Kinder Morgan is providing potential investors with shoddy information, according to a complaint filed with the Alberta Securities Commission by Greenpeace Canada last week.

The formal complaint contends the company’s draft prospectus — a legal document prepared for investors ahead of its massive $1.75 initial public offering (IPO) — failed to properly disclose future Asian oil demand and the financial impacts of climate policy.

It turns out that Kinder Morgan used demand forecasts that assume “business as usual” for oil consumption, which effectively means no serious attempt to keep global warming below two degree celsius.

“There are other demand forecasts that they haven’t used which aren’t as rosy,” says Keith Stewart, head of Greenpeace Canada’s climate and energy campaign. “The International Energy Agency has two other scenarios where governments actually do more to try to meet keeping warming below two degrees. In both of those, demand for oil drops significantly.”

In other words, Kinder Morgan is telling potential investors that it doesn’t expect Canada and the world to try to meet their Paris Agreement targets.

Suncor Climate Report Concluded 2 Degree Scenario Means No New Pipelines

The funny thing is that the 148-page Kinder Morgan document did disclose a number of others risks to investors. Those included government regulations, permits, public opposition, blockades, injunctions, judicial reviews, cost overruns, significant increase in debt and even bad weather.

But climate policies were only mentioned once, almost in passing: “Change in the regulatory environment or governmental policies (including in relation to climate change) may have an impact on the supply of crude oil and other products.”

That’s a serious understatement.

In Suncor’s 2016 climate report concluded the “450 ppm” scenario required to keep temperatures below two degrees of warming would result in a situation in which “new oil sands growth projects are challenged and unlikely to proceed” and “no new export pipelines are built out of the Athabasca Oil Sands region.”

The report was created in the wake of an approved shareholder resolution that called on Suncor to more transparently address the challenges of a low-carbon economy for energy producers.

“What we want to do is have companies have to confront the fact that our business model only works if the world fails to act on climate change,” Stewart says.

“Particularly for long-lived infrastructure like pipelines. If you’re going to spend $7 billion now and you’re planning to recoup that over the next 40 years, you’re banking on the world not reducing oil demand. And that’s increasingly risky.”

Business NotAsUsual: What #KinderMorgan Isn’t Telling Investors https://t.co/eCKyPNlEAi @dogwoodbc @Sierra_BC @PipeUpNetwork @NorthShoreNOPE pic.twitter.com/6pxQ8O10hu

— DeSmog Canada (@DeSmogCanada) May 25, 2017

Canadian Securities Regulators Currently Conducting Review of Climate Risk

Laura Zizzo — lawyer and CEO of Zizzo Strategy, which specializes in climate risk disclosures and carbon-informed investments — said in an interview with DeSmog Canada that the Greenpeace challenge is the first she’s aware of that involves direct interaction with a securities regulator with respect to climate change in Canada.

But that doesn’t mean it arrived out of nowhere.

“This all comes on the heels of a lot more shareholder and stakeholder activism with respect to securities disclosure and climate risk,” Zizzo says. “There’s lots happening in this space right now generally.”

For instance, there’s the recent vote by BlackRock — the largest asset manager in the world — to require Occidental Petroleum to disclose climate risks.

And Bank of England governor Mark Carney recently launched a task force on climate-related financial disclosures chaired by former New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg.

In December 2016, Carney and Bloomberg wrote in a column for the Guardian: “We believe that financial disclosure is essential to a market-based solution to climate change. A properly functioning market will price in the risks associated with climate change and reward firms that mitigate them. As its impact becomes more commonplace and public policy responses more active, climate change has become a material risk that isn’t properly disclosed.”

In late March, the Canadian Securities Administrators — which includes the Alberta Securities Commission — announced it was conducting a review of climate risk disclosures by public companies.

It’s why Zizzo says the Greenpeace challenge makes sense, noting it’s a legal requirement to disclose material information to investors and “if you’re an oil and gas company, climate-related issues are likely material.”

“I personally think Greenpeace’s claims were valid,” she says.

“The question is: ‘Do we think we’re going to meet the Paris targets? Do we think we’re actually going to do something about climate change?’ Kinder Morgan, in their projections, are kind of saying ‘no.’ They don’t think they will.”

Requiring Kinder Morgan to Re-Submit Would Be ‘Serious’

Stewart admits he doesn’t know exactly what’s going to happen next. After all, this is reportedly the first time this has happened in Canada.

In response to e-mailed questions a spokesperson from the Alberta Securities Commission told DeSmog Canada: “We have received Greenpeace’s submission and we will give it the consideration we deem appropriate.”

The regulator could ask Kinder Morgan to effectively resubmit its prospectus with more disclosure, which would be “pretty serious in a Canadian context,” Zizzo says.

Stewart says Kinder Morgan still has to put out a final prospectus before the IPO is marketed (to TD Bank and RBC, before being sold off to large institutional investors) and that Greenpeace will be watching to see what kind of changes are made in the language of that document.

