The Narwhal | News on Climate Change, Environmental Issues in Canada

Harper’s Climate Concession: Canada Increasingly Desperate to Secure Keystone XL Approval

Carol Linnitt — Fri, 06 Sep 2013 20:24:35 +0000

Prime Minster Stephen Harper’s hopes for the approval and construction of the Keystone XL pipeline, which will transport Alberta tar sands crude across the US to refineries and export facilities in the Gulf Coast, hit a stumbling block this summer when Obama announced he will take Canada’s growing emissions problem into account when considering the project’s fate.

The tar sands, Canada’s fastest growing source of greenhouse gas emissions, have become the symbol of the country’s climate inaction, a position earning growing public censure across the globe.

Sources recently told the CBC that Harper addressed the issue in a letter he sent to Obama late August, inviting “joint action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the oil and gas sector,” if such efforts will help green-light the Keystone XL.

Sources told the CBC that Harper is willing to adopt Obama’s emissions targets and “work in concert with Obama to provide whatever political cover he needs to approve the project.”

Over the last year, the Keystone XL has become a rallying point for environmental organizations and climate activists internationally, as well as those hoping to scale back expansion of the tar sands.

Canada has gone into overdrive in an attempt to promote the nation’s allegedly strong environmental record, while downplaying the climate impacts of the tar sands and the country’s flagging environmental record.

Recently Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver referred to the tar sands as a “greener alternative” than other energy sources. And Alberta Premier Alison Redford traveled to Washington DC to praise Alberta’s environmental record.

In May Stephen Harper visited the Council on Foreign Relations in New York, saying the Keystone XL and the tar sands are projects the US “can’t afford to turn down.”

“Look,” he said, ”environmental challenges, they are real, they have to be dealt with.”

“Obviously constraining the emissions there in the oil sands is going to be important,” he said, adding these emissions amount to “almost nothing globally.”

Although according to Environment Canada data, emission from the tar sands increased some 267 percent between 1990 and 2011, although per-barrel emissions have gone down a reported 26 percent. The overall increase of Canada’s expanding tar sands extraction, however, has the nation’s total emissions set to increase steadily over the next several decades.

Tar sands oil produces 3 to 4 times more emissions in the production phase than conventional oil.

The letter to Obama is an indication that Harper is willing to more openly discuss Canada’s failure to address its emission problem, but means little in terms of positive changes on the ground.

The Keystone XL, which will help move landlocked tar sands crude to market, will inevitably promote growing oil production and GHG emissions in Canada.

“The International Energy Agency says we have to leave two-thirds of the proven reserves of fossil fuels in the ground if we want to have a hope of preventing catastrophic levels of global warming, and turning down [the Keystone XL] project is a good place to start.” Keith Stewart, climate and energy campaign co-ordinator for Greenpeace.

If Obama is serious about tackling climate change, refusing the Keystone XL is a no-brainer.

* images used with permission of Kris Krug

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 Psyche Behind Canada’s Environmental Apathy

Adam Kingsmith — Tue, 27 Aug 2013 16:14:11 +0000

Recent Environment Canada reports show that the Harper administration does not have the policies in place necessary to meet Canada’s existing environmental commitments, which have already been criticised as being the feeblest in the industrialised world. For instance, Canada was the only country to weaken its climate target under the Copenhagen Accord, and has since become the only country to formally withdrawal from the Kyoto Protocol.

Even more concerning, according to the 2013 Climate Change Performance Index—a look at emissions levels, emissions trends, energy efficiency, efforts at renewable energy, and government climate policies of the world’s 61 highest CO2 emitting nations administered by the Climate Action Network—Canada ranked a dismal 58th, trailed only by Kazakhstan, Iran and Saudi Arabia, it was worst performance of any developed country by a long shot.

“At a time when institutions such as the World Bank and the International Energy Agency are calling for more climate action it is disappointing to have so many countries still being reluctant to move forward,” said Wendel Trio, Director of the European-based Climate Action Network and lead investigator for the 2013 Climate Change Performance Index, “Canada is a strong example of this lack of willingness to improve climate policies.”

