More than 60 organisations from around the world are calling for a carbon levy on fossil fuel extraction to help pay for the climate change impacts on the most vulnerable countries.

The Carbon Levy Project declaration argues that fossil fuel companies are causing approximately 70 per cent of the climate change experienced today.

As a result, these companies should have to help mobilise funds to provide compensation for the damage, it says. This would be done through a tax on extraction (as opposed to emissions) the declaration explains.

Renowned climate scientist Naomi Oreskes, author Naomi Klein, 350.org’s Bill McKibben, and Greenpeace’s Kumi Naidoo, along with Ronny Jumeau, the Seychelles Ambassador to the UN, and Yeb Sano of the Philippines, have all signed the declaration following this month’s historic Paris Agreement.

On December 12, the world agreed to keep global warming to “well below 2°C” with the aim of trying to keep the global average temperature increase to just 1.5°C.

However, even these temperature goals will not stop some climate impacts already being felt by the most climate-vulnerable nations.

“Vulnerable communities on the frontline of climate change are already suffering worse droughts, more intense storms, and their homes are already being encroached upon by rising sea levels. They are already suffering loss and damage from climate change,” reads the declaration.

Not only are fossil fuel companies responsible for climate change, but many of them have, for years, supported campaigns denying climate science, in order to slow government action.

The most prominent example is ExxonMobil, which is currently being investigated in New York for its climate denial efforts.

“These big oil, coal and gas companies are continuing to reap millions in profit, while the poor are paying with their lives.  While the Paris Agreement sends a strong signal that fossil fuels must be kept in the ground, on the way to that goal, these companies should be paying for the damage they’ve already caused,” said Julie Anne Richards of the Climate Justice Programme, campaigning for a carbon Levy.

She added: “We support work by allies on legal strategies to bring the fossil fuel industry to account for the damage their product is causing. And it is crucial to ensure that fossil fuels are phased out and replaced by renewable energy by mid-century.”

Photo: Wikimedia commons

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

BY KYLA MANDEL AND BRENDAN MONTAGUE IN PARIS

An historic deal to limit global warming to “well below 2C” and to make every effort to keep temperate increase to 1.5C will be agreed by 195 nations today in Paris.

The Paris Agreement will be ambitious, differentiated and legally binding, with five year review mechanisms to scale up efforts to reduce carbon emissions.

French President Francois Hollande said: “It is rare in a lifetime to have the opportunity to change the world. You have this opportunity so that our planet can live a long time, so that we can live a long time.”

After two weeks of continuous, intense negotiations, often going well into the night, the atmosphere in the plenary room this morning was positive and hopeful.

 “The text is ambitious but it’s also realistic,” Hollande described, noting that it must be viewed in a global context and not read through the lens of individual interests.

“This is something that is unprecedented in the history of climate negotiations,” he said. “This will be a major leap for mankind.”  

End Of Fossil Fuel Era

The Paris Agreement will not just be historic because it is the first of its kind but also because it signals the death-knell for fossil fuels with the language firmly grounded in science.

Laurent Fabius, the French COP21 president, said when opening the plenary on December 12: “We are almost at the end of the path and no doubt embarking upon another.”

“The reduction of greenhouse gas emissions has become the business of all,” he asserted.

In July, Hollande emphasised the need to keep 80 per cent of known fossil fuel reserves in the ground in order to achieve a “viable” global climate deal here in Paris.

Adopting a global warming target of 2C above pre-industrial levels – as the world seems poised to do today – will enable the final transition away from fossil fuels the President of France said.

And in fact, while this COP21 was underway in Paris there was news that global greenhouse gas emissions have peaked and are now falling. With a new, strong treaty signed perhaps this trend will continue.

Reacting to the Paris Agreement, Greenpeace's Kumi Naidoo said: “The wheel of climate action turns slowly, but in Paris it has turned. This deal puts the fossil fuel industry on the wrong side of history."

Ban Ki-Moon, head of the United Nations, said today: “[The deal] promises to set the world on a new path to a low emissions, climate resilient future.”

“We have to do what science dictates. We must protect the planet that sustains us,” he continued. “The solutions to climate change are on the table, they are ours for the taking now. Let us have the courage to grasp them.”

Civil Society Responds

Meanwhile in central Paris, activists gathered to call for stronger climate action. Many remain critical of the Paris Agreement and emphasised that governments must now turn words into action.

Noel Douglas, 45, a artist and designer from Peckham in London, was among the thousands of demonstrators who assembled close to the Arc de Triomphe and under the Eiffel Tower. Protesters voiced anger human rights were removed from the text and feared the ambition of holding climate change to 1.5 degrees would not be met. One leader vowed to occupy coal mines in Germany next year. 