In addition, the formal challenge might increase the chances of a class-action lawsuit from shareholders in the future because Kinder Morgan was advised to disclose risks and they chose not to, or may result in climate risk getting “priced in” and make the project less attractive to investors.

“It’s basically trying to use the discipline of market regulation to work in favour of action on climate change, whereas traditionally it has not,” Stewart concludes.

“This is a way to move things forward by entrenching some of these rules and actually making sure that investing in fossil fuel infrastructure isn’t just a bad thing to do, it’s a money-losing thing to do.”

Kinder Morgan didn’t respond to a request for an interview.

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.

Richard Kinder, Houston-based billionaire and CEO of Kinder Morgan Inc., told an industry audience last week the TransMountain pipeline expansion project “will go forward” if granted approval at the federal level, despite growing and very vocal opposition to the project in British Columbia.

Kinder said pipeline opponents are using “spurious arguments” to purposely strangle pipeline projects across North America as a means of fighting development in the Alberta oilsands.

“I am sure there are legitimate concerns about any mega infrastructure development, but a lot of this is [about] the pipeline as a choke point to get at production of the oilsands, which there are people in Canada and the U.S. who want to strangle that altogether,” Kinder said.

Kinder’s comments seem to affirm criticism that the company is refusing to take local opposition seriously.

“Rich Kinder's optimism shows he really does not understand B.C.,” Tzeporah Berman, adjunct professor of environmental studies at York University, told DeSmog Canada. “British Columbians love this coast,” she added, noting the recent bunker fuel spill in Vancouver’s English Bay “was a real wake up call.”

“Rich Kinder's confidence is surprising given Enbridge's Northern Gateway fiasco, the looming Supreme Court challenges to the National Energy Board’s pipeline review, the First Nations court cases and the polling showing that the vast majority of British Columbians are opposed to his project.”

The TransMountain review process has been fraught with tensions between the National Energy Board (NEB) and municipal authorities, environmental organizations and local First Nations.

Several major environmental organizations along with two opposition parties are calling on Premier Christy Clark to pull out of the federal review process. The call for withdrawal is supported by the Union of B.C. Municipalities, the Association of Vancouver Island and Coastal Communities and coastal First Nations.

Frustration with the review process has grown steadily in recent months, led in part by Kinder Morgan’s refusal to disclose information to intervenors. In addition, the NEB process prevented many members of the public — including climate scientists and other experts — from participating due to new exclusive rules.

“If the NEB really wanted to hear from British Columbians, why didn’t they design a process where our voices could be heard?” Caitlyn Vernon from the Sierra Club B.C. asked. “That’s why the B.C. government needs to step in and create a review that includes local voices, respects municipalities and First Nations, and considers the full impacts of Kinder Morgan’s proposal — especially its contribution to climate change.”

Keith Stewart, climate and energy campaigner with Greenpeace Canada, said Kinder’s recent claim points to a sense of entitlement prominent within industry.

"It is indicative of the hubris of the oil industry that CEOs assume that they have a right to build what they want and where they want,” Stewart said.

“Mr. Kinder is not only underestimating the depth of opposition to his new pipeline, but he also doesn't seem to understand that concern over climate change isn't going to go away." 

Eoin Madden from the Wilderness Committee said Kinder’s strong position is purely a matter of corporate posturing.

“To be honest, I don't think Rich Kinder lacks respect for the seriousness of pipeline opposition here in B.C.,” Madden said. “His role at Kinder Morgan demands that he publicly appear confident and supportive of the TransMountain pipeline project regardless of whether or not his moral and business sense screams that it’s a dead project."

He added the conversation around Enbridge’s Northern Gateway pipeline played out in a similar way.

However, Madden said, “I do think Kinder is purposely blind to the public interest in this issue. Why? Because he is paid large amounts of money to be.”

But things may be different after the English Bay spill, Madden said. 

“One thing remains crystal clear in its aftermath: folks in this part of the world care deeply about the Salish Sea, and seeing those waters sullied really hurt.”

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.

TransCanada announced Thursday the company no longer plans to build an oil tanker terminal at the controversial site of Cacouna, Quebec, as part of its 1.1 million barrel-a-day Energy East oil pipeline project.

“TransCanada will be advising the NEB (National Energy Board) that the company will not be proceeding with a marine terminal in Cacouna and is evaluating other options,” the Calgary-based pipeline company said in a press release. Cacouna was TransCanada's lone Quebec terminal.

TransCanada used the announcement as an opportunity to take a shot at Energy East’s critics. 

“It goes without saying but we’ll say it anyway, our decision was certainly not made because of opposition from some well-funded groups that want to deny Canadians the right to benefit from a reliable domestic supply of energy that ensures Canadians enjoy the quality of life they’ve come to expect in this country every day,” TransCanada states on its Energy East website.

The comments are reminiscent of Finance Minister Joe Oliver’s foreign funded “radical groups” remarks regarding Northern Gateway pipeline opponents in 2012.  

