On Dec. 9, after much deliberation and political theatre, the federal government, eight provinces and three territories signed the Pan-Canadian Framework on Clean Growth and Climate Change.

Saskatchewan and Manitoba were notably absent from the list of signatories.

But also absent was an explanation of just how and how much Canada will rely on emissions trading  — technically known as internationally transferred mitigation outcomes — to meet its 2030 target of cutting greenhouse gas emissions down to 524 megatonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent per year, a reduction of 30 per cent compared to 2005 emission levels.

In its framework Canada vaguely pledged to “continue to explore which types of tools related to the acquisition of internationally transferred mitigation outcomes may be beneficial to Canada.”

Yet Canada may be eyeing the offset tool as a fundamental part of achieving emissions reductions, especially if global resource prices rebound and the oilsands expand to production levels allowable under newly approved pipelines.

Simon Donner, climate scientist and assistant professor of geography at the University of British Columbia, says Canada was “definitely a leading part of the push to have a carbon trading market” included in the UN Paris Agreement, which aims to limit temperature increases to as close to 1.5 degrees Celsius as possible.

Dale Marshall, national program manager with Environmental Defence says emissions trading is “clearly something that’s being held up as not only an option but as a priority” for the Canadian government.

The new federal climate framework contains a gap, Marshall says, between expected emissions and climate targets.

“That gap can be filled by being more ambitious with regulations, it can be filled by ensuring the carbon price continues to rise…or it can be filled with the purchase of international credits.”

“The last option is certainly in the framework.”

However, emissions trading has developed a shoddy reputation over the years — which may account for the government’s decision to downplay the possibility of deploying it.

So, what exactly are emissions offsets or emissions trading schemes? How do they help reduce emissions? And what are the potential downsides?

How Does Emissions Trading Work?

If you’ve travelled on an airplane in recent years, you may have been invited to pay for offsets to mitigate the emissions associated with your flight. The money can be used to protect trees from deforestation, fund renewable power projects or cogeneration technology, or eliminate pollutants such as nitrous oxide and hydrofluorocarbon.

Governments have also participated in voluntary, one-time offsets, such as when the federal Conservatives spent $226,450 to make the 2010 Winter Olympics “carbon neutral.”

The purchase of offsets, whether personal, corporate or by government, basically amounts to a voluntary accountability mechanism.

An emissions trading scheme (ETS) is a different kind of beast, and one that arguably makes a bit more sense given there are now national climate commitments under the Paris Agreement that countries are expected to meet (as opposed to individuals who could ostensibly choose not to travel, for example).

Under a trading scheme, a jurisdiction can have an abatement opportunity “certified” by a governing body.

Investments in a wind farm or preservation of a peat forest designated for burning would be deemed equivalent to a certain number of tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent. These tonnes are then represented in the form of certificates.

Other jurisdictions can buy those certificates and the seller can use the profits to fund further emissions abatements.

The seller can’t count the sold emissions reduction towards its national commitments — but the buyer can.

So How Does this Help Climate Change Again?

Ultimately, it’s about rooting out the cheapest ways to prevent a tonne greenhouse gas destined for the atmosphere from getting there.

If a country or a province can purchase cheaper offsets elsewhere, an international emissions trading scheme opens up the market to those purchases.

For instance, Ontario and Quebec are in the process of establishing cap-and-trade schemes that will link their emissions reduction efforts to inexpensive carbon offsets in California via the Western Climate Initiative.

Blake Shaffer, doctoral student at the University of Calgary with an expertise in energy economics, says it makes sense for provinces to seek out the least expensive carbon abatement opportunities.

He points to a recent study that found Ontario would require a $157/tonne carbon tax if it tried to achieve its emissions reduction target domestically, yet could achieve those same reductions by purchasing much cheaper offsets in California.

Shaffer says that means Ontario will get an equal amount of emissions reductions for a cheaper price. That same principle applies internationally.

“International offsets are an intriguing solution because in the end, a tonne is a tonne is a tonne,” he says.

“If a country like Indonesia has reduction opportunities for less than a dollar per tonne, it’s a fair question as to why we’re paying $50/tonne in Canada.”

