With yet another United Nations high level conference making little real progress on slowing climate change, a near miracle will be required if countries are to reach a meaningful and binding global agreement on carbon emissions in Paris next December.

The ‘Lima Call for Climate Action’ document, agreed to on Sunday by 194 countries, is not a new “deal” for the climate, as conference observer Green Party Leader Elizabeth May pointed out. It is a 12-month work plan leading to the final meeting in Paris.

The conference shifted more responsibility for coping with climate change to the developing world. For the first time, an agreement calls on countries with rising economies, such as China, India and South Africa, to pledge action on climate change along with rich countries.

Developing countries have been expecting the North to provide billions-of-dollars to carry the burden of cutting carbon emissions in the South that are cause by northern industrialization. But a special fund set up for this purpose received barely a mention during key sessions.

One of the few positive advances was a promise that countries already seriously threated by climate change – such as small islands being swallowed up by rising seas – will receive special compensation for their losses.

Following the meetings, a spokesman for the European Union said “we are on track to agree to a global deal” at the Paris summit. But delegates agreed that so much was put off until next year that reaching an agreement will be very difficult.

Many NHOs were very unhappy. A frustrated Sam Smith of the World Wildlife Fund said “the text went from weak to weaker to weakest and it’s very weak indeed.”

2C in danger under this plan

NGOs warned the plan was not nearly strong enough to limit climate warming to the internationally agreed limit of 2C. Even at current levels more than seven-million people, mostly in developing countries, are already dying yearly from pollution. 

Canada, represented by a delegation that included Environment Minister Leona Aglukkaq, once again failed to speak out in favor of steps that would reduce carbon emissions. Because it plans to make use of its huge coal reserves, Australia was the other outcast at the conference.

Meanwhile, an Environics survey of 2,020 Canadians last week revealed the public is concerned about climate change. Fifty per cent of respondents were "extremely" or "definitely" concerned about a changing climate, and 78 per cent of those fear the kind of legacy it will leave for future generations.

It is clear that if the world is to have a meaningful climate change agreement 12 months from now, countries need to overcome enormous challenges. For Canada this will mean addressing the Alberta oilsands, the country’s fastest growing source of greenhouse gas emissions. In addition, Canada will need to pitch in to help developing nations make a quick transition to clean and renewable sources of energy.

The new Peru document says that wealthy nations will help developing countries fight climate change by investing in energy technology or offering climate aid. And although the goal of $10 billion in climate finance for the developing world was reached, onlookers are saying vague commitments are likely to get in the way of meaningful climate action from wealthy, developed nations.

Corporate lobby dictating to northern countries

The public interest group Corporate Europe Observatory (CEO) said lobbying by powerful multi-national corporations is preventing developed countries from making a stronger commitment to the climate change fight. “Rich countries and their dirty industries are setting the agenda,” the group argues, with corporations and their lobby arms arguing, for example, that strict emissions limits could damage their economies, prolong poverty and limit job-creation.

A new campaign by Peabody Energy called “advanced energy for life” makes the case that developing nations must rely on coal to bring electricity and education to their growing populations. Yet participants at the climate negotiations argued it is precisely the responsibility of developed nations to help the developing world “leapfrog” dirty sources of energy, instead advancing their social well-being and economies with renewables and clean energy.

Because of pro-oil and pro-coal arguments like these the presence of the corporate sector in Lima drew strong criticism from the NGO community. Many groups argued it was inappropriate for Shell Oil to speak at a side event advertising carbon capture and storage (CCS), a still unproven technology, as an actionable climate solution. Oil giant Chevron also sponsored side events alongside the negotiations.

Representatives from the Canadian Youth Delegation argued corporate influence generally dominates climate conversations, suggesting the UN international climate negotiations should be off-limits for industry. More than 80 NGOs attended the talks but were limited in their participation because they were only granted ‘observer’ status.

Leading to even greater frustration from the NGO community, groups wanting to protest corporate influence were required to gain approval from the UN for protest slogans or banner text. The UN ruled that countries and corporations could not be named on any protest materials. A people’s climate march, which drew an estimated 10,000 participants, was held far from the conference grounds and, for all intents and purposes, appeared to have little impact on the proceedings.

