As the federal election looms, leaders of all political stripes are promising to increase the zero-emission transportation sector through incentives and investments as a key tool to tackle the climate crisis.

But there’s a catch. 

Positioning Canada as a leader in electrifying the transportation sector also means increasing mineral extraction to fuel that growth. Batteries that propel electric vehicles are powered by minerals like lithium, cobalt, graphite and nickel. 

The transition is necessary, given the implications of the alternative: continuing to burn fossil fuels as our means of getting around. The transportation sector in Canada currently accounts for around 25 per cent of national greenhouse gas emissions, around 180 megatonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent annually, according to Natural Resources Canada. As the recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report warned, “unless there are immediate, rapid and large-scale reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, limiting warming to close to 1.5 C or even 2 C will be beyond reach.” 

At the end of 2020, Canada had over 200,000 electric vehicles on the road and according to International Energy Association projections, that number could rise to over 2.5 million by 2030.

The question is: what does the growth of the electric vehicle sector look like on a landscape level?

In northern Québec, a new lithium-tantalum mine is set to start production in 2024 after receiving approval from the federal government in August, and several other Québec lithium mines are in various stages of exploration and investment. The new Critical Elements Corporation mine will emit an estimated 74,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent annually, over its 20-year lifespan. In Northwest Territories, mining companies are eyeing cobalt reserves and across the country, mining activity is ramping up as demand increases for other minerals needed for the zero-emissions transportation sector, clean energy and other emerging industries.

Advocates for responsible mining practices caution that getting those minerals out of the ground also comes with its own environmental and social impacts.

“One of our concerns is that the transition to low-carbon energy sources and electric vehicles comes at the expense of negative legacies and mining impacts,” Nikki Skuce, co-founder of BC Mining Law Reform Network, told The Narwhal in an interview. 

For example, Skuce has pointed to the ongoing impact of B.C.’s Mount Polley mine disaster in 2014, after a tailings dam failure led to 24 million cubic metres of mining waste being spilled into an important salmon watershed.

Merran Smith, executive director of Clean Energy Canada, said the growth of the electric vehicle sector could be a catalyst for Canada to address some of these issues and prevent future disasters. 

“The opportunity for battery manufacturing, which is going to require an increase in metals and minerals, is an opportunity for us to really ensure we clean up mining from an environmental and a social perspective,” she said in an interview.

Liberals and Conservatives promise to support mineral extraction for clean energy

Not all political parties acknowledge the link between mineral extraction and widespread adoption of zero-emission vehicles, but each of the four largest parties vying for federal leadership promise to support the growth of the sector. 

For example, the Green Party’s election platform highlights Canada’s opportunity to “become a world leader in cleantech and renewable energy,” noting those sectors are “where the jobs of the future are, and how we will stay globally competitive and build a prosperous sustainable future.” The party also promised to ban the sale of internal combustion vehicles by 2030.

Jamie Kneen, co-founder and communications coordinator at MiningWatch Canada, said he agrees this is necessary and important. But he also believes it would be missing the point to only focus the conversation on increasing electric vehicle sales and infrastructure.

“I think that any commitment or any discussion of zero-emission vehicles has to be in the context of our commitment to not using private vehicles,” he said in an interview. “The bigger question is, how are we going to actually shift the transportation paradigm so that it’s more accessible and more equitable and less carbon intensive? Just putting people into public transit makes a much more immediate and bigger difference, even if they’re diesel buses.”

The Green Party acknowledged this by committing to “ensure access to zero-carbon public transportation, with high-speed rail networks between major cities, and spokes of light rail and electric bus connections across the country.”

While the NDP election platform does not address mining directly, the party has promised to establish a research and development centre to “move forward related technologies such as hydrogen, batteries and energy storage solutions.” The party also committed to the Liberal government’s plan to phase out fossil fuel vehicles by 2035 and said it would increase tax breaks to make it easier for people to purchase electric vehicles.

Both the NDP and the Green Party also promised to expand charging infrastructure, including in rural communities, and invest in public transportation.

The Conservative election platform digs into the projected demand for minerals, with a promise to “take advantage of Canada’s abundant resources of the minerals needed to power our clean energy future.” The platform noted this would include “adopting policies to facilitate the responsible exploitation and mining of lithium.”

The Liberal campaign zeroed in on battery manufacturing and the connection to mining. “As the market for batteries grows, the global race is on to attract new manufacturing facilities and jobs,” the platform notes. The party has promised to “double the Mineral Exploration Tax Credit for materials on the Canadian list of critical minerals which are essential to the manufacturing of vital clean technologies, such as batteries.” This proposed tax break would cut costs for mining companies exploring for minerals associated with battery production. 

“One of Canada’s advantages is we have all the metals and minerals needed for batteries.”

Merran Smith, Clean Energy Canada

Kneen said the public should be aware of potential consequences as a result of further subsidizing mineral exploration.

“What it does is support the exploration industry, which doesn’t necessarily lead to mining,” he said. “Something like one in 1,000 exploration projects turns into a mine. What it does is keep the helicopters flying in the Yukon.”

Pierre Gratton, president of the Mining Association of Canada, told The Narwhal more exploration is necessary if Canada wants to compete for a stake in the global battery market.

“We now have one rare earth mine in the Northwest Territories, that’s it. And it’s brand new,” he said in an interview. “There has been a dearth of base metal discoveries in the past 20 years, in Canada and around the world. We do need some new discoveries to come our way if we’re going to meet this challenge.”

He added that most of the domestic mines currently extracting the metals associated with batteries aren’t actually selling them to battery manufacturers.

“There’s very little of Canada’s current production that goes into batteries,” he said. “We are the fifth largest producer of nickel and a major producer of cobalt but it’s used for other purposes.”

Kneen said the truth of where Canadian minerals end up casts a shadow on a growing narrative that mining is vital for, and inextricably linked to, green technology.

“The extent to which [the mining industry] is actually being bolstered by renewable energy demands is, I wouldn’t say marginal, but it’s not as big as industry is trying to tell us.”  

Canada needs to live up to its commitments before expanding mining sector: expert

Gratton said that Canada has an opportunity to use existing laws and regulations to support and promote responsible mining activity associated with battery production. He said that compared to other countries, Canadian mines have a significantly lower carbon footprint, given the access to hydroelectric power. As an example, he said Canada’s nickel production is second only to Finland in terms of greenhouse gases emitted per tonne of saleable product and has a fraction of the emissions per tonne released in countries like Indonesia and the Philippines.

“In terms of fighting climate change, one of the issues is all this extra material that’s going to be needed consumes a lot of energy,” he explained. “If that energy comes from fossil fuels, then we may be, on a net basis, still reducing [emissions] but not as much as we could if we derive those materials from mines that don’t use fossil fuels, or use much less.”