The cost savings are potentially very large, he says, noting that if Canada is short 100 Mt in 2030, the difference between abating between $50/tonne or $10/tonne on international markets is $4 billion a year in savings (and there’s a likelihood Canada’s carbon price could be higher by then).

Shaffer also notes there are more emissions coming from Indonesia’s peat fires in one year than all of Canada so “there’s really big-sized potential” for reductions.

Have Emissions Offsets Been Used Before?

Emission offsets have been used before — with seriously mixed results.

Donner says that although emissions offsets had been discussed since the early 1990s, it was under the Kyoto Protocol — with its binding emissions limits that entered into force in 2005 — that the idea really gained steam.

“It’s not a new idea, “ Donner says. “And there are mechanisms in place, like Kyoto. Under previous governments, under the Chretien government and then the Harper government, when we were part of the Kyoto Protocol it was assumed for a long time that the only way we could meet our targets was to purchase offsets on a trading market.”

It’s those binding limits that really give rise to market approaches. If a nation or province isn’t close to meeting its own targets, the option exists to buy your way to the finish line.

The Kyoto Protocol spawned the European Union Emissions Trading System, the largest of its kind in the world. The system had certain “flexibility mechanisms” built into it to help countries purchase different kinds of offsets to meet their targets.

But the system was plagued with problems, like the so-called Clean Development Mechanism which has been accused of inefficiency, the undermining of Indigenous rights and fraud.

Donner says a major controversy under the mechanism involved companies purposely creating hydrofluorocarbon and other human-made gases only to destroy them for money.

In a similar vein, the whole trading system was marred by major issues such as a massive oversupply of allowances on the market and huge price spikes.

In 2015, it was found that the Joint Implementation scheme created in Russia and Ukraine following Kyoto led to “significant criminal activity” and the release of 600 million tonnes of emissions that should have been abated.

Many smaller offset initiatives have hit similar pitfalls.

In February 2013, it was found that many public institutions in B.C. had been paying $25/tonne for certificates only worth between $9/tonne to $19/tonne; later that same month, conflict flared up “over the appropriateness of counting credits in [Great Bear Rainforest] where it was understood that large swaths of land would be protected anyway.”

Indigenous groups have also voiced opposition to emissions offsets, due to the historic displacement of communities for privatization and commodification of nature into property.

The #Carbon Offset Question: Will Canada Buy its Way to the #Climate Finish Line? https://t.co/L2p32ArBS9 #cdnpoli #emissions

— DeSmog Canada (@DeSmogCanada) December 13, 2016

So Why Are We Still Considering Emission Offsets?

The UN Paris climate conference changed everything.

Specifically, Article 6 of the Paris Agreement changed everything, allowing for the use of emission offsets to achieve national targets.

Former CEO of the International Emissions Trading Association, Andrei Marcu, called its unlikely inclusion a “major success and minor miracle.”

The recent UN climate summit in Marrakech expanded on that opportunity, effectively making decisions about the process for making the decisions about implementing it (that’s international geopolitical bureaucracy for you).

Marshall, who attended the climate talks in Marrakech as part of the Canadian delegation said the emissions trading scheme under Article 6 is undetermined as of yet.

“What we don’t have all the information on is how Article 6 will be articulated [in the Paris Agreement]. We still have two more years of negotiations to determine what the market mechanisms are and what the non-market mechanisms are as part of Article 6,” he says.

“Those will also determine to what extent Canada can rely on [emissions trading] as an option.”

Despite uncertainties, Canada was eager to have the option included in the agreement. Canada’s climate and environment minister Catherine McKenna chaired the negotiations on Article 6 in Paris and Canada’s senior negotiators described the element as “very dear” to them, Marshall says.

Emissions trading is expected to play an important and positive role in the way the Paris Agreement influences international climate policy.

So why such optimism?

For one, unlike with Kyoto, China is a full participant in the Paris Agreement. Shaffer suggests the momentum from its inclusion is resulting in an acknowledgment that global integrated action is cheaper than individual unilateral action.

Having China on board increases the potential of eventually equalizing abatement opportunities across the globe.

