The UN climate talks seemed to grind to slow motion this week with the much-hyped, much-anticipated arrival of U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry.

Kerry arrived late for his scheduled talk, striding in with that celebrity dignitary air, surrounded by a posse of private security guards and long-lens photographers. An inexplicable apocalyptic plume of black smoke rose from the Marrakechi cityscape behind him.

From along the corridors of the conference venue adoring bystanders yelled, “We love you Secretary Kerry!”

I swear I saw Kerry’s teeth glisten like a Disney princess as he smiled and waved.

The moment was perfectly American, unfolding like a scene from a high-budget Hollywood film. In this conference mashup of international attendees it really did feel like the whole world was watching.

But they weren’t.

Secretary John Kerry at the UN climate talks in Marrakech, Morocco. Photo: Carol Linnitt

In fact, the whole of the giant complex making up the 22nd Conference of Parties seemed only to gaze up at the commotion before carrying on with its work.

At most international diplomatic events, the U.S. takes up a disproportionate amount of the sociopolitical bandwidth.

With the recent dramatic unfolding of the U.S. election — and the elevation of sideshow performer Donald Trump to one of the most powerful thrones in the world — this is truer than ever.

The reverberations of Trump’s win are still being felt in Marrakech where delegations from some 200 countries are deliberating the details of the Paris Agreement, a historic international treaty to limit global warming to as close to 1.5 degrees Celsius as possible.

Trump, who said he believes climate change to be a Chinese hoax, has vowed to pull out of the Paris Agreement and unleash America’s fossil fuel corporations on the nation’s remaining hydrocarbon deposits.

Here’s Trumps 100-day energy action plan:

Trump's 100-day action plan for energy #climate #cop22 "cancel Paris Climate Agreement" and stop payments "to U.N. global warming programs." pic.twitter.com/p0BvVXzyrf

— Graham Readfearn (@readfearn) November 9, 2016

Many responded by announcing the end had come, the planet will fry and we’re all screwed.

As a Canadian watching the U.S. election furor descend into ever-deeper madness from north of the border, I’ll admit it was hard to ward off the end-times thinking.

Yet arriving in Marrakech after extracting myself from my self-referential cesspool of a Facebook feed, it was clear just how much of the world is… well… not America and preoccupied with very non-American things.

In an interview at the climate talks Erik Solheim, executive director of the UN Environment Program, said the leadership gap left in America’s wake will simply be filled by other countries.

“The small talk here in Marrakech was, of course, completely overshadowed by the U.S. election, as everyone knows,” Solheim said. “But I’m very optimistic that whatever happens in the U.S., China and others will provide the global leadership that we need.”

China, responsible for 25 per cent of the world’s emissions while also being the world’s largest solar energy market, seemed eager to wave its diplomatic finger at the U.S. It backed up the gesture by announcing a new climate partnership with the European Union.

Lutz Weischer, leader of international climate policy at Germanwatch, said the EU/China collaboration is a game changer. He suggested Trump may have inadvertently strengthened the international community’s resolve.

“The Chinese have made statements that read to me they believe this is a global challenge…indicating the EU and China can move forward on this together,” he said. “Trump was sort of a wake up call to everybody. Countries seem even more committed than in the past.”

Solar installation in China. Photo: The Climate Group via Flickr.

Australia, Pakistan, Italy, Saudi Arabia and the U.K. have all ratified the Paris Agreement since Trump’s election, putting an end to speculation the U.S. shakeup might cause a climate treaty exodus.

Mohamed Adow, climate lead from Christian Aid International, said it’s a significant sign that even a post-Brexit U.K. isn’t abandoning the agreement.

“During a week in which the international climate negotiations have experienced the shock of the U.S. elections, this backing by America’s oldest and strongest ally shows that support for global action to tackle climate change remains resolute,” he said.

“If the election of Donald Trump as President of the United States can’t shake countries’ resolve then nothing will.”

Beyond pure political and economic leadership, many have expressed concern that the real loss will be felt in the absence of America’s moral leadership. But Weischer doesn’t see it that way.

“The strongest moral leadership in this process has always come from the vulnerable countries,” he said. “And not just in providing that leadership but in actually committing to do more.”