He said: “We were not expecting the agreement to solve the problem of a living planet and a future for us all. So now we need to find ways to bring more people into the climate justice movement and prepare for bigger battles ahead. We cannot trust corporations and the establishment to stop climate change.”

“This deal alone won’t dig us out the hole we’re in, but it makes the sides less steep," said Naidoo. "To pull us free of fossil fuels we are going to need to mobilise in ever greater numbers… For us, Paris was always a stop on an ongoing journey. Ultimately our fate will be decided over the coming decades by the collective courage of our species. I believe we will succeed.”

Photos: Brendan Montague

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 issue of loss and damage has emerged as one of the top issues for negotiators at the Paris climate talks.

Swedish and Bolivian ministers have been leading the discussions on loss and damage, trying to iron out the issues.

But big polluters and wealthy nations refuse to be held liable for compensating climate-vulnerable nations for future impacts of climate change.

So what exactly does ‘loss and damage’ mean and why is everyone talking about it? And most critically, will we see a deal that everyone can agree to by the end of the week?

What is loss and damage?

There are some impacts of climate change to which it will not be possible to adapt – instead, we will be faced with residual ‘loss and damage’. This is when the efforts to try and mitigate or adapt to the impacts of climate change are not enough. Examples include Peoples and communities obliged to leave their countries and homes permanently; or the losses associated with destroyed ecosystems.

Those countries facing such impacts argue that there should be a specific stream of work to deal with them, referenced within the Paris agreement. Resistance comes from big polluters, who fear that establishing such provisions will open the door to future compensation claims.

So what’s the status of loss and damage going into the second week?

For small island states and some of the least developed countries, the question of loss and damage has become one of the most important aspects of the climate negotiations.

Tied into this discussion are other key elements of the Paris deal including climate finance for mitigation and adaptation as well as trying to keep the mention of an ambitious 1.5C global warming target in the text. The logic is that, if addressed, these issues on ambition and finance would mean countries hopefully wouldn’t suffer as much loss and damage.

At the end of the first week of climate negotiations one of the key issues was where loss and damage will be placed in the Paris package.

Developing countries want it in the binding agreement that is expected to form the core of this package. But some rich nations have been pushing for it to be included in a set of accompanying decisions that will not have legal force.

In a recent version of the text submitted on Saturday December 5th there were two proposals laid out for loss and damage.

The first option, proposed by the G77 – which has been described as a strong proposal – outlines a process mechanism for how to deal with issues such as displacement as well as permanent and irreversible loss and damage.

The second option is weaker “but if we have [both] on the table they’re both good to move forward on” described Julie-Anne Richards, international policy manager at Climate Justice Programme.

Sven Harmeling, CARE International’s climate change advocacy coordinator, described the text as “something technically manageable” adding that there have been improvements throughout the first week.

The issue of loss and damage has in the past provoked heated arguments and walkouts at previous conferences. For example, at COP19 in Warsaw in 2013, discussions over the issue broke down and the poorer countries walked out. An international mechanism on Loss and Damage did however emerge out of the Warsaw talks and it’s hoped this will be included in the Paris deal in some way.

“In terms of substance, this proposal would put the Warsaw international mechanism more at the centre and not establish a new one… It would provide a framework for going forward without defining what exactly needs to happen,” Harmeling explained. “If parties start to engage on that basis then I’m more optimistic we’ll get something useful.”

So what do the wealthy nations think?

The idea that developed nations bear a responsibility to compensate vulnerable nations for those extreme climate events which they cannot adapt to is very controversial for wealthier nations.

Many such as the US and EU are concerned that if liability and compensation were linked to this, it could become a massive legal and financial headache.

Both the UK and US have confirmed here in Paris that they will not accept the notion of ‘compensation and liability’ to be included in a climate deal

However, as with the nature of negotiations, compromises are struck. Ahead of the Paris summit, developing nations agreed to drop contentious words like compensation and liability. “The idea was to engage very constructively,” said Harjeet Singh of ActionAid.

This helped Washington and the European Union to recognise the importance of including loss and damage in the outcome of the Paris talks – but how to do that remains a sticking point.

Todd Stern, US special envoy on climate change, told reporters in Paris last week that the US accepts the concerns of vulnerable nations on this issue.

“We’re a supporter of dealing with loss and damage in an effective way,” he said. “We are working in a very co-operative and constructive way right with both the islands and the G77 on developing an outcome and a solution here, there are many players in this but we have been very engaged on this issue.”

