Greenhouse gas emissions in B.C. spiked in 2018, reaching their highest levels since 2001, with oil and gas extraction, off-road industrial transport and heavy-duty diesel vehicles among the culprits, according to data released by the provincial government on Thursday.

The figures show 2018 gross emissions totalled 67.9 megatonnes (Mt) of carbon dioxide equivalent , an increase of seven per cent since 2007 and an increase of 2.2 Mt from 2017.

The numbers push the province further away from its targets of a 40 per cent reduction from 2007 levels by 2030. B.C. is now 14 per cent further from its 2030 target than it was in 2007.

The gap between the 2007 and 2018 numbers was higher than expected because the federal government has changed the way emissions are calculated, according to a government news release.

A change in the way marine transport emissions are calculated means B.C.’s 2007 baseline year was revised downwards by 1.3 Mt. Meanwhile, new estimates for fuel use in oil and gas extraction, heavy duty vehicles, commercial and institutional buildings and light-duty gasoline powered trucks means 2017 figures were revised upwards by 1.3 Mt.

“Taken together, these two technical changes made by the federal government for previous years’ emissions were equivalent to 2.7 Mt or more than 75 per cent of the gap between the new 2007 emissions baseline and 2018,” the government said.

In 2019, the provincial government had noted figures from the 2007 baseline year were revised upwards.

Because the data is from 2018 it does not include any reductions from actions undertaken as part of CleanBC, the climate action and clean economy plan implemented in 2019 that includes programs such as encouraging home retrofits and  the use of electric vehicles.

B.C. Environment and Climate Change Minister George Heyman said in a statement that the numbers reinforce the need to take action to address climate change and noted the independent Climate Solutions Council is providing advice to government on how to reach the goals.

“For example, our government is taking action to drive emissions down by requiring all new light-duty vehicles to be zero emissions by 2040. We’re making electric vehicles more affordable and convenient for people through CleanBC rebates and an expanded charging network . . .  We’re also working to reduce emissions from industry with investments in emissions-reduction projects,” Heyman said in the emailed statement.

“CleanBC remains the strongest climate plan in Canada, but it will still take time to make up for the lack of climate action in previous years,” he said.

Karen Tam Wu, B.C regional director of the Pembina Institute, a non-profit think tank focused on energy, told The Narwhal she hopes some CleanBC programs, such as the popular vehicle incentives, will show up in 2019 figures and that new accountability legislation, with annual tracking of progress towards CleanBC targets, will make a difference.

Carbon reduction targets by sector should also help pinpoint opportunities for reductions, she said.

Many questions about whether the targets are achievable centre around the fossil fuel industry and provincial approval of liquified natural gas (LNG) projects. At full buildout the LNG Canada project, under construction in Kitimat, will add an estimated four megatonnes of emissions a year at the terminal alone, with an additional nine megatonnes of upstream greenhouse gas emissions from fracking and transportation, according to a recent report by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives.  

The report found that if LNG Canada comes online, emissions from just oil and gas production will exceed B.C.’s 2050 climate target by 160 per cent, even if emissions from the rest of the economy were reduced to zero. The B.C. government has pledged to reduce emissions by 80 per cent from 2007 levels by 2050. 

Fact check: are B.C.’s LNG ambitions compatible with its climate goals?

“Certainly the oil and gas sector and specifically the gas industry continue to be the single largest source of emissions in B.C.,” Tam Wu said.

LNG emissions won’t show up until about five years from now and, in the meantime, some industry emissions should decrease because of new methane regulations and electrification, she said.

“What this does point to is that 75 per cent of B.C.’s emissions are from fossil fuel use and, in a low carbon economy, 20 years from now, moving into 2050, we are going to have to see that shift significantly if we are going to have any chance of achieving our climate targets,” she said.

B.C. Green Party interim leader Adam Olsen said the NDP government cannot talk about transitioning to clean energy and continue to subsidize and approve oil and gas projects.

“You will never have a successful transition if you don’t create the conditions for the shift. We need to stop approving oil and gas projects and, instead, focus all of that money and legislative support on renewable energy sources and sustainable careers,” Olsen said in a news release.

Climate change must be met with the same commitment to science as the COVID-19 pandemic, Olsen said.

The Green Party collaborated with the NDP government in developing the CleanBC program and Sonia Furstenau, Green Party MLA for Cowichan Valley, said she is hopeful the policies will lead to reductions.

But there is a long way to go and lessons from the pandemic should be used to protect vulnerable British Columbians from climate change, she said.

“There are lessons we can take from this challenging time. Things we never thought were possible are suddenly happening,” Furstenau said in a press release.

“British Columbia’s economic recovery efforts should respond to the present while preparing us for the future. It’s not just possible that the transition to a clean economy could create jobs, it’s inevitable,” she said.

Updated at 10 a.m. on Aug. 8, 2020, to correct an error. According to the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, LNG Canada’s facility will add an estimated four megatonnes of emissions a year at the terminal and nine megatonnes of upstream greenhouse gas emissions from fracking and transportation, at full build-out, not in the first phase.

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 article originally appeared on the Pembina Institute website.

Over the past 50 years, the development of the oilsands has changed the face of Alberta, driving innovation and technology to make oilsands a reality. The oilsands are the third largest oil reserve on earth, and despite a cycle of boom and busts, contribute to the prosperity of the province. Industry, however, has not addressed many of the largest environmental impacts generated by the oilsands, and much work is still left to be done. This blog is part of a series where we look back at the last 50 years of the oilsands industry and shed light on a number of the remaining challenges.

After 50 years of production, the oilsands remain among the world’s most carbon intensive large-scale crude oil operations. Studies continue to back this up.

