Canada is getting further away from meeting its climate target under the Paris Accord, despite an overall reduction in emissions, according to the government’s latest submission to the United Nations as part of its reporting requirements under the international climate treaty.

While most sectors of the Canadian economy have reduced their carbon output, the latest report shows growth in oil and gas and “demographic changes” are responsible for a widening gap between Canada’s greenhouse gas output and the country’s 2030 climate targets.

A spokesperson for Environment and Climate Change Canada declined to specify just how much of the new emissions growth is projected to come from population growth and how much is due to growth of oil and gas.

But Keith Stewart, energy campaigner with Greenpeace Canada, said he’s skeptical much of the projected growth in Canada’s emissions comes from outside oil and gas — the single most polluting sector in the country.

“I have trouble believing there have been dramatic changes in projections of demographic growth,” says Keith Stewart, energy campaigner with Greenpeace.

Canada’s growing emissions gap

Canada committed to reduce its emissions to 517 megatonnes (MT) of carbon dioxide equivalent — about what is emitted annually from 128 coal-fired plants — by 2030 under the Paris Accord.

When Canada presented its climate plan, the Pan-Canadian Framework, in 2016, it estimated it would miss its reductions goal by 44 MT in 2030.

But in this year’s submission, Canada estimates it will now miss that mark by 66 MT — a 50 per cent increase from last year’s projection.

The new projections reveal a growing gap between Canada’s goals for 2030 and what government thinks will actually happen based on internal modeling.

“The gap is getting bigger and it’s because of oil and gas,” says Stewart.

Canada wants to blame transportation but…

In Canada’s report to the UN, the government highlights the challenge of transporting goods and people between its spread-out urban centres.

“Currently at 36.7 million inhabitants, it is anticipated that Canada’s population could reach between 40.1 and 47.7 million by 2038,” the report explains.

“The large distance between metropolitan areas and low population density generates high emissions from the transportation sector making it the second largest contributor of GHG emissions in Canada.”

One might get the impression population growth will increase transportation and therefore  emissions.

But according to the same report, emissions from the transportation sector are already plateauing, and expected to fall over the next ten years.

Emissions from oil and gas, however, are steadily rising, and predicted to continue to do so.

Pipeline capacity ‘will be built as needed’

The oil and gas industry is one of just two sectors from which Canada expects to see growing emissions (the other, heavy industry, will go up by less than a fifth of the oil and gas sector), raising questions about Canada’s commitment to meet climate targets while also growing the oil and gas industry with new pipeline capacity.

In fact, increasing pipeline capacity is an assumption baked into projections for both Canada’s energy production and emissions growth.

When asked to explain how new pipeline projects, like the Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain pipeline, factor into projected emissions growth, a spokesperson for Environment and Climate Change Canada said their modeling assumes pipelines will be built to accommodate oil production projected by the National Energy Board.

“For oil and gas production projections in particular, we align our forecast with National Energy Board’s projections, which were revised this year,” the spokesperson wrote in an e-mail.

“With regard to your question on Kinder Morgan, the National Energy Board’s projections assume pipeline capacity aligns with oil production but does not factor in specific pipeline projects.”

The National Energy Board’s projections, released in Canada’s Energy Future 2016: Energy Supply and Demand Projections to 2040, state, “over the long term, all energy production will find markets and infrastructure will be built as needed.”

Yet Stewart says that laissez-faire attitude is contradicted by lobbying and public relations campaigns from oil and gas companies, which stress the need for new pipelines in order to grow the industry.

“Pipeline approvals increase production,” he says. “That’s why you do them.”

That increase in production is the wedge holding open that emissions gap, preventing Canada from meeting climate targets.

New pipelines a part of Canada’s climate plan?

When approving the Trans Mountain pipeline, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said the project was essential to meeting Canada’s climate goals.

“Today’s decision is an integral part of our plan to uphold the Paris Agreement to reduce emissions while creating jobs and protecting the environment,” Trudeau told reporters at a November 2016 press conference.

Alongside Trans Mountain Trudeau also approved an application to increase the capacity of the Enbridge Line 3 pipeline.

According to Environment and Climate Change Canada, the two pipelines represent an annual increase in emissions of 23 to 28 megatonnes — the equivalent of adding 58 million cars to the road.

