On Friday, community members from across Vancouver converged on Burnaby Mountain, the site of conflict surrounding the Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain pipeline expansion, after the B.C. Supreme Court approved an injunction to remove a group of protesters, who call themselves the Caretakers of Burnaby Mountain, by Monday at 4 p.m. This article takes an in-depth look at Jakub Markiewicz, an artist, filmmaker and the youngest member of the Caretakers, who recently made headlines after chaining himself to a Kinder Morgan vehicle.

Living in the city, amidst streetlights and headlights and shop signs left on all night, it’s easy to forget just how dark the night can be. Burnaby Mountain isn’t far from its namesake city, or downtown Vancouver for that matter, but by the time six o’clock rolls around (thank you, daylight savings), the darkness feels like a vacuum. The moon, one day past full, is barely enough for me to see where I’m putting my feet in the wet grass.

Caretakers of Burnaby Mountain

Burnaby vs. the National Energy Board

All in the Family

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.

Media policies in most Canadian government departments do not effectively encourage open communication between federal scientists and journalists, says a report released Wednesday.

Published by Evidence for Democracy (E4D) and Simon Fraser University (SFU), the report said more than 85 per cent of the 16 departments studied were assessed a grade of C or lower in terms of openness of communication, protection against political interference, rights to free speech, and protection for whistleblowers.

The 22-page report also said that when compared to grades for U.S. departments (scored by the Union of Concerned Scientists), all but one Canadian department performed worse than the U.S. average.

“Overwhelmingly, current media policies do not meet the basic requirements for supporting open communication between federal scientists and the media,” Katie Gibbs, E4D’s executive director and an author on the report, said in an accompanying media release.

“These policies could prevent taxpayer-funded scientists from sharing their expertise with the public on important issues from drug safety to climate change,” Gibbs said.

The report — “Can Scientists Speak?” — gave the Department of National Defense the highest mark, a B grade, while the Canadian Space Agency, Public Works and Government Services, Industry Canada, and Natural Resources Canada each received an F.

Policies governing science-based departments received on average a C- for how well they facilitate open communication between scientists and the media, the report added.

Described as the first of its kind in Canada, the report comes after a 2013 survey of federal government scientists commissioned by the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada (PIPSC) found 90 per cent feel they are not allowed to speak freely to the media about their work.

The PIPSC survey also found almost 86 per cent of the scientists felt they would face censure or retaliation for speaking about a departmental decision that could harm public health, safety or the environment.

The survey, which is included in a report titled “The Big Chill,” is described as the first extensive effort to gauge the scale and impact of “muzzling” and political interference among federal scientists since the Stephen Harper government introduced communications policies requiring them to seek approval before being interviewed by journalists.

On Wednesday, PIPSC President Debi Daviau said the C- average for policies that govern science communication with the media is not something to be proud of.

“This is a grade that says Canada is failing its most fundamental obligations to keep Canadians adequately informed of urgent science matters such as climate change,” Daviau said.

E4D, a national non-partisan, non-profit organization promoting evidence-based public policy, provided several key recommendations in its report that departments can implement to improve communication between federal scientists and the Canadian public.

Policies should be easily available online for scientists, journalists and the public, E4D recommended, and it should be explicit that scientists can speak freely about their research to facilitate clear and timely communications.

Another recommendation said scientists should also have the right to final review of media releases that make substantial use of their work to protect against political interference.

In addition, scientists should be able to express their personal opinions as long as they make clear they are not representing the views of their department.

The report also recommended there be provisions to protect whistleblowers and effectively resolve disputes.

Federal government scientists play an important role in keeping Canadians safe and healthy by providing their expertise to both the public and decision-makers, the report said.

“The safety of our food, air, water, and environment depends on the ability of federal scientists to provide information to Canadians,” it added.

CBC News said it requested comments about the report from several government departments, who redirected the request to Ed Holder, minister of state for science and technology.

Holder did not respond directly, CBC said, but stated in the House of Commons on Wednesday afternoon that “ministers are the primary spokespersons for government departments yet scientists have and are readily available to share their research with Canadians.”

Arne Mooers, an SFU professor of biodiversity and an advisor for the report, said federal scientists are important public servants with critical expertise.

“They should be encouraged to inform the public in their areas of expertise because only an informed public can evaluate what governments are doing on their behalf,” Mooers said.