“There’s one thing we don’t accept and won’t accept in this agreement,” he added, “and that’s the notion that there should be liability and compensation for loss and damage. In that regard we’re in the exact same place as virtually all developed countries.”

What can we expect going forward?

As the second week progresses many are optimistic that loss and damage will be inserted in the main body of the agreement.

Alden Meyer, director of strategy and policy for the Union of Concerned Scientists, described the “landing ground” as “some reference in the core agreement so it’s clear this is a core part of the agreement going forward.”

Meyer added that there is also a process underway to get the Warsaw mechanism reviewed and expanded upon during the next COP22 meeting in Morocco 2016.

Given that the issue of loss and damage is “younger” compared to discussions on mitigation and adaptation as E3G describes, any mention in the text is likely to be “brief and to the point”.

But we’re “at a very very critical moment” warned ActionAid’s Singh on the morning of Tuesday December 8. “This is a real life issue it is not a bargaining chip.”

Singh criticised the US for bringing the issue of ‘compensation’ back into the discussions after developing countries agreed to let that go in September.

“We don’t have time for any bargaining tricks, he said, adding it’s time to “engage really meaningfully” on issues such as displacement and permanent loss and damage.

“We’ve seen the Syrian refugee crisis and we have heard how it was [partly] fuelled by climate change. That was just a preview. We are going to see a lot more such realities and we need to prepare for that.”

Maina Talia, part of Vaitupu Island Youth and Tuvalu CAN emphasised the existential risk faced by the most vulnerable nations whose land is being devoured by the sea.

“I want to stress the connection between us and the land,” he said at a side-event in Paris. “There is a concept back home called ‘Fanua’. That same word we give to the land is the same word we give to the placenta to a mother.”

“If you give birth on the island we bury the fanua and plant a coconut tree on top signifying our connectivity to the land…this is how important it is for us not to go, not to leave…because we are connected, we are rooted to the land.”

“If we are to leave Tuvalu, it will become very different for a nation like Tuvalu to exist within another nation.”

He continued: “The loss of cultural heritage for us simply equals to death…losing someone’s culture and losing someone’s tradition simply equals to death.”

This post also appears on Energydesk.

Photo: UNESCO Jakarta 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.

Professional climate science deniers and delayers have been busy playing the victim card here at the Paris climate change talks.

As we head into the guts of week two, negotiators at the vast Le Bourget venue are heading into the business end of agreeing a global deal to cut greenhouse gas emissions and stave off the worst impacts of climate change.

In The Australian, environment editor Graham Lloyd wrote under the headline “Greens want muzzle on ‘climate deniers’” how environment groups wanted “alternative views on climate science silenced in Paris.”

That’s an interesting choice of phrase – alternative view. Try, wrong. There are some people in the world with an “alternative view” on the age and the shape of the planet, or the theory of evolution and the safety of vaccines.

But you wouldn’t expect them to be taken seriously at a major medical conference or the annual meeting of the American Geophysical Union.

Reuters also had a story where Heartland Institute communications director Jim Lakely complained that they had to “make their own space and time” to be heard in Paris.  Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow's Marc Morano complained to Politico that the UN saw the denialists as the "turd in the punch bowl".

The Heartland Institute, which received $736,000 from Exxon between 1998 and 2006, is ever keen to promote climate science denial, holding annual conferences in the US and abroad, launching “alternative” climate reports and comparing anyone who accepts climate science to tyrants and murderers.

So are climate science denialists and “sceptics” really excluded from the United Nations climate process? 

The Committee for Constructive Tomorrow has been granted official press conference time and space at previous climate talks in Lima, Warsaw, Durban, Doha and Bonn. 

CFACT communications director Marc Morano, who launched his Climate Hustle denialist documentary in Paris on Tuesday evening, told me they have a press conference planned within the Paris talks, in an official room, for later this week. CFACT has also had an official booth at the Paris talks.

The United Nations has also granted official delegate status to representatives from CFACT and the Competitive Enterprise Institute, another US conservative think tank that refuses to accept the evidence of the severe implications of fossil fuel emissions.

Yet while the likes of CFACT and Heartland cry wolf over their victim status, there’s an apparent hypocrisy in their claims.

When CFACT joined other groups in a room at the aptly-titled Hotel California (as the Eagles sang, ‘what a nice surprise, bring your alibis’) for a day of denialist speeches, the event was initially advertised as being public.

But when journalists from DeSmog turned up, the event suddenly became private and the journalists were excluded.