The Carnegie Endowment’s Oil-Climate Index suggests most oilsands crude is associated with 31 per cent more emissions than the average North-American crude from the point of extraction through its lifecycle to the point of end use (See Figure 1).

Figure 1. Emissions associated with the full lifecycle of a crude (from extraction to combustion) for a selection of crudes produced in North America

When looking at the carbon pollution associated with the extraction and processing, the Oil-Climate Index suggests that the oilsands generate 2.2 times as many emissions per barrel than the average crude extracted in North America (See Figure 2).

Figure 2. Emissions associated with the extraction and processing for a selection of crudes produced in North America

The latest data on carbon emissions associated solely with oilsands extraction indicate little improvement over time. Industry likes to celebrate the changes it implemented to reduce emissions and waste, but the greatest of those were one-off advances in emissions intensity nearly 20 years ago.

Since then, the emission intensity from oilsands extraction increased nine per cent between 2004 and 2015, as illustrated in Figure 3.

Figure 3. Emissions intensity of oilsands extraction between 2004 and 2015

In short, the emission intensity of mining operations increased by seven per cent  between 2004 and 2015, and this trend will certainly continue as producers access deeper, lower quality bitumen and the distance from mines to processing facilities increases.

Although in situ operations’ emission intensity decreased by eight per cent between 2004 and 2015, this production type still produces 58 per cent more greenhouse gas emissions than surface mining. Because in situ has become the dominant form of extraction and has a higher intensity than mining, the overall emissions intensity of the sector continues to grow.

Data sources

• Emission intensities from North-American crudes are sourced from Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Oil-Climate Index, “Viewing total emissions,” 2016.
• Greenhouse gas emissions are sourced from Environment and Climate Change Canada, National Inventory Report 1990-2015: Greenhouse Gas Sources and Sinks in Canada,  Table A10–2, 2017.
• Bitumen production is sourced from Alberta Environment and Parks, Oil Sands Information Portal, “Total Oil Sands Production Graph.”

Alberta #Oilsands Most Carbon Intensive Crude in North America: Analysis https://t.co/KhIJqElvt8 via @Pembina @ben_yyc #emissions #ableg

— DeSmog Canada (@DeSmogCanada) October 16, 2017

Image: Alberta oilsands. Photo: 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.

The Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP), Canada’s largest oil and gas lobbyist group, asked the federal government to introduce a carbon pricing scheme that would “recycle” revenues back into oil and gas operations, documents released via Freedom of Information legislation reveal.

The documents, released to Greenpeace Canada, contain an August 2016 submission CAPP provided to the federal government in which the group argues a price on carbon should be revenue neutral for industry.

“One of the decisions governments need to make is what to do with the revenue generated from the carbon pricing mechanism,” the document reads. “There are many options available to enable innovation for distribution of this generated revenue; CAPP recommends that to enable innovation, revenue generated by industrial emitters is best recycled back to industry for technology and innovation.”

Keith Stewart, senior energy strategist for Greenpeace Canada, says, “The oil industry formally supports action on climate change (in exchange for pipeline approvals) but wants to shape how the policy is implemented so as to minimize the impact on its own operations.”

In a summary piece for Policy Options, Stewart says the recommendation to channel carbon taxes back into industry operations “dramatically weakens the effectiveness of the federal policy.”

“The primacy advantage of a carbon price is that it sends an economy-wide signal to investors and consumers, leading to a shift to lower-carbon options. If the largest share of the revenue goes back to the oil industry, the signal to investors to switch to low-carbon energy is muted.”

Pressure from CAPP comes as the federal government is preparing to release the first Gazette I version of greenhouse gas emissions for the oil and gas sector later this month.

Industry lobbying efforts successfully staved off greenhouse gas emission regulations for the oil and gas sector throughout the entirety of former Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s 10-year rule. Further lobbying efforts also stymied a European effort to label fuel from the Alberta oilsands as more carbon intensive than other fossil fuels.

Under the international Paris Agreement and the Pan-Canadian Framework on Clean Growth and Climate Change, Canada has committed to a 2030 target of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 524 megatonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent, a 30 per cent reduction from 2005 emission levels.

Environment and Climate Change Canada estimates new oil and gas regulations will reduce emissions by 20 megatonnes (MT), greater than Nova Scotia’s total emissions at 17 MT.

The upstream oil and gas sector is Canada’s fastest growing source of greenhouse gas emissions.

In addition to imposing a nationwide carbon pricing mechanism — provinces have until 2018 to implement one or have one imposed — the federal government is also implementing regulations to reduce methane emissions from the oil and gas sector.

CAPP Lobbies Government to ‘Recycle’ #CarbonTax Revenues Back to Oil Industry https://t.co/U6ydduAMfn #ableg #cdnpoli @carollinnitt pic.twitter.com/JEtq49vlNk

— DeSmog Canada (@DeSmogCanada) March 3, 2017

CAPP’s Fight Against Methane Regulations

Additional internal documents released to Greenpeace Canada show CAPP overestimated the cost of implementation and argued the new rules will damage industry’s competitiveness.

“Canadian production is already at risk of being displaced by U.S. competition,” a CAPP presentation made to the federal government in September 2016 reads.

It is “not a good time to impose additional costs on industry,” a slide states.

In March 2016, former president Barack Obama and Justin Trudeau announced an ambitious plan to nearly halve methane emissions from the oil and gas sector by 2025.

In Canada the reductions would be the equivalent of removing every passenger car from the roads in both B.C. and Alberta.

Canada’s forthcoming methane regulations are expected to outline how the sector will achieve those reduction targets.

CAPP, however, recommended the federal government delay implementation of methane regulations beyond the currently proposed 2020 and argued some aspects of the rules, such as mandatory retrofitting of all equipment or regular equipment inspections, should be voluntary.

CAPP’s argument that the new rules are too costly is simply a negotiating tactic, Stewart says.

