For more than two decades, Mark Jaccard has been penning “report cards” about Canada’s environmental track record. The results haven’t been pretty.

Jaccard, a veteran professor in Simon Fraser University’s School of Resource and Environmental Management, notes his annual evaluations were harnessed in the mid-2000s by Stephen Harper (then serving as federal opposition leader) as arguments for why the Conservatives deserved a shot at governing the country.

Those report cards were used as “a way of saying ‘look how incompetent the Liberals are, they haven’t done anything on climate, we’re not going to achieve Kyoto but let us get into power and we will set a new target in 2020 and implement regulations immediately to achieve that target,’” Jaccard recalls.

The Conservatives eventually formed a minority government in 2006 and became the majority government after the 2011 election.

Jaccard’s latest report card, released on October 6, concludes the Conservative Party has since “implemented virtually no policies that would materially reduce emissions” despite making significant emissions pledges for 2020 and 2050.

The five-page report notes the Conservative government has scored a “failing grade” for neglecting to introduce easily realizable policies in the sectors of transportation, electricity generation, construction and industry. Jaccard concludes the absence of such actions shows “they must have had no intention” of dealing with climate change.

“I know there are a lot of people in the Conservative Party — because they talk to me — who are disgusted that the current leader is so against implementing policies that would have no political cost to him but would reduce emissions,” he says. “I don’t know what [Harper’s] issue is, I don’t try to guess what’s in his mind, but he could do so much more.”

Harper’s Climate Policies Insignificant

Of course, the Conservative government has consistently told a different tale, pointing to regulations on coal-fired power plants built after 2030 and vehicle energy efficiency rules as instances of action on the climate change front.

However, Jaccard notes there are no new coal plants planned in the near future and that vehicle efficiency standards introduced under Prime Minister Harper don’t have nearly the same impact as regulations introduced in jurisdictions like California.

In short: the policies that Harper has introduced technically exist but are by no means enough to get Canada as close as it needs to be to emissions targets.

“Any academic will give you the same answer I did,” Jaccard says. “It’s got nothing to do with partisanship.”

In the report, Jaccard outlines three primary reasons why politicians like Harper don’t act on environmental policy: the absence of compulsory policies such as carbon taxes or sector-by-sector regulations, the global nature of climate change (requiring far larger jurisdictions such as China to cut emissions before seeing obvious impacts) and the absence of an independent monitoring service that provides feedback about progress.

It’s the latter factor that Jaccard has attempted to change with the annual “report card.”

Canada’s 2020 Climate Target Now Unachievable

Jaccard also notes his conclusions aren’t born from a particular animosity towards conservative parties, pointing out that Gordon Campbell, long-time premier of British Columbia, introduced very effective climate change policies such as the Clean Energy Act while sharing similar ideological stances as Harper.

Canada’s 2020 target is now unachievable due to the country’s laggard approach, Jaccard writes.

The 2050 target, requiring a 65 per cent cut in emissions, would require “an almost complete transformation” of the economic system. As a result, every day counts.

If the country opted for an economy-wide carbon tax — a move favoured by many economists — Jaccard estimates it would need to be introduced at $50/tonne, increasing to $150/tonne by 2020 (for reference, B.C. taxes carbon at $30/tonne).

But for Jaccard, the technicalities of a future transition — whether it’s a carbon tax, cap-and-trade or sector-by-sector regulation — doesn’t matter so much as some sort of move being made. The longer the country waits, he warns, the more economically catastrophic such moves will be given the potential stranding of fossil fuel assets and compounding of climate change-related costs.

“If the Conservative Party had overthrown [Harper] in the last year, I would be saying ‘let’s see what they do,’” Jaccard concludes.

“But because they have not and given the idea of him continuing as prime minister, any of the other parties would be better.”

Image: Mark Jaccard via Running on Climate

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

A new study published today in the journal Nature finds the vast majority – 99 per cent – of Canada’s oilsands are “unburnable” if the world is to avoid a global temperature rise of more than 2 degrees Celsius. 