“Canada has become the poster child for climate inaction, which represents a really long fall from where we were less than a decade ago,” added Patrick Bonin, Lead Climate-Energy and Arctic Campaigner at Greenpeace Canada. “It has been hard to watch the unraveling of a rational and reasonable approach to science, while at the same time seeing more devastating extreme weather impacts all around us, it just makes you wonder what it is going to take for this government to get it.”

“The world has had enough of Canada’s inaction on climate change," concluded Steven Guilbeault, Co-Founder and Senior Director of the Montreal-based NGO Equiterre, “It is clear that this government’s reckless fixation on the tar sands is going to cost us not only a safe and healthy future and economy for our children, but also our international credibility.”

Take a minute to digest what the above experts are saying. Canada’s environmental actions, or lack thereof, are becoming so egregious that we are being left on the sidelines of global climate progress. What’s more, the only environmental achievement Canada can boast is winning the satirical “Colossal Fossil” award a record 5-times in a row—an "award" given to the country that contributes the most per-capita to global warming over the previous year. Of course the obvious question here is why all the environmental apathy? We know climate change has the potential to be absolutely catastrophic for our species, so why, with all the resources at a country like Canada’s disposal, do developed governments—and by extension the populations who elected them—choose to largely ignore the realities of climate change? The inner circle of environmental apathy. Image Credit: The Prime Minister's Office/Flickr Is it misinformation? Indifference? Ignorance? These play a part for sure, but more and more research is coming to light which posits that the major reason capable, industrialised governments such as Canada’s are unable to realise any serious commitments to combating climate change has to do with something psychologists refer to as hyperbolic discounting. Also known as current moment bias, hyperbolic discounting is a cognitive bias in which people, given two similar rewards, will show a preference for one arriving sooner rather than later. Translation—we have a really hard time imagining ourselves in the future and altering our behaviours and expectations accordingly. As such, most people usually opt for gratification now, while leaving discomfort for later—a serious psychological deficiency when considering the environmental consequences of such a short-term way of thinking. “Now or Never: Environmental Protection Under Hyperbolic Discounting,” a working paper by Dr. Ralph Winkler of the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, builds on the correlation between hyperbolic discounting and administrative environmental apathy by arguing that the main reason developed governments struggle to implement stringent forward-thinking environmental policies is because both presidential and parliamentary democratic systems are by their very nature, set up to reward short-sighted and current-moment policymaking. Think about it. In most countries—Canada included due to the Harper administration’s passing of Bill C-16 in late 2006—elections are set on a maximum 4-year cycle. So while regular elections are obviously important in a democratic society, in order to have the best chance at re-election, the party in power has to trade smarter, more progressive long-term solutions that require some immediate sacrifices, for instantly gratifying short-term gains. Time and again when leaders institute forward-thinking policies requiring voters to give up something relatively minor in the short-term, current moment bias-suffering voters prefer to reward them with a drop in the opinion polls. So instead of a 20-year strategy to reduce Canada’s reliance on fossil fuels—a proposal that might require increased investment via taxation at the outset—we get a commercially flashy yet insignificant economic action plan. The future victims of our shortsightedness. Image Credit: UNDP in Europe and Central Asia/Flickr Instead of a government securing both Canada’s and our planet’s sustainability by investing long-term in renewable resources, alternative energies, and information technologies, we get shortcuts, quick returns, and policies meant to make our country look good 10 months from now, as opposed to 10 years from now. Yet look where all this short-term thinking has gotten us—stalled growth, rising debt, a shrinking middle class, an expanding disparity gap, and the most embarrassing scientific and environmental records of all developed countries. The good news is that the best way to resist falling into the current moment bias trap is to be aware of our cognitive shortcomings. Context is key, this means reminding ourselves—and by extension our politicians—that political and geological time are different. Short-term sacrifices today can yield more returns in the long-run, but only if progressive policies take precedent over the relative triviality of temporary things like re-election campaigns. We’ve got much work to do. The majority of policymakers agree that highly industrialised and over-consumptive developed countries are the ones largely responsible for climate change—Canadians for example, produce more garbage per capita than any other nation on Earth—and as such, developed countries are also responsible for mitigating its impact. It all starts with the average voter realising that a democracy is a reflection of the wills of its people. If an electorate are selfish and shortsighted, the country’s policies will reflect as much. For all our sakes, let’s hope that if we start asking for some more long-term thinking from our government, that policy-reflecting-people trend can work the other way as well. Image Credit: beelaineo/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.

