“Climate change is now reaching the end game, where very soon humanity must choose between taking unprecedented action, or accepting that it has been left too late and bear the consequences.”

These are the recent words of Professor Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, a leading German climate scientist and senior advisor of German Chancellor Angela Merkel and the European Union.

The reason for his warning: new research highlighting that the world might be closer to dangerous thresholds of uncontrollable climate change than previous studies have suggested.

One of the starkest examples of worsening climate impacts that speed up global warming are B.C.’s wildfires. Both the 2017 and 2018 wildfires have now burned more than 1.2 million hectares of the province, eight times more than the 10-year-average. B.C.’s 2017 fires caused an estimated 190 million tonnes of CO2 emissions, essentially quadrupling B.C.’s official annual emissions. This year will be similar.

“BC is just 4.5 million people sharing a planet with seven billion others. We have to be realistic about what our impacts would be,” said B.C. Premier John Horgan on August 21 when asked how the province can justify supporting the LNG Canada project, which will enable a massive increase in global greenhouse gas emissions from burning gas and leaking methane in B.C. and abroad.

This statement is a huge letdown for British Columbians. All parts of the international community consist of nations or regions with a few million people. What if all of them followed the same argument?

You would think all heads of governments would understand the term “tragedy of the commons.” This describes a situation in which individual users act according to their own self-interest — contrary to the common good — and destroy their own life support systems (such as a stable climate and a healthy environment) through their collective action.

The only path to break through the problem is leadership, particularly from those who fully grasp the threat for the entire planet, who bear most of the responsibility and who have the freedom to choose an alternative path.

Climate action must correspond to the scope and scale of the threat. Being so close to dangerous thresholds means insufficient actions in the fight against climate change will lead to similarly devastating outcomes as no action.

Unfortunately, this is exactly what we are seeing so far from the B.C. government in terms of climate action.

This is reflected in the three provincial intentions papers shared by the government in July for public comment on the topics of transportation, buildings and industry. Although they generally describe steps in the right direction, the intentions papers are seriously lacking in detail when it comes to expected reductions, timelines and an overall path toward meeting targets (see Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, the Pembina Institute, Guy Dauncey and Eric Doherty for more analysis).

Even more concerning is that the first set of intentions papers (and by the look of their titles, the next set too) are ignoring three elephants in the room. These elephants will completely overshadow the potential of solutions discussed in the papers, if left unaddressed. A meaningful climate action plan requires that the province addresses them.

The first elephant: Insufficient B.C. emissions reduction target

The first elephant in the room is that the new proposed target (40 per cent reduction by 2030 compared to 2007 levels) is a roadmap to climate hell, not climate stabilization.

All realistic remaining global emissions trajectories with the goal of preventing warming higher than 1.5 or 2 degrees require rapid movement toward zero emissions by 2040, and successfully reaching halfway to this goal by 2030. Richer countries with higher emissions per capita must move faster than poorer nations with lower emissions per capita.

Graphic: Stefan Rahmstorf / Global Carbon Project

The second elephant: New fossil fuel projects incompatible with meaningful climate action

The lack of a meaningful emissions reduction target leads directly to the second elephant in the room: the NDP government continues to pursue new LNG terminals, ignoring that new fossil fuel export projects are incompatible with coherent climate action and renewable energy progress that shows that truly clean, affordable and job-creating alternatives exist. In early August, Bloomberg reported that producers of renewable energy have installed their first trillion watts. Bloomberg New Energy Finance expects the next trillion watts will cost $1.2 trillion by 2023, only half the price of the first trillion watts.

Both the LNG Canada project and the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion would massively increase provincial and national emissions and make it impossible to meet even our current, insufficient targets. Both projects have similar overall greenhouse gas footprints during their lifetimes (100 million tons of carbon dioxide equivalent in the case of LNG Canada and 120 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent per year in the case of Trans Mountain when considering extraction, transportation, processing and burning in other nations after export).