“Strengthening communication between scientists and the public strengthens our democracy.”

The E4D report was published one day after Julie Gelfand, the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, released an audit showing Canada will almost certainly not meet its international greenhouse gas emission reduction target by 2020 and doesn’t even have a plan showing how the nation might achieve its climate change goals.

Image Credit: Zack Embree

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.

Facing criticism in the lead up to today’s UN Climate Summit, which prime minister Stephen Harper is not attending, the Harper Government released a new public outreach campaign through Environment Canada, praising the country’s action on climate change.

The campaign points to four pillars of Canada’s climate progress including efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, investing in climate adaptation, “world-class scientific research to inform decision-making,” and international leadership in climate action.

Already critics are pointing to the apparent disparity between the Environment Canada campaign and Canada’s waning reputation on the international stage for its climate obstruction, the muzzling of scientists, the elimination of environmental legislation and massive cuts to federal research and science programs.

“Reading the Harper government’s claims about its climate efforts is like reading one of Orwell’s books,” Mark Jaccard, professor at Simon Fraser University’s School of Resource and Environment Management, said.

“Eliminating policy is to implement policy. Blocking and abandoning global negotiations is to lead global negotiations. Muzzling scientists is to have science inform decision-making. Working hard to increase carbon pollution is to decrease it. Black is white. Dishonesty is truth.”

Jaccard told DeSmog Canada, “We can no longer say that we are unsure what meaningful action on climate would look like.” Provinces across the country could follow Quebec’s lead and join California’s cap-and-trade system, he said, which would increase the effectiveness of the whole system, “making it much harder for some U.S. politicians to continue to present this as an economy killer.”

Recently prime minister Stephen Harper publicly criticized a polluter pay solution to growing emissions, saying no country would undertake climate action that might harm the economy. Onlookers were quick to critique Harper’s economy versus environment framing, an outmoded way of viewing the transition to clean energy, a growing sector of the global economy.

Katie Gibbs, co-founder of the science advocacy group Evidence for Democracy, told DeSmog the Harper government’s cuts to science positions and research stations prevents the country from responding strongly to the challenge of climate change.

She said Environment Canada “has undergone many staff and funding cuts which means they simply don't have the research capacity that they used to.”

“This hurts the government's ability to make science-informed decisions on many environmental issues, including climate change,” she said. 

Gibbs also pointed out that a special working group within Environment Canada that was tasked with working on oil and gas regulations with industry appears to have been disbanded in early 2013. 

Similarly, the Harper government also disbanded the National Roundtable on the Environment and Economy (NRTEE), a government solutions think tank, after the body recommended the government implement carbon pricing.*

“Instead of listening to the experts at NRTEE, the government cut their funding,” Gibbs said.

“The government needs to listen to the experts: scientists, policy analysts and economists all agree that some form of carbon pricing is need to get our CO2 emissions down to safe levels.”

Despite Environment Canada’s claim that Canada is taking climate action, there are no binding emissions regulations for oil and gas development in the country. Canada committed to reducing greenhouse gas emissions 17 per cent below 2005 levels by 2020 under the Copenhagen Accord, although a recent Environment Canada report showed Canada’s current weak emissions reduction measures will prevent us from meeting that target.

“The government has been saying since 2011 that they were going to introduce regulations for oil and gas sectors but it hasn't happened yet,” Gibbs said.

Canada is one of the only major developed nations to have no climate legislation.

According to Keith Stewart, climate and energy campaigner with Greenpeace Canada, that likely has to do with the current government’s close ties to the oil and gas sector.

“Our current federal government confuses what is good for oil companies with what is good for Canada and so refuses to recognize all of the amazing opportunities that would be open to us if we started pushing action on climate change rather than desperately trying to hold it back,” he said.

“There are, however, some promising signs at the provincial level such as Ontario's coal phase out and Green Energy Act, B.C.'s carbon tax and Quebec's focus on electrification of transportation.”

But he adds, in order to take meaningful action on climate change, the current government may need to distance itself from industry influence.

A report by the Polaris Institute showed industry lobbyists met with the federal government 463 per cent more than environmental organizations between 2008 and 2012.

“Meaningful action on climate change requires kicking the oil industry lobbyists out of the backrooms so we can get on with finally putting a price on pollution and investing in green alternatives like great public transit, wind and solar power, and more efficient homes, offices and factories,” he said.

