The Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency (CEAA) never considered the cumulative greenhouse gas emissions of the Pacific NorthWest LNG export terminal, according to documents revealed in a federal court this week.

The documents were submitted to a federal court in Vancouver during a hearing to determine whether the information should be considered as part of a forthcoming judicial review of the federal government’s decision to approve the LNG project.  

SkeenaWild Conservation Trust filed for the judicial review of the project’s approval and received 17,000 pages of federal documents under disclosure — the release of information required by law during legal proceedings. SkeenaWild hired two experts to give expert testimony on those documents.

One of those experts Kirsten Zickfeld, a climate scientist and associate professor of geography at Simon Fraser University, testified in a sworn affidavit that CEAA did not provide the federal government with an assessment of cumulative emissions from the project and that these emissions “should be assessed, especially…in terms of their share of a provincial or national ‘carbon budget.’ ”

A second expert, policy and technical analyst from the Pembina Institute Maximilian Kniewasser, testified in a sworn affidavit that Canada considered imposing conditions on the project to limit carbon pollution, such as requiring the project be powered by grid electricity rather than natural gas, but chose not to despite doing so to varying degrees for two other LNG projects, LNG Canada and Woodfibre LNG.

The federal government and Pacific NorthWest LNG asked the court to strike the affidavits from consideration as evidence on the basis that they are “inadmissible…extrinsic evidence.”  

Greg Knox, executive director of SkeenaWild, argued the two affidavits should be considered as evidence in the upcoming judicial review, likely to take place this fall.

“We are not trying to bring in new evidence,” Knox told DeSmog Canada, “just evidence to the court to show in black and white that the agency failed to provide the minister and cabinet with the proper information to make an informed decision on the project.”

Pacific NorthWest LNG To Take Up Big Chunk of Canada’s Carbon Budget

Zickfeld, an expert in climate modelling and carbon budgets, served as the lead author of the UN Special Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) on the 1.5 degree target.

Under the Paris Agreement, the majority of the world’s governments, Canada included, have agreed to limit global temperature increase to well below 2 degrees Celsius with a goal of limiting that increase to 1.5 degrees.

Efforts to work towards that goal, Zickfeld outlines, will require countries to cap their climate pollution through carbon budgets.

Depending on the type of carbon budget Canada selects, Pacific NorthWest LNG could eat up 2.5 to 11 per cent of the country’s total all-time climate pollution allowance.

“Over the lifetime of the project (here assumed to be 30 years), these annual emissions add up to about 360 million metric tons of CO2 cumulative emissions,” Zickfeld wrote.

A large part of what makes liquefied natural gas exports so carbon-intensive is the process of turning natural gas into a liquid. The process requires running massive compressor stations 24/7 to cool gas to -162 degrees Celsius, the point at which gas turns into a liquid that can be loaded onto tankers.

In the second document Kniewasser concludes the carbon emissions from the project could have been significantly reduced had the agency assessed the technical and economic feasibility of powering the LNG terminal with grid electricity, rather than with natural gas.

“I described two alternatives to power LNG projects other than burning natural gas: using grid electricity to power non-compression load, and using grid electricity to power compression load,” he wrote in his affidavit.

These alternatives could have reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the project by between six per cent and 44 per cent, or 8 and 57 megatonnes of carbon emissions, every year, Kniewasser stated.

“These potential emissions reductions are especially significant given the project’s long operating life, B.C.’s legislated long-term climate targets, and Canada’s Paris climate commitments.”

Feds Never Considered Cumulative #Climate Impacts Of Pacific Northwest #LNG, Court Docs Reveal https://t.co/CX9llm7KZ2 #cdnpoli

— DeSmog Canada (@DeSmogCanada) July 14, 2017

Much of Pacific Northwest LNG Review Conducted Behind Closed Doors

The fact that cabinet was not apprised of the cumulative climate impacts of Pacific Northwest LNG was not a matter of public knowledge, Knox told DeSmog Canada.

“In the type of environmental assessment process we had for this project, none of that was made available to the public. And it was never provided to the public until we requested it through the legal process,” he said.