TransCanada now projects the pipeline will be in operation in 2020, two years later than the original date of 2018.

Keith Stewart, climate and energy campaigner with Greenpeace Canada, told the Globe and Mail the delay shows TransCanada is "clearly in damage-control mode."

“There is no chance TransCanada will find a place in Quebec where they will find the social licence to operate,” Patrick Bonin, Climate and Energy Campaigner with Greenpeace Canada, told DeSmog Canada.

“The majority of Quebec doesn’t want this project."

TransCanada lost face with the public when documents leaked to Greenpeace revealed the company's strategy to undermine opposition to the Energy East pipeline.

The proposal to build a marine oil tanker terminal for Energy East in Cacouna has been at the centre of controversy for months. Cacouna is near the breeding grounds of the declining St. Lawrence Estuary beluga whales. Last December, the federal Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada recommended placing the belugas on the species at risk list due to their dwindling numbers.

Russ Girling, TransCanada CEO, said the company cancelled the Cacouna terminal in response to concerns about the whales.

"This decision is the result of the recommended change in status of the Beluga whales to endangered and ongoing discussions we have had with communities and key stakeholders," he said in a statement.

Jennifer Skene from the Natural Resources Defense Council writes the loss of the terminal is the result of public opposition to the project.

"This is just another roadblock encountered by Energy East, as growing public opposition to tar sands continues to block proposed pipelines and undermine the industry's climate-destroying expansion plans." 

“By abandoning its tanker terminal plans for Cacouna, Quebec, TransCanada has finally admitted Energy East carries major risks for Canada,” Environmental Defence’s Adam Scott told the Globe and Mail.

“If TransCanada is serious about listening, it should move immediately to cancel the Energy East project,” he said.

Energy East is “an export pipeline that has nothing to do with meeting Canadian demand for oil," Scott added.

Canceling Cacouna No Surprise

Rumours of the decision to axe Cacouna from the pipeline project surfaced months ago.

Montreal-based newspaper La Presse, citing government sources, reported in February TransCanada was no longer considering Cacouna as the site for Energy East’s Quebec terminal. Similar reports resurfaced in La Presse and other news outlets this earlier week.

TransCanada denied all reports, claiming no decision had been reached. Originally, the pipeline company planned to unveil its decision on Cacouna last Tuesday, but delayed the announcement.

The possibility of an alternate Quebec terminal remains.

“Potential alternative terminal options in Quebec are being reviewed. Quebec and New Brunswick refineries would continue to be connected directly to Energy East,” a TransCanada press release states.

According to the company all changes to the Energy East project will be filed with the National Energy Board (NEB), Canada’s pipelines regulator, by the fall.

The regulatory process, which will partially decide the fate of the Energy East project, will not begin until TransCanada submits complete and finalized project plans on the pipeline. The NEB has already received over 1,800 applications from Canadians wishing to comment on the project.

Any changes to the project means the participant application process will likely be reopened, potentially allowing more members of the public to participate in the regulatory hearings. Hearings are now expected to begin in 2016.

Photo credit: Inhabitat

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.

TransCanada appears to have dumped plans for constructing a marine oil tanker export terminal at the controversial location of Cacouna, Quebec, as part of its Energy East oil pipeline project.

Several sources in the Quebec government told Montreal-based newspaper La Presse TransCanada is abandoning its plans for Cacouna, on the shores of the St. Lawrence River, as the 1.1 million barrels-a-day pipeline project’s Quebec export terminal. A second terminal is proposed for Saint John, New Brunswick.

“This is a great citizen victory,” Patrick Bonin, Climate and Energy Campaigner with Greenpeace Canada in Montreal, said. Cacouna’s close proximity to the breeding grounds of the St. Lawrence Estuary beluga whales has been at the centre of controversy around the proposed marine terminal in Quebec.

TransCanada denies its has given up on Cacouna. According to a TransCanada spokesperson, the Calgary-based pipeline company intends on making a decision on the Cacouna terminal at the end of March. Francois Poirier, president of the Energy East, made the same announcement last week.

Construction and exploratory work in and around Cacouna has been at a standstill since last December when the Committee on the Status of Wildlife in Canada announced the St. Lawrence’s belugas are at even greater risk of extinction than they were ten years ago. The committee concluded the belugas should be on Canada’s species-at-risk list.

Quebec Premier Philippe Couillard, who is not opposed to the $12 billion pipeline project, said he would find it hard to support the construction of the Cacouna marine terminal in light of the risks it could pose to the belugas’ dwindling numbers.

If TransCanada has decided not to build its deep-water terminal at Cacouna, finding an alternative in Quebec may prove difficult. The mayor and council of the port city of Levis, another a possible site for an Energy East export terminal, have been less than receptive to the idea in the past. In total eight potential sites in Quebec are under consideration by TransCanada for an export terminal.

