Media policies in most Canadian government departments do not effectively encourage open communication between federal scientists and journalists, says a report released Wednesday.

Published by Evidence for Democracy (E4D) and Simon Fraser University (SFU), the report said more than 85 per cent of the 16 departments studied were assessed a grade of C or lower in terms of openness of communication, protection against political interference, rights to free speech, and protection for whistleblowers.

The 22-page report also said that when compared to grades for U.S. departments (scored by the Union of Concerned Scientists), all but one Canadian department performed worse than the U.S. average.

“Overwhelmingly, current media policies do not meet the basic requirements for supporting open communication between federal scientists and the media,” Katie Gibbs, E4D’s executive director and an author on the report, said in an accompanying media release.

“These policies could prevent taxpayer-funded scientists from sharing their expertise with the public on important issues from drug safety to climate change,” Gibbs said.

The report — “Can Scientists Speak?” — gave the Department of National Defense the highest mark, a B grade, while the Canadian Space Agency, Public Works and Government Services, Industry Canada, and Natural Resources Canada each received an F.

Policies governing science-based departments received on average a C- for how well they facilitate open communication between scientists and the media, the report added.

Described as the first of its kind in Canada, the report comes after a 2013 survey of federal government scientists commissioned by the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada (PIPSC) found 90 per cent feel they are not allowed to speak freely to the media about their work.

The PIPSC survey also found almost 86 per cent of the scientists felt they would face censure or retaliation for speaking about a departmental decision that could harm public health, safety or the environment.

The survey, which is included in a report titled “The Big Chill,” is described as the first extensive effort to gauge the scale and impact of “muzzling” and political interference among federal scientists since the Stephen Harper government introduced communications policies requiring them to seek approval before being interviewed by journalists.

On Wednesday, PIPSC President Debi Daviau said the C- average for policies that govern science communication with the media is not something to be proud of.

“This is a grade that says Canada is failing its most fundamental obligations to keep Canadians adequately informed of urgent science matters such as climate change,” Daviau said.

E4D, a national non-partisan, non-profit organization promoting evidence-based public policy, provided several key recommendations in its report that departments can implement to improve communication between federal scientists and the Canadian public.

Policies should be easily available online for scientists, journalists and the public, E4D recommended, and it should be explicit that scientists can speak freely about their research to facilitate clear and timely communications.

Another recommendation said scientists should also have the right to final review of media releases that make substantial use of their work to protect against political interference.

In addition, scientists should be able to express their personal opinions as long as they make clear they are not representing the views of their department.

The report also recommended there be provisions to protect whistleblowers and effectively resolve disputes.

Federal government scientists play an important role in keeping Canadians safe and healthy by providing their expertise to both the public and decision-makers, the report said.

“The safety of our food, air, water, and environment depends on the ability of federal scientists to provide information to Canadians,” it added.

CBC News said it requested comments about the report from several government departments, who redirected the request to Ed Holder, minister of state for science and technology.

Holder did not respond directly, CBC said, but stated in the House of Commons on Wednesday afternoon that “ministers are the primary spokespersons for government departments yet scientists have and are readily available to share their research with Canadians.”

Arne Mooers, an SFU professor of biodiversity and an advisor for the report, said federal scientists are important public servants with critical expertise.

“They should be encouraged to inform the public in their areas of expertise because only an informed public can evaluate what governments are doing on their behalf,” Mooers said.

“Strengthening communication between scientists and the public strengthens our democracy.”

The E4D report was published one day after Julie Gelfand, the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, released an audit showing Canada will almost certainly not meet its international greenhouse gas emission reduction target by 2020 and doesn’t even have a plan showing how the nation might achieve its climate change goals.

Image Credit: Zack Embree

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

A new poll released Friday shows the majority of Canadians assume development in the Alberta oilsands has a much larger impact on nation’s economy than it actually does.

According to the poll, conducted by Environics and commissioned by Environmental Defence, 41 per cent of Canadians believe the importance of the oilsands to the economy is six to 24 times higher than it actually is. And a full 57 per cent of Canadians overestimate the value of oilsands to the country’s economy.

The oilsands, according to Statistics Canada, account for only 2 per cent of the national GDP.

Despite the misconception, however, 66 per cent of Canadians still support a transition to a cleaner economy that would limit dependence on the oilsands.

In addition, 76 per cent of Canadians believe that, in light of climate change, the country should shift from fossil fuels to cleaner energy.