The study, co-authored by Christophe McGlade and Paul Ekins, also found over 80 per cent of the world’s current coal reserves and half of all gas reserves similarly need to remain unused. 

Given changing market conditions that are already making the production of expensive and carbon-intensive fossil fuel reserves – like oilsands crude – more difficult, the authors concluded that a concerted effort to limit global warming would result in a massive drop in Canadian oil production.

The extraction of bitumen would “drop to negligible levels after 2020 in all scenarios because it is considerably less economic than other methods of production,” the report states.

The use of in situ mining and carbon capture and storage (CCS) to limit greenhouse gas emissions from oilsands production would only slightly move the needle, according to the study, with a total of 85 per cent still remaining unburnable despite these efforts. The authors also predict CCS, a process both the government of Canada and the oil and gas industry are increasingly relying on, will have a limited role to play in a world taking action to limit global warming.

“Because of the expense of CCS, its relatively late date of introduction (2025), and the assumed maximum rate at which it can be built, CCS has a relatively modest effect on the overall levels of fossil fuel that can be produced before 2050 in a 2C scenario.”

The authors argue that keeping within that 2C target will require an entirely reworked relationship with carbon and a concerted effort to keep reserves underground.

“A stark transformation in our understanding of fossil fuel availability is necessary,” the authors write in the paper’s conclusion, adding, “in a climate-constrained world…large portions of the reserve base and an even greater proportion of the resource base [recoverable under current economic conditions] should not be produced if the temperature rise is to remain below 2 degrees Celsius.”

The new research for the first time uses a single integrated model to analyze the world’s oil, gas and coal reserves and what portion of the remaining global ‘carbon budget’ countries might claim given the type and location of their reserves.

Within their analysis McGlade and Ekins found the Middle East holds over half of the world’s unburnable oil and that Canada has the lowest utilization of its deposits – the majority of which are buried in bitumen stores – while the U.S. has the world’s highest.

Coal is by far the most restricted fossil fuel resource in the study with 82 per cent of global resources remaining unburned before 2050.

The region assignment of unburnable reserves can be seen in the chart below:

In December countries will gather at the UN climate summit in Paris to sign an international climate deal meant to limit rising greenhouse gas emissions and global atmospheric temperatures. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in order to avoid a temperature rise above 2C the carbon budget between 2011 and 2050 must be limited to between 870-1,240 gigatonnes of CO2.

However, as the study’s authors point out, global fossil fuel reserves surpass that number by three times.

Given the urgent need to limit the use of current resources, the study makes the point that policy action on climate change would “render unnecessary” the continued exploration of new fossil fuel reserves.

As DeSmog Canada recently reported, G20 nations spend around $88 billion annually to explore for new coal, oil and gas reserves.

A report produced by the Overseas Development Institute and Oil Change International notes this level of investment for carbon stores that may never be exploited creates a “triple-loss” scenario by investing in potentially stranded fossil fuels, diverting investment from alternative energy, and undermining an ambitious climate deal in 2015.

“In 2013, fossil fuel companies spent some $670bn (£443bn) on exploring for new oil and gas resources. One might ask why they are doing this when there is more in the ground than we can afford to burn,” study author Paul Ekins told The Guardian.

“The investors in those companies might feel that money is better spent either developing low-carbon energy sources or being returned to investors as dividends,” said Ekins. 

Image Credit: Oilsands operations by Kris Krug.

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

This post originally appeared in Maclean's magazine and is republished here with permission.

There’s no shortage of blame being passed around in the wake of another delay in the U.S. regulatory approval process with respect to TransCanada’s Keystone XL pipeline which, it was announced recently, will now drag on for at least another six months.

Among other reasons cited for the decision, the Calgary Herald’s Deborah Yedlin and others have cited a lack of greenhouse gas policies applied to Canada’s oil sands. Yedlin is direct, saying that, “the evidence to date suggests (that the Harper government hasn’t listened to what is being said in Washington) because the Harper government has not moved on anything resembling a policy on greenhouse gas emissions.”