NGOs plan to be more powerful in lead up to COP21

NGOs are upset over the limited role they are permitted to play in UN climate talks, as well as the lack of impact they are having around the globe. As a result, the International Institute of Climate Action and Theory released a 118-page document outlining plans to strengthen the movement leading up to and during the Paris conference.

Looking ahead to next year, the Peru agreement calls on countries to show how they intend to cut carbon emissions by March 2015, but there’s no penalty if they fail to do so. Once individual countries outline their emissions reduction plan, the UN will determine if the pledges are enough to limit climate warming to 2C.

Given the track record of most countries of holding back on climate change commitments, it’s likely the UN and all 194 countries will be operating in crisis mode again next year.

For now, delegates are returning home to get some well-deserved rest. But they can be expected to be back working hard right after the New Year, working toward pulling off a miracle in Paris.

Image Credit: El Ministro de Relaciones Exteriores 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.

Editor’s Note: This article is more than 9 years old. To get latest updates and news on the federal carbon tax, or carbon pricing, visit this page.

Last night Prime Minister Stephen Harper and his house band, the Van Cats, took to the stage at a Conservative Christmas Party in Ottawa. Seated at the keyboard, the Prime Minister warbled through a performance of the Guns n’Roses classic ‘Sweet Child of Mine.’

Less than 24 hour earlier that the Prime Minister was singing a different tune.

Earlier in the day, the Harper railed against the concept of carbon taxes and regulation of the fossil fuel industry during Question Period in the House of Commons. In response to questions from NDP environment critic Megan Leslie about the Conservative’s 2007 pledge to regulate greenhouse gas emissions, he replied:

“Under the current circumstances of the oil and gas sector, it would be crazy — it would be crazy economic policy to do unilateral penalties on that sector; we’re clearly not going to do that. …In fact, Mr. Speaker, nobody in the world is regulating their oil and gas sector. I would be delighted if they did. Canada would be there with them.”

All of the above are indeed words, but when used by the Prime Minister in this combination they give a result that’s completely and egregiously incorrect.

In reality, more than half of the world’s population lives in places where CO2 consumption/production is regulated in some form — including a large portion of Canada. Here’s a rundown:

Countries with National Carbon Taxes or Emission Trading Schemes:

· Finland, Sweden, Norway, Denmark and Ireland established national carbon taxes in 1990, 1991, 1991, 2002 and 2010, respectively.

· The Netherlands has taxed carbon since 1990. In 2007 it enacted a further tax on carbon-based packaging.

· Costa Rica’s carbon tax funds forest protections for indigenous communities. It began in 1997.

· Since 2001, Great Britain has charged a ‘climate change levy’ on industry, commerce and public sectors.

· The New Zealand Government set up an emissions trading scheme in 2008.

· India has charged a nationwide carbon tax on coal since 2010.

· Switzerland has both a carbon incentive tax and an emissions trading system.

· Since 2010, all new vehicle sales in South Africa have been subject to a carbon tax.

· In 2012 Mexico implemented a carbon tax on fossil fuel imports and sales.

· Japan’s carbon tax has been in effect since October 2012.

· In 2012, Australia instituted a groundbreaking, innovative carbon tax. However, it was repealed two years later by the newly-elected Conservative government, headed up by Stephen Harper’s protege, Prime Minister Tony Abbott.

· France began taxing carbon emissions from gas, heavy fuel oil and coal on April 1, 2014.

Regional Carbon Taxes or Emission Trading Schemes:

· China: Starting in 2013, the Chinese Government enacted emission trading schemes in the Guangdong province and cities of Shenzhen, Beijing, Shanghai, Tianjin, the Hubei province and the city of Chongqing. After 2015, the government will work towards a nation-wide tax (potentially as part of its new partnership with the United States).

· United States: Starting in 2009, Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Rhode Island and Vermont have traded emissions through a Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative. California’s emissions trading scheme was instituted in 2013. Also in 2013, President Obama issued an executive order to strengthen the power of the Environmental Protection Agency to regulate US power plants.