Pretty Little Industrial Liars, Pt. 2

Adam Kingsmith — Thu, 11 Jul 2013 15:00:00 +0000

Big Industry has committed some of the most atrocious crimes against the environment in Canada and around the world with little fear of reprisal. This is Part Two of a two–part series highlighting some small and large-scale instances of industrial–environmental greenwashing and misdirection in an attempt to better hold conglomerates accountable to the Canadian public.

The Industrial Bait and Pollute Like an environmental fairy tale, it has been thrust into our consciousness for more than a generation — carpool, recycle, take shorter showers, unplug electronics, and shop green, we’ve all got a part to play in conserving the planet for future generations. The Citizen’s Guide to Pollution Prevention — a report from the Canadian Institute for Environmental Law and Policy published in collaboration with the federal government, is a perfect example of this institutionalised emphasis on the role individuals are to play if the devastating effects of climate change are to be mediated.

Swelling with inspiring language and motivational quotes garnered from collage dorm-room posters — Ghandi’s “…be the change…” leads the charge, the guide is framed as a selfless tool “designed to give citizens (you!) the knowledge to start realising your pollution prevention goals” by engaging the “citizen chain of change.”

[view:in_this_series=block_1]

After sifting through the guff however, it becomes apparent that the guide is little more than a re-packaged reiteration of the age-old business-first-environment-second paradigm, which posits that the best way for individuals to combat global warming is to act and think small-scale by making trivial little changes to their daily routines. It asks of its readers the usual. Decrease waste by choosing products with recyclable packaging — reduce toxins by buying mercury free-products — conserve water by turning off the tap — use efficient transportation by carpooling, biking, or taking public transit — reduce energy consumption by turning off unnecessary lights — and of course, openly support “greener” government developments and policies. If we do things such as these, individuals and big industry can continue their respective levels of intake and growth, while enjoying a “sustainable consumption [that] not only prevents pollution, but also combats climate change.” It's just that easy! Image Credit: Rubbermaid Products/Flickr Except we can’t, and it won’t — not because being environmentally conscious about how we live and shop as individuals isn’t important, but because we have crossed an ecological threshold that requires much more drastic measures to mediate. Just stop think about what is happening to our planet. Over 97 per cent of the world’s top scientists agree that global warming is not only a reality — it is an anthropologically prompted (man-made) one. What’s more, the rate of heat building up on Earth over the past decade — 30 per cent of which materialises deep in our oceans, is equivalent to the detonation 4 Hiroshima-sized atomic bombs per second. Earth has recently seen the end of over 4 centuries of climate stability, and the planet is so saturated in exponential environmental degradation that it may be uninhabitable as soon as 2300. Thus a few million small-scale efforts — however noble, are nowhere near revolutionary enough to alter the warming status quo. Of course, this doesn’t mean an environmentally conscious person can’t make a difference — it means that we concerned citizens need to look beyond the individual, fusing our conservationist efforts into a more collective movement that challenges the industrial sectors of the economy which most contribute to our roasting planet. After all, when the pollutants from a single year of tar sands production are greater than the greenhouse gas emissions of all the cars being driven on Canadian roads, is carpooling really going to make a drastic difference? When over a dozen freshwater lakes are quietly re-classified as toxic dumpsites for mining corporations, does more infrequently watering your lawn or taking the occasional shorter shower really make an overwhelming contribution to water conservation? And when — as Part 1 of this series pointed out, 98 per cent of industrial manufacturers in North America greenwash their products by embellishing how sustainable they truly are, does shopping “green” really help anything? In reality, all the fairy tales, “citizen chain[s] of change” and greenwashed consumer goods, these are nothing more than petty attempts by industrial lobbyists — and at times the Harper Administration, to misdirect the populous away from the havoc resource extraction and manufacturing are wreaking on the Canadian environment.

