By Andrew MacLeod for The Tyee.

For two years leading up to the May election, the government of British Columbia regularly broke its own law for responding to freedom of information requests, a report from the province’s information and privacy commissioner found.

“Overall, I am frustrated to see that government routinely operates in contravention of B.C. law,” acting commissioner Drew McArthur wrote in Timing is Everything: Report Card on Government's Access to Information Responses.

The report examined responses made during the two-year period that ended March 31. It found that in one out of five cases, the government failed to meet the deadlines for responding that are legislated in the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

Freedom of Information Seriously Suffered Under BC Liberals' Last Years: Report https://t.co/TmiI876FVz #cdnfoi #bcpoli @bcliberals

— DeSmog Canada (@DeSmogCanada) September 25, 2017

“I cannot consider an 80 per cent success rate to be satisfactory,” McArthur wrote. “The government needs to accelerate its recent progress in improving timeliness toward the goal of total compliance.”

The poor response rate was despite a 75 per cent increase in the number of requests made to his office for extensions, he said. “Time extensions under FIPPA are intended to be the exception rather than the norm, as each extension delays providing results to the applicant. Ministers need to prioritize responses to access to information requests.”

The law requires responses within 30 business days, though it allows public bodies to request extensions in some circumstances. In 2016-17, the report said, the government completed responses to 9,857 access to information requests. On average, it took 46 days to respond to requests, and those that were late were past due by an average of 62 days, it said.

“Government continues to contravene its statutory obligations,” the report said. “The results also show a decline in government’s performance from earlier this decade when the on-time response rate hovered around 90 per cent for over [four] years.”

Recommendations included proactively disclosing more records, providing more resources to close overdue files and that “Government must take whatever action necessary to respond to access requests within the timelines allowed by FIPPA.”

“We’ll be looking at the recommendations and of course we take them very seriously,” said Jinny Sims, the minister of citizens’ services.

“For 16 long years, under the BC Liberals, we saw government becoming more opaque, a government of triple deletes and a government of win at all costs,” Sims said.

The government, which took office on July 18, has begun consultation on the issue, but won’t rush the review of a law that applies to some 2,800 organizations, she said. “We want to make sure we get this right so that British Columbians can have a government that’s open, transparent, accountable and they get the information in a timely manner, while at the same time balancing the absolute necessity to protect privacy.”

Sims said the compliance rate has risen to 91 per cent since the NDP took office. “That’s a huge progress that’s been made in this very short time,” she said, attributing the improvement to: “Having targets, having people focused, and maybe people seeing there’s a change in government and there is a need to expedite things.”

In an emailed statement, BC Liberal citizens’ services critic Steve Thomson said the “report shows some progress made in improving response times but is also clear that more work needs to be done.”

Image: Former Premier Christy Clark during the 2017 swearing-in ceremony. That didn't last long. Photo: Province of B.C. 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.

As President Obama heads to the Arctic to discuss climate change, just mere weeks after approving Shell Oil’s bid to drill for oil in the treacherous Chukchi Sea, a very different group is sounding the alarm over the dangers of a warming climate. That group, surprisingly, is Wall Street bankers.

Citibank has released a new report showing that taking action now against the growing threat of climate change would save an astonishing $1.8 trillion by the year 2040. Conversely, the report says that if no action is taken, the economy will lose as much as $44 trillion during that same time period.

As Think Progress points out, the Citibank report takes into account the potential lost revenue from leaving resources in the ground — including 80% of coal reserves, half of the world’s gas reserves, and a third of global oil reserves — and still concludes that the global economy would see a net gain.

This report offers a very stark contrast to the typical talking point that we hear as to why we can’t take action on climate change — that action would simply cost too much. 

But this is not the first time that financial leaders have warned about the financial dangers of climate change.

Earlier this summer, a group of current and former Wall Street executives and former U.S. Treasury Secretaries warned that a 2 degrees Celsius increase in global temperatures could result in property losses in the state of Florida totaling $23 billion by the middle of this century. On top of the economic losses from property being underwater, the Southeast would also begin to see an alarming rise in yearly deaths due to extreme heat, with some estimates putting the yearly death toll as high as 35,000 people a year.  Agricultural losses could be as high as 20% of current yield.

If Wall Street understands the threat of climate change, even if only in terms of dollars, then this begs the question as to why they continue to fund climate change denying politicians.

Since 2014, Wall Street banks, real estate firms, and insurance companies — all industries that have expressed enormous concern over the financial threat of climate change — have poured an astonishing $507 million into political campaigns and lobbying activities.  62% of this money went to Republicans.

The reason that Party split is significant is because we have more climate change-denying members of the House and Senate then at any other point in time, and nearly every single one of them are members of the Republican Party.  According to an analysis by Think Progress, 53% of Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives deny that climate change is real, and 70% of Republicans in the Senate refuse to admit that climate change is real.

If they want to be taken seriously, and if they want their financial concerns addressed by politicians, then Wall Street bankers need to immediately stop the flow of corporate campaign cash that is going to climate change deniers. As long as those people hold seats of power in Washington, D.C., then we will continue to see action stalled year after year.

Image source – Huffington Post UK.

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 new report released Thursday by the Ontario Energy Board finds the risks of TransCanada’s Energy East pipeline, destined to carry Alberta oilsands crude to eastern refineries and export facilities, outweigh the project’s benefits.

The board’s vice-president, Peter Fraser, said the report, prepared at the request of Ontario Minister of Energy Bob Chiarelli, finds “an imbalance between the economic and environmental risks of the project and the expect benefits for Ontarians.”