“CAPP says that the cost to industry of implementing the federal methane regulations would be roughly triple what Environment Canada calculates: $4.1 billion over eight years, compared with Environment Canada’s estimate of $1.3 billion,” Stewart writes.

“Industry push-back on environmental regulations is to be expected and is most effective when conducted behind closed doors.”

Image: Machinery operates in the Alberta oilsands. Photo: Kris Krug/DeSmog

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

It’s 31 degrees outside and I was planning to go to the lake this afternoon — and I’d be willing to hazard a guess that many British Columbians are in the same boat.

That’s exactly why B.C. Premier Christy Clark chose tomorrow to release her Climate Action Plan — originally scheduled for release nearly six months ago.

Politicans often "take out the trash" on Fridays during the dog days of summer and this time is no different.

The plan — according to a leak in the Globe and Mail today — will fail to increase the carbon tax or update greenhouse gas reduction targets.

Those were two of the cornerstone recommendations from the province’s own expert committee.

“The depths of August on a Friday afternoon is not the time you release a plan that you want a lot of people to pay attention to,” said Josha MacNab, B.C. director for the Pembina Institute.

Pembina was a member of the Climate Leadership Team comprised of environmental, academic, business and First Nations leaders. The team presented 32 recommendations reached by consensus (except for one dissenting vote by LNG Canada on the carbon tax recommendation).

“The Climate Leadership Team was very clear that the recommendations needed to be accepted as a package and they warned against picking and choosing amongst the recommendations that they put forward,” MacNab said.

MacNab says she is shocked the government appears ready to cherry pick from the recommendations.

“The premier herself appointed this panel to give her advice to get B.C.’s emissions back on track because under her leadership they have been going up,” MacNab said.

B.C. had promised to reduce its emissions by 33 per cent below 2007 levels by 2020. That’s not going to happen.

Instead, emissions are expected to increase 39 per cent above 2014 levels by 2030, according to modeling by the Pembina Institute.

Now the province will continue touting its pie-in-the-sky goal of reducing emissions by 80 percent below 2007 levels by 2050 — without any credible pathway to get there.

.@ChristyClarkBC Hopes You’re Not Reading This https://t.co/1SZDfJqUVY #summertime #holidays #bcpoli #climateactionplan

— DeSmog Canada (@DeSmogCanada) August 19, 2016

That puts B.C. in stark contrast to Canada’s other most populous provinces — Ontario, Quebec and even Alberta, all of which are projecting a decrease in emissions.

Merran Smith of Clean Energy Canada was a part of Clark's Climate Leadership Team and says B.C. has a legal obligation to reduce carbon emissions.

"We’ve been a climate leader in the past and our economy has thrived as a climate leader so I’m a bit shocked that this government has put all its eggs in the oil and gas basket and really procrastinated on climate action," Smith said.

"The carbon tax is the cheapest and most effective way to reduce carbon pollution. And that’s why it was a key part of our recommendations," Smith added. "We didn’t create a shopping list of different ways to reduce carbon pollution to meet our targets. We created a cohesive, coherent plan and you need all those different recommendations to work together in order to reduce carbon pollution."

Clark appears poised to defend her inaction on the basis of protecting “affordability for families” and maintaining a “strong economy.”

But the old dichotomy of environment versus economy is false, according to MacNab.

“The mandate of the Climate Leadership Team was to present a plan that met B.C.’s climate targets and maintained a strong economy. A strong climate plan going forward needs to meet our climate targets. But a strong climate plan also needs to position B.C. to be competitive in a low-carbon economy — in an increasingly de-carbonizing international market.”

In an attempt to placate anyone who’s paying attention, the province will announce feel-good measures like rebates on electric vehicles and incentives for industry to switch to electricity tomorrow.

The Globe and Mail has also reported that the plan will include details of the electrification of upstream natural gas production, one of the ever-changing justifications for building the controversial $8.8 billion Site C dam on the Peace River.

And therein lies the rub. Clark desperately wants to develop a natural gas industry — but she can’t do that and meet B.C.’s climate targets.

Instead of all the smoke and mirrors, it’d sure be refreshing if someone would just come out and tell the truth.

As it stands, the plan to be released tomorrow ought to be named B.C.’s Climate Inaction Plan. Question is: if we’re all at the lake, will it matter?

Photo: 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.

The Site C dam, advanced as the province’s showcase clean energy project by the B.C. government, will cause significant environmental damage without any significant climate benefit, according to a new report from the University of British Columbia.

Authored by Rick Hendriks from Camerado Energy Consulting, the report found Site C, a BC Hydro megadam proposed for the Peace River near Fort St. John, will not provide energy at a lower greenhouse gas (GHG) emission rate than other alternative energy projects.

“The government stated that the unprecedented level of significant adverse environmental effects from Site C are justifiable, in part, because the project delivers energy and capacity at lower GHG emissions than the available alternatives,” Hendriks, an energy consultant with more than 20 years experience analyzing large-scale hydropower projects, said.

“Our analysis indicates this is not the case.”

Comparing BC Hydro’s own data on Site C and alternative energy scenarios, the report found the megadam provides no substantial benefit over other renewable sources like wind and solar.

“I feel like the discussion in the public has made a few assumptions about the Site C dam that merit reexamination,” Karen Bakker, professor of geography at UBC and Canada Research Chair in Political Ecology, told DeSmog Canada.

“The assumption that Site C is clean and green is one that we actually need to scrutinize rather than assume,” she said.

Bakker, who oversaw the new greenhouse gas analysis, is one of several scholars who recently found the Site C project represents the largest amount of significant adverse environmental impacts ever reviewed under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act since its introduction into law.