Under what is know as a standard environmental assessment process, the Canadian Environmental Assessment agency conducted a review of Pacific NorthWest LNG with no public hearing, no cross examination and no full public disclosure of documents submitted during the duration of the review.

About half of the documents that were used in the assessment process weren’t on the public record, Knox said.

“When we got those documents in the spring, that is when we got some expert witnesses to comment on the complete lack of cumulative effects assessment for climate pollution and an assessment of the viability of using electricity from the grid to reduce emissions.”

“Under CEAA both of those things should have been done and the minister in cabinet should have been given that information. That poses the question: what sort of discussions and deals were done behind the scenes and why wasn’t this proper process done to reduce and assess the climate pollution from this project?”

Knox said the federal government’s decision to approve Pacific NorthWest LNG conflicts with promises to take meaningful action on climate change.

“When the government and industry are teaming up to argue against doing their due diligence on the climate impacts of this project, it’s really disconcerting,” he said.

“I think that government in this case is standing up for the interests of industry. We believe we’re bringing information and evidence forward that is in the public’s interest.”  

Kirsten Zickfeld Affidavit PNW LNG by DeSmog Canada on Scribd

Max Kniewasser Affidavit (Apr 27 2017) by DeSmog Canada on Scribd

Crown's Motion to Strike Zickfeld and Kniewasser Affidavits PNW LNG July 2017 by DeSmog Canada on Scribd

PNW LNG Motion to Strike Zickfeld and Kniewasser Affidavits July 2017 by DeSmog Canada on Scribd

Image: Federal ministers and Premier Christy Clark annouce the approval of the Pacific Northwest LNG terminal in September 2017. Photo: B.C. Government via Flickr (CC BY-NC-ND 2.0)

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 a stunning and historic move, Alberta elected a majority New Democrat government on Tuesday.

The Progressive Conservatives, which finished in third place, consistently mismanaged the environmental and climate change file.

Ralph Klein, controversial premier from 1992 to 2006, despised the Kyoto Protocol and infamously flipped the bird at an activist who was protesting against a new Al-Pac pulp mill. Subsequent premiers often talked about improving environmental regulations, but seldom acted on it.

It’s yet to be known how different things will be under the NDP, but their win certainly marks a significant shift in sentiment.

“Together, we need to start down the road to a diversified and resilient economy,” newly crowned Alberta Premier Rachel Notley said in her victory speech. “To end the boom-and-bust roller coaster ride we’ve been on for far too long. It won’t happen overnight. But we must start, and we will.”

Notley also noted that she looks forward to working with Prime Minister Stephen Harper and other premiers on a “national approach to the environment and to Canada's energy sector that builds bridges and opens markets.”

Notley has said she won’t continue to promote the TransCanada Keystone XL and Enbridge Northern Gateway pipelines, but is in favour of Kinder Morgan’s Trans Mountain and TransCanada’s Energy East.

“It’s unclear, so far, what the NDP will do with the oil and gas sector, particularly the oilsands which is the fastest growing source of GHGs in Canada,” said Ed Whittingham, executive director of the Alberta-based Pembina Institute. “We’re eagerly awaiting their plan for dealing with it.”

The NDP’s platform was vague when it came to greenhouse gas emissions, saying the party “will take leadership on the issue” and “first steps will include an energy efficiency strategy and a renewable energy strategy.”

Those are both crucial policy points, especially when one considers the PCs have delayed the release of their renewable energy strategy since 2008. The climate change framework — originally intended for release last October — was allegedly being released in June. It’s unclear what the change in government will mean for that, or what the NDP’s plan is for augmenting the current, esoteric carbon levy.

“What we want now is for the new government is to really show the immediacy of the problem and tell the bureaucrats that those plans have to get done,” Whittingham said regarding the framework.

The NDP also committed to phasing out coal-fired power stations (the incredibly polluting fossil fuel is currently used for 43 per cent of electricity generation in the province) and expressed an intention to implement a green retrofitting loan program to help Albertans reduce energy usage via installation of solar and new furnaces, windows and doors.

