renewable energy. For example, between 2009 and 2015 the cost of wind power in the US dropped 61 percent, while the cost of solar power fell 82 percent.

Much of the speculation was the result of a lack of understanding of renewable energy technology, trends and markets, explained Dan Woynillowicz, policy director at Clean Energy Canada.

While renewable energy competes head to head with natural gas (unlike with oil) “it has a range of attributes that make it attractive,” said Woynillowicz, “energy security, zero air pollution, price certainty, zero carbon, etc.”

Woynillowicz continued: “Renewable energy costs keep falling – and will keep falling – and the long-view suggests they will outcompete natural gas.”

“It’s also worth noting,” he added, “that as the costs fall, it means we get more energy for every dollar invested. So if investment remains stable or increases, we’ll see greater amounts of renewable energy actually deployed.”

Globally, wind power deployment led the way last year, up 31 percent since 2014 with nearly 64 GW installed, with deployment in solar power growing 23 percent.

“The fuel – sun, wind, water – is free,” Merran Smith, executive director of Clean Energy Canada, said in a statement. “There’s no wonder clean energy is gaining momentum around the world.”

“Clean energy is taking off because it offers value that can’t be beat – it’s local, so it offers energy security. It’s a climate solution. It reduces health issues from smog. It’s increasingly competitive, and there’s big money to be made.”

Developing Countries

Last year also marked the first time that developing countries saw more investment in renewable energy ($167bn) than developed nations ($162bn).

India took fifth place for the most clean energy investment in 2015 ($10.9bn) behind China ($110.5bn), the US ($56bn), Japan ($43.bn), and the UK ($23.4bn). Meanwhile, renewable investment in Canada dropped 46 percent from $7.4bn in 2014 to $4bn last year.

As the report describes, 2015 saw a “geographical broadening of clean energy as more developing countries got in on the action.”

Between 2014 and 2015 investment in clean energy in Africa and the Middle East grew 54 percent, up £13.4bn.

Going forward, the report predicts that both of these regions have “significant” potential for clean energy growth due to their growing populations and abundance of wind and solar resources.

Woynillowicz also expects the “staggering rate of investment and deployment” in China to continue. Meanwhile India, which has set aggressive renewable energy targets, will also be one to watch, but Woynillowicz asks: “Will they prove effective and efficient in attracting and deploying capital?”

Going Mainstream

With more than a third of a trillion dollars invested worldwide in renewables last year, Clean Energy Canada is optimistic, stating that “clean energy is going mainstream.”

“That’s serious money,” Smith writes in the report. “Clean energy has real momentum and the commitments underpinning the Paris Agreement on climate change will keep that momentum going.”

The report’s findings are “very encouraging” agreed Woynillowicz, “especially recognising that we saw a third of a trillion invested before the Paris agreement.”

We should expect to see more money being driven into renewables over the next few years Woynillowicz predicts, due to the continued increase in cost competitiveness of renewables and progress in reducing costs of energy storage technologies, combined with the climate benefits of renewables and goals set in the Paris Agreement.

Photo: Tony Webster via Flickr

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

This is a guest post by Josha MacNab from the Pembina Institute. 

Premier Christy Clark has a message for British Columbians: "To grow and diversify our economy, we must have the courage to say yes." Perhaps she should take her own advice.

We know that we need to say yes to an economy that will thrive in a low-carbon future and one that does not lock us into fossil-fuel infrastructure that will become obsolete. We need to say yes to investing in industries that will position B.C. to take advantage of growing demand for clean technology and services. We need to say yes to implementing solutions that ensure we have clean air to breathe and clean water to drink.

Unfortunately, this week's budget announcement wasn't an example of that kind of "yes" thinking. Instead, it was just the latest in a string of missed opportunities for this government to demonstrate that it is making the connection between our economic prospects and addressing climate change.

Tuesday's budget was lacking any significant action on climate change. Only $13 million was earmarked for the Innovative Clean Energy Fund geared towards zero-emission vehicles and infrastructure — a far cry from a comprehensive approach.

However, two of the four flagship spending announcements were in response to the impacts of climate change being felt across the province: $95 million for wildfire prevention and mitigation, and $65 million for flood mitigation and emergency response. We need to see more dollars being invested in reducing B.C.'s contribution to climate change or we will see this kind of spending continue to increase.

It's not hard to imagine what a budget would look like from a government that has the courage to say yes to tackling climate change and growing the economy. While the B.C. government is in the middle of a public consultation on its Climate Leadership Plan (CLP) and unlikely to make any final policy pronouncements before that concludes, here are four announcements that would have indicated they were moving in the right direction:

1. Yes to a process for ending the carbon-tax freeze

The carbon tax is currently frozen until 2018. Without the details of the CLP finalized, we were not expecting to see a commitment to a specific increase or accompanying revenue allocation.

However, a credible CLP will need to include an increase in the carbon tax to transition B.C. to a low-carbon economy. Budget 2016 could have outlined the steps the province intends to take to figure out how to increase the tax while maintaining the competitiveness of our economy.

