On Dec. 9, after much deliberation and political theatre, the federal government, eight provinces and three territories signed the Pan-Canadian Framework on Clean Growth and Climate Change.

Saskatchewan and Manitoba were notably absent from the list of signatories.

But also absent was an explanation of just how and how much Canada will rely on emissions trading  — technically known as internationally transferred mitigation outcomes — to meet its 2030 target of cutting greenhouse gas emissions down to 524 megatonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent per year, a reduction of 30 per cent compared to 2005 emission levels.

In its framework Canada vaguely pledged to “continue to explore which types of tools related to the acquisition of internationally transferred mitigation outcomes may be beneficial to Canada.”

Yet Canada may be eyeing the offset tool as a fundamental part of achieving emissions reductions, especially if global resource prices rebound and the oilsands expand to production levels allowable under newly approved pipelines.

Simon Donner, climate scientist and assistant professor of geography at the University of British Columbia, says Canada was “definitely a leading part of the push to have a carbon trading market” included in the UN Paris Agreement, which aims to limit temperature increases to as close to 1.5 degrees Celsius as possible.

Dale Marshall, national program manager with Environmental Defence says emissions trading is “clearly something that’s being held up as not only an option but as a priority” for the Canadian government.

The new federal climate framework contains a gap, Marshall says, between expected emissions and climate targets.

“That gap can be filled by being more ambitious with regulations, it can be filled by ensuring the carbon price continues to rise…or it can be filled with the purchase of international credits.”

“The last option is certainly in the framework.”

However, emissions trading has developed a shoddy reputation over the years — which may account for the government’s decision to downplay the possibility of deploying it.

So, what exactly are emissions offsets or emissions trading schemes? How do they help reduce emissions? And what are the potential downsides?

How Does Emissions Trading Work?

If you’ve travelled on an airplane in recent years, you may have been invited to pay for offsets to mitigate the emissions associated with your flight. The money can be used to protect trees from deforestation, fund renewable power projects or cogeneration technology, or eliminate pollutants such as nitrous oxide and hydrofluorocarbon.

Governments have also participated in voluntary, one-time offsets, such as when the federal Conservatives spent $226,450 to make the 2010 Winter Olympics “carbon neutral.”

The purchase of offsets, whether personal, corporate or by government, basically amounts to a voluntary accountability mechanism.

An emissions trading scheme (ETS) is a different kind of beast, and one that arguably makes a bit more sense given there are now national climate commitments under the Paris Agreement that countries are expected to meet (as opposed to individuals who could ostensibly choose not to travel, for example).

Under a trading scheme, a jurisdiction can have an abatement opportunity “certified” by a governing body.

Investments in a wind farm or preservation of a peat forest designated for burning would be deemed equivalent to a certain number of tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent. These tonnes are then represented in the form of certificates.

Other jurisdictions can buy those certificates and the seller can use the profits to fund further emissions abatements.

The seller can’t count the sold emissions reduction towards its national commitments — but the buyer can.

So How Does this Help Climate Change Again?

Ultimately, it’s about rooting out the cheapest ways to prevent a tonne greenhouse gas destined for the atmosphere from getting there.

If a country or a province can purchase cheaper offsets elsewhere, an international emissions trading scheme opens up the market to those purchases.

For instance, Ontario and Quebec are in the process of establishing cap-and-trade schemes that will link their emissions reduction efforts to inexpensive carbon offsets in California via the Western Climate Initiative.

Blake Shaffer, doctoral student at the University of Calgary with an expertise in energy economics, says it makes sense for provinces to seek out the least expensive carbon abatement opportunities.

He points to a recent study that found Ontario would require a $157/tonne carbon tax if it tried to achieve its emissions reduction target domestically, yet could achieve those same reductions by purchasing much cheaper offsets in California.

Shaffer says that means Ontario will get an equal amount of emissions reductions for a cheaper price. That same principle applies internationally.

“International offsets are an intriguing solution because in the end, a tonne is a tonne is a tonne,” he says.

“If a country like Indonesia has reduction opportunities for less than a dollar per tonne, it’s a fair question as to why we’re paying $50/tonne in Canada.”

The cost savings are potentially very large, he says, noting that if Canada is short 100 Mt in 2030, the difference between abating between $50/tonne or $10/tonne on international markets is $4 billion a year in savings (and there’s a likelihood Canada’s carbon price could be higher by then).

Shaffer also notes there are more emissions coming from Indonesia’s peat fires in one year than all of Canada so “there’s really big-sized potential” for reductions.

Have Emissions Offsets Been Used Before?

Emission offsets have been used before — with seriously mixed results.