She said although the joint federal-provincial review panel tasked with considering the Site C project did some good work, they were limited in resources and scope when it came to a fulsome project analysis. The panel did not consider the greenhouse gas emissions associated with the project.

“That’s the simple way to sum up why we’re doing what we’re doing,” she said.

Bakker said the report did not conduct an independent review of BC Hydro’s own greenhouse gas estimates for the project, but said, “even using their own numbers Site C is not cleaner or greener than other renewables.”

“Our analysis suggests that other renewables like wind and solar would help Canada achieve its climate change goals more quickly and cheaply and with much lower environmental impact than Site C.”

Bakker said the new report highlights the need for more thorough analysis of Site C’s environmental impacts. She added more research, which doesn’t rely on BC Hydro’s estimates, needs to be conducted.

“There’s much more to be done,” she said. “It would be great if this had been studied and geothermal had been examined as well.”

The Site C dam will power a proposed 1100-megawatt electricity facility, producing far more electricity than B.C. is projected to need for roughly two decades.

Local farmers, landowners and First Nations say the dam, which will flood 107 kilometres of the Peace River valley, will unnecessarily destroy wildlife habitat, First Nations archaeological and hunting sites and some of the province’s most productive agricultural land.

The chair of the Site C Joint Review Panel, Harry Swain, has come out against the project, saying B.C.’s domestic electricity demand has not significantly increased since 2007, meaning the province has no need for the estimated $9-billion project.

“I think we’re making a big mistake, a very expensive one,” Swain recently told DeSmog Canada. “Of the $9 billion it will cost, at least $7 billion will never be returned. You and I as rate payers will end up paying $7 billion bucks for something we get nothing for.”

“There is no need for Site C,” Swain said. “If there was a need, we could meet it with a variety of other renewable and smaller scale sources.”

Swain and the other panel members were prevented from making a recommendation on the Site C project, saying their review was too limited in scope and that the province consistently failed to investigate alternatives to the dam.

Bakker said the new greenhouse gas report highlights the need for more thorough and independent analysis of Site C. She urged the federal government to take the new information into consideration.

“The federal government committed to doing greenhouse gas assessments of all projects — upstream and comprehensive assessments,” Bakker said, saying both Environment Minister Catherine McKenna and Natural Resources Minister Jim Carr promised as much in their January 27th statement on project reviews.

“We are sending a copy of this report to those ministers suggesting what we’ve done is a small input into what should be a much bigger process and asking who is doing that review, because that is what they’ve committed to.”

Bakker said how the federal government proceeds with the Site C project will determine whether or not Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and his cabinet will honour their campaign promises and public mandates.

“The most significant precedent-setting litmus test in all of this is the First Nations issue,” she said.

“The fact that this government hasn’t publicly assessed whether Site C would infringe treaty rights, despite the fact that the joint review panel presented evidence that directly supports the claim that treaty infringements would occur, is a problem.”

“But we want to make sure that the broader discussion about balancing that against Canada’s climate change goals is not continuing on the basis of false assumptions.”

Image: W.A.C. Bennett Dam and the Williston Reservoir on the Peace River. Photo: Jayce Hawkins/DeSmog Canada

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.

Federal and provincial climate policies unveiled over the last year are paving the way for Canada to massively increase the amount of energy the country gets from renewable sources, according to a new analysis released today by Clean Energy Canada.

“For the first time the federal government and the provinces are working together to establish a national climate plan,” Dan Woynillowicz, policy director at Clean Energy Canada, said. “A big piece of the puzzle is not just cleaning up the grid, but electrifying other parts of the economy reliant on fossil fuels.”

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s government is drafting a ‘pan-Canadian clean growth and climate change framework’ to be released this fall. Meantime, last year Alberta and Saskatchewan, Canada’s main oil and gas producing provinces, set ambitious renewable energy targets. And Ontario recently announced one of the most cutting edge greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction plans in Canada to date.

All of that means things are finally looking up for clean energy in Canada. Federal and provincial politicians now need to make good on their climate pledges for the country to reap even bigger benefits from this $500 billion global industry.

“There’s never been a greater opportunity to move forward on this file for Canada. There is certainly reason for optimism,” Robert Hornung, president of the Canadian Wind Energy Association, told DeSmog Canada.

“We are in a unique moment in time. Not just the federal government, but Ontario, B.C., Quebec, and Alberta have all expressed climate change as a priority,” Hornung said.

Clean Energy Canada says the renewable energy challenge facing Canada right now is different from other heavy greenhouse gas emitting countries like China or the U.S. Nearly 80 per cent of all Canadian electricity comes from non-GHG emitting sources (including nuclear power), three-quarters of which is hydroelectricity.

In the United States, on the other hand, fossil fuels produce close to 70 per cent of the country's electricity.

“We have a comparative advantage in Canada because our grid is already pretty clean,” Woynillowicz told DeSmog. “Canada is in an enviable position.”  

While other countries are focused on switching their electricity base from fossil fuels to clean energy, Canada has a different challenge. Sectors heavily dependent on fossil fuels  — oil and gas, transportation, and industrial processes — have hardly any renewable energy in the mix at the moment.

That means to reduce emissions Canada needs to do things like shift to electric vehicles and efficient electric-based home heating systems (like air and ground source heat pumps).

Has #CleanEnergy's Time Finally Come in #Canada? https://t.co/xncUcQSaPM @standearth @merransmith @SciPolEnv pic.twitter.com/9QMtSvt81X

— DeSmog Canada (@DeSmogCanada) June 16, 2016

“Clean electricity is one of the best tools to fight climate change,” Clean Energy Canada’s executive director Merran Smith told DeSmog Canada. “As we shift to power our economy by clean electricity there will be an increase in demand for electricity and we need that to be clean electricity.”