I think she’s right, to a point, but I think the problem is not that we haven’t been listening, but that our governments, both in Edmonton and in Ottawa, have yet to establish a coherent vision on anything which includes the words climate change and oil sands.

From the moment President Obama delivered his climate change speech in June 2013, stating that the Keystone XL pipeline would only be approved if it does not, “significantly exacerbate the problem of climate change,” pipeline proponents have spun 180° from arguing that the Keystone XL pipeline would change everything to trying to argue that, for the most part, it would change nothing.

We frequently hear now that the oil sands will still be produced, and will still get to market, no matter what. This, of course, might motivate people to ask why we are building the pipeline in the first place, and the Prime Minister’s Office is there for you with an answer: “this project will create tens of thousands of jobs on both sides of the border…”

So, the pipeline is now a make-work project in an industry in which we hear about labour shortages every day? Proponents of the pipeline can no longer talk about the pipeline on its actual merits because that would involve talking about improving the economics of oil sands production which we can’t talk about because someone might link that to an increase in emissions.

Keystone XL went from the magical pipeline which will change everything to the non-essential pipeline which changes nothing, because we don’t know how to respond to one presidential speech.

It’s unlikely that an updated climate change policy in Alberta or any new initiative at the federal level alone will solve the problem because our ambition for setting policies does not match our ambition for making promises or setting targets.

Failed ambitions

For example, when Alberta released its Climate Change Strategy in 2008, it committed to a set of targets which were based, although not publicly, on a policy—there was even a wedge diagram of what that policy would achieve. That policy included, “an escalating economy-wide carbon charge increasing from $15/tonne in 2008, to $30/tonne in 2020, $60/tonne in 2030, and $100/tonne in 2050 and a strict regulation that all large, new industrial facilities are required to incorporate carbon capture and storage by 2015 wherever possible.”

Don’t believe me? See the Report of the Alberta Auditor General (PDF, p. 99) on the subject.

Unfortunately, what Alberta had the political will to implement was a $15/tonne charge on large industrial facilities which applies only if they exceed their allowable emissions intensities. The ambition of their targets was an order of magnitude above the ambition of their policies.  

The same is true at the federal government level. Modelling work consistently concludes that, in order to reach the targets to which the current government committed at Copenhagen (a 17 per cent reduction in emissions relative to 2005 levels by 2020), policies equivalent to an economy-wide carbon tax of $100/tonne or more would be required—ambitious targets, indeed.

Again, the government in Ottawa has shown nowhere near the same ambition when it comes to setting policies. Some meaningful policies including an effective ban on new coal plants and stringent regulations on new cars and trucks have been implemented, but the government’s own modelling clearly shows that we will fall far short of our commitments unless aggressive new policies are implemented across the economy in short order.

Talk the talk

As an antidote to our lack of ambition on policies, our governments both in Edmonton and in Ottawa have decided to work on an ambitious program of wordsmithing.

We talk about emissions reductions, when what we really mean are reductions in the rate of growth of emissions. Our government representatives tell us that they are still committed to their targets, when their own modelling tells them that their policies won’t even get them close. When our government talks about growing oil demand, they cite scenarios for fossil fuel consumption consistent with global emissions growing far beyond the levels to which they committed jointly with other countries in international climate change negotiations.  

A new policy for oil sands emissions at the Alberta or Federal level is not going to solve any of these problems, because the ambition simply isn’t there.

Realistic targets

How could Canada solve this problem? As I wrote when the Harper government elected to withdraw from the Kyoto Protocol, if we were really listening to what the decision-makers were saying in Washington, we’d be looking at how we could offer a climate change approach with three elements.

First, we’d need a clear national goal. Second, we’d need a set of policies which, when applied in Canada, would have a reasonable chance of achieving that goal. Third, and most importantly, we’d need to show how these policies, if applied elsewhere in the world in addition to here, would translate to meaningful mitigation of climate change.