I had initially been granted a seat for the premiere of the Climate Hustle documentary, but was later declined.  At the screening event last night (more information about that quite bizarre experience to come), I asked again to be allowed in, but was told it was full. 

Dr John Cook, a climate communication fellow at the University of Queensland and founder of the SkepticalScience website, was also told he wouldn’t be allowed to actually watch the film, after initially expecting to be allowed in.

The ideologically-motivated climate science denial that Heartland and CFACT promotes cuts no ice here inside the Paris talks. But that’s not to say it has no impact.

Writing in the New Republic, Jonathan Katz points out how the Republican party’s denial of the science in the US could impact on the negotiations. Negotiators, Katz argues, “know better than anyone that the Republican Congress will not approve any climate change deal President Barack Obama puts in front of them.”  

Blog Image: Professional climate science denialists in Paris at the premiere of Climate Hustle. From left to right, Marc Morano, Tom Harris, Craig Rucker, Christopher Monckton, [Teddy Bear?], Bob Carter, Christopher Essex, Fred Singer, Willie Soon, Patrick Moore.  Photo Credit: Brendan Montague

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.

Accredited journalists were kicked out of a sparsely attended climate denial conference hosted by the US oil-and tobacco-funded Heartland Institute today in Paris.

Heartland's ‘Day of Examining the Data’ event was repeatedly advertised as open to the public and media. However the freedom-of-speech espousing think tank had French security guards from the Hotel California outside the COP21 official venue remove DeSmog UK journalists.

Why? Because the 9 am press conference was now apparently a private event.

An archived copy of the Heartland Institute Website shows the conference advertised as "open to the public"

With the two DeSmog journalists gone, this left the likes of Marc Morano from the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT) and Christopher Monckton preaching to a small choir of under 30 people, the majority of which were elderly men. Ironically, tomorrow is gender day at the official Paris COP21 climate conference.

The formerly open to the public Heartland climate denial conference just cut number of women present by a third pic.twitter.com/8uUZzRDcyu

— Kyla Mandel (@kylamandel) December 7, 2015

This isn’t the first time such a climate denial conference has been underwhelming.

Last April, Heartland and CFACT travelled to Rome to try and pursuade the Pope not to speak on climate change. Aside from a very minimal media presence at the first day of their press stunt, there was no one except the climate denial faithful on day 2.

It also isn’t the first time for this group to refuse journalists entry to their events. In June, accredited journalists were barred from attending Heartland’s annual climate conference — and the media that did get in was cordoned off in a separate room unable to actually stand in the conference hall.

Sources tell DeSmog UK that Jim Lakely, Heartland’s communications director, is now standing guard outside the locked doors of the CFACT-Heartland climate denial conference in Paris.

This comes after The Australian published a story earlier today headlined “Greens want muzzle on ‘climate deniers’”.

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 BRENDAN MONTAGUE AND KYLA MANDEL IN PARIS

Coral Bleach, from the Billionaire United Mining Services, arrived this morning at the Heartland Institute's much vaunted Day of Examining Data repleat with an emerald-studed hard hat, high-viz jacket, and furs. But her excitement soon turned to dissapointment.

The fearless champions of freedom of speech at the Chicago-based free market think tank were quick to call the security at the California Hotel in Paris – and two undercover police officers touting walky-talkies were not far behind.

For Ms Bleach was a fraud, a prankster, a troublemaker – of the most curteous and humourous kind. Deborah Hart, 45, from Australia is co-founder of the ClimActs protest group and author of the popular children's book on climate, Guarding Eden.

She was protesting the Heartland Institute press event with activists from the Climate Games because of concerns that the oil and tobacco funded think tank was successfully spreading disinformation about climate science.

"We use satire because that is the most effective form of straight talking," she told DeSmog UK. "They are misleading and deceptive and well funded. They are extremely effective. They have industry behind them, and the Australian media behind them."

Extremely Disingenuous

She added: "This small group of people are extremely disingenuous and evil."

Jonathan Adams, 25, from Minneapolis in Minnesota, is an activist from Rising Tide North America. He attended the Heartland event briefly before being ushered out by security.

He asked the Heartland staffers whether they really believed that 97 percent of the world's scientists were lying about their research, and challenged whether white, older, wealthy Americans should be telling people in Africa how to run their countries.

"We were asked to behave. People were telling us we were being childish, that we were behaving like five-year-olds. And then we were pushed out."

Sam Castro, 45, a full time activist and mother of three from Australia was performing Greg Hunt – the "minister for killing everything."