Bill Hare, climate scientist and director of Berlin-based Climate Analytics, said Trump’s surprise victory did dampen the mood in Marrakech — for a day.

“People bounced back quickly, thinking ‘well, okay, we can also do tough.’ “

New climate possibilities are opening up in new ways, Hare said, “because the geopolitical and technological dynamics have changed.”

Slowing emissions in China are the most obvious example.  

“From our technical analysis, we’re beginning to think China has peaked its carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels,” Hare said.

“It’s the second or third year in a row where carbon dioxide emissions have reduced and new policies announced by China should continue that trend.”

Earth to America: Trump’s Not the Centre of the Universe (Or the Climate) https://t.co/hNspoMRXIx #cdnpoli #ClimateAction

— DeSmog Canada (@DeSmogCanada) November 18, 2016

But Hare said the real news story is coming out of India, which is responsible for 6.96 per cent of the world’s total emissions and has millions of residents still without power.

For several years the world has been left to wonder if India’s solution to its energy poverty would be coal or cleaner alternatives.

Hare said news that India cancelled four ultra, mega coal plants —“which are as bad as they sound” — is a positive sign, as is the country’s massive growth rate in renewable energy.

“I think that’s the biggest story on the planet right now: will India make that transformation away from coal towards renewables bringing hundreds of millions of people out of energy poverty in a clean and sustainable way?”

“That would be the biggest transformation the world has seen should it come about,” Hare said.

“So despite the depression that many people feel about the Trump election, and rightly so, in the climate policy space we see a lot of potential for things to move forward rapidly despite the turbulence from the U.S. political system.”

Liz Gallagher, senior associate with the UK-based climate analysis group, E3G said Secretary Kerry’s remarks to conference attendees may have provided some measure of comfort by emphasizing the role of pure market forces in deciding the fate of the climate.

Over 360 businesses and investors have also called on Trump to stick with the fight against global warming, saying it simply makes good business sense.

The Paris Agreement calls for a worldwide decarbonization by 2050, something that is going to require what Trump might term ‘tremendous’ amounts of renewable investment dollars.

“That’s the paradox of what president-elect Trump is proposing: he’s going backwards on policy that could make it harder for the U.S. to retain or grow its place in the world,” Hare said. “The economic benefits will be lost to the United States.”

Weischer had a similar sentiment: “This is the first time the federal U.S. government has actively decided to take the U.S. out of an emerging industrial revolution.”

Emissions in the U.S. will likely be affected by Trump’s victory but it’s not yet game over for the universe.

So maybe all that apocalypse talk emanating from the U.S. is really about something more specific: in the coming clean energy rapture, America is the one who risks being left behind.

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.

High-level international action is needed to ensure that southeast Alaskan rivers and fisheries are protected from B.C. mines along the B.C./Alaska border, say Alaska’s federal representatives.

Concerns about the environmental safety of mines in the transboundary region have escalated since the province’s auditor general issued a scathing report earlier this month on B.C.’s mining practices and Alaska’s Congressional Delegation is now pushing for Secretary of State John Kerry to step in.

“We write to express our continuing concerns about the development of several hardrock mines in British Columbia and their potential effects on water quality in the transboundary rivers that flow from Canada into Southeast Alaska,” says a letter to Kerry from the congressional delegation, made up of Senator Lisa Murkowski, Senator Dan Sullivan and Congressman Don Young, all of whom are Republicans.

The group points out that, like most Alaskans, they support responsible mining.

“But Alaskans need to have every confidence that mining activity in Canada is carried out just as safely as it is in our state. Yet, today, that confidence does not exist,” says the letter.

There is a history of Canadian acid mine waste affecting Southeast Alaska, says the letter, referring to the Tulsequah Chief Mine that has been leaking acid waste into the Taku River for decades.

“As Canada continues to consider and approve new mines in B.C. and Yukon, the risk of additional impacts has increased,” says the letter.

“Water quality is an extremely important issue for Alaskans. Accordingly we ask that you and other officials from the Department of State raise these concerns with the governments of Canada and British Columbia.”

The letter points out that the report by Auditor General Carol Bellringer concludes that B.C.’s monitoring and inspection of mines are inadequate to protect from significant environmental risks and there are major gaps in resources, planning and tools.

