Rich G20 nations are spending about $88 billion (USD) each year to find new coal, oil and gas reserves even though most reserves can never be developed if the world is to avoid catastrophic climate change, according to a new report.

Generous government subsidies are actually propping up fossil fuel exploration which would otherwise be deemed uneconomic, states the report, “The fossil fuel bail-out: G20 subsidies for oil, gas and coal exploration.”

Produced by the London-based Overseas Development Institute and the Washington-based Oil Change International the 73-page analysis also noted the costs of renewables is falling and the investment returns are better than fossil fuels.  

“Every U.S. dollar in renewable energy subsidies attracts $2.5 in investment, whilst a dollar in fossil fuels subsidies only draws $1.3 of investment,” said the report released Tuesday, just days ahead of the G20 leaders meeting in Brisbane, Australia.

The report also notes the G20 nations are creating a ‘triple-lose’ scenario by providing subsidies for fossil-fuel exploration.

“They are directing large volumes of finance into high-carbon assets that cannot be exploited without catastrophic climate effects,” the report said. “They are diverting investment from economic low-carbon alternatives such as solar, wind and hydro-power. And they are undermining the prospects for an ambitious climate deal in 2015.”

Noting that leaders of the G20 countries, which produce about 80 per cent of global carbon emissions, pledged in 2009 to phase out ‘inefficient’ fossil-fuel subsidies, the report says there is a large gap between G20 commitment and action.

So who is paying for this exploration?

According to the report $49 billion of these subsidies occurred through state-owned enterprises, $23 billion from national subsidies delivered through direct spending and tax breaks and $16 billion from public finance from banks and financial institutions.

During the same period, the report said, the top 20 private oil and gas companies, globally, invested just $37 billion in exploration – less than half of what is provided annually by G20 governments – suggesting their exploration activities are highly dependent on public finance.  

The report added global fossil fuel subsidies — of which exploration is just one portion — are estimated to be $775 billion a year. 

Key findings in the report show that the U.S. provided some $5.1 billion in national subsidies to fossil fuel exploration in 2013 – almost double the level in 2009.

Australia, meanwhile, is providing $3.5 billion for the development of offshore and inland fossil-fuel resources and Russia is provides $2.4 billion in national subsidies for fossil fuel exploration.

The report noted the Canadian government offers a wide array of national subsidies that total a minimum of $928 million annually to encourage fossil fuel exploration, including tax benefits for nearly all exploration activities.  

“Despite the widespread perception that renewables are costly, our research reveals that finding new fossil fuel reserves is costing nearly $88 billion in exploration subsidies across the G20,” the Overseas Development Institute’s Shelagh Whitley said. “Scrapping these subsidies would begin to create a level playing field between renewables and fossil fuel energy.”  

Oil Change International’s director Stephen Kretzmann said “five years ago, G20 governments pledged to both phase out fossil fuel subsidies and take action to limit climate change. Immediately ending exploration subsidies is the clearest next step on both fronts.”

The report recommended governments should price carbon to reflect the social, economic and environmental damage associated with climate change, and reduce emissions to levels compatible with the globally agreed 2oC target.

It also recommended that G20 nations should immediately phase out exploration subsidies as a first step towards a wider fossil-fuel subsidy phase out and reform.

In addition, it said governments should transfer subsidies from exploration and other fossil-fuel subsidies to support for the transition to low-carbon development and universal energy access.

On the same day the report was published, a number of high-profile economists said in a letter to a number of newspapers that governments should end fossil fuel subsidies and galvanize international action on climate change.

“Given that two-thirds of currently known reserves cannot be exploited if the world is to remain within the internationally agreed 2º Centigrade threshold, this is a bad investment for tax-payers and the planet,” said the economists. “Fossil fuel subsidies turn upside down the logic of effective action on climate.”  


Religious leaders in Australia, according to a story published Wednesday, said “world leaders must move towards a renewable energy future or there will be human suffering on an unthinkable scale.”  

Anglican Church Bishop Professor Stephen Pickard was quoted as saying there is overwhelming scientific evidence about the impact of unchecked climate change.

“To our very great shame, unthinking economic growth has become the great treasure,” Pickard said. “It has captured our hearts. It has captured our pockets. It has blinded us to the wellbeing of the planet.”

Under Prime Minister Tony Abbott, coal-rich Australia, described as “being the developed world’s worst polluter per head of population,” repealed the nation’s carbon tax earlier this year.

Image Credit: Stop sign in the oilsands region. Photo by 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.