2. Yes to more funding to implement the Climate Leadership Plan

Again, even without the details of the CLP finalized, we know that implementing the actions in the CLP will require additional resources to be allocated to ministries and will require further investments in staff, programs and incentives. Budget 2016 could have indicated some of these increases or at least the process by which these resource needs would be met.

3. Yes to more resources to support and promote B.C.'s clean-tech sector

Positioning B.C.'s economy to compete in a low-carbon world is a clear no-regrets action that does not require the conclusion of the CLP process to move forward. Supporting the development and promotion of clean-tech companies will require resources. For example, the budget has a line item for promoting B.C. forest products in India. The clean-tech equivalent was absent.

4. Yes to an economic plan that acknowledges the global climate reality

Budget 2016 does not project any revenue from LNG this year, but it does underscore B.C.'s continued intention to develop the sector. As support for this intention, it cites the International Energy Agency's projection of a worldwide increase in natural-gas demand to 2040.

However, as the global economy shifts in response to stronger climate policy — designed to move us closer to 1.5 C to 2 C of warming — the real potential for growth is in renewable energy. Total global demand for renewable energy with strong climate policy in place in 2040 is predicted to be 32 per cent larger than it is for natural gas.

A budget designed to position B.C. well in a low-carbon world would have laid the groundwork to take advantage of the renewable-energy opportunity and better account for the risk of large investments in fossil-fuel infrastructure.

Budget 2016 was a prime opportunity to confirm B.C.'s commitment to climate leadership. Instead, the government is now at greater risk of being counted among the "forces of no" when it comes to taking action to protect British Columbians from a changing climate.

Image: Province of British Columbia

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

This is a guest post by David Suzuki.

With the December Paris climate agreement, leaders and experts from around the world showed they overwhelmingly accept that human-caused climate change is real and, because the world has continued to increase fossil fuel use, the need to curb and reduce emissions is urgent.

In light of this, I don’t get the current brouhaha over the Trans Mountain, Keystone XL, Northern Gateway or the Energy East pipelines. Why are politicians contemplating spending billions on pipelines when the Paris commitment means 75 to 80 per cent of known fossil fuel deposits must be left in the ground?

Didn’t our prime minister, with provincial and territorial premiers, mayors and representatives from non-profit organizations, parade before the media to announce Canada now takes climate change seriously? I joined millions of Canadians who felt an oppressive weight had lifted and cheered mightily to hear that our country committed to keeping emissions at levels that would ensure the world doesn’t heat by more than 1.5 C by the end of this century. With the global average temperature already one degree higher than pre-industrial levels, a half a degree more leaves no room for business as usual.

The former government’s drive to make Canada a petro superpower distorted the Canadian economy into greater fossil fuel dependence, with catastrophic consequences when the price of oil collapsed. The lesson should have been learned long ago: Heavy dependence on a single revenue stream like fish, trees, wheat, minerals or even one factory or industry is hazardous if that source suffers a reversal in fortune like resource depletion, unanticipated cost fluctuations or stiff competition.

Coal stocks have already sunk to the floor, so why is there talk of building or expanding coal terminals? Low oil prices have pushed oilsands bitumen toward unprofitability, so why the discussion of expanding this carbon-intensive industry? Fracking is unbelievably unsustainable because of the immense amounts of water used in the process, seismic destabilization and escape of hyper-warming methane from wells. Exploration for new oil deposits — especially in hazardous areas like the deep ocean, the Arctic and the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and other critical wildlife habitat — should stop immediately.

Pipeline arguments are especially discouraging, with people claiming Quebec is working against the interests of Alberta and Canada because the leadership of the Montreal Metropolitan Community — representing 82 municipalities and nearly half the province’s population — voted overwhelmingly to reject the proposed Energy East pipeline project, which would carry 1.1 million barrels of oilsands bitumen and other oil products from Alberta to refineries and ports in the east. Some have thrown out the anti-democratic and, frankly, anti-Canadian notion that because Quebec has received equalization payments it should shut up about pipeline projects.

National unity is about steering Canada onto a sustainable track and looking out for the interests of all Canadians. Continuing to build fossil fuel infrastructure and locking ourselves into a future of increasing global warming isn’t the way to go about it. Shifting to a 21st century clean-energy economy would create more jobs, unity and prosperity — across Canada and not just in one region — than continuing to rely on a polluting, climate-altering sunset industry. Leaders in Quebec should be commended for taking a strong stand for the environment and climate — and for all of Canada.

The Paris target means we have to rethink everything. Energy is at the heart of modern society, but we have to get off fossil fuels. Should we expand airports when aircraft are the most energy-intensive ways to travel? Why build massive bridges and tunnels when we must transport goods and people differently? The global system in which food travels thousands of kilometres from where it’s grown to where it’s consumed makes no sense in a carbon-constrained world. Agriculture must become more local, so the Peace Valley must serve as the breadbasket of the North rather than a flooded area behind a dam.

The urgency of the need for change demands that we rethink our entire energy potential and the way we live. It makes no sense to continue acting as if we’ve got all the time in the world to get off the path that created the crisis in the first place. That’s the challenge, and for our politicians, it’s a huge task as well as a great opportunity.

David Suzuki is a scientist, broadcaster, author and co-founder of the David Suzuki Foundation.

Photo: Shannon Ramos via Flickr

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