* An earlier version of this article stated the NRTEE proposed introducing a carbon tax. They called for carbon pricing.

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 scientific studies continue to reveal how carbon emissions are making the world’s oceans more acidic, one prominent academic from British Columbia suggests that the rapidly changing marine chemistry could also eventually negatively affect the economies of some coastal communities. If the recent collapse of a scallop fishery off the coast of B.C.’s Vancouver Island is any indication, those negative changes may already be well underway.

Karen Kohfeld, a Simon Fraser University associate professor and a Canada Research Chair in Climate, Resource, and Global Change, said scientists have learned much about the oceans’ chemical makeup in the past three decades but are less certain about how the increased acid levels will affect ecosystems.

“There may be some species that adapt better than others,” Kohfeld told DeSmog Canada on Thursday. “And in the end, we are just beginning to understand how ocean acidification could impact our coastal fisheries in the long run.”

Although she noted that carbon dioxide exists in the ocean naturally through rotting plants and dead organisms, Kohfeld said that scientific evidence suggests that oceans have become about 30 per cent more acidic since fossil fuels began being burned in the Industrial Revolution approximately 250 years ago.

If that trend continues, she said, oceans could be between 100 per cent and 150 per cent more acidic by the end of this century.

“That is very alarming,” she said, referring to the relative speed that acid levels are increasing in the world’s oceans, cover more than 70 per cent of the Earth’s surface.

About 40 per cent of atmospheric carbon dioxide ends up in oceans where it dissolves and releases an acid that makes it more difficult for some organisms, notably shellfish, to develop properly. Scientists and media outlets have been reporting recently that scallop and oyster farms in the Pacific Northwest have struggled with the increased acid levels.

Scientist are also concerned with a recent mysterious wasting disease that is killing off numerous species of starfish or sea stars along the Pacific and Atlantic coasts of North America. The illness causes white lesions on the animal’s body before it ruptures, spilling out internal organs.

“The magnitude of it is very concerning,” said Cornell University ecologist Drew Harvell. “There’s the potential that some of these species could actually go extinct.”

Oceans have absorbed approximately 525 billion tons of CO2 from the atmosphere, or about one third of the anthropogenic (human-caused) carbon emissions released both from industrial processes (mostly fossil fuel burning) and changes in land use practices (deforestation and urbanization), the University of Alaska says. “This absorption of CO2 has mitigated warming in the atmosphere, but is having negative impacts on the chemistry and biology of the oceans. When CO2 is added to the oceans it lowers the pH causing the upper ocean to become more acidic.”

Kohfeld said that acidification does not occur at the same rate in the world’s oceans. As an example, she said the ability for organisms to form shells is more difficult in colder waters like the North Pacific compared to waters near the equator because colder temperatures dissolve more carbon dioxide.

“One of the things we are seeing is that acidification is affecting organisms at different life stages,” she said adding she suspects scientists are going to start to see more related impacts on communities dependent on harvesting shellfish.

The California Current Acidification Network website notes “coastal ecosystems are particularly sensitive to three key drivers related to climate change: sea level, ocean temperature and ocean acidification.”

A recent National Climate Assessment (NCA) report in the U.S. said “increasing levels of carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels and other human activities have a direct effect on the world’s oceans.”

The NCA report added “ocean acidification makes water more corrosive, reducing the capacity of marine organisms with shells or skeletons made of calcium carbonate (such as corals, krill, oysters, clams, and crabs) to survive, grow, and reproduce, which in turn will affect the marine food chain.”

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has reported “ocean acidification poses substantial risks to marine ecosystems, especially polar ecosystems and coral reefs, associated with impacts on the physiology, behavior, and population dynamics of individual species from phytoplankton to animals.”

The IPCC says ocean acidification, along with warming, decreased oxygen levels and pollution “can lead to interactive, complex, and amplified impacts for species and ecosystems.”

Assessing how acidification is changing the world’s oceans is hugely important to the survival of humankind. According to the United Nations, more than three billion people depend on marine and coastal biodiversity for their livelihoods. The UN also says the market value of marine and coastal resources and industries is estimated at $3 trillion per year or about 5 per cent of global GDP.

Some people call ocean acidification “that other CO2 problem,” Kohfeld said, “and it’s an example of how climate change is more than just a higher temperature.”