The NDP also committed to diverting remaining money allocated to carbon capture and storage — a controversial technology former premier Jim Prentice once dubbed a “science experiment” — to public transit.

A more contentious component of the NDP’s platform involves a review of non-renewable resource royalties — called the “Resource Owners’ Rights Commission” — which would examine the amount of money the province makes from its oil and gas resources. While such a review wouldn’t automatically translate to increases in royalties (which sunk former premier Ed Stelmach), it does have energy sector CEOs concerned.

Any money made from “incremental royalty revenue” would be channelled into the Heritage Savings Trust Fund, the province’s sovereign wealth fund, which would then be used to invest in renewables or diversify the economy. That particular idea was critiqued by Andrew Leach, professor of energy policy at the University of Alberta, in a detailed Maclean’s feature on the NDP’s energy policies.

“If the premise is to use resource revenues to provide low-cost capital to otherwise non-viable economic activity in the province today, I’d call that spending and dispense with the need to flow the dollars through a fund,” he wrote.

The NDP’s infatuation with refining raw bitumen is something else that Leach (as well as fellow Maclean’s columnist Colby Cosh) has critiqued. In addition to being potentially uneconomical due to sheer investment costs and lack of comparative advantage (contrasted with, say, Texas or Louisiana), refineries would only increase Alberta’s reliance on petroleum products and services, writes Leach.

A surprising omission in the NDP’s platform was details about oilsands monitoring and regulation, something the PCs were often criticized for. The Alberta Environmental Monitoring, Evaluation and Reporting Agency was created in 2014 as a joint agency between the federal and provincial government, with funding from the energy sector.

But in the October 2014 auditor general’s report, it was noted that the agency’s annual report for 2012-2013 was delayed 15 months, “lacked clarity and key information and contained inaccuracies.” As a result, the auditor general suggested the governments could “fail to carry out their plan for monitoring the environmental impacts of oil sands development.”

At this stage, there are more questions than answers about what the NDP will mean for Alberta on the energy and environment file — but one thing’s for sure: those concerned about climate change have more reason to hope today than they did yesterday. 

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.

On Friday afternoon, federal Environment Minister Leona Aglukkaq sent a letter to Canadian premiers detailing how each of their provinces are falling short on targets to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 2020.

In her message Aglukkaq notes that the provinces of Alberta and British Columbia are the furthest from reaching their targets. Ontario, Saskatchewan and Quebec are next on the list.

Unfortunately, neither B.C Premier Christy Clark nor Alberta Premier Jim Prentice will be attending tomorrow’s Premiers' Summit on Climate Change in Quebec City.

Bloomberg News reported on Friday afternoon that Clark would be skipping the meeting to attend a World Bank meeting. On Monday morning the Office of the Premier of Alberta confirmed to DeSmog Canada via phone that Prentice would not be attending the summit either.

As part of its 2020 targets, British Columbia pledged to reduce its annual greenhouse gas emissions from 62 gigatonnes per year to 42 gigatonnes per year. Environment Canada predicts British Columbia’s emissions will actually rise to 69 gigatonnes per year by 2020. More distressingly, these figures do not account for the new emissions that would be created by new liquefied natural gas development or the two oilsands pipeline and tanker projects under consideration.

Alberta projects its emissions will increase from 232 gigatonnes per year to 260 gigatonnes per year by 2020. Environment Canada expects emissions will rise to 287 gigatonnes per year instead.

In total, the gap between B.C. and Alberta’s targets and their projected emissions is 54 gigatonnes per year, or approximately 0.1 per cent of the world’s total GHG emissions in 2010.

Finding ways to reduce these emissions through collaborative action is the focus of tomorrow’s climate summit in Quebec City. Organized by Quebec Premier Phillipe Couillard, the one-day summit is also an opportunity to finalize the Canadian Energy Strategy.

Earlier today, Ontario and Quebec signed a groundbreaking cap-and-trade deal to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The plan — which shares many elements of the one implemented by Quebec in January of this year — requires companies to reduce their emissions or purchase credits from other companies as an offset and is co-managed with the U.S. state of California.

Nova Scotia's Premier Stephen McNeil also confirmed they will not attend the Premiers' Climate Summit.

