Last year the Canadian government enjoyed a positive reception at the UN climate talks in Paris. After 10 years of climate inaction under a Conservative government, the international community anticipated the new Liberal government would mean good things for the nation’s climate governance.

But Canada’s contribution to the world’s first climate treaty remains “inadequate” according to a new report released by the Carbon Action Tracker in light of the climate talks.

The Paris Agreement, designed to limit global warming to as close to 1.5 degrees Celsius as possible, was signed in France last year and ratified, with incredible speed, less than one year later on November 4. Although a proud signatory of the agreement, Canada will not meet its climate targets, according to the new analysis.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau adopted the same climate targets as the previous Stephen Harper government, pledging to reduce Canada’s emissions 30 per cent below 2005 levels by 2030.

“Under its current policies, Canada will miss both its 2020 pledge and its 2030 [Nationally Determined Contribution] targets by a wide margin,” Climate Action Tracker states.

The group estimates that based on current climate policies Canada’s emissions will increase by three to 18 per cent by 2030.

Last month Trudeau announced a national carbon tax that will price carbon at $10/tonne in 2018 and increase to $50/tonne by 2022.

But according to the analysis of four prominent environmental groups, Canada’s fossil fuel subsidies eliminate the supposed benefits of that carbon tax.

Canada Must Phase Out $3.3 Billion In Fossil Fuel Subsidies

“It makes no sense to put a price on carbon while continuing to give handouts to oil and gas companies,” Alex Doukas, senior campaigner and author with Oil Change International, told DeSmog Canada. 

“That's like pouring water on the fire with one hand while spraying gasoline on it with the other.” 

Doukas added Trudeau promised to eliminate fossil fuel subsidies when campaigning last year.

“Now his government has to deliver.”

Canada first committed to phasing out fossil fuel subsidies in 2009 along with other G20 nations. That commitment was later affirmed at a 2015 G7 meeting and named as a priority for Finance Minister Bill Morneau in a mandate letter from Trudeau.

“Unless Canada phases out massive subsidies to oil and gas companies, Trudeau’s carbon price will do little to encourage polluters to cut carbon emissions,” Dale Marshall, national program manager with Environmental Defence, said in Marrakech.

“The three billion dollars in annual subsidies could be put to much better use by investing in climate action, health care and other initiatives.”

In Marrakech, Minister of Environment and Climate Change Catherine McKenna participated in the Carbon Pricing Leadership Coalition, an international group pushing for more integrated market-based climate solutions.

“In light of Minister McKenna’s participation…we take the opportunity to remind Canada that leadership requires coherent fiscal policies,” Annie Bérubé, Director of Government Relations at Équiterre, said.

“Finance Minister Bill Morneau must announce a predictable phase-out of all remaining preferential tax treatment to the oil and gas sector starting in Budget 2017.”

Canada’s #ClimateAction Called ‘Inadequate’ at UN Climate Talks in #Marrakech https://t.co/KpTN378mXJ #cdnpoli @cathmckenna @JustinTrudeau

— DeSmog Canada (@DeSmogCanada) November 15, 2016

More Opportunity for Canadian Leadership at UN Climate Talks

She added there is some work to be done, however, to bridge the gap between Canada’s international climate commitments and decision-making domestically.

“This is a core question that Canada has to reconcile,” she said.

“Can we build a national climate plan that allows us to achieve the 2030 target with deeper reductions over time?”

Canada has come under harsh criticism recently for approving the Pacific Northwest LNG export terminal on the coast of B.C.  The LNG facility is estimated to be the largest single point source of emissions in Canada, adding the equivalent of 1.9 million cars to the roads.

Analysts have pointed out the approval of the LNG project is a serious obstacle to Canada meeting its climate commitments.

Flanagan said she sees an opportunity for Canada to really “do the math” on its climate targets.

“That’s really what this COP is about,” she said. “It’s about taking the rhetoric and turning it into plans that will drive the change we need to see.”