A recent report from Natural Resources Canada, released quietly at the end of June, said Canadians can expect more floods, storms and other extreme weather to affect the country as climate change increases. The report also claimed governments aren’t doing enough to adapt to a destabilized climate.

The report noted in Canada there have been “relatively few examples of implementation of specific changes to reduce vulnerability to future climate change, or take advantage of potential opportunities.”

The federal government has spent millions of taxpayer dollars to advertise the important of the oil and gas sector, and especially the Alberta oilsands, to the Canadian economy and domestic energy security.

The efforts to shore up the reputation of the oilsands have been met with criticism, however, because the federal government has not released long-awaited regulations for the oil and gas sector.

The oilsands are Canada’s fastest growing source of greenhouse gas emissions.

Canada committed to reducing greenhouse gas emissions 17 per cent below 2005 levels by 2020 under the Copenhagen Accord, although a recent Environment Canada report showed Canada’s current weak emissions reduction measures will prevent us from meeting that target.

Last month Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott publicly criticized governments for taking action on climate change.

Prime Minister Harper said, “it’s not that we don’t seek to deal with climate change. But we seek to deal with it in a way that will protect and enhance our ability to create jobs and growth, not destroy jobs and growth in our countries.”

“No country is going to undertake actions on climate change, not matter what they say, no country is going to [take] actions that are going to deliberately destroy jobs and growth in their country. We are just a little more frank about that,” he said.

In late 2013 the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP), the country’s largest oil and gas lobby body, claimed concerns over the oilsands were “ideological.” The claim was made in support of arguments against stronger regulations, documents released under Access to Information legislation show.

Another Environics poll released in November of 2013 showed Canadians are losing confidence that governments will take meaningful action to prevent climate change. Although Canadians feel it is the government’s responsibility to take the lead on emissions reduction, very few feel current governments will actually do so.

A poll by Ipsos Reid released in May showed 76 per cent of Albertans are in favour of stronger greenhouse gas regulations for industry facilities.

Recently in the prestigious science journal Nature a panel of experts called for a moratorium on new oilsands projects until Canada can properly assess the total environmental and climate impacts of development.

Today’s new Environics poll demonstrated Canadians might support that expert recommendation, saying the federal government should work on an economic strategy that reduces dependence on the oilsands and moves towards cleaner energy.

The poll asked 1,011 adults in an online survey the following question:

“Q1: Approximately what percentage of the overall Canadian economy do you attribute to the Alberta oil sands?”

The potential answers were: “2 per cent, 6 per cent, 12 per cent, 24 per cent, 48 per cent, Don’t Know.”

Image Credit: Alex MacLean, copyright. 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.

Renewable energy — energy from natural sources that replenish themselves at the same rate they are used — accounted for sixty-seven per cent of Canada’s electricity generation in 2013. Biomass, wind, and solar power nearly made up a quarter of all renewable energy generation (heating, fuels and electricity) in Canada last year. 

Unfortunately there is no comparable national data available in Canada from any other year, so it is hard to know just how much Canada's renewable energy sector has grown. The findings for 2013 come from a newly expanded renewable energy database launched earlier this year by the Canadian Industrial Energy End-Use Data Analysis Centre (CIEEDAC), part of Simon Fraser University in Burnaby, BC. It is the first of its kind in Canada.*

“Financial analysts, renewable energy developers, policy-makers need solid, reliable and recent data on renewable energy in Canada to know what is happening in the sector,” Dan Woynillowicz policy director at Clean Energy Canada says.

“The irony of Canada calling itself an energy superpower is how difficult it is to get up-to-date accurate data on Canadian energy production here. Some of the better statistics actually come from the U.S.,” Woynillowicz told DeSmog Canada.

The Centre’s Renewable Energy in Canada 2013 report prepared for the Department of Natural Resources admits the database is only an “overview” and much work needs to be done to improve the quality of data it collects: 

“Many questions remain about the extent and nature of renewable energy production in Canada. In this regard, a number of opportunities exist to expand and refine the database and analysis,” the report states.

Ontario Leads in Wind and Solar, B.C. in Biomass, Nova Scotia in Tidal

The Centre estimates eleven percent of Canada’s capacity for energy production came from renewable energy last year, and most of this was in electricity generation. The lion’s share of Canada's renewable energy capacity is in waterpower or hydroelectricity — seventy-six per cent — followed by biomass (15 per cent), wind (8 per cent) and solar (1 per cent). 

