By Adam Scott for Oil Change International.

The historic announcement by President Obama and Prime Minister Trudeau that both countries would ban oil and gas development in Arctic and Atlantic waters was a major victory to protect our oceans and the people who depend on them, and a real victory for our climate.

But the difference between how the White House and the Prime Minister’s Office explained this announcement reveals a major rift between the leaders in their understanding of how to address the climate threat.

At the end of November, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau failed a key test of his understanding of what is required to stop climate change by approving the Kinder Morgan and Line 3 pipelines. During his speech he defended his actions:

“I have said many times that there isn’t a country in the world that would find billions of barrels of oil and leave it in the ground while there is a market for it.”

But just weeks later, the U.S. did exactly that. As part of President Obama’s announcement to permanently ban oil and gas development in the Arctic and Atlantic oceans, the White House released a fact sheet explaining its justification.   

“…if lease sales were to occur and production take place, it would be at a time when the scientific realities of climate change dictate that the United States and the international community must be transitioning its energy systems away from fossil fuels.”

In essence, the White House is saying that further offshore oil and gas development in these areas fails a climate test — that these projects aren’t in line with the action needed to meet international goals to fight climate change. This is a crucial signal that President Obama and his team are finally beginning to understand that action to restrict the supply of fossil fuels is ultimately required to reach a safe climate future.

Notably, the joint statement from both leaders on their effort to block Arctic drilling mentioned climate but failed to point out this crucial justification for the decision. This points to the fact that Trudeau isn’t aligned with Obama on climate action.

Prime Minister Trudeau continues to cling to an ideological and dangerous assertion that his government has no responsibility to restrict fossil fuel supply in the middle of a global climate crisis. 

As Trudeau travels across Canada this week to defend his decision to allow massive new tar sands pipelines, he continues to make wildly contradictory statements.  He frequently says that ‘responsible resource development can happen in concert with solid environmental protections’ in the context of allowing new pipelines and tar sands growth to continue. He says this in spite of strong evidence that allowing the pipeline projects would directly compromise both domestic and international climate obligations.

He also continues to argue that his pipeline approvals are baked into his Pan-Canadian climate framework, in spite of the fact that Trudeau’s climate plan is projected to fall short of its 2030 emissions targets, with his government eyeing the purchase of fake international offset credits to make up the gap. This implies that the government knowingly undermined their own efforts when they approved new pipeline projects.

There’s a pipeline shaped hole in Trudeau’s climate plan.

It gets worse. Trudeau continues to put himself on the wrong side of history by aligning himself with President-elect Donald Trump in support of the Keystone XL pipeline, a project which President Obama rejected over its potential to exacerbate climate change and threaten communities along its route.

Trudeau’s view fully ignores the fact that new pipeline projects would lock Canada into rising production of dirty oil and associated climate pollution for decades to come. Because it will be so difficult and disruptive to cut production once those investments have been made, Trudeau’s endorsement of projects that lock-in carbon could put the Paris Agreement goals out of reach — aggravating suffering and harm caused by climate change for millions of people around the world.

It’s time for Trudeau to take a hard look at the legacy his ally President Obama is trying to leave behind. While Obama’s record has been far from perfect, he has in the 11th hour finally begun to demonstrate a clear understanding that success on climate change means keeping fossil fuels in the ground.

Trudeau now has to choose if he wants to join Obama’s legacy as a climate leader or follow Trump’s troubling path towards putting the interests of oil companies ahead of the global community.

Image: Trudeau and Obama at the UN General Assembly. Photo: Justin Trudeau via 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.

At the Canada-U.S. bilateral talks last week President Barack Obama and Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced an ambitious plan to reduce methane emissions from the oil and gas sector by 40 to 45 per cent below 2012 levels by 2025. 40-45 percent below 2012 levels by 2025 from the oil and gas sector – See more at: http://www.pm.gc.ca/eng/news/2016/03/10/us-canada-joint-statement-climate-energy-and-arctic-leadership#sthash.wStj0LFd.dpuf 40-45 percent below 2012 levels by 2025 from the oil and gas sector – See more at: http://www.pm.gc.ca/eng/news/2016/03/10/us-canada-joint-statement-climate-energy-and-arctic-leadership#sthash.wStj0LFd.dpuf

The announcement came as welcome news to many environmental groups concerned about the high global warming potential of methane. The gas is 25 to 34 times as potent as carbon dioxide over a century.   Methane is a component of natural gas and the recent fracking boom in both Canada and the U.S. has dramatically increased methane emissions from gas production and transportation as well as fugitive emissions leaked from processing stations and pipelines.   Scott Vaughan, executive director of the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) and former Canadian environment commissioner, said the cross-border plan to limit emissions is “really impressive.”   “The announcement, if implemented, will lead to reducing [absolute] emissions from Canada’s oil and gas sector by about 20 per cent,” Vaughan told DeSmog Canada.

A recent analysis by the research firm ICF, commissioned by the Pembina Institute and the Environmental Defense Fund, found a nationwide 45 per cent reduction in methane is the equivalent to taking every passenger car off the road in both British Columbia and Alberta. 