The Energy East pipeline, projected to transport 1.1 million barrels of oil per day, is the continent’s largest proposed pipeline, outsizing the company’s controversial Keystone XL pipeline, which has become a political boondoggle in the U.S. in recent years due to growing concerns over oil spills, private property and climate.

The Ontario Energy Board traveled to communities along the pipeline route to gauge public sentiment about the project and, according to the report, found fears over potential water pollution running high throughout the province.

“The top concern expressed was the risk of an oil spill as the pipeline runs new or across many waterways,” Fraser said. “Our advice is that for the existing pipeline, when it is too close to environmentally sensitive areas, it should be rerouted unless it can be justified by TransCanada as necessary.”

The report states concerns over water were “routinely expressed” at community meetings and mentions a First Nations elder who put the question to the board by saying, “Would you put something in your mother’s blood that would poison her? Your mother wouldn’t be able to hold you then.”

The report recommends TransCanada “pay particular attention to protecting Nipigon Lake, Trout Lake, the Ottawa River, the Rideau River, the Oxfard-Marsh Aquifer, the Nepean Aquifer, and other areas where there is elevated public concern.”

The report stated the Crown's "duty to consult" with Canada's First Nations was high on the minds of many community members and said it considers this responsibility "a very important issue" when considering the fate of the pipeline. The final decision-making authority over the pipeline rests with the federal government, as does the duty to consult.

The board also noted Ontario’s own requirement that pipeline projects have the “highest available technical standards” for protection of the public and the environment.

Yet the board did not find TransCanada met those reqirements.

“We cannot state that the project meets the highest available technical standards, as the proponent, TransCanada Pipelines Ltd, has not yet filed a complete application,” Chair and CEO of the board, Rosemarie Leclair, said.

The board said construction of the pipeline, which involves converting and redirecting a pre-existing natural gas pipeline as well as constructing a new extended portion of the line, could create as many as 114,000 full-time equivalent jobs and add $12 to $19 billion to the province’s GDP.

But the report also noted the costs associated with an oil spill “could easily surpass $1 billion.” As a result, TransCanada “needs to demonstrate that, in the event of a spill, the amount of crude oil that could be released will be as low as reasonably possible,” the report’s authors write.

The authors recommend an examination of TransCanada’s safety record during the National Energy Board’s Energy East hearings.

The report also finds the project will take an existing natural gas line out of operation, potentially driving up gas prices. The report states: “We are concerned that, even with the new natural gas pipeline that TransCanada is proposing to build in eastern Ontario, Energy East will reduce the supply and increase the price of natural gas for consumers in that region.”

In February the Ontario Energy Board released a report on Energy East’s climate impacts, prepared by Navius Research, that was widely criticized for downplaying the pipeline’s influence on oilsands expansion and the country’s rising greenhouse gas emissions.

Adam Scott from Environmental Defence said the board’s recent report “raises serious concerns about Energy East.”

Scott said the report makes clear the environmental risks of the pipeline are high, especially for a “risky project” that “does not have the support of communities along the pipeline route in Ontario.”

“Many participants also raised concerns that Energy East would directly facilitate the expansion of the Alberta tar sands, increasing Canada’s greenhouse gas emissions. This would make Canada an irresponsible player in a world where more and more countries are working hard to reduce their impact on the climate.”

He added the board’s analysis of the project’s climate impacts was “disappointing” and “based on outdated and inaccurate information.”

A report by the Pembina Institute, an Alberta-based energy think tank, found the oil needed to fill the Energy East pipeline would account for an additional 30 to 32 million tonnes of carbon emissions release into the atmosphere each year.

Pembina estimated that’s the equivalent of adding more than seven million cars to Canada’s roads and is “higher than the total current provincial emissions of five provinces.”

The board discussed Pembina’s findings in its recent report, saying “climate change was one of the key issues mentioned by people when they discussed the impacts of Energy East,” adding people felt addressing the impacts of the project without discussing climate change was inadequate.

Image Credit: TransCanada via Youtube

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.

Former Chief of the Anishinaabe of Grassy Narrows, Steve Fobister Sr., is enduring a hunger strike to “call for justice for mercury survivors” suffering from the negative health effects of a mercury crisis that dates back to the early ‘60s. (Update: On July 30th, one day after publication of this article, Fobister announced he would end his hunger strike to continue his advocacy work for Grassy Narrows victims).

The Grassy Narrows First Nation said it has just obtained a copy of an unreleased government report that confirms there is “no doubt” community members near Kenora, Ontario have suffered from mercury-related neurological disorders. The band says this is something the government has never before acknowledged.

The Grassy Narrows mercury crisis, which first began 1962, occurred after a nearby paper mill poisoned the Wabigoon-English river system, contaminating local fish and communities. The Dryden Chemicals pulp and paper mill leaked an estimated 9000 kilograms of mercury in the river system between 1962 and 1970. By 1970 the community was forced to stop commercial and sport fishing due to high levels of mercury contamination although, at the time, the government of Ontario maintained the fish were safe for consumption.

Fobister, with a body crippled from mercury poisoning, met with Aboriginal Affairs Minister David Zimmer on Tuesday in Toronto, telling a news conference “the struggle goes on.”

“There are people that are in need right now – it’s not something that we are going to talk about forever,” Fobister said.

Concerns about the mercury crisis have reignited after allegations a report, commissioned by the Mercury Disability Board, was kept hidden from the Grassy Narrows First Nations.