Ninety-nine per cent of Canada’s solar power capacity was constructed in Ontario last year. Ontario led all other provinces in wind power installation ahead of Quebec and Alberta. B.C. was Canada’s number one producer of energy from biomass (mainly wood waste) and Nova Scotia was the only province to build new tidal power facilities on its shores.

The Nightmare of Collecting Data on Canada’s Renewables Industry

The renewable energy sector does not have its own version of the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers or CAPP, a well-funded private sector-association producing statistics on the oil and gas industry on a regular basis. The creation of the renewables database was only made possible when supporting funds became available through Natural Resources Canada.    

An energy analyst trying to get a national picture of Canada’s renewable sector previously had to investigate data produced by the provinces and the limited information provided by Statistics Canada. This data varied in the units of measurement used to calculate energy and time periods analyzed making it all the more difficult to piece together a national mosaic for the renewable energy sector in Canada.

“Its like comparing apples to oranges,” Woynillowicz says from Vancouver.

“The database is a good step forward but it really only scratches the surface,” Woynillowicz told DeSmog Canada.

Professor Michael C. Moore, an energy economist at the University of Calgary published in 2012 his proposal for creating a Canadian version of the U.S. Energy Information Administration. The U.S. agency “collects, analyzes, and disseminates independent and impartial energy information” for the American public and is even used as a source for Canadian energy statistics.

Two years later neither the federal government nor any provincial governments have shown interest moving forward on creating a Canadian Energy Information Organization.

“It’s a thorough, well constructed proposal,” Woynillowicz says of Moore’s proposal.

“The proposed two and a half million dollar a year contribution from the federal government is about one tenth the amount that Natural Resources Canada will spend on advertising over the next two years,” Woynillowicz of Clean Energy Canada told DeSmog.

Canada moved up to fifth place in the world for doing business in the renewable energy sector according to this month’s renewable energy country attractiveness index (RECAI) conducted by Ernst & Young. Ontario’s green energy policy has helped lift Canada’s global clean energy ranking.

The Canadian Industrial Energy End-Use Data Analysis Centre believes its renewable energy database can improve by exploring the economic costs and benefits associated with renewable energy, expanding regional reporting, validating the quality of data coming from renewable facilities and making the database more representative of the diverse sources of energy in the sector.

Maintaining and improving the database will depend on critical funds from Natural Resources Canada, although some concerns have been raised regarding the current federal government's low-priority view of data collection.

* An early version of this article stated the CIEEDAC database was new, rather than recently expanded. 

Image Credit: Wind turbines photos by Chris Cook (some rights reserved), all other images provided by the Canadian Industrial Canadian Energy End-Use Data Analysis Centre.

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 Harper government has hired an international public relations firm to oversee a $22 million advertising campaign to promote the oilsands and Canada's natural resources sector around the world.

The Canadian arm of PR firm FleishmanHillard won a bid for the initial $1.695 million contract to conduct the first phase of the ad campaign, reports the Toronto Star.

The first phase of the ad campaign will reach the United States, Europe, and Asia this year. If the firm's contract is renewed for 2015, it could be worth up to $4 million, with the remaining $18 million reserved for media buys.

FleishmanHillard, which has previously done strategic communications work and public opinion research for federal departments, has offices in all three targeted markets.

The firm will be developing and producing the ads for print, internet and television, and will be responsible for the drafting and coordination of public relations, advertising and social media strategies, according to Natural Resources Canada.

Natural Resources Canada's request for proposals (RFP) presents a plan for the campaign, focusing on "strengthening Canadas [sic] brand as a global leader in responsible resource development" and "[expanding] market access for Canadian natural resources, primarily energy." The word "responsible" is further underlined in the proposed messages.

While the campaign is to address Canada's entire natural resources sector, the RFP only explicitly mentions oilsands bitumen, pointing out how the latter industry has been "unfairly" targeted by proposals like the European Fuel Quality Directive "in part due to preconceived notions about the oil sands that are not supported by science."

The department suggests the campaign emphasize Canada as a "stable and secure choice" in sustainable energy, "compared to international alternatives," and outline the "unparalleled" investment opportunities in the country's energy sector.

Such messaging was tested in Washington focus groups in April 2013. HarrisDecima submitted a report to Natural Resources in September, which found the groups had a "neutral to positive" response to ads suggesting an increased energy partnership between the U.S. and Canada.