The reductions would equal the removal of 27 million metric tonnes of Canada’s carbon dioxide emissions.   The recent ICF analysis found industry could cut 45 per cent of methane emissions easily and cost-effectively by simply adopting available best practices.   The joint Canada-U.S. climate strategy indicated regulatory bodies in both countries will move as “expeditiously as possible” to develop national regulations for methane emissions. Environment and Climate Change Canada committed to releasing the initial phase of proposed regulations by early 2017.   Both countries will require industry to report on existing methane sources.   Canada currently has no national framework for reporting methane emissions from all industrial sources. Consistent underreporting of methane emissions has plagued the oil and gas industry, leading international experts to conclude regions with high volumes of fracking, such as northeastern B.C., likely have much worse climate impacts than reported.   A 2014 DeSmog Canada investigation revealed B.C.’s methane emissions are likely seven times greater than reported, meaning the CO2 equivalent of the industry is around 25 per cent higher than estimated.   The B.C. Ministry of Environment estimates 0.3 to 0.4 per cent of fugitive emissions are lost to the atmosphere during natural gas fracking, processing and transport. Recent studies in the U.S. found that figure is likely closer to the four to nine per cent range.   The high fugitive methane emissions associated with fracking has led experts to conclude natural gas is equivalent to or worse than coal as a source of energy when it comes to climate impacts.   According to Vaughan, the high climate impact of methane is what makes the Canada-U.S. collaboration on emissions so significant.   “The question of how we account for fugitive emissions is really important, and urgent,” Vaughan said. “What we really need to see now is a strong political commitment to move together jointly."   Vaughan added both Canada and the U.S. are signatories of the Paris Agreement to limit temperature increases to as close to 1.5 degrees Celsius as possible.   “Debates about ideology are over and this is a question now of arithmetic: how much can we as global community stand to emit and still hit that target?”   Andrew Gage, staff lawyer with West Coast Environmental Law, said although the plan to reduce methane emissions is significant, the overall agreement keeps the door open for continued oil and gas development.   Gage said the agreement takes what Canada and the U.S. call a “science-based approach to oil and gas” development.   “It’s interesting because science supports more or less full decarbonization by mid-century, if not sooner,” Gage told DeSmog Canada.   The agreement relies on “the idea that — if we can just regulate methane emission well enough — we can continue on with developing fossil fuels,” he said.   “I think it’s fairly clear that the trajectory of that is wrong,” Gage added.   “If we’re talking about science, it’s talking about decarbonization by 2050 at the latest and here we are ramping up and banking our economy on an industry that is completely out of alignment with that.”   Without clear plans for implementing the joint climate strategy and how meaningful methane emissions reductions will be achieved, high-level agreements such as this are mere “lipservice,” Gage said.   “The methane stuff seems to be relatively positive but… you don’t just announce a target, you lay out how you will achieve it.”

Image: Justin Trudeau 

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 strained relationship between Canada and the U.S. over the last decade was in no small part due to disagreement over the fate of the Keystone XL pipeline.    Former Prime Minister Stephen Harper was a staunch supporter of what he called the “no-brainer” project. President Obama, on the other hand, felt like all sorts of brain should be involved when deciding on the future of such major fossil fuel infrastructure. And he rightfully rejected the border crossing pipeline project, which had clearly failed his climate test.   Now, with Canada’s new Prime Minister Justin Trudeau at the helm of America’s Hat, the two most intimately tied economies in the developed world have a lot of catching up to do. Even with Keystone XL dead and buried (sort of), environment and energy issues are still top of mind for the two leaders.   In a recent Q and A with the Huffington Post, Trudeau acknowledged the timing is right for bold leadership on climate change and the environment: “There is a nice alignment between a Canadian Prime Minister who wants to get all sorts of things done right off the bat and an American President who is thinking about the legacy he is going to leave in his last year in office,” Mr. Trudeau said.   “The issues that are important to him and to me are climate change.”   Obama and Trudeau already had an informal ‘bromance’ meeting soon after the new Prime Minister took office in November 2015. But now, with the unprecedented Paris Agreement behind them, the two leaders have an incredible opportunity to break new ground on climate action and environmental protection at this formal summit.   Here are the top five energy and environment issues these self-proclaimed climate leaders should have on their agenda:

1. North American Climate Change Strategy 

Rumors have already spread about the signing of a continental climate change plan between Canada and the U.S. that will focus on reducing greenhouse gas emissions on both sides of the border.   Recently Canada’s international trade minister Chrystia Freeland told the Globe and Mail that a North American climate agreement is a priority for Trudeau at the bilateral talks this week.   Freeland, who chairs the cabinet committee on Canada-U.S. relations, said officials are working on a climate and environment package for Obama and Trudeau to announce during the summit. The agreement is expected to focus on emissions from the transportation sector, strengthening fuel emissions standards and spurring the production and use of electric vehicles and ride-sharing apps.   Trudeau recently hosted a First Ministers’ Meeting in Canada that brought together provincial, federal and indigenous leaders to discuss the issue of climate change. The meeting resulted in the Vancouver Declaration, a document that outlines a new climate change negotiating process for the country that will give Trudeau a better sense of what Canada can offer to a continental strategy.   Todd Stern, White House envoy, told reporters in Washington that a part of the climate strategy on the table will involve 40 to 45 per cent reductions in methane emissions from the oil and gas sector from 2012 levels by 2025.   2. Drilling in a Climate-Threatened Arctic 

Environmental organizations on both sides of the border recognize the bilateral talks as a prime opportunity to impose a moratorium on oil drilling in the pristine and ecologically sensitive Arctic — something insiders say is unlikely to happen.   Obama and Trudeau are expected to address the issue of the Arctic specifically as a part of their larger climate and environment strategy.   In recent years, Arctic sea ice has been at an all time low while rising sea levels have accelerated coastal erosion and melting permafrost has threatened the structural integrity of northern infrastructure. Some Arctic communities have already been forced to relocate, placing indigenous cultures and traditional ways of life under threat.   The agreement announced at the Obama-Trudeau Summit is expected to include measures to protect sensitive marine areas in the Arctic and bring more renewable energy to remote communities to eliminate the high use of diesel which produces a soot by-product known as ‘black carbon’ that further exacerbates ice melt.   A ban on Arctic drilling is not expected to form part of the agreement.   “Drilling is all risk and no reward,” Franz Matzner from the Natural Resources Defense Council told The Globe and Mail. “And now it is a perfect opportunity to take it off the table.”   The U.S. is currently the chair of the Arctic Council, a position held by Canada for the last two years. Environmentalists would like to see the U.S. set an example in the Arctic by refusing to grant new oil and gas leases.   There is currently no active drilling in the Arctic although exploratory activity is taking place in the Beaufort Sea.