The Mercury Disability Board was created in 1985 after the Grassy Narrows and Wabaseemoong Independent Nations settled out of court with Ottawa, Queen’s Park and two paper companies, Reed Ltd. (owner of Dryden Chemicals) and Great Lakes Forest Products Ltd.

Members of the First Nations communities were concerned after the board, which includes federal and provincial members of government as well as First Nations representatives, failed to publicly release the health crisis report.

The report’s findings were also not brought to Grassy Narrows community members still suffering from mercury poisoning.

Board chair Margaret Wanlin said there was no intention of covering up the report and that the former chief received a briefing on the report. She also said a public meeting was held although the report was not published online.

“We aren’t intentionally trying to hide it,” she said.

Sarah Campbell, aboriginal affairs critic for the NDP, released a statement saying, “a coverup involving the poisoning of an entire community is not something you expect to hear about here in Ontario.”

“The government owes it to residents to release any information they have about the issue, and to take concrete steps to address ongoing health, nutrition and environmental issues stemming from the industrial waste.”

“The government has been sitting on this report since 2009,” Fobister said. And the board “continues to overlook the sick people of Grassy Narrows.”

Aboriginal Affairs minister Zimmer is calling for a review of the Mercury Disability Board “and all of its operations and responsibilities.”

“The time has come to do a review…and what its mandate should be, how it does its work, how it should look into issues, what should be the parameters of its decisions,” he said.

“It’s those kinds of issues that have recently come to our attention. Things have changed in 29 years, there are different technologies and different ways of managing the effects of mercury.”

Critics are calling for a public release of the report. And First Nations are calling on the government of Ontario to make compensation more readily available for victims.

Grassy Narrows member and community activist, Judy Da Silva, said band members have been denied compensation and subject to onerous paperwork, only to be turned away.

“Everyone should have gotten automatic compensation forever,” she said. “For us to go and beg for pennies is ridiculous.” 

Image Credit: Zach Ruiter @EnviroPunk 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.

Climate change is already negatively affecting every region in the United States and the future looks even more dismal if coordinated mitigation and adaptation efforts are not immediately aggressively pursued, according to the third U.S. National Climate Assessment report released Tuesday.

“Climate change, once considered an issue for a distant future, has moved firmly into the present,” notes the massive NCA report.

“Corn producers in Iowa, oyster growers in Washington State, and maple syrup producers in Vermont are all observing climate-related changes that are outside of recent experience. So, too, are coastal planners in Florida, water managers in the arid Southwest, city dwellers from Phoenix to New York, and Native Peoples on tribal lands from Louisiana to Alaska.”

The report adds evidence of human-induced climate change continues to strengthen and that impacts are increasing across the nation. The report says Americans are already noticing the results of climate change, from longer and hotter summers to shorter and warmer winters. Rain falls in heavier downpours, there is more flooding, earlier snow melt, more severe wildfires and less summer sea ice in the Arctic.

“Scientists who study climate change confirm that these observations are consistent with significant changes in Earth’s climatic trends,” says the report that was prepared by hundreds of scientists for the U.S. government.

“Precipitation patterns are changing, sea level is rising, the oceans are becoming more acidic, and the frequency and intensity of some extreme weather events are increasing.”

The climatic changes are triggering wide-ranging impacts in every region of the U.S. and throughout the nation’s economy, the report says, adding that while some of the changes can be positive over the short run, most are detrimental since American society and its infrastructure was not designed for the rapidly-changing climate now being experienced.

The report analyses impacts on human health, water, energy, transportation, agriculture, forests, and ecosystems. It also assesses impacts on the country’s eight major regions.

“What is new over the last decade is that we know with increasing certainty that climate change is happening now,” the report says. “While scientists continue to refine projections of the future, observations unequivocally show that climate is changing and that the warming of the past 50 years is primarily due to human-induced emissions of heat-trapping gases. These emissions come mainly from burning coal, oil, and gas, with additional contributions from forest clearing and some agricultural practices.”

Noting that the climate is projected to continue to change over this century and beyond, the report says there is still time to act to limit the amount of change and its damaging impacts.

The report says U.S. average temperature has increased by 1.3°F to 1.9°F since 1895, with the most recent decade being the nation’s and the world’s hottest on record.

Temperatures are projected to rise another 2°F to 4°F in most areas of the U.S. over the next few decades. The report says by the end of this century, a roughly 3°F to 5°F rise is projected under a lower emissions scenario, which would require substantial reductions in emissions, while a higher emissions scenario assuming continued increases in emissions, predominantly from fossil fuel combustion, would result in a 5°F to 10°F rise.

Many scientists suggest that the safe and manageable level of global temperature rise due to climate change should not exceed 3.6 °F (2°C) above pre-industrial levels.

“Climate change poses a major challenge to U.S. agriculture because of the critical dependence of agricultural systems on climate,” the report says.

“The United States produces nearly $330 billion per year in agricultural commodities. This productivity is vulnerable to direct impacts on crops and livestock from changing climate conditions and extreme weather events and indirect impacts through increasing pressures from pests and pathogens.”

“Climate change will also alter the stability of food supplies and create new food security challenges for the United States as the world seeks to feed nine billion people by 2050.”

Water quality and quantity are already being affected by climate change, the report says, adding changes in precipitation and runoff, combined with changes in consumption and withdrawal, have reduced surface and groundwater supplies and increasing the likelihood of water shortages for many uses.

The report adds that climate change affects human health in many ways.