She said: "The Heartland Institute in the US work closely with the Institute of Public Affairs in Australia. There is no way they can meet in Paris without being challenged. This is our children's future.

"These people are producing anti-science propaganda and this is used by the Australian government to justify inaction."

The Heartland press conference was advertised as open to the public but DeSmog UK reporters were told to leave before the event had even begun.

Jim Lakely, the hapless press officer, explained the ban was in place because the reporters had distributed printed materials at an earlier event in Rome.

After the banned press and public left there were just two women in attendance prior to the event starting. 

The formerly open to the public Heartland climate denial conference just cut number of women present by a third pic.twitter.com/8uUZzRDcyu

— Kyla Mandel (@kylamandel) December 7, 2015

Will Morano be arrested for being 'Climate Criminal' in Paris?! Movie premiere set for tonight! pic.twitter.com/LSKyaqfpzJ

— Marc Morano (@ClimateDepot) December 7, 2015

Wanted posters with the faces of Heartland attendees Myron Ebell and Chris Horner had been pasted outside the hotel. 

Among those due to give presentations at the Paris event were Dr Willie Soon, who has been funded by ExxonMobil for decades; Dr S Fred Singer, the grandfather of climate denial who shilled for the tobacco industry, and Ebell from the ExxonMobil-funded Competitive Enterprise Institute.

Lord Christopher Monckton was also in attendance. Last week he explained his theory to DeSmog UK that Barack Obama was among a group of "totalitarians" who were trying to use the UNFCCC climate talks as a mechanism to install a Communist-Fascist State. 

@brendanmontague

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 KYLA MANDEL AND BRENDAN MONTAGUE IN PARIS

French energy giant Engie is perhaps the most prominent and most promoted corporate sponsor of the COP21 climate talks in Paris.

Engie, formerly known as GDF Suez, can be seen everywhere from the launch of India’s Solar Alliance on Monday to a ‘wind tree’ outside the COP21 venue at Le Bourget and the white lock-boxes spread throughout the halls where attendees can charge their devices.

And today the company will lead the charge at the opening of Solutions COP21 where corporates are gathering in central Paris to promote their various climate solutions. Here, Engie will be discussing opportunities for start-ups as well as showcasing a solar-powered race car and an air purifying robot.

But as the energy giant continues to boast of its COP21 sponsorship, DeSmog UK takes a closer look at its climate track record.

Energy Lobbying

Engie is one of France’s two largest electricity and gas providers (the other being EDF) and the French government owns 33 percent of the company.

According to the EU transparency register Engie spent between €2.25 million and €2.49 million in 2014 lobbying the European Commission on energy and the environment.

The company is also a member of BUSINESSEUROPE – an umbrella lobby organisation that is notorious for trying to weaken environmental and climate policies. In fact, just yesterday on December 3 the lobby group held a seven hour meeting in the EU Commission headquarters between Jean-Claude Junker, head of the commission, and several big energy companies.

It is no surprise then that Engie’s chief executive Gérard Mestrallet frequently appears at official events here at the climate summit.

As Olivier Petitjean of Multinationals Observatory explained: “There has been a growing trend, especially when you listen to what the French government says, to suggest that corporations have all the solutions to deal with the climate crisis, and that they are the ones that will deliver on the objectives set in Paris.”

“This is particularly the case in the energy sector,” he continued. “The French government has always been very explicit about its intention to use COP21 to promote the French ‘national champions’, Engie and EDF.”

In September for example Mestrallet spoke alongside French President Holland at a pre-COP21 event. And then in November Engie celebrated the launch of internal discussions  to discuss ‘climate and energy’ with French environment minister Ségolène Royal.

As the company’s website reads: “Under the discussions, ENGIE employees will express their views on key points to be taken up at the annual Conference of the Parties (COP21) climate talk event.”

Over the course of the two weeks at COP21 Mastrallet will also be speaking on issues such as access to energy in Africa and on the Paris deal itself.

But as a report released this week shows, Engie has a poor track record in reporting its greenhouse gas emission transparently and taking into account emissions along its value chain – from sourcing raw materials to waste disposal.

Corporate Sway

Asad Rehman of Friends of the Earth International addressed a press conference about corporate influence at the climate summit.

He told DeSmog UK: “Of course we recognise in terms of tackling the climate crisis we need all sectors to play their part, but the question is of course in terms of who determines the role of each of those sectors.

“Is it the state and government acting in the interest of its citizens or are the solutions packages being put forward in the interest of business and corporations?”

“Not only [have] they got a grip on our policy but now we want to put them in the driving seat?” he questioned not just of Engie’s involvement in the COP but of corporate presence generally. “It’s like putting Dracula in charge of a blood bank.”