“I’m sure Canadians wouldn’t want Canada to be the miner to the world for all of our electric cars but I think there would be pretty good support for Canada having a piece of it, knowing that if we didn’t it would be coming from other places where they wouldn’t be done as well,” he added. 

China, for example, is well-positioned to secure a monopoly on the market if other countries don’t step up, according to Gratton. The Chinese government has less stringent rules and regulations on mining activity, both in terms of environmental impacts and human rights.

Skuce said Canada does have an advantage, if it lives up to its federal and provincial commitments.

“Like British Columbia, the federal government has now passed the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and needs to ensure that it is respecting that, which means mining companies should require free prior and informed consent on the ground,” she said.

Manufacturers are increasingly demanding assurances of responsible mining practices. Gratton said members of the Mining Association of Canada commit to a sustainable mining protocol framework, which include guidelines for climate change, biodiversity, water stewardship and more. 

“It’s an emerging global system that provides the kind of assurance that the Apples and the auto manufacturers are looking for.”

The framework, which is informed by an advisory panel that has included members of MiningWatch Canada and former Green leader Elizabeth May, has been adopted in countries like Finland, Australia, Argentina and Botswana, he said, though each is at a different stage in implementing the protocols.

Kneen agreed the association’s framework is an important part of helping the industry adopt better practices and described it as a “useful tool for companies,” but as a new BC Mining Law Reform Network and MiningWatch Canada report points out, the framework is voluntary and B.C. alone is home to dozens of mines either actively polluting watersheds or posing risk to downstream habitat and communities.

Critics warns recycling needs support as electric vehicle sector grows

While Kneen and Skuce admitted mining is likely to play a prominent role in the transition to clean energy and the zero-emission transportation sector, they both stressed the need for Canada to simultaneously focus on reduction and recycling as part of the solution.

“The easiest way to avoid mine waste problems is to make less mine waste,” Kneen said. He added current recycling facilities aren’t yet able to extract much lithium during the process.

“The cobalt or the nickel and other parts are kind of easier to separate out,” he said, suggesting that Canada could invest in research and development to reduce the amount of waste associated with batteries and support recycling facilities.

Skuce agreed.

“We need to look at reducing the waste [extracting] raw material produces and way more on recycling.”

B.C.’s Ministry of Environment and Climate Change Strategy announced last week that it will include electric vehicle batteries in the province’s five-year recycling strategy. The strategy puts the onus on producers — manufacturers, distributors and retailers — to take responsibility for the full life-cycle of products, to encourage a circular economy.

Both the Conservatives and Liberals promised in their respective campaigns to support the growth of battery recycling in Canada.

Skuce noted there are still important outstanding issues in the mining industry that federal, provincial and territorial governments need to address before supporting industry growth.

“There’s all sorts of innovations that we need to make sure we’re looking at while at the same time making sure that we’re closing the gap on regulations, laws, compliance and enforcement so that we can be a part of [the transition] without putting watersheds and communities at risk.” 

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 feels like an eternity since federal NDP leader Thomas Mulcair received the boot from delegates at the party convention in April 2016.

The lengthy leadership race hasn’t exactly helped that feeling.

Most candidates launched their campaigns in February. Nine debates were held between March and September. But we’re almost at the end of the tunnel. Voting for the first ballot, via both mail-in ballots and online, commenced on Sept. 18 and concludes on Oct. 1. If needed, second and third ballots will be collected by Oct. 8 and Oct. 15.

While there are only four candidates left in the race — Guy Caron, Jagmeet Singh, Charlie Angus and Niki Ashton — there are an enormous number of combined proposals related to energy, climate and environmental policies (especially compared to what was discussed during the federal Conservative leadership race).

Let’s take a look at what’s on offer from the NDP candidates.

Moving Past the Pipeline Debate

A central theme throughout the race has been the need to “move past” the pipeline debate.

Sounds easy!

In June, Ontario MP Charlie Angus — previously dubbed “the most pipeline-friendly candidate” by the Hill Times — said that “the only discussion we’ve had on the environment is ‘this pipeline versus that pipeline.’”

Similarly, Ontario MPP and deputy leader Jagmeet Singh states in his platform that “it’s no secret that there are people who would like to narrow our discussions on climate change to a debate about pipelines alone in an attempt to divide Canadians.”

It’s probably a fair point. But the pressure has, at the very least, required candidates to quickly clarify their position on the subject.

Both Manitoba MP Niki Ashton and Quebec MP Guy Caron have indicated that they’re against the country’s major projects: Kinder Morgan’s Trans Mountain and TransCanada’s Energy East. Enbridge’s controversial Line 3, which received federal approval alongside Trans Mountain, is left unaddressed.

Singh was late to the pipeline party — something Ashton publicly noted.

During a debate in St. John’s in June, Singh stated a desire to communicate with NDP leaders in Alberta and B.C. before declaring a firm decision on the matter.

Surprisingly, Singh’s climate plan dropped only a week later, fully opposing Trans Mountain and Energy East due to conflicts with emissions targets and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People (UNDRIP).

Angus arguably left the most room open for future projects, often deploying the Alberta government’s language of “social license” and threat of oil-by-rail.

In addition, he suggested that “industry understands that they need social license on the ground” and that government hasn’t sufficiently been “at the table.”

Four’s Company: Where @NDP Leadership Candidates Stand on #Energy and #Climate Policy https://t.co/jDi9nVJnRC #NDPldr #cdnpoli

— DeSmog Canada (@DeSmogCanada) September 27, 2017

Emissions Targets and Carbon Pricing

Every candidate but Angus has specifically committed to accelerating Canada’s reduction of greenhouse gas emissions in order to meet international climate targets.

Specifically, the trio of Caron, Singh and Ashton have all committed to cutting the country’s emissions by 30 per cent below 2005 levels by 2025. That’s a full five years earlier than the Liberal government’s current plan — which seeks to hit that number by 2030 — and only six years after an NDP government could conceivably attain power.

That won’t be easy.

To achieve that both Ashton and Angus stated that he will create a five-year “national carbon budget.”

Emissions targets help but the country needs actual mechanisms, like regulations or carbon pricing, to get there.

So far Caron is the sole candidate to propose adjusting the national price on carbon. Currently, the Liberal government requires every province to institute a price on carbon — either via a carbon tax or cap-and-trade framework — that will reach $50/tonne by 2022.

Caron proposed upping that requirement to $50/tonne by 2020, to $100/tonne by 2025 and $150/tonne by 2030.

That’s still below what Mark Jaccard and his research team at Simon Fraser University have calculated would be required if carbon pricing was exclusively relied on to hit Paris Agreement targets: $200/tonne by 2030.

It’s still significantly more specific than anything being offered by any other candidate.

Ushering in a Green Future

Aston, Angus and Singh have each proposed the creation of new government positions or agencies to help Canada usher in a new sustainable economy.