Forgoing building a terminal in Quebec entirely will also make it harder for TransCanada to sell to Quebecers the argument the province will benefit economically from Energy East. A report last June revealed the economic benefits of the pipeline project will be “minimal” even with the construction of an export terminal.

Quebec groups demand suspension of Energy East review

“We want the NEB [National Energy Board] to suspend the regulatory process for Energy East. We don’t know the exact route [of the pipeline] anymore,” Bonin of Greenpeace told DeSmog Canada.

The NEB, Canada’s federal regulator of pipelines, kick started the regulatory process on Energy East last week when it made its ‘application to participate’ available to the public. Canadians wishing to have their comments on the pipeline project heard by the NEB must apply by the end of the month.

Groups in Quebec are already demanding the NEB halt the process due to the lack information on the project available to the public. The environmental group Centre Québécois du droit de l’environment (CQDE) and landowner France Lamonde are seeking a court injunction to halt the process until more information about the Energy East application is available in French.

TransCanada submitted a 30,000-page Energy East application to the NEB. Critics point out the massive application is still incomplete. The pipeline company plans on submitting more information later this month.

Image Credit: Bill Liao 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.

Alberta Premier Jim Prentice begins an Energy East lobby tour today in Quebec City to try to woo the premiers of Quebec and Ontario into supporting TransCanada's 1.1 million barrel-per-day oil pipeline proposal.

“It is a sign the project is in danger,” Patrick Bonin, a Greenpeace Canada climate and energy campaigner based in Montreal, told DeSmog Canada. “Over 70 per cent of Quebecers don’t want Energy East to be built.”

Ontario and Quebec announced last month that Energy East would have to meet seven conditions to gain the provinces' approval of the 4,600-kilometer pipeline from Alberta to New Brunswick. Included in these conditions is a demand for a full environmental assessment of the greenhouse gas emissions associated with the pipeline.

An analysis conducted earlier this year by the Pembina Institute, an energy think tank, found the greenhouse gas emissions from extracting the oilsands bitumen to fill the Energy East pipeline would erase all reductions in greenhouse gas emissions achieved by Ontario’s phase out of coal-fired power plants. The analysis did not include emissions from combustion, which would make Energy East’s carbon footprint even higher.

“If Ontario and Quebec are concerned about greenhouse gas emissions and climate change then the Energy East tar sands pipeline project is dead already,” Adam Scott, climate and energy program manager with Environmental Defence, told DeSmog Canada.

Prentice meets with Quebec Premier Philippe Couillard Tuesday and Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne in Toronto on Wednesday.

Ontario and Quebec's conditions exceed B.C.’s heavy oil conditions

This is not the first time an Alberta premier has travelled to another province on behalf of a pipeline project. British Columbia Premier Christy Clark famously inflamed relations with Alberta with her five conditions for the Northern Gateway pipeline, which resulted in some icy meetings with then Alberta premier Alison Redford.

Clark's demand to receive a greater share of the fiscal benefits from Northern Gateway was a contentious issue between the two western provinces, but she did not go as far as Wynne and Couillard in insisting the pipeline's greenhouse gas emissions be properly assessed.

The National Energy Board's reviews of pipeline projects aren't taking climate change into account, which has left a leadership vacuum that the provinces are stepping in to fill. New pipelines facilitate expansion of oilsands production, leading to higher greenhouse gas emissions.

The seven conditions on the Government of Ontario's website.

Bad news for Energy East continues

Prentice’s visit comes during a turbulent public relations spell for Energy East.

Documents leaked to Greenpeace last month revealed TransCanada had hired global PR firm Edelman to work on an aggressive strategy of undermining Energy East opponents through tactics that included creating phony grassroots groups to give the impression of genuine support of the pipeline. The revelations caused TransCanada and Edelman to publicly part ways.

Gabriel Nadeau-Dubois, former Maple Spring student activist and author, announced on Radio-Canada just days after the leak that he was donating his $25,000 Governor General’s Literary Award to an anti-pipeline coalition and encouraged the public to do match it. Donations have reached $400,000 now. 

Yesterday the Committee on the Status of Wildlife in Canada announced the belugas whales of the St. Lawrence Estuary — where TransCanada has plans for an Energy East marine oil tanker terminal — are at greater risk of extinction than a decade ago, forcing TransCanada to halt work on the terminal.   

“It’s good news and bad news,” Bonin says. “TransCanada’s marine terminal at Cacouna probably won’t be built now, but it is sad to find out the beluga population is not recovering."

Image Credit: Jim Prentice via Twitter, WWF 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.

Clean energy advocates transformed one of Western Canada’s oldest oil derricks Monday by draping it with pro-solar banners and surrounding it with solar panels that powered sun-themed music.

“It was a really nice day here,” Greenpeace Canada energy and climate campaigner Melina Laboucan-Massimo told DeSmog Canada, “and so sunny.”

Despite the November chill, Laboucan-Massimo said the day was perfect for capturing solar energy. 