True leadership requires following the example of France and banning all new fossil fuel extraction projects, combined with a phase out of existing projects by no later than 2040. The rationale for this urgently needed step is summarized in the Lofoten Declaration signed by more than 800 civil society organizations. It calls for a “managed decline of the fossil fuel sector in line with the Paris climate goals. The Declaration demands a just transition, it demands leadership in this phase-out from the countries that can afford it first, and it confirms that the movement to stand up to dangerous fossil fuel development must be led by those on the frontlines.”

Both B.C. and Canada belong to those parts of the world that remain among the most polluting on a per capita basis (British Columbians emit close to three times and Canadians more than four times more than the global average).

We live in a relatively rich part of the world, we happen to control resource extraction across vast lands with a relatively small population and we have many clean alternatives to the extraction and export of fossil fuels.

A number of countries have already committed to net zero emissions targets by 2040 or 2050. They include France, Iceland, New Zealand, Costa Rica and Bhutan. Driven by an alliance including Sweden and the UK, the European Union is heading in the same direction. In response to the wildfires, California just revised its targets for renewable energy to meet 50 per cent of its demand by 2026 and 100 per cent by 2045.

Without B.C. and Canada joining other nations in leading the fight against global warming, there will be little hope of inspiring others to follow and an increasing danger that those nations who have led the fight will give up and abandon hope.

The third elephant: Forest emissions

The third elephant in the room is the increasing amount of emissions from destructive logging, slash burning and wildfires. These emissions are often ignored because forest emissions are not counted as part of our official emissions — instead they are somewhat hidden as a memo item in provincial inventory reports.

This is a grave concern. For more than 10 years, instead of functioning as a carbon sink that helps fight global warming, B.C.’s forests have now lost more carbon than what they absorb. This means they are now a source of emissions. These emissions have grown even further in the past two years as a result of B.C.’s record-breaking fires.

A 2015 analysis of B.C. government data by Sierra Club BC showed net forest emissions of a quarter billion tonnes of carbon dioxide between 2003 and 2012 (equivalent to more than four times B.C.’s official annual emissions). This is in contrast to the 441 million tonnes of carbon dioxide they still absorbed between 1993 and 2002.

The shift from carbon sink to carbon source is caused by a number of climate-related factors including the mountain pine beetle outbreak and an increasing number of forest fires. However, during the period 2003 to 2012 the largest contributing factor was poor forest management.

Destructive logging practices, such as clear-cutting of old-growth rainforest and slash burning, are huge contributors to the carbon emissions from B.C. forests. Between 2003 and 2012, emissions from logging were a whopping 520 million tonnes of carbon dioxide (after accounting for carbon stored in wood products). Logging of old-growth forest on Vancouver Island alone causes millions of tonnes of additional annual carbon emissions. Emissions from logging carbon-rich old-growth could be reduced quickly by using some of the solutions developed in the Great Bear Rainforest as promised by the NDP in its 2017 election platform, combined with support for First Nations land use planning and a rapid transition to improved management of second-growth forests.

The province should also end the large-scale spraying of thousands of hectares of deciduous stands (e.g. aspen, alder and birch) with glyphosate, to promote the growth of purely coniferous forests. This step can help reduce the risk of wildfires, reduce emissions, increase carbon sequestration and provide benefits to wildlife and several environmental services hit by climate impacts.

The government must also ramp up the Fire Smart program, which promotes preventative measures such as forest thinning and fire-resistant building materials to reduce the impact of fire and modernize all warning systems firefighters and governments depend on to control dangerous fires.

B.C. forest management is making climate change worse — an alarming situation when our forests should instead be our best ally in the fight against climate change. Unless the B.C. government wakes up and takes far-reaching action to strengthen conservation and improve forest management, our provincial forests will continue to contribute to climate change instead of slowing it down. Despite the outstanding role of forests in the fight against climate change, there is no intentions paper on forests.

It’s time for real, coherent climate action

These three elephants in the room do not cover all of the areas of climate action the B.C. government must take to become a true climate leader. This will require setting aside the majority of our fossil fuel reserves as unburnable carbon and regularly updating carbon budgets by sector based on science, ramping up the price on carbon faster than currently planned and including a climate test in environmental assessments. It also requires a paradigm shift to preserve biodiversity, natural carbon banks and ecosystem services on which our economy and human health depend and all hands on deck to speed up the transition to an equitable post-carbon economy that leaves no one behind.