For Ashton, that includes the co-creation of a Crown corporation called Green Canada and a public investment bank. Together, the two institutions would help fund green housing projects, public transit, renewable tech, upskilling jobs in “sunset” industries, national retrofit program and a “young green job guarantee.”

Ashton’s plan for a publicly funded infrastructure bank is a big departure from the Liberal government’s controversial support of private investment in Canada’s $35-billion Infrastructure Bank.

Ashton noted there is a potential for 700,000 clean jobs in the construction and operation of renewable energy by 2050. To foster that potential, Ashton proposed the creation of four new Green Canada Advisory Boards to focus on forestry, agriculture, fishing and energy.

Angus also proposed an alternative to Canada’s Infrastructure Bank in the form of a new Crown corporation designed to facilitate “sustainable development” in energy, transit and “municipal redesigns.”

Meanwhile, Singh pledged to establish a climate change advisory group as well as a climate change action officer to keep track of progress on emissions.

Big Spenders

Only Ashton and Caron mention specific figures when it comes to funding of green programs.

Ashton dedicated a massive $10 billion per year to build 40,000 units of green public housing, amounting to over 150,000 houses in her first mandate.

She noted that she would pay for that and other programs with increased taxation on high-income earners and corporations, as well as deficit spending given low interest rates.

Caron also threw out a $10 billion figure to spur investment into electric high-speed rail in the revered Calgary-Edmonton and Quebec City-Windsor corridors over a 10-year period.

The amount won’t be enough to cover all the expected costs of such a project, however. Estimates for the corridors come in at $6 to $10 billion and $20 billion, respectively.

Caron would also dedicate $18 billion to public transit expenditures over a decade, $4.7 billion to clean drinking water in Indigenous communities and $32 billion in renewable investments (it’s unclear if the latter would be direct investments or grants/subsidies).

Possibly the most extravagant of all, Caron pledged to rebate up to $8,000 per electric vehicle up to a value of $40,000, and a huge $50,000 when purchasing medium- and heavy-duty electric buses or trucks.

Both Angus and Singh were significantly lighter on the details.

Singh has pitched ideas like a national public transit strategy to provide “long-term and predictable funding” and providing tax rebates for zero-emission vehicle purchases. But no particular dollar figures have been assigned to these ideas.

Same goes for his proposal to implement nationwide energy efficiency measures, kick off a renewable heating program and construct a much-needed east-west supergrid to share excess low-carbon electricity to neighbouring provinces.

Meanwhile, Angus provided a mere four bullet points in his climate platform, but one, notably, aims at eliminating Canada’s estimated $3.3 billion in annual subsidies for the oil and gas industry.

The other three priorities are develop a national carbon budget, a carbon budget council and, as mentioned above, a new Crown corporation to spurn sustainable development.

Driving the Electric Car Market

There’s also a fairly consistent support of a transition to electric vehicles among all four candidates.

Ashton stated that her government will phase-out gasoline- and diesel-fueled vehicles by 2040.

That’s exactly in line with recent commitments by the U.K. and France, and well behind Norway’s pledge to phase out by 2025. Her platform also indicated support for low-income households with interest-free loans to buy electric vehicles in the push to 2040.

Singh announced he will introduce a zero-emission vehicle agenda for Canada, including a levy on high-emitting vehicles and a tax rebate for electric vehicle purchases.

Zero-emission regulations were also promised by Caron in order to help facilitate a push for half of all vehicles on roads to be electric by 2041. His platform added that a regulatory regime would be implemented two years after he reaches office, combined with investments into R&D for ensuring that rare earth minerals and lithium are secured for manufacturing the vehicles.

None of the candidates have yet mentioned a zero-emission vehicle mandate as successfully deployed in jurisdictions like California or Quebec.

Broader, More Specific Policies Needed

Once all the ballots have been counted, there will be another two years for the new leader to refine their platform and mobilize support for the next federal election.

Giving an idea of what’s to come, most candidates have a few extra policies worth mentioning.

Singh shouted out the need to accelerate methane regulations, emphasize carbon price rebates for low-income families and protect Canadian pensions, savings and RRSPs by requiring fossil fuel companies to disclose climate risk.

Ashton advocated the need to “green” data storage and invest more in the international Green Climate Fund in the form of grants rather than loans.

Caron brought up the need to address climate justice, suggesting Canada ease migration barriers for those leaving their homes due to climate impacts. In addition, Caron plans to implement a carbon tariff on imports from other countries that have lower carbon prices, diverting revenue to companies that are impacted because of lower prices.

There are certainly broader questions to be answered around the influence of the oil and gas industry, recognizing the rights of indigenous peoples, especially when it comes to the assessment and approval of major projects and Canada’s larger transition to a sustainable, renewable energy economy.

Ballot results will be announced between October 1 and 15.

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 Zoë Ducklow for The Tyee.

Recent experiences with the federal government have left Prophet River First Nation member Helen Knott wary of government promises.

So while she and other Indigenous people are excited about NDP provincial government commitments to adopt the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, words are not enough. And the Site C dam in northeastern B.C., they say, will be the government’s first test of its commitment.

“The vocalization that they’ll adhere to UNDRIP is a start, but it’s about actions,” Knott says. “And Site C is the place to start with it, because it’s the issue that’s out front and in everybody’s faces.”

Prophet River is one of two Treaty 8 First Nations who have steadfastly opposed the dam.

UNDRIP calls for free, prior and informed consent from Indigenous peoples on issues and projects that affect them. It also protects their right to strengthen their distinct spiritual relationship with territorial lands and water.

No Free, Prior, Informed Consent for Treaty 8 on Site C, Says Member

The provincial government repeated its commitment to adopt UNDRIP at the B.C. cabinet and First Nations leaders gathering earlier this month. It was also included in the mandate letters to each ministry, including to the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources, which is responsible for the massive and controversial Site C dam project.

“The federal government left a bit of a bitter taste in my mouth,” Knott says. “So faith now and trust now is earned by action, rather than given at face value. Here at the provincial level, they have a second chance to show that, ‘Yeah we are committed to reconciliation, and yes we are going to adhere to UNDRIP.’ That calls for free prior and informed consent which hasn’t happened within Treaty 8 territory.”

Free, prior and informed consent recognizes Indigenous peoples as distinct groups with a right to self-determination and self-government, and gives them the power to say no.

Helen Knott in DeSmog Canada's video Disturbing the Peace. Photo: Jayce Hawkins | DeSmog Canada

The UNDRIP approach is fundamentally different from how Canada’s system of consultation works, and from how consultation on Site C was managed. Even though some First Nations in the area signed impact benefit agreements, they were never asked to consent to the significant build on their territory. First Nations who said no were essentially ignored in consultation, they say.

“If communities refused to meet with BC Hydro, it was shown that BC Hydro did their due diligence,” Knott says. “They got that check mark, and it looked bad on the community. But if the communities did consult then it was like, ‘OK, what’s the problem? They consulted you.’ It didn’t matter whether or not you said no, I don’t want this.”