The delegation wants Kerry to look at whether a referral of the issue to the International Joint Commission would be the best way to determine whether Canadian mines are following best practices in their treatment of waste water and acid-producing mine tailings, especially in light of “the scientific reviews of the causes of the Mount Polley tailing disposal dam failure.”

The Mount Polley dam disaster saw 25-million cubic metres of tailings, sludge and mining waste flood pristine drinking water near Williams Lake, B.C.

Under the 1909 U.S.-Canada Boundary Waters Treaty, either nation can call for an International Joint Commission to be appointed to adjudicate water disputes.

“If problems do occur, either nation can seek damages against the other for provable economic impacts, provided there is sufficient evidence of damage,” the letter points out.

“Should there be an impact to the transboundary waters that flow from Canada to Alaska, our state’s fisheries, tourism and native peoples could all be hurt.”

About 10 mines are in various stages of exploration and permitting on the B.C. side of the border and an approval that particularly alarmed Alaskans was the Red Chris Mine in the Iskut/Stikine watersheds, which opened in 2015 and is owned by Imperial Metals, the same company that owns Mount Polley.

No response has yet been received from Kerry, but a spokesman for Kerry’s office told DeSmog Canada last year that they did not anticipate a referral to the International Joint Commission at that time and instead wanted to encourage cooperation between B.C. and Alaska.

Last November Alaska Governor Bill Walker and B.C. Premier Christy Clark signed a non-binding memorandum of understanding to establish a bilateral working group on the protection of transboundary waters, but critics say that is not sufficiently rigorous to ensure mine safety.

The letter from the congressional delegation is also asking that B.C. officials consider the cumulative effects of mining during review and approval processes and that there should be a more formal consultation process with U.S. agencies.

There should also be support for Environment Canada’s water quality study looking at the impact of mining on transboundary waters and funding for water quality testing on the U.S. side of the border to establish baseline data “so that the U.S. can file for damages in the event of mining-related damage from Canadian mines,” the group suggested.

Heather Hardcastle, campaign director for Salmon Beyond Borders said the letter is a powerful statement that underscores that Alaskans, regardless of political party, want Kerry to step in.

“The danger we’re facing here in Alaska is real and was reconfirmed by the recent B.C. auditor general’s warning,” Hardcastle said.

“We urge Secretary Kerry to stand up for American jobs and seek IJC involvement in this matter so Americans have a say in the protection of our resources shared by the U.S. and Canada.”

Almost 20,000 letters requesting the commission’s involvement have been delivered to Kerry, Hardcastle said.

Frederick Olsen Jr., chair of the United Tribal Transboundary Mining Work Group, agreed an IJC review would help with a long-term approach to the protection of transboundary waters.

“Secretary Kerry has a lot on his plate. He has big fish to fry in our crazy world, but we need him to look over at us. We want to prevent fish from frying in our waters due to B.C.’s mine waste,” Olsen said.

Image: Conrad Beaudin/Salmon Beyond Borders

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.

Southeast Alaskans, anxious about B.C.'s mining boom along the Alaskan border, are pinning their hopes for stronger mine management on a treaty that dates back more than a century.

The International Joint Commission (IJC), operating under the Boundary Waters Treaty since 1909, is a body with six appointed members —three from Canada and three from the U.S. — used to resolve water or air conflicts between the two countries.

However, although the commission appears to be tailor-made to deal with the concern over B.C. mines in the headwaters of Southeast Alaska’s most important salmon rivers, politicians on both side of the border appear reluctant to hand over responsibility to a commission whose recommendations remain entirely independent of either party.

B.C. is seen as the major stumbling block, but the U.S. State Department is also hesitating, despite appeals to Secretary of State John Kerry from municipalities, First Nations, fishing organizations and tourism groups requesting the IJC's involvement.

In response to questions from DeSmog Canada, a State Department spokeswoman said the Mount Polley mine investigation is being watched closely and the State Department remains concerned about the potential effects of B.C. mines on the people of Alaska, but she encouraged B.C. and Alaska to increase cooperation and communication on transboundary mines rather than count on an IJC ruling.

“We have highlighted our concerns with the governments of Canada and B.C. at senior levels in government-to-government channels and do not anticipate referring this issue to the International Joint Commission at this time,” she said.