Amin Asadollahi, lead on climate change mitigation for North America at the International Institute for Sustainable Development, says the Paris Agreement specifically called for a detailed measurement, reporting and verification process.

While such a process has yet to be developed at the international level, some more localized systems, like the one serving the Western Climate Initiative, could serve as models.

Donner is also confident that we won’t see a repeat of previous problems with emission offsets.

Canada, he adds, pushed for guaranteed accounting to ensure incremental reductions that wouldn’t otherwise be performed and avoids double counting (in which both parties, buyers and sellers, take credit for emissions reductions).

“The good news is that by making mistakes in the past, the world can maybe figure out a better system this time,” he says.

Downsides of Emissions Trading

Of course, there are potential downsides associated with an international emissions trading scheme.

George Hoberg, environmental policy professor at the University of British Columbia, worries an over-reliance on offset measures could draw down ambitious climate leadership.

“Sharing technology and climate financing are also important indications of leadership, but only if they are a supplement to, not a substitute for, meeting domestic emission reduction obligations internally,” Hoberg says.

Asadollahi agrees: “Longer term, if you just rely on that and your emissions continue to go up, you’re not preparing your economy for this changing world.”

Marshall adds it is still important to focus on the hardline domestic policies and sectors that influence Canada’s emissions.

“I think the priority for those who want to see as much domestic action as possible is to continue to push for more ambitious emission reductions at home and for Article 6 to be relied on only to get Canada beyond its 2030 target, which we know is a weak target,” he says.

Critics also worry emissions trading could potentially be used to cover poor policymaking at the expense of public coffers.

Shaffer notes that offsets result in capital outflow — money leaving jurisdictions for specific reduction targets — unlike a carbon tax which results in a higher per-tonne price retained in the jurisdiction for possible investments in renewables, energy efficiency measures, rebates or tax cuts (that very debate surfaced at the Pan-Canadian Framework negotiations).

He says that requires governments to compare the trade-offs between a lower price per tonne and keeping all the money in the province.

Possibly the greatest danger of all — and this is something near impossible to assess as the federal government still hasn’t released the specific math of its 2030 plan — is the chance of overbetting on the availability of cheap offsets.

If many other countries manage to greatly reduce their emissions in the next decade-and-a-half due to strong climate policies and the falling price of renewables, the number of offsets on the global market may be fewer than expected.

That low supply of sellable certificates could drive up the price, the inverse of what happened under the European Union Emissions Trading System.

None of this takes into account the fact that the world’s combined national climate commitments don’t result in enough emissions reductions to stay within 1.5 degrees Celsius of warming.

“There are real accounting challenges in doing this,” Donner acknowledges.

With files from Carol Linnitt.

Image: Emissions rise from a processing plant in the Alberta oilsands. Photo: Kris Krug/DeSmog

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.

Connecting extreme weather events with climate change isn’t exactly a new thing.

After Hurricane Sandy devastated parts of New York and New Jersey in 2012, Bloomberg published a front page spread proclaiming, “It’s Global Warming, Stupid.”

For years, major storms, droughts, floods and fires have been connected to climate change. The climate angle was even fair game during last summer’s wildfires in western Canada.

So how did the climate conversation around the still-raging Fort McMurray wildfire that destroyed thousands of homes become so befuddling-ly messed up?

Conversations about climate change as a factor in the wildfires has garnered about as much attention as the wildfires themselves. For a recap of the “middle-finger salutes,” schadenfreude and #tinyviolins mock-sympathy for the people of Fort McMurray, check out this article on Slate.

(Add in, May 12: It's worthwhile to point out that while there were a lot of unfortunate aspects of the public conversation about the fire, many environmental NGOs rallied their organizational capacity to raise money and basic support for evacuees. The executive directors of Canada's most prominent environmental groups including the David Suzuki Foundation, Ecojustice, Ecology Ottawa, Environmental Defence, Equiterre, Greenpeace, LeadNow, Sierra Club, Stand and West Coast Environmental Law urged support for evacuees in a joint press release published Friday, May 6.)

Cara Pike, climate communications expert with Climate Access, says the urge to link what’s happening in Fort McMurray to climate change should be tempered by a keen sensitivity to the very real human suffering on the ground.