She adds: “These consultation sessions shapeshift into information sessions, which doesn’t hold that spirit of free, prior and informed consent.”

UNDRIP also recognizes the right to “maintain and strengthen their distinctive spiritual relationship” with traditional lands and water. The valley in the flood zone holds thousands of years of spiritual and cultural history. Being by the river is part of a spiritual practice for Knott.

“I take people down to where the Halfway River meets the Peace. We do prayers and ceremony. Things that help cleanse and reground people.” The flood zone holds some of the last remaining access points to water in Treaty 8 territory, she says. “I can’t imagine going down to the reservoir. It’s just not the same thing.”

The valley also holds the key to their stories. It’s only when you’re in those places, on the land, that the stories get told, Knott says. “When you’re losing such a large tract, you lose a lot of who you are and that ability to connect with it.”

#SiteC to Test @bcndp’s Commitment to #Indigenous Rights https://t.co/UDjTLEyAbs #bcpoli @jjhorgan @AJWVictoriaBC @SavePeaceValley

— DeSmog Canada (@DeSmogCanada) September 14, 2017

Consent Must Be 'Given at Each Stage'

Sheryl Lightfoot, Canada Research Chair in Global Indigenous Rights and Politics and a UBC professor, says partnership at all stages of decision making is one of the core ways to implement free, prior and informed consent.

“It’s supposed to be an end to top-down hierarchical, colonial rule. Decisions and actions are supposed to be taken in partnership with Indigenous people,” she says. “Free, prior and informed consent means Indigenous peoples are at the table from the beginning of the project and continuing all the way through — and that consent is given at each stage.”

That means they’re still at the table even when a project is in process and especially when they never gave consent originally.

The provincial government has a chance to show they’re serious by immediately applying UNDRIP principles to Site C, Lightfoot says. The project should be halted while environmental concerns are reviewed with Indigenous peoples at the table and consultation is readdressed.

“That’s the commitment you’re making when you say you’ll implement the UN Declaration, is that you will work in partnership with Indigenous peoples,” she says.

First Nations should be equal partners in any decision that affects them, Lightfoot says.

“Site C is an instructive case, because there has been so much public opposition to it,” she says. “So I think it’s incumbent on the government to take that seriously. It would send a really strong signal that we are going to be doing government differently. We’re going to be making decisions differently now here in this province and setting a tone for the rest of the country, and probably the rest of the world.”Grand Chief Stewart Phillip, who leads the Union of BC Indian Chiefs, is confident the new government will stick to its commitments.

“I think it’s abundantly clear that they have every intention of following through with their commitment to implementing UNDRIP,” he says, noting the government has already, as promised, referred the Site C project to a review by the B.C. Utilities Commission.

While the commission review excludes environmental, cultural and cumulative territory impacts, the government has promised to take these things into account when making the final decision. Phillip expects that the principles represented in the UN Declaration, coupled with the NDP’s intent to reconcile with First Nations, will factor into the government’s final decision on Site C.

“I’m of the mind that the project will be cancelled,” Phillip says.

Michelle Mungall, provincial minister for energy, mines and petroleum resources, said in an email that her ministry is working with Treaty 8 Nations to discuss their concerns.

Image: B.C. Premier John Horgan at the 2017 First Nations Leaders’ Gathering: Rights, Respect and Reconciliation. Photo: Province of B.C. 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.

After three weeks of nail-biting, British Columbians finally have a clearer sense of what’s in store for the province as the NDP and Greens released their cooperation agreement today.

The 10-page agreement establishes the basis for the Greens to “provide confidence” in an NDP government. Translation: the agreement lays out what the NDP agreed to in return for the Greens guaranteeing to support NDP budgets and confidence motions.

And boy oh boy, is there ever a lot of gold in this document. Here are 10 of the biggest potential game changers on the energy and environment file.

1) Kinder Morgan is In For a Fight

The agreement doesn’t mince words where Kinder Morgan’s Trans Mountain pipeline is concerned. It says the parties will “immediately employ every tool available” to stop the project.

In a press conference Tuesday, Green Party Leader Andrew Weaver countered arguments that B.C.’s prosperity relies on an oil pipeline project: “The idea that a pipeline is going to create jobs in this economy is a myth.”

“I think British Columbians are frankly sick and tired of hearing that the economy of the 21st century is the economy of tomorrow.”

Clean Energy Canada estimates that, with a well-designed clean growth and climate strategy, 270,000 jobs would be created in B.C. by 2025.

2) Site C Dam Will Be Sent for Review

The $9 billion publicly funded Site C hydro dam has been beleaguered by questions about cost and demand. The project will be sent to the B.C. Utilities Commission immediately for review of its “economic viability” in context of the “current supply and demand conditions.” Asked whether construction will be halted while the project undergoes review, NDP leader John Horgan said work will continue. The review will be completed on a six-week and three-month timeframe.

3) Revitalize the Environmental Assessment Process

This one sounds super geeky, but could go a long way to restoring British Columbians’ faith in environmental reviews and, ultimately, allowing for the right kinds of responsible resource development. The federal government is also in the process of reforming federal environmental assessments, so the timing is right.  

10 Potential Game-Changers in B.C.’s NDP-Green Agreement https://t.co/QmO8HMxGaH #bcpoli #bcelxn17 #climate #SiteC #KinderMorgan #cdnpoli

— DeSmog Canada (@DeSmogCanada) May 30, 2017

4) Increase Carbon Tax

The agreement lays out a $5/year increase to the carbon tax beginning in April 2018. This will get B.C. to the federally mandated carbon price of $50/tonne by 2022. The plan also includes expanding the tax to what are known as “fugitive emissions,” which are currently wildly underestimated and untaxed. The parties have also committed to creating a plan to actually meet B.C.’s climate targets (what an idea!).

A 2015 study by Clean Energy Canada and Navius Research found that strong climate leadership would attract an additional $5 billion of renewable energy investment to British Columbia over the coming decade.

5) Transit Funding

The parties will work together to “act immediately to improve transit and transportation infrastructure” to “reduce emissions, create jobs and get people home faster.” This is a pretty vague one, but the fact it made it into the argument makes it clear that it’s a priority.

6) Emerging Economy Task Force

Has a task force ever changed the world? We’re not sure, but we like the sound of this one, which will be charged with developing made-in-B.C. solutions to address the changing nature of business over the next 10 to 25 years.

7) Goodbye GDP, Meet GPI

The agreement also commits to developing a genuine progress indicator, or GPI.

This is a really interesting commitment that represents a fundamental shift to a different way of measuring progress. Right now, we tend to rely on gross domestic product numbers, or GDP. But here’s the thing: when there’s an oil spill, for instance, that can offer a big boost to GDP, but not necessarily be good for society. A genuine progress indicator takes into account health care, safety, a clean environment and other indicators of well-being.