The policies are outlined in Sierra Club BC report The Future Is Here, which provides a reality check on the climate challenges B.C. faces and a coherent set of recommendations the B.C. government should use to inform the next provincial climate action plan.

There are few jurisdictions in the world with a greater opportunity to lead and inspire others than British Columbia. We need Premier Horgan and his government to act with courage and speed.

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

In December 2015, the world agreed to the Paris Accord; to slash greenhouse gas emissions to hold global average temperature increase to 1.5 degrees C (over what it was before the Industrial Revolution), and, if we miss that target, to as far below 2 degrees as possible.

The International Energy Agency (IEA) is not an environmental agency. It advises governments about demand and supply of energy. Since 2012, IEA has warned that to avoid going over 2 degrees C, two-thirds of all known reserves of fossil fuels must stay in the ground until 2050.

But that was to stay at 2 degrees. We have made a commitment to hold at 1.5 degrees. That half a degree is the difference between low-lying island states surviving, or Arctic ice remaining over the North Pole in summer, or increasing the risk of losing the Western Antarctic Ice Sheet or Greenland ice sheet (either one of which implies an eight-metre sea level rise.)

It is hard to get a fix on our carbon budget. One problem is that dangerous levels of climate change are exacerbated by positive feedback loops — changes that release more greenhouse gases from nature due to warming driven by humans. So forest fires, melting permafrost and loss of ice drive up the warming that itself speeds up the warming.

A group of European and Canadian scientists published their best estimates of our carbon budget in 2016 in Nature Climate Change. Their study set the carbon budget for global emissions from 2015 to forever at no more than 590 billion tons. That’s all we can emit.

In 2016, globally we emitted 49.3 billion tons, so now our global carbon budget is down to 540 billion tons. Do the math. At current emission rates, if we want to avoid disaster, we have approximately eleven years before we blow through the global carbon budget.

These are lines we cannot cross if we want to hold on to a functioning human civilization — not a collection of failed states, desperate environmental refugees and collapsing food systems.

So where is Canada in this? Canada’s climate target  — 30 per cent below 2005 levels by 2030 — is described as our Paris target in national media and by the Trudeau cabinet. The problem is it is not our Paris target. Canada has yet to adopt a target consistent with 1.5 degrees or even 2 degrees. Canada’s target remains the same one set by Harper in May 2015 — seven months before the negotiations in Paris. The Harper target equates to 2030 emissions of 517 million tons (or megatonnes).

Unfortunately, we are currently on track to miss the Harper target by 187 million tons.

“We can plan our way to a transition away from fossil fuels, and still help the Alberta economy.” #abpoli #bcpoli #cdnpoli #oilsands https://t.co/E8TYbbcCFf

— DeSmog Canada (@DeSmogCanada) April 25, 2018

So where is there room for a pipeline? Alberta Premier Rachel Notley has committed to capping oilsands emissions at 100 megatonnes/year. Current emissions are less than the cap — approximately 70 megatonnes/year. So Kinder Morgan’s emissions don’t even fit into a plan to meet Harper’s emissions targets.

As Jeffrey Sachs wrote in the Globe and Mail earlier this month: “The truth is that Alberta oilsands have absolutely no place in a climate-safe world. Investing in them is almost surely to be investing in a future bankruptcy.”

What about the constant claim that our economy depends on the oilsands?

Baloney.

Even at the height of oilsands growth when oil sold for more than $100/barrel, oilsands amounted to less than three per cent of national GDP. We can plan our way to a transition away from fossil fuels, and still help the Alberta economy.

Alberta’s greenhouse gas emissions from coal-fired electricity are roughly the same as from the oilsands. While Alberta has promised to end coal-fired electricity by 2030, and is building 5,000 megawatts of renewable energy capacity, it will also allow some of those coal units to convert to using inefficient fracked natural gas. Instead, we should invest in an enhanced east-west electricity grid and bring in renewables from neighbouring provinces, while Alberta takes advantage of its huge potential in solar and wind.