“We need to lead with our humanity,” Pike told DeSmog Canada. “This is a good time to listen very, very hard to what people are dealing with, what they care about, what they want for their futures and try to find those common places.”

The rush to draw the connection between the Fort Mac fires and climate change could come across as blaming, Pike said, adding “I really personally question the timing and how best to have that conversation.”

How the #FortMcMurray #Climate Conversation Went Down in Flames https://t.co/mW2XSHVfYG #fortmacfire #ableg #cdnpoli

— DeSmog Canada (@DeSmogCanada) May 10, 2016

Canada is still behind the U.S. when it comes to understanding that climate impacts are happening here and now, Pike says. In the U.S., major hurricanes such as Katrina, Irene and Sandy, massive wildfires and long-term drought brought the climate change message to the forefront.

Pike was vice president of communications at Earth Justice during Hurricane Katrina and notes many local environmental groups were criticized for using the disaster to advance their campaigns.

“What happened there with Katrina is a parallel of what we’re seeing now with Fort McMurray,” she said.

In the case of Fort McMurray, the conversation is made “more visceral” by the tragedy occurring in an oil-producing region, Pike said.

“It creates so much more discomfort when trying to have that conversation because it inherently brings us to a place where people feel judged and blamed,” she said.

“The truth is that everyone is tied to oil and unfortunately in environmental communications there is often this dominant tone of self-righteousness. And in these crisis moments, when people put on their professional hats and go talk about these issues, it’s like they lose their humanity.”

Part of the problem lies in the polarization that infiltrates nearly every energy and environment debate in Canada — and which has emotions roiling at the surface, unleashed at the slightest provocation.

“There’s no formula for when it’s appropriate to talk about climate change,” Simon Donner, associate professor of Climatology at the University of British Columbia, told DeSmog Canada. “I think it just really depends on the circumstances of any extreme event.”

“It’s not a good idea to use people’s suffering to push an agenda, even if that agenda is scientifically defensible,” Donner said.

Underlining the current debate is the fact the fires are happening in the heart of Canada’s oilsands.

“Everyone knows what the industry is in Fort McMurray. Everyone knows that’s a source of opposition to climate policy in Canada and underneath a lot of people’s good intentions is a sense of ‘I told you so.’ What I’m saying is, let’s be nice to folks, you don’t have to be self-righteous about it.”

As a climate communicator, Donner said it’s always crucial to consider your audience.

Like what you're reading? Sign up for our email newsletter!

“If your goal for talking about climate change after an extreme event is to engage people in that community, but the community that was affected by the event is suspicious about the science of climate change, pivoting in the media to climate change while their homes are burning is just going to alienate people,” Donner said.

“It doesn’t seem like a smart way to engage the part of Canada that is resistant to action to combat climate change,” Donner added. “We need to ask: what’s effective?”

Renee Lertzman, an expert in the psychology of environmental education, said it really isn’t a question of whether we make the connection between the fires and climate change but how.

“This conversation needs to happen, but it doesn’t need to be polarizing,” Lertzman told DeSmog Canada. “The question is how can we communicate and engage with people in the most constructive and productive and effective ways?”

“We’re designed to resist challenging, threatening news and information that can potentially challenge our worldview.” Lertzman noted.

She said it can be frustrating to see climate communications that seem to “miss entirely how humans process information, particularly distressing and stressful information.”

“Climate change is really complicated in what it brings up for us. It really is, in a way, in its own category.”

That doesn’t mean it’s always inappropriate to discuss climate change in the context of disaster or tragedy.

By focusing on how all affected parties can work together to avoid tragedy, you generate feelings of inclusion and sensitivity, Lertzman said — opening the space for compassionate communications.

“It’s not about whether we make those connections, it’s about thinking through how humans deal with the trauma and acknowledging profound horror and devastation.”

Image: Fort McMurray Fire Pictures/Facebook

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

The Alberta Energy Regulator (AER) is restricting water withdrawals for oil and gas operators in several river basins across the province due to extremely dry summer conditions and low water levels. Restrictions have been put in place for the Upper Athabasca Region but not the Lower Athabasca Region where several major oilsands companies operate.