8) Referendum on Proportional Representation

Legislation will be passed during the first session of the legislature, requiring a referendum on proportional representation in the fall of 2018, in tandem with municipal elections. The agreement also stipulates that both parties will campaign in favour of the change.

While there’s been debate about whether the change should be put to a referendum, if successful, this represents perhaps the biggest game-changer of all.

9) Banning Big Money & Lobbying Reform

This one is also huge. In the first session of the legislature, the Greens and NDP will co-operate to pass legislation that will ban corporate, union and out-of-province donations to political parties. The legislation will also place a limit on individual donations. So at long last, B.C. is about to join the rest of Canada in putting limits on what money can buy.

The agreement also outlines lobbying reforms that will prevent lobbying by former politicians for several years after holding office.

Bonus: legislation will also be passed to require a fall and spring sitting of the legislature each year — which means our politicians will actually have to, you know, go to work (Christy Clark cancelled the fall sitting in 2016).

10) Relationship with Indigenous Peoples

The agreement begins by stating that a “foundational piece of this relationship” is that both caucuses support the adoption of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) and the Tsilhqot’in Supreme Court decision.

The Tsilhqot’in became the first indigenous peoples in North America to officially win title to their land with a Supreme Court decision in 2013. Still, that hasn’t stopped the First Nation from having to fend off mining projects supported by the B.C. Liberals.

Much lip service has been paid to UNDRIP (we’re looking at you Trudeau and you Notley), so we’ll have to watch closely to see how that commitment plays out in B.C.

Image: Green party leader Andrew Weaver and NDP leader John Horgan at the signing of the parties' Supply and Confidence Agreement. Photo: BC NDP 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.

Former prime minister Stephen Harper’s government issued 14 permits for work on the $9 billion Site C dam during the writ period of the last election — a move that was offside according to people familiar with the project and the workings of the federal government.

“By convention, only routine matters are dealt with after the writ is dropped,” said Harry Swain, the chair of the Joint Review Panel that reviewed the Site C dam. “Permits and licences are only issued when a government considers the matter to be non-controversial and of no great public importance.”

Swain served for 22 years in the federal government, ending as deputy minister of Indian and Northern Affairs and later Industry. In an exclusive interview with DeSmog Canada last year, Swain said the B.C. government shouldn’t have moved ahead with construction on the dam until the demand case became clearer.

Federal Green Party leader Elizabeth May noticed all of the Site C permits had been issued in late September, just weeks before October’s federal election.   “They saw that they were unlikely to form government again so they began making appointments and decisions during the election,” May told DeSmog Canada. “Usually during the writ period the government operates as a care-taker government, doing what’s absolutely necessary.”   Land clearing has begun on the dam, while opposition has continued to grow. First Nations are challenging the project in court over treaty issues and a protest camp was set up in the construction zone in December. (In Photos: The Destruction of the Peace River Valley for the Site C Dam)   “These permits are really quite distressing,” May said. “You get two departments issuing all these permits in a two-week period. It looks orchestrated by the former government.”

‘The Honour of the Crown is at Stake’

A broad coalition of organizations from across Canada has called on Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to halt construction of the Site C dam by refusing to issue further federal permits needed for construction of the project, which will flood 23,000 hectares of land along 107-kilometres of the Peace River Valley.   An open letter from the coalition urges Trudeau to rescind all permits and to re-examine the previous government’s approval of the dam, which was given despite the review panel’s finding that it would infringe upon the treaty rights under Treaty 8.   “It’s bad enough to have disputed lands devastated by damage like this. But to have actual treaty rights and treaty-protected activities essentially removed … the honour of the Crown is at stake in something like this,” May said. “The Crown chose to ignore a finding in the review that these treaty rights were going to be irreparably harmed.”   May argued that, given its commitment to a new relationship with Canada’s First Nations, the federal government shouldn’t issue any further permits.   “They can’t undo permits that have already been issued or replace forests that have already been clear-cut, but any future permits need to have a very huge hold until treaty rights issues are resolved,” she said. 

“The review panel’s report clearly stated that not only was there massive environmental damage that could not be mitigated but that the erosion of treaty rights could not be mitigated. That’s an astonishing conclusion. Especially since the panel also found that the public interest case was pretty muddy.”

BC Hydro in Court for Injunction Against Protest Camp Monday

BC Hydro is scheduled to go to court on Monday to seek an injunction to have the protest camp removed. Documents filed in that case focus on financial issues, with BC Hydro arguing a delay in construction will cost it money, while expert witnesses for the protesters argue that a one-year delay will actually save taxpayers $267 million because power demand forecasts have fallen.   BC Hydro has always argued the financial argument for the project is strong because of growing power demand, but economists and the crown corporation’s former CEO Marc Eliesen have challenged that and called for a third-party assessment.

Site C Dam Slated For Audit

Meantime, B.C.’s Auditor-General stated this week that the Site C dam has been identified as a project needing an audit, but no timeline has been set for that work.   “As a British Columbia ratepayer it’s very clear that Site C is likely to put British Columbia into a negative economic situation, at least at the beginning of its lifespan without any benefit to British Columbians,” May said. “It’s for the LNG industry.”   Andrew Weaver, leader of the B.C. Green Party, added his voice to the call for a delay in Site C construction in the legislature on Thursday, citing significant risk to taxpayers and the provincial economy.   “Site C should have been subject to the B.C. Utilities Commission, but the government felt it would slow down their political agenda too much,” he said. “It is risky and foolish. British Columbians are going to be paying for this project for decades.”   Weaver argued that in the absence of a vastly expanded LNG industry, the power from the Site C dam won’t be needed — an argument DeSmog Canada has explored in depth.

Wind Energy Association Driven Out of Province

Weaver also warned on Thursday that proceeding with Site C is actively driving clean energy investment out of the province.   Two weeks ago the Canadian Wind Energy Association announced it was closing up shop in B.C. because of a lack of opportunity to develop new wind projects in the province. Instead, the association will focus on Alberta and Saskatchewan.

“We obviously have limited resources, and we’re going to focus our efforts on those markets which provide the greatest opportunities in the short term to see more wind energy deployed in the country,” CanWEA president Robert Hornung told Business in Vancouver.

Hornung added: “While B.C. has tremendous untapped potential for wind energy … it’s also true that, at this time, there’s no vision of short-term opportunities emerging in B.C.”

Industrial demand for power in B.C. is falling due to the closure of mines and pulp and paper mills, both big electricity consumers. And with the Site C dam on the books, BC Hydro doesn’t anticipate any calls for power until 2030 — which means the prospects of new wind power projects have effectively been killed.

"Rather than let the market take the risk for energy infrastructure projects, this government is using billions of taxpayer dollars to get Site C ‘past the point of no return,’ ” Weaver said.