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

This week a group of climate experts published a letter detailing the climate impacts of the proposed tripling of the Trans Mountain pipeline which carries oilsands diluted bitumen and other fuels from Alberta to the Port of Vancouver. The group represents 27 climate experts – a mix of economists, scientists and political and social scientists – from major British Columbian universities who were recently rejected from the pipeline hearing process because they proposed to discuss the project’s significance for global climate change.

According to Simon Donner, associate professor from the University of British Columbia and climate variability expert, “the government is ignoring the expertise of not just scientists, but policy analysts and economists.”

“You'd have an easier time finding a seat at Game 7 of the Stanley Cup Finals than an expert who thinks the energy policy is consistent with Canada meeting this government's own promised emissions target,” he told DeSmog Canada.

For Donner, the exclusion of climate experts from National Energy Board (NEB) pipeline hearings throws the legitimacy of the environmental assessment process into question.

“The NEB and the federal government want to make a decision about the environmental and social impact of the pipeline expansion without considering one of the biggest long-term threats to the environment and society – climate change,” he said.

In the letter the group of experts said the Trans Mountain pipeline “alone is expected to lead to 50 per cent more carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions each year than all of British Columbia currently produces.”

They also pointed out that “the purpose of the Trans Mountain Pipeline expansion is to increase the oil sands’ access to global markets…additional bitumen production needed to meet the pipeline capacity would increase Canada’s annual CO2 emissions by over 27 million tonnes.”

To meet our 2020 target – to reduce emissions 17 per cent below 2005 levels – Canada must significantly reduce its greenhouse gas emissions. Oilsands represent the fastest growing source of greenhouse gas emissions in Canada and are expected to account for a full 78 per cent of emissions growth by 2020, the letter states.

Increases in oilsands production are canceling out the emissions gains made in other sectors, including the transportation sector. The authors point out that, despite repeated promises, the Canadian government has failed to regulate emissions from the oil and gas sector.

“The problem is that Canada has no system to deal with greenhouse gas emissions from the oil and gas sector,” Donner said, putting greater pressure on the need to account for climate impacts on a project-by-project basis. 

“If we had a system for evaluating if proposed carbon-intensive projects are compatible with our federal emissions target, then the National Energy Board's decision [to reject climate experts] would be reasonable. But with no federal policy, these hearings are the only option.”

Full list of ousted climate experts and letter signatories:

• Simon Donner, Associate Professor, Department of Geography, University of British Columbia;
• Kathryn Harrison, Professor, Department of Political Science, University of British Columbia;
• George Hoberg, Professor, Department of Forest Resources Management, University of British Columbia;
• Laurie Adkin, Associate Professor, Department of Political Science and Environmental Studies Programme, University of Alberta;
• Phil Austin, Associate Professor, Department of Earth, Ocean and Atmospheric Sciences, University of British Columbia;
• Kai Chan, Associate Professor and Canada Research Chair, Institute for Resources, Environment and Sustainability, University of British Columbia;
• Jay Cullen, Associate Professor, School of Earth and Ocean Sciences, University of Victoria;
• Lori Daniels, Associate Professor, Department of Forest and Conservation Sciences, University of British Columbia;
• Peter Dauvergne, Director, Liu Institute for Global Issues and Professor of International Relations, University of British Columbia;
• Ken Denman, Professor, School of Earth and Ocean Sciences, University of Victoria;
• Erica Frank, Professor and Canada Research Chair, School of Population and Public Health, University of British Columbia; 
• David Green, Professor, Vancouver School of Economics, University of British Columbia;
• Kevin Hanna, Associate Professor of Sustainability, I.K. Barber School of Arts and Sciences, University of British Columbia;
• Sara Harris, Senior Instructor, Department of Earth, Ocean and Atmospheric Sciences, University of British Columbia;
• Milind Kandlikar, Professor, Liu Institute for Global Issues and Institute for Resources, Environment and Sustainability, University of British Columbia;
• Karen Kohfeld, Associate Professor and Canada Research Chair, School of Resource and Environmental Management, Simon Fraser University;
• Ken Lertzman, Professor and Director of The Hakai Network for Coastal People, Ecosystems and Management, School of Resource and Environmental Management, Simon Fraser University;
• Alan Lewis, Professor Emeritus, Department of Zoology and Department of Earth, Ocean and Atmospheric Sciences, University of British Columbia;
• Jane Lister, Senior Research Fellow, Liu Institute for Global Issues, University of British Columbia;
• Ian McKendry, Professor, Department of Geography and Atmospheric Science Program, University of British Columbia;
• Karin Mickelson, Associate Professor, Faculty of Law, University of British Columbia;
• R. Dan Moore, Professor, Department of Geography and Department of Forest Resources Management, University of British Columbia;
• Rashid Sumalia, Professor and Director of the Fisheries Economics Research Unit, University of British Columbia;
• Douw Steyn, Professor, Department of Earth, Ocean and Atmospheric Sciences, University of British Columbia;
• David Tindall, Associate Professor, Department of Sociology and Department of Forest Resource Management, University of British Columbia;
• Hisham Zerriffi, Assistant Professor and Ivan Head South/North Research Chair, Liu Institute for Global Issues, University of British Columbia;
• Kirsten Zickfeld, Assistant Professor, Department of Geography, Simon Fraser University.