The regulator is also asking oil and gas companies to voluntarily limit their water consumption for dry areas not currently under withdrawal bans.

The restrictions affect temporary diversion licences which grant oil and gas operators permission to use ground and river water for drilling, dust control and other purposes.

Oilsands majors Syncrude and Suncor, which use water to process bitumen, are exempt from the restrictions because they are situated in the Lower Athabasca Region. But due to special permits under Alberta’s Surface Water Quantity Management Framework, the restrictions wouldn't impact their operations ­— something onlookers are saying makes little sense in a region suffering the impacts of climate change.

Climate Change Limiting Water for Oilsands Operators, New Study Finds

According to a new article in the journal Climactic Change, climate change, induced by activities in the oilsands region, has the ability to limit streamflow in the Athabasca River Basin.

The reduced water flow will affect not only ecosystems, but also future oilsands operations, something the study’s authors, Doris Leong and Simon Donner, say industry and policy makers may need to consider going forward.

“The impact of climate change on streamflow of the Athabasca River Basin, and how that may create or exacerbate trade-offs between ecological and industry water needs, is largely absent from the discourse on future bitumen production.”

Oilsands operations are the biggest water users in the Athabasca River Basin and “surface water use demand is projected to rapidly increase” as that activity expands, Leong and Donner write.

The region is also ecologically sensitive, the authors argue, and provides “important nesting and staging areas and habitat for a diverse wildlife population.”

The Athabasca River is a tributary of the Mackenzie, Canada’s longest river. The Mackenzie River Basin is considered Canada’s “Serengeti” due to its high levels of biodiversity and ecological productivity.

The region is considered a valuable carbon sink but is undergoing significant changes due to climate change. An international panel of experts found thawing permafrost, drying peatlands and wildfires are releasing large volumes of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.

Major Oilsands Developers Syncrude and Suncor Exempt from Restrictions

According to Jesse Cardinal, from the environmental non-profit group Keepers of the Athabasca, low water levels in the region are expect to increase as a result of climate change.

“Science is predicting that it will become more common to have low water levels,” she said. “However only some companies are restricted on water use.”

Cardinal said Suncor, Syncrude and Shell can “continue taking as much water as they want.” AER spokesman Jordan Fitzgerald told the Edmonton Journal the new restrictions don't apply to these companies as their "operations are located in the Lower Athabasca Region and the restrictions put in place by Alberta Environment and Parks do not apply to that area.”

But if restrictions were extended to the Lower Athabasca, these companies would remain exempt from water use limits.

During development of the province’s current water use rules, Suncor and Syncrude insisted on the “seniority of their water licences,” according to Simon Dyer from the Pembina Institute.

The companies argued “their reliance on old infrastructure should allow them to continue to withdraw water from the Lower Athabasca River, no matter how low the flow gets,” Dyer said in a letter to Alberta Environment.

Dyer argued the province should implement absolute water restrictions to protect ecosystems that rely on rivers like the Athabasca during times of extremely low flow.

Dyer said Alberta’s failure to place water withdrawal limits on Suncor and Syncrude means the province holds the companies “to a lower environmental standard…putting at risk the aquatic ecosystem of one of Alberta’s most ecologically and culturally important rivers.”

In May as Alberta was overwhelmed by severe wildfires, Keepers of the Athabasca asked the province’s new NDP government to review the water use rules.

The group argued water rules are based “on our once vibrant past when water was plentiful.”

Cardinal said the low flow of Alberta’s rivers isn’t just about water quantity, it’s also about water quality.

“Everywhere in Alberta, we are experiencing dry conditions, meaning the quality of our drinking water is more fragile, the fish, and ultimately life.”

Giving unrestricted water rights to major companies “compromises community health and treaty rights and gives corporations first rights to water over communities and living beings,” she said.

Image Credit: Pembina Institute

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.

This is a guest post by sustainable energy economist, Mark Jaccard. It was originally published on his blog, Sustainability Suspicions.

On May 7th 2013, I was among twelve Canadian climate scientists and energy experts who sent a letter addressed to Natural Resources Minister the Hon. Joe Oliver.