George Heyman, the NDP critic for the green economy, told the Georgia Straight this week that the government is failing to support renewable energy.

"That's a problem for development of jobs and industry in every corner of B.C.," Heyman said. 

"And it's a problem for British Columbians who think we should be taking advantage of dropping tech prices and advancing technology in both wind and solar and other forms of energy production — instead of throwing all of our eggs into the basket of one big dam in Northeast B.C. with a price tag that's likely to go up steeply in the coming years."

You can click here to read more about Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and climate change.

Image: Construction on the Site C Dam by Garth Lenz.

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.

Mel Arnold, a federal Conservative candidate from the North Okanagan-Shuswap riding in B.C., told the CBC he remains “unconvinced” by climate science and that the role of human activity in the rise of global temperatures remains undetermined.

In an interview with the CBC’s Daybreak South radio show this week, Arnold told host Chris Walker he believes only 1.5 per cent of greenhouse gas emissions are human-caused.

Arnold also said cycles in climate could be responsible for recent changes in temperature.

"I don't know that it has been determined for sure that human activity is the main cause. It is part of the process," he told Walker. “But how much of it is actually naturally occurring, that's I think where the debate is."

"As you know, this area was once buried in kilometres of thick ice during the ice ages. And we have approximately 30-year cycles on weather conditions here. Those types of things are still in play."

Cindy Derkaz, federal Liberal candidate from the North Okanagan-Shuswap riding, said Arnold was simply toeing the Conservative Party line.

“I wasn’t surprised,” Derkaz said. “I feel that he is following a party line and bound to do that and I’ve noticed that there’s been no rebuttal of [Arnold’s statements] from the party.”

Derkaz said the science of climate change, including the role of human activity, is “unequivocal” and that constituents in her region are already feeling the effects of warmer global temperatures.

“We are experiencing some of the hottest years on record one after another. We are experiencing serious forest fire seasons, problems with our water supply drying up which leads to a diminished flow in rivers which negatively affects the return of fish.”

“These are all problems we are dealing with.”

NDP candidate Jacqui Gingras said Arnold is “actively denying climate change” and it is “outrageous and dangerous to hold the view” that humans are not contributing to increasing temperatures.

“We’ve been measuring climate change for 150 years and have been able to reconstruct climate going back 8,000 years,” Gingras said. “Thirteen of the 15 warmest years on record have occurred since 2000.”

Gingras said that researchers from Climate Central calculate that the odds of climate change not being attributable to human activity is one in 27 million.

Gingras said Arnold is apparently willing to bet against those odds.

“To the south of us in Kelowna there were terrible fires this year that had enormous costs on people's lives,” she said. “Our local industry, the forestry industry, relies on those trees.”

“We’re on the brink of something traumatic, not only locally, but globally there’s a crisis building.”

Wildfires and trees were also present on the mind of federal Green Party candidate Chris George.

“These fires have been a big issue,” George said. “All of the surrounding forests are vulnerable to beetle kill because winters don’t get cold enough to kill the insects off which means that more dry standing forests and they are more vulnerable to wildfire.”

George added that before this season’s wildfires, heavy rainfall caused mudslides in the Shuswap region.

“We basically lost our tourism season. The mudslides wiped out roads, filed our lakes and streams with mud and shut down houseboat operators.”

George said the increased intensity and frequency of both drought and heavy rainfall are “easily linked to climate change.” Both tourism and agriculture, which the area depends upon, are being “disproportionally hit” by the effects of warmer temperatures, he said.

George added he’s surprised to hear any candidates would question the impacts of human activity on the climate. “I was a bit astonished that that’s still a position out there.”

According to Environment Canada, greenhouse gasses are released into the atmosphere as a result of transportation, oil and gas development, the production of electricity, energy use in buildings, industrial and trade activities, agriculture and the production of waste.  

Andrew Weaver, climate scientists and MLA for the B.C. Green Party said the comments are “outrageous” but he is “not surprised” to hear them coming from a representative of Conservative Party.

“This is common within the Harper Tories to find people whose views are based on… I don’t know where they get their views from, but they’re not scientific,” Weaver said.

He added the statements point to the larger problem of scientific literacy in political decision-making.

“If you make decisions as a matter of faith — ‘I believe this to be true’ — it’s the beginning of the downfall of society.”

Campaign manager Linda Hawkes said Arnold was unavailable for comment.

Image: Mel Arnold via Twitter

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

A single mention in 25 pages — that’s how frequently “public transit” was referenced in the Alberta NDP’s recent election platform.

But the brief mention was couched in a massively ambitious plan to redirect huge subsidies from sketchy carbon capture and storage (CCS) projects to the province’s neglected public transportation system. But that plan might be more complex than the party realized due to contracts with companies nearly ready to put major CCS facilities online.

On an online forum, the NDP made this campaign pledge: “We will end the Progressive Conservative’s costly and ineffective Carbon Capture and Storage experiment and reinvest the 2015/16 component of this project into construction of public transit, which will help reduce families’ transportation costs and reduce greenhouse gases and other air pollutants.”

Transportation is hugely significant contributor to climate change. The sector expected to account for 24 per cent of Canada’s emissions by 2020 according to the most recent Environment Canada projections (second only to the oil and gas sector at 27 per cent). So the availability of public transportation, which means less individual vehicles on the road, can help municipalities deal with growing emissions.

Unfortunately, there are few details as to what the NDP’s plan actually entails.

And new Energy Minister Marg McCuaig-Boyd isn’t speaking up.

CCS Expensive, But No Sure Bet

The idea is simple in theory.

Carbon capture and storage (CCS) is a technology that collects waste carbon dioxide from industrial facilities and compresses it into a dense fuel. That fuel is used for enhanced oil and gas recovery, where it is pumped underground to force out low-pressure oil and gas, before it is sequestered in deep underground reservoirs.

Once championed as a climate solution, CCS has proven extremely costly and more risky than once thought. An alleged leakage of sequestered carbon in Saskatchewan raised serious questions about the guarantee of CCS. The leaks in particular raised concerns about the long-term certainty that once carbon has been stored in the ground that is where it will remain in perpetuity. 

A 2012 study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences found there is a “high probability” that earthquakes could break the seal of underground carbon repositories, ultimately releasing trapped emissions back into the atmosphere.

The efficacy of the process has also been called into question by Alberta’s auditor general, Merwan Saher, who said CCS has failed to live up to its promise and is only expected to reduce emissions by 10 per cent of its original goal.

Alberta initially promised $2 billion to four CCS projects in the province. Two projects, Swan Hills Synfuels and TransAlta, were eventually ditched when their proponents found them ‘uneconomic.’ That left $1.3 billion, which Alberta promised to the Shell and Alberta Carbon Trunk Line projects over the next 15 years.