Although the heads of 125 states are gathering at UN Headquarters in New York today to discuss global commitments to reducing greenhouse gas emissions that cause climate change, Stephen Harper will be elsewhere.

Instead Canada’s prime minister will arrive in New York in two days time to attend the UN’s Every Woman, Every Child event on September 25th.

The UN Climate Summit is intended to “galvanize and catalyze climate action” in advance of the Paris COP climate talks in 2015 where countries will form binding agreements to address global warming.

President Barack Obama will announce a new executive order today that directs all federal agencies to include climate concerns in international aid and development initiatives.

China’s president Xi Jinping, India’s prime minister Narendra Modi and Australian prime minister Tony Abbott have also announced they will not attend the summit.

China announced vice premier Zhang Gaoli will attend in the president’s place and Canada will send environment minister Leona Aglukkaq in Harper’s stead.

China is the number one emitter of greenhouse gas emissions, followed by the U.S. and India. Canada and Australia are eighth and fourteenth, respectively, according to data released by the European Commission.

In the lead up to the summit UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon said “this is the time for decisive global action.”

“I have been pleased to see climate change rise on the political agenda and in the consciousness of people worldwide,” he said. “But I remain alarmed that governments and businesses have still failed to act at the pace and scale needed.”

UN climate chief Christiana Figueres said the absence of a few world leaders will not affect the credibility or outcomes of the summit.

“This is not something that will stop on September 24,” Figueres said, adding, “rather what is important is the strength of commitments and action of all governments moving forward up and until we deliver a new universal agreement in Paris.”

On Sunday an estimated 400,000 people participated in what is being heralded as the largest climate march in history. Support for the People’s Climate March came from across many sectors of society, showing a growing climate concern from religious, youth, business and investment groups.

Figueres said that growing involvement in cross-sector climate action is also represented in climate summit participants.

“The inclusion of business at the summit and over the past few years is frankly a recognition that climate change is not a one person or one sector issue,” she said.

“It cannot be solved by one country, one sector or one level of government. Climate is an every-person issue, and it requires everyone to work collaboratively in order to reach the solutions to the level and at the speed we need to find.”

Recently prime ministers Harper and Abbott hosted a press conference in Canada where they criticized government actions to make polluters pay for carbon emissions.

At the press gathering Harper said, “No country is going to undertake actions on climate change, no matter what they say, no country is going to [take] actions that are going to deliberately destroy jobs and growth in their country. We are just a little more frank about that, but that is the approach that every country is seeking.”

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 article originally appeared on mikedesouza.com.

On the eve of an international climate change summit of government leaders in New York, Canada is being challenged about its own domestic record in addressing the heat-trapping pollution that contributes to global warming.

Here’s a historical timeline of some of the major climate change policies, statements and related decisions made by Canada since 2006 when Prime Minister Stephen Harper was first elected to form a government.

From a pledge to introduce a carbon tax in 2007 to internal debates about climate change science, this timeline covers the promises and the action by the Canadian government in recent years.

February 2006:

Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s government is sworn in after his Conservative Party wins a general election with a minority of seats in the Canadian House of Commons. The election ends a 13-year-old government led by the Liberal Party of Canada.

Harper’s Conservatives mainly focused on accountability and tax cuts during the campaign. They also criticized Canada’s participation in the Kyoto Protocol on climate change, pledging to introduce a “made-in-Canada” solution to promote a healthy environment.

The newly-elected government cancels billions of dollars in federal spending to address climate change and promote energy efficiency. They also cancel work underway within Environment Canada to regulate greenhouse gases from large industrial facilities, describing the country’s legally-binding Kyoto target as unrealistic.

Harper and members of his cabinet note that the previous Liberal administration had promised to take action on climate change, but didn’t do anything to stop the rise in industrial greenhouse gas emissions that put Canada’s Kyoto target out of reach.

May 2006:

The Globe and Mail reports on leaked documents from international climate talks in Bonn, Germany, that reveal the Harper government has instructed its negotiators to oppose “stringent targets” for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The newspaper reports that the instructions tell negotiators to instead favour a voluntary approach to addressing climate-warming pollution.

Environmental groups accuse the government of sabotaging the talks. It’s the first of many conferences over the next decade in which critics describe Canada as the worst and least helpful party at the negotiating table on climate change issues.

September 2006:

Environment Minister Rona Ambrose pledges to introduce a new law that would use the federal government’s constitutional authority to require all industrial sectors to reduce pollution. Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers president Pierre Alvarez says that his industry is prepared to accept targets as long as other sectors faced the same regulations.