In B.C., that raises the specter of the controversial Site C dam, but even with an increased demand for electricity in the future (demand in B.C. has been flat for the past 10 years), Site C isn’t necessarily the best solution according to Smith.

“From an economic perspective, Site C is concerning because the cost of renewables like wind and solar power have been dropping dramatically,” she said.

“In the U.S. the price of solar has dropped 80 per cent over last six years and the price of wind has dropped 60 per cent over the last six years. As the cost of those keep going down, that makes them attractive — whereas eight of the last 10 hydro projects built globally have gone over budget.”

A new report released by Bloomberg New Energy Finance this week found that wind and solar will be the cheapest ways of producing electricity in many countries during the 2020s and in most of the world in the 2030s.

“The good news for B.C. is we already have so much large hydro, we really can add intermittent renewables on easily because we already have the large hydro that acts as a battery and acts as storage,” Smith said.

“We could build solar and wind in 100 megawatt units as we need it in rural communities. It could create work around the province. And we could bring it on line as we need it. So a decade from now when we need another 100 MW, it will be even cheaper.”

Woynillowicz sees the emerging national climate framework as the space to address how to power more of the Canadian economy with renewable energy.

“That’s the place to articulate a clear priority of electrification and establish renewable energy targets,” Woynillowicz said. “It will change the conversation around climate away from where jobs are going to be lost to what we are going to create and build.”

Studies have shown the two pillars to decarbonizing any industrialized economy are to first transition completely to non-GHG emitting electrical generation and then run the economy off this clean electricity.

Clean Energy Canada’s analysis highlights energy storage and electricity sharing between provinces as areas where Canada is starting to break ground in electrifying the economy. In regards to the latter, Hornung would like to see more happen politically.

“What the federal government could do is provide a platform for provinces and territories to talk about the shared challenges they face in optimizing their electricity systems and enable collaborative relationships,” Hornung told DeSmog Canada.

Hornung points out more renewable energy is sold to the United States than shared between provinces right now.

Ontario and Quebec, and Alberta and Manitoba have all signed separate memorandums of understanding to take steps toward integrating their electrical grids.

In a report released in February, Clean Energy Canada warned Canada was falling behind its peers on the international stage in terms of renewable energy investments. At the time, it was estimated clean energy investments in Canada had dropped by a whooping 46 per cent, while they increased in the U.S., China, India and the United Kingdom.

However, when analysts with Clean Energy Canada took a deeper dive into the numbers for this latest report, they uncovered the decrease in investments was only 15 per cent when accounting for all clean energy projects, making 2015 the second biggest year for renewable energy investments in Canada.

Meantime, the country’s installed clean energy capacity grew by four per cent last year despite that drop in investment dollars, which the think tank concludes was likely due to policy uncertainty.

Smith noted that an increased price on carbon is needed to level the playing field.

“Right now fossil fuels are getting a free ride for their pollution,” Smith said. “Clean energy is the future. This train is going in one direction and that’s off of fossil fuels and onto clean energy.”

— With files from Emma Gilchrist.

Image: 1010/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.

Environment Minister Catherine McKenna earlier this month said the federal government does not have a preferred carbon pricing system. Whether the provinces and territories go with cap and trade or a carbon tax, McKenna simply wants to see Canada produce less greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.

“I just care about how do we reduce emissions at the end of the day,” McKenna said during a panel discussion on Canadian climate action in Ottawa. “That is the most important piece.”

Unlike the previous federal government, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s government has made putting a price on carbon pollution a priority. A recent meeting between premiers and the federal government on a national climate strategy nearly broke down last March because of the Trudeau government’s insistence on a national minimum carbon price.

“The carbon pricing lobby sucked all the air out of the room,” leading Canadian energy economist Mark Jaccard told DeSmog Canada. “What we should be doing is looking at those jurisdictions that have made progress and learn from them instead of closing our eyes saying ‘I want a carbon price and don’t bother me with the evidence.'" Jaccard is not opposed to carbon pricing. In fact, he believes given Canada’s current political climate a national cap and trade system is feasible.

What concerns Jaccard is policymakers pushing for emissions pricing as the centerpiece of a Canadian climate plan are overlooking the success regulations have had in reducing GHG output.  

“You can meet our Paris Agreement targets strictly with emissions pricing whether cap and trade or a carbon tax. You can also do it strictly with regulations,” Jaccard said. “What looms large in the discussion is political acceptability.”

Jaccard’s and his research team at Simon Fraser University have put together a rather convincing case showing regulations are responsible for cutting more GHG emissions than carbon pricing systems in Canada and elsewhere in the world.

The evidence is not that hard to find either.

“The policy that had the biggest effect in B.C. was the electricity regulations I helped design for Gordon Campbell’s government in 2007, not the carbon tax,” Jaccard told DeSmog. “It forced BC Hydro to tear up two proposals for coal plants and abandon its own plans for a large natural gas plant.”

Halting the construction of three fossil fuels powered electrical facilities prevented four times more emissions than B.C.’s world famous carbon tax will cut, according to Jaccard. The carbon tax is expected to reduce B.C.’s annual emissions by 3 to 5 megatonnes in 2020. The province’s clean electricity regulation on the other hand will keep between 12 and 18 megatonnes out of the atmosphere by the same year.  

Ontario eliminating coal-fired power plants remains the “single largest regulatory action” in North America to reduce GHG emissions, the equivalent of taking seven million cars off the road.

Nova Scotia does not have a carbon price and yet the province is expected to lead all provinces and territories in future GHG reductions. Regulations like adopting North America’s first “hard caps” on GHG emissions in the electricity sector, setting ambitious renewable energy targets and tightening up energy efficiency standards have all put Nova Scotia in position to shrink its carbon footprint by 37.5 per cent in 2020.