Alaska 'A Full Step Away' From Escalating Issue to Joint Commission: Lt. Governor

Alaska Lt. Gov. Byron Mallott, who recently travelled to B.C. to meet with Energy and Mines Minister Bill Bennett, said that discussions are continuing between Alaska and B.C. and he is not yet sure whether there will be a role for the IJC.

“Whether or not it is appropriate or timely that the IJC be invoked will be determined by the course of events,” Mallott said.

“To me, we are at least a full step away from that.”

If B.C. and Alaska forge a positive, transparent relationship, with sufficient oversight and cross-boundary input to safeguard Alaska’s interests, there may not be a need to seek help from the IJC, he said.

[view:in_this_series=block_1]

“It is important that Alaska and B.C. and the interests on both sides of the border be able to take this as far as possible,” he said, adding that, during his visit, he did not see a strong federal presence on mining issues in B.C.

The state’s congressional delegation is keeping in contact with the State Department on a possible role for the IJC, Mallott said.

Last year, Senator Lisa Murkowski, former senator Mark Begich and Congressman Don Young wrote to John Kerry asking him to raise the problem with his Canadian counterparts.

“Water quality is an extremely important issue for Alaskans. Accordingly, we ask you and other officials from the Department of State to raise these concerns with the governments of Canada and B.C.,” the letter says.

Energy and Mines Minister Bill Bennett has not responded to a DeSmog Canada interview request, but, in statements to media after his meeting with Mallott, he acknowledged Alaska’s “legitimate concerns” and said the discussions were a good foundation for a possible memorandum of understanding with the state.

B.C. Permitting Process Doesn’t Address Cumulative Impacts

The MOU could be similar to the arrangement with Montana, covering the Flathead River, where water testing is done at the border, he suggested.

However, the idea of an MOU does not sit well with grassroots groups pushing for a referral to the IJC.

MOUs are largely focused on information sharing and do not provide enforceable protections for downstream resources, said Chris Zimmer of Rivers Without Borders.

“Bennett’s offer for greater involvement in the B.C. permitting process is simply inadequate to address our concerns and is a sign that B.C. is not taking our concerns seriously,” Zimmer said.

“The B.C. permitting process, no matter how well it is carried out, is simply not designed to address long-term impacts from multiple mines, across a broad landscape, over the long term.”

It is always a difficult decision for politicians to ask for outside help, said David LaRoche, who served as executive secretary to the U.S. side of the commission from 1979 to 1996 and has since worked on transboundary watershed issues.

“Each country takes a leap of faith when it relies on something outside the established mechanism to have the issue addressed,” he said.

All Parties Need to Agree to Refer Case to International Joint Commission

Ideally, if the IJC is to be involved, there should be agreement from B.C., Canada, Alaska and the U.S.

“Under the treaty it is possible for one country to ask the commission to undertake a study, but it has never happened and the chances are close to zero as it would have no value because it would immediately be seen as biased by the country that did not ask,” LaRoche said.

Historically, both countries ask for a reference and agree on the specifics they want the IJC to study.

“If a province or state were to object it would be highly unlikely that a letter of reference would be sent. Unless B.C. is agreeable, this one won’t unfold,” LaRoche said.

Those campaigning for the commission’s involvement point to article four of the treaty, which says “waters flowing across the boundary shall not be polluted on either side to the injury of health or property on the other.”

Two B.C. Tailings Dams Expected to Fail Every 10 Years

So far, none of the new mines in northwest B.C. have polluted rivers, but there is a grating awareness of the possibility of a Mount Polley-type accident, something which was underlined by the report from the independent panel looking into the failure of the tailings pond dam, which found, under current regulations, two B.C. dams would be expected to fail every 10 years.

It is a statistic that shocked observers on both sides of the border and led to ramped up calls for a referral to the IJC.

Even though findings by the commission are not binding on either party, the recommendations carry a hefty dose of moral suasion and public clout, especially as conclusions are usually reached by consensus.

In 1984, after complaints by B.C., the IJC gave the thumbs-down to construction of a dam on the Skagit River that would have flooded parts of B.C. and in 1985, after U.S. complaints, the IJC recommended against an open pit coalmine in B.C.’s Flathead Valley until the impact on fisheries could be eliminated.