These are the same criteria once laid out by our Prime Minister who said that, “Canada does have a duty to act,…(that)…we cannot repeat our previous error (of committing to targets we are not prepared to meet and)…we must set targets that are achievable.”

We should complete what the Prime Minister said we should do at that point: start, “by asking ourselves some hard-headed questions, like what are realistic emissions reductions targets for Canada and how exactly will we achieve them.”

If Canada can demonstrate that there is a role for oil sands expansion under national and global energy policies consistent with the 2°C climate change mitigation goal to which our government has signed-on, it would be much more difficult for opponents to block infrastructure such as Keystone XL for which a strong economic case exists. If our governments are unprepared, unwilling, or unable to do so, they’ll make rejection of this and future pipelines much easier.

As Ms. Yedlin suggests, perhaps it is time to listen to the decision-makers.

Image credit: 350.org 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.

Last year the Harper government’s decision to gut the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) led to the deft and unceremonious firing of more than 1,000 federal employees, many of them researchers, lab technicians and experts crucial to Canada’s understanding of marine science. Frontline stories of tearful staff meetings, where the devastating news was delivered en masse, convinced many Canadians we were in the midst of what is now popularly known as the ‘War on Science.’

That storyline continues today after a new Environment Canada report outlines the department’s plan to eliminate more than 1,000 jobs, a disproportionate amount of which will come from the climate change division.

The ‘plans and priorities’ report shows the department will reduce spending from more than $1 billion in 2014-2015 to $698.8 million in 2016-2017, reports the Toronto Star.

In addition program spending for Environment Canada’s climate change and clean air program will be reduced from $234.2 million in 2014-2015 to $54.8 million in 2016-2017.

Full-time equivalent jobs will drop from 6,400 this year to 5,348 in 2016-2017.

Canada has committed to reducing greenhouse gas emissions to 17 per cent below 2005 levels by 2020 under the Copenhagen Accord. Environment Canada’s most recent emissions report, released in October 2013, shows Canada’s current measures are inadequate for reaching our emissions reductions targets.

Emissions trends reported in Environment Canada's 2013 Emissions Report.

A new study released by Globe International that examined nearly 500 pieces of climate legislation in 66 countries found Canada had “no flagship legislation” for climate despite being in the top 20 worldwide emitters. The report also notes Canada’s decision to withdraw from the Kyoto Accord in 2011.

Megan Leslie, Halifax MP and environment critic for the NDP, says given the global challenges posed by climate change, Canada’s decision to cut related programs at Environment Canada doesn’t make sense.

“Knowing what the situation is with greenhouse gas emissions worldwide, one would think they got the numbers backwards. And that we would be ramping up rather than ramping down,” she told the Toronto Star. “That is a shocking decrease, it really is.”

Leslie noted these changes to Environment Canada are happening while the country still awaits promised emissions regulations for the oil and gas sector. The oilsands are Canada’s fastest growing source of greenhouse gas emissions.

According to the Pembina Institute, “if Alberta were a country, its per capita greenhouse gas emissions would be higher than any other country in the world.” They also report “7 per cent of Canada’s total greenhouse gas emissions came from oilsands plants and upgraders in 2010.”

Emissions from the extraction and upgrading of oilsands bitumen is estimated to be 3.2 to 4.5 times as intensive on a per barrel basis than conventional crude produced elsewhere in Canada or the U.S.

“This is a sector with the fastest growing emissions and we’re still waiting,” Leslie said.

Image Credit: Kris Krug

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

A new report from Pembina Institute says that the proposed TransCanada Energy East pipeline could generate up to 32 million tonnes (Mt) of additional greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from the crude oil production required to fill it. Thirty-two million tonnes of carbon emissions is the equivalent of adding 7 million cars to Canada's roads, exceeding the projected emissions of the Keystone XL pipeline proposal.