Engie has been working to promote its clean energy initiatives in the lead up to and throughout the climate talks. But the fact is that still only 4 percent of its power is generated from renewables. If you include nuclear and hydro power this comes closer to 22 percent.

Natural gas on the other hand forms the majority of its generating capacity along with coal and nuclear. And just outside of Paris in Saint Ouen – less than 10km away from the COP21 climate summit – there is a coal plant operated by CPCU, a subsidiary of Engie.

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.

Thursday on the conference grounds of the COP21 climate talks in Paris, the Canadian Youth Delegation criticized Prime Minister Justin Trudeau for failing to meet with them, saying he only provided a photo opportunity to them and didn’t engage in the substantive climate issues that matter to youth in Canada.

The group chanted “youth want to be heard, not just seen” to a crowd of media and onlookers while holding up signs listing a number of core demands for Canadian negotiators including ending the expansion of the oilsands and implementing the recommendations of the truth and reconciliation commission.

Spokesperson Katie Perfitt said, “we are here to call out the Canadian government for only being interested in taking selfies with Canadian youth…and not actually listening to what we have to say.”

Perfitt said the government's lack of engagement with youth and frontline community members at the conference has caused “serious concerns about the Canadian government’s ability to develop sound climate policy that is justice based and in line with climate science.”

Video: Carol Linnitt

“We are serious about climate action and we demand real climate action now from the Canada government,” Perfitt said. 

The delegation's additional demands include Canada reaching zero emissions by 2050, putting an end to fossil fuel subsidies, paying a 'fair share' in the climate treaty process and supporting indigenous-led renewable energy projects.

Delegation member Aleah Loney said, "we're here today to pair our faces with our voices and make clear that including youth means hearing what they're asking for."

Trudeau failed to meet with members of the delegation, including those officially included in Canada's COP21 delegation, before he returned to Ottawa for the opening of Parliament.

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.

British Columbia has long been celebrated for implementing one of North America’s first — and the world’s most successful — carbon tax regimes.

Yet at the ongoing COP21 climate talks in Paris, Premier Christy Clark is getting a lot of flack for her province’s lack of climate leadership.

Clark’s efforts to develop a major liquefied natural gas (LNG) export industry and her freezing of the province’s carbon tax in 2012 shows just how far B.C. is from being a climate leader, according to Torrance Coste, member of the Canadian Youth Delegation attending the climate summit.

Last week a panel of industry and environmental experts appointed by Clark to review the province’s climate action found B.C. will not meet its own target to reduce greenhouse gas emissions one third by 2020.

“I’m fairly disappointed with what [Christy Clark] is bring forward as part of B.C.’s new climate leadership model,” Coste said. “It’s not building enough on what we’ve done in the past.”

Coste said B.C. has resisted the panel’s recommendation to unfreeze the price on carbon. The panel suggested B.C. raise the carbon tax by 33 per cent in 2018. 

Clark said she would revisit the tax in 2018, but said the government “would only consider an increase in the carbon tax under a regime where emission-intensive, trade-exposed industries are fully protected from any carbon tax increase.”

Clark tweeted about sharing B.C.'s "story on carbon pricing" with other Canadian premiers in Paris. "We are proof you can reduce your emissions & grow your economy."

Telling BC’s story on carbon pricing at #COP21 – we are proof you can reduce emissions & grow your economy. #bcpoli pic.twitter.com/4D6mWs6cS1

— Christy Clark (@christyclarkbc) December 1, 2015

“Bringing in the carbon tax, but not including fossil fuels, isn’t climate leadership,” Coste said.

“Carbon taxes are meant to curb emissions from high-emitting industries like LNG, not to curb emissions from orchard farmers and Lululemon.”

“The fact that B.C. is trying to build a new fossil fuel industry in 2015 and call itself a climate leader — those two don’t square,” Coste said.

Premier Clark’s communications staff told DeSmog Canada she would be unavailable to provide comment.

B.C. Stuck in Climate Past

Merran Smith, executive director of Clean Energy Canada and participant on Clark’s climate advisory panel, said B.C. was an early climate leader, but since the introduction of the carbon tax in 2007, has “largely been coasting.”

“Premier Clark needs to make a clear commitment to continued climate leadership,” Smith said. “It isn’t enough to look back at what B.C. has done and say ‘isn’t that great?’ ”

Smith added Clark “needs to clearly state that her intention is to now build on that success, to continue to lead on climate while building a competitive economy and prosperous communities.”