“Increasingly frequent and intense heat events lead to more heat-related illnesses and deaths and, over time, worsen drought and wildfire risks, and intensify air pollution,” the report says.

“Increasingly frequent extreme precipitation and associated flooding can lead to injuries and increases in waterborne disease. Rising sea surface temperatures have been linked with increasing levels and ranges of diseases. Rising sea levels intensify coastal flooding and storm surge, and thus exacerbate threats to public safety during storms.”

The report says that Americans face choices as the impacts of climate change are becoming more prevalent. It adds that some additional climate change impacts are now unavoidable because of past emissions of long-lived heat-trapping gases.

“The amount of future climate change, however, will still largely be determined by choices society makes about emissions. Lower emissions of heat-trapping gases and particles mean less future warming and less-severe impacts; higher emissions mean more warming and more severe impacts.”

The report may give President Barack Obama more power to deal with climate change, the environment and energy issues through administrative amendments during his last 2.5 years in office. On Tuesday, the White House issued a media release saying the report underscores “the need for urgent action to combat the threats from climate change, protect American citizens and communities today, and build a sustainable future for our kids and grandkids.”

Lou Leonard, the World Wildlife Fund’s vice president for climate change, said the report provides a pathway for Americans to choose a more beneficial future.

“We need to use this practical report as a guidebook for preparing local communities for extreme weather and other climate impacts,” Leonard said. “At the same time, we need to transform the way we produce and use energy, leaving dirty coal, oil and gas behind. There is no time to lose.”

Sierra Club executive director Michael Brune applauded the report and urged the Obama administration to promote clean energy solutions like wind and solar power. “We can create good American jobs and power homes and businesses nationwide without polluting our air, water, or climate,” Brune said.

Image Credit: Map showing consecutive dry days from NCA report website

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.

“Human interference with the climate system is occurring, and climate change poses risks for human and natural systems.” IPCC WGII AR5

Every five years or so thousands of scientists from around the world release a major report on the state of climate science. These reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) are the most definitive source of information for understanding not only the planet’s geologic and climatic history, but how humans are now influencing earth’s systems, most notably by altering the composition of the atmosphere.

The second part of the most recent report, released today in Yokohama, Japan, focuses on the impacts of climate change and how well governments are adapting to those impacts. This newly-released portion of the report, from the IPCC’s Working Group II, does not bode well for the future of people on this planet. The report predicts massively negative effects on crops, extinction of species, devastating heat waves, acid oceans and geopolitical conflict.

And that’s being called a “conservative” outlook.

“We have assessed impacts as they are happening in natural and human systems on all continents and oceans,” IPCC chair Rajendra Pachauri, told Time Magazine. “No one on this planet will be untouched by climate change.”

The impacts of climate change are already upon us, according to the report, affecting “all continents and across the oceans.” In particular, changes in precipitation and melting snow and ice have altered the globe’s hydrological cycle and access to water resources, and numerous species have begun to shift their range in response to changing climates and systems. And while human systems haven’t been as negatively affected by climate change as natural ones, the report emphasizes the unequal distribution of negative impacts, especially on the world’s poor.

“Climate-related hazards constitute an additional burden to people living in poverty, acting as a threat multiplier,” the report states. 

The report acknowledges the major “uncertainties” concerning just how and where the effects of climate change will unfold as well as important unknowns regarding the vulnerability of planetary and governmental systems to complex change. Yet the authors agree – the uncertainties of our future only increase as we increase the ‘stressors’ placed on natural environments and the societies that depend on them.

Global climate change is all about reaching thresholds, tipping points and negative feedback loops. Anticipating just what the outcome of a warmer world will be in coming centuries is perhaps beyond even the most sophisticated science. And yet, the report’s authors warn even a slight increase in global temperatures would massively compound the risk of already unstable natural and human systems.

There are five major concerns identified in the report that are ‘integrative,’ meaning they have the capacity to feed negatively off each other due to “dangerous anthropogenic [human-caused] interference with the climate system.”

These five concerns are listed in the report as follows:

1.     Unique and threatened systems: Some unique and threatened systems, including ecosystems and cultures, are already at risk from climate change. The number of such systems at risk of severe consequences is higher with additional warming of around 1°C.  Many species and systems with limited adaptive capacity are subject to very high risks with additional warming of 2°C, particularly Arctic-sea-ice and coral-reef systems.

2.     Extreme weather events: Climate-change-related risks from extreme events, such as heat waves, extreme precipitation, and coastal flooding, are already moderate and high with 1°C additional warming. Risks associated with some types of extreme events (e.g., extreme heat) increase further at higher temperatures.

3.     Distribution of impacts: Risks are unevenly distributed and are generally greater for disadvantaged people and communities in countries at all levels of development. Risks are already moderate because of regionally differentiated climate-change impacts on crop production in particular. Based on projected decreases in regional crop yields and water availability, risks of unevenly distributed impacts are high for additional warming above 2°C.

4.     Global aggregate impacts: Risks of global aggregate impacts are moderate for additional warming between 1-2°C, reflecting impacts to both Earth’s biodiversity and the overall global economy. Extensive biodiversity loss with associated loss of ecosystem goods and services results in high risks around 3°C additional warming. Aggregate economic damages accelerate with increasing temperature but few quantitative estimates have been completed for additional warming around 3°C or above.