Image: COP22 signage in Marrakech, Morocco. Photo: Carol Linnitt/DeSmog Canada

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.

Stephen Harper’s participation in the G7 leader’s declaration to decarbonize the global economy by 2100 was a massive headline generator in Canada, and not surprisingly so.

For a Prime Minister who has openly mocked the idea of carbon pricing, mercilessly driven an expensive (both financially and politically) energy superpower agenda and earned a reputation for pulling out of or stalling climate negotiations, the very idea of an ‘end’ to fossil fuels would seem … counterintuitive.

Although the shock of seeing Harper even touch something called ‘decarbonization’ is still reverberating, experts were quick to point out a long-term goal that shoves off concrete climate policy is likely just what Canada was hoping for.

Long-term Goals Are Easy

Michael Levi, senior energy and environment fellow writing for the Council on Foreign Relations, said the G7 agreement merely rearticulates what diplomats and policymakers have basically agreed to for several years now: dramatic emission cuts are required by mid century if we are to avoid surpassing the two-degree target.

“If the-two degree target didn’t motivate deep enough emissions cuts to actually meet it, recasting it in terms of global emissions won’t change that,” Levi wrote. “And the idea that an 85-year goal will have much impact on present policy or investment is a bit ridiculous. (Had you told a physicist in 1905 that a fifth of U.S. electricity would be generated by nuclear fission within 85 years, they would have said, ‘What’s a nucleus or fission?’)”

Levi said the bottom line is this: “Fiddling with distant targets is a great way to generate headlines, but doesn’t do much to affect policy and emissions themselves; at best it’s marginally irrelevant, at worst it lets people feel good without doing anything.”

Mark Jaccard, energy and climate economist from Simon Fraser University, agreed, saying the goal to end fossil fuels by 2100 makes it easy for politicians like Harper to detract from the short-term.

“Harper has gotten good at shifting timeframes, helped by a forgetful opposition, media and public,” Jaccard told DeSmog Canada. “His 2006 promise for reduced emissions in 2020 slides into a 2015 promise for reduced emissions in 2030. His 2007 promise for reduced emissions in 2050 slides into a 2015 promise for reduced emissions in 2100.

“It would be funny — like Lucy lying to Charlie Brown that she would hold the football — if it weren’t so tragic." 

Keith Stewart, climate and energy campaigner with Greenpeace Canada, said the G7 agreement does have the upside of legitimizing discussions around decarbonizing.

"The important thing here is that for the first time we have world leaders acknowledging that we have to ditch fossil fuels; not just reduce emissions at the margins, but go cold turkey on our fossil fuel addiction,” he said.

“Of course we'd be crazy to wait 85 years to do it. But it's now a question of when, not if, we go to a 100 per cent renewable energy system."

David Keith, professor of applied physics and public policy at Harvard University, who lives in Calgary, said the agreement does nothing more than score cheap political points.

“It’s not groundbreaking,” he told the CBC. “It is politically cheap to pledge a non-binding commitment that falls way behind someone’s time in office.”

“What we really need is specifics in the next few years or decades.”

Keith was one of more than 100 natural and social scientists who recently called for a moratorium on new projects in the Alberta oilsands, Canada’s fastest growing source of greenhouse gas emissions.

Canada’s Climate Target Weakest in G7

Environmental Defence recently gave Stephen Harper’s conservative party a ‘C’ on a climate scorecard, saying Canada currently has the weakest post-2020 climate target of all G7 nations (although Japan has yet to submit its plan).

Canada’s target to reduce emissions by 30 per cent from 2005 levels by 2030 was recently assessed as “inadequate” by the Climate Action Tracker, a coalition of four research institutions including Climate Analytics, Ecofys, NewClimate Institute and the Potsdam Institue. The groups determined Canada’s reductions targets will not be sufficient for Canada to do its fair share for the world to avoid dangerous climate change. 