The NDP argued the majority of the $315-million — $250 million in total — that would be spent this year on two CCS projects (Shell Quest and Alberta Carbon Trunk Line) could instead be invested in public transit.

“More stable funding” will be set aside for cities “in future years,” the pledge stated, “as we carefully review the existing capital plan in a transparent manner.”

It’s unclear how the NDP government views its commitment to the two remaining projects.

Kevin Jabusch — the president of Enhance Energy, the company responsible for the Alberta Carbon Trunk Line development — told the Calgary Herald his company has a binding contract with the province and is continuing with construction. The project is near complete and is expected to come online next year.

McCuaig-Boyd’s press secretary indicated to the Calgary Herald that they will make an announcement about the specifics in the coming months.

Alberta’s Lackluster Public Transit

Alberta is in a bit of a bizarre situation when it comes to public transit. On one hand, it features two of four light rail systems in the country. However, in a 2014 study, Calgary ranked nine of ten major Canadian cities with more than 500,000 residents for the “best Canadian cities for public transit” — the highest rankings were found in Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver. Edmonton ranked a single point higher than Calgary, putting it in eighth place.

Alberta’s cities receive no funding from the provincial government for operating costs; most money comes from fares and property taxes, with the small remainder coming from fines, parking tickets and advertising dollars.

Conversely, the Manitoba government is responsible for 20 per cent of Winnipeg Transit’s operating expenses, with the Ontario government providing 14 per cent of Mississauga’s budget and seven per cent of Ottawa’s budget in 2011.

Calgary Transit’s revenue-to-cost ratio has been declining over the past few years; since 2007, the average cost of providing a trip has spiked by one-quarter while the average fare had only increased by 12 per cent.

The federal government stepped up its role slightly in 2008, committing part of revenue from gas taxes to transit infrastructure. The New Building Canada Fund also lends assistance, up to one-third of project funding (with the remainder coming from the province and municipality).

However, those options aren’t stable or consistent sources of funding for year-to-year costs, meaning that many transit agencies can make short-term improvements such as new stations but have a tougher time budgeting for the long term. In 2013, the New Building Canada Fund was extended to grant $14-billion in funding over 10 years. But so much more is needed given Alberta’s rapidly growing cities and infrastructure debt.

According to the 2011 National Household Survey, 74 per cent of Canadians commute to work using a private vehicle. Only 12 per cent used public transit — almost two-thirds of those via bus, and another quarter on subway or elevated rail. Unfortunately, “cars, trucks and motorcycles” contribute by far the most CO2 to the atmosphere compared to any other transport type in Canada, a trend that is projected by Environment Canada to continue into 2020.

In late April, the federal government announced in its 2015 budget that it would be committing $750-million over two years to public transit beginning in 2017.

However, the next federal election takes place this October, meaning that the current government may not have the chance to oversee the implementation of such goals. In March, mayors from across Canada called for stable funding of $1-billion per year for public transit. Both the federal NDP and Liberals have stated that transit and infrastructure spending will be key components in their platform.

Currently, Canada is the only G7 country without a national transit funding strategy.

Image Credit: Premier of Alberta

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.

Back in March when the prospect of a majority NDP government in Alberta was still a twinkle in Rachel Notley’s eye, the to-be premier introduced a motion to phase out the province’s use of coal for electricity by 2030.

“The evidence is clear that it is time to phase out coal powered electricity in the province in Alberta. Coal is one of the single largest pollutants in Alberta. It costs our health care millions of dollars every year and is a massive source of greenhouse gas emissions,” she said, urging then premier Jim Prentice and the Progressive Conservative party to “do the right thing.”

So now that Notley has taken the reins, will she follow through with her own ambitious plan?

Too Much Attention on the Oilsands?

According to the Pembina Institute and Clean Energy Canada, although the oilsands attract the vast majority of critical attention, Alberta’s electricity sector generates nearly the same amount of carbon pollution.

“This is due, in large part, to the province’s continued reliance on coal,” authors James Glave and Ben Thibault wrote in a report called Power to Change. “At present, Alberta burns more coal for electricity than all other provinces combined."

“On an annual basis, Alberta’s coal-fired electricity releases roughly the same quantity of greenhouse gases as half of all the passenger vehicles on the roads in the entire country, in addition to health-damaging sulphur and nitrogen oxides, mercury and particulate matter,” they wrote.

Emissions by sector in Alberta. Source: Power to Change report.

Combined with extraction of oil from the oilsands, burning coal for electricity has landed Alberta in the undesirable position of being Canada’s highest emitter — by far.

In 2011, oilsands extraction processes accounted for a combined 39.8 per cent of Alberta’s industrial emissions, while power generation finished in a close second with 35.4 per cent of the contribution. In 2013, burning coal generated nearly two-thirds of Alberta’s electricity. That’s only declined slightly since.

Alberta’s Coal Riches

The thing about coal is there’s a lot of it and it’s easy to dig out of the ground.

Alberta is parked on top of 33.3 billion recoverable tonnes of the stuff, or 70 per cent of Canada’s reserves. But like the oilsands, coal extraction and combustion comes with a host of human health and environmental costs.

When burned, coal releases an enormous amount of sulphur dioxide and mercury, in addition to nitrous oxides, lead, chromium, arsenic and fine particulates that can lead to a smorgasbord of respiratory and cardiac issues.

A 2013 report found that, when combined with annual health and environmental damages, the price consumers pay for using coal power in Alberta doubles or even triples. That report estimated the average annual tab for coal-related health costs runs as high as $300 million a year.

Then there are the climate impacts.

Coal is by far the dirtiest major source of electricity in the world.

In 2011, 44 per cent of the carbon dioxide produced around the world came from burning coal, with oil accounting for 35 per cent and 21 per cent from natural gas.

The federal government has taken very small steps to deal with emissions from coal, but many existing plants will be allowed to operate for another half-century, until around 2061, with no carbon pollution regulations. So on a national level, we’re not exactly poised to deal with the problem.

Phasing Out Alberta’s Coal

Luckily, there’s a way out, already paved by Ontario (and Nova Scotia to a lesser degree): phase out coal.

If done correctly, kicking coal to the curb could save Alberta an enormous amount of money in avoided downstream healthcare costs while also kickstarting the province’s sluggish renewable sector.

What’s not to like?

First up is to acknowledge the problem. Alberta’s previous government — the Progressive Conservatives (PC) — liked to talked big about eliminating coal, but used the opportunity to give a leg up to natural gas.

The gas industry loves to tout gas as a cleaner, greened solution to coal.

But while natural gas does indeed release far less carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide compared to coal, the process to acquire the stuff, increasingly hydraulic fracturing, can have serious negative environmental consequences. Fracking is also a huge water-waster and has been known to cause accidental contamination of drinking water sources.