The Keystone XL pipeline, in comparison, would generate 22 Mt of additional GHG emissions through oilsands production, according to a previous report by Pembina. The estimated emissions impact of Energy East is "higher than the total current provincial emissions of five provinces."

The $12 million Energy East pipeline, proposed by TransCanada in August 2013, would have the capacity to transport 1.1 million barrels per day (bpd) of oilsands and conventional crude oil from Alberta to New Brunswick. According to the report, the volume of new oilsands production associated with Energy East would represent up to a 39 per cent increase from 2012 oilsands production levels.

Figure 1: Greenhouse gas emissions associated with Energy East compared to those of selected provinces. Climate Implications of the Proposed Energy East Pipeline: A Preliminary Assessment. The Pembina Institute, 2014.

Oilsands production is currently Canada's fastest growing source of GHG emissions, and is set to nearly triple between now and 2030, according to Environment Canada. Report authors Clare Demerse and Erin Flanagan told DeSmog Canada that this growth is "the single largest barrier to achieving [Canada's] 2020 climate target."

Given that Canada is set to miss its 2020 emissions reduction target by 122 Mt with current measures, Demerse and Flanagan see the Energy East proposal's potential to add a new source of GHGs from the oilsands as "significant and troubling."

The authors stress that the report, titled Climate Implications of the Proposed Energy East Pipeline, only assesses the pipeline's upstream, "Well-to-Refinery Gate" emissions impact, rather than the downstream, "Well-to-Wheel" emissions of the crude oil being transported, which would include emissions released by its combustion in vehicle engines. The actual climate impact of Energy East would therefore be even greater than figures in the report.

"The oilsands are already Canada's fastest-growing source of carbon pollution and the Energy East pipeline would help to accelerate production. Any regulatory review should include not only the impact of the pipeline itself, but also the impact of producing the crude that would flow through it," said Demerse, Federal Policy Director at Pembina.

Figure 2: Change in GHG emissions by economic sector, 2005-2020. Climate Implications of the Proposed Energy East Pipeline: A Preliminary Assessment. The Pembina Institute, 2014.

Demerse and Flanagan hope that the report will urge the National Energy Board (NEB) to undertake a more thorough appraisal of Energy East's environmental impact than its review of Enbridge's Northern Gateway proposal, saying that they wanted to submit their findings "before the National Energy Board decides on the format of its review."

The authors note that "many Canadians asked for consideration of the impacts of oilsands production in the Northern Gateway hearings," so if the NEB chooses a "more complete and balanced review of the Energy East proposal – one that looks at the environmental impacts of filling the pipeline as well as the pipeline infrastructure itself – I think the regulators would simply be catching up to where Canadians already are."

TransCanada is set to submit its regulatory application for Energy East to the NEB later this year.

The report recommends that the NEB "include the pipeline's full upstream impacts in the scope of its review, and that the federal government should end its delays and adopt strong emissions regulations for the oil and gas sector."

The report mentions that carbon capture and storage (CCS) technologies have been found to lower oilsands production emissions, but adds that "Canada lacks the kind of stringent climate policies that would provide a strong incentive for those kinds of investments," especially considering the high cost of such technology.

ICO2N, a group of energy companies invested in developing CCS technology, estimates that a carbon price of $125/tonne is necessary to justify capture of approximately 15 per cent of oilsands CO2.

The authors believe that approving projects like Energy East and Keystone XL could "see less emphasis on, and less encouragement of, clean energy investment in Canada" when the country needs to be "starting the transition to a clean energy future."

"The oilsands industry plans to triple production by 2030 and building new pipelines is necessary to realize those ambitions. We need to look at the full scope of impacts when evaluating pipelines," said Flanagan.

In its 2013 World Energy Outlook, the International Energy Association (IEA) modelled a scenario where countries take the action required to keep global warming below 2 degrees C, and found that global demand for oil would likely peak in 2020 and fall thereafter. Demerse and Flanagan suggest that Canada needs to "keep that kind of long-term picture in mind when we're considering a pipeline proposal that could last for 30, 40 or 50 years."