3. Off Fossil Fuels, On to Clean Energy

At the December 2015 Paris climate talks both Canada and the U.S. agreed to limit global temperature increase to two degrees Celsius and to create carbon neutral economies by 2050. Both countries have also promised to eliminate the use of fossil fuels by 2100.   The fossil fuel industry is subsidized to the tune of $20 billion in the U.S. each year and roughly $5.6 billion in Canada. Both countries have pledged, along with all other G20 nations, to end fossil fuel subsidies although no significant progress has been made. In fact, Canada appears to be moving in the wrong direction: last year investment in renewables skyrocketed around the world but dropped by 46 per cent in Canada.   Alternately, the U.S. is the second largest clean energy economy after China. In 2015 the U.S. invested $56 billion in renewables, an increase of seven per cent from 2015, according to Clean Energy Canada.   Canada and the U.S. have the capacity to integrate clean energy grids across the border. But this will only represent meaningful climate progress if investments in clean energy are used to accelerate a major transition off fossil fuel-based energy systems.   Obama already has a Clean Power Plan (currently stalled in litigation) that will allow states to purchase clean Canadian power. According to the North American Electric Reliability Council this could lead to Canada tripling its clean energy exports to the U.S. by 2030.

4. Mining Regulations 

Tensions regarding Canadian mining regulations are at an all time high between British Columbia and Alaska after the collapse of the Mount Polley mine tailings pond in August 2014. An estimated 24 million cubic metres of mining waste were released into Quesnel Lake, a pristine source of drinking water and spawning grounds for a large portion of B.C.’s sockeye salmon.   The accident exposed poor mining practices and an inadequate regulatory regime in the province.   Since then, Alaskans near the border have voiced concern over the 10 new mines in construction or proposed for northwestern B.C. A tailings pond breach at one of the new mines, one of which is operated by Imperial Metals, the owner of the Mount Polley mine, could devastate a local economy dependent on tourism and fishing.   There are only five mines operating in Alaska, none of which use wet tailings ponds for waste storage. Only two of those mines are near salmon runs in southeast Alaska.   Growing concerns that Alaskans aren’t given adequate input into the decision-making process could be allayed by an appeal to the International Join Commission, a body established to resolve Canada/U.S. water disputes. 

5. Trans Pacific Partnership 

The TPP is one of the most controversial and secretive international trade deals ever brokered. In October 2015 Canada and the U.S. along with 10 other nations finalized the details of the TPP although the agreement has yet to be ratified.   If adopted the TPP will introduce new measures to protect fossil fuel giants and their profits from effective climate policies. Just like under the North American Free Trade Agreement, the TPP deal includes provisions that allow corporations to sue countries that limit the extraction of oil, gas and coal or the release of greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere.   While Canada and the U.S. at the highest level are promising to implement meaningful climate policies — policies that are critical to achieving targets enshrined in the Paris Agreement — international trade deals give companies the right to sue if those policies hurt their bottom line.   The White House touted the environmental benefits of the trade deal, saying it is a “once-in-a-generation chance to protect our oceans, wildlife and the environment.” But Karthik Ganapathy of 350.org told ThinkProgress the deal is “an absolute disaster for our climate.”   Although Trudeau has indicated he is pro trade and that the TPP represents an important opportunity for Canada, the deal was negotiated under the previous federal government with little to no public accountability or disclosure. This conflicts with Trudeau’s commitment to transparency in government.   Perhaps Trudeau, who promised to consider Canadians’ concerns as well as indigenous rights in light of the agreement, could reopen crucial elements of the deal for discussion with the U.S.   But I wouldn’t hold my breath on that one.

Image: PMO press gallery

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

Liberal leader Justin Trudeau has been Prime Minister for nearly 72 hours and for a large number of people, Canada is well into the 'Everything is Awesome' phase of his tenure.

But for some, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's honeymoon is already over. It ended around noon when he released a statement on Obama's rejection of the Keystone XL pipeline, describing his administration as "disappointed." To them it is a glaring "told-you-so" moment — one that exposes Trudeau once and for all as a corporate, right-of-centre wolf in progressive’s clothing. 

But what if it's not that moment? 

If anything, Canadians have seen that Trudeau is a savvy politician. During these early days in office he’s got a lot of politicking to do — and not just with Canadians worried about the climate.

In the same statement that Trudeau expressed his disappointment, he also pivoted to focusing on clean energy jobs.

“The Government of Canada will work hand-in-hand with provinces, territories and like-minded countries to combat climate change, adapt to its impacts and create the clean jobs of tomorrow,” the statement read.

So before anyone gets themselves in a tizzy, let's take a look at Trudeau's position on pipelines more generally and explore the nuance of today's important announcement.

Trudeau’s Keystone XL Support

In October 2013 the Liberal party backed the Keystone XL pipeline and won confidence from oil industry supporters when Trudeau told the Calgary Petroleum Club, “Let me be clear: I support Keystone XL.”

But Trudeau also added, “Perhaps the greatest indictment of the [Conservative] government is this: it has had the better part of a decade to remove the barriers preventing the U.S. from approving this project.”