· Canada: Canada does not have a federal carbon tax, but Quebec, Alberta and British Columbia do. The latter’s carbon tax has been recognized as one of the most effective in the world.

Other countries or regions with pending carbon taxes or emission trading schemes under consideration or in the process of implementation:

· In 2018, Chile’s newly enacted climate pollution tax will take effect, levying a charge of $5/tonne of CO2 on 55 per cent of the nation’s emissions.

· Starting in 2015, The Republic of Korea will start an emissions trading scheme covering facilities producing more than 25,000 tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions – approximately 450 of the country’s largest emitters. A planned ‘smog tax’ on vehicle emissions has been pushed back to 2020.

· Starting in 2016, all new homes built in the United Kingdom are required to have zero emissions for heating, hot water, cooling and lighting.

· South Africa expects to begin its national carbon tax in 2016.

· Kazakhstan, Thailand, Taiwan, Brazil, the Ukraine and Turkey all have plans on carbon taxes or emission trading in various stages of consideration.

With a majority of nations at the UN Climate Talks in Lima agreeing to put wholesale elimination of fossil fuel energy by 2050 on the negotiating table, and crude oil prices dropping below $62 USD per barrel for the first time in five years, smart countries aren’t singing the praises of fossil fuels any longer.

They’re stepping up with regulations like their futures depend on it.

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.

Canada is “flying under the radar” at this year’s UNFCCC COP20 climate talks in Lima, Peru according to Canada Youth Delegation member Brenna Owen.

Canada’s negotiators are working hard to sidestep the issue of the country’s growing greenhouse gas emissions from the oil and gas sector according to Owen, while simultaneously keeping quiet about the oilsands as nations come up with their “intended nationally determined contributions” (INDCs) in the global climate agreement.

“They’re not going to be able to do that much longer,” she added. “And they’re not going to be able to avoid talking about the tar sands.”

Aleah Loney, another member of the 10-person youth delegation, said the group is eager to push Canada’s ministers and negotiators to address the issue of oil and gas emissions rather than employing evasive tactics to avoid the concerns outright.

On Tuesday, as ministers and delegates from around the world continued to arrive at the climate talks to negotiate an internationally binding climate agreement, Prime Minister Stephen Harper told the House of Commons he would not regulate emissions from Canada’s oil and gas sector.

“Under the current circumstances of the oil and gas sector, it would be crazy – it would be crazy economic policy – to do unilateral penalties on that sector,” he said. “We’re clearly not going to do that.”

The oilsands are Canada’s fastest growing source of greenhouse gas emissions. In October, Canada’s environment commissioner Julie Gelfand said the country has “no overall vision” when it comes to oil and gas regulations and as a result will not meet its 2020 international greenhouse gas reductions targets agreed to in Copenhagen.

In the House of Commons Harper also claimed “nobody in the world is regulating their oil and gas sector.”

“I’d be delighted if they did, Canada will be there with them. But we are not going to impose unilateral penalties.”

Harper’s comments add another layer of insight into the activities of Canadian negotiators in Lima who are actively skirting the issue of national responsibility by pointing fingers at other nations.

Environment Minister Leona Aglukkaq told delegates at the climate talks Canada is interested in an agreement “that would see all major emitters commit to do their fair share.”

Dale Marshall, national program manager with Environmental Defence, told DeSmog that Canada “for the longest time has been trying to…talk about all major emitters to put everyone in the same boat.”

“On the one hand you could argue there are major developing countries that could do more, but from what I see in terms of historical responsibility countries like Canada have much, much greater responsibility to act and much greater resources to act and should take on greater commitments.”

“When you point at countries like China and India,” Marshall said, “you’re essentially deflecting blame and making it easy for Canada to stay with very weak targets.”

Christian Holz, international policy director with the Climate Action Network, said Canada has “maneuvered itself into a corner of insignificance,” at UNFCCC talks.

He said instead of talking about oil and gas regulations and growth in the oilsands, Canada is redirecting attention to a new commitment to reduce hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), which are used in air conditioning and heating.