Donner says that although emissions offsets had been discussed since the early 1990s, it was under the Kyoto Protocol — with its binding emissions limits that entered into force in 2005 — that the idea really gained steam.

“It’s not a new idea, “ Donner says. “And there are mechanisms in place, like Kyoto. Under previous governments, under the Chretien government and then the Harper government, when we were part of the Kyoto Protocol it was assumed for a long time that the only way we could meet our targets was to purchase offsets on a trading market.”

It’s those binding limits that really give rise to market approaches. If a nation or province isn’t close to meeting its own targets, the option exists to buy your way to the finish line.

The Kyoto Protocol spawned the European Union Emissions Trading System, the largest of its kind in the world. The system had certain “flexibility mechanisms” built into it to help countries purchase different kinds of offsets to meet their targets.

But the system was plagued with problems, like the so-called Clean Development Mechanism which has been accused of inefficiency, the undermining of Indigenous rights and fraud.

Donner says a major controversy under the mechanism involved companies purposely creating hydrofluorocarbon and other human-made gases only to destroy them for money.

In a similar vein, the whole trading system was marred by major issues such as a massive oversupply of allowances on the market and huge price spikes.

In 2015, it was found that the Joint Implementation scheme created in Russia and Ukraine following Kyoto led to “significant criminal activity” and the release of 600 million tonnes of emissions that should have been abated.

Many smaller offset initiatives have hit similar pitfalls.

In February 2013, it was found that many public institutions in B.C. had been paying $25/tonne for certificates only worth between $9/tonne to $19/tonne; later that same month, conflict flared up “over the appropriateness of counting credits in [Great Bear Rainforest] where it was understood that large swaths of land would be protected anyway.”

Indigenous groups have also voiced opposition to emissions offsets, due to the historic displacement of communities for privatization and commodification of nature into property.

The #Carbon Offset Question: Will Canada Buy its Way to the #Climate Finish Line? https://t.co/L2p32ArBS9 #cdnpoli #emissions

— DeSmog Canada (@DeSmogCanada) December 13, 2016

So Why Are We Still Considering Emission Offsets?

The UN Paris climate conference changed everything.

Specifically, Article 6 of the Paris Agreement changed everything, allowing for the use of emission offsets to achieve national targets.

Former CEO of the International Emissions Trading Association, Andrei Marcu, called its unlikely inclusion a “major success and minor miracle.”

The recent UN climate summit in Marrakech expanded on that opportunity, effectively making decisions about the process for making the decisions about implementing it (that’s international geopolitical bureaucracy for you).

Marshall, who attended the climate talks in Marrakech as part of the Canadian delegation said the emissions trading scheme under Article 6 is undetermined as of yet.

“What we don’t have all the information on is how Article 6 will be articulated [in the Paris Agreement]. We still have two more years of negotiations to determine what the market mechanisms are and what the non-market mechanisms are as part of Article 6,” he says.

“Those will also determine to what extent Canada can rely on [emissions trading] as an option.”

Despite uncertainties, Canada was eager to have the option included in the agreement. Canada’s climate and environment minister Catherine McKenna chaired the negotiations on Article 6 in Paris and Canada’s senior negotiators described the element as “very dear” to them, Marshall says.

Emissions trading is expected to play an important and positive role in the way the Paris Agreement influences international climate policy.

So why such optimism?

For one, unlike with Kyoto, China is a full participant in the Paris Agreement. Shaffer suggests the momentum from its inclusion is resulting in an acknowledgment that global integrated action is cheaper than individual unilateral action.

Having China on board increases the potential of eventually equalizing abatement opportunities across the globe.

Amin Asadollahi, lead on climate change mitigation for North America at the International Institute for Sustainable Development, says the Paris Agreement specifically called for a detailed measurement, reporting and verification process.

While such a process has yet to be developed at the international level, some more localized systems, like the one serving the Western Climate Initiative, could serve as models.

Donner is also confident that we won’t see a repeat of previous problems with emission offsets.

Canada, he adds, pushed for guaranteed accounting to ensure incremental reductions that wouldn’t otherwise be performed and avoids double counting (in which both parties, buyers and sellers, take credit for emissions reductions).

“The good news is that by making mistakes in the past, the world can maybe figure out a better system this time,” he says.

Downsides of Emissions Trading

Of course, there are potential downsides associated with an international emissions trading scheme.

George Hoberg, environmental policy professor at the University of British Columbia, worries an over-reliance on offset measures could draw down ambitious climate leadership.

“Sharing technology and climate financing are also important indications of leadership, but only if they are a supplement to, not a substitute for, meeting domestic emission reduction obligations internally,” Hoberg says.