“The [Conservative government] poked and prodded, annoyed and irritated the Obama administration at every turn. Largely, I suspect, because they don’t know how to work with people who don’t share their ideology."

This dovetails with what Foreign Minister Stephane Dion indicated yesterday: Canada wants to take on a more refined diplomatic approach to relations with the U.S.

“We don’t want it to be an irritant…we understand the Americans have to look at this very closely,” Dion said.

Both Dion and Trudeau indicated that although they support the Keystone XL, they respect the decision-making authority of the Obama administration — something the Harper government continuously strained diplomatic relations by failing to do. During his years of lobbying for the pipeline, Harper forcefully said he wouldn’t “take no for an answer” and called its approval a “no brainer.”

Trudeau responded to Obama’s decision to reject the pipeline Friday by saying, “We are disappointed by the decision but respect the right of the United States to make the decision. …The Canada-U.S. relationship is much bigger than any one project and I look forward to a fresh start with President Obama to strengthen our remarkable ties in a spirit of friendship and co-operation."

Trudeau’s Energy Diplomacy

The Prime Minister is playing a politically smart game, according to Kai Nagata, Director of Energy and Democracy at the Dogwood Initiative, by remaining consistent in their position on Keystone while acknowledging Canada’s relationship with the U.S. transcends this one issue.

"The undiplomatic conduct of the previous government gave Obama a lot of political cover to reject this project," Nagata said.

He added that in the years since Trudeau publicly backed the Keystone industry has been forced into retreat by plummeting oil prices.

"The Liberals committed their support to Keystone XL when oil prices were over a hundred dollars a barrel,” he said. “The world has changed a lot since then."

During the federal election the Conservatives lost 18 seats in British Columbia, Nagata said, in large part because of energy issues linked to the contentious Northern Gateway and TransMountain pipelines.

British Columbians are awaiting Trudeau’s final word on the deflated Northern Gateway pipeline, a project that, like Keystone, has been symbolic in the grassroots fight to prevent growing fossil fuel infrastructure.

Trudeau has also promised to revamp the National Energy Board’s pipeline review process to ensure environmental assessments take upstream and climate impacts into consideration — something the Harper government refused to do.

On the campaign trail, Trudeau told Nagata an overhaul of the review process would apply retroactively to the TransMountain pipeline expansion which is currently under review.

Nagata said a new political field has opened up for leaders like Trudeau and Obama when it comes to fossil fuel infrastructure.

“I think that the drop in oil prices helped create the political conditions for a domino effect around these pipelines because the market case for them isn’t there right now.”

Trudeau's Promise of Stronger Industry Regulations and Pipeline Reviews

Along with pledging a tanker ban on British Columbia's north coast and opposing the Northern Gateway Pipeline, the new Prime Minister has also refused to back the Energy East pipeline, and promised a more robust pipeline review process.

Trudeau said environmental assessments under the Harper government were "politically torqued" and required an overhaul.

Thursday Liberal party House Leader Dominic LeBlanc said the government recognizes Energy East could have economic benefits, but indicated a stronger review process will be critical to the pipeline’s success.

"I also recognize in the same breath that in order to get such a complicated project approved, there have to be robust and stringent and independent environmental reviews," LeBlanc said.

"And there has to be a much more concerted effort on the part of the government of Canada — and to be honest the company and the provincial governments, I think have recognized this — but the federal government was pretty absent, in terms of working with communities and First Nations and trying to build understanding, information and support around a process of review that is credible and independent."

If all of this comes to pass, then Northern Gateway is consigned to the dustbin of history and both the Kinder Morgan TransMountain expansion and TransCanada's Energy East pipeline will start their reviews again under new tougher regulations. Environmentalists, however, are sensibly skeptical— especially about the Liberals apparent dissonance between acting on climate while growing the fossil fuel sector.

“Obama has sent a clear message that you can’t be a climate leader and build pipelines, a message that Prime Minister Trudeau cannot ignore,” Caitlyn Vernon, campaigns director for Sierra Club BC, said.

Karen Mahon, executive director of ForestEthics Advocacy, echoed the sentiment.

“This rejection sets an important precedent in the run up to the Paris climate talks that we hope Prime Minister Trudeau will take to heart — we cannot protect the climate and approve more pipelines and expand the tar sands. Approving pipelines while claiming climate leadership is clear contradiction,” Mahon said.

"To Change Everything, We Need Everyone"

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is less than a week into the most important job of his life. Like President Obama, he came into it on the heels of an extremely unpopular predecessor. He promised hope, change and a different way of governing. He has an extremely ambitious agenda which will require reaching out to industry, business, other politicians and environmentalists and getting them to work together to be successful. And he needs to do it all in with the legacy of his father's 'National Energy Plan' looming over his head for a still-angry subset of western Canadians. 

Trudeau’s response today may signal a conciliatory posture towards the pipeline industry and a sign that campaign promises are little more than hot air. Or it can also be seen as a first measured response to the complex political challenge ahead of him.

For the moment, the majority of Canadians seem content to believe the latter. 

Image: 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.

A letter submitted by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to the State Department gives new weight to concerns the proposed $8 billion Keystone XL pipeline, destined to carry crude from the Alberta oilsands to export facilities along the Gulf of Mexico, will have significant climate impacts.

The EPA letter suggests existing analyses – which downplay the importance of greenhouse gas emissions associated with the project – are out of date and require revision in light of low global oil prices.

Due to the plummeting of oil prices and related market changes “it is important to revisit [the] conclusions” of previous reports, EPA told the State Department.