In its report, Environmental Defence said Canada has shifted its climate targets over time as a way of appearing to do more than it actually is:

“The U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change (1992) and the Kyoto Protocol (1997) both used 1990 as the reference or base year. Most countries still use 1990 as the base year but some have started using more recent base years. Since the Copenhagen summit in 2009, Canada has been using 2005 as a base year. This makes comparison between targets more difficult. It also makes targets look stronger than they are since Canada’s carbon pollution increased significantly between 1990 and 2005. For example, the Canadian government’s pledge to reduce emissions by 30 per cent below 2005 by 2030 is actually less than half as strong (-14.4 per cent) when expressed using 1990 as the base year.”

Environmental Defence adds Canada has consistently refused to address the Alberta oilsands when discussing climate targets, a subject of some controversy during last year’s UN climate talks in Lima, Peru.

Canada has pledged to regulate emissions from four sectors: natural gas-fired electricity, the chemical industry, methane emissions from the oil and gas sector and sources of hydrofluorocarbons.

For years the federal government has failed to deliver on its promise to regulate carbon from the oil and gas industry. Last year Harper said it would be “crazy economic policy” to regulate the oil and gas sector and indicated (incorrectly) that no other country was doing so.

Last year, Canada's environment commissioner Julie Gelfand said the country has "no overall vision" when it comes to oil and gas regulations and as a result will not even meet its 2020 international greenhouse gas reductions targets agreed to in Copenhagen.

Ed Whittingham from the Pembina Institute said he thinks industry will begin to pick up the slack, now that definitive dates for decarbonization are being discussed.

"We are all clear, we are still going to need fossil fuels for some time to come. Now we have, at the global level, the latest day for when we need to be off fossil fuels," he told the CBC. "CEOs in Calgary are smart; they will do the planning that needs to be done." 

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.

On Friday afternoon, federal Environment Minister Leona Aglukkaq sent a letter to Canadian premiers detailing how each of their provinces are falling short on targets to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 2020.

In her message Aglukkaq notes that the provinces of Alberta and British Columbia are the furthest from reaching their targets. Ontario, Saskatchewan and Quebec are next on the list.

Unfortunately, neither B.C Premier Christy Clark nor Alberta Premier Jim Prentice will be attending tomorrow’s Premiers' Summit on Climate Change in Quebec City.

Bloomberg News reported on Friday afternoon that Clark would be skipping the meeting to attend a World Bank meeting. On Monday morning the Office of the Premier of Alberta confirmed to DeSmog Canada via phone that Prentice would not be attending the summit either.

As part of its 2020 targets, British Columbia pledged to reduce its annual greenhouse gas emissions from 62 gigatonnes per year to 42 gigatonnes per year. Environment Canada predicts British Columbia’s emissions will actually rise to 69 gigatonnes per year by 2020. More distressingly, these figures do not account for the new emissions that would be created by new liquefied natural gas development or the two oilsands pipeline and tanker projects under consideration.

Alberta projects its emissions will increase from 232 gigatonnes per year to 260 gigatonnes per year by 2020. Environment Canada expects emissions will rise to 287 gigatonnes per year instead.

In total, the gap between B.C. and Alberta’s targets and their projected emissions is 54 gigatonnes per year, or approximately 0.1 per cent of the world’s total GHG emissions in 2010.

Finding ways to reduce these emissions through collaborative action is the focus of tomorrow’s climate summit in Quebec City. Organized by Quebec Premier Phillipe Couillard, the one-day summit is also an opportunity to finalize the Canadian Energy Strategy.

Earlier today, Ontario and Quebec signed a groundbreaking cap-and-trade deal to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The plan — which shares many elements of the one implemented by Quebec in January of this year — requires companies to reduce their emissions or purchase credits from other companies as an offset and is co-managed with the U.S. state of California.

Nova Scotia's Premier Stephen McNeil also confirmed they will not attend the Premiers' Climate Summit.

To find out more about where each province stands on climate action, read our DeSmog Primer.

Image Credit: Province of British Columbia 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.