Trudeau has since refined his claim, arguing new pipeline approvals are a tradeoff to keep Albertans onside with national climate policies.

“So in order to get the national climate change plan — to get Alberta to be part of it, and we need Alberta to be part of it — we agreed to twin an existing pipeline in order to get to work,” Trudeau told the National Observer in February.

But there is evidence that Canadians, even Albertans, are coming around on climate change. A recent Abacus poll found 72 per cent of Albertans saw economic opportunity in combatting climate change.

Not that all of the province’s politicians are listening. Political polls currently show the opposition United Conservative party under Jason Kenney — who has roundly rejected carbon taxes and has a climate denier as campaign manager — leading by a wide margin.

“If Canada is pinning its climate action plan on an NDP dynasty, that, to my mind, is not a wise move,” says Stewart, who is not optimistic about the chances of Kenney having a change of heart if he were to be elected. “There is nothing the federal government can do that is going to get Jason Kenney onside for climate action.”

Some reductions not yet included in models

In an emailed statement, Environment and Climate Change Canada provided some good news to go with the bad: it says some of the government’s climate policies haven’t yet been factored into the models.

“There are some measures in the Pan-Canadian Framework that are at early stages and thus difficult to model,” the agency’s spokesperson wrote.

“For example, historic investments in public transit, support for clean technology, and the potential for increased carbon sequestration from forests, soil and wetlands are not factored into our projections yet, but we do expect to see emission reductions from those measures over time.”

Because of the unknown contribution those measures could have, it’s hard to rely on them for hope that the next projections will be closer to Canada’s Paris goals.

For Stewart, the solution to the missing reductions is political — to build consensus around the worthiness of climate action and get that message across to leaders.

“We have to build a political movement that says, ‘if you’re willing to take on the oil industry, we’ve got your back.’”

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.

There have been delays, exemptions, backtracking and threats of lawsuits — but the Pan-Canadian Framework is ever so slowly inching the country towards a low-carbon future.

Unfortunately, the same can’t exactly be said about the country’s 292 off-grid communities, most of which are Indigenous. Roughly 86 per cent of off-grid communities are primarily dependent on diesel for generating electricity.

The federal government recently allocated $220 million over six years to help such communities transition to renewables, a marked increase from the $9 million doled out over the past decade. But calculations indicate that it’s not nearly enough to deal with the 450 megawatts of installed diesel in Canada.

“It’s really a drop in the bucket,” said Nicholas Mercer, PhD candidate at the University of Waterloo and expert on off-grid diesel-reliant communities. “Over six years, that works out to less than five megawatts per year, and that’s only if you’re investing in infrastructure.”

Mercer said the current trajectory will only address around six per cent of annual demand, potentially leaving hundreds of communities dependent on diesel. And that’s a hugely concerning possibility for environmental, social and economic reasons.

Nunavut pays $60 million a year in diesel subsidies

The one and only upside to diesel generation is that it has extremely cheap upfront costs.

Mercer said that diesel in an off-grid community costs around $1,500 per installed kilowatt, whereas a solar or wind installation ranges between $7,000 and $8,000. That means that a 100-kilowatt diesel generator comes at about $150,000, compared to $700,000 or $800,000 for the same capacity from renewables.

That can be a significant benefit in a cash-strapped community — but it’s the only one, and it dooms communities to a string of downsides.

Diesel fuel costs a ton of money for communities. While the average Canadian consumer pays between seven and 17 cents per kilowatt-hour, the unsubsidized cost of diesel is about $1.30. As a result, governments have to heavily subsidize communities. A recently published report from the World Wildlife Fund Canada found that the Government of Nunavut pays $60.5 million every year in diesel subsidies.

The Pembina Institute reports that Canada’s off-grid communities collectively consume between 90 million and 120 million litres of diesel on an annual basis. That’s enough diesel to run all of Toronto’s Go Train system for five and a half years.

While related greenhouse emissions aren’t huge — after all, the communities and electricity demands are fairly small — the use of diesel results in a per-capita electricity carbon footprint that’s over double the national average.