“If she doesn’t make this clear, I think B.C.’s past leadership will be trumped by the up and comers, like Ontario and Alberta, because they are in Paris championing what they are going to do now, not what they’ve done in the past.”

Smith said the climate advisory panel made a suite of comprehensive recommendations to Clark that would help B.C. meet a new 2030 climate target that will bring the province back on track for its 2050 goals.

Smith said the recommendations were designed with both the environment and the economy in mind.

“The key pieces of the package include increasing the carbon tax while cutting the PST, legislating 2030 reduction targets enroute to our existing 2050 target, and ongoing monitoring of our progress to keep us on track.”

How Trudeau Will Deal With High Provincial Emitters Still a Question

Erin Flanagan, analyst with the Pembina Institute, said B.C. is likely to see high emissions from the LNG industry continue for several years. Those emissions may conflict with Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s federal plan to form a pan-Canadian climate action plan to reduce overall national emissions.

According to Flanagan, who is attending the COP21 in Paris, how Canada will handle provincial emissions for a province like B.C. is still a question.

“If you look at modelling coming out of that province, they’re not likely to hit their 2020 target and they’re not likely to hit their later target for 2025 or 2030. So how do you penalize a jurisdiction that has a very high carbon tax but it’s not enough to [fulfill] its contribution nationally?”

“That’s going to be a tough one.”

Flanagan added Alberta’s new climate plan may put more pressure on B.C. to step up its game.

“Alberta in 2018 will have a $30 carbon tax. So in terms of competitiveness considerations or waiting for other jurisdictions to match policy ambition, that gap is being closed really quickly,” she said. “That’s not a good argument anymore.”

The Clark government has been criticized for favourable treatment of the LNG industry, promising to cut taxes for foreign gas producers and exempting industry from paying carbon tax penalties for certain emissions.  

“If it’s simply a discussion around preferential treatment for different industries, we should probably start calling it that,” Flanagan said. 

B.C. in Danger of Losing Climate Leader Status

“B.C.'s lack of a strong climate commitment so far seems out of step," said David Suzuki Foundation science and policy director Ian Bruce in Paris.

“It's disappointing that a province that once led on climate solutions is in danger of losing its status as world leaders gather for the climate summit,” Bruce said, adding he hopes B.C. will make a new climate announcement while in Paris.

“B.C.’s past leadership on climate change has been one of the best economic and environmental success stories in North America,” Bruce said.

“But without decisive leadership now, the premier will be best known for freezing B.C.’s climate action success. For the sake of the province, I hope she chooses to lead.”

Bruce added that B.C. could regain some climate momentum by implementing the panel’s recommendations and that increasing the carbon tax soon could be timely, given Alberta’s new climate leadership plan.

The David Suzuki Foundation also recommends B.C. prioritize making buildings more energy efficient, pursue zero-emissions standards for vehicles and invest more in public-transit infrastructure.

Image: Twitter

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

Some corporate sponsors of the COP21 Paris climate talks are failing to properly report their greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions a new report reveals.

The Paris climate conference is sponsored by over 60 companies including big polluters EDF, Engie and BNP Paribas. And while countries continue to negotiate a deal on tackling climate change, what have these corporate sponsors brought to the table?

A new study published this week by French social research group BASIC and the Multinationals Observatory shows that very few of the COP21 sponsors are declaring their GHG emissions in a transparent way.

The report looked at the GHG emission reduction policies of ten COP21 sponsors: Accor, BNP Paribas, Carrefour, EDF, Engie, Kering, LVMH, L’Oréal, Micheline and Renault.

Of these, only one company – EDF – has actually reduced its overall carbon footprint in line with EU targets.

Corporate Transparency

Olivier Petitjean of Multinationals Observatory told DeSmog UK: “There has been a growing trend, especially when you listen to what the French government says, to suggest that corporations have all the solutions to deal with the climate crisis, and that they are the ones that will deliver on the objectives set in Paris.”

“But as we show in our report, private companies are not as exemplary as they'd like to pretend. Only a minority of them report on their emissions in a transparent, accessible way,” Petitjean said.

Only four of the ten companies examined actually publish their GHG emissions data: BNP Paribas, Carrefour, Kering and LVMH. However, none of these companies take into consideration the full impact of its business’ value chain – from raw materials to waste disposal.

And while half of the companies in the study – Accor, Kering, L’Oréal, Michelin and Renault – did commission a full assessment of their emissions over the value chain, none of them have shown any GHG emission cuts at this scale.

The failure to address a companies’ upstream and downstream emissions is troubling given that for these COP21 sponsors, the majority of their emissions are located in these areas which represent up to 85 percent of their global GHG footprint.