5.     Large-scale singular events: With increasing warming, some physical systems or ecosystems may be at risk of abrupt and irreversible changes. Risks associated with such tipping points become moderate between 0-1°C additional warming, due to early warning signs that both warm-water coral reef and Arctic ecosystems are already experiencing irreversible regime shifts. Risks increase disproportionately as temperature increases between 1-2°C additional warming and become high above 3°C, due to the potential for a large and irreversible sea-level rise from ice sheet loss. For sustained warming greater than some threshold, 44 near-complete loss of the Greenland ice sheet would occur over a millennium or more, contributing up to 7m of global mean sea-level rise.

The implications of the report are clear: governments need to get serious about tackling climate change by lowering emissions and making decisions with future "generations, economies, and environments" in mind.

The “risks of climate change can be reduced by limiting the rate and magnitude of climate change,” the authors write. And we should quickly get on the task of limiting emissions – an effort that will “substantially” reduce those risks.

We also need to integrate other sustainable transitions into our efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, according to the report – transitions that will limit additional ‘stressors’ such as habitat destruction, over-exploitation, pollution, the squandering of freshwater resources and the spread of invasive species.

Climate change isn’t happening in a vacuum, but is interacting with these additional negative human impacts on natural systems.

If we want to get better at living on earth, we’re going to have to face not just the difficulties posed by a warming climate, but multiple other ‘uncertainties’ associated with humanity’s wholesale failure to adapt to the challenges of our time: learning to live on a finite planet.

Our transition to a less wasteful, less fossil fuel-reliant globe is urgently required. And governments need to kick that transition into high gear.

Image Credit: NOAA

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.

Last week the Alberta government responded to the U.S. State Department's final supplemental environmental impact statement (FSEIS) on the Keystone XL project by emphasizing the province's responsibility, transparency, and confidence that the pipeline is in the "national interest" of both Canada and the U.S.

In a statement, Alberta Premier Alison Redford appealed to the relationship between the U.S. and Canada. Premier Redford pointed out that the FSEIS had "recognized the work we're doing to protect the environment," saying that "the approval of Keystone XL will build upon the deep relationship between our countries and enable further progress toward a stronger, cleaner and more stable North American economy."

Environment and Sustainable Resource Development Minister Robin Campbell also issued a statement, mentioning Alberta's "strong regulatory system" and "stringent environmental monitoring, regulation and protection legislation."

Campbell's reminder that the natural resource sector "provides jobs and opportunities for families and communities across the country" was similar to Premier Redford's assurance that "our government is investing in families and communities," with no mention made of corporate interests.

In order to provide a more specific and sciene-based response to the FSEIS report on Keystone XL, Pembina Institute policy analyst Andrew Read provided counterpoints to several of its central claims.

1. Oilsands Emissions

The U.S. State Department's report claims that "Alberta's oil sands account for about 5 per cent of Canada's overall GHG emissions and Canada is responsible for about 2 per cent of global emissions."

Read says that "oilsands are the fastest growing source of emissions in Canada," and industry and government have been unable to curtail rising emissions in contrast to other industrial sectors. Emissions in 2011 from mining and oil and gas extraction were up 450 per cent from 1990 levels, 200 per cent from 2000 levels and 93 per cent from 2005 levels. These rising numbers are "primarily attributable to oilsands expansion and transportaion emissions" according to federal reports, says Read.

The FSEIS mentions the Climate Change and Emissions Management Act, passed in 2003, as establishing mandatory annual GHG intensity reduction targets for large industrial GHG emitters. But these targets have only been around since 2007 with the passing of Specified Gas Emitters Regulation.

2. Carbon Capture and Storage

The report mentions that the Alberta government has devoted $2 billion to fund "four large-scale CCS [Carbon Capture and Storage] projects," with two involving oilsands producers. The Alberta government has actually committed to spending around $1.4 billion to support the two CCS projects involving oilsands upgrading. The projects are only expected to reduce 2.6 million tonnes of CO2 annually, not 15.2 million tonnes, as claimed by the U.S. State Department.

For more on Alberta's failed CCS plans, read DeSmog Canada's two-part series.

3. In Situ Recovery of Bitumen

The FSEIS claims that 80 per cent of oilsands bitumen is recovered through in situ techniques using SAGD (Steam Assisted Gravity Drainage), which is "less disturbing to the land surface than surface mining and does not require tailings ponds."

While 80 per cent of bitumen is too deep to mine, only 50 per cent is currently produced in situ. Furthermore, the FSEIS ignores the downsides of in situ exploration and development, which disrupts ecosystems by creating "fragmentation of habitats" and "pathways for increased predation," and is also land intensive. In situ extraction techniques are also more greenhouse gas intensive than mining techniques, and increased production from those sources will ultimately lead to an increase in GHG emissions.

4. Water Withdrawals

The FSEIS reports that all approved oilsands projects can "withdraw no more than 3 per cent of the average annual flow of the Athabasca River," with 2008 withdrawals coming to 0.8 per cent of the long-term average annual flow.

Read emphasizes that these numbers are misleading because water withdrawals "are not halted when river flows reach extremely low levels that can result in damage to the Athabasca." For example, in winter periods when river flows are much lower withdrawals have been seen to reach 15 per cent of river flow. Read says that "comparing withdrawals to average flows masks the seasonal variability that is observed on the river."

The FSEIS also claims water use by oilsands operations has continued to decrease despite increased production, with many in situ operations recycling up to 90 per cent of water used. But this decrease is only on a "water use per barrel basis," with total water usage increasing due to expanded production. Furthermore, even water recycled during oilsands operations is permanently removed from the ecosystem, along with the 10 per cent additional water required.