The opposition, which forms a majority in the House of Commons, would later reject her proposed legislation as inadequate. The opposition parties would then attempt to rewrite the bill, but the new version was abandoned by the Conservative government that claimed it would harm the Canadian economy.

March 2007:

Preserving the environment is one of the top themes of Finance Minister Jim Flaherty’s federal budget. The plan includes $4.5 billion in spending “to clean our air and water, reduce greenhouse gases and combat climate change, as well as protect our natural environment.” The budget also restores funding to some measures that were scrapped, one year earlier, by the government, reintroducing them with new names.

April 2007:

Environment Minister John Baird unveils new targets to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and air pollution across the Canadian economy. The targets set new goals that are aggressive, but weaker than Canada’s existing commitments, under the Kyoto Protocol. Baird says that the new targets will come into force as early as 2010 for some sectors at an estimated cost of about $8 billion to the Canadian economy.

The Conservative plan proposes to give companies the possibility of meeting their targets by paying a $15 carbon tax per tonne of emissions that would go into a fund supporting the development of new technologies.

Baird’s new “Turning the Corner” plan also estimates the targets will also result in health benefits worth about $6 billion due to a reduction in air pollution and related respiratory illnesses.

“This is a mammoth undertaking,” Baird tells a news conference in Toronto. “It doesn’t end today. Global warming, climate change is one of the biggest ecological threats the environment has ever faced, and it’s going to require work every day, every week, every month and every year.”

Despite extensive consultations with all major industrial sectors over the previous year, Baird explains that more negotiations with industry would likely follow before introducing any draft regulations.

June 2007:

Speaking to an audience in Germany, Prime Minister Stephen Harper describes climate change as “perhaps the biggest threat to confront the future of humanity today.” He also notes that Canada was a small contributor to global warming since it was responsible for two per cent of global greenhouse gas emissions.

“But we owe it to future generations to do whatever we can to address this world problem,” Harper says. “And Canadians, blessed as we are, should make a substantial contribution to confronting this challenge.”

He also says in his speech that his government has already introduced mandatory emissions reductions targets for large emitters that would result in “absolute reductions in emissions levels by at least 2012 and as early as 2010.”

October 2008:

Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s Conservative party is re-elected as a minority government in a general election, following a campaign in which the party pledged to introduce a cap and trade system as part of its climate change policies. The system would set targets to cap pollution from industry and then allow facilities to meet targets either by reducing emissions or by purchasing credits. The credits could be sold provided that they have certified a reduction in emissions beyond business as usual.

Harper names Jim Prentice as his third environment minister after winning the election.

The global financial crisis and lobbying from industry warning about economic impacts would later derail legislation in the U.S. to introduce a cap and trade system.

December 2009:

An international climate change summit in Copenhagen, Denmark collapses without a binding agreement.

Stephen Harper signs a new voluntary climate change accord spear-headed by U.S. President Barack Obama. Harper weakens Canada’s previous target set under Baird’s Turning the Corner proposal, but matches a target set by the Obama administration.

February 2010:

Jim Prentice criticizes the Quebec government for planning its own aggressive fuel economy tailpipe standards for cars, describing the province’s approach as a “folly.”

October 2010:

The Harper government adopts new fuel economy rules, based largely on the Quebec and California model, matching regulations introduced by the Obama administration to reduce tailpipe pollution from new cars. Environment Canada estimates the new regulations will save the equivalent of 28 billion litres of fuel between 2011 and 2016. Jim Prentice sayshigher costs of purchasing cars would be offset by savings in fuel consumption and that the regulations would also encourage more electric cars on Canadian roads.

November 2010:

Prentice resigns from federal politics to accept a job as a vice-president of the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce and is temporarily replaced as environment minister by John Baird.

December 2010:

John Baird hails a series of agreements reached at an international climate change summit in Cancun, Mexico as the “first step” toward a binding global deal to ensure greenhouse gases peak within a decade and then start to decline. But he also warns that it would be mathematically impossible to stabilize emissions in the atmosphere without getting the biggest polluters, China, India and the United States, to take on firm commitments.

“I hope that coming out of Cancun that people, other countries will reflect,” Baird says. “Whatever we’ve been trying for the last 13 years hasn’t worked. Emissions are way up since 1997. If we want to stabilize them by 2015 or 2020, we’re going to have to get the big players involved.”

January 2011:

Peter Kent becomes Stephen Harper’s fourth environment minister and begins his new role by praising Canadian oil as an “ethical” fuel.