Oil and gas, pulp and paper, mining, logging, plastics, chemicals — thanks in part to the deregulation of industrial sectors such as these — Albertan industry contributed 48 per cent of total national emissions in 2011 alone, Canadian emissions have grown 24 per cent since 1990, making Canada the most polluting of all the G8 countries. All the while Canadian media coverage of climate change has fallen by 80 per cent since 2007 — the year Harper’s administration put restrictive informational policies in place, government scientists continue to be relentlessly muzzled, and since 2008, well-funded industrial lobby groups such as the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers have been granted more than 2,700 meetings with federal officeholders. Big industry — with help from a petro-obsessed government, has effectually engaged in media censoring, government lobbying, greenwashing and “things you can do to help” list-making in order to propagandise, misdirect, and scam the citizenry into thinking that all will be well if we keep playing our small parts — pretty little lies that for the most part serve to keep us distracted from the bigger conservational picture. Yet buried under all this rhetoric is an unconformable environmental truth. If we want to work at reversing the affects of climate change, it’s going to require more than inconveniencing our daily routine by stopping off at the bottle depot. It’s going to require sacrifice, discontent, and a willingness to put our planet before our pockets. So launch a blog, organise a protest, write angry letters, start a local advocacy group, push the boundaries by mobilising loudly — fighting with dollars, words, actions, and votes — to remind our current government and its industrial allies that we the concerned citizenry can see right through all the greenwashings and misdirections. What is best for the Canadian industries, and what is best for the Canadians citizenries are not necessarily one and the same. And as prominent academics and journalists are increasingly labelling Canada as “a rouge and reckless petro-state,” the time for industry-centric bottom-lines, apathetic good intentions, and lacklustre individual efforts has long past. As a single denied pipeline or chemical dumping proposal can do more for the combating of global warming than a lifetime of recycling, carpooling, and “green” shopping ever could, it's time for concerned citizens to critically redefine how we engage in activism and environmentalism for a future that requires more from humanity than we are currently giving. Image Credit: World Bank Photo Collection /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.

Pretty Little Industrial Liars, Pt. 1

Adam Kingsmith — Tue, 09 Jul 2013 19:10:19 +0000

Big Industry has committed some of the most atrocious crimes against the environment in Canada and around the world with little fear of reprisal. This is Part One of a two–part series highlighting some small and large-scale instances of industrial–environmental greenwashing and misdirection in an attempt to better hold conglomerates accountable to the Canadian public. Read Part 2 here.

Greenwashing the Canadian Consumer The deplorable act of greenwashing — constructing the misleading perception that a company’s policies, practices, products, or services are environmentally responsible and sustainable, is becoming common practice amongst titans of industry in Canada. It should come as little shock to acute Canadians that fossil fuels and the tar sands — more genially referred to as the “oil sands” by energy multinationals and the Harper Government, are being linguistically and rhetorically greenwashed — my colleague Jeff Gailus has an insightful three-part series exploring this very issue.

What may come as more of a shock to a consumer society such as ours attempting to shop its way out of an impending environmental disaster — polls have shown that at least 70 per cent of Canadian consumers say they are willing to spend up to 20 per cent more for environmentally preferable items — is the inordinate amount of greenwashing happening in the everyday marketplace.