“They decided to focus on one of the smallest areas of Canada’s emissions profile. HFCs account for about one per cent of Canadian emissions and the oil and gas sector is about 25 per cent right now. So of course, we’re not picking the right areas to focus on.”

Holz said this kind of diversion tactic isn’t even generating controversy within the negotiations or at home because “nobody’s really taking Canada seriously anymore.”

“I guess that’s why you don’t see the outrage that you would expect from bait and switches like that if Canada was considered a genuine participant in this global effort to address climate change.”

Loney from the Canada Youth Delegation said her group is putting effort into keeping the oil and gas sector relevant to Canada’s participation in the climate negotiations.

“We really want to talk about the oil and gas sector as a whole and that includes fracking. But we feel it’s important to highlight the tar sands as well,” she said. “We’re talking at a very high level at the UNFCCC and people know what the tar sands are here.”

Kelsey Mech from the Canadian Youth Climate Coalition and a member of the youth delegation in Lima said it’s important for their group to keep the pressure squarely on Canada.

“We’re linking the two worlds,” between Lima and Canada, Mech said, “trying to bring back to Canada what’s going on here.”

“One of the reason why it’s important for folks like us to be here is to put that pressure on internationally on our own government. They’re not going to bring something strong to the table internationally if there isn’t that pressure back home domestically.”

“We’re here to put tar sands back on the table.”

Loney added that this process benefits from being complicated. “They take climate negotiations to such a high-brow that it cuts people off.”

“It’s been important for me to bring these issues back down,” she added.

On Tuesday, Loney brought the question of the oilsands to the negotiations, asking Canadian representatives, “what can I bring back to my friends in Alberta? What can I take back to my friends in Fort McMurray and my friends in treaty territory that are dealing with the effects of living downstream of the tar sands?”

“These are real things that impact real people.”

Image Credit: Environment Canada via Twitter

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

A side event at the UNFCCC COP20 climate negotiations in Lima, Peru was disrupted Monday when climate activists and individuals representing communities on the frontlines of energy development flooded the presentation hall and staged a ‘walk out’ on fossil fuels.

The event was hosted by the International Emissions Trading Association (IETA) and the Global CCS Institute and featured Lord Nicholas Stern and David Hone, Shell’s chief climate advisor, as speakers.

The talk, originally entitled “Why Divest from Fossil Fuels When a Future with Low Emission Fossil Fuel Energy Use is Already a Reality?,” was inexplicably renamed “How Can we Reconcile Climate Targets with Energy Demand Growth” and focused on the use of carbon capture and storage (CCS) as a technological solution to carbon emissions that cause global warming.

A citizen group formed outside the venue holding a banner that read “get fossil fuels out of COP” and used the acronym CCS to spell out “Corporate Capture ≠ Solution.”

Civil society groups gather outside a fossil fuel sponsored event discussing carbon capture and storage. Photo by Carol Linnitt.

The protest was designed to “defend our rights from these companies and corporations that are attacking our people,” Ana Maytik Avirama, from the Corporate Europe Observatory Foundation, told a crowd gathered outside the presentation pavilion.

“We need to keep the fossil fuel lobby out of these negotiations, out of our governments and out of the decisions that are trying to protect our livelihoods and our lives,” she said.

Godwin Uyi Ojo, executive director of environmental rights action in Nigeria attended the action to protest Shell’s presence at the climate negotiations.

“Enough is enough,” he said.

Godwin Uyi Ojo speaks to a crowd gathered outside the IETA event. "Leave the oil in the soil, the coal in the hole, the tar sands in the sand," he said. Photo by Carol Linnitt.

“Shell is in that conference promoting dirty energy. They say dirty energy has a place in the future…what you see there is greenwashing. That’s why people are so angry at Shell. We are tired of these antics.”

Bronwen Tucker, a member of the Canadian Youth Delegation said the event, which was sponsored by Shell and Chevron, was designed to discredit grassroots fossil fuel divestment campaigns and tout CCS as a climate solution.

“CCS has been labeled the unicorn of the climate change world because instead of taking emissions out of the atmosphere it would just store them, but it’s an unproven technology that’s prohibitively expensive, much more expensive than renewable energy and other solutions that have been put forward,” she said, adding the event is emblematic of a long-term problem at COP of fossil fuel industry influence in the climate decision-making process.