“Is a carbon price more economically efficient? Of course it is more economically efficient,” Jaccard said. “All I am saying is can’t we — we so-called experts like me — learn a little bit from evidence from around the world, from what’s gone on in Canada and that’s the reason I might talk about regulations.”

Regulations and Carbon Pricing: A Fair Comparison?

Promising GHG regulatory actions are on the horizon in Canada as well.

The Alberta government last year pledged to phase out coal-powered electricity by 2030, which will take a 17 per cent bite out of the province’s large carbon footprint. Alberta produces more emissions than Ontario and Quebec combined.

Last March, Canada and the U.S. agreed to introduce national regulations halving methane emissions in their respective oil and gas sectors. Methane is a powerful greenhouse gas packing a global warming punch far more potent than carbon dioxide.

Measuring Canadian carbon pricing systems against Canadian GHG regulations may not seem like a fair comparison. For an entire decade, the previous federal government went out of its way to slam the mere idea of making polluters pay from their emissions.

Carbon pricing has only recently recovered from this unwarranted attack.

But the success of regulations in reining in GHG emissions can be seen outside of Canada as well. Jaccard says analysts in Sweden and California — two carbon pricing pioneers — have told him regulations are responsible for reducing the majority of their emissions. Sweden adopted a carbon tax in 1991 and California has had a cap and trade system since 2012.

Joseph Pallant, manager of Brinkman Climate, said regulations do have a role to play in addressing climate change although they may not be enough on their own.*

“The question is not regulation or carbon pricing – we must clearly do both. Governments should regulate greenhouse gas emitting activities where doing so is efficient, but regulation alone can be a bit of a blunt instrument. We find it much more effective to spur innovation and implement new, clean technologies across the whole economy by putting a price on carbon,” Pallant told DeSmog Canada.

“Otherwise,” Pallant added, “we set 10 year targets and then wring our hands in year eight because we're off track and need to set another distant goal. Can’t stop climate change with discipline like that.”

Pallant argues regulations are not always a slam dunk. He points to the promised oil and gas regulations of the Harper government, which were years in the making, and never saw the light of day. Emissions from oil and gas grew substantially during the Harper years and now the sector is Canada’s biggest contributor to climate change.

Regulations can take more time than carbon pricing systems to be crafted and implemented as well. It took Ontario roughly five years to produce province-wide coal phase out regulations, but only a year to table legislation for a cap and trade system.

With Canada and the rest of the world in a race against the clock to curb emissions in order to avoid the worst effects of climate change, delays on climate action have the potential of exacerbating an already dire situation.

“Carbon pricing is at its best where we implement a cap and trade system, making it more expensive to pollute by creating a specific limit on emissions. The carbon price then automatically rises to the level needed to pay for the required emissions reductions,” Pallant said. “Transparency is a key feature, as we can draw a line between our emissions today, and what we've committed in the future and know that we’re hitting our target year on year.”

“People interested in stopping climate change should be wary if pundits or governments try to pivot from carbon pricing and concrete emissions reductions because of some perceived difficulty in implementing such systems,” Pallant told DeSmog. “Nobody said this would be easy — but if we can’t do it in today’s socio-political climate, when will we ever be able to?”

But for Jaccard, ‘trying’ might mean finding more creative ways of understanding new roles for regulations in the energy marketplace.

Jaccard said he sees great value in what he calls “niche market” regulations. These regulations create space in the economy for the technological solutions to the climate crisis like electric cars or solar panels.

“What you want is a growing share of vehicles, for example, that have the desired characteristics of the future penetrating your market,” Jaccard said. “Regulations tell manufacturers that if you want to keep selling Hummers or big Ram trucks you can still do that, but you need a growing share of sales in low, ultra low and zero emission vehicles.”

“With niche market regulations the retailer has to pay a penalty per car if they miss their target. What they do or what they must be doing even though they don’t talk about it is cross subsidizing,” Jaccard told DeSmog Canada.

An example of cross subsidization is a California car retailer adding an additional $70 per vehicle on big sellers like SUVs and then using that money to decrease the price of lower emissions vehicles like Teslas, and hybrids. Increasing the affordability of low emissions vehicles could in turn help boost sales and meet the quota. A new, clean energy industry can expand without being utterly dependent on government subsidies.

“With a cap and trade you are trying to limit a bad like carbon dioxide,” Jaccard said. “With regulations like the renewable portfolio standards and the vehicle emissions standard in California instead we have decided we want more of something.”

California’s Zero Emissions Program requires 10 per cent of vehicle sales to be zero emissions vehicles. By 2025, the quota increases to 15 per cent or 270,000 new vehicle sales.

Canada does not have zero emissions vehicle quotas for cars. Close to two million vehicles were sold in Canada last year and an estimated 5,700 or 0.33 per cent were zero emissions vehicles.

The transportation sector is Canada’s second largest producer of GHG emissions.

*Correction: This article has been updated to reflect Joseph Pallant is manager of Brinkmann Climate, not president of the Carbon Solutions Project as previously stated.

Image: 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.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau confirmed Wednesday the federal government will meet with Indigenous leaders and premiers in Vancouver in early March in the hopes of laying out the framework for a national climate strategy.   “I look forward to working with the premiers on combatting climate change and moving toward a greener, more sustainable Canadian economy better positioned to compete globally in the areas of clean knowledge and technologies,” Trudeau said in a media release.

The Prime Minister announced he will meet with Indigenous leaders on March 2 to inform a national climate framework discussion with the premiers in a First Ministers' Meeting scheduled to take place March 3. First Ministers' Meetings did not occur under former prime minister Stephen Harper.

According to Clare Demerse, Ottawa-based energy policy adviser with Clean Energy Canada, the meeting provides an unprecedented opportunity to discuss Canada's renewable energy transition.   “The right people will be in the room to move forward on a national approach [to climate change]," Demerse told DeSmog Canada. "Whether it’s electrical production, or natural resources extraction, provinces make big decisions on energy in Canada."