"Even though it’s chilly there’s still sun,” she said. “You actually increase efficiency for solar panels when it’s cold, because they don’t overheat. So when it’s cold it’s still fine to produce energy, as long as you have the sun.”

Laboucan-Massimo and the other campaigners are working to demystify solar energy in Alberta, a province with massive untapped solar potential.

“I think a part of what Greenpeace and other organizations and First Nations have been really successful at is pointing out the problem, but I think we need to start pointing to solutions and really articulating what those are and how to implement them,” she said.

People often point to wind and solar power as potential alternatives, without them actually coming to fruition. This is the case, “especially in Alberta,” Laboucan-Massimo added.

“What we’ve learned is that Alberta has one of the highest solar potentials across the country but utilizes only one per cent of that solar potential.”

Laboucan-Massimo stands with the oil derrick in the background. Photo by Greenpeace Canada.

According to the European Photovoltaic Industry Association, the world’s cumulative photovoltaic capacity has more than doubled each year for the last four years. Each year, new global solar installations prevent more than 53 million tons of carbon dioxide from entering the atmosphere.

However, the association notes solar energy in Canada “has expanded slower than some have expected.”

Laboucan-Massimo says the slow growth of solar in Canada, especially in Alberta, makes little sense.

“In Alberta, which is one of the sunniest provinces in the country, why is that happening?” she asks.

“We know it’s because of a lack of political will and because of a lack of policy that works to stymie renewable energy, and solar energy in Alberta.”

Alberta could and should be a green jobs and climate leader, Laboucan-Massimo said. But the reality is so far from that.

“We’re the number-one growing source of greenhouse gas emissions from tar sands as well as the number-one climate polluting province in the country because of tar sands.”

“I think that the fossil fuel industry has really had a stranglehold on the Alberta government,” she said.

That’s part of the reason Laboucan-Massimo and other solar advocates staged their solar action yesterday in Edmonton, a city with a long history of oil and gas development.

Laboucan-Massimo said is was in part to “really proclaim the power of the sun.”

“We know that solar energy and the solar viability is here and now.”

The team dropped several banners from a 70-year old oil derrick, reading “Solar: Alberta’s Next Economy” and “Solar: 100% Climate Safe.”

The group also set up solar panels on the site to power a radio and their phones. While they hung the banners they took music requests from the public using the hashtag #CatchUpAB.

“What we’re saying now is it’s time to transition away from dirty fossil fuels and transition to the renewable energy economy that is here and now,” Laboucan-Massimo said, adding Albertans are ready for economic alternatives.

“We look at Germany that has almost 400,000 jobs in the solar sector. Why doesn’t Alberta have that? We actually have a better solar potential than Germany and yet we don’t utilize that at all.”

Image Credit: Greenpeace Canada 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.

Facing criticism in the lead up to today’s UN Climate Summit, which prime minister Stephen Harper is not attending, the Harper Government released a new public outreach campaign through Environment Canada, praising the country’s action on climate change.

The campaign points to four pillars of Canada’s climate progress including efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, investing in climate adaptation, “world-class scientific research to inform decision-making,” and international leadership in climate action.

Already critics are pointing to the apparent disparity between the Environment Canada campaign and Canada’s waning reputation on the international stage for its climate obstruction, the muzzling of scientists, the elimination of environmental legislation and massive cuts to federal research and science programs.

“Reading the Harper government’s claims about its climate efforts is like reading one of Orwell’s books,” Mark Jaccard, professor at Simon Fraser University’s School of Resource and Environment Management, said.

“Eliminating policy is to implement policy. Blocking and abandoning global negotiations is to lead global negotiations. Muzzling scientists is to have science inform decision-making. Working hard to increase carbon pollution is to decrease it. Black is white. Dishonesty is truth.”

Jaccard told DeSmog Canada, “We can no longer say that we are unsure what meaningful action on climate would look like.” Provinces across the country could follow Quebec’s lead and join California’s cap-and-trade system, he said, which would increase the effectiveness of the whole system, “making it much harder for some U.S. politicians to continue to present this as an economy killer.”

Recently prime minister Stephen Harper publicly criticized a polluter pay solution to growing emissions, saying no country would undertake climate action that might harm the economy. Onlookers were quick to critique Harper’s economy versus environment framing, an outmoded way of viewing the transition to clean energy, a growing sector of the global economy.

Katie Gibbs, co-founder of the science advocacy group Evidence for Democracy, told DeSmog the Harper government’s cuts to science positions and research stations prevents the country from responding strongly to the challenge of climate change.

She said Environment Canada “has undergone many staff and funding cuts which means they simply don't have the research capacity that they used to.”

“This hurts the government's ability to make science-informed decisions on many environmental issues, including climate change,” she said. 

Gibbs also pointed out that a special working group within Environment Canada that was tasked with working on oil and gas regulations with industry appears to have been disbanded in early 2013. 