Asadollahi agrees: “Longer term, if you just rely on that and your emissions continue to go up, you’re not preparing your economy for this changing world.”

Marshall adds it is still important to focus on the hardline domestic policies and sectors that influence Canada’s emissions.

“I think the priority for those who want to see as much domestic action as possible is to continue to push for more ambitious emission reductions at home and for Article 6 to be relied on only to get Canada beyond its 2030 target, which we know is a weak target,” he says.

Critics also worry emissions trading could potentially be used to cover poor policymaking at the expense of public coffers.

Shaffer notes that offsets result in capital outflow — money leaving jurisdictions for specific reduction targets — unlike a carbon tax which results in a higher per-tonne price retained in the jurisdiction for possible investments in renewables, energy efficiency measures, rebates or tax cuts (that very debate surfaced at the Pan-Canadian Framework negotiations).

He says that requires governments to compare the trade-offs between a lower price per tonne and keeping all the money in the province.

Possibly the greatest danger of all — and this is something near impossible to assess as the federal government still hasn’t released the specific math of its 2030 plan — is the chance of overbetting on the availability of cheap offsets.

If many other countries manage to greatly reduce their emissions in the next decade-and-a-half due to strong climate policies and the falling price of renewables, the number of offsets on the global market may be fewer than expected.

That low supply of sellable certificates could drive up the price, the inverse of what happened under the European Union Emissions Trading System.

None of this takes into account the fact that the world’s combined national climate commitments don’t result in enough emissions reductions to stay within 1.5 degrees Celsius of warming.

“There are real accounting challenges in doing this,” Donner acknowledges.

With files from Carol Linnitt.

Image: Emissions rise from a processing plant in the Alberta oilsands. Photo: Kris Krug/DeSmog

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

This is a guest post by Tim Gray, executive director of Environmental Defence. It originally appeared on the Toronto Star.

It was troubling last week when Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau seemed to suggest that provinces could just do their own thing on climate action without much federal involvement other than hand holding. Government action addressing climate change is evolving quickly at the provincial level but that does not absolve the federal government of its responsibility to set a level playing field and spur action.

It would have been great had the federal government implemented a pan-Canadian climate change plan eight years ago — when it promised to. Or better yet 13 years ago, when the Canadian government ratified the Kyoto Protocol. But it’s not too late for the federal government to act, especially given the big advantages to doing so: fairness and effectiveness.

To ensure that carbon pollution from all sources and all provinces decreases over time, a multi-pronged approach is needed. To make such an approach coherent and effective will require the federal government to act in areas where it has jurisdiction and to set common standards for initiatives undertaken at the provincial level.

The federal role should ensure fairness, so that there is a level playing field for all sectors and all provinces. Allowing any sector to avoid reducing its carbon pollution will undermine the final result and the willingness of other sectors to do their fair share.

An effective climate change plan would address all the major sources of carbon pollution, including industry (manufacturing, oil and gas, and others), electricity, transportation, buildings (commercial and residential), agriculture, and waste. Carbon emissions from some of these sectors, like those from oil and gas, are increasing while those from other sectors, like electricity, are declining. The same is true for provinces. Some are increasing emissions while others are squeezing them downward.

Provincial policies to address carbon pollution are still at a nascent stage. And they vary widely. British Columbia’s carbon tax is really the only carbon pricing policy in Canada that could be said to be reducing carbon emissions. It is still too early to evaluate whether Quebec’s cap-and-trade agreement with California will be effective and its small carbon tax has generated some revenue for the government but experts agree that it is too small to reduce emissions.

Alberta’s policy to tax carbon emissions on a per-barrel of oil basis is also small, and since it applies to a small share of Alberta’s total emissions, is ineffective at stimulating pollution reductions. Ontario appears serious about putting a levy on carbon but no one knows yet whether that will be a carbon tax or whether Ontario will join an existing cap-and-trade system.

What would the role of the Canadian government look like? Setting a price on carbon that is roughly equivalent across the country would be a key policy leveller. It is the ingredient that market mechanisms like a carbon tax or cap-and-trade system need to have to be fair and effective.

A minimum carbon price could be set for the country, with provinces deciding whether they want to match or exceed that level through a carbon tax or a floor price for permits as part of a cap-and-trade system. Any province that establishes such a system would be able to keep the tax revenue.

The federal government would also continue to pass regulations in areas that it has jurisdiction, such as energy efficiency standards for equipment and appliances, fuel efficiency standards for vehicles and carbon pollution levels for electricity generating stations.

All of this could be administered through an approach similar to Canada’s health care system, where clear, minimum standards need to be met for the federal government to transfer resources from the federal budget. In this case, that money could be for clean energy development and sustainable infrastructure projects, such as public transit.