Image Credit: TransMountain

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.

“Nobody knows what happens when you introduce a virus into a popluation that hasn’t been exposed to it before. It might be totally benign or it might have a devastating impact like smallpox on the Aboriginal popluations in North America.”

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.

According to a new study to be released today the risks associated with the Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipeline are significantly higher than presented by the company in its project reporting. The study, conducted by Simon Fraser University's School of Resource and Environmental Management, found that in three categories – tanker transport, marine terminal facilities, and pipelines – oil spill predictions based on an international oil spill model (the US Oil Spill Risk Analysis, OSRA) are vastly greater than those based on Enbridge estimates.

In the category of tanker transport, the analysis predicted British Columbians can expect to see one oil spill every 10 years. Enbridge estimated such spills would only occur once every 250 years.

According to Enbridge, pipeline spills are only expected to occur 25 times over a 50-year span. The new analysis predicts 776 pipeline spills over the same period – 31 times more frequently.

According to the Globe and Mail's Mike Hume, Enbridge "has long maintained that all aspects of the project will be done to the highest safety standards in the world. Last year Enbridge promised to spend an additional $500-million on extra measures to increase the wall thickness of the pipeline, to install dual leak detection systems and to increase the number of remotely operated isolation valves."

But according to Dr. Tom Gunton, director of the School of Resource and Environmental Management at SFU, Enbridge's risk forecast "has been done in a very deficient way." He told the Globe and Mail the federally appointed Joint Review Panel (JRP) is poorly equipped to understand the risks associated with the Northern Gateway project.

"The problem is the panel does not have [complete] evidence before them on the likelihood of an oil spill. And the evidence they do have from Enbridge has serious deficiencies in methodology. So it's impossible for the JRP to make an informed, evidence-based decision," he said.

The Polaris Institute found that Enbridge was responsible for more than 800 spills between 1999 and 2010, with a total of more than 6.8 million gallons of oil released.

From the Polaris Institute report Out on the Tar Sands Mainline, page 53.

That's not including Enbridge's disastrous 2010 pipeline rupture in Michigan that released more than 1 million gallons of tar sands diluted bitumen into a tributary of the Kalamazoo River, creating the most expensive onshore oil cleanup in the petroleum industry's history. The price tag for that ongoing cleanup is currently estimated at a whopping $1 billion.

Last fall during a public hearing in Prince George, BC, Enbridge was unable to provide evidence for what the company claims will be its 'world-class' spill prevention and response program for the Northern Gateway. When pressed for details, company officials admitted they will have no land-based spill-prevention plan until six months before the proposed pipeline would being operation.

The pipeline, set to cross more than 770 watercourses, will travel over 1,172 kilometres of land before reaching tidal waters in Kitimat, BC.

At the time of the public hearing, BC Environment Minister Terry Lake said Enbridge's testimony was "long on promises, but short on solid evidence and action to date."

"The company needs to show British Columbians that they have practical solutions to the environmental risks and concerns that have been raised. So far, they have not done that."

Today's study from SFU shows that those risks have yet to be fully explored and clearly require independent, third-party analysis.

Yet, because of the restrictions placed on the JRP's review of the Northern Gateway project, this new research – which casts doubt on Enbridge's ability to provide sound estimates related to the proposed project – will not be considered as evidence in the hearings.

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.