Similarly, the Harper government also disbanded the National Roundtable on the Environment and Economy (NRTEE), a government solutions think tank, after the body recommended the government implement carbon pricing.*

“Instead of listening to the experts at NRTEE, the government cut their funding,” Gibbs said.

“The government needs to listen to the experts: scientists, policy analysts and economists all agree that some form of carbon pricing is need to get our CO2 emissions down to safe levels.”

Despite Environment Canada’s claim that Canada is taking climate action, there are no binding emissions regulations for oil and gas development in the country. Canada committed to reducing greenhouse gas emissions 17 per cent below 2005 levels by 2020 under the Copenhagen Accord, although a recent Environment Canada report showed Canada’s current weak emissions reduction measures will prevent us from meeting that target.

“The government has been saying since 2011 that they were going to introduce regulations for oil and gas sectors but it hasn't happened yet,” Gibbs said.

Canada is one of the only major developed nations to have no climate legislation.

According to Keith Stewart, climate and energy campaigner with Greenpeace Canada, that likely has to do with the current government’s close ties to the oil and gas sector.

“Our current federal government confuses what is good for oil companies with what is good for Canada and so refuses to recognize all of the amazing opportunities that would be open to us if we started pushing action on climate change rather than desperately trying to hold it back,” he said.

“There are, however, some promising signs at the provincial level such as Ontario's coal phase out and Green Energy Act, B.C.'s carbon tax and Quebec's focus on electrification of transportation.”

But he adds, in order to take meaningful action on climate change, the current government may need to distance itself from industry influence.

A report by the Polaris Institute showed industry lobbyists met with the federal government 463 per cent more than environmental organizations between 2008 and 2012.

“Meaningful action on climate change requires kicking the oil industry lobbyists out of the backrooms so we can get on with finally putting a price on pollution and investing in green alternatives like great public transit, wind and solar power, and more efficient homes, offices and factories,” he said.

* An earlier version of this article stated the NRTEE proposed introducing a carbon tax. They called for carbon pricing.

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.

For five long years the federal government and the oil industry have lobbied against the European Union labeling oilsands (also called tar sands) bitumen as ‘dirty oil’ in its Fuel Quality Directive (FQD). A new report released yesterday reveals the recent involvement of the U.S. in the lobby offensive to keep the EU market open for bitumen exports has tipped the scales in favour of oilsands proponents.

“The sustained attacks by the U.S. and Canada on the European Union’s key legislation on transport fuel emissions seem to be paying off,” Fabian Flues of Friends of the Earth Europe, the author of the report, admits.

The report shows the EU Fuel Quality Directive, a piece of legislation designed to reduce global warming greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in the EU’s transportation sector, is unlikely to acknowledge fuels from different sources of oil – conventional oil, oilsands, oil shale – have different carbon footprints. Instead all oils will more than likely be treated as having the same GHG emissions intensity 'value' in the Directive. This is exactly what Canada, the oil industy and now the U.S. have been pushing for.

“Europe is again failing to stand up effectively for its own climate policy,” Flues says.

Trade talks, not science, weakening the Fuel Quality Directive

The EU has not fallen for the federal government’s argument that bitumen produces only marginally more GHG emissions than conventional oil in extraction, processing, and use. A European Commission study found bitumen’s carbon footprint is between 12 – 40 per cent higher than conventional oil.

The report reveals trade, not science, is the cause of the EU backing off from implementing the Fuel Quality Directive as it was originally meant to be implemented. To reduce GHG emissions from transportation the Directive discourages transport fuel suppliers from selling fuels with high carbon footprints in the EU. Identifying which fuels have higher carbon footprints was meant to make things easier for fuel suppliers to reduce the GHG emissions output of their product.

“The delay and weakening of the European Fuel Quality Directive once again reveals that agreements like CETA (the Comprehensive Economic Trade Agreement) are less about trade and more about limiting the ability of governments to effectively regulate in the public interest,” Scott Harris, trade campaigner with the Council of Canadians, says.

Fuel Quality Directive subject of CETA talks

The report argues the U.S. and Canada are using their own ongoing trade negotiations with the EU to undermine the Fuel Quality Directive. Canada and the EU have consistently maintained their trade negotiations for the CETA and the Directive are two separate issues. The evidence indicates otherwise:

“The foreign policy think tank The Polish Insti­tute for International Affairs reported that the FQD had been raised in the CETA negotiations and there have been calls in Canada to suspend the negotiations until the high GHG value for tar sands has been resolved to Canadian satisfac­tion,” the report states.

“While other governments are trying to make communities safer, the Canadian government is using its political muscle to push things in the opposite direction so it can export high carbon tar sands oil as quickly as possible,” Mike Hudema, climate and energy campaigner with Greenpeace Canada, says.

“It’s astonishing that as we watch the fires spread in the Northwest Territories and the flood waters rise in the Prairies our government still isn’t getting the message – climate change is real and we need action immediately,” Hudema states.