Bronwen Tucker from the Canadian Youth Delegation told DeSmog CCS is an "unproven technology" that directs investment funds away from renewable energy. Photo by Carol Linnitt.

Lord Nicholas Stern, Chair of the Grantham Research Institute of Climate Change and the Environment at the London School of Economics, told DeSmog CCS has the potential to play a huge role in climate action.

“We have to take 50 billion tonnes of CO2 equivalent now, globally, down to about zero by the end of this century.”

“We’ve not got many options. And in my view energy efficiency can do the half of it, and the more it does, the better,” Stern said, adding renewables will play a major role as well as some nuclear.

Lord Nicholas Stern discusses CCS with DeSmog Canada. Photo by Carol Linnitt.

“The rest will have to be CCS. That’s all we’ve got. The problem is so big and so important that we’ve got to do all we can.”

He added that CCS removes particulates in dirty emissions coming from sources of energy like oil and, especially, coal.

“The climate emissions we produce now kill people down the track,” Stern said. “Particulates…are killing people now on a major scale. We’ve got to deal with both of them and CCS does both of them.”

According to a report recently put out by the New Carbon Economy, particulate matter from the burning of fossil fuels contributes to both lung and heart disease. According to the World Health Organization particulate pollution plays a substantial role in nearly 4 million premature deaths each year that are attributed to outdoor pollution.

Stern acknowledged there is some uncertainty associated with the technology but he added “you’ve got to pursue all the options because some are going to do better than others and you can’t tell for sure what those are going to be. From the point of view of managing risk, it makes sense to go after more than one [solution].”

Mike Monea, president of the carbon capture and storage initiatives for SaskPower, Saskatchewan’s main power provider, also attended the event to talk about CCS viability in the wake of Boundary Dam, the world’s first coal plant retrofitted with carbon sequestration technology. The project went live in October 2014.

Carbon capture and storage infographic from SaskPower.

Monea argued CCS technology is no longer in question and should play a critical role in the new climate era. And although Monea highlighted the positive climate effects of CCS usage, the position of SaskPower is that CCS “is making a viable technical, environmental and economic case for the continued use of coal.”

Saskatchewan local, Megan Van Buskirk, a member of the Canadian Youth Delegation said the $1.35 billion Boundary Dam project won’t do much at all to address climate change.

“There are lots of issues involved with that project in terms of its reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, for example, SaskPower which is a monopoly in Saskatchewan – which owns that power plant – their emissions are 15 million tonnes per year and that storage facility is only reducing their emissions by 1 million tonnes.”

Van Buskirk adds that SaskPower already has a plan to sell much of that captured carbon to Cenovus Energy for enhanced oil and gas recovery.

“So we see that issue there where we’re touting this as a solution to climate change but really we’re using it to extract more oil and gas which will ultimately mean more greenhouse gas emissions,” she said.

“We really believe this is a false solution to climate change.”

Brad Page, the CEO of the Global CCS Institute, said he feels CCS is a necessity if we’re going to meet global climate targets. He points to the fact that the Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change (IPCC) acknowledges CCS will play a role in preventing carbon emissions from entering the atmosphere. 

He added negative public perception is due to a lack of understanding – something industry needs to remedy.

“At a very simple level, CCS puts carbon dioxide back underground where it came from. Many of the people I talk to think CCS is putting carbon into big caverns or something. It’s in fact back into the porous spaces in rocks that the oil and gas originally came from. So it’s actually not a threat.”

Page did not speak to concerns that failed CCS projects could re-release carbon back into the atmosphere.

He added, “I think that environmental groups are really from their heart concerned about continuing the use of fossil fuels and I think many of them want to actually see CCS take off and prove that it can actually be one of those viable technologies.”

Page pointed to Boundary Dam as an example of viable CCS and said there are about four more projects underway in their early construction stages.

“By 2050 though, with the sort of climate targets we’ve got we can’t achieve those emission outcomes without all the technology. Renewables are really important in this, as it energy efficiency. Nuclear is a fairly unloved duckling as well, but it’s going to be needed. And so is CCS.”