To find out more about where each province stands on climate action, read our DeSmog Primer.

Image Credit: Province of British Columbia 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.

Canada can reduce its carbon footprint by 90 per cent, play its part in the fight against climate change and grow its economy at the same time according to a recent report by the United Nations Sustainable Development Solutions Network. 

“This is a really important piece of analysis for Canada. It shows that we can cut our carbon pollution dramatically by 2050, making a strong contribution to tackling climate change, while growing our economy by over 200 per cent,” Clare Demerse, a senior policy advisor at Clean Energy Canada says.

By powering transportation, buildings and electricity with largely renewable energy (water-power, wind, solar) and biofuels and applying wide spread use of greenhouse gas (GHG) capturing technologies such as carbon capture and storage (CCS) in the oil and gas sector the report argues Canada can cut its GHG emissions production by 90 per cent by 2050 based on 2010 levels.

The catch is none of this can happen unless Canada implements policies effectively regulating the production of GHG emissions, something the federal government has so far been unable to do.

“Many of the major changes described in the Canadian decarbonization pathway will not occur without strong policy signals, which will require public support and in many cases will be driven by public pressure,” the UN network concludes. 

Electrification of the Economy Is the Key to Reducing GHG Emissions 

Reducing GHG emissions of transportation and buildings sectors by 97 per cent and 96 per cent respectively are the “two of the core foundations of the Canadian deep decarbonization pathway.” The key to reaching these targets is a substantial shift to renewable energy.

Canada's projected GHG emissions by sector by 2050 in a 90 per cent GHG emissions reduction scenario. Source: UNSDNS

“Decarbonizing electricity production is essential, since it is a precondition to reducing emissions throughout the rest of the economy through electrification,” the report states.

Water-power (Canada’s largest source of renewable energy), biomass, wind and solar are projected to lead the way in decarbonizing Canada’s electrical supply with wind and solar generating as high as 17 per cent and 10 per cent of Canada’s electricity respectively.

Oil consumption for transportation will need to plummet with the majority of Canadian vehicles running off of biofuels, hydrogen or electricity in the 90 per cent GHG emissions reduction scenario. The report sees a slight shift to mass transit (trains, buses) over personal vehicles and a large transformation from trucks to trains for freight.

Electricity production (left) and fuel consumption (right) by source by 2050. 

“The results the modelers presented are one way to hit the target they were given, but they’re not a prescription. As they point out, Canadians and our governments will need to make policy choices about what kind of low-carbon path makes the most sense for us,” Demerse told DeSmog Canada.

British Columbia’s successful and surprisingly popular carbon tax and Quebec’s cap-and-trade system are two homegrown Canadian climate policy examples Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s government could follow to fulfill Canada’s international responsibilities to cut global warming GHG emissions.

Report Surprisingly Projects Oil and Gas Output Will Double by 2050

The report assumes Canada can remain an oil and gas “energy superpower” in a world that has gone nearly zero-carbon. The report predicts Canadian oil and gas production will double by 2050 as well.

“The report’s assumptions on global oil demand seem a little unrealistic. Studies have shown that demand will drop as countries transition to low carbon economies,” Professor Mark Jaccard, an energy economist at Simon Fraser University says.

Canada's GHG emissions by sector (2010 baseline). Source: UNSDSN

“If Canada is able to power its cars and buildings with virtually zero fossil fuels by 2050, why wouldn’t the rest of the world want to do the same? If global demand for oil drops, oil prices will drop too — and then we would see far lower production than the oilsands industry is counting on today,” Demerse told DeSmog Canada.

To keep the oil and gas sector in play in a near zero-carbon scenario the report recommends Canada employ widespread use of technologies such as carbon capture and storage (CCS) in the sector. CCS captures carbon emissions, and converts them into a dense fuel that can be transported to sites below ground for storage.

Canada only has one operational CCS project. The Pembina Institute, an energy policy think tank, predicts Alberta alone will need twenty-five large-scale CCS projects to meet its own GHG emissions reduction targets.