"Overall, it was fairly clear that Canada is held in fairly high regard, even if it is not often considered, and that an element of that high regard relates to Canada being a competent and trustworthy neighbour/partner — both in terms of industrial partnerships and acting responsibly," says the report, which cost $58,000 to commission.

Despite these results, the Obama administration has not yet been forthcoming in providing approval for the Keystone XL pipeline proposal, which faces strong environmental opposition in the U.S. Domestic opposition to various proposed pipeline projects including the Northern Gateway, which would transport crude oil from Alberta to British Columbia, also remains strong.

David Provencher, a spokesman for Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver, said that the ad campaign would ensure a "fact-based dialogue" to "better inform" markets about Canada's resource development.

"The objectives of the ad campaign are to raise awareness of Canada's environmental record and the shared U.S.-Canada energy interest and needs," said Provencher, in a statement.

"The campaign is also intended to raise awareness among decision-makers in Europe and the Asia Pacific that Canada is a secure, reliable and responsible supplier of crude oil, natural gas and other natural resources."

NDP House leader Nathan Cullen, who has voiced opposition to the Northern Gateway project, called the campaign an attempt by the Harper government to "greenwash" Canada's damaged international reputation as an environmentally friendly nation. He also questioned the allocation of public funds to help the energy industry with advertising.

"Of all the industries, I didn't know that oil and gas and mining companies were so impoverished that they couldn't take ads out in newspapers. I don't know why we're subsidizing Shell and Chevron in their efforts to sell oil. I think they're more than capable of doing that themselves," said Cullen.

FleishmanHillard's Ottawa office declined to comment on the campaign.

While the ad campaign's estimated budget is $22 million, Natural Resources Canada noted that the final cost will not be made public until the government releases its 2014-2015 annual report on advertising expenses.

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 seems that the start of the Harper Government's $16.5 million advertising campaign to push the US to turn to Canadian energy, specifically by supporting the Keystone XL pipeline and tar sands oil production, isn't quite having the impact that the Conservatives were hoping for.

Lee-Anne Goodman writes for the Canadian Press, that "efforts by the Conservative government to sell Americans on the virtues of Canadian natural resources failed to impress those south of the border, according to a new report, and even left them puzzled over assertions that Canada is America's best friend."

The $58,000 government commissioned Harris-Decima report found that the advertising push by Natural Resources Canada left focus groups in Washington D.C. "befuddled" by the campaign's tagline, "America's best friend is America's best energy solution."

The taxpayer-funded report posted Wednesday on Library and Archives Canada found few would assume that the tagline was referring to Canada, "despite certainly considering Canada to be a good friend," further adding "some indicated that claiming you are one's best friend comes across as something one does when one is about to ask for a huge favour."

The report also observed that the focus groups were displeased with the tone of the ads, saying that the word "solution" suggested that "America had a problem that needed solving." Similarly, the report noted that "virtually all objected to the reference to Canada's ban on dirty coal as it seemed to imply that Canada is doing more than the US."

Respondents also indicated that the use of the phrase "America faces a choice" was "somewhat pushy," and didn't like the country being referred to as "America" instead of the US or the United States.

The US advertising campaign includes a website geared towards US viewers, as well as ads and promotions in influential publications that "shine a job-friendly and environmentally sensitive light on a cross-section of Canadian resource industries," reports the Canadian Press.

The campaign is part of the Harper government's plan to gain access to foreign markets for Canadian oil. The Keystone XL pipeline project would make large quantities of tar sands oil available to refineries on the US Gulf Coast. President Obama is set to make a decision on the TransCanada pipeline early next year.

The Canadian Press reports that the six focus groups in Washington D.C. told Harris-Decima researchers that "the ads, launched in the spring during the heat of the Keystone battle, could be "greatly improved" and lacked a cohesive and direct message to the American public."

Harris-Decima interviewed people in three rounds over March and April, including members of the general public and political news aficionados called "opinion elites."

"The advertising as it stands faces some challenges in conveying a consistently heard and appreciated message and could be greatly improved with some specific adjustments to tone and content," the report stated.

Respondents felt that the ads should be "less subtle" about advocating in favour of Keystone XL. The report stated that "opinion elites were fairly uniform in stating a preference for seeing mention of 'pipeline' in the copy and perhaps the imagery" based on the assumption that "the ads related to a Canadian pipeline."

"The purpose of the pre-testing was to ensure that the ads were effective. The final ads were amended based on the constructive feedback we received," said Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver.