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

A 2012 government report from scientists at the Department of Fisheries and Oceans warns that Canada’s Atlantic waters are “particularly vulnerable” to ocean acidification from rising greenhouse gas emissions.

Mike De Souza writes for Postmedia News, that “the government report, posted on a website without a formal announcement or news release, noted that the world’s oceans have absorbed a significant amount of carbon dioxide emissions from the atmosphere since the industrial revolution, with profound effects on marine ecosystems that could damage the Canadian economy.”

The October report, co-authored by Kristian Curran and Kumiko Azetsu-Scott from the department, focuses on what global ocean acidification “may mean for the marine ecology of the Scotian Shelf region of Atlantic Canada.” The Scotian Shelf is in the North Atlantic, which is “a global 'hotspot' for the absorption of carbon dioxide into the surface ocean.”

Unsurprisingly, Curran and Azetsu-Scott’s forecast isn’t too bright. The study notes that the present “concern regarding ocean acidification resides in its unprecedented rate of occurrence, due to the significant amount of carbon dioxide that has been added to the atmosphere over the past 250 years.”

De Souza notes that, according to the report, “marine ecosystems might be able to adapt to changes in their acidity over time periods greater than 10,000 years, but would have difficulty with emerging changes that are equivalent to a 30 per cent increase in acidity since the industrial revolution.”

The report says that further global increase in ocean acidity is “certain to occur over the coming century and longer due to present day atmospheric carbon dioxide levels, even with legislative or policy-driven reductions in carbon dioxide emissions to the atmosphere.”

Because ocean acidification and “its associated impacts cannot be easily reversed, adaptive measures coupled with a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions to the atmosphere will have to be pursued to protect ecosystems and human livelihoods against this phenomenon.”  

Curran and Azetsu-Scott mention that more studies on the effects of ocean acidification on marine life are urgently needed, saying it is uncertain at this point what lasting alterations will be seen in the ecosystem. They emphasize, though, that “any potential impacts could be severe,” and that acidification is likely to be “enough of a driver to alter species composition and dominance in a manner that could profoundly alter marine ecosystem and functioning.”

As De Souza observes, the report also addresses possible socio-economic impacts of changes to the ecosystem of the Scotian Shelf. Shellfish industries in Atlantic Canada “worth hundreds of millions of dollars and responsible for thousands of jobs” could be adversely affected, since the animals they harvest could be “negatively affected” by rising acidity levels.

In a summary, the report states that the “current situation” concerning “use of fossil fuels” and “legislated targets for carbon dioxide emission reductions” in Canada is “poor” when assessed “in terms of implications for the state of the environment.”

“To adapt to the changing environment we have to identify where the most vulnerable area is and try to reduce that added stress like pollution (and/or) overfishing,” Azetsu-Scott told Postmedia News in her first major interview about the report since October 2012.

“But still a lot of work needs to be done for adaptation,” she added, calling ocean acidification and climate change an “urgent and serious problem” for Canada.

De Souza writes that Luke Gaulton, a spokesman for Fisheries and Oceans, confirmed the Canadian government “didn’t issue a news release when it published the report.”

It was instead posted on “the website of a network with representation from government, industry, academia and non-governmental organizations.”

Image Credit: Ocean Acidification: State of the Scotian Shelf Report

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 July 2012 Paul Boothe, former deputy minister at Environment Canada, called a meeting to discuss methods of dealing with worst-case climate change scenarios.

According to an internal memorandum from Natural Resources Canada released through Access to Information legislation, Environment Canada presented "a summary of current interest, science and governance issues regarding geoengineering to address climate change" in the meeting. Top level bureaucrats were personally invited to attend the confidential meeting. Which of the invitees actually attended is less clear.

The Environment Canada presentation defines geo-engineering as "the deliberate large-scale intervention in the Earth's climate system in order to moderate global warming."