Meeting to Capitalize on Low-Carbon Economy

According to the Prime Minister's press release, the Vancouver meetings "will focus on effective ways to adapt to climate change, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and capitalize on the opportunities presented by a low-carbon economy to create good-paying and long-term jobs." 

“We’d really like to see the conversation in Vancouver be about what we're going to build, not just about what we’re going to cut,” Demerse said. “How many electric cars will we see on the road? How are we going to make buildings more energy efficient? How much solar, wind and water power needs to be produced in 2020 or 2030?”   “This is not to say reduction targets shouldn’t be discussed. But the discussion needs to be more focused on the ‘how’ instead of just the number."   Canada was one of the only countries among the world’s top ten greenhouse gas gas emitters not to provide a national clean energy plan to the United Nations in the lead up to the Paris climate talks last December. Other heavy emitters like the United States, European Union, China and even Mexico submitted plans with clean energy targets along with their GHG reduction targets.    The $125 billion the Liberal Party promised during the federal election to invest in infrastructure could go a long way encouraging provinces and territories to adopt strong climate policies.    “The low-carbon infrastructure dollars could be used to reward a province or territory for raising its carbon price, or for adopting stronger climate policies,” Demerse said.   Green infrastructure and public transit were two priorities in the Liberals infrastructure spending pledge. The Liberals also committed to increasing Canada’s Low Carbon Economic Trust to $2 billion.

Feds Could Set a National Minimum Carbon Price

Carbon pricing could also play an important role during the first ministers meeting.   “The First Ministers will consider all policy measures at their disposal to make sure Canada can take advantage of the significant appetite for expertise in the clean growth economy,” the PMO announcement states.   Currently, British Columbia, Alberta, Ontario and Quebec all have some sort of carbon pricing system: either cap and trade or carbon tax. Last December, Manitoba announced it would join Ontario and Quebec’s cap and trade market, which is linked with California’s.   Unlike his predecessor, Trudeau is a supporter of making polluters pay for their greenhouse gas emissions. He is also an advocate of the provinces and territories choosing the system that suits them best.   The problem now lies with the different prices on emissions in different provinces. B.C.’s carbon tax is $30 per tonne of carbon, but Quebec’s carbon price, which is meant to fluctuate, is about half that.    “Eventually Canada will want one coherent national carbon pricing market. The bigger the market, the more diverse the opportunities to reduce emissions,” Demerse said.   “But we aren’t quite there yet, and certain provinces have done a lot of leg work to create their own carbon pricing systems. So, to create consistency between the different system and jurisdictions, the federal government should set a national minimum price on carbon."

Image Credit: PMO Photo Gallery

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

After languishing in the darkness for ten years, a national climate policy in Canada could take shape during an anticipated first ministers meeting in Vancouver next month. The meeting fulfills a Liberal election promise “to establish a pan-Canadian framework for combating climate change” and meet with provincial ministers within 90 days of the UN COP21 climate negotiations in Paris.    “If there ever was a time this could work it would be now,” Jennifer Allan, PhD candidate and researcher with International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD), said. “Canadians are mobilized and there’s more momentum for change than there’s been in the recent past, if ever.”   “The federal government and the provinces are not going to be able to sneak anything weak — or failure — out the backdoor,” Allan told DeSmog Canada.   Although Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has not officially announced the meeting to discuss a national climate plan with the premiers, the government of Newfoundland and Labrador published a media release earlier this week identifying March 3 as the date of the first ministers meeting to discuss a national climate change framework. 

Other sources confirmed the meeting will be held on March 3rd during the Globe Series, an international environmental business summit in Vancouver.

The early March date falls just within the federal government’s pledge to hammer out a climate framework with the provinces ninety days after the climate talks. The Liberal Party platform promised to meet with the provinces with the intended goal of establishing a national framework for combating climate change, “to develop real climate change solutions, consistent with our international obligations to protect the planet, all while growing our economy."   The task before the prime minister and premiers ­— figuring out how to rein in Canada’s rising greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions — will be a difficult one. The most recent emissions data from Environment and Climate Change Canada shows the country is way off course in meeting the weak GHG reduction targets set under the previous Conservative government.

  Source: Environment and Climate Change Canada, January 29th, 2016.

Under former Prime Minister Stephen Harper, Canada indicated it would reduce its GHG output only by roughly 14 per cent based on 1990 levels by 2030. The Trudeau government has said it wants to improve on this target, but has not said by how much.   Canada currently exceeds 1990 levels by 18 per cent.

Climate Action Creates Jobs 

Politically, the ground does not appear very fertile for the provinces, territories and federal government to all agree on a climate strategy that must include a plan on how to diminish Canada’s dependence on fossil fuels. Canada has agreed to phase out the use of fossil fuels by the end of the century and eliminate net carbon emissions by 2050.    Last month, Montreal-area mayors received criticism from Alberta and Saskatchewan politicians for refusing to support the proposed Energy East oil pipeline.   Even CBC personality Rick Mercer derided Montreal for suggesting the environmental risks of the pipeline outweigh potential economic rewards.   The low price of oil has sent the Canadian dollar on a downward spiral and triggered job losses in the oil patch. Many in Canada are concerned what a downward turn in oil production could mean for the economy.   “There’s unfortunately this old myth out there if the economy isn’t doing well it is certainly not the time to talk about environmental protection,” Allan said. “There’s been a lot studies done showing across the world climate action creates jobs.”   A 2014 report found the clean energy sector employs more people than the oilsands (also called tar sands), despite the $1.3 billion in subsidies the oil and gas industry receives from the federal government.   Globally, clean energy is a booming $300 billion industry right now.   Paris Agreement Should Guide a Canadian Climate Strategy