In an email, Oliver defended the campaign, saying that it provided "specific facts about measures taken by Canada to protect the environment, and other information on responsible resource development."  

Oliver also pointed out the positive feedback from the report, which did say that "Canada is held in fairly high regard, even if it is not often considered, and that an element of that high regard relates to Canada being a competent and trustworthy neighbour/partner both in terms of industrial partnerships and acting responsibly."

The report also found that opinion elites generally felt that Canada is "more environmentally responsible" than "other oil producing countries."

But there was also more criticism stemming from confusion about the campaign's intended audience and use of "jargon" like GHG for greenhouse gases, which one focus group complained about.

Others wanted to know how exactly the Keystone XL would benefit Americans, "whether it be from increased oil imports from Canada or lower gas prices," said the report.

The government hired Leger Marketing in summer 2012 to "fine-tune" the ad campaign, reports the Canadian Press.

A similar study conducted in Canada showed that the ad campaign failed to impress Canadians in twelve focus groups across six cities. The ads were found to be lacking in "factual information" and failing to deliver "a coherent message."  After "significant modifications," a second round of focus-group testing results reportedly proved more positive.

It's uncertain whether the budget for repeated focus-group testing also comes from the $16.5 million set aside for this ad campaign. Recently Natural Resources Canada announced an additional $24-million for an international tar sands advertising campaign, designed to counter "intense and sustained public relations campaigns" against the resource.

Image Credit: Rocco Rossi / Wikimedia Commons

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

A Canadian National (CN) tanker train carrying liquefied petroleum gas and crude oil derailed early Saturday in the community of Gainford, Alberta, about 80 km from Edmonton. The derailment caused a massive explosion and started a fire, prompting the evacuation of about 100 people from the community.

CBC News reports that "13 cars — four carrying petroleum crude oil and nine pressurized containers carrying liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) — left the tracks along Highway 16 and Range Road 61" at around 1 am Saturday, according to the Transportation Safety Board.

Parkland County spokesman Carson Mills said that there was a "significant explosion" at the time of the derailment, followed by a "smaller one." No injuries have been reported.

CN spokesman Louis-Antoine Paquin said three of the tanker cars, all containing liquid petroleum gas, were on fire and leaking, reports the Guardian. The community, and all residences within 1.6 km of the derailment, were evacuated in case of another explosion.

"It's still a risky situation so we need to contain as much as possible and keep people far away," said Mills. Parkland County has declared a state of emergency for the area surrounding Gainford. Residents have been told to keep out of the evacuation zone until further notice.

Jim Phelan, Parkland County fire chief, said they were "better off to allow [the fire] to vent and burn," adding that it was "unsafe to start fire-suppression activities," reports the Calgary Herald. Phelan told the news conference that residents saw a "large fireball" at the time of the derailment, and said that the cause of the explosion is "yet to be determined."

CBC reports that "55 Evansburg RCMP officers and emergency personnel are on hand and are working with CN and the Transportation Safety Board of Canada to manage the situation," as well as fire crews from Parkland County and Yellowhead County, and a HAZMAT team from Edmonton.

Alberta Environment spokeswoman Robyn Cochrane said it was too early to assess the damage done by the derailment. "We just won't know the extent, from an environmental point of view, until it's all said and done," Cochrane said. "We'll work with the company on containment and then also remediation."  

Parkland County Mayor Rod Shaigec said that "this could have been worse, given the recent incident in Lac-Mégantic — that certainly does illustrate the threats to residents living along rail tracks. So we're thankful it wasn't of that magnitude."

The July 6 derailment of a Montreal, Maine & Atlantic Company tanker train carrying crude oil in Lac-Megantic, Quebec, caused 47 deaths, with about 5.5 million litres of oil burned or contaminating the environment. The tragic incident has put the increasing transport of crude by rail in North America under close scrutiny.

On October 16, just three days before the Gainford derailment, another CN train carrying fertilizer derailed near Sexsmith, Alberta, causing an evacuation of the town.

Greenpeace has spoken out against the Harper government for putting the needs of the oil industry over the safety of Canadians.

"This kind of disaster will become the new normal unless the federal government takes much more effective measures to improve oil transportation safety," said Greenpeace spokesman Mike Hudema.

"The truth is that the Harper government has become such a cheerleader for the petroleum industry that it is failing in its duty to protect our communities and the environment," said Hudema. "This is the third major derailment in Alberta in the last few months. How many more will it take before Ottawa implements transportation safety regulations that were recommended more than a decade ago?"