There’s also enormous risk of diesel spills. Recent investigative work by Christopher Pollon indicated that 2015 saw 830 diesel spills in five provinces — and those are only the ones we know about. Attawapiskat First Nation in Northern Ontario is still cleaning up a spill of almost 30,000 litres of diesel from 1979. These can lead to a wide range of human health effects, including cancer.

Finally, there are the social impacts. Diesel generators tend to be old and unreliable, leading to frequent power outages; Mercer said that Pikangikum First Nation in Northern Ontario loses about 20 per cent of classroom education time because of outages. Many are also faced with “load restriction,” which occurs when peak demand reaches 75 per cent of generation capacity and severely restricts potential jobs and growth.

“You can’t build new homes and connect them to the grid, you can’t add new businesses to create opportunity for the community, you can’t invest in infrastructure upgrades,” Mercer said. “You can’t do anything that will increase load. This is a major issue in Canada.”

Capacity training key for remote communities

Dave Lovekin, senior analyst for Pembina Institute specializing in renewable policies for remote communities, said the design of the new funding is also important because it specifically carves out money for capacity training, something which had previously only been lumped together with the overall program. This means that communities will be able to receive money specifically for training and education so that local residents can fix, maintain and order spare parts themselves.

Judith Sayers, president of the Nuu-chah-nulth Tribal Council, said that Tla-o-qui-aht First Nations near Tofino serve as a great example of this in action — they built two small-scale hydro projects in partnership with the Barkley Group and are now working on a third on their own.

“They’ve built enough capacity that they have enough confidence to do this one on their own,” she said in an interview. “That’s what we want to see, right?”

As chief of Hupacasath First Nation, Sayers oversaw the construction of the 6.5 megawatt China Creek run-of-river hydro project. Unlike many First Nations which were only accepting royalty agreements, Hupacasath retained a majority ownership stake in the project and sell excess electricity to BC Hydro.

Approval of Site C dampens potential for Indigenous-owned renewables

Experts said that kind of Indigenous participation and ownership of renewable projects is a crucial part of success.

But Mercer noted that both the state and private sector can often view Indigenous communities as “testing grounds” for technologies or the “low-hanging fruit” of greenhouse gas reductions, which can come across as forcing projects on a community and undermining political self-determination.

“Often, communities are bombarded with consultants and companies that come and say ‘hey, have we got the technology solution for you,’” Lovekin added. “Communities are often over capacity and have a tough time getting past the sales pitch and determining which technology will actually work. It’s a valid concern and communities need more support in this regard to lead instead of dealing with consultation fatigue.”

In British Columbia, there’s yet another obstacle. Sayers said that since the provincial NDP government gave the go-ahead to the Site C dam, BC Hydro has quit taking any applications for new renewable projects that would sell power to the grid. So while First Nations can still build projects that help them transition away from diesel and become grid-independent, they’ll lose out on a lot of potential jobs and revenue due to not being able to sell excess electricity.

“There are so many First Nations that want to develop clean energy,” Sayers said. “Because the government has started to build Site C, they no longer need clean energy. It’s a barrier right now to do anything in an economic way. There’s none. There’s no opportunity.”

The BC Utilities Commission’s final report on Site C concluded that a mixture of alternative energy sources such as wind, geothermal and solar could generate the sufficient amounts of electricity at lower rates for residents.

Still need policy support and new funding

As with many of the government’s climate policies, experts are taking a wait-and-see approach.

Lovekin said he’ll be watching to see what other funding announcements come, noting that more money for projects may be available via the Arctic Energy Fund and Canada Infrastructure Bank.

But he suggests that policies are generally missing to support the funding.

“Actual policy to mandate a certain target of renewables or a production incentive is something we’d like to see,” he said. “Right now, what the federal government has announced are programs to support diesel transition, but no specific policy. We’d like to see a combination of both.”

Contrary to what many people might think, there’s really no major technological challenges impeding the ability for remote communities to transition to renewables: solutions are all available and can be tweaked to particular locations. The only issues are lack of upfront capital and community capacity — both of which could be resolved with far more federal investments.

“When you start looking at some of the other countries and their challenges, we should be able to do this with the kind of technology and money we have available in our country,” Sayers said.

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.