“Given recent large declines in oil prices and the uncertainty of oil price projections, the additional low prices scenario in the (State report) should be given additional weight during decision making, due to the potential implications of lower oil prices on project impacts, especially greenhouse gas emissions.”

The State Department is due to release a revised analysis of the Keystone XL project and is currently gathering comments from the EPA and other agencies.

A recent report in the journal Nature singled out the oilsands as one of the world’s carbon deposits that must remain in the ground if global temperatures are to remain within the 2 degrees Celsius warming limit recommended by policy makers and scientists.  

Construction of the Keystone XL pipeline is dependent on a steady flow of oil from the estimated 160 billion barrels in the oilsands. Yet the drop in prices has recently led to abandoned projects and major cuts to the workforce. Suncor, the oilsands’ largest operator, recently announced it will eliminate 1,000 jobs, Shell Canada will cuts its workforce by 10 per cent and Cenovus Energy confirmed its investment in the area will drop by 25 per cent.

A Republican-led Congress is attempting to force approval of the Keystone XL pipeline with new legislation, although President Barack Obama has been clear about his plan to veto any bills that would allow construction to begin.

In 2013, Obama indicated his final decision on the pipeline will come down to the project’s climate impact, saying “our national interest will be served only if this project does not significantly exacerbate the problem of carbon pollution.”

In its letter to the State Department this week, the EPA said carbon emissions from the pipeline — which has the capacity to carry 830,000 barrels of oil per day — would add up to the equivalent of 5.7 million new passenger vehicles on the road.

“Over the 50-year lifetime of the pipeline, this could translate into releasing as much as 1.37 billion more tons of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere,” the letter states.

Alberta premier Jim Prentice travelled to Washington, D.C. this week to lobby Congress and the Obama administration to approve the pipeline.

Prentice recently told NPR that Alberta “has the most exacting standards around in terms of carbon emissions, the regulatory framework that surrounds industrial emissions.”

When it comes to the venting and flaring of gasses with high warming potentials like methane, Prentice said, “in all these areas, I think we’re world class.”

Yet the EPA seems to have come to its own conclusion regarding Alberta’s greenhouse gas regulations, stating, “until ongoing efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions associated with the production of oil sands are more successful and widespread…development of oil sands crude represents a significant increase in greenhouse gas emissions.”

Canada currently has no regulation to limit emissions from the oil and gas industry, and recently Prime Minister Stephen Harper said it would be “crazy” to introduce such rules.

The EPA letter notes “oil sands crude has significantly higher lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions than other crudes” and that the use of oilsands crude creates emissions 17 per cent greater than the use of crude refined in the U.S. on a well-to-wheels basis.

Premier Prentice argued Canada will continue to move crude to the U.S. with or without the Keystone XL pipeline, suggesting rail will pick up the slack. In its letter the EPA appears to agree with this point, suggesting oilsands producers would likely stomach the high cost of rail transport.

But the letter goes on to point to the additional risks associated with transporting large quantities of bitumen, which “can have different impacts than spills of conventional oil.” A recent government-commissioned study in Canada acknowledges there are large gaps in existing knowledge when it comes to the effects of bitumen spills.

Concerns over the pipeline route, especially in Nebraska, requires greater spill preparedness and a clear commitment from TransCanada that the company will assume responsibility for any spills and remediation should a release occur. Spills remain “a concern for citizens and businesses relying on groundwater resources crossed by the route,” the EPA letter notes.

Bill McKibben, founder of 350.org, called the letter a “damning report” and said with it, “the president’s got every nail he needs to finally close the coffin on this boondoggle.”

Image Credit: Kris Krug

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

Low Prices Driving Record U.S. Crude Oil Exports Despite Crude Oil Export Ban

Obama Admin's Year-End Gift to the Oil Industry Quietly Allows Light Oil Exports

National Energy Board Rules Kinder Morgan Can Keep Pipeline Emergency Plans Secret, Weakens Faith in Process

American Youth Sue Politicians To Force Action On Climate Change

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 this episode of DeSmogCAST our team discusses Obama's recent promise to veto legislation put forward by a Republican-led Congress to expedite construction of the Keystone XL pipeline. While the fate of Keystone remains uncertain, the Obama Administration made changes in the final days of 2014 that now allows for the export of U.S. crude oil. As Justin Mikulka reports, the change doesn't lie in a newly passed bill but rather in a language game used to mask the difference between crude oil and condensate. 

Finally we take a look at a new study recently published in Nature that analyzes the globe's total carbon reserves and pinpoints those that must remain unburned if we are to stay within the 2 degrees Celsius warming limit recommended by scientists and policy makers. That study highlights the Canadian oilsands and almost all coal reserves in the U.S. as carbon deposits that must remain in the ground in a carbon-constrained future.

For more episodes of DeSmogCAST visit our DeSmogBlog Youtube page.

White House Confirms Obama Will Veto TransCanada's Keystone XL Pipeline

And in case you missed it on our DeSmogBlog Youtube page, here's episode 6 of DeSmogCAST where we talk about the influence of the fossil fuel industry in international climate talks and what you didn't hear about the New York fracking ban.

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.

If revenge is indeed a dish that's best served cold, the President of Cool just served up a four-star pièce de résistance for Stephen Harper.

Tuesday's announcement of Obama's planned veto of the proposed Keystone XL pipeline should not have been surprising, yet when the blow came it carried a shocking intensity.

And how did things go so badly that Canada doesn't have the heft or goodwill in Washington to add a single pipeline to a nation benoodled with them? The answer lies in the delusional hubris of Stephen Harper.

No close watcher of the president should be surprised. In myriad ways, the prime minister's personal ambition shredded our nation's single most important relationship and drew us into the toxic swamp of Washington's poisonous politics.

