The average Canadian doesn’t place the economy above other concerns like education, health care and environment according to a a public-opinion survey analysis performed by the Privy Council Office (PCO), a group of the Prime Minister’s top advisors, in January.

As the Canadian Press reports, the research suggests major federal government policies don’t line up with Canadian priorities.

The analysis followed public opinion research of 3,000 survey respondents and 12 focus groups, conducted by NRG Research Group, on behalf of the Finance Department. The PCO is not obligated to routinely make its research public.

The research showed Canadians have “little enthusiasm” for the Enbridge Northern Gateway pipeline, “even among supporters,” the January 25 PCO report on the findings states. Since then the pipeline was federally approved.

Individuals participating in the focus group research, conducted across Canada from B.C. to Nova Scotia, citied concerns over potential oil spills off the coast of British Columbia.

“Detractors worry about the environmental consequences in the event of a spill, particularly as a result of a tanker accident off the B.C. coast.”

“There is an appreciation that increased market access for oil will be economically beneficial but there is still a desire to do so in a more environmentally safe manner.”

Participants said they wanted to see less export of Canadian resources, suggesting they be processed and refined here in an environmentally responsible way.

Megan Leslie, environment critic for the NDP, says the report “shows that the NDP have been saying all along, that B.C. MPs, Conservative MPs, are going to have to answer to this.”

“There is not support for this project in British Columbia and across Canada,” she told the Canadian Press.

“It’s also really heartening to see that people spontaneously talked about resource development through a sustainable lens. They talked about refining and processing here in Canada. People get it,” she said.

When asked for comment on the research, David Barnabe, spokesman for the Finance Department told the Canadian Press, “the use of quantitative (telephone survey data) and qualitative (focus group) research allow the Finance Department to get a clearer sense of the evolution of the public mood towards the state of the economy, Canadians’ sense of personal economic well-being and government actions in the economic arena.”

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.

Government records newly released under access to information legislation say that Canada supports carbon pricing as part of a global climate change strategy.

Mike De Souza writes for Postmedia News, that the documents "come from the Privy Council Office and Environment Canada, and they contrast with Prime Minister Stephen Harper's public criticism of carbon taxes."

As De Souza explains, the Privy Council Office (PCO) is "the central department in the government that supports the prime minister's office."

The PCO notes were reportedly prepared for the November 2011 G20 summit attended by Harper a month before Canada's pullout from the Kyoto Protocol. They highlight the World Bank's recommendation for "putting a price on carbon for developed countries," and comment that "Canada could support other countries implementing this proposal."

The PCO records also say that "Canada supports the development of new market-based mechanisms that expand the scale and scope of carbon markets." De Souza adds that the records suggest Canada "wanted to expand markets that require polluters to pay and allow other companies to profit from deploying technologies or other methods to reduce emissions in the atmosphere."

The Environment Canada documents were notes given to Deputy Environment Minister Bob Hamilton after he was appointed in July 2012, briefing him on the potential for job creation and economic growth in a strong climate change strategy.

The notes say that a "well-designed environmental policy, including GHG emission reduction policies, can also support economic objectives, in areas such as innovation, improved energy and resource productivity, and opportunities in global clean technology markets."

The briefing observes that "environmental damage and natural resource degradation can have important economic costs" in addition to posing "serious" and "significant impacts on human health and safety…and ecosystems in Canada and throughout the world."

Environment Minister Leona Aglukkaq's spokeswoman told Postmedia News "that the government does not support a carbon tax," reiterated the Harper government's position "that an NDP climate change proposal from the last election to raise billions of dollars by auctioning of pollution permits as part of a market-based carbon pricing scheme — was a tax on gas, groceries, electricity and everything else."

Aglukkaq's office said Canada is "playing a leadership role in addressing climate change."

De Souza writes that despite all major Canadian federal political parties supporting carbon pricing in the 2008 federal elections, "the Conservatives later decided to favour binding regulations in each industrial sector instead, because of the failure of the U.S. Congress to pass legislation creating a carbon market."

Several provinces have implemented their own forms of carbon pricing or taxes on greenhouse gas emissions, such as British Columbia's highly-successful tax on buying or using fuel.

The Environment Canada briefing notes suggested Canada inteded to meet its "GHG emission reduction target of 17% under 2005 levels by 2020," especially with "greater international pressure to demonstrate concrete action and to outline how Canada's national emissions targets will be met." A new report from Environmental Defence shows Canada cannot, however, met its emission reduction targets given current planned expansion in the tar sands – Canada's fastest source of growing GHGs.

Image Credit: Prime Minister's Office / Fickr

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 July 2012 Paul Boothe, former deputy minister at Environment Canada, called a meeting to discuss methods of dealing with worst-case climate change scenarios.

According to an internal memorandum from Natural Resources Canada released through Access to Information legislation, Environment Canada presented "a summary of current interest, science and governance issues regarding geoengineering to address climate change" in the meeting. Top level bureaucrats were personally invited to attend the confidential meeting. Which of the invitees actually attended is less clear.

The Environment Canada presentation defines geo-engineering as "the deliberate large-scale intervention in the Earth's climate system in order to moderate global warming."

Mike De Souza writes for Postmedia News, that "Prime Minister Stephen Harper's national security adviser Stephen Rigby turned down a request to join [the] secret meeting," and "most representatives on the list of invitees, including the Canadian Security and Intelligence Service and the Department of National Defence, said Monday that they were trying to track down information about their role in the closed-door discussion."

Also invited were deputy ministers from Natural Resources Canada and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, both of which "referred questions to Environment Canada, but the latter department's Gatineau headquarters were closed for the Quebec holiday Monday."

De Souza reports that the "public service department that supports the prime minister's office — the Privy Council Office — said Monday that it didn't send anyone to the meeting," and "wasn't immediately able to say whether it followed up on information shared during the session."

Boothe also invited "the heads of Canada's spy agency, the Department of National Defence and the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade to attend."

The documents outlining the meeting "were marked 'secret' but declassified for release through access to information legislation."

The Environment Canada presentation warned that if "greenhouse gas emissions continue unabated, models predict that 2ºC warming target agreed to [in 2009 by Harper] in Copenhagen, will be exceeded by mid-century."

As De Souza notes, the presentation listed the possible results of this temperature increase as including "increases in extreme weather events such as floods, droughts, heatwaves and cyclones as well as impacts on coastal cities, food security and biodiversity loss." According to "records released by Environment Canada in a spring report on greenhouse gases," average temperatures in Canada have hit "levels of up to three degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels in recent years."

The presentation indicated that "global CO2 emissions must level off immediately, and decline to negative values before end of century (implying net CO2 extraction from atmosphere), or other means of moderating warming would be needed." Geo-engineering was proposed as one of these "other means."

From the document:

De Souza summarizes the suggested geo-engineering methods, which include "adding iron to oceans to enhance their absorption of carbon dioxide, sulphur injections in the atmosphere or satellite mirrors to block or reflect solar radiation or large-scale afforestation."

Calgary-based climate scientist David Keith, whose house was damaged by the recent flooding in Alberta, reportedly encourages further research into geo-engineering as "an option to help protect vulnerable populations in developing countries from the effects and extreme weather events linked to existing greenhouse gases in the atmosphere."

De Souza adds that Keith said "no amount of geo-engineering in the future will help if we don't cut emissions."

Image Credit: Wayne Stadler / 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.