NDP energy and mines spokesman Norm Macdonald said the core issue, in the wake of the systemic failures pointed out by the Mount Polley report, is the need for the province to enforce environmental rules and standards, putting public safety ahead of economics, rather than cutting essential staff and accepting huge donations from the mining industry.

“Whatever tool you use, it has to be something where there is no tolerance for failure,” Macdonald said.

“We don’t tolerate elevators or bridges falling down and we have to take the same attitude to these facilities.”

Photo: www.sacbee.com

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.

More than 100 scientists and economists "concerned about climate change and its impacts" signed an open letter Monday calling on U.S. President Barack Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry to reject the proposed Keystone XL pipeline project, which would transport oilsands crude from Alberta to refineries on the Gulf Coast, mainly for export.

The signers "urge [President Obama and Secretary Kerry] to reject the Keystone XL tar sands oil pipeline as a project that will contribute to climate change at a time when we should be doing all we can to put clean energy alternatives in place."

The letter, signed by prominent leaders in science and economics, is the latest addition to an already strong and growing opposition to the Keystone XL project in the U.S., including 2 million public comments sent to President Obama and a previous open letter signed last month by over 200 business leaders and entrepreneurs asking for the rejection of the pipeline.

The signers write:

"As you both have made clear, climate change is a very serious problem. We must address climate change by decarbonizing our energy supply. A critical first step is to stop making climate change worse by tapping into disproportionately carbon-intensive energy sources like tar sands bitumen. The Keystone XL pipeline will drive expansion of the energy-intensive strip-mining and drilling of tar sands from under Canada's Boreal forest, increasing global carbon emissions. Keystone XL is a step in the wrong direction."

The signers remind President Obama and Secretary Kerry of their previous commitments to combating climate change, and reiterate that "evidence shows that Keystone XL will significantly contribute to climate change."

The letter emphasizes that fuels from oilsands crude result in higher greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions than fuel from conventional oil. The Keystone XL pipeline would open up overseas markets for higher-polluting oilsands fuels, causing "a sizeable expansion of tar sands production and also an increase in the related greenhouse gas pollution."

President Obama and Secretary Kerry have yet to make a final decision on Keystone XL. The U.S. State Department's Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (FSEIS) on the pipeline, released in January, has been criticized by environmental groups as flawed and narrow in scope.

As the open letter observes, "the State Department environmental review chose an inconsistent model for its 'most likely' scenarios, using business-as-usual energy scenarios that would lead to a catastrophic six degrees Celsius rise in global warming," a potential rise that, the signers note, "has no place in a sound climate plan."  

A decision to reject the Keystone XL pipeline, write the signers, would be one "based on sound science," given the 8.4 billion metric tons of CO2e emissions the pipeline could produce over its expected 50-year lifespan.

"These are emissions that can and should be avoided with a transition to clean energy," states the letter.

The signers in the letter include Nobel Prize winners Dr. Philip W. Anderson and Dr. Kenneth J. Arrow, environmental activist and broadcaster Dr. David Suzuki, several authors for the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change assessment reports, Fellows of the American Academy for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) including Dr. James McCarthy and Dr. Richard Norgaard, and Fellows of the Royal Society of Canada (FRSC) including Dr. Mark Jaccard, Dr. Lawrence Dill, among numerous other lauded scientists and economists.

The public can add their voice against the Keystone XL pipeline to an online petition hosted by the National Resource Defence Council (NRDC).

Image Credit: maisa_nyc / Flickr

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

The State Department's decision to hand over control to the oil industry to evaluate its own environmental performance on the proposed Keystone XL tar sands pipeline has led to a colossal oversight.

Neither Secretary of State John Kerry nor President Barack Obama could tell you the exact route that the pipeline would travel through countless neighborhoods, farms, waterways and scenic areas between Alberta's tar sands and oil refineries on the U.S. Gulf Coast.

A letter from the State Department denying an information request to a California man confirms that the exact route of the Keystone XL export pipeline remains a mystery, as DeSmog recently revealed.

Generic maps exist on both the State Department and TransCanada websites, but maps with precise GIS data remain the proprietary information of TransCanada and its chosen oil industry contractors. 