February 2011:

The Harper government confirms that it is no longer pursuing a cap and trade regime, but aiming to introduce new mandatory rules and standards for industrial pollution.

Peter Kent says in an interview that the government had a “target” of introducing all of its proposed greenhouse gas regulations by the end of 2011.

May 2011:

Following a general election, Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s Conservatives are re-elected, this time forming a majority in the House of Commons.

September 2011:

Peter Kent says the spring federal election has delayed work on the oil and gas regulations and that they wouldn’t be introduced in 2011.

Fall 2011:

Environment Canada creates a new group to work on the oil and gas regulations. It includes representatives from the Alberta government, the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers and three oil companies – Canadian Natural Resources Limited, Cenovus and Suncor. The group meets roughly once every four weeks.

December 2011:

Peter Kent announces that Canada is withdrawing from the Kyoto Protocol.

Across the government, officials are working on plans behind the scenes to reduce federal oversight of industrial activities and accelerate energy and resource development.

These plans follow a decision by President Obama to delay approval of the Keystone XL pipeline expansion project, that would allow for more oilsands exports from Alberta to the United States.

The new federal policies and laws would also respond to many detailed requests from oil, gas and pipeline lobbyists.

In response to questions about the Kyoto withdrawal in the House of Commons, Stephen Harper says: “I have said many times that climate change is a great problem for the world.”

March 2012:

The Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Research is forced to shut its doors after repeated requests for renewed funding fall on deaf ears. The foundation had offered about $120 million in university grants for climate and weather-related research over about 10 years. The total is above the $110 million multi-year grant it received from the government.

The foundation would later rebrand itself as the Canadian Climate Forum, relying on private donors to fund its work.

A labour union representing federal scientists, the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada, would also estimate that the Canadian government was in the middle of a three-year purge, cutting nearly $3 billion in spending and up to 5,000 jobs from its science-based departments, including many scientific research positions and programs in charge of monitoring air, water, and wildlife.

One of the victims of the cuts is the Polar Environment Atmospheric Research Lab – also known as PEARL – a scientific observatory station near Eureka in the high Arctic that loses about a third of its federal funding and is no longer able to remain fully operational throughout the entire year.

The government instead opts to spend millions of dollars to build a new research station that is more than 1,000 kilometres to the southwest.

April 2012:

The Harper government introduces a 400-page document in Parliament that proposes to scrap major Canadian environmental laws and replace them with new legislation.

May 2012:

At international negotiations, Guy Saint-Jacques, then the former chief federal climate change negotiator and ambassador, says that the Canadian government is working towards draft regulations for 2013” in the oil and gas sector.

“Once we have finalized the oil and gas regulations, we will have covered some 60 per cent of our emissions,” Saint-Jacques told his international counterparts.

June 2012:

A series of newly-released letters reveals that Peter Kent has been challenged by many of his caucus colleagues, including the prime minister, to answer questions about whether scientific evidence is real about climate change and whether the phenomenon requires a government response. When asked about the letters, Kent says that having debates and being challenged demonstrates the “vitality of any government.”

July 2012:

New environmental laws adopted by Parliament eliminate nearly 3,000 federal environmental reviews of industrial projects, including hundreds of projects related to oil, gas and pipeline development.

September 2012:

Peter Kent announces the government has finalized its regulations for reducing greenhouse gas emissions from coal power plants, predicting that the new rules will result in the equivalent of taking about 2.6 million vehicles off Canadian roads over 21 years. The new rules are slated to come into force on July 1, 2015.

His department, meantime, confirms it has handed over the monitoring of data for ozone and radiation in the atmosphere, previously done by atmospheric scientists, to an information technology computer expert.

November 2012:

Following damage caused to the U.S. northeast by Hurricane Sandy, Peter Kent says climate change is a “very real and present danger” that governments need to address.

December 2012:

Canada confirms its withdrawal from the Kyoto Protocol.

February 2013:

Peter Kent says the federal government is “very close” to finalizing new carbon pollution regulations for oil and gas companies.

April 2013:

Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver, who would later become finance minister in 2014,says in an interview with La Presse that scientists are exaggerating the climate crisis. He follows others in Harper’s cabinet and caucus who had cast doubts on occasion about whether humans are significantly contributing to climate change. Those include the prime minister, junior industry minister Maxime Bernier, former public safety minister Stockwell Day and Senator Nancy Greene Raine, a former Winter Olympic champion skier.

March 2013:

The special group created by Environment Canada to develop greenhouse gas regulations for oil and gas companies has its final meeting.