The provinces have taken the lead in Canada on climate change, given a federal government that has gone AWOL on the issue. However, the correct response from our federal parties is to commit to remedying this situation, not to suggest that they will wash their hands of the matter or stand by and whisper encouragement and hope that will be enough.

Image Credit: Justin Trudeau via Flickr

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

This article originally appeared on mikedesouza.com.

On the eve of an international climate change summit of government leaders in New York, Canada is being challenged about its own domestic record in addressing the heat-trapping pollution that contributes to global warming.

Here’s a historical timeline of some of the major climate change policies, statements and related decisions made by Canada since 2006 when Prime Minister Stephen Harper was first elected to form a government.

From a pledge to introduce a carbon tax in 2007 to internal debates about climate change science, this timeline covers the promises and the action by the Canadian government in recent years.

February 2006:

Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s government is sworn in after his Conservative Party wins a general election with a minority of seats in the Canadian House of Commons. The election ends a 13-year-old government led by the Liberal Party of Canada.

Harper’s Conservatives mainly focused on accountability and tax cuts during the campaign. They also criticized Canada’s participation in the Kyoto Protocol on climate change, pledging to introduce a “made-in-Canada” solution to promote a healthy environment.

The newly-elected government cancels billions of dollars in federal spending to address climate change and promote energy efficiency. They also cancel work underway within Environment Canada to regulate greenhouse gases from large industrial facilities, describing the country’s legally-binding Kyoto target as unrealistic.

Harper and members of his cabinet note that the previous Liberal administration had promised to take action on climate change, but didn’t do anything to stop the rise in industrial greenhouse gas emissions that put Canada’s Kyoto target out of reach.

May 2006:

The Globe and Mail reports on leaked documents from international climate talks in Bonn, Germany, that reveal the Harper government has instructed its negotiators to oppose “stringent targets” for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The newspaper reports that the instructions tell negotiators to instead favour a voluntary approach to addressing climate-warming pollution.

Environmental groups accuse the government of sabotaging the talks. It’s the first of many conferences over the next decade in which critics describe Canada as the worst and least helpful party at the negotiating table on climate change issues.

September 2006:

Environment Minister Rona Ambrose pledges to introduce a new law that would use the federal government’s constitutional authority to require all industrial sectors to reduce pollution. Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers president Pierre Alvarez says that his industry is prepared to accept targets as long as other sectors faced the same regulations.

The opposition, which forms a majority in the House of Commons, would later reject her proposed legislation as inadequate. The opposition parties would then attempt to rewrite the bill, but the new version was abandoned by the Conservative government that claimed it would harm the Canadian economy.

March 2007:

Preserving the environment is one of the top themes of Finance Minister Jim Flaherty’s federal budget. The plan includes $4.5 billion in spending “to clean our air and water, reduce greenhouse gases and combat climate change, as well as protect our natural environment.” The budget also restores funding to some measures that were scrapped, one year earlier, by the government, reintroducing them with new names.

April 2007:

Environment Minister John Baird unveils new targets to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and air pollution across the Canadian economy. The targets set new goals that are aggressive, but weaker than Canada’s existing commitments, under the Kyoto Protocol. Baird says that the new targets will come into force as early as 2010 for some sectors at an estimated cost of about $8 billion to the Canadian economy.

The Conservative plan proposes to give companies the possibility of meeting their targets by paying a $15 carbon tax per tonne of emissions that would go into a fund supporting the development of new technologies.

Baird’s new “Turning the Corner” plan also estimates the targets will also result in health benefits worth about $6 billion due to a reduction in air pollution and related respiratory illnesses.

“This is a mammoth undertaking,” Baird tells a news conference in Toronto. “It doesn’t end today. Global warming, climate change is one of the biggest ecological threats the environment has ever faced, and it’s going to require work every day, every week, every month and every year.”

Despite extensive consultations with all major industrial sectors over the previous year, Baird explains that more negotiations with industry would likely follow before introducing any draft regulations.

June 2007:

Speaking to an audience in Germany, Prime Minister Stephen Harper describes climate change as “perhaps the biggest threat to confront the future of humanity today.” He also notes that Canada was a small contributor to global warming since it was responsible for two per cent of global greenhouse gas emissions.

“But we owe it to future generations to do whatever we can to address this world problem,” Harper says. “And Canadians, blessed as we are, should make a substantial contribution to confronting this challenge.”

He also says in his speech that his government has already introduced mandatory emissions reductions targets for large emitters that would result in “absolute reductions in emissions levels by at least 2012 and as early as 2010.”