Canada's carbon emissions in 2020 will be 20% higher than Harper government's promised reductions under the 2009 Copenhagen Accord. More importantly, Canada's emissions will be 66% to 107% higher than what's actually required to do its share in meeting the 2C global warming target a new Environment Canada report revealed.

That is "significant progress" the report says without irony.

"We're getting results," claimed Environment Minister Leona Agglukaq when asked about the clear failure to meet the Copenhagen target in the House of Commons Thursday. This is a target Canada was more than half way to meeting the former Environment Minister Peter Kent claimed more than a year ago.

"The only real action on climate is increased PR by the Harper government," said John Bennett of the Sierra Club of Canada.

"While the rest of the world is trying to solve the climate crisis, this government is only interested in protecting the interests of the fossil fuel industry," Bennett told DeSmog Canada.

Survey after survey shows that Canadians overwhelmingly want action on climate but are misled by the government's propaganda that something is being done he said.

Emission scenarios from Environment Canada's October 2013 report.

The official Environment Canada emissions report shows the country's 1990 emissions were about 590 million tons. (Caveat: Canada has likely been under reporting its emissions according to an international investigation.) 1990 is the scientific and United Nations baseline year against which emission reductions are measured. Under the Kyoto Protocol, Canada agreed to reduce its emissions by 6% to 554 million tons (Mt) by 2012.

Actual emissions in 2011 were 24% higher than 1990.

In 2011 Canada became the first country in the world to renege on an international climate treaty.

Growth of the tar sands and natural gas sectors, almost all for export, will push Canada's emissions to 734 Mt in 2020. That number should be a lot higher if not for major reductions by cities and provinces, including Ontario closing all of its coal-fired power plants by 2014. 

Scientists estimate that developed countries need to reduce their net carbon emissions by 25 to 40% by 2020 to have a good chance of keeping global warming to no more than 2C. No one considers 2C a safe level of warming.

For Canada to do its fair share, emissions in 2020 should be between 354 and 472 Mt. Instead, Canadian emissions will be 66-107% higher based on the Environment Canada's 2020 estimate.

"Climate Change is a global problem that requires a global solution. Canada, like the European Union, takes its commitments seriously and is doing its part," said Peter Kent, Environment Minister in a March 20, 2013 speech.

In 2012 the European Union reduced its emissions 18% from 1990 and will exceed 20% by 2020.

"Politicians are simply not telling the truth. You can't keep expanding the tar sands and meet the reduction target," Mark Jaccard an energy economist at Simon Fraser University previously told DeSmog.

Canada's obvious duplicity on the climate file is widely known at international levels. Will Canadians continue to allow government ministers to say '1+1 = 5?' 

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 the first post in a three-part series. For Part 2, How Redford Can Walk the Walk, click here. For Part 3, click here.

Within weeks of becoming Alberta’s first female premier in October 2011, Alison Redford realized that the tired old propaganda about jobs and Canada’s reputation as a safe and friendly supplier of oil wasn’t helping in the battle over the future of tar sands oil in America.

“We heard very quickly that they don’t want to hear anymore the security argument or the jobs argument. We get that,” Redford told the Globe and Mail. “Really, this is about environmental stewardship and sustainable development of the oil sands. We were quite happy to talk about that, [but] that was a shift in the kinds of conversations that Alberta was having.”

What Redford doesn’t seem to have understood is that it’s not about talking the talk, it’s about walking the walk. In a recent column in America’s biggest newspaper, USA Today, Redford tried to convince Americans that the proposed Keystone XL pipeline is part of Alberta’s “responsible oil sands development.”

Riffing off President Obama’s comments in his recent State of the Union address to get serious about dealing with the climate change crisis, Redford raved about Alberta's “commitment to strong environmental policy and clean technology development,” even boasting that Alberta is “leading the way” in the global effort to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.