“Why would companies adopt expensive CCS (carbon capture and storage) technology if at the moment they can dump waste into our atmosphere for free?” Jaccard says.

The authors of the report admit CCS is not “commercially viable” in Canada at the moment given “current climate policy stringency.” The low price on carbon and lack of regulations on GHG emissions in the Canadian oil and gas sector provide very little financial incentive for companies to invest in expensive technologies that decrease the carbon footprints of their operations.

“Until there are regulations on carbon in Canada technologies like CCS are going nowhere,” Jaccard told DeSmog Canada.

Unclear If the Oilsands Have A Place In A Decarbonized Canada

The UN network behind the report is unable or unwilling to say if the oilsands (also called tar sands) industry, the fastest growing source of GHG emissions in Canada, has a future in a low carbon Canada. The report cites “literature conflicts on whether production from the oil sands can be cost-effective in a deep decarbonization scenario.”

Image Credit: Blue Green Canada, United Nations Sustainable Development Solutions Network

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

An alarming new study published Tuesday by the National Audubon Society says that almost half the bird species in the continental United States and Canada are already threatened by climate change.

The study — Audubon’s Birds and Climate Change Report — finds that 126 species will lose more than 50 per cent of their current ranges by mid-century with no possibility of relocating if global warming continues at its current pace.

“A further 188 species face more than 50 per cent range loss by 2080 but may be able to make up some of this loss if they are able to colonize new areas,” an accompanying media release says. “These 314 species include many not previously considered at risk. The report indicates that numerous extinctions are likely if global temperature increases are not stopped.”

“It’s a punch in the gut. The greatest threat our birds face today is global warming,” Audubon Chief Scientist Gary Langham, who led the investigation, said in the media release.

“That’s our unequivocal conclusion after seven years of painstakingly careful and thorough research. Global warming threatens the basic fabric of life on which birds — and the rest of us — depend, and we have to act quickly and decisively if we are going to avoid catastrophe for them and for us.”

Audubon President and CEO David Yarnold described the potential loss as staggeringly horrific.

“This report is a roadmap, and it’s telling us two big things: We have to preserve and protect the places birds live, and we have to work together to reduce the severity of global warming,” Yarnold said.

The report, which studied 588 bird species, says a number of iconic birds in the continental United States and Canada — including the Bald Eagle, the Common Loon and Baltimore Oriole — are under increasing threat.

Protecting birds, the non-profit conservation organization’s report added, will require both redoubling conservation efforts to safeguard critical habitat and curbing greenhouse gas emissions.

Coincidentally, the Audubon study was published the same day as a World Meteorological Organization (WMO) report found that the level of atmospheric greenhouse gases reached a new record high in 2013.

The Geneva-based WMO’s annual Greenhouse Gas Bulletin said the 2013 levels were fuelled by a surge in levels of carbon dioxide, a finding that may make politicians and national governments work harder and more cooperatively to fight climate change.  

According to a related WMO media release, the report showed that between 1990 and 2013 there was a 34 per cent increase in radiative forcing — the warming effect on our climate — because of long-lived greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide (CO2), methane and nitrous oxide.

“In 2013, concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere was 142 per cent of the pre-industrial era (1750), and of methane and nitrous oxide 253 per cent and 121 per cent respectively,” the release said.

WMO Secretary-General Michel Jarraud said there is no doubt our climate is changing and our weather is becoming more extreme due to human activities such as the burning of fossil fuels.

“The Greenhouse Gas Bulletin shows that, far from falling, the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere actually increased last year at the fastest rate for nearly 30 years. We must reverse this trend by cutting emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases across the board,” Jarraud said. “We are running out of time.”

Noting that carbon dioxide remains in the atmosphere for many hundreds of years and in the ocean for even longer, he said the report provides scientific data politicians can use to make decisions related to climate change.

“We have the knowledge and we have the tools for action to try to keep temperature increases within 2°C to give our planet a chance and to give our children and grandchildren a future,” Jarraud said.

“Pleading ignorance can no longer be an excuse for not acting.”

Image Credit: Tambako The Jaguar 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.

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

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

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

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

Russian reports more accurate than Canada

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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