Where companies do make GHG reductions, many times this is done through carbon offsets elsewhere rather than investing in emission cuts at their home-operations in Europe.

EDF and Engie

In particular, Petitjean highlighted the contradiction between EDF and Engie’s prominence at the climate talks compared to their environmental performance.

“The French government has always been very explicit about its intention to use COP21 to promote the French ‘national champions’, Engie and EDF,” said Petitjean, noting that both companies have large-scale advertising campaigns going on which highlight their sponsorship of the climate talks.”

He continued: “When you look at the reality of their investments and their portfolio, the share of renewables is still really minimal, and it mostly comes from gobbling up smaller companies.”

Both also continue to invest in coal and have also just signed contracts with Cheniere to import liquefied natural gas from the U.S. starting in 2017.

Photo: UNFCCC 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.

This is a guest post by Dale Marshall, national energy program manager with Environmental Defence.

There’s a lot of hope for the U.N. climate change summit starting this week. And Canada can play an important role in helping to ensure the Paris summit’s success. 

The goal of the Paris summit, officially called the 21st Conference of the Parties (COP21), is for a global agreement on climate action to be finalized. The world has let so much time pass without taking strong action on climate change that many are hoping the Paris agreement will be the one that finally ensures that climate change does not reach truly dangerous levels.

Expectations are high for the Canadian government. Prime Minister Trudeau has signalled that he wants his government to play a constructive role, and contribute to a strong outcome in Paris. Our new report, Canada’s Role at COP21, shows there are several ways that the Prime Minister can lend momentum to the climate summit, where a strong, progressive, Canadian voice can propel the talks forward.

First, the federal government must signal in very clear ways that this is not just a new government but one that takes climate change seriously. The previous government’s pledge for the Paris summit was the weakest in the G7 and assessed as inadequate by two separate analyses — one by four European think tanks and one by civil society groups. The new Canadian government needs to communicate in concrete terms that it will do much more.

There will be a lot of pressure on the federal government to put a carbon reduction target on the table in Paris. This may be difficult given that the government took office just last month, and that the Prime Minister met with provincial premiers just this week. But the climate change announcement of the Alberta government removes what had been one of the biggest barriers to climate action in Canada. A signal from Canada that our current pledge will be strengthened can give forward momentum to the Paris talks.

Second, the Canadian government needs to commit international climate financing to assist poor developing countries who are facing the ravages of climate change. In Copenhagen in 2009, industrialized countries committed to mobilizing $100 billion per year in climate financing by 2020, an amount that is below the cost of the impacts already being faced by developing countries.

The Canadian government has already announced a climate financing package of $2.65 billion over five years. This is a welcome first step but the $800 million pledged in 2020 falls well short of the $4 billion that would be Canada’s fair share of the funding package in 2020. The Canadian government could make up the difference by supporting innovative forms of financing, such as a tax on bunker fuels used in international aviation and shipping. This is something that the Canadian government can do on its own, without buy-in or agreement from the provinces.

Then there are elements that are being discussed in the international climate talks that the Canadian government can support to improve the final agreement. One is a way for global carbon reduction commitments to be strengthened in the near future. Many hope that the Paris summit will deliver everything that is needed to avoid dangerous climate change, but the gap between what has been pledged and what is needed is wide enough that it is unlikely to be bridged at COP21.

As a result, there is a need for a ratcheting-up mechanism to increase ambition and make sure the Paris agreement does not lock in a long period of low ambition. That’s why commitments in the Paris agreement will need to be reviewed, both individually and collectively, on a regular basis. And the first review needs to happen before 2020. By supporting this, Canada would ensure that the global community increased commitments and action until emission reductions were sufficient to avoid dangerous levels of climate change.

Another important element expected in the Paris agreement is a long-term goal the global community will take on. Various options are on the table including a commitment to decarbonize the global economy by 2050. This would mean replacing all existing fossil fuels with 100 per cent renewable energy and sustainable energy access for all. This would go after the root of the problem of climate change — the burning of fossil fuels.

This goal is technologically possible and it appears to be politically possible. Many countries are supporting this goal in the U.N. negotiations. G7 countries almost agreed to it at their most recent meeting in Germany in June, but the former Canadian government played a spoiler role. In this and other ways, the current government can reverse course and support a strong Paris outcome that reflects the science of climate change.

At COP21 in Paris, it won’t be enough for Canada to be a different government. It has to be a different kind of government, one that embraces the important role it can play in the fight against climate change.

Image: Twitter

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