[view:in_this_series=block_1]

Such nonsense is a familiar, if nauseating, refrain here in Canada. As the battle over the future of the Keystone XL pipeline heats up, Canadian politicians have resorted to the twisted Orwellian abuse of language to portray Alberta (and Canada) as responsible environmental stewards. Despite a mythical international reputation as such, nothing could be further from the truth, as Alberta’s climate change policy aptly illustrates.

Alberta released its Climate Change Strategy in 2008, which committed to reducing GHG emissions to 50 megatonnes below so-called business-as-usual (BAU) levels by 2020, and a total of 200 megatonnes below (BAU) levels by 2050. (This is equivalent to 14 per cent below 2005 levels, a far cry from Canada’s reduced commitment to reducing GHGs 17 per cent below 2005 levels by 2020.) The plan relies largely on capturing and sequestering carbon while allowing industrial development in the tar sands and elsewhere to continue along its steep trajectory into the stratosphere.

According to the Alberta government's website, this climate change strategy reflects the government's “strong commitment to maintaining a healthy economy, securing Albertans’ quality of life and protecting our environment.” In essence, it is Alberta’s blueprint for meeting the “challenge for policy and decision makers on both sides of the border” of “striking the right balance and moving our countries forward, together.”

So far so good, except that the Alberta government has failed miserably in achieving the “balance” set out in its climate change strategy, something Redford’s army of spin doctors must have known when they left it out of her USA Today column. Just two days after Redford put her reputation on the line in America’s biggest newspaper, the Alberta government was forced to admit that it won’t come close to meeting its targets for reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. “As of today we are not on the right trajectory to meet that commitment,” Alberta Environment deputy minister Dana Woodworth told the Public Accounts Committee. “We are actively looking at this exact issue as we speak.”

Woodworth’s admission is something of an understatement. According to the Pembina Institute, Alberta has contributed 52 per cent of Canada’s GHG emissions since 1990, despite being responsible for only 18 per cent of GDP growth and 19 per cent of the growth in population. This is in large part because, as Woodworth admitted, the province has reduced emissions by just 32 megatonnes over the past six years, an average of only five megatonnes a year. Alberta Environment has already admitted that by 2020, annual reductions will be about 14 megatonnes a year, a far cry from the 50 megatonne-a-year reduction stipulated in Alberta’s climate change strategy.

Image Credit: PremierofAlberta on 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.

The British Columbia government has plans to double or even triple the amount of natural gas produced in the province in order to meet growing international demand. Although the proposed Enbridge Northern Gateway pipeline is a key issue of concern to British Columbians, widespread fracking for unconventional gas presents another significant challenge that should be on the public's radar, according to the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives (CCPA).

As the CCPA reports, BC's gas production targets all but ensure the province will fail to meet its own 2007 emission reductions targets as laid out in the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Targets Act. Exported gas from BC is expected to contribute the emissions equivalent of putting 24 million new cars on the road, and all for a 0.1 percent projected increase in provincial jobs.

You can watch this animated video here for an overview:

In a 2011 report the CCPA highlighted these outcomes of BC's fracking ambitions:

– A potential doubling of industry greenhouse gas emissions by 2020, as fracking activities escalate. If BC is to meet its legislated targets for greenhouse gas reduction, every other sector of the provincial economy will have to cut their emissions in half.

– The BC government giving shale gas companies access to public water supplies for 20 years, with little or no public consultation despite the massive amounts of water used (up to 600 Olympic swimming pools per gas well pad).

– Potential increases in shale gas piped to Alberta, where it already helps to fuel operations at the tar sands. 

In response, CCPA advances these recommendations:

– A cap on annual shale gas production.

– An end to all government subsidies of the natural gas industry.

– A requirement that the province explain how BC will meet its legislatively mandated greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets while simultaneously supporting the shale gas industry.

– Increased water prices for industry, to encourage innovation and conservation (currently companies pay nothing for the water they use, or nominal charges of just $2.75 for each Olympic swimming pool of water).

– A requirement that the industry pay full cost for the electricity it uses.

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.