Environment Canada later explains that its engagement with stakeholders on regulations was continuing on many fronts, but that it was moving toward more targeted discussions.

April 2013:

In internal correspondence with the provincial government in Alberta, the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers expresses concerns about stringent climate change policies, suggesting that the government should spend more time studying the issue. The industry lobby group also tells the government that tough regulations won’t satisfy its biggest critics.

June 2013:

Peter Kent says industry groups are cooperating with the government’s efforts to introduce regulations, also noting that companies are concerned about “maximiz(ing) profits for their shareholders.”

July 2013:

After being replaced in a cabinet shuffle by Harper’s fifth environment minister, Leona Aglukkaq, Peter Kent says he was “profoundly disappointed” that the government didn’t complete the oil and gas regulations under his watch. He reiterates that the government was close but had to navigate through many lobby interests as well as concerns of putting jobs or investments at risk.

September 2013:

Leona Aglukkaq’s office prevents her department from publicly stating that the government accepts scientific evidence that humans are causing climate change and takes the matter seriously.

Aglukkaq later gives a television interview in which she casts doubts about whether ice is melting in the Arctic.

October 2013:

The Harper government opens a new session of Parliament with a throne speech saying that it will work with provinces to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from oil and gas companies.

November 2013:

Environment Minister Leona Aglukkaq says she’s “not ready” to introduce new regulations for oil and gas companies.

June 2014:

Stephen Harper, at a joint news conference with visiting Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott, suggests other countries aren’t being frank about scaling back climate change policies to protect their economies. He suggests aggressive action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, including a carbon tax, would harm the economy.

Image Credit: Prime Minister Stephen Harper on his 9th annual Arctic visit. Image courtesy of the Prime Minister of Canada's photo gallery.

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 Mark Jaccard, professor of sustainable energy at Simon Fraser University. 

In 2007, Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s government asked me and four other economists if we agreed with its study showing huge costs for Canada to meet its Kyoto commitment to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 2010. We all publicly agreed, much to the chagrin of the Liberals, NDP and Greens, who argued that Kyoto was still achievable without crashing the economy. It wasn’t.

As economists, we knew that the Liberal government of Jean Chrétien should have implemented effective policies right after signing Kyoto in 1997. It takes at least a decade to significantly reduce emissions via energy efficiency, switching to renewables, and perhaps capturing carbon dioxide from coal plants and oilsands. Each year of delay jacks up costs.

Mr. Harper’s government knew this too. Years later, when environment minister Peter Kent formally withdrew Canada from Kyoto, he charged the previous Liberal government with “incompetence” for not enacting necessary policies in time to meet their target.

With the excuse that Kyoto was too expensive, Mr. Harper replaced it with his own emission target for 2020, which he presented in his 2007 policy statement, “Turning the Corner.” Two years later, he reconfirmed it alongside U.S. President Barack Obama and other world leaders at the Copenhagen climate conference.

Just like Mr. Chrétien, however, Mr. Harper failed to immediately implement the necessary policies. Canadian emissions have declined slightly, for which he tries to take credit. But analysts agree that the main causes are the 2008 recession, some decline of heavy industry, Ontario’s reduction of coal-fired power, and climate policies in British Columbia and Quebec. Mr. Harper’s adoption of U.S. vehicle regulations will have a small effect by 2020, not his coal regulations.

Like what you're reading? Help us bring you more. Click here to support DeSmog Canada's Kickstarter campaign to clean up the climate and energy debate in Canada.

But instead of honestly admitting that it won’t achieve the 2020 target, the Harper government still pretends that it will. And it won’t admit that its vigorous promotion of oilsands and new pipelines, such as Keystone XL and Northern Gateway, is a key factor in Environment Canada’s prediction that Canadian emissions in 2020 will exceed the target by at least 20 per cent.

Growth in oilsands emissions alone will account for half the overshoot.

Meanwhile, the U.S. will meet a similar 2020 target. And California, with the same population as Canada, will meet a tougher target.

This time, the Harper government has not asked me to comment on the cost of trying at this late date to keep its promise. I doubt it will – at least not before the 2015 election. But as a helpful gesture, I’ve done the analysis anyway, with a model like Environment Canada’s.