Under the Paris agreement, countries pledged to reduce GHG emissions in order to cap the rise in global temperatures at “well below 2C” (Celsius) and even “pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5C.”   “The reference to 1.5 is a call for greater ambition than we’ve seen in the past,” Allan said, who attended the Paris talks as part of IISD’s Reporting Services Division.   “I think this will give some leverage for those within Canada who want to see the contributions put forward by the Harper government strengthened,” Allan told DeSmog Canada.   But the Paris agreement is light on details in regards to actual hard GHG reduction targets. The agreement allows countries to set GHG targets and reduce emissions in whatever way suits them.   Allan says this may be a blessing or a curse.   “The Paris agreement gives countries a tremendous amount of flexibility. In Canada’s case, the doors are open for us to come up with meaningful climate action in a way that is best for our economy and political structure. This is a good thing,” Allan said.   “This also means there is very little guidance in terms of policies and targets we should undertake,” Allan told DeSmog.   The commitment to keep planet’s temperature increase “well below” two degrees or even at 1.5 degrees (Canada was one of the countries pushing for the inclusion of 1.5 during the Paris talks) will have to be guiding principle in creating a national climate strategy if Canada is serious about breaking with past climate inaction and meeting international obligations.   Another nugget from the Paris agreement that could inform the first ministers meeting in Vancouver is the concept of no backsliding on previous commitments. Countries are expected to submit their plans to cut GHG emission to the UN every five years. Each plan is suppose to outdo, that is, outline deeper GHG cuts than in the previous one.   “So in a way the conversation starting now with the premiers is the first go around. Chances are they are going to have this conversation every five years or so to see what they can do that is more ambitious than the last time,” Allan said. 

Photo Credit: US EPA

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.

This is a guest post by Jens Wieting, forest and climate campaigner with the Sierra Club B.C.

If you live in British Columbia you might think that our province is a climate champion, because you heard it from our government. Last month, for example, the provincial government sent out a bold press release touting B.C. as a world leader in climate action. The release highlighted B.C.'s carbon tax and the accomplishment of "meeting our 2012 GHG reduction target."

However, just a few days later, the Canadian government released its latest greenhouse gas emissions data showing that B.C.'s emissions actually increased by 2.4 per cent in 2013 (to 63 million tons of greenhouse gases, from 61.5 in 2012). This is a big deal, because the threat of global warming has reached a point at which we cannot afford our annual emissions to continue to increase.

In March, the monthly global average concentration of carbon dioxide passed 400 parts per million. When the concentration of greenhouse gases was last this high, temperatures were several degrees warmer and sea level many metres higher.

If we want to curb rising temperatures and sea levels, we need immediate and far-reaching annual emission reductions, especially in industrialized nations like Canada. There is only one path to stabilizing the climate: annual emissions must decrease every year and they can never go up. This is the first step towards saving our climate — don't make our annual carbon pollution worse.

Fortunately, many countries around the world are now taking steps into the right direction and are reducing their annual emissions, from Europe to the U.S.

China managed to reduce coal consumption for the first time in 2014. Thanks to renewable energy success and other breakthroughs, global annual emissions remained stable in 2014, and didn't go up as usual.

Image courtesy of Visualcarbon.org

The B.C. government release announced that work on Climate Action Plan 2.0 is about to begin and that "the Province is challenging other jurisdictions to match or exceed the world-leading standard B.C. has set for climate action." It is great to hear that work on a new climate action plan has begun. But this plan needs to be grounded in an honest assessment of our success to date, not wishful thinking.

So what progress has our province made so far? Eight years ago, the province set a relatively ambitious target: to reduce B.C.'s emissions by 33 per cent of 2007 levels by 2020. Unfortunately, the new data shows we are way off track, with a reduction of only 2 per cent and only 5 years to go to our deadline.

In contrast, the European Union had reduced emissions by 19 per cent in 2013, compared to 1990 levels. By contrast, B.C.'s 2013 emissions were 13 per cent higher. Premier Christy Clark's claim that B.C. is still a "world leader in the fight against climate change" is highly misleading.

The 2013 emissions increase is a wake-up call and the province must take immediate action to reverse this trend. Among the many measures needed is phasing out fossil fuel subsidies and re-establishing the annual increases in the carbon tax rate.

But perhaps the most important step to make it possible for B.C. to get back on track is for the province to introduce a "climate test" for all energy infrastructure projects — a mandatory assessment of the full carbon footprint of new coal, oil or gas infrastructure projects.

For example, the B.C. government has not yet given up its goal to build at least three LNG terminals by 2020, which would lead to a massive ramp up of fracking in the province.

This would increase provincial emissions by more than 50 per cent, entirely incompatible with the idea of saving a livable climate. We must cease making these large, long-term capital investments in new fossil fuel infrastructure because they would lock in additional emissions for decades. This is crucial for getting out of the hole: Stop digging.

B.C. has a diverse economy with many opportunities to strengthen low-carbon sectors with a bright future like clean technologies, renewable energy, tourism, creative industries, forestry and agriculture. We must restore our forest's function as carbon banks by increasing forest conservation and improving forest management.

Our province can become a real climate leader through a full shift away from gas, oil and coal, to climate solutions that create more and better jobs. This would allow us to actually meet our reduction targets and aim for new ones.

B.C. should follow Premier Clark's suggestion to "meet or beat" the world-leading standard for climate action and adopt the same target that California and the European Union set their eyes on: a 40 per cent reduction of 1990 emissions levels by 2030.

In light of the failure of the Canadian government to take the threat of global warming seriously it is time for the provinces to step up to the plate and inspire hope on the road to the important climate summit in Paris at the end of the year.

Image Credit: Tina Lovgreen via BCIT

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.