It's been going on for years.

In early 2008, during the heat of the U.S. primary season, the Prime Minister's Office (PMO) leaked a highly confidential communication by the Obama campaign to the benefit of the Republican Party. While no culprit was ever found, speculation fell on the Canadian embassy in Washington, and the 27-year-old son of a Republican congressman who'd been installed there at the behest of the PMO and Stockwell Day.

Unfortunately for Harper, the young candidate Obama overcame the Republican trap laid for him, displaying a masterful command of politics and the art of rope-a-dope. Wiser heads might have been chastened by that experience, and taken heed of the new president's admonition that "elections have consequences," and wiser heads might have considered the damage done to Canada when our PMO's confidentiality isn't trusted.

But wiser heads would not have been so intoxicated by a vision of Canada as a 21st-century energy superpower.

Harper's unbending ambition set him on collision course with a president intent to act on climate change. For anyone watching closely, all the signals were there that Obama would turn to the environment as a major pillar of his legacy.

So it was a foolish miscalculation for Harper to turn Canada and the oilsands into an international symbol of climate obstinacy. But that's a fight he picked. Not content to simply promote the Canadian energy industry and accommodate international pressure for action on the climate, Harper raised the stakes by muzzling scientists and launching an an all-out vendetta on prominent conservation groups.

And while the PM maintained a rigid stance on climate change policy abroad, his proxies at home unleashed a campaign to single out and vilify some of America's and the world's most illustrious scientific research foundations, governed by people like Bush's White House director of science and technology policy, the provost of Harvard, Stanford dean of law and the like.

There probably isn't a more effective way to become an international pariah than the path chosen by Stephen Harper.

But that's only part of the story. In the autumn of 2012, with America in full campaign mode, it was Benjamin Netanyahu's turn to "blatantly interfere" in the election on behalf of Republican candidate Mitt Romney's financier Sheldon Adelson, which he did by single-handedly making war with Iran an election issue.

The U.S. Republicans are certainly refining their game of luring foreign allies into meddling in American elections against their own interests. The 2012 Netanyahu war maneuver was a major step up on the 2008 Harper PMO leak.

In September 2013, Harper travelled to New York to pointedly skip (again) the opening session of the UN General Assembly, but make a high-profile appearance to lecture Obama in his backyard that Canada "would not take no for an answer" on Keystone. What does that even mean?

Yet just months later, in early January 2014, Secretary of State John Kerry was in Israel on a delicate mission to restart talks with the Palestinians. Because the State Department also has management of the Keystone file, John Kerry was important to Canada. But no sooner had Kerry left Israel than Netanyahu caused an uproar by unilaterally approving annexation of another settlement block in Palestinian lands.

By sheer coincidence, Harper arrived on Kerry's heels to serenade Netanyahu with a Beatles song, pick up an honorary degree, and rise in the Knesset to equate criticism of Israel's policies with anti-Semitism.

Translation: the White House can stuff it.

It's nothing short of bizarre that Harper publicly dissed the U.S. cabinet minister in charge of the Keystone file at the same time he's hounding the U.S. for a favourable outcome. That's not diplomacy – it's not even manners. And something's very unsettling about both leaders' connections with the Republican party and their peculiar tag-team with each other. If Barack Obama views Harper with suspicion, it's for good reason.

All this drama made a shambles of Canada's primary international relationship, which will always be with the White House.

Yet when Obama's new ambassador to Ottawa, Bruce Heyman, was "welcomed" at his first major public appearance, he was bluntly confronted over Keystone. Meanwhile, Harper blanketed Washington with a $24-million ad campaign to persuade Americans that we deserve the Keystone pipeline because we're such good allies, while giving speeches about the craziness of acting on climate change.

In reality, Canadian interests, our industry, and our environment would all be so much further ahead today had Harper adopted a responsible approach to climate change and a coherent strategy to win support from the White House.

That $24 million was all for naught. There was really only one man on the planet that Stephen Harper ever had to persuade to vote yes on Keystone. But pride goeth before destruction, as they say.

Rope-a-dope indeed.

Image Credit: U.S. Embassy

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 White House confirmed today that President Obama will veto Congressional legislation designed to greenlight construction of the Keystone XL pipeline, the contentious project first proposed six years ago to carry more than 800,000 barrels per day of Canadian oilsands crude from Alberta to refineries and export facilities along the Gulf of Mexico.

Despite strong indications of support in Congress, the Obama Administration has already indicated it will veto the bill to expedite approval of the $8 billion project if approved. A similar bill was blocked by Democrats in the Senate in November.

“If this bill passes this Congress the president won’t sign it either,” Josh Earnest, White House press secretary, said. Obama rejected TransCanada's application to build the pipeline in 2012, suggesting congressional Republicans had set a "rushed and arbitrary deadline" for the project's approval.

The bill, proposed by Republican Senator John Hoeven from North Dakota and Democratic Senator Joe Manchin from West Virginia, will be debated in a Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee hearing Wednesday with the panel set to vote on the project Thursday.

“For us to continue to produce more energy and compete in the global market we need more pipelines to move crude at the lowest cost and in the safest, most environmentally friendly way,” Hoeven said in a recent press conference. “That means that pipelines like the Keystone XL are in the vital national interest of our country.”

According to Danielle Droitsch, director of the Canada Project at the Natural Resources Defense Council, Obama “made the right call.”

“What’s needed now is for him to kill the dirty tar sands pipeline outright,” she said in a statement.

Droitsch said the president is clearly focused on the question of national interest.

“On principle, the president is right to put the national interest first. It’s not the role of Congress to short-circuit the legitimate process of presidential review designed to ensure the best outcome for the country."