But that still leaves the oilsands, which can’t be allowed to expand emissions by 30 per cent. Here’s a solution: cap the oilsands at 70 megatonnnes/year and create jobs in Alberta by providing federal assistance to build upgraders and refineries.

Yes, those will inevitably include greenhouse gas emissions, but far fewer than shipping solid bitumen overseas to refining elsewhere. This path means we ensure we are producing bitumen on a declining basis, but upgrading and refining in Alberta and keeping those jobs here.

Canada has been losing refinery jobs for decades. That’s why the major oilsands unions, like Unifor, oppose Kinder Morgan’s Trans Mountain pipeline. In the 1970s, Canada had 40 refineries. Now we have 16 and buy our gas, diesel and propane from refineries in the U.S. at higher prices.

We import approximately 700,000 barrels of foreign crude per day to Eastern Canada. Kinder Morgan’s pipeline expansion will increase exports by 590,000 barrels per day. Why not stop imports, process bitumen in Alberta and sell it across Canada?

The answer comes readily. Big Oil has decreed that Canada provide raw resources for export, not value added.

But what if we took a page from Peter Lougheed’s book? His first rule for resource development was “think like an owner.” Instead of bailing out an American company, let’s put federal support behind building upgraders and refineries in Alberta — in exchange for which Alberta agrees to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the oilsands to 35 megatonnes by 2050. We would end up with more jobs and a less volatile economy. There will also be lots of jobs in trying to clean up the tailings ponds and despoiled landscape of the Athabasca. Polluter pays.

That is the kind of bargain that makes sense. With this plan, you could say “the economy and the environment go hand in hand” without having to suspend disbelief.

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  Christopher Cheung for The Tyee.

The construction industry has a big role to play as Canada aims to meet to its commitment to the Paris climate agreement and transition to a greener economy, according to a new report.

“We need that construction workforce to get us to net zero,” said Bob Blakely, the COO of Canada’s Building Trades Unions (CBTU), an alliance of 14 unions.

There hasn’t been much Canadian research on the construction industry’s role in reducing greenhouse gas emissions, so the CBTU commissioned a study by think tank the Columbia Institute to investigate potential job growth as Canada moves towards a low-carbon economy.

According to the study, Jobs for Tomorrow – Canada’s Building Trades and Net Zero Emissions, a low-carbon economy could create almost four million direct building trades jobs by 2050 — and that’s a conservative estimate. These jobs include boilermakers, electrical workers, insulators, ironworkers and masons.

Here is a breakdown of the study’s job creation estimates.

• New eco-friendly construction and retrofitting could create almost two million direct non-residential construction jobs.
• Building small district energy systems in half of Canada’s metropolitan areas could create over 547,000 construction jobs.
• Building $150 billion worth of urban transit infrastructure, from rapid transit tracks to bus lanes, could create 245,000 direct construction jobs.
• Moving to an electrical supply grid composed primarily of hydroelectric (40 per cent), wind, solar, geothermal and tidal power generation (43 per cent), and legacy nuclear (five per cent) could create over 1.1 million direct construction jobs.

“This neither means nor implies the sudden end of the use of fossil fuels,” said Blakely,“but it does mean a shift in how fossil fuels are used and in what quantities.”

Lowering Canada’s reliance on fossil fuels will protect against price shocks, the report found. For example, the OPEC-induced crash of oil prices in 2015 resulted in more than 35,000 people losing their jobs in the oil patch.

Canada’s population is projected to grow to 48 million by 2050 from the current 36.3 million.

Ensuring a greener future is going to take collaboration, said business manager Lee Loftus of the B.C. Insulators Union.

“This is a conversation with the federal government, every [provincial] government in Canada, and the municipalities,” said Loftus. “Every one of those governments has a role in helping us execute the changes that need to take place, from procurement to development to bylaws.”

Photo: Topher Donahue, Aurora Photos

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.