“I don’t see that there’s another option here.”

Peter Frumhoff, director of science and policy and chief scientist at the Union of Concerned Scientists, said we’ve “dallied so long on moving toward aggressive emissions reductions that we really need to explore every possible opportunity to constrain emissions below 2 degrees C.”

Frumhoff added efficiency and renewables may not be enough in themselves to limit warming to that 2 degree level.

“Therefore we need to consider other technologies including some that some of us might not love and that may themselves pose some risks. But we’re simply not at a point where we can ignore the much greater climate risks of going above 2 degrees C.”

But for Tucker, the conversation about CCS at the ongoing UNFCCC climate talks should not be dominated by industry.

“It would be the same as having tobacco companies at a conference on lung cancer. There’s a clear conflict. They already have so much sway outside of discussions like this. There’s no room for companies to be holding official UN events."

Jamie Henn from the climate advocacy group 350.org described CCS as a "smokescreen."

"The fossil fuel industry can run from divestment, but they can't hide from the reality that 80 per cent of their reserves need to stay underground. Here in Lima, world leaders are finally talking about targets that are in the realm of what's needed, namely going to zero carbon by 2050. If we're going to meet that goal, we need to start now. If Big Oil wants to research CCS, fine, but that shouldn't distract us from the urgent need to transition away from fossil fuels and towards 100 per cent renewable energy." 

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.

How to finance a global shift away from toxic greenhouse gases caused by burning fossil fuels was one of the key talking points during the first week of the annual United Nations climate change conference held this year in Lima, Peru.

The conference, which began Monday and is scheduled to end next Friday, started with a statement by Christiana Figueres, Executive Secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), who said negotiators must draft a new, universal climate change agreement that will hopefully be endorsed next year at COP21 in Paris.

Figueres also said negotiators “must enhance the delivery of finance, in particular to the most vulnerable” as well as stimulating “ever-increasing action on the part of all stakeholders to scale up the scope and accelerate the solutions that move us all forward, faster.”

In terms of finance, the UNFCCC published a media release saying the amount of money earmarked for climate change action globally was at least $340 billion for the period 2011-2012, but possibly $650 billion or higher.

Support from developed countries to developing countries amounted to between $35 and $50 billion annually, the media release said, adding dedicated multilateral climate funds are set to rise with the recent pledges to the Green Climate Fund
 amounting to nearly $10 billion.

According to Bloomberg, however, Figueres said at a press conference that much more money needs to be raised to effectively fight climate change.

“Although these numbers are encouraging and give us a sense of hope, the fact is that climate finance needs to be in the trillions if we’re going to get to where we need to be,” she said.

Figueres added finance will be a crucial key for achieving the internationally-agreed goal of keeping a global temperature rise under 2 degrees C and sparing people and the planet from dangerous climate change.

Another major talking point at the conference was the release of a statement by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) saying that 2014 is on track to be one of the hottest, if not the hottest, years on record.

An accompanying WMO media release said the record high temperatures are largely due to record high global sea surface temperatures, which will very likely remain above normal until the end of the year.

January to October 2014 average air temperatures. Source: WMO Report

Those high sea temperatures, the WMO said, and other factors contributed to exceptionally heavy rainfall and floods in many countries and extreme drought in others.

“The provisional information for 2014 means that fourteen of the fifteen warmest years on record have all occurred in the 21st century,” said WMO Secretary-General Michel Jarraud.

“What we saw in 2014 is consistent with what we expect from a changing climate. Record-breaking heat combined with torrential rainfall and floods destroyed livelihoods and ruined lives. What is particularly unusual and alarming this year are the high temperatures of vast areas of the ocean surface, including in the northern hemisphere,” Jarraud said.

“Record-high greenhouse gas emissions and associated atmospheric concentrations are committing the planet to a much more uncertain and inhospitable future.”

Other developments related to the climate change issue continued to occur outside of the negotiations in Lima.

UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon told CBC that Canada needs to become “ambitious and visionary” and quit stalling on setting climate change goals.