She added Keystone XL “would pipe some of the dirtiest oil on the planet through the breadbasket of America so most of it could be shipped overseas. It’s not a plan to help our country. It’s about big profits for big oil – and big pollution for the rest of us.”

The president indicated he will stick to the official pipeline review process and noted an ongoing challenge to the pipeline’s route through Nebraska has yet to be resolved.

In addition to massive public opposition to the pipeline, plummeting oil prices are calling into question both the short and long-term viability of North American oil projects.

As Canadian economist Jeff Rubin recently put it in a Globe and Mail op-ed, the political economy of oil is rapidly changing our relationship with fuel transport infrastructure:

“The first thing Canadians should recognize about the new world order for oil prices is that – contrary to what we’re being told by our federal government – the economy is no longer in dire need of any new pipelines. For that matter, it can live without the new rail terminals being built to move oil as well. Yesterday’s transportation bottlenecks aren’t relevant in today’s marketplace.

At current prices there won’t be any massive expansion of oil sands production because those projects, which would produce some of the world’s most expensive crude, no longer make economic sense.”

Bill co-sponsor Joe Manchin – one of the few Democrats to support the pipeline – said he is encouraged by the fact that the Keystone XL bill is one of the first pieces of legislation this year.

“We have everything to gain by building this pipeline, especially since it would help create thousands of jobs right here at home and limit our dependence on foreign oil,” he said.

Yet to the White House, the move is symbolic of potential discord with the Republican-led Congress.

"Congressional Republicans are well aware of the position of this administration, which is that we believe clearly that this administrative process is the one that should determine the viability of this project and that is a long held view," White House press secretary Earnest said.

"So it may raise questions about the willingness of Republicans to actually cooperate with this administration when you consider that the very first bill that is introduced in U.S. Senate is one that Republicans know the president opposes," he added.

According to The Hill, Hoeven and Manchin already have a plan to push passage of the pipeline legislation later in the year, despite Obama’s veto.

Image Credit: Susan Melkisethian via Flickr

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

In recent years, Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper has come under fire for disallowing scientists working for the Canadian government to speak directly to the press. 

An article published in August by The New Republic said "Harper's antagonism toward climate-change experts in his government may sound familiar to Americans," pointing to similar deeds done by the George W. Bush Administration. That article also said that "Bush's replacement," President Barack Obama, "has reversed course" in this area.

Society for Professional Journalists, the largest trade association for professional journalists in the U.S., disagrees with this conclusion. 

In a December 1 letter written to Gina McCarthy, administrator for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the society chided the Obama administration for its methods of responding to journalists' queries to speak to EPA-associated scientists. 

"We write to urge you again to clarify that members of the EPA Science Advisory Board (SAB) and the twenty other EPA science advisory committees have the right and are encouraged to speak to the public and the press about any scientific issues, including those before these committees, in a personal capacity without prior authorization from the agency," said the letter.

"We urge you…to ensure that EPA advisory committee members are encouraged share their expertise and opinions with those who would benefit from it."

Press NGOs: Muzzling Policy Impacts

Harper maintains similar procedures, with scientists unable to speak directly to the press without prior authorization from public relations higher-ups.

Unlike the Harper rules, EPA Science Advisory Board members do not work directly for the U.S. government. Instead, they serve as advisors for U.S. environmental policy, but almost all members work full-time at U.S. universities, corporations or environmental groups. 

Critics say muzzling of these scientists matters because they make policy decisions with real-world impacts on society.

"Federal advisory committees are generally composed of experts outside the federal government who provide advice to policymakers on a broad range of issues," the Society for Professional Journalists, Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, Society of Environmental Journalists and others wrote in an earlier August letter.

"Very often, their advice carries great weight and is reflected in final rules, especially when statutes require that regulations be developed based solely on the best available science."

Muzzling Fits into Broader Trends

Due to National Security Administration (NSA) surveillance of electronic communications and the U.S. Department of Justice subpoenaing phone records of the Associated Press' newsroom, the Committee to Protect Journalists — which generally only covers the media of other countries — wrote an October 2013 report about Obama's press treatment.

The committee's report concludes that the AP subpoena and NSA electronic surveillance has gone a step further than the EPA's procedure to route journalists to PR spokespeople for comment. That is, they also want to control and know who journalists are talking to off-the-record or confidentially, which the report concludes has had a chilling effect for both sources and reporters.

"I worry now about calling somebody because the contact can be found out through a check of phone records or e-mails," R. Jeffrey Smith, a reporter for the Center for Public Integrity, said in a statement to the Committee to Protect Journalists. "It leaves a digital trail that makes it easier for the government to monitor those contacts."

Due to the report's findings and other related issues, investigative journalist Jeremy Scahill has said on multiple occasions that the Obama Administration has launched a "war on journalism."

Stop Spin, Let Sunshine In 

A July letter written by many free press and open government organizations called on the Obama Administration "to stop the spin and let the sunshine in." 

"You recently expressed concern that frustration in the country is breeding cynicism about democratic government," they wrote. "You need look no further than your own administration for a major source of that frustration – politically driven suppression of news and information about federal agencies. We call on you to take a stand to stop the spin and let the sunshine in."

These groups also demanded the Obama administration reverse course and issue a new, press-friendly policy.

"We ask that you issue a clear directive telling federal employees they’re not only free to answer questions from reporters and the public, but actually encouraged to do so," they continued. "We believe that is one of the most important things you can do for the nation now, before the policies become even more entrenched."

To date, there is little indication a policy shift from Obama is in order in this sphere, though.