October 2008:

Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s Conservative party is re-elected as a minority government in a general election, following a campaign in which the party pledged to introduce a cap and trade system as part of its climate change policies. The system would set targets to cap pollution from industry and then allow facilities to meet targets either by reducing emissions or by purchasing credits. The credits could be sold provided that they have certified a reduction in emissions beyond business as usual.

Harper names Jim Prentice as his third environment minister after winning the election.

The global financial crisis and lobbying from industry warning about economic impacts would later derail legislation in the U.S. to introduce a cap and trade system.

December 2009:

An international climate change summit in Copenhagen, Denmark collapses without a binding agreement.

Stephen Harper signs a new voluntary climate change accord spear-headed by U.S. President Barack Obama. Harper weakens Canada’s previous target set under Baird’s Turning the Corner proposal, but matches a target set by the Obama administration.

February 2010:

Jim Prentice criticizes the Quebec government for planning its own aggressive fuel economy tailpipe standards for cars, describing the province’s approach as a “folly.”

October 2010:

The Harper government adopts new fuel economy rules, based largely on the Quebec and California model, matching regulations introduced by the Obama administration to reduce tailpipe pollution from new cars. Environment Canada estimates the new regulations will save the equivalent of 28 billion litres of fuel between 2011 and 2016. Jim Prentice sayshigher costs of purchasing cars would be offset by savings in fuel consumption and that the regulations would also encourage more electric cars on Canadian roads.

November 2010:

Prentice resigns from federal politics to accept a job as a vice-president of the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce and is temporarily replaced as environment minister by John Baird.

December 2010:

John Baird hails a series of agreements reached at an international climate change summit in Cancun, Mexico as the “first step” toward a binding global deal to ensure greenhouse gases peak within a decade and then start to decline. But he also warns that it would be mathematically impossible to stabilize emissions in the atmosphere without getting the biggest polluters, China, India and the United States, to take on firm commitments.

“I hope that coming out of Cancun that people, other countries will reflect,” Baird says. “Whatever we’ve been trying for the last 13 years hasn’t worked. Emissions are way up since 1997. If we want to stabilize them by 2015 or 2020, we’re going to have to get the big players involved.”

January 2011:

Peter Kent becomes Stephen Harper’s fourth environment minister and begins his new role by praising Canadian oil as an “ethical” fuel.

February 2011:

The Harper government confirms that it is no longer pursuing a cap and trade regime, but aiming to introduce new mandatory rules and standards for industrial pollution.

Peter Kent says in an interview that the government had a “target” of introducing all of its proposed greenhouse gas regulations by the end of 2011.

May 2011:

Following a general election, Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s Conservatives are re-elected, this time forming a majority in the House of Commons.

September 2011:

Peter Kent says the spring federal election has delayed work on the oil and gas regulations and that they wouldn’t be introduced in 2011.

Fall 2011:

Environment Canada creates a new group to work on the oil and gas regulations. It includes representatives from the Alberta government, the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers and three oil companies – Canadian Natural Resources Limited, Cenovus and Suncor. The group meets roughly once every four weeks.

December 2011:

Peter Kent announces that Canada is withdrawing from the Kyoto Protocol.

Across the government, officials are working on plans behind the scenes to reduce federal oversight of industrial activities and accelerate energy and resource development.

These plans follow a decision by President Obama to delay approval of the Keystone XL pipeline expansion project, that would allow for more oilsands exports from Alberta to the United States.

The new federal policies and laws would also respond to many detailed requests from oil, gas and pipeline lobbyists.

In response to questions about the Kyoto withdrawal in the House of Commons, Stephen Harper says: “I have said many times that climate change is a great problem for the world.”

March 2012:

The Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Research is forced to shut its doors after repeated requests for renewed funding fall on deaf ears. The foundation had offered about $120 million in university grants for climate and weather-related research over about 10 years. The total is above the $110 million multi-year grant it received from the government.

The foundation would later rebrand itself as the Canadian Climate Forum, relying on private donors to fund its work.

A labour union representing federal scientists, the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada, would also estimate that the Canadian government was in the middle of a three-year purge, cutting nearly $3 billion in spending and up to 5,000 jobs from its science-based departments, including many scientific research positions and programs in charge of monitoring air, water, and wildlife.

One of the victims of the cuts is the Polar Environment Atmospheric Research Lab – also known as PEARL – a scientific observatory station near Eureka in the high Arctic that loses about a third of its federal funding and is no longer able to remain fully operational throughout the entire year.

The government instead opts to spend millions of dollars to build a new research station that is more than 1,000 kilometres to the southwest.

April 2012:

The Harper government introduces a 400-page document in Parliament that proposes to scrap major Canadian environmental laws and replace them with new legislation.