"It’s only natural that Canada as one of the G7 countries should take a leadership role,” Ban said.

“There are ways to make a transformative change from a fossil fuel-based economy to a climate-resilient economy by investing wisely in renewable energy choices.”

Earlier in the week efforts in Canada to harness the power of renewables became a prominent news story, as reported by DeSmog Canada, showing that clean energy provided more jobs in the nation last year than the oilsands.

Canada’s rapidly developing green energy industry has seen investments of more than $24 billion in the past five years while employment in the sector increased by 37 per cent during the same period, according to the report by Clean Energy Canada.

The 34-page Tracking the Energy Revolution — Canada report noted that there were 23,700 total direct jobs in the green energy sector in 2013, compared to 22,340 jobs in the oilsands.

Germany’s largest energy company, E.ON, on the first day of the Lima conference, created global headlines with an announcement that it was splitting the company into two with the largest share of employees, about 40,000, getting out of the coal and gas business and focusing entirely on renewables.

“We have seen the emergence of a new energy world,” Chief Executive Johannes Teyssen said. “E.ON’s existing broad business model can no longer properly address these new challenges.”

In the U.S., 223 companies announced their support for the Environmental Protection Agency’s proposed carbon standard for electric power plants, including industry giants such as IKEA, Mars Inc., VF Corporation, and Nestlé.

“As businesses concerned about the immediate and long-term implications of climate change, we strongly support the principles behind the draft Carbon Pollution Standard for existing power plants,” states the letter, which was sent to the EPA, the Obama Administration, and Senate and House majority and minority leaders.

“The proposed Carbon Pollution Standard represents a critical step in moving our country towards a clean energy economy,” said the letter.

Also spurring headlines was the release of a Munich Re poll that showed 83 per cent of Americans now believe the climate is changing, and 63 per cent are concerned about changes in the frequency and intensity of natural disasters, such as floods, hurricanes, and tornadoes.

“Our survey findings indicate that national sentiment over whether or not climatic changes are occurring has finally reached a tipping point,” said Tony Kuczinski, President and CEO of Munich Re America.

The Associated Press also contributed to the pressing global conversation on climate change, saying that in the more than two decades since world leaders first got together to try to solve global warming, life on Earth has changed, not just the climate.

“It’s gotten hotter, more polluted with heat-trapping gases, more crowded and just downright wilder,” the AP reported.

“The numbers are stark. Carbon dioxide emissions: up 60 per cent. Global temperature: up six-tenths of a degree. Population: up 1.7 billion people. Sea level: up 3 inches. U.S. extreme weather: up 30 per cent. Ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica: down 4.9 trillion tons of ice.”

Negotiators in Lima will no doubt be discussing these developments, and more, next week as they work towards — as they have said repeatedly in the past — an ambitious legally-binding greenhouse gas emissions agreement next year in Paris.

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.

Did the Obama administration's decision on the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline just get delayed again? Quite possibly, since the State Department Inspector General announced today that it has delayed until January the release of its review of the scandals surrounding Environmental Resources Management, Inc., the contractor chosen by TransCanada to perform State's Keystone XL environmental review. 

Although the State Department was evasive about whether the IG's announcement signals a delay in the administration's decision, it would seem odd for President Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry to decide on the fate of the KXL export pipeline without waiting for the results of this critical report.  

Bloomberg News and The Hill broke the news about the delay, and all signs point to the fact that State's "inquiry" has morphed into a thorough conflicts-of-interest investigation into ERM's financial ties to TransCanada and other scandals. 

Ever since the March 2013 release of the State Department's environmental impact statement, critics have pointed to ERM Group's historical ties to Big Tobacco, its green-lighting of controversial projects in Peru and the Caspian Sea, and its declaration that a tar sands refinery in Delaware made the air "cleaner," among many other industry-friendly rulings.  

Worst of all, perhaps – and potentially in violation of federal law – ERM Group lied on its State Department contract, claiming it had no business ties to TransCanada and the tar sands industry. The facts showed otherwise. 

This latest development certainly raises the prospect of a further delay, if not another sign that the Keystone XL will be rejected by President Obama.   

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.