Photo Credit: U.S. Department of State

So for now, not only do Canada and the U.S. have a shared bond in that record amounts of Alberta's tar sands now flow into the U.S, but also that the muzzling of scientists, and by extension the press at-large, is a threat to democracy in both countries.

Photo Credit: Vladimir Gjorgiev | Shutterstock

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.

Partisans may not believe it, but Canada’s “culture of secrecy” existed long before Stephen Harper moved into the prime minister’s office. And it’ll be around long after he moves out, unless Canadians do more than just cast their ballots in the next election.

That’s why four groups concerned about freedom of information, one of which I’m part of, are launching a campaign encouraging Canadians to take a small but vital step on social media that would raise more awareness of just how much is being hidden from us: spotlighting examples of government secrecy with the hashtag #cdnfoi.

Such secrecy has its roots in our political system, which has a tradition of strict party discipline. Because of that discipline, decisions made by the government behind closed doors – in cabinet meetings, for example – are rarely defeated in the House of Commons, making secret forums the principle arbiters of public policy.

To be sure, the Harper administration has done more than its share to cultivate a backroom state, frustrating access to government records and officials, as well as failing to fix our broken freedom of information system. But Canadian society is an especially fertile ground for the growth of policies that violate our right to know.

In part, that’s because our country doesn’t have any groups that exclusively and routinely advocate for greater freedom of information at a national level. Probably the closest we have to that is the small BC Freedom of Information and Privacy Association.

But, as its name implies, the association’s two staff members toil on information and privacy issues in British Columbia and the rest of Canada from a tiny office above a beauty salon and spa in Vancouver.

Meanwhile, other organizations that care about our right to know have even more multiplicitous mandates. For example, Ottawa’s DemocracyWatch stands on guard for democratic reform and corporate responsibility, as well as freedom of information. Meanwhile, Halifax’s Centre for Law and Democracy also deals with other human rights issues abroad.

By comparison, the United States has three umbrella organizations that exclusively safeguard Americans’ right to know.

They include: OpenTheGovernment.org, representing 94 groups; the National Freedom of Information Coalition, representing 30 dues-paying groups; and the Sunshine in Government Initiative, representing nine groups.

Such umbrella organizations have always been few and far between in Canada.

In the seventies, a coalition called ACCESS: a Canadian Committee for the Right to Public Information was established to lobby for greater freedom of information.

Reports from the Globe and Mail back then described the committee as having the backing of groups such as the Canadian Manufacturers’ Association, the Canadian Labour Congress and the Canadian Daily Newspapers Association.

But long-time right to know researcher Ken Rubin stated in an email that ACCESS, which played a key role in the creation of Canada’s current freedom of information law, was actually “primarily a group of diverse individuals” that included academics, activists and lawyers and had some “paper” affiliations with other organizations.

Despite that key role, by the eighties the committee had folded. According to Rubin, during the same decade, a “loose coalition” came together under the auspices of the Canadian Federation of Civil Liberties and Human Rights Associations to “monitor and improve” freedom of information. That coalition also “went by the wayside” once the federation “faded away.”

Then, in January 2000, investigative reporter Robert Cribb announced the formation of Open Government Canada – a “national forum for FOI networking, education and advocacy pushing for legislative changes that grant greater access to public information.“

More than 25 groups were represented at its founding conference in March of that year. However, in an email, Cribb stated the coalition “died a regretful death.”

The reason: “It proved to be impossible to lure financial support for such an endeavour – part of the perplexing lack of concern, engagement or righteous indignation in Canada around issues such as freedom of information and the public's right to know.”

Those concerns aside, in 2011, DemocracyWatch launched the Open Government Coalition. So far, the coalition is made up of three groups – not counting DemocracyWatch and an affiliated charity. Although founder Duff Conacher stated in an email he plans to expand it this fall.

In the meantime, the New Democrats and the Liberals have proposed laws and policies that would open up government. They should be applauded for doing so. And, if the past is a predictor of the future, they may even act on some of those proposals if they win power – just as the Conservatives did.

But eventually the expediency of secrecy seems to seduce every government, regardless of its political stripe. Which means a New Democrat or Liberal administration will likely become just as tight with information as the Conservatives – albeit, perhaps, with more of a velvet glove covering that clenched, iron fist.

Don’t believe me? Well, look no further than the United States where Democrat president Barack Obama swept into office promising an “unprecedented level of openness in Government.”

Five years later, an Associated Press analysis found that in 2013 his administration “more often than ever censored government files or outright denied access to them last year under the U.S. Freedom of Information Act.”

More recently, the agency also listed “eight ways the Obama administration is blocking information.”

Meanwhile, for his part New York Times reporter James Risen has called Obama “the greatest enemy of press freedom in a generation.”

Just as neither the right nor the left has a monopoly on the truth, neither has a monopoly on secrecy.

As a result, it’s vital for Canadians to start paying better attention to our information rights so we can better safeguard them.

That’s why the BC Freedom of Information and Privacy Association, the Canadian Association of Journalists, DeSmog Canada and IntegrityBC, are now encouraging Canadians to tweet about threats to their right to know using the hashtag #cdnfoi.

Those threats include everything from backroom government meetings and frustrated freedom of information requests to inaccessible officials and nonexistent public records, whether they are at the federal, provincial or local level.

At present, the use of that hashtag isn’t widespread, making it more difficult for Canadians to know about such threats.

So, by just tagging stories about government secrecy with #cdnfoi, you can help your fellow citizens know about what they aren’t being allowed to know.

And you can encourage others to take up the fight by sharing these graphics promoting #cdnfoi – helping change Canada’s culture of secrecy in the process.

Image Credit: Will Brown

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.