As professionals who have devoted our careers to understanding the climate and energy systems, we are concerned that the Minister’s advocacy in support of new pipelines and expanded fossil fuel production is inconsistent with the imperative of addressing the climate change threat. We are going to have to wean ourselves off our addiction to fossil fuels. Thus our choices about fossil fuel infrastructure carry significant consequences for today’s and future generations.

Readings of atmospheric CO2 are approaching a new milestone of 400 ppm — a reminder of the rapidly shrinking amount of “space” remaining before we risk committing ourselves to increasingly unmanageable and costly levels of climatic change.

Here is the text of the letter:

The Honourable Joe Oliver, P.C., M.P.

Minister of Natural Resources

Parliament Hill

Sir William Logan Building, 21st Floor

580 Booth Street

Ottawa, ON K1A 0E4

May 7, 2013

Dear Minister Oliver,

As climate scientists, economists and policy experts who have devoted our careers to understanding the climate and energy systems, we share your view that “climate change is a very serious issue.”

But some of your recent comments give us significant cause for concern. In short, we are not convinced that your advocacy in support of new pipelines and expanded fossil fuel production takes climate change into account in a meaningful way.

Avoiding dangerous climate change will require significantly reducing our reliance on fossil fuels and making a transition to cleaner energy.

The infrastructure we build today will shape future choices about energy. If we invest in expanding fossil fuel production, we risk locking ourselves in to a high carbon pathway that increases greenhouse gas emissions for years and decades to come.

The International Energy Agency’s (IEA) “450 scenario” looks at the implications of policy choices designed to give the world a fair chance of avoiding 2˚C of global warming. In that scenario, world oil demand is projected to peak this decade and fall to 10 per cent below current levels over the coming decades. The IEA concludes that, absent significant deployment of carbon capture and storage, over two-thirds of the world’s current fossil fuel reserves cannot be commercialized. Other experts have reached similar conclusions.

We are at a critical moment. In the words of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, “each additional ton of greenhouse gases emitted commits us to further change and greater risks.” The longer we delay the transition to low-carbon economy, the more drastic, disruptive and costly that transition will be. The implication is clear: the responsibility for preventing dangerous climate change rests with today's policymakers.

The IEA also warns of the consequences of our current path. If governments do little to address emissions, energy demand will continue to grow rapidly and will continue to be met mostly with fossil fuels — a scenario that the Agency estimates could likely lead to 3.6˚C of global warming.

Yet it is this very dangerous pathway  — not the “450 scenario” linked to avoiding 2˚C of global warming — that you seem to be advocating when promoting Canadian fossil fuel development at home and abroad.

If we truly wish to have a “serious debate” about climate change and energy in this country, as you have rightly called for, we must start by acknowledging that our choices about fossil fuel infrastructure carry significant consequences for today’s and future generations.

We urge you to make the greenhouse gas impacts of new fossil fuel infrastructure a central consideration in your government’s decision-making and advocacy activities concerning Canada’s natural resources.

We would be very happy to provide you with a full briefing on recent scientific findings on climate change and energy development.

Thank you for your consideration of these important matters.

Sincerely,

J.P. Bruce, OC, FRSC

James Byrne

Professor, Geography

University of Lethbridge

Simon Donner

Assistant Professor, Geography

University of British Columbia

J.R. Drummond, FRSC

Professor, Physics and Atmospheric Science

Dalhousie University

Mark Jaccard, FRSC

Professor, Resource and Environmental Management

Simon Fraser University

David Keith

Professor, Applied Physics, Public Policy

Harvard University

Damon Matthews

Associate Professor, Geography, Planning and Environment

Concordia University

Gordon McBean, CM, FRSC

Professor, Centre for Environment and Sustainability

Western University

David Sauchyn

Professor, Prairie Adaptation Research Collaborative

University of Regina

John Smol, FRSC

Professor, Canada Research Chair in Environmental Change

Queen’s University

John M.R. Stone

Adjunct Research Professor, Geography and Environment

Carleton University

Kirsten Zickfeld

Assistant Professor, Geography

Simon Fraser University

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.