5. Air Quality Monitoring

The FSEIS claims that long-term air quality monitoring "since 1995 shows improved or no change in CO, ozone, fine particulate matter, and SO2, and an increasing trend in NO2."

Read notes that over that 10-year period, there has been a lot of fluctuation in the ambient air concentration of these pollutants. Particularly, NO2 and SO2 have been seen to spike during certain periods. However, particulate matter "has been increasing at certain monitoring sites in the oilsands region." The Canadian government is also showing elevated levels of fine particulate matter above their own 2015 target in the "prairies and northern Ontario" region which contain the oilsands developments.

6. Tailings

The FSEIS observes that "processing 1 tonne (1.1 tons) of oilsand produces about 94 liters (25 gallons) of Tailings," to which Read responds that 1.5 barrels of tailings are produced for every barrel of bitumen mined from the oilsands.

The volume of tailings will continue to grow "more than 40 per cent from 830 million cubic metres to more than 1.2 billion cubic metres in 2030," and will continue to grow until stabilizing at 1.3 billion cubic metres around 2060, says Read.

A recent Environment Canada study found toxic chemicals from tailings ponds are leaching into groundwater and the Athabasca River.

7. Land Reclamation

The FSEIS reports that "602 km2 (232 mi2) have been disturbed by oilsands mining activity of which 67 km2 (26 mi2) has been or is in the process of reclamation."

The actual area of land disturbed by oilsands development is 715 square kilometres (71,500 hectares). Out of that, "only 1.04 square kilometres (104 hectares) is certified by the government as reclaimed." The FSEIS's figure is closer to the amount of land unofficially reclaimed (65 square kilometres), but this self-reported claim remains unverified due to "a lack of regulated standards and requirements to reclaim land as further land is disturbed," says Read.

Read puts the estimated cost of reclaiming the disturbed land, based on available government and industry data, at $10-$15 billion, or approximately $220,000 to $320,000 per hectare.

8. Potential Impacts and Environmental Monitoring

The FSEIS states that "Alberta has committed to a cumulative effects approach that looks at potential impacts of all projects within a region," and requires oilsands operations to have plans to "minimize their effects on wildlife and biodiversity." The report also mentions that the Alberta government "monitors and verifies" that these plans are undertaken.

Alberta and Canada have continued to approve projects that have been shown to have "significant and irreversible" adverse environmental effects through the environmental review process. There are also concerns about the enforcement of these rules. Read points to a 2013 report that surveyed 9,000 reported incidents in the oilsands, and found that "less than one percent of likely environmental infractions drew any enforcement."

Images: Kris Krug 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.

A new report from Pembina Institute says that the proposed TransCanada Energy East pipeline could generate up to 32 million tonnes (Mt) of additional greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from the crude oil production required to fill it. Thirty-two million tonnes of carbon emissions is the equivalent of adding 7 million cars to Canada's roads, exceeding the projected emissions of the Keystone XL pipeline proposal.

The Keystone XL pipeline, in comparison, would generate 22 Mt of additional GHG emissions through oilsands production, according to a previous report by Pembina. The estimated emissions impact of Energy East is "higher than the total current provincial emissions of five provinces."

The $12 million Energy East pipeline, proposed by TransCanada in August 2013, would have the capacity to transport 1.1 million barrels per day (bpd) of oilsands and conventional crude oil from Alberta to New Brunswick. According to the report, the volume of new oilsands production associated with Energy East would represent up to a 39 per cent increase from 2012 oilsands production levels.

Figure 1: Greenhouse gas emissions associated with Energy East compared to those of selected provinces. Climate Implications of the Proposed Energy East Pipeline: A Preliminary Assessment. The Pembina Institute, 2014.

Oilsands production is currently Canada's fastest growing source of GHG emissions, and is set to nearly triple between now and 2030, according to Environment Canada. Report authors Clare Demerse and Erin Flanagan told DeSmog Canada that this growth is "the single largest barrier to achieving [Canada's] 2020 climate target."

Given that Canada is set to miss its 2020 emissions reduction target by 122 Mt with current measures, Demerse and Flanagan see the Energy East proposal's potential to add a new source of GHGs from the oilsands as "significant and troubling."

The authors stress that the report, titled Climate Implications of the Proposed Energy East Pipeline, only assesses the pipeline's upstream, "Well-to-Refinery Gate" emissions impact, rather than the downstream, "Well-to-Wheel" emissions of the crude oil being transported, which would include emissions released by its combustion in vehicle engines. The actual climate impact of Energy East would therefore be even greater than figures in the report.

"The oilsands are already Canada's fastest-growing source of carbon pollution and the Energy East pipeline would help to accelerate production. Any regulatory review should include not only the impact of the pipeline itself, but also the impact of producing the crude that would flow through it," said Demerse, Federal Policy Director at Pembina.

Figure 2: Change in GHG emissions by economic sector, 2005-2020. Climate Implications of the Proposed Energy East Pipeline: A Preliminary Assessment. The Pembina Institute, 2014.

Demerse and Flanagan hope that the report will urge the National Energy Board (NEB) to undertake a more thorough appraisal of Energy East's environmental impact than its review of Enbridge's Northern Gateway proposal, saying that they wanted to submit their findings "before the National Energy Board decides on the format of its review."

The authors note that "many Canadians asked for consideration of the impacts of oilsands production in the Northern Gateway hearings," so if the NEB chooses a "more complete and balanced review of the Energy East proposal – one that looks at the environmental impacts of filling the pipeline as well as the pipeline infrastructure itself – I think the regulators would simply be catching up to where Canadians already are."

