When former environment minister Jim Prentice held his introductory lunch with U.S. Ambassador David Jacobson in November 2009, Prentice described to Jacobson how he had been shocked during a visit to Norway to find heated opposition to the Alberta oilsands during a public debate over state-owned StatOil ASA’s investment there.

This information was contained in a cable from Jacobson, which was obtained by WikiLeaks and posted by a Norwegian paper.

Prentice was clearly feeling the heat from a global campaign by environmental organizations to frame oilsands oil as “dirty” because of its energy-intensive extraction, which make for Canada’s fastest growing source of greenhouse gas emissions.

“The public sentiment in Norway shocked him and has heightened his awareness of the negative consequences to Canada’s historically ‘green’ standing on the world stage,” the cable reported.

An Oilsands PR Makeover[view:in_this_series=block_1]

Given the dismal reputation of the oilsands, the government had three options: (a) clean them up by bringing in environmental legislation; (b) discredit the people creating the negative image; or (c) set up front groups to promote the industry, however dirty it may be.

In his discussion with Jacobson, Prentice suggested he would do (a): “impose new rules on oil sands.” But he never did. The federal government — which has promised to deliver oil and gas regulations since 2007 — offered no help.

Instead Prentice, along with the government of Alberta, got to work changing the oilsands’ image. The campaign began behind-the-scenes with intensive international lobbying focused on fighting the European Union’s proposed ‘dirty’ label for Albertan crude.

While those backroom meetings were taking place, another public strategy was being deployed to revive the image of the oilsands: demean those exposing the environmental disaster unfolding in Northern Alberta.

Shoot the messenger and undermine the message.

A Brief Chronology of the Anti-Enviro Movement  

Enter Vivian Krause.

When Jacobson wrote his cable, Vivian Krause — a former PR specialist for the aquaculture industry — was beavering away in relative obscurity investigating critics of farmed salmon.

Krause had previously worked as a nutritionist for the aquaculture industry, which routinely recruits nutritionists to tout the benefits of all salmon, farmed or wild.

She began attacking critics of aquaculture when she “unexpectedly came across a grant for an ‘antifarming campaign’ with ‘science messages’ and ‘earned media.’”

Within a year of the Prentice-Jacobson lunch, Krause switched to researching the funding of oilsands critics. She says the switch occurred “while going through the tax returns of American charitable foundations to try and figure out who was funding the campaign against salmon farming [when she] happened to notice many grants for a ‘Tar Sands campaign.’”

“That’s when I started to write about the campaign against Alberta oil,” Krause wrote on her blog, Fair Questions.

These claims may be true — “unexpectedly came across,” “happened to notice” — but the timing was fortuitous. It was a message Prentice and his replacements as environment minister, John Baird and Peter Kent, as well as the Harper government and the oilsands industry, all desperately needed, especially as opposition to Enbridge’s Northern Gateway pipeline — a major thoroughfare for oilsands crude destined for Asian markets — was growing to unprecedented levels.

Krause was given a podium for her revelations in the pages of the National Post, where she wrote eighteen columns on the subject, magnifying her voice many times over. The Post featured her as “the girl who played with tax data.”

Repetition over the following year established the frame that because Canadian environmental charities are funded by American money, they are not acting in the interests of Canadians or the environment, but for American oil. The message dissolves on close examination, but few outside the environmental community were examining it closely.

Other, Fairer Questions

Some of the questions not being asked were just how Canadian is Enbridge, or the other proponents of the Northern Gateway pipeline? Or, more broadly, just how Canadian are the oilsands?

Enbridge is one of the largest energy transportation and distribution companies in North America. Its head office may be in Calgary, but its operations span the continent — 61 per cent of revenues are earned from American operations. Forty-four per cent of Enbridge’s shares are owned in the U.S.

Three major Chinese corporations, Petro-China, Sinopec and the China National Offshore Oil Corporation, are all backers of the Northern Gateway pipeline and, since the project’s delay, have all become major investors in the oilsands.

A 2012 analysis calculated that 71 per cent of oilsands production was owned by foreign shareholders. Even ostensibly Canadian companies — such as Suncor or Canadian Oil Sands — are majority foreign owned.

The Canadian-versus-American oil interest frame just doesn’t stand up to close scrutiny.

Krause’s research was not difficult to carry out. Many Canadian environmental organizations have obtained charitable status so they can receive grants from philanthropic foundations. These foundations must disclose all the grants they make and this information is assembled in easily accessed web sites where it can be inspected.

Krause herself is not a registered charitable organization so she cannot receive grants from foundations — grants that would be publicly accessible. The money she does receive from corporations and individuals can stay anonymous.

A year after Krause launched her National Post commentaries, she burst onto the political scene. In November 2011, Prime Minister Harper gave an interview with Global TV in Vancouver in which he parroted Krause’s frame, warning that “significant American interests” would be “trying to line up against the Northern Gateway project” which would allow oil companies to export oilsands oil to Asia.

“They’ll funnel money through environmental groups and others in order to try to slow it down but, as I say, we’ll make sure that the best interests of Canada are protected.”

Later in the month, Jim Prentice, by then a vice-chairman at the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, echoed this sentiment by telling the National Post that he thought “environmental organizations based outside the country [should] be required to reveal who gives them funding when they participate in Canada’s regulatory process to influence [Canada’s] internal decisions.”

In December, Enbridge president Patrick Daniel joined Harper and Prentice by wondering out loud why “U.S. foundations feel they need to come here to fund opposition to a project that is obviously not in the U.S. national best interest.”

And in the second week of January 2012, Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver released his infamous letter warning of “environmental and other radical groups” seeking to hijack our regulatory system to achieve their radical ideological agenda,” referring to the many groups lining up to speak against the Northern Gateway project at the National Energy Board’s Joint Review Panel hearings.

Oliver’s letter was followed by a slew of ads attacking Canadian environmental organizations mounted by Ethical Oil, the oil industry advocacy group established by conservative gadfly Ezra Levant and Conservative party apparatchik Alykhan Velshi. Ethical Oil acknowledged Krause’s research as a source of information used in their ads as well as the inspiration for several complaint letters submitted to the Canada Revenue Agency questioning the charitable tax status of prominent environmental organizations. Following those complaints, the federal government launched a $13.4 million investigation into charities receiving foreign funding.