The Globe and Mail reported as earlier as 2011 that anonymous sources had said Canada had threatened “to void the free trade deal” if the Fuel Quality Directive was implemented.

“Even before it is signed, CETA is being used to water down much-needed public policy. Imagine what will happen to regulations on both sides of the Atlantic if the deal is actually implemented,” Harris of the Council of Canadians says.

U.S. joins the lobby offensive

The U.S. in some ways has been more open about its lobbying against the Fuel Quality Directive. U.S. Trade Representative Michael Froman confirmed he “raised these issues [of the FQD implementation] with senior Commission officials on several occasions, including in the context of the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnerships (TTIP).” The TTIP is the trade agreement between the U.S. and the EU currently under negotiation.

European Commission documents obtained by Friends of the Earth Europe reveal the U.S. trade missions has “substantive concerns” with the Fuel Quality Directive singling out fuels produced from bitumen as having a higher carbon footprint than conventional oil. Like Canada and the oil industry, the U.S. wants all oil – regardless of GHG emissions – to be treated the same as conventional oil in the Directive.

It appears this new pressure from the U.S. is the straw breaking the camel’s back:

“[Media] reports claim that the system chosen by the Commission is one of averaging of all crudes – exactly what the U.S. mission had requested in its e-mail. If they are correct, the new FQD proposal will be considerably less effective in discouraging the import of highly climate damaging oil, such as tar sands. It might well be the case that the FQD is the first environmental casualty of the TTIP negotiations,” the report states.

Recently eleven members of U.S. Congress sent a letter to the US trade mission expressing their concerns “that official U.S. trade negotiations could undercut the EU’s commendable efforts to reduce carbon pollution.” 

Image Credit: OpenEuropeBlog

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

When Greenpeace Canada’s climate and energy campaigner Keith Stewart filed an official complaint with Elections Canada, he did a lot more than question the implications of the Ethical Oil Institute’s collusion with the Conservative Party of Canada: he called national attention to the corrosive effect oil money has had on Canadian politics in recent years.

“At the broadest level,” Stewart told DeSmog Canada via e-mail, “we are trying to rebalance the playing field between money and people power in Canadian politics. You can never eliminate the influence of money on politics, but you can limit it and make it more transparent.”

Greenpeace’s request for an investigation is based on the fact that corporate donations to political parties are banned in federal politics — yet money raised by the Ethical Oil Institute appears to have been spent on advertising and other activities developed and implemented by people directly involved in the Conservative Party of Canada. The institute does not disclose its funding sources, but its website states it does “accept donations from Canadian individuals and companies, including those working to produce Ethical Oil.”

Stewart’s request outlines the revolving-door relationships driving pro-oilsands communications strategies from Fort McMurray to Ottawa and how deeply those relations are embedded in the political soil. The institute was founded in July 2011 by Alykhan Velshi, who left Jason Kenney’s political staff to create Ethical Oil. He returned within a few months to a senior position in the Prime Minister’s Office.

A Greenpeace map of the overlapping relations between Ethical Oil and the Conservative government. Click to enlarge.

Ultimately, the request to investigate the Ethical Oil Institute’s use of contributions to carry out a Conservative agenda has to do with uprooting the pernicious influence of oil on Canadian democracy.

“We are trying to prevent the oil patch from pouring money into an Ethical Oil-led, pro-Conservative ad campaign in advance of the 2015 federal election,” Stewart said.

According to Stewart, Ethical Oil “is trying to import a U.S. model of establishing fake grassroots groups” to lend cultural legitimacy to an “elite agenda.” In this case, he said the campaign is designed to make the protection of oil interests — in the face of a warming world — seem “somehow in the interest of the average citizen.”

“It’s dishonest and destructive,” he said.

Ethical Oil responded to the complaint by claiming “EthicalOil.org does not give any money to any political party, nor has Ethical Oil campaigned in any election,” even though Greenpeace’s charge is leveled at the Ethical Oil Institute, not against the website EthicalOil.org — which is just one aspect of the institute’s work.

The Ethical Oil Institute is behind arguments such as Canada’s oil being like fair-trade coffee and foreign-funded interests lurking behind Canada’s environmental movement. The accusations have been instrumental in the ongoing audits of Canada’s most prominent environmental charities, many of whom were targeted in Ethical Oil attacks.

“Ethical Oil is trying to hide the corrosive effect of oil on our politics by telling Canadians that the poor little oil companies are being picked on by big mean environmentalists,” Stewart said.

Yet, as Stewart lays out in his letter to Elections Canada, the work of the Ethical Oil Institute has been in lockstep with the Conservative party to influence public opinion on oil development and mischaracterize environmental groups.

“Their attack on environmental charities is a blatant attempt to silence those who are critical of the Harper government agenda on oil and the environment and to block a national conversation on what kind of an energy future we want,” he said.

Ultimately, Stewart said, Canada needs to start taking climate science seriously, a move impaired by the work of groups like Ethical Oil.