May 2012:

At international negotiations, Guy Saint-Jacques, then the former chief federal climate change negotiator and ambassador, says that the Canadian government is working towards draft regulations for 2013” in the oil and gas sector.

“Once we have finalized the oil and gas regulations, we will have covered some 60 per cent of our emissions,” Saint-Jacques told his international counterparts.

June 2012:

A series of newly-released letters reveals that Peter Kent has been challenged by many of his caucus colleagues, including the prime minister, to answer questions about whether scientific evidence is real about climate change and whether the phenomenon requires a government response. When asked about the letters, Kent says that having debates and being challenged demonstrates the “vitality of any government.”

July 2012:

New environmental laws adopted by Parliament eliminate nearly 3,000 federal environmental reviews of industrial projects, including hundreds of projects related to oil, gas and pipeline development.

September 2012:

Peter Kent announces the government has finalized its regulations for reducing greenhouse gas emissions from coal power plants, predicting that the new rules will result in the equivalent of taking about 2.6 million vehicles off Canadian roads over 21 years. The new rules are slated to come into force on July 1, 2015.

His department, meantime, confirms it has handed over the monitoring of data for ozone and radiation in the atmosphere, previously done by atmospheric scientists, to an information technology computer expert.

November 2012:

Following damage caused to the U.S. northeast by Hurricane Sandy, Peter Kent says climate change is a “very real and present danger” that governments need to address.

December 2012:

Canada confirms its withdrawal from the Kyoto Protocol.

February 2013:

Peter Kent says the federal government is “very close” to finalizing new carbon pollution regulations for oil and gas companies.

April 2013:

Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver, who would later become finance minister in 2014,says in an interview with La Presse that scientists are exaggerating the climate crisis. He follows others in Harper’s cabinet and caucus who had cast doubts on occasion about whether humans are significantly contributing to climate change. Those include the prime minister, junior industry minister Maxime Bernier, former public safety minister Stockwell Day and Senator Nancy Greene Raine, a former Winter Olympic champion skier.

March 2013:

The special group created by Environment Canada to develop greenhouse gas regulations for oil and gas companies has its final meeting.

Environment Canada later explains that its engagement with stakeholders on regulations was continuing on many fronts, but that it was moving toward more targeted discussions.

April 2013:

In internal correspondence with the provincial government in Alberta, the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers expresses concerns about stringent climate change policies, suggesting that the government should spend more time studying the issue. The industry lobby group also tells the government that tough regulations won’t satisfy its biggest critics.

June 2013:

Peter Kent says industry groups are cooperating with the government’s efforts to introduce regulations, also noting that companies are concerned about “maximiz(ing) profits for their shareholders.”

July 2013:

After being replaced in a cabinet shuffle by Harper’s fifth environment minister, Leona Aglukkaq, Peter Kent says he was “profoundly disappointed” that the government didn’t complete the oil and gas regulations under his watch. He reiterates that the government was close but had to navigate through many lobby interests as well as concerns of putting jobs or investments at risk.

September 2013:

Leona Aglukkaq’s office prevents her department from publicly stating that the government accepts scientific evidence that humans are causing climate change and takes the matter seriously.

Aglukkaq later gives a television interview in which she casts doubts about whether ice is melting in the Arctic.

October 2013:

The Harper government opens a new session of Parliament with a throne speech saying that it will work with provinces to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from oil and gas companies.

November 2013:

Environment Minister Leona Aglukkaq says she’s “not ready” to introduce new regulations for oil and gas companies.

June 2014:

Stephen Harper, at a joint news conference with visiting Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott, suggests other countries aren’t being frank about scaling back climate change policies to protect their economies. He suggests aggressive action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, including a carbon tax, would harm the economy.

Image Credit: Prime Minister Stephen Harper on his 9th annual Arctic visit. Image courtesy of the Prime Minister of Canada's photo gallery.

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

Government records newly released under access to information legislation say that Canada supports carbon pricing as part of a global climate change strategy.

Mike De Souza writes for Postmedia News, that the documents "come from the Privy Council Office and Environment Canada, and they contrast with Prime Minister Stephen Harper's public criticism of carbon taxes."

As De Souza explains, the Privy Council Office (PCO) is "the central department in the government that supports the prime minister's office."

The PCO notes were reportedly prepared for the November 2011 G20 summit attended by Harper a month before Canada's pullout from the Kyoto Protocol. They highlight the World Bank's recommendation for "putting a price on carbon for developed countries," and comment that "Canada could support other countries implementing this proposal."