On the top of her resume, Krause credits herself for prompting the revenue agency’s audit of charities, which included seven of Canada’s top environmental groups. And a recent investigation by the National Observer argues Krause was given a leg-up by disgraced Senator Mike Duffy, who appears to have played a critical role in advancing Krause’s research in the political arena and connecting her to lucrative sources of industry funding (Krause maintains this is untrue).

Not bad for someone who just “happened to notice many grants for a Tar Sands Campaign.”

Krause insists her work is not funded: “I haven’t been funded by any industry, any company, any political party, any entity of any kind.” She does disclose honoraria she received for speaking to organizations such as the Association of Mineral Exploration in BC, Canadian Energy Pipelines Association and Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers.

Same goes for 2013 & 2014 (so far) "@Garossino: @FairQuestions conceded >90% of her 2012 income comes from resource sector speaking fees."

— Vivian Krause (@FairQuestions) April 27, 2014

Yes. “@Garossino: Are you saying speaking fees to industry also exceeds 90% of your 2013 + '14 income to date? Details?”

— Vivian Krause (@FairQuestions) April 27, 2014

Krause officially closed down her blog, Fair Questions, in June 2012 and wrote what seems to be her last National Post column in 2014. Krause continues to speak at industry-sponsored events.

The Snowball Effect

With Krause’s rise to prominance the work to discredit Canada’s environmental movement was far from over. Since her humble beginnings in 2011, several other organizations stepped in to carry on the “foreign-funded” attack on environmental groups.

One website named “Our Decision” went online the same week Joe Oliver came gunning after “radical” environmentalists who were trying to stop the Northern Gateway pipeline. The site provides no information about the people behind it although donations go to the Ethical Oil Institute, whose directors are Levant and Thomas Ross, an employer-side labour lawyer whose Calgary firm, McLennan Ross, boasts of a relationship with the oilsands industry that goes back to its origins in the 1960s.

The purpose of “Our Decision” is to collect donations to be marshalled in the war against environmentalists: “Will you help us fight against foreign-funded and controlled lobbyists interfering in Canadian affairs?”

“Follow the Money Trail” is a second web site that promotes the Krause conspiracy theory. The site went online in mid-2014 and is sponsored by British Columbians for Prosperity, a new organization which, like Ethical Oil, provides no information about its financial backers, directors, members or advisers. The site helps us to “follow the money trail and explore the U.S. foundation funding hypocrisy that’s impacting Canada’s sovereignty.”

The organization hired one journalist to do the research and another to disseminate the findings. The findings, such as they are, had already been found by Krause.

And on it goes. Repeat this message: American billionaires back Canadian environmental organizations opposed to oilsands expansion and pipeline construction, not because oilsands developments threaten the environment or add to global warming, but because they are detrimental to American oil interests.

A perfect bait-and-switch strategy.

Meanwhile, little light has being shed on the funding of citizen groups defending oil production and export.

Unlike environmental groups, whose spokespeople have a clear public profile and whose organizations have long-standing missions, publicly-known board members and financial records, the same cannot be said of pop-up defenders of oil interests such as the Ethical Oil Institute and British Columbians for Prosperity.

Their activities remain shrouded in secrecy.

Image Credit: Vivian Krause speaks at She Talks Resources. Photo by Mychaylo Prystupa

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.

While Jim Prentice and his Progressive Conservative cadre lick their wounds after last night’s landslide victory by the New Democratic Party and leader Rachel Notley, punditry about the oil industry’s place in the transformed province is in full force.

Even before the results were in, Canadians were being warned new leadership in Canada’s oilpatch will mean very scary things for the economy: fleeing investors, abandoned projects, market uncertainty.

Now that the victory bells have rung, the hand-wringing has leveled up.

The NDP win is “completely devastating,” for the energy industry, Rafi Tahmazian, fund manager for Canoe Financial LP, told Bloomberg.

“The oil patch will pack up and leave,” Licia Corbella, editor of the Calgary Herald’s editorial page, tweeted. “Woe is us.”

Yet many other onlookers are saying fresh leadership in Alberta could bring long-overdue policy changes that not only benefit a broader cross-section of society, but industry itself, by remedying systemic imbalances that have granted an unhealthy amount of power to oil interests for far too long.

NDP Win a “Clear Negative”?

Notley, who has promised to review the royalty regime around oil and gas production, raise corporate taxes, ban corporate political donations and stop pushing for the Keystone XL and Northern Gateway pipelines, is poking an exposed nerve for companies already feeling on the outs after the oil economy’s dramatic downturn.

“The perception from the market based on their comments is they’re extremely dangerous,” Tahmazian said.

Bloomberg reports the NDP victory could result in a massive sell off of Canadian energy stocks and stall investment in the oilsands (Cenovus stocks dropped four per cent on the TSX on Wednesday).

“It’s a clear and material negative,” Martin Pelletier from TriVest Wealth Counsel Ltd. opined. “Just when we’re starting to look like we’re recovering here, we get another layer of uncertainty.”

Jeff Gaulin, vice president of communications at the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, Canada’s largest oil and gas lobby, echoed those concerns, saying a change in Alberta’s royalty regime would be dangerous for industry.

“Now is not the time for a royalty review,” he told Reuters. “The uncertainty that that would create for investment would jeopardize jobs in Alberta.”

According to Jeremy McCrea, analyst with AltaCorp Capital Inc. in Calgary, American investors began dropping stocks even before the elections results were in. Energy shares, McCrea warned, are threatened by Notley’s royalty review — and a potential hike in rates.

But not all commentators see such doom and gloom in the NDP’s sudden rise to power.

New NDP Rule Could be “Good for Pipelines”

The Progressive Conservatives and the Wildrose parties have been called out for running what amounts to a “fear campaign” based on threats the NDP would wreck the economy.

But with the Albertan economy already in shambles — with a deficit running at $5 billion — voters were apparently left unconvinced that sticking with the status quo would be in their best interest.

“The fear of the unknown was a big factor the NDP had to overcome,” Chris Hall, national affairs editor of the CBC said. “I think what people voted for was change.”

Hall acknowledged that Notley’s campaign promises could be a “disincentive” for new investors looking to get involved in the oilpatch, but he added Notley is “not a particularly radical New Democrat.”

“The environment, for example, comes in under ‘other matters’ on their platform.”

Andrew Coyne said he anticipates Notley will proceed with caution as she presumably doesn’t want to be a “one-term premier.”