Documents obtained by Greenpeace recently revealed that CN and Natural Resources Canada were considering a plan last March to move oil by rail from Alberta to BC for export to overseas markets, in capacities matching that proposed for the Northern Gateway pipeline.

The train that derailed in Gainford was travelling from Edmonton to Vancouver, BC, said CN spokesman Paquin.

Whether the Harper government continues to push for the transport of oil by rail despite the numerous safety concerns and growing number of derailments remains to be seen.

Image Credit: Parkland County / Facebook

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 coming months, European Union environment ministers are set to vote on the proposed Fuel Quality Directive (FQD), which would label tar sands oil as 'dirty' because of its higher GHG emissions in comparison to other fuels, bringing the Harper government and Alberta's years-long lobbying against the law to a decisive point.

As Jason Fekete writes for Postmedia News, this is "a critical few months for the future of Canada's oilsands industry and the environmental movement that has targeted the development."

It's hardly surprising that two senior Alberta government ministers depart Saturday "for a weeklong trip to Europe to trumpet what they say is Alberta and Canada's solid environmental credentials, and have EU countries reject a proposal that would "discriminate" against oilsands-derived fuels," as Postmedia News reports.

Canada has been actively fighting the EU proposal for years now for its labelling of tar sands oil as leaving an especially high carbon footprint. A July 2011 report by environmental group Friends of the Earth Europe documented over 110 lobbying events organized by the Canadian government on the tar sands and FQD between 2009 and 2011.

For example, in October 2011, Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver wrote to the EU Commissioner for Energy, Gunther Oettinger, warning that "if unjustified, discriminatory measures to implement the FQD are put in place, Canada will not hesitate to defend its interests."

In December 2011, David Plunkett, Canadian Ambassador to the EU, wrote to European Commissioner for Climate Action Connie Hedegaard saying that "Canada will not accept oil sands crude being singled out in the Fuel Quality Directive." He added that the Canadian government would "explore every avenue at its disposal to defend its interests, including the World Trade Organisation."

Hedegaard has called the FQD a "science-based and non-discriminatory proposal," and stressed that “studies on the lifecycle GHG intensity of various fuels have been conducted" for it, in a 2011 letter to Minister Oliver.

A 2013 briefing by Friends of the Earth Europe details more recent instances of Canada's lobbying for the tar sands in Europe, including sending two Albertan government ministers on tour in Europe this January to hand out fliers assuring the 11 countries visited that Canada was showing "global leadership in the fight against climate change" despite leaving the Kyoto Protocol and pushing for the tar sands.

The aggressive lobbying efforts by Canada and its EU supporters like the UK have continued unabated since reduction targets were decided on in 2009, forcing the European Commission to undertake an Impact Assessment on the FQD and delaying the vote on the proposal from June 2012 to later this year.

"It has got to be fair, it can't be discriminatory, and it should be based on the facts and the science – and this is not. This is my definition of bad policy," Minister Joe Oliver said of the FQD in an interview last Friday.

Oliver made a similar claim that the proposal "is not based on science and so discourages disclosures and will not achieve its stated objectives," last month in an email to the Canadian Press.

The repeated refrain from the Canadian government that the FQD is not scientific doesn't address the fact that the proposal is based on a 2011 Stanford University study commissioned by the European Commission. The study found that average lifecycle GHG emissions from tar sands oil are 23 per cent higher than conventional fossil fuels.

Image: 'Upstream greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from Canadian oilsands as a feedstock for European refineries,' by Adam R. Brandt.

Since then, research by NGO Oil Change International has indicated that emissions from tar sands oil could be even higher than thought before, because of emissions released by the burning of tar sands refinery byproduct petroleum coke, or petcoke, which is also used as a cheap fuel.

According to the Stanford study, "GHG emissions from oil sands production is significantly different enough from conventional oil emissions that regulatory frameworks should address this discrepancy with pathway-specific emissions factors that distinguish between oil sands and conventional oil processes."

The Pembina Institute also published a June 2013 report confirming that "average oilsands production is significantly more GHG-intensive than conventional oil production," and calling tar sands GHG emissions "the fastest growing source of climate change pollution in Canada."

The FQD sets a mandatory six percent reduction in GHG emissions from transport fuel suppliers by 2020, and assigns default emission values to different fossil fuel feedstocks (the raw material from which the fuels are made).