TransCanada is set to submit its regulatory application for Energy East to the NEB later this year.

The report recommends that the NEB "include the pipeline's full upstream impacts in the scope of its review, and that the federal government should end its delays and adopt strong emissions regulations for the oil and gas sector."

The report mentions that carbon capture and storage (CCS) technologies have been found to lower oilsands production emissions, but adds that "Canada lacks the kind of stringent climate policies that would provide a strong incentive for those kinds of investments," especially considering the high cost of such technology.

ICO2N, a group of energy companies invested in developing CCS technology, estimates that a carbon price of $125/tonne is necessary to justify capture of approximately 15 per cent of oilsands CO2.

The authors believe that approving projects like Energy East and Keystone XL could "see less emphasis on, and less encouragement of, clean energy investment in Canada" when the country needs to be "starting the transition to a clean energy future."

"The oilsands industry plans to triple production by 2030 and building new pipelines is necessary to realize those ambitions. We need to look at the full scope of impacts when evaluating pipelines," said Flanagan.

In its 2013 World Energy Outlook, the International Energy Association (IEA) modelled a scenario where countries take the action required to keep global warming below 2 degrees C, and found that global demand for oil would likely peak in 2020 and fall thereafter. Demerse and Flanagan suggest that Canada needs to "keep that kind of long-term picture in mind when we're considering a pipeline proposal that could last for 30, 40 or 50 years."

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's Gitxaala Nation filed a lawsuit on January 17 claiming the federal Joint Review Panel's (JRP) report that recommended approval of the Northern Gateway pipeline was flawed and unlawful.

The B.C. First Nation's lawsuit is one of many filed in response to the report, including one filed by the Environmental Law Centre on behalf of B.C. Nature and another filed by Ecojustice on behalf of three different environmental groups.

Rosanne Kyle, lawyer for the Gitxaala Nation, said that the "Gitxaala were given the opportunity to speak, but were not heard."

The Gitxaala Nation's lawyers said that the review panel did not properly consider Aboriginal rights and title or weigh the public interest against the pipeline's economic benefits to the Alberta oilsands.

The band participated in the hearings, expending significant resources in submitting more than 7,500 pages of documentary evidence, providing nine expert witnesses and including a 320-page submission detailing the adverse effects of having as many as 230 supertankers moving through Gitxaala Nation territory annually.

The band claims tanker traffic in traditional waters violate their Aboriginal rights and title, noting the potential catastrophic effects an oil spill in the region's narrow coastal channels may have on Gitxaala way of life and the ecosystems they've harvested from for centuries.

The suit observes that the review panel had a mandate to consider the band's constitutionally protected rights in a meaningful way, and chose to ignore it.

"The Gitxaala played by the rules," said Clarence Innis, acting chief of the Gitxaala Nation. "The JRP had a responsibility to take our concerns seriously but it didn't."

Kyle also said that a series of recent government reports support the Gitxaala's concerns but were released too late to be considered by the panel for their report.

Ivan Giesbrecht, spokesman for Northern Gateway Pipelines, said in an e-mail that "Northern Gateway does not believe this will necessarily delay the review by the federal government of the (Joint Review Panel's) report," reports CTV News.

Despite the multiple lawsuits questioning the report's decision, Giesbrecht added that the JRP's recommendations were "based on science and the input of experts," and that the evidence presented was the "most thorough and comprehensive proceeding in Canadian history."

Cabinet has 180 days from the time it received the report, released in December, to make a final decision on the pipeline, adhering to the 209 conditions laid out in the report.

Image: Jennifer Castro / 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.

Not even a month has passed since the federally appointed Joint Review Panel (JRP) released its official report recommending approval of the Northern Gateway pipeline, pending the fulfillment of 209 conditions. Yet already two separate suits have been filed against the integrity of the report, with groups requesting cabinet delay a final decision on the pipeline project until the federal court of appeals can assess the complaints.

One of the suits, filed today by the Environmental Law Centre on behalf of B.C. Nature (the Federation of British Columbia Naturalists), requested the panel’s report be declared invalid and that cabinet halt its decision on the pipeline project until the court challenge is heard. The second suit, filed by Ecojustice on behalf of several environmental groups claims the panel's report is based on insufficient evidence and therefore fails to constitute a full environmental assessment under the law.

Chris Tollefson, B.C. Nature’s lawyer and executive director of the Environmental Law Centre at the University of Victoria, says “we have asked that the federal court make an order that no further steps be taken by any federal regulator or by Cabinet until this request is adjudicated.”

“We’re confident that the federal court will make that order because we’ve raised some serious issues with the legality of the report and if the report is flawed then it can’t go to cabinet, and it shouldn’t go to cabinet,” he said.

B.C. Nature has identified almost a dozen legal errors that bring the legitimacy of the panel’s recommendation into question.

“The two [errors] that we think are the most serious among those are the finding with respect to justification of serious harm to caribou and grizzly and the ruling with respect to a potential major oil spill and its consequences. We say that in both of those areas there is a glaring error that’s occurred that has to be addressed by the federal court of appeal,” Tollefson said.

A federal recovery strategy for humpack whales on the B.C. coast released in October cited potential increased oil tanker traffic as a danger to dwindling populations. The recovery strategy, released after a five-year delay, also noted the danger toxic spills posed to critical habitat. 