“This is still an oil-producing province,” Coyne said. “She can’t just step all over that.”

He added: “What she may have an advantage of is presenting a more environmentally friendly face in terms of the outside world and if she plays her cards right could actually increase the odds of getting a pipeline built if that’s the way she’s inclined.”

Max Fawcett, editor of Alberta Oil, said industry’s “nervousness is a gut reaction” and that he anticipates measured policy under Notley.

The new premier isn’t likely to “pick a fight” with industry and represents policies that are actually much closer to the PCs than one might think.

Fawcett points to Andrew Leach’s detailed analysis on the NDPs position, saying “they’re not the fire-breathing leftist radicals some might think.”

As Leach puts it, “an NDP government would certainly lead to changes in Alberta, but perhaps not of the radical sort feared by many in the province.”

So, despite the gnashing of teeth, the new guard doesn’t necessarily represent doom and gloom for the oil industry. After all, much of Alberta’s former policy (with ample help from the federal Conservatives) has put the oil industry in hot water.

Notley Promises to be Good Partner to Industry and First Nations

In her victory speech, Notley promised to maintain good working relations with industry, but also emphasized her hope to repair long-damaged relationships with First Nations in Alberta.

“To Alberta’s Indigenous peoples,” she said, “the trust we have been given tonight is a call to be better neighbours and partners. I’m looking forward to consulting with you and learning from you.”

Currently oilsands operators are facing two major legal challenges from First Nations with traditional territory in the oilsands region.

The Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation (ACFN), whose legal challenge was thrust into the spotlight with Neil Young’s Honour the Treaties tour last summer, is arguing the cumulative impacts of rampant oilsands development threatens their treaty rights.

Although the Albertan and Canadian governments fought to have the case dismissed, the Alberta Court of Appeals decided the case was legitimate — with potentially huge implications for all oilsands operators.

In response to the NDP victory, the ACFN said they are “optimistic to finally have a government that that recognizes and respects Indigenous rights and territories.”

“While the ACFN have raised multiple issues over the years relating to land management, environmental, health and education, we are finally looking forward to possibly resolving our concerns through a meaningful working relationship with the NDP government.”

The Beaver Lake Cree First Nation is also taking its oilsands fight to the courts, a challenge given greater weight since the unstoppable CNRL bitumen leak began on its territory in 2012.

Alberta’s “black eye” reputation when it comes to climate and the environment hasn’t been doing industry any favours.

Obama’s ambivalence on Keystone XL, Europe’s efforts to label oilsands crude as “high carbon,” and the explosion of major climate and pipeline protests across Canada are all symptom’s of Alberta’s failure to get the oil industry on a 21st century track.

A lack of social licence for oilsands operators has meant “uncertainty” for industry (to the tune of $17 billion by some estimates) long before the NDP took their seat at the throne.

Clearly the status quo wasn’t working perfectly — for anybody. While entrenched oil interests are fearing the worst, there’s obviously plenty of room for improvement.

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 was the cherry on top of the ice cream sundae of entitlement.

On Monday, the day before the Alberta election, the province’s four largest newspapers — the Edmonton Journal, Edmonton Sun, Calgary Herald and Calgary Sun — endorsed the Progressive Conservatives.

Now, newspapers endorsing parties is nothing new, but every major newspaper in Alberta being owned by one company is new. (Postmedia acquired the Calgary Sun and Edmonton Sun this March when the Competition Bureau signed off on the purchase.)

What else appears to be new is that the Edmonton Journal (which did not endorse in 2012) was asked to endorse not by local management, but by head office in Toronto, according to editor-in-chief Margo Goodhand.

Asked by Canadaland who chose to endorse the PCs, Goodhand responded: "The owners of the Journal made that call.”

It’s hard to imagine a better way for Postmedia to undermine its own credibility than by dictating editorial policy in Alberta — from Toronto of all places.

As new Premier Rachel Notley said in the last days of the campaign: “Alberta doesn’t belong to any political party. Alberta is not a PC province, it’s not a Wildrose province. Alberta belongs to Albertans.”

As a born and bred Albertan with an election-watching obsession, it’s that quote that best sums up why Alberta voters made the leap to electing a majority NDP government. Albertans like to be their own bosses.

For a long time, they thought voting PC made that so, but this time, that changed — at least for the 40 per cent of voters who selected an NDP candidate on the ballot.

“The unprecedented New Democrat surge in Alberta was certainly abetted by a Conservative regime that looked out of touch and, frankly, acted like a dysfunctional family that needed counselling,” wrote Gary Mason in the Globe and Mail on Wednesday.

The first big blunder was made by PC Leader Jim Prentice, when he said Albertans needed to “look in the mirror” when it came to the fiscal mess the province is in.  Albertans weren’t too pleased about being blamed for a problem created by decades of fiscal mismanagement.

Next up, Prentice insinuated during the televised leaders debate that Notley couldn’t do math.

That moment was the embodiment of so much that had become wrong with Alberta politics — old, white guys so entitled that they think they can treat everyone from average Albertans to smart female political leaders with condescension.

The Edmonton Journal’s editorial on Wednesday (not written by Postmedia bosses in Toronto by the look of things) hit the nail on the head:

“The one thing we know about Notley and all of these fresh new faces that now govern us is this: They will not take their victory for granted. They have never been the ruling party, and they well know that governing this province is a privilege, not an entitlement. That’s the lesson for all Alberta politicians this time around.”

More than a lesson for Alberta’s politicians, it’s a lesson for oil companies that had grown too tight with the PCs and too full of their own sense of entitlement. Aided by the government, they’d begun to lose sight of the fact the resources they are digging up actually belong to Albertans.

The NDP has promised to review the royalty system: “The resources we have in Alberta belong to all of us, and the return we get on resources needs to be discussed publicly and regularly, openly and transparently.”

Unlike much of the fear mongering coming from the oil industry today, the NDP has made no indication that it will rashly move to increase royalties in the midst of slumping oil prices.

"Business is mobile," Adam Legge, president of the Chamber of Commerce in Calgary, said before the election. "Capital, people and companies move."

Well, apparently votes move too, Mr. Legge. And unless the world’s third largest proven reserve of oil is going to migrate outside of Alberta’s borders, it’s time for politicians and companies alike to stop taking Albertans and their resources for granted.