The PCO records also say that "Canada supports the development of new market-based mechanisms that expand the scale and scope of carbon markets." De Souza adds that the records suggest Canada "wanted to expand markets that require polluters to pay and allow other companies to profit from deploying technologies or other methods to reduce emissions in the atmosphere."

The Environment Canada documents were notes given to Deputy Environment Minister Bob Hamilton after he was appointed in July 2012, briefing him on the potential for job creation and economic growth in a strong climate change strategy.

The notes say that a "well-designed environmental policy, including GHG emission reduction policies, can also support economic objectives, in areas such as innovation, improved energy and resource productivity, and opportunities in global clean technology markets."

The briefing observes that "environmental damage and natural resource degradation can have important economic costs" in addition to posing "serious" and "significant impacts on human health and safety…and ecosystems in Canada and throughout the world."

Environment Minister Leona Aglukkaq's spokeswoman told Postmedia News "that the government does not support a carbon tax," reiterated the Harper government's position "that an NDP climate change proposal from the last election to raise billions of dollars by auctioning of pollution permits as part of a market-based carbon pricing scheme — was a tax on gas, groceries, electricity and everything else."

Aglukkaq's office said Canada is "playing a leadership role in addressing climate change."

De Souza writes that despite all major Canadian federal political parties supporting carbon pricing in the 2008 federal elections, "the Conservatives later decided to favour binding regulations in each industrial sector instead, because of the failure of the U.S. Congress to pass legislation creating a carbon market."

Several provinces have implemented their own forms of carbon pricing or taxes on greenhouse gas emissions, such as British Columbia's highly-successful tax on buying or using fuel.

The Environment Canada briefing notes suggested Canada inteded to meet its "GHG emission reduction target of 17% under 2005 levels by 2020," especially with "greater international pressure to demonstrate concrete action and to outline how Canada's national emissions targets will be met." A new report from Environmental Defence shows Canada cannot, however, met its emission reduction targets given current planned expansion in the tar sands – Canada's fastest source of growing GHGs.

Image Credit: Prime Minister's Office / Fickr

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 December 2011, Canada withdrew from the UN's Kyoto Protocol, having exceeded target emissions. Notes drafted by Deputy Minister Serge Dupont of Natural Resources Canada days before the announcement reveal that the Harper government was already planning for a "strong and coordinated" push to support the oil industry through advocacy and reforms.

Mike De Souza writes for Postmedia News, that "The notes, included in an email that Deputy Minister Serge Dupont sent to himself on Dec. 8, 2011, provided highlights of the government's strategy to 'advance a strong and coordinated advocacy and communications plan, with early pre-positioning for legislative and other actions.'"

The email notes state that "Developing access to growing Asia Pacific market for Canada's energy resources, and in particular oil sands, is an urgent matter of national interest."

Dupont wrote that the government should "support" the proposed Enbridge Northern Gateway project, which would transport tar sands bitumen from Alberta to the British Columbia coast, as a way to cater to the "growing Asia Pacific market."

He made clear that opening a "corridor" to get Canada's oil to the Asia Pacific was "critical to sustain growth, broaden options for producers, and realize best prices." Though emphasizing the Asian market, Dupont also wrote in favour of TransCanada's proposed Keystone XL pipeline as "a key prospect" to service the US, "our main market."

De Souza writes that the email, "released through access to information legislation, came after Prime Minister Stephen Harper's cabinet decided to withdraw from the international legally binding treaty on climate change — a decision that was announced Dec. 12, 2012 by Environment Minister Peter Kent."

Dupont suggested that the government "pre-position" its arguments to "frame dialogue" in "advance of beginning of public hearings on Gateway, January 10, 2012." This suggestion was followed, De Souza observes, by Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver releasing a letter "prior to the start of the hearings — that accused environmental groups of supporting a 'radical agenda' to 'hijack' Canada's regulatory system with funding from foreign special interests."

Oliver's letter heralded the start of what Dupont's email described as "Proactive policy and program measures [to] support Northern Gateway and future pipelines." De Souza describes the wide ranging changes to Canada's environmental laws, "introduced in about 400 pages of legislation, that were adopted with limited debate in Parliament a few months later."

The changes included the cancellation of "about 3,000 environmental reviews of new projects including hundreds involving pipelines and fossil fuels" and "a federal budget that cut millions of dollars of funding for scientific research examining environmental impacts of industrial activity on air, water and wildlife."

The British Columbia government has announced its opposition to the Northern Gateway proposal, and the US government has yet to make a decision on Keystone XL. But De Souza writes that "other potential proposals are emerging for pipelines linking Alberta's oilsands industry to markets and refineries in eastern Canada and the northeastern United States."