[view:in_this_series=block_1]

According to a report by the environmental advocacy firm TerraChoice, 98% of the 2,219 primarily household cleaning and paper products examined in North America — all but 25 to be exact, were found to be guilty of at least one of “The Seven Sins of Greenwashing.” Sins that encompass a lack of proof, vagueness, irrelevance, fibbing, “hidden trade-offs,” “the lesser of two evils,” and “fake and false label certifications.” In Canada, most transgressions fall into three categories: vague language, lack of proof, and “hidden trade-offs” — suggesting a product is “green” based on a narrow set of attributes without paying attention to other important environmental issues — i.e. paper from a sustainably harvested forest can still contribute high levels of pollution during the production process. Thus while elusive monikers such as “all-natural,” “eco-friendly,” and “chemical-free” are increasingly slapped on everything in Canadian markets from shampoo bottles and bathroom cleaners to mainstream fashions and pet foods, it all equates to little more than what activist and author Adria Vasil calls “a tsunami of greenwash.” The "Greenwash Guerillas" trying to wade through the tsunami. Image Credit: fotdmike/Flickr This tsunami can be nearly impossible to navigate, as large multinationals think — rightly so much of the time, that consumers aren’t interested in reading too deeply into the environmental characteristics of what they purchase, shoppers just want the instant gratification that comes from buying “green,” “organic,” or “sustainable” products. If the products are actually any of those things seems to be a mute point. The more the average shopper harbours these armchair ecological consumption habits, the more that companies are going to stretch and even falsify the “greener” qualities of their products — resulting in a marketplace that requires an exceedingly methodical and labour intensive effort on the part of the savvy consumer in order to distinguish between corporate greenwashing and legitimate environmentalism. One such savvy consumer is the abovementioned Adria Vasil, who recently partnered with the CBC’s Marketplace to provide specific examples of household products sold in Canada found guilty of committing multiple greenwashing sins. Some of the culpable products include: Dawn antibacterial dish soap — championed as a cleaner of animals post-oil spills, it contains Tricolsan, an agent that is toxic to aquatic life, T-fal Natura frying pans — claiming to be free of non-stick carcinogens that the company has been found to use in the manufacturing process, and Sunlight Green Clean laundry soap — declaring to be mainly plant based, a test of the product revealed 38 per cent petro-chemicals, which leave a major environmental footprint. These examples — and the 7 others fingered in the exposé, represent only a drop in a greenwashed bucket overflowing with thousands of products on the shelf in Canada today. Honest, environmentally conscious goods are an exception to the rule. However, not all of the blame for this wave of greenwashing relentlessly sweeping across the Canadian market can rest upon misleading corporations or apathetic consumers. Despite repeated pleas from scientists and advocacy groups, the Harper government has been hesitant to institute an exclusive regulating body that could serve as the federal greenwashing watchdog by verifying “green” product claims. Instead, the verification of eco-friendly products are left to the Competition Bureau — a loosely regulated government institution with nefarious ties to Big Industry that has gone on record saying it will only act if an official complaint has been filed, the privately-run Canadian Standards Association — loyal to its industrial backers, and the corporations themselves — many of whom have introduced ambiguous and internal “Environmental Management Systems,” which, as is highlighted in the satirical clip below, have been repeatedly caught falsifying official-looking certifications ripe with green jargon such as “eco-preferred.” Of course, there are some genuinely environmentally minded companies sprinkled amidst all the self-certifiers and eco-proliferators. The best way to find them is to look for products that have been endorsed by a third party group known for its strict natural regulations — some of the more established in Canada include: EcoCert, EcoLogo, Cosmos Organic, Certified Natural Products, or Natural Products Association. What’s more, visitors to the Ecolabel Index — tracking 436 ecolabels in 197 countries and 25 industry sectors, it is the largest global directory of green certifications — can rate, review, and discuss all the world’s independently certified labels across 10 classifications including: electronics, food, forest products, retail goods, and textiles. At the end of the day, the best thing the consumer can do to push the market away from greenwashed products is to stop buying them. So familiarise yourself with harmful ingredients, look for independently verified certifications, cross-reference with the Ecolabel Index, but remember, greenwashing is only part of the deception. Moving beyond the role of the individual consumer, Part Two of this series will cut through industrial rhetoric in order to address why we as an environmentally-conscientious citizenry need to push for more regulative policies directly addressing the largest and most under-regulated polluters of all — transnational resource extraction and manufacturing industries. Continue to Part 2. Image Credit: fodtmike/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.