Image Credit: Jim Prentice 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.

Marilyn Baptiste of the Xeni Gwet’in First Nation in British Columbia has won the prestigious $175,000 Goldman Prize  for her five-year effort to prevent construction of the Prosperity gold and copper mine 600 kilometres north of Vancouver.

“I hope the Goldman award will bring world recognition to help us protect our land,” Baptiste told DeSmog Canada.  “We’d like to improve our lives, but our land and water comes first."

That simple statement echoes the words of millions of indigenous peoples in Canada and around the world facing governments and industries intent on extracting minerals, oil, coal, gas and timber from their lands.

“It’s the same story everywhere,” she said.

However, the beginnings of a new story may be in the works in Canada. Baptiste is a member of the Tsilhqot’in people who won a landmark Supreme Court of Canada decision in 2014 that granted aboriginal title to more than a 1,750-square-kilometre area in the Cariboo-Chilcotin area.

For more than 20 years, the 3,000-member Tsilhqot’in opposed clear-cut logging on its unceded territory in and around the Nemaiah Valley. The Tsilhqot'in have no treaties with governments, but the B.C. government approved the logging regardless. The Supreme Court ruled that B.C. had infringed on the rights of the Tsilhqot’in.

Most of B.C. is unceded territory, so the implications of the Supreme Court decision are potentially far-reaching for the rest of the province.

“Our land, our water, our future generations are not for sale," Baptiste said.

Vancouver’s Taseko Mines Ltd, the proponent of the renamed “New” Prosperity Mine, says it will proceed with its project because it is outside of the 1,750 square kilometre Tsilhqot’in territory.

Taseko has spent 20 years trying to get the open pit mine built beside Teztan Biny (Fish Lake). Although the project was approved by B.C., a federal environmental review panel rejected the project in 2010 for its serious potential environmental and cultural impacts. In a rare statement, then minister of environment Jim Prentice said the project would destroy Fish Lake and surrounding streams and wetlands.

A Taseko animation of the New Prosperity Mine plans for Fish Lake via Youtube.

Taseko made some changes, called it "New" Prosperity and re-submitted it to the federal review panel soon after with the blessing of the B.C. government. Taseko started to work on the mine in 2011 without getting federal approval.

That’s when Baptiste stood up and started a one-woman blockade preventing construction crews from reaching the proposed mine site. Alone and in a very remote location, Baptiste drew her courage from the mountains around her.

Baptiste stands over a map of Tsilhqo'tin Territory. Photo: Goldman Environmental Prize

“We’re part of the mountains and lakes. They’re our source of health and sustenance….It is just my duty and responsibility to protect our lands, water, wildlife, wild plants for our future generations,” she said.

Baptiste was soon joined by members of her community and the Tsilhqot’in Nation in blocking the road.

The federal government rejected Taseko again in 2013, saying it would cause irreversible environmental damage. Taseko’s response was to sue the federal government. And then again when it lost.

In January 2015, the B.C. government granted Taseko a new extension to build the mine.

“It’s been five years but it feels like ten,” said Baptiste.

“We’re definitely going to continue to oppose the project.”

The open pit mine would be up to 1.6 kilometres wide and more than 500 metres deep. The contaminated tailings will be dumped into a tailings pond near the lake — the specifications of which are based on those of the Mount Polley tailings pond, Baptiste said.

The Mount Polley tailings pond, about four square kilometres in size, failed in August 2014, releasing millions of cubic metres of contaminated water. It was considered one of Canada’s biggest environmental disasters.

Indigenous peoples appreciate modern technology and want to enjoy the benefits, but not if that means the destruction of their land and waters, Baptiste repeated.

“We can’t continue the way we are going. Mother Earth is telling us we are going the wrong way.”

Laws and regulations for mining and the extractive industries need major reforms, something First Nations in the Mount Polley area are actively engaged in pursuing. Governments need to work with local people, not ignore or disrespect them as the B.C. government has, Baptiste said.

Image Credit: Goldman Environmental Prize

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.

At the premiers’ climate summit this week, Saskatchewan Premier Brad Wall brought up a statistic that has received a fair amount of attention lately: Canada’s emissions account for fewer than two per cent of global greenhouse gas emissions.

He’s not wrong, but used as an argument against doing our part to combat climate change, his point does contain some flawed logic.

“Showing leadership matters, signals matter, examples matter, but the numbers are the numbers,” Wall said.

Essentially, Wall appears to be suggesting that because no single action by itself will solve the problem, we shouldn’t take that single action.

Applying this logic to other situations reveals just how faulty it is.

“Canada accounted for less than two per cent of the allied war effort in the Second World War but our leadership certainly made a difference,” says Tzeporah Berman, adjunct professor in the faculty of environmental studies at York University.

Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne rejected Wall’s argument.

“Yes, we are a small country in terms of our population and absolute emissions, but we are heavy emitters per capita and that actually gives us more of a responsibility to innovate and create technology that allow us to deal with the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions,” she said.

A recent poll showed that most Canadians side with Wynne over Wall. Fifty-eight per cent of Canadians disagreed or strongly disagreed with the statement that Canada’s greenhouse gas emissions are justified because they represent only a small portion of the global total. Only 17 per cent agreed with that sentiment.

So, let’s get clear about how Canada’s emissions fit into the global climate context and how our country has been performing so far.

Both on an absolute basis and on a per capita basis, Canada is a very significant polluter. The World Bank lists Canada in the top 15 emitters of carbon dioxide per capita. And, when taking into account emissions from land use and forestry, the World Resources Institute ranks Canada as the highest per capita polluter in the world.

The Union of Concerned Scientists, using International Energy Agency data, ranks Canada ninth when it comes to the country’s global share of carbon emissions.

The oilsands are the fastest growing source of emissions in Canada even though Alberta is home to only 11 per cent of the population.

As the Pembina Institute puts it, if Alberta were a country it would have the highest per capita emissions in the world.

What’s more, Environment Canada projects oilsands emissions will more than double over the next decade, growing from 48 megatonnes in 2010 to 104 megatonnes in 2020.

In this figure the National Energy Board compares several oilsands’ production forecasts, all of which show significant growth in the resource continuing to 2035.

That growth is completely at odds with meeting our climate targets. In fact, Alberta’s growth in emissions is actually un-doing the climate gains made in other provinces, such as Ontario’s phase-out of coal powered energy plants.