As De Souza mentions, the Harper government has recently spent millions of dollars on advertising Canada's natural resources and promoting its 'green' image as a "world environmental leader," including a new website.

Natural Resources Canada spokeswoman Jacinthe Perras said Dupont's notes were "consistent with creating a system that puts in place timely, efficient, and effective project reviews, while strengthening environmental protection, and enhancing consultations with Aboriginal Peoples," De Souza reports.

Oliver's office has not commented yet on how Dupont's strategy informed the government's support of the oil industry and pipelines, while the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers "declined to comment about its assessment of the federal government's strategy in the context of Dupont's notes."

Image Credit: Kris Krug / 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.

By Hannah McKinnon, National Program Manager at Environmental Defense.

In last week's State of the Union address, President Obama reiterated his vision for clean energy and urgent action on global warming. With TransCanada’s Keystone XL tar sands pipeline on the frontlines and looking threatened, oil industry supporters are suddenly desperate to look like the environmental and climate risks of the tar sands are under control.   But there’s a massive credibility gap as Canada’s contribution to global warming is spiralling out of control, with the reckless expansion of the tar sands.   We’ve always believed that actions speak louder than words. So while the oil industry and government embark on a pro-tar sands PR campaign, let’s look at how Canada has behaved on climate action and the environmental risks of the tar sands.  

Broken promises

The federal government has repeatedly promised, and then failed, to take strong action on climate change. We’ve become a pariah internationally, thanks to the government’s weakening of our global warming goals and pulling out of the Kyoto Protocol.   Domestically the federal government hasn’t kept promise after promise at home to address Canada’s fastest growing source of greenhouse gas pollution – the tar sands. Currently, there is not one federal regulation on climate pollution from the tar sands. Even the government’s own reports are clear that it would almost take magic to meet our weak 2020 climate goals.   Blocking clean energy at home and abroad

In Canada, the federal government has failed to renew meaningful investment in clean energy and energy efficiency – the tools that will not only get us out of this mess, but can help us build a strong economy founded on good jobs and safe, clean and renewable energy. Instead of supporting popular clean energy programs, the government hands out over $1.3 billion per year in tax breaks to Big Oil.   Outside our borders, the government has taken its pro-tar sands show on the road, with aggressive lobby efforts in California and Europe, aiming to undermine other countries' efforts to fight global warming and use cleaner fuel. Although both jurisdictions are standing their ground, the Canadian government continues to pressure them to weaken their rules so Canada’s dirty oil gets a free pass and doesn’t pay its fair share for higher than average pollution.     Dismantling science and science-based policy

Respected scientists and scientific bodies across the country are voicing their concerns about recent attempts to dismantle science and science-based policy investigating climate change and other environmental issues. This ranges from cuts to funding for critical, long-standing research programs to not allowing federally funded scientists to speak to media about issues of national concern, like climate change.   In 2012, the federal budget bill was undemocratically used to force through major and devastating blows to environmental laws – dismantling decades worth of policies that protect our natural environment, lakes, rivers and fish. The best explanation for these sweeping changes is that these laws, designed to protect our green spaces, waters and animal life, would have made it that much more difficult to rubber stamp pipeline approvals through Canada’s most sensitive ecosystems.   Fighting a public relations battle rather than battling pollution

The Alberta tar sands are already Canada’s fastest growing source of global warming pollution. And the expansion plans in the works make current projects look like child’s play. There are plans to triple tar sands production in the next seven years. This would cause Canada’s emissions to soar well beyond what our climate can handle.   Instead of reducing pollution, our government has engaged in a public relations war. This has included labelling environmental groups radicals, singling out First Nations as ‘enemies,’ and massive diplomatic campaigns abroad to paint a rosy picture of one of the dirtiest projects on the planet.   Closing the Credibility Gap

Canada’s credibility will continue to be tarnished, as long as the government keeps breaking promises, weakening environment regulations and commitments, and muzzling climate scientists.   To close the credibility gap, oil industry supporters will need to accept that their tar sands plans and climate action cannot co-exist. Period.   According to the International Energy Agency, in order to live up to our commitment to keep global warming below 2 degrees, two thirds of all remaining fossil fuels must stay in the ground. That would include a big chunk of the tar sands.   It’s not too late

The good news is that there are solutions. To start with, the government could implement long-promised robust regulations for oil and gas, requiring those sectors to do their fair share to cut pollution. Instead of subsidizing the oil and gas industry, the government could invest in clean, profitable, reliable energy.      In recent years, Canada’s climate policy has often followed the United States. With renewed interest in climate change south of the border, it’s time to change our actions – not just our PR spin.

Image Credit: Kris Krug, used with permission.

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.