Tar sands oil production requires more energy than conventional fossil fuels because of its extraction and refining process from bitumen. Because of this, the FQD would give tar sands oil a higher default emission value, making it unattractive to European fuel suppliers, who would be hit with financial penalties and higher carbon offsets if importing it.

The Harper government's plan of making Canada a global energy superpower by opening up the tar sands oil reserves via international trade would be adversely affected by the FQD, which guarantees that the federal government and the Albertan oil industry will continue lobbying against it, and for the tar sands, in full force in the months to come.

Postmedia News reports that EU environment ministers are set to vote on the FQD in mid-October or mid-November. If approved, the proposal would need to be ratified by the European Parliament in 2014.

Image Credit: Pembina Institute / 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.

CN Rail is considering shipping crude oil by rail from Alberta to Prince Rupert, BC, for export to Asian markets in capacities matching Enbridge's proposed Northern Gateway pipeline.

According to the Canadian Press, "internal memos obtained by Greenpeace under the Access to Information Act show the rail carrier raised the proposal last March with Natural Resources Canada."

A briefing note for the March 1 meeting reportedly states that China-based Nexen Inc. is "working with CN Rail to examine the transportation of crude oil on CN's railway to Prince Rupert, B.C., to be loaded onto tankers for export to Asia."

A CN presentation paper attached to the briefing note assures that "CN has ample capacity to run seven trains per day to match Gateway's proposed capacity."

Map of CN Rail Routes in North America. Credit: CN Rail.

Greenpeace researcher Keith Stewart reportedly said that the CN proposal seemed to be a possible "Plan B" in the case that Northern Gateway is blocked, but raises "the same or greater risks."

The risks of transporting crude by rail were put into sharp relief by the derailment and explosion of a train carrying crude in Lac-Megantic, Quebec, this July. The incident took a tragic toll, resulting in 47 deaths and about 5.5 million litres of oil burned or contaminating the environment of Lac-Megantic, with the fire burning for four days.

Spokesman Mark Hallman denied CN made any project proposal, telling the Canadian Press that "no specific crude-by-rail project to Prince Rupert (was) discussed" at the March meeting with Natural Resources Canada.

Hallman did say that "the company will consider concrete crude-by-rail proposals, including any specific project to move crude to Prince Rupert," though there is currently "no infrastructure in place at Prince Rupert to transfer crude oil from train tank cars to vessels."

Hallman added that Natural Resources Canada asked for the March meeting, not CN.  

The documents obtained by Greenpeace confirm the federal government's strong interest in shipping oil by rail, at least before the Lac-Megantic derailment.

Cheadle reports that an undated memo for Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver says "NRCan is currently meeting with Transport Canada to mutually understand how rail could be part of a solution to current market access challenges," and calls rail an "increasingly viable option." The memo also notes that CP and CN Rail "have indicated that the potential to increase rail movements of crude oil is theoretically unlimited."

Another memo for International Trade Minister Ed Fast and Dennis Lebel, then transport minister, claims that Transport Canada "has identified no major safety concerns with the increased oil on rail capacity in Canada, nor with the safety of tank cars."

The memo observes that "transportation of oil by rail does not trigger the need for a federal environmental assessment," though "proposals to construct new infrastructure to support the activity" might, under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act.

The "Departmental Position" on shipping oil by rail was redacted from the memo.

"If the government or industry imagines they can use these regulatory loopholes to do an end-run around opposition to tar sands moving through those lands or waters, they will be in for a rude awakening," said Greenpeace's Stewart.

There has been strong opposition to the Northern Gateway and Keystone XL pipelines in Canada and the US. But the memo to Joe Oliver suggests that the federal government doesn't see this as too much of a threat to the industry's expansion, with "Canadian crude producers…unlikely to slow down production and [turning] to rail to ensure their product reaches market," should the pipelines meet with "difficulties."

The memo says that "there hasn't been a project to bring crude by rail to port for tanker export, however rail officials indicate that such a project is likely in future."

Top Image Credit: Rocco Rossi / Wikimedia Commons

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.

Today Postmedia News journalist Mike De Souza released an article on Environment Canada's missing annual emissions report. 

 

He writes "the federal government ins't answering questions about what's holding up the release of an annual report on Canada's progress in fighting climate change – an analysis normally released in mid-summer." 