That’s been allowed to happen because despite eight solid years of promises, Canada still has no national regulations on greenhouse gas emissions.

Last December, during the UN climate summit in Lima, Peru, Stephen Harper made headlines for saying it would be “crazy” to regulate the oil and gas sector. Canada regularly ranks dead last out of developed nations on the climate file.

Under the Copenhagen Accord, Canada committed to reducing its emissions 17 per cent below 2005 levels by 2020 but, according to Environment Canada, we are nowhere near meeting that target.

The importance of this can’t really be overstated.

This is why: Canada has subscribed to the target of limiting the world’s temperature increase to 2 degrees Celsius. Each country’s contributions to that target translate into our ability to limit the worst impacts of climate change. Canada’s failure to meets its own target threatens this international goal that other countries are furiously working towards.

The debate about climate change isn’t merely a moral one. The cost of failing to act will almost certainly outweigh the costs of acting. Think: floods, heat waves, adaptation efforts, rising sea levels, water scarcity, lower crop yields and wildfires.

Economic research by experts like Yale’s William Nordhaus demonstrates that waiting to act on climate will cost a lot — like in the trillions-of-dollars a lot.

All of that is to say that Canada’s poor-sport attitude on climate change amounts to a major ‘tragedy of the commons’ outcome. Basically, if everyone shrugs off their individual responsibilities, we’re all going to suffer.

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Image Credit: Province of British Columbia via Flickr

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

In the lead up to December’s UN climate talks in Paris, most countries are approaching their promised emission reductions with new national regulations. Canada’s Conservative government is taking a different path.

Instead of considering a federal carbon tax, Environment Minister Leona Aglukkaq has asked premiers to submit their own cuts and how they will achieve them. In a letter submitted to all premiers on Friday afternoon, Minister Aglukkaq notes that Canada is falling far short of its promised 2020 emission cuts and suggests it is up to individual provinces to fill in the gaps.

Those reductions — plus working out the details of the Canadian Energy Strategy — form the agenda for Tuesday’s Premiers' Climate Summit on Climate in Quebec City.

On Saturday afternoon, more than 25,000 people filled the streets of Quebec City asking provincial leaders to take the action the federal government seems obstinately set against. And these marchers are not outliers: a new poll commissioned by Canada’s Climate Action Network revealed 70 per cent of Canadians want the country to become global leaders in protecting the climate.

That’s why this Premiers' Climate Summit is so important — it is their leadership (or not) that could make the difference in Canada finally taking climate action. But who are the premiers leading the way and who could hold back progress yet again? Read on.

Provincial Leadership by the Numbers

British Columbia

• Premier: Christy Clark
• Annual GHG emissions (2012): 60.1 Mt CO2
• Percentage of Canadian total emissions (2012): 8.6 per cent  

Much has been written about British Columbia’s progressive and award-winning carbon tax. Since its inception in 2008, B.C. has reduced its annual CO2 emissions by 2.2 gigatonnes, taking strides towards its goal of a 33 per cent reduction from 2005 levels by 2020. Christy Clark, in the lead up to the summit, challenged other governments to 'meet or beat' the province's carbon tax.

Unfortunately, Clark promised to freeze the carbon tax for five years as part of her 2013 election campaign. At the same time, Clark also pledged to reinvigorate B.C.’s economy by developing a $100 billion industry around the export of liquefied natural gas to Asian markets. Neither of these actions are likely to help B.C. meet or exceed its emission reduction targets.

On the plus side, Clark is lukewarm on two proposed pipeline and tanker projects that would carry diluted bitumen from the Alberta oilsands to the B.C. coast. She has pledged to deny provincial operating permits to both Northern Gateway and Kinder Morgan’s TransMountain expansion unless they meet five conditions ranging from safety to profit sharing. After the dismal response to this week’s relatively small spill of toxic bunker fuel in Vancouver’s English Bay, the most important condition — a ‘world class’ oil spill response plan — seems unlikely to be met anytime soon.

Premier Clark will not attend the summit and will be speaking at a World Bank event instead.

Alberta

• Premier: Jim Prentice
• Annual GHG emissions (2012): 249.3 Mt CO2
• Percentage of Canadian total emissions (2012): 35.7 per cent  

Alberta is the source of the lion’s share of Canada’s emissions, thanks largely to the Athabasca oilsands. After more than a decade of high global oil prices fueled rapid growth in the industry, the market for oil futures (with the high prices that kept the oilsands profitable) collapsed last fall.

The expansion of Alberta’s oilsands infrastructure is the source of much discussion and contention. Premiers of B.C., Quebec and Ontario have all set conditions before allowing any of the three large pending oil pipeline and tanker projects to proceed through their provinces, and the Obama administration in the U.S. has said it will not allow the Keystone XL pipeline to proceed if it contributes to climate change.

In 2007, the Alberta government implemented a small carbon levy of $15/tonne for large emitters. The tax will expire on June 30, 2015.

Premier Jim Prentice (a former Federal Minister of Environment in the Harper Conservative cabinet) has said he supports the idea of “the provinces [finding] common ground on energy and the environment, and [enforcing] fair, clear, well thought-out rules,” but has yet to reveal any plans.

Premier Prentice is currently running for re-election. His office confirmed he will not attend Tuesday’s summit.

Saskatchewan

• Premier: Brad Wall
• Annual GHG emissions (2012): 74.8 Mt CO2
• Percentage of Canadian total emissions (2012): 10.7 per cent

Since becoming Premier in 2007, Brad Wall has said or done little about climate change. He actively supports development of pipeline infrastructure, particularly TransCanada’s Energy East and Keystone XL pipelines. In 2014, he travelled to Washington, D.C., to lobby for the approval of the latter.

In a March 2014 roundtable interview with Canadian journalists he floated the idea of a moderate carbon tax as a being a means of encouraging the U.S. government to approve the pipeline. "I think you start slow and see what impact it has on the economy… I don't think you want to kneecap your economy with a carbon tax."

A few months later in November 2014, he approached the idea of CO2 emissions with a more fatalistic view, saying “If you want to get serious about (reducing) GHGs in Canada, we’d all stop driving cars.”

Premier Wall will not attend the summit.  