Thomas Bachand, a San Francisco-based photographer, author, and web developer discovered this the hard way. A year and a half after he first filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request seeking the GIS data for his Keystone Mapping Project, Mr. Bachand received a troubling response from the State Department denying his request.

In the letter, the State Department admits that it doesn't have any idea about the exact pipeline route – and that it never asked for the basic mapping data to evaluate the potential impacts of the pipeline. 

Where will KXL intersect rivers or cross ponds that provide drinking water? What prized hunting grounds and fishing holes might be ruined by a spill? How can communities prepare for possible incidents? 

The U.S. State Department seems confident in letting the tar sands industry – led in this instance by TransCanada, whose notorious track record with Keystone 1 includes more than a dozen spills in its first year of operation – place its pipeline wherever it wishes.

"[State] does not have copies of records responsive to your request because the Environmental Impact Statement for the Keystone pipeline project was created by Cardno ENTRIX under a contract financed by TransCanada Keystone Pipeline LP, and not the U.S. government," reads the State Department's letter denying Bachand's information request.

"Neither Cardno ENTRIX nor TransCanada ever submitted GIS information to the Department of State, nor was either corporation required to do so. The information that you request, if it exists, is therefore neither physically nor constructively under the control of the Department of State and we are therefore unable to comply with your FOIA request."

As Mr. Bachand pointed out in a July 3 blog post: "Without this digital mapping information, the Keystone XL’s Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) and Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) are incomplete and cannot be evaluated for environmental impacts."

When Mr. Bachand asked TransCanada for GIS data, the company said it couldn't supply it due to "national security" concerns.

Mr. Bachand's failed attempt to obtain basic information on the pipeline route exemplifies the recurring problems with the Obama State Department's botched review of the environmental and climate impacts of the Keystone XL pipeline: huge information gaps, conflicts of interest, industry lobbying muscle and bureaucratic bungling of the process.

As it turns out, TransCanada and its contractors have complete control over critical aspects of the review process, calling into question what else we don't know thanks to the Obama administration's poor handling of the most controversial pipeline decision in recent history. 

API Dues-Paying Member Did Latest SEIS

The State Department handed over responsibility for preparing the Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) to an American Petroleum Institute (API) dues-paying member, Environmental Resources Management, Inc. (ERM Group) – a firm with historic ties to Big Tobacco, as well as two other Big Oil-tied contractors.

State originally redacted the biography of one of the co-authors of the environmental study, Andrew Bielakowski, who had worked on three previous TransCanada-sponsored studies for ERM Group. Adding to the scandal, ERM has a history of rubber-stamping ecologically hazardous pipelines, including two high-profile projects in the Caspian Sea and in Peru. 

Since TransCanada's June 2008 Keystone XL proposal, API has spent over $22 million lobbying at the federal level for the pipeline and tar sands expansion. Furthermore, two of API's lobbyists tasked to do KXL influence peddling also have close ties to the Obama Administration.

Marty Durbin, the nephew of U.S. Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL), formerly lobbied for API on behalf of Keystone XL. Durbin was President Obama's former U.S. Senate colleague from Illinois before Obama won the presidency in 2008.

API also hired Ogilvy Government Relations to lobby for Keystone XL in 2012, and one of Ogilvy's key hired guns lobbying on behalf of API on KXL is Moses Mercado. In addition to serving as a key aide to Obama's 2008 presidential campaign and as a super delegate representing Texas for the 2008 Democratic National Convention, Mercado also served as campaign director in New Mexico for Secretary of State John Kerry's 2004 presidential campaign.

Unresolved Questions Plague State Department Review

Thomas Bachand asked all the right questions in his blog post reacting to the denial of his FOIA requesting the GIS route data. 

"Did the DOS, TransCanada, and Cardno ENTRIX all fail to perform due diligence in this case only – or is this standard operating procedure?," he asked. "Why hasn’t TransCanada supplied, Cardno ENTRIX seen fit to include, or the DOS requested, electronic data of such national importance? How does the DOS evaluate such national security, economic, and environmental interests without the electronic data?"

These are important questions that Secretary Kerry, and ultimately President Obama, must answer. The fact that neither man has any clue where TransCanada intends to place the Keystone XL pipeline is a troubling revelation that demands immediate and thorough scrutiny.