“I’d like to see the government take the latest reports from the IPCC and boil them down to what this means for Canada in terms of possible impacts and what opportunities are there for us on an energy pathway that is consistent with avoiding the worst impacts of climate change,” Stewart said.   

“We could then take these on the road and have the kind of community-led discussions that have happened before on the issue of national unity, which could help build consensus on what we need to do.”

Image Credit: Greenpeace 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.

A new court ruling means that the dozens of animal species that are at risk of extinction across Canada may finally receive the support they need.

A federal court judge found that the Canadian government has been breaking the law in not following through on its obligations under the Species at Risk Act (SARA). The act, established in 2003, obliges the government to develop and implement recovery strategies for animal species in Canada at risk of extinction.

In her ruling, federal court Justice Anne L. Mactavish found that “there is clearly an enormous systemic problem within the relevant Ministries, given the respondents' acknowledgement that there remain some 167 species at risk for which recovery strategies have not yet been developed.”

The request for judicial review was brought by the Wilderness Committee, the David Suzuki Foundation, Greenpeace Canada, the Sierra Club Of British Columbia, and Wildsight, who were represented by Ecojustice, against the Minister of the Environment and the Minister of Oceans and Fisheries, who are tasked with ensuring that SARA is implemented. And while there is a backlog of over 160 species, the case focused on four in particular: the Nechako White Sturgeon, the Pacific Humpback Whale, the Marbled Murrelet and the Southern Mountain Caribou.

Each were listed as a threatened species over five years ago, and have been waiting for a recovery strategy since. Even more important, each live in habitats that are directly impacted by Enbridge's proposed Northern Gateway pipeline, either by its route or by increased tanker traffic. The pipeline recently received approval from the National Energy Board. This made the need for recovery strategies even more pressing, but also meant that important information on the pipeline's impact on these species was missing from the hearings.

The immense backlog in establishing recovery strategies raised concerns that the government didn't take the SARA seriously enough to act on it. “One of our worries was that there seems to be a lack of political will to implement the law,” Sean Nixon, an Ecojustice staff lawyer who worked on the case, told DeSmog Canada. But the ruling gives hope that the backlog will soon be taken seriously.

“Because the language was so strong in the court decision and because the judge also had an expression of judicial disapproval in how the government was acting in regards to the recovery strategy, we're hoping that the federal government will take this seriously,” said Gwen Barlee, policy director at Wilderness Committee, when reached by DeSmog.

And it has already had an impact, at least on these four cases. After the request for judicial review was filed in 2012, the recovery strategy for the Pacific Humpback Whale was finalized, and draft strategies for the other three species in question have been posted for public comment. Once the 60 day window for public comment closes, the government should issue a final recovery strategy relatively quickly. The court will be following the process to ensure that the government follows through.

Repeat offender

This isn't the first time that the government has been taken to court over recovery strategies. Nixon says that Ecojustice has already brought at least six similar cases forward. While they have had success each time, it has become frustrating to both him and to environmental organizations to have to fight for the protection of each animal listed as at risk. Judicial supervision is about all that can be expected, since like much legislation, there are no clear penalties for when the government ignores what it is mandated to do.

“The question is what will happen if the government keeps violating the statute? The answer, sadly, is probably just public interest groups taking them back to court,” he said. Like most legislation mandating parliament, there are no clear penalties if the government takes no action. It speaks to how our parliamentary democracy is meant to function, though, says Nixon: the judicial branch of the government telling the executive branch that it is violating what the legislative branch (Parliament) has implemented as law.

“The fact is that you bring them to court, and [if| their actions are found to be unlawful, that generally, in a democracy, is enough for the federal government to respond and to remedy their unlawful behaviour," he explained.

“Environment Canada is reviewing the Court’s decision to determine next steps. Our government is committed to the protection and conservation of species at risk,” wrote Danny Kingsberry, a Media Relations officer with Environment Canada, when asked for comment by DeSmog. He emphasized that the government invested $50 million in implementing the species at risk act and has finalized 85 recovery strategies in the past three years. In court, though, the government did not dispute that they have gone against the provisions of the legislation, which state that a proposed recovery strategy must be posted within one year of a species being listed as “at risk.”

Canaries in the coal mine

While legislation like SARA are essential for conservation efforts, Barlee also emphasized the importance of the links between habitat protection and the growing impacts of climate change. While these four species are linked directly to the Northern Gateway pipeline, others of the 167 that are at risk are also directly in the route of and being impacted by the fossil fuel industry. By studying the habitats and ecosystems that keep animal species strong, we're not simply protecting biodiversity, but also maintaining vigilance over our own ecosystems and quality of life.

“[These] species are telling us something: they really are the canary in the coal mine, and they are telling us when their numbers are declining that the habitat that they've relied upon for millennia is no longer healthy enough to support them," Barlee said. “They're saying that their habitat has been so badly managed that they can no longer survive, and that's eventually going to have repercussions for humans living on Earth.” 

Image Credit: mikebaird 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.