Manitoba

• Premier: Greg Selinger
• Annual GHG emissions (2012): 21.2 Mt CO2
• Percentage of Canadian total emissions (2012): 3.03 per cent  

Since taking office in 2009, Premier Greg Selinger has been outspoken on climate change and Manitoba’s need to adapt and take action. His administration held knowledge-sharing sessions with experts in neighbouring Wisconsin; he’s spoken at sustainability conferences in India and committed to a robust set of climate adaptation goals, including reducing greenhouse gas emissions to six per cent below 1990 levels, to about 17.5 megatonnes.

That said, after five years his administration has yet to table any large-scale legislation or programs to make these reductions a reality. A planned cap-and-trade program expected for implementation in 2012 has not materialized. In the meantime, climate change impacts continue to add up. As Scott Forbes wrote in a Winnipeg Free Press op-ed last summer:

“Even the most powerful politicians cannot hold back the rain. But they can plan for a rainy day. With higher spring and summer river levels now the new normal, lowering river levels is going to be harder than ever. So build the walkway higher. Rack up the cost to our changing climate.”

At present it is unclear if Premier Selinger will attend Tuesday’s summit.

Ontario

• Premier: Kathleen Wynne
• Annual GHG emissions (2012): 166.9 Mt CO2
• Percentage of Canadian total emissions (2012): 23.9 per cent  

Ontario is the second-largest source of GHG emissions in Canada, and has, in recent years, taken its reduction very seriously. Before leaving office in 2012, Premier Dalton McGuinty passed the Green Energy Act, and pushed forward legislation to end urban sprawl, protect clean drinking water and limit toxic chemicals in manufacturing.

Premier Kathleen Wynne seems poised to take things even further. Her administration has already made Ontario completely free of coal-fired power and pledged seven conditions before new pipeline infrastructure projects such as Energy East will be allowed to go forward.

Together with Quebec Premier Philippe Couillard, she has led the development of the Canadian Energy Strategy — the framework for the Premier’s Climate Summit.

On Monday, Premier Wynne signed a cap-and-trade agreement with Quebec Premier Couillard in advance of Tuesday’s climate summit.

Quebec

• Premier: Philippe Couillard
• Annual GHG emissions (2012): 78.3 Mt CO2
• Percentage of Canadian total emissions (2012): 11.2 per cent  

Couillard is a climate action champion in his own right. He has worked closely with Ontario Premier Wynne on developing the Canadian Energy Strategy and his administration implemented a cap-and-trade scheme in partnership with California starting in January of this year. He opposes the Energy East pipeline plan for a terminal in Quebec (which fortunately for Quebeckers and belugas, has been dropped in TransCanada’s latest plans) and as of December 2014, supports continuing a moratorium on hydraulic fracturing in the province saying "if there’s no segment of the population that approves of the practice, then I don’t see the interest in developing it."

He’s also repeatedly said that he hopes for Quebec to have an important voice at December’s UN Climate Summit in Paris.

“I will ensure that Quebec is not only present, but also that it has the opportunity to make its voice heard.”  

New Brunswick

• Premier: Brian Gallant
• Annual GHG emissions (2012): 16.4 Mt CO2
• Percentage of Canadian total emissions (2012): 2.35 per cent  

Premier Brian Gallant’s leadership on climate and energy is inconsistent. Despite imposing a moratorium on fracking across the province, he is an active and vocal supporter of the Energy East pipeline. This proposed pipeline would carry diluted bitumen from the Alberta oilsands to a deepwater port on the Bay of Fundy for export to international markets.

Speaking at January news conference, Gallant said:

"There's no doubt as a nation we have to do a better job on climate change…On top of that, we also have to have a conversation about developing our economy throughout the country in a responsible way. We believe the Energy East pipeline is one that will help us grow our economy, create jobs; it's one we that we can do, we believe, in a sustainable way."  

Premier Gallant will attend the summit.

Nova Scotia

• Premier: Stephen McNeil
• Annual GHG emissions (2012): 19.0 Mt CO2
• Percentage of Canadian total emissions (2012): 2.7 per cent

After implementing a law in 2010 that required the province to meet 25 per cent of its energy needs from renewable sources, the province is now on track for a second goal: generating 40 per cent of its electricity by 2020.

In fall 2014, the province also imposed a moratorium on onshore fracking, except for research or testing purposes.

Speaking to delegates at a conference, Premier McNeil said, "Nova Scotia is a small province with a big future in sustainable energy. We're addressing climate change and the need for a lower carbon future by embracing change through innovation that focuses on one of our greatest advantages — our proximity to the ocean and its tides."

Premier McNeil will not attend the summit; he's sending Environment Minister Randy Delorey instead.

Prince Edward Island

• Premier: Wade MacLauchlan
• Annual GHG emissions (2012): 1.9 Mt CO2
• Percentage of Canadian total emissions (2012): 0.27 per cent  

Wade McLauchlan took the Premier’s oath of office less than 50 days ago. In his speech accepting the title of premier designate, Mclauchlan called P.E.I. a world leader in renewable energy, but said we can do more as “an important first step as we turn our attention to climate change.”

At press time, it is unclear whether Premier MacLauchlan will attend Tuesday’s summit.

Newfoundland & Labrador

• Premier: Paul Davis
• Annual GHG emissions (2012): 8.7 Mt CO2
• Percentage of Canadian total emissions (2012): 1.2 per cent  

Elected premier by a narrow margin in fall 2014, Paul Davis won his seat by pledging to protect the province’s offshore oil and gas extraction industry and ensure the billions of dollars it generates in royalties are better shared around the province.

On Friday April 10, Premier Davis announced his plan to attend the climate summit, citing an opportunity “to discuss best practices and future solutions in the fight against climate change and strengthen intergovernmental cooperation.”

Yukon Territory

• Premier: Darrell Pasloski
• Annual GHG emissions (2012): 0.4 Mt CO2
• Percentage of Canadian total emissions (2012): 0.06 per cent  

Despite promising to do so back in 2009, the Yukon has yet to set targets for territory-wide emission reductions.

In 2012, Premier Darrell Pasloski’s government announced that it would be impossible to predict future industrial and economic growth, and recommended the following action instead: “Rather than commit to an arbitrary target based on estimated projections of Yukon’s economic growth, the government is working with key players in the electricity, building and energy efficiency, industrial, and transportation sectors to identify actions that will lead to realistic and measurable outcomes to minimize growth in Yukon’s overall GHG emissions.”