A federal caribou recovery strategy is expected by the end of the month.

“Both those federal strategies have to be considered by the cabinet when it ultimately rules on this [project]… For caribou this pipeline has some serious consequences and it will be interesting to see what happens when the federal strategy comes down.”

For Tollefson, the inadequacy of the official JRP report points to a failure of the Northern Gateway hearing process.

“It’s disappointing for everybody involved on the intervenor side, how this has unfolded. The report is not only legally flawed in relation to the specific issues that we’ve raised but I think there’s a more general flaw, which is that it’s failed the test of transparency, it fails test of intelligibility. It basically doesn’t grapple with the evidence,” he said.

The report reaches its conclusions “without setting out its analysis,” Tollefson says, “without discussing the evidence that forms the basis for those conclusions.”

“So we think there’s a basic rule of law issue here: does this report even conform with the basic requirements in terms of intelligibility and transparency that we expect from tribunals?”

“And we say that it doesn’t.”

Tollefson anticipates that the request will delay cabinet’s 180-day decision period, saying it would be “very difficult” for cabinet to address and respond to B.C. Nature’s complaints within that timeframe.

For Tollefson a delay in cabinet’s decision isn’t only foreseeable, it’s appropriate.

“Cabinet after all has to make its decision based upon the findings and the recommendations that arise out of this report.” Without a reliable report, what kind of decision can British Columbians expect?

The errors in the report could send the federal panel back to the drawing board.

“If we’re upheld on any of our arguments, that report will have to be sent back to the JRP, redone, and we’ll basically be starting, potentially, back where we were in June. In those circumstances, it makes little sense for cabinet to make a decision given that level of uncertainty around the future of the report.”

Image Credit: Mike Baird 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.

Environmental groups, including ForestEthics Advocacy, Living Oceans Society and Raincoast Conservation Foundation, filed a lawsuit today to block cabinet approval of the proposed Northern Gateway pipeline.  

Ecojustice lawyers representing the three groups filed the lawsuit at the federal court level, saying that the Joint Review Panel's (JRP) final report on the pipeline is based on insufficient evidence and does not satisfy the legislated requirements of the environmental assessment process.

"The JRP did not have enough evidence to support its conclusion that the Northern Gateway pipeline would not have significant adverse effects on certain aspects of the environment," said Karen Campbell, Ecojustice staff lawyer.

The panel, a joint effort of the National Energy Board and the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, held an 18-month review of the proposed $6.3 million Enbridge pipeline, which would ship 520,000 barrels per day of diluted oilsands bitumen to the B.C. coast for export on tankers.

The three groups behind the lawsuit were participants in the review process.

Campbell said that the panel made its recommendation "despite known gaps in the evidence, particularly missing information about the risk of geohazards along the pipeline route and what happens to diluted bitumen when it is spilled in the marine environment."

For example, the panel's conclusion that diluted bitumen is unlikely to sink in an ocean environment was refuted by a federal report released last week. This suggests that potential spills could have more serious environmental impacts and be more difficult to clean up than the panel's report makes evident.

Karen Wristen, executive director of Living Oceans Society, said that they "have no choice but to go to court and challenge the JRP's final report."

"The panel's recommendation was made without considering important evidence that highlights the threat Northern Gateway poses to the B.C. Coast," Wristen said.

The panel also failed to consider the final recovery strategy for humpback whales or identify mitigation measures to reduce the impacts on caribou, as required by sec. 79(2) of the Species at Risk Act.

"The proposed tanker route travels directly through humpback whale critical habitat identified in the recovery strategy. Yet the panel refused to consider this potential conflict when making its recommendation," said Dr. Paul Paquet, senior scientist at Raincoast Conservation Foundation.

Paquet said that "the panel's failure to consider the project's likely adverse impact on the whales makes no sense," considering that "the federal government will be required to legally protect the humpbacks and their habitat beginning in April."

Although the panel's final report concluded that 35 per cent of the Northern Gateway's economic benefit would come from upstream oilsands development, it did not address the environmental impacts associated with oilsands development, despite a clear request to do so.

Nikki Skuce, senior energy campaigner with ForestEthics Advocacy, said that the panel "cannot consider the so-called economic benefits of oilsands expansion tied to this pipeline but ignore the adverse impacts that expansion will have on climate change, endangered wildlife and ecosystems."

"The environmental assessment process is supposed to consider both sides of the coin, and in this instance the panel failed," Skuce said.

The panel's environmental assessment found the oil tanker and pipeline project was unlikely to have adverse environmental effects, aside from cumulative impacts on some grizzly bear and caribou populations. Campbell said this conclusion was reached "without considering all the necessary and available science."

Campbell added that the report "only tells part of the story, and we are asking the court to ensure that this flawed report doesn't stand as the final word on whether Northern Gateway is in the national interest."    

The lawsuit seeks a federal court ruling to prevent the government from relying on the flawed report to approve Northern Gateway.

A spokeswoman for Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver said the government would not comment on the lawsuit, reports the Globe and Mail.

"As the minister said before, we will thoroughly review the report, consult with affected First Nations, and then make our decision," said Melissa Lantsman, Oliver's director of communications. "Our government will continue to take action to improve the transportation safety of energy products across Canada."

Cabinet is set to make a decision based on the panel's recommendation in the following six months. Under the new environmental assessment framework forced through in the 2012 spring omnibus budget, cabinet has final decision-making power over Northern Gateway, bound by the 209 conditions laid out in the panel's report.

Image Credit: Pembina Institute / 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.