What does climate change have to do with economic growth? Canada’s prime minister and premiers signed a deal in December to “grow our economy, reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, and build resilience to the impacts of a changing climate.” The Pan-Canadian Framework on Clean Growth and Climate Change outlines plans for carbon pricing, energy-efficient building codes, electric vehicle charging stations, methane emission regulations and more.

Is the framework correct in assuming we can reduce greenhouse gas emissions and grow the economy? If not, which should be given precedence?

These questions come at a pivotal moment in Canadian climate action. The Pan-Canadian Framework marks the first time Canada’s first ministers have endorsed a national plan to tackle climate change. It opens the door to a game-changing carbon price that will make reducing greenhouse gas emissions the smart, cost-saving choice for businesses and individuals.

However, a recent Nature Climate Change article claims, “No major advanced industrialized country is on track to meet its pledges to control the greenhouse-gas emissions that cause climate change.” Canada pushed for ambitious targets during the 2015 Paris climate negotiations, but even the framework won’t put us on track to meet our pledged reductions.

Rather than being an outcome of climate action, economic growth may prevent us from reaching climate targets. A July 2017 study in Nature Climate Change concluded that the world only has a five per cent chance of keeping global average temperature from increasing beyond 2 C. On a positive note, the authors found economies worldwide will likely become more energy-efficient, and low-carbon sources like wind and solar will make up a growing share of the mix.

But economic growth will likely cancel out these advances. For every megatonne of emissions reduced through efficiency and clean energy, another megatonne will be produced because of economic expansion. Our economies will get bigger almost as fast as they get cleaner and emissions will not drop quickly enough to stave off catastrophic climate change.

Can #Emissions Actually Shrink While the #Economy Grows? https://t.co/yDoIYW2WpJ #cdnpoli #climate #pancanadianframework @DavidSuzukiFDN

— DeSmog Canada (@DeSmogCanada) September 13, 2017

Economic growth has been the primary goal of every Canadian government, provincial and federal, for decades. Leaders’ speeches are peppered with references to it. Election campaigns are filled with promises of economic expansion. Pity the politician who presides over an economic downturn.

Rarely do we stop to ask what economic growth means. In short, it’s a year-to-year increase in production, distribution and consumption, as expressed by gross domestic product.

If GDP strikes you as a poor indicator of well-being, you’re not alone. The late U.S. politician Robert F. Kennedy once remarked that GDP “measures everything, except that which makes life worth living.” It’s a flawed indicator of progress.

The Pan-Canadian Framework expresses optimism that we can reduce emissions while expanding the economy. This promise of “green growth” is popular because it offers something for everybody. It maintains a commitment to economic growth while claiming greenhouse gas emissions will drop. But, as the Nature Climate Change study asserts, “green growth” is likely an oxymoron.

“Degrowth” advocates argue that tackling climate change requires shrinking the economy. A planned slowdown of the economy would be achieved by implementing shorter workweeks and more holidays and encouraging low-consumption lifestyles.

“Agrowth” advocates such as environmental economist Jeroen van den Bergh argue that we should ignore GDP altogether, and instead evaluate progress using indicators such as literacy, employment, rates of diabetes and heart disease, water and air quality and climate stability. If GDP happens to go up while these indicators improve, so be it. If GDP goes down while other measures of well-being increase, what have we truly lost?

When the Pan-Canadian Framework is implemented, some economic sectors will likely grow. Companies that offer low-carbon energy sources, energy-efficient products and opportunities to offset or store greenhouse gas emissions will prosper. Other sectors, like coal mining for power production, will shrink. We may or may not have “clean growth,” but we will have a cleaner economy and a better shot at preventing or mitigating climate change’s most harrowing effects.

If moving beyond the Pan-Canadian Framework is at odds with growing the economy, let’s make sure our elected officials have their priorities straight. Reducing greenhouse gas emissions should take precedence over economic growth.

David Suzuki is a scientist, broadcaster, author and co-founder of the David Suzuki Foundation. Written with contributions from David Suzuki Foundation Research Fellow Brett Dolter. Dolter is co-editor of the recently released Handbook on Growth and Sustainability.

Learn more at www.davidsuzuki.org.

Image: Justin Trudeau at the Canada Games opening ceremonies in Winnipeg. Photo: Prime Minister's Photo Gallery

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