Instead, the government has committed to a reduction in emissions for its own internal operations — 20 per cent lower than 2010 levels by 2015.

Pasloski does not support mandatory carbon pricing and just last week announced plans to explore fracking in the territory’s Liard basin, provided it had the support of First Nations in the region.

Premier Pasloski will attend the summit.

Northwest Territories & Nunavut

• Premier (NWT): Bob McLeod
• Premier (Nunavut): Peter Taptuna
• Annual GHG emissions (2012): 1.7 Mt CO2
• Percentage of Canadian total emissions (2012): 0.24 per cent  

Belying their huge size, both the Northwest Territories and Nunavut release approximately the same amount of GHG emissions as tiny Prince Edward Island. Despite this, their residents are disproportionately affected by rising seas and melting permafrost compared to Canadians in other provinces.

In 2014, the Premiers of the Northwest Territories and Nunavut met in Iqaluit to develop a strategy document for northern Canada, entitled ‘A Northern Vision.’ In it they agree that “clean, reliable, affordable energy is the backbone of a sustainable economy, is essential for the well-being of northerners, and fosters investment and economic growth in the North.”

At present it is not clear if either Premier McLeod or Premier Taptuna will attend the summit.

Image Credit: All images via Canada's Premiers

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.

“We will continue to have a strong economy while meeting the 2020 [climate] targets … and we will meet those.”

It was a bewildering statement, like something out of a poorly scripted political drama. The idea that within the next five years, Alberta — the province responsible for over 35 per cent of the country’s greenhouse gas emissions in 2012 — would meet its emissions targets would be laughable if it weren’t so pathetic.

But that’s what was said.

And by Diana McQueen, a former minister of environment, no less. By the very person who’s now leading the revision of the province’s oft-delayed climate change framework.

Back in 2008, the Alberta government, then headed by Progressive Conservative leader Ed Stelmach, brought forward a fairly weighty climate change strategy. Goals were set, policies outlined.

“Our targets,” wrote Stelmach, “are based on sound research not wishful thinking.”

The strategy promised that by 2020, the province’s annual emissions would fall by 50 megatonnes below “business-as-usual” numbers — in 2008, that number was  232 megatonnes per year.

But according to Environment Canada’s most recent projections for emissions, Alberta’s annual output will instead grow to 287 megatonnes a year — an overall increase of 55 megatonnes, which means that the target (a 12 per cent increase from the 2005 number) will be missed by a full 27 Mt.

Removing bitumen from the oilsands will account for a great majority of that increase, the report noted. The resulting emissions from that process will practically wipe out all the reductions in Canadian emissions accomplished by retiring coal-fired power stations.

In other words, unless emissions from the Alberta oilsands are dramatically tempered in the next five years, the bitumen extraction industry will come close to single-handedly undoing all the hard work done by the rest of the country to rein in greenhouse gas emissions.

In the next five years, Ontario is projected to reduce its emissions by 37 megatonnes, Nova Scotia by eight, Quebec by six.

Alberta could wipe out all of that (and New Brunswick’s contributions while we’re at it).

But McQueen asserts that Alberta will live up to its goals.

McQueen’s Troubling Climate History

It’s not the first time McQueen, the former mayor of Drayton Valley, has made statements that were out of touch with reality.  

In 2011, when McQueen was environment minister, she denounced Kyoto because it “didn’t work for Canada without all the large emitters at the table.”

Then in 2013, McQueen told a Belgian news agency that the province had “taken some very strong movements … with regard to monitoring.”

But the Alberta Environmental Monitoring, Evaluation and Reporting Agency (thankfully reducible to the easy acronym of AEMERA), designed under McQueen’s watch, has been roundly criticized as a failure.

Alberta’s auditor general, Merwan Saher, condemned the agency’s work in his October 2014 report, noting the organization’s report for 2012-2013 took an egregious length of time to be made public. Saher said the report “lacked clarity and key information and contained inaccuracies” and that there was little actual information on the implementation of the monitoring program.

Now that Prentice has slashed Saher’s budget by a cool half-million, we can expect less review of the agency’s shortcomings.  

The agency serves as the primary body to oversee the responsibilities suggested in its title and yet the chair of the board is Lorne Taylor, former environment minister under Ralph Klein, and a serious hater of Kyoto. He gets paid $50,000 a year for that job, which requires a once-a-month, six-hour meeting.

On a side note: AEMERA is now looking for a new chief executive officer! Apply today. Warning: Might be a stressful gig.

Alberta’s False Climate Starts

Other nonstarters have plagued the governing party on its road to meeting 2020 targets.

In April 2013, then-premier Alison Redford hinted at an augmented carbon levy. The Specialized Gas Emitters Regulation (SGER), which has remained untouched in specifics since its inauguration in 2007, charges large emitters (those who emit more than 100,000 tonnes a year) a mere $15 for 12 per cent of all total emissions.

Definitely not a carbon tax. But it’s something, right?

Specifically, Redford briefly proposed a 40/40 framework as an addition of sorts to the regulation: that is, $40 would be charged for 40 per cent of emissions. Not at all in the realm suggested by the Pembina Institute – which recommended a legitimate carbon tax between the range of $100 and $150 per tonne — but again, an improvement! Unfortunately, that concept was quickly forgotten.

But none of the aforementioned examples – the monitoring agency or increased carbon levy – come close to the dashed promises of carbon capture and storage (CCS).

CCS was the foundational element of Alberta’s 2008 climate plan. The province committed $2 billion to the controversial technology.

Interestingly, now-premier Jim Prentice, called CCS a “science experiment” during his campaign for party leader but has since gone on to describe the technology as “game-changing” during a pro-Keystone XL pipeline tour in Washington, D.C.

Prentice did not mention that the remaining $700 million allocated to CCS advancement would be diverted for other purposes.

The abandonment of CCS leaves Alberta with effectively no plan to reduce per-barrel emissions from the oilsands, which have been on the rise since 2011 according to the Canadian Association for Petroleum Producers (CAPP). 

Which brings us back to McQueen.

She stated — as a public servant presumably expected to tell the truth to constituents — that the province she represents will achieve the respectable emissions reductions by 2020.

In reality, the oil and gas sector has increased emissions by more than 100 per cent in the opposite direction. And no one, including McQueen, seems to have any idea about how to turn that around. 