Without this basic information on where the pipeline would be located, how can the State Department and the White House form an educated analysis of the potential impacts of a tar sands dilbit spill in a neighborhood like Mayflower, Arkansas?

How many schools, backyards, drinking water sources and treasured fishing and hunting spots might be in danger of being ruined by a spill? The answer is, nobody knows, except the oil industry. 

Imagine that concerned citizens in northern states hadn't raised their voices to question TransCanada's intention to run the pipeline across the heart of the Ogallala Aquifer, their drinking water supply and the spigot for huge swaths of American agriculture. What else wouldn't we learn about the potentially devastating impacts of the Keystone XL pipeline?

Keystone XL is not only a dangerous gamble with our health and climate, it is also turning out to be a great example of the oil industry's iron grip on our democracy.

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.

Newly appointed U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry will meet on Friday with his Canadian counterpart, Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird. In any such bilateral meeting, it is paramount that each participant trust the words of their counterpart. After all, when it comes to the world of diplomacy, where wars are settled and treaties are signed, there's little more than words and trust. 

As a former employee in Canada's Foreign Affairs I have attended many bilateral meetings with foreign dignitaries. If I were advising Kerry, I would suggest one question he should ask of John Baird to see if he is an honest broker.

The question is: "Is Canada committed to confronting climate change?"

John Kerry is, and has been for a long time, a vocal leader on the issue of climate change. Sources inside his former Senate office have told me Kerry regularly expresses his commitment to act on climate change and understands the imperative of curbing water and air pollution to safeguard the economy.

Canadian Minister John Baird has a very different stance towards the climate change challenge, preferring to express contempt for proposals to implement market-based solutions to Canada's soaring greenhouse gas emissions. For example, just last year Baird told Parliament that the Harper government disbanded the National Roundtable on Energy and Environment because they did not like the Roundtable's recommendation that Canada adopt a tax on carbon.

"Why should taxpayers have to pay for more than 10 reports promoting a carbon tax, something that the people of Canada have repeatedly rejected? It should agree with Canadians. It should agree with the government. No discussion of a carbon tax that would kill and hurt Canadian families," Baird stated in Parliamentary debate.

For the record, polls consistently show that the majority of Canadians are in favour of a tax on carbon pollution.

When it comes to the issue of climate change, Kerry and Baird are diametrically opposed. If Baird is honest with Kerry he should explain to the freshly minted Secretary of State the rationale for the Canadian government's backtracking on international commitments to address climate change. Perhaps he can also explain why his party is currently running a national attack ad campaign against the Opposition party for proposing a carbon tax.

On the other hand, perhaps Baird will instead try to steer the conversation to what the Harper government considers a much more important and dire issue: President Obama's approval of the controversial Keystone XL pipeline that would pump millions of barrels of Canadian tar sands crude to U.S. refineries to largely serve an overseas market.

The Alberta tar sands is considered one of the dirtiest and most carbon intensive industrial projects on the planet. From extraction to upgrading, a barrel of oil derived from bitumen can be three to four times as carbon intensive as a conventional barrel of oil produced in the US or Canada.

Kerry, being the savvy diplomat he is, could (and hopefully will) point out to Baird, that any conversation about the fate of the Keystone XL pipeline is intrinsically tied to Canada evolving its postion on climate change. If Canada is serious about aligning with the U.S. on climate policy, as Stephen Harper has expressed, then Baird should be fully briefed and ready to cooperate based on President Obama's stated commitment to tackle climate change in his second term.

In his inaugural address two weeks ago President Obama said:

"We will respond to the threat of climate change, knowing that the failure to do so would betray our children and future generations."

The Keystone XL pipeline poses a key test for President Obama's commitment to fulfill his promise on climate action. Encouraging rapid expansion of Canada's tar sands operations is irreconcilable with aggressive efforts to curb climate change pollution in North America.

If Minister Baird is honest with his counterpart, he will admit as much to Secretary Kerry. Anything less than honesty on Baird's part will start Canada's relationship off with the new Secretary of State very poorly. It is a tough position for Baird to be in, but it is one created by the Minister and the Conservative government itself.

Image Credit: www.johnbaird.com.

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.