Mike De Souza writes for Postmedia News, that "Prime Minister Stephen Harper's national security adviser Stephen Rigby turned down a request to join [the] secret meeting," and "most representatives on the list of invitees, including the Canadian Security and Intelligence Service and the Department of National Defence, said Monday that they were trying to track down information about their role in the closed-door discussion."

Also invited were deputy ministers from Natural Resources Canada and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, both of which "referred questions to Environment Canada, but the latter department's Gatineau headquarters were closed for the Quebec holiday Monday."

De Souza reports that the "public service department that supports the prime minister's office — the Privy Council Office — said Monday that it didn't send anyone to the meeting," and "wasn't immediately able to say whether it followed up on information shared during the session."

Boothe also invited "the heads of Canada's spy agency, the Department of National Defence and the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade to attend."

The documents outlining the meeting "were marked 'secret' but declassified for release through access to information legislation."

The Environment Canada presentation warned that if "greenhouse gas emissions continue unabated, models predict that 2ºC warming target agreed to [in 2009 by Harper] in Copenhagen, will be exceeded by mid-century."

As De Souza notes, the presentation listed the possible results of this temperature increase as including "increases in extreme weather events such as floods, droughts, heatwaves and cyclones as well as impacts on coastal cities, food security and biodiversity loss." According to "records released by Environment Canada in a spring report on greenhouse gases," average temperatures in Canada have hit "levels of up to three degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels in recent years."

The presentation indicated that "global CO2 emissions must level off immediately, and decline to negative values before end of century (implying net CO2 extraction from atmosphere), or other means of moderating warming would be needed." Geo-engineering was proposed as one of these "other means."

From the document:

De Souza summarizes the suggested geo-engineering methods, which include "adding iron to oceans to enhance their absorption of carbon dioxide, sulphur injections in the atmosphere or satellite mirrors to block or reflect solar radiation or large-scale afforestation."

Calgary-based climate scientist David Keith, whose house was damaged by the recent flooding in Alberta, reportedly encourages further research into geo-engineering as "an option to help protect vulnerable populations in developing countries from the effects and extreme weather events linked to existing greenhouse gases in the atmosphere."

De Souza adds that Keith said "no amount of geo-engineering in the future will help if we don't cut emissions."

Image Credit: Wayne Stadler / 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.

The British Columbia government has plans to double or even triple the amount of natural gas produced in the province in order to meet growing international demand. Although the proposed Enbridge Northern Gateway pipeline is a key issue of concern to British Columbians, widespread fracking for unconventional gas presents another significant challenge that should be on the public's radar, according to the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives (CCPA).

As the CCPA reports, BC's gas production targets all but ensure the province will fail to meet its own 2007 emission reductions targets as laid out in the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Targets Act. Exported gas from BC is expected to contribute the emissions equivalent of putting 24 million new cars on the road, and all for a 0.1 percent projected increase in provincial jobs.

You can watch this animated video here for an overview:

In a 2011 report the CCPA highlighted these outcomes of BC's fracking ambitions:

– A potential doubling of industry greenhouse gas emissions by 2020, as fracking activities escalate. If BC is to meet its legislated targets for greenhouse gas reduction, every other sector of the provincial economy will have to cut their emissions in half.

– The BC government giving shale gas companies access to public water supplies for 20 years, with little or no public consultation despite the massive amounts of water used (up to 600 Olympic swimming pools per gas well pad).

– Potential increases in shale gas piped to Alberta, where it already helps to fuel operations at the tar sands. 

In response, CCPA advances these recommendations:

– A cap on annual shale gas production.

– An end to all government subsidies of the natural gas industry.

– A requirement that the province explain how BC will meet its legislatively mandated greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets while simultaneously supporting the shale gas industry.

– Increased water prices for industry, to encourage innovation and conservation (currently companies pay nothing for the water they use, or nominal charges of just $2.75 for each Olympic swimming pool of water).

– A requirement that the industry pay full cost for the electricity it uses.

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.