 

The annual inventory of Canada's greenhouse gas emissions is the definitive measure of the nation's carbon footprint and emissions trajectory based on previously reported years.

 

Environment Canada, the federal body responsible for the report, told De Souza "no release date had been set." 

 

De Souza's article, published on www.canada.com this afternoon was forced offline by Natural Resources Canada, however, because it was reportedly published too early. The debacle, made public on twitter by David Provencher, Press Secretary to Canada's Minister of Natural Resources Joe Oliver, was resolved when the article resurfaced online around 2:20pm EST.

 

The revised article included a statement from Natural Resources: "Environment Canada is currently preparing the 2013 Canada's Emissions Trends report…Therefore, they are best positioned to comment on this report."

 

Natural Resources Canada also acknowledged it shared information with Environment Canada for the report, but would not say when those calculations were shared.

 

Natural Resources Canada's response, which delayed the released of De Souza's article for roughly one hour, caused speculation that the government was working to suppress media coverage of Environment Canada's missing report.

 

David McLaughlin, former chair of the National Roundtable on Environment and Economy which was recently disbanded by the Harper Government, suggested the report's delay might have something to do with the pending decision on the proposed Keystone XL pipeline. Recently President Obama announced that Canada's greenhouse gas emissions will play a role in Washington's decision on the pipeline, which will connect the Alberta tar sands, Canada's fastest growing source of greenhouse gasses, with refineries and export facilities in the Gulf Coast.

 

Canada's ability to accurately report its carbon emissions has recently come under scrutiny with the release of the Climate Action Tracker (CAT) report release in Bonn, Germany this June. The CAT report, based on analyses by Climate Analytics, the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, and the Dutch-based energy institute Ecofys, found that "Canada appears to have vastly underestimated fugitive emissions from gas exploration in British Columbia, putting into question its entire emissions reporting on fugitives."

 

A separate report from Environmental Defence, released earlier this month, suggested Canada's commitment to developing the Alberta tar sands will prevent it meeting international climate commitments. "Expanding the tar sands makes it impossible for Canada to meet its 2020 Copenhagen target," said Danielle Droitsch, Canada Project Director at the Natural Resources Defense Council. 

 

"The US is moving to meet that target while Canada is going in the opposite direction," she said at a press conference in Toronto.

 

Although just how far Canada is from that mark is impossible to tell without national reporting on carbon emissions. 

 

According to De Souza "the last report, released on Aug 8, 2012, revealed that Canada's climate performance was improving slightly with annual greenhouse gas emissions projected to be 19 per cent above a target agreed to by Prime Minister Stephen Harper in international negotiations."

 

The report, writes De Souza, is critical for both economists and environmental groups that measure Canada's climate change impact in relation to policy for industry, transportation and other sectors of the economy. 

 

"It's the best tool we have to understand Canada's progress, or lack thereof, towards our national climate target," Clare Demerse, director of federal policy at the Pembina Institute, told De Souza.

 

He also uncovered that Canada recently began counting forests as carbon sinks in their annual reporting, allowing Canada "to report a 38 per cent improvement in its climate performance in its 2012 report."

 

That same report also confirmed that the tar sands industry is Canada's fastest growing source of GHGs, with a carbon footprint projected to be larger than all of the provinces, excluding Ontario, by 2020. 

 

The Harper Government has taken precautions in previous years to soften the impact of Canada's GHG emissions reporting. 

 

"About two weeks before the emissions trends report's release in 2012, Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver was told in a memo that Environment Canada was still 'considering different media strategy options' for how and when the report would be announced. Natural Resources Canada also said that both departments had prepared 'responsive lines' in anticipation of questions from journalists. Similar lines would normally be developed for newly-appointed Environment Minister Leone Aglukkaq," writes De Souza.

 

Today's fracas with Natural Resources Canada isn't De Souza's first run-in with federal ministries. Last year then Environment Minister Peter Kent referred to De Souza as an "environmental activist" for an article regarding Canada's position on a carbon tax.

 

De Souza, known for his effective access to information (ATIP) requests, has recently revealed the oil and gas industry's role in changes to environmental legislation through the 2012 budget bills, that the Harper government downplayed those changes to legislation in talks with First Nations, that the Harper government solicited support from the oil and gas industry in making those "very controversial" changes, and that Alberta's tar sands tailings ponds are leaking into and contaminating Alberta groundwater.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

From the document:

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

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

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

Image Credit: Wayne Stadler / Flickr

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

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.