Image Credit: Diana McQueen via Twitter

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 you cover energy and environment issues day in and day out, you’re prone to having some pretty geeky fantasies.

Case in point: over the holidays, my mind wandered to considering what advancements in Canadian energy policy I’d put on my wish list for 2015. I could have rattled off five or 10 things, but one kept rising to the top.

If I could wave my magic wand and make just one thing happen on the energy and environment front, what would it be? I’d like Alberta to start managing its oil wealth more responsibly.

The context: as 2014 draws to a close, Calgary public-school officials are asking the province to cough up the funding required to complete eight new schools and two modernization projects on time.

Right now, one-third of Calgary’s schools are running at more than 90 per cent capacity. All of the projects that require funding have been announced by Alberta Premier Jim Prentice since he took office in September.

“With the recent fluctuation in oil prices, we’re concerned,” Calgary Board of Education trustee Amber Stewart told Metro Calgary.

Let’s take a pause and reflect on how totally absurd this is for a moment.

Alberta has been developing one of the world’s largest sources of oil for more than 40 years and yet Calgary’s schools are nearly overflowing and the province doesn’t know if it’ll be able to locate the cash to build new ones because — surprise! — the price of oil changed.

So what’s wrong here? For starters, new infrastructure shouldn’t be tied to the price of oil. Even the Fraser Institute and the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives can agree that the Alberta government shouldn’t rely on non-renewable resource revenue to fund its operating expenses. (For the best run-down on this topic, read Money for Nothing: The Province vs. Non-Renewable Resource Revenue by Alberta Oil editor Max Fawcett.)

Fawcett references a 2013 Fraser Institute report that said to treat oil revenues as “analogous to sales tax receipts, and to spend them on projects that provide a flow of present services, would be to engage in unwise capital consumption, a drawing down of principal. Intuitively, the present generation would be selfishly eating away at a finite stock pile of wealth, rather than acting as custodians of ­nature’s gifts on behalf of all future generations.”

Another report by former Premier Ed Stelmach’s Council for Economic Strategy noted: “The true Alberta advantage is not the ability to create a low-tax environment by underwriting a significant proportion of government services with funds received from the sale of energy assets.”

Despite generating almost $190 billion in non-renewable resource revenues since 1980, the value of Alberta’s Heritage Fund was just $17.3 billion at the end of 2013 — paling in comparison to both Norway and Alaska’s non-renewable resource savings.

So here we are digging up two millions barrels of oilsands per day, and Prentice is warning that tough times could lie ahead as oil prices plunge below $75 U.S. per barrel. The province has projected that there could be a $7 billion shortfall in revenues next year as a result of the price crash.

Could these fiscal woes offer the window of opportunity needed for Albertans to wake up and see how poorly their oil wealth is being managed?

It took millions of years for all of that oil to end up trapped in sand in northern Alberta. We only get one shot at digging it up. It’s high time we start getting that right (and getting that right would inevitably mean going slower and collecting higher royalties).

The first step in changing the way Alberta manages (or mismanages) the oilsands is to untether government spending from oil revenues, thus starting to dismantle the government’s reluctance to fairly regulate industry. Right now you have a situation in which the Alberta government is reluctant to bite the hand that feeds it.

As an added bonus, keeping one-time resource wealth out of the province’s operating budget could weaken the government’s chokehold over its citizens (pretty easy to stay in power when you’re dishing out $400 “prosperity cheques”) — not to mention actually creating a savings fund for the future.

In an interview with The Tyee, Terry Lynn Karl, one of North America's foremost experts on the politics of oil, offered some wise words on the impact of oil revenue on governments. 

"Let me be clear: the commodity itself is neither good nor bad,” she said. “But the excessive profit involved from what Adam Smith called 'reaping what has not been sown' has led to a concentration of power and influence that makes it exceptionally difficult to fight the negative consequences of hydrocarbon dependence.”

The first step to breaking up that concentration of power and influence? Stop borrowing from the future and spending oil revenue like it's going out of style.

So here’s a little new year’s resolution suggestion for Prentice and the Alberta government: show your commitment to managing the oilsands responsibly by weaning yourselves off relying on one-time oil revenues to provide government services. If you showed that kind of courage, there may be short-term pain, but Albertans 50 years from now would still be clinking their glasses in your honour.

Photo: Jim Prentice by Connect 2 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.

Ontario will not look at greenhouse gas emissions from the oilsands industry in deciding whether to support TransCanada’s Energy East pipeline project. The province will only consider emissions in Ontario from the proposed pipeline according to an announcement by Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne on Wednesday.

“Ontario’s review of the Energy East pipeline will not have credibility unless emissions in Alberta are taken into account,” Adam Scott, climate and energy program manager with Environmental Defence Canada, told DeSmog Canada.

Wynne’s announcement in Toronto comes during a visit from Alberta Premier Jim Prentice to discuss Quebec and Ontario’s seven conditions for the 1.1 million barrel-per-day proposed pipeline. Ontario and Quebec have stated in their conditions “the contribution of greenhouse gas emissions” from Energy East must be taken into account.

But on Wednesday Wynne echoed the comments of Quebec Premier Philippe Couillard on Tuesday, when he clarified the greenhouse gas emissions the province will consider are those produced by the pipeline within the province, not those created from extraction the oilsands or those produced by the end use of the oilsands bitumen.

“Climate leadership means admitting that we can’t continue with business as usual," Scott said. "Massive fossil fuel infrastructure like Energy East will allow the oil industry to increase its climate pollution, undermining important efforts in Ontario and Quebec to cut back."

This redefinition of which greenhous gas emissions will be examined by the two central Canadian provinces may undermine the public consultations on Energy East underway in Ontario and Quebec. In both provinces, independent provincial agencies have been tasked with hearing public concerns about the 4,600-kilometre pipeline from Alberta to New Brunswick.

Ontarians and Quebecers have been invited to submit comments about greenhouse gases from Energy East and the pipeline's impacts on climate change (among other issues) to the provincial agencies. But it is difficult to see what weight these concerns will carry now that the provincial governments have decided to take a limited view of the project’s overall greenhouse gas emissions.

“Wynne’s refusal to consider how the pipeline will spur more climate pollution in the tar sands is more than disappointing, it is wrong,” Andrea Harden-Donahue, energy and climate justice campaigner with the Council of Canadians, said.

Image Credit: Kathleen Wynne via Twitter

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.