From a climate perspective, natural gas also doesn’t fare much better than coal thanks to methane leaks from fracking operations and natural gas transmission lines. Because methane is an incredibly potent greenhouse, heat-trapping gas, the global warming impacts of natural gas are about as significant as coal.

A study from 2014 suggested that a reliance on natural gas as a “bridge fuel” in the transition to cleaner sources of energy — as Alberta’s PCs liked to think— only delays the development of renewables and reduces emissions by a trivial amount.

Alberta’s Clean Energy Potential

But luckily Alberta has other options. The joint Pembina-Clean Energy Canada report shows the province has enormous latent potential in solar, wind and geothermal energy.

There’s enough solar potential in Alberta to meet the province’s entire annual electricity needs. According to the one study it would only take 1,746 square kilometres — or about 0.26 per cent of the province’s total land area — to do so.

But tapping into that renewable potential will take some serious policy overhaul.

The province has been sitting on a Renewable Energy Policy Framework since 2005 that could help lead the way. In 2014 the PCs gestured toward the framework, indicating renewable energy will play a role in the province’s climate change strategy, but no concrete strides were made to advance an actual plan.

But all that could change with the province’s new leadership.

Following the NDP’s recommendation of a total coal phase out by 2030 could create the kind of incentive for renewable energy alternatives the province needs.

In fact, the elimination of coal by 2030 falls into the Pembina Institute and Clean Energy Canada’s most ambitious scenario for a clean power transformation in Alberta.

Under that scenario, the elimination of coal by 2033 would require supporting a much larger share of renewable energy in the mix and would result in a 69 per cent reduction in carbon pollution from the province’s power sector.

In order for this to become a reality, however, some big deal changes will need to come on the scene in Alberta. One such change would involve accounting for the ‘true costs’ of fossil fuel extraction and consumption, so in essence, making it more expensive to burn coal for electricity. But Alberta will also need to make it more cost effective for would-be producers of clean energy alternatives.

“Meaningful policy is badly needed,” authors Glave and Thibault wrote in their report. “It could lower barriers to clean energy development and unlock opportunities to harvest the abundant and largely overlooked renewable resources that shine down, grow from, emerge from, flow over, and blow across the province.”

Notley, at least back in March, seemed to be on the same page: “It’s time to make a tangible commitment to phasing out coal, ensuring a brighter, more sustainable future for our children and our grandchildren.”

Image Credit: Province of Alberta

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 a stunning and historic move, Alberta elected a majority New Democrat government on Tuesday.

The Progressive Conservatives, which finished in third place, consistently mismanaged the environmental and climate change file.

Ralph Klein, controversial premier from 1992 to 2006, despised the Kyoto Protocol and infamously flipped the bird at an activist who was protesting against a new Al-Pac pulp mill. Subsequent premiers often talked about improving environmental regulations, but seldom acted on it.

It’s yet to be known how different things will be under the NDP, but their win certainly marks a significant shift in sentiment.

“Together, we need to start down the road to a diversified and resilient economy,” newly crowned Alberta Premier Rachel Notley said in her victory speech. “To end the boom-and-bust roller coaster ride we’ve been on for far too long. It won’t happen overnight. But we must start, and we will.”

Notley also noted that she looks forward to working with Prime Minister Stephen Harper and other premiers on a “national approach to the environment and to Canada's energy sector that builds bridges and opens markets.”

Notley has said she won’t continue to promote the TransCanada Keystone XL and Enbridge Northern Gateway pipelines, but is in favour of Kinder Morgan’s Trans Mountain and TransCanada’s Energy East.

“It’s unclear, so far, what the NDP will do with the oil and gas sector, particularly the oilsands which is the fastest growing source of GHGs in Canada,” said Ed Whittingham, executive director of the Alberta-based Pembina Institute. “We’re eagerly awaiting their plan for dealing with it.”

The NDP’s platform was vague when it came to greenhouse gas emissions, saying the party “will take leadership on the issue” and “first steps will include an energy efficiency strategy and a renewable energy strategy.”

Those are both crucial policy points, especially when one considers the PCs have delayed the release of their renewable energy strategy since 2008. The climate change framework — originally intended for release last October — was allegedly being released in June. It’s unclear what the change in government will mean for that, or what the NDP’s plan is for augmenting the current, esoteric carbon levy.

“What we want now is for the new government is to really show the immediacy of the problem and tell the bureaucrats that those plans have to get done,” Whittingham said regarding the framework.

The NDP also committed to phasing out coal-fired power stations (the incredibly polluting fossil fuel is currently used for 43 per cent of electricity generation in the province) and expressed an intention to implement a green retrofitting loan program to help Albertans reduce energy usage via installation of solar and new furnaces, windows and doors.

The NDP also committed to diverting remaining money allocated to carbon capture and storage — a controversial technology former premier Jim Prentice once dubbed a “science experiment” — to public transit.

A more contentious component of the NDP’s platform involves a review of non-renewable resource royalties — called the “Resource Owners’ Rights Commission” — which would examine the amount of money the province makes from its oil and gas resources. While such a review wouldn’t automatically translate to increases in royalties (which sunk former premier Ed Stelmach), it does have energy sector CEOs concerned.

Any money made from “incremental royalty revenue” would be channelled into the Heritage Savings Trust Fund, the province’s sovereign wealth fund, which would then be used to invest in renewables or diversify the economy. That particular idea was critiqued by Andrew Leach, professor of energy policy at the University of Alberta, in a detailed Maclean’s feature on the NDP’s energy policies.

“If the premise is to use resource revenues to provide low-cost capital to otherwise non-viable economic activity in the province today, I’d call that spending and dispense with the need to flow the dollars through a fund,” he wrote.

The NDP’s infatuation with refining raw bitumen is something else that Leach (as well as fellow Maclean’s columnist Colby Cosh) has critiqued. In addition to being potentially uneconomical due to sheer investment costs and lack of comparative advantage (contrasted with, say, Texas or Louisiana), refineries would only increase Alberta’s reliance on petroleum products and services, writes Leach.

A surprising omission in the NDP’s platform was details about oilsands monitoring and regulation, something the PCs were often criticized for. The Alberta Environmental Monitoring, Evaluation and Reporting Agency was created in 2014 as a joint agency between the federal and provincial government, with funding from the energy sector.

But in the October 2014 auditor general’s report, it was noted that the agency’s annual report for 2012-2013 was delayed 15 months, “lacked clarity and key information and contained inaccuracies.” As a result, the auditor general suggested the governments could “fail to carry out their plan for monitoring the environmental impacts of oil sands development.”

At this stage, there are more questions than answers about what the NDP will mean for Alberta on the energy and environment file — but one thing’s for sure: those concerned about climate change have more reason to hope today than they did yesterday. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

NDP Win a “Clear Negative”?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

New NDP Rule Could be “Good for Pipelines”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Notley Promises to be Good Partner to Industry and First Nations

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Image Credit: Jim Prentice via Flickr 

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