My analysis shows that if Mr. Harper had “competently” enacted in 2007 the regulations he promised, the effective price on carbon would have started around $15 per tonne of CO2 in 2008, reaching $100 in 2020. This would not have harmed the Canadian economy. It would have phased-out most coal plants, as Ontario has done. It would have shifted transportation toward natural gas, biofuels and electricity, as is occurring in California. It would have substantially slowed the growth of oilsands, and led to investments in carbon capture, as in Norway. Oilsands jobs would not have grown as rapidly, but would not have declined. And job creation in alternative energy would be substantial, as has occurred with renewables in B.C. and Ontario. There would be no Keystone XL, no Northern Gateway.

My analysis further shows that were Mr. Harper now to seriously pursue his 2020 promise, he would crash the economy. His frantic regulations would be equivalent to shocking the economy with a CO2 price that quickly escalates to $200 – increasing the price of gasoline by 50 cents a litre. Industrial jobs would be lost. Oilsands production would decrease.

Mr. Harper has admitted that he will do nothing for the climate that might slow the growth of oilsands jobs, as he recently confirmed during the visit of Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott.

Yet he won’t admit that this makes his 2020 climate promise false.

Isn’t it time we had some honesty in Canada? Climate change is one of the defining issues of our time. We are being horribly let down by the Harper government.

Mark Jaccard is one of eight scientists who published a commentary in Nature in June calling for a moratorium on oilsands development. Follow him on twitter: @MarkJaccard

Image Credit: 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.

Canada ranks among the world’s countries least likely to agree that climate change is a result of human activity, according to recently released Ipsos MORI research. The study, “Global Trends 2014,” posed a number of survey questions to individuals in 20 countries and discovered agreement with climate science is lowest in the U.S., Great Britain, Australia, Russia, Poland, Japan and Canada, respectively.

Agreement with climate science was highest in China, of all the countries surveyed, a fact that Ben Page, chief executive of Ipsos MORI, attributes to high environmental concerns in China as a result of alarming environmental pollution in the country. “In many surveys in China, environment is top concern,” he said. “In contrast, in the west, it’s a long way down the list behind the economy and crime.”

Science and political journalist Chris Mooney, points out the survey results show an interesting correlation between climate denial or skepticism and speaking English.

He writes: “Not only is the United States clearly the worst in its climate denial, but Great Britain and Australia are second and third worst, respectively. Canada, meanwhile is the seventh worst. What do these four nations have in common? They all speak the language of Shakespeare.”

Mooney outlines two possible explanations for the pattern: political ideology and media ownership.

Ipsos MORI, Global Trends 2014.

Sowing seeds of climate denial

A recent study published in Climatic Change showed the U.S. hosts a surprisingly high number of organizations that actively deny or dispute climate science.

This “climate change counter-movement” is comprised of 91 different groups including oil and gas-funded think tanks like the Heartland Institute (which hosts the world’s most established climate denial conference each year), astro-turf groups, and trade associations like the Chamber of Commerce.

In total, these groups bring in more than $900 million each year, some of which is used to cast doubt on the science of climate change.

Naomi Oreskes, history professor at Harvard and author of Merchants of Doubt, a book outlining the history, strategies and organizations behind climate denial, says denier groups are winning in the U.S. and beyond.

In her book, Oreskes made a strong connection between the individuals, groups and ideologies behind the attack on not only climate science, but also the research linking tobacco to cancer, pollution and acid rain and the role CFCs played in creating the ozone hole.

Even after ‘outing’ these groups and their tactics, Oreskes recently told The Guardian things haven’t really changed.

“There are some new faces on the horizon, but recruiting ‘fresh voices’ has been a tactic for a long time. So even the things that may look new are in fact old,” she said.

“The Heartland Institute has become more visible, and the George Marshall Institute a bit less, but the overall picture continues: these groups continue to dismiss or disparage the science, attack scientists, and sow doubt.”

“They continue to try to block action by confusing us about the facts. And the arguments, the tactics, and the overall strategy has remained the same. And, they’ve been extremely successful. CO2 has reached 400 ppm, meaningful action is still not in sight, and people who really understand the science – understand what is at stake – are getting worried.”

Recently in Canada, long-time skeptic group Friends of Science bought billboard space in Calgary to display posters claiming global warming is due to the sun, rather than human activity like deforestation and the burning of fossil fuels (as the majority of the world’s scientists agree).

As Oreskes points out, politicians have done the public a disservice by parroting climate skeptic lines, or linking back to anti-science organizations like the Cato Institute, the American Enterprise Institute, the Competitive Enterprise Institute or the Heritage Foundation.

Last month the Prime Ministers of both Canada and Australia publicly announced their countries wouldn’t take steps to prevent climate change at any cost to the economy. Both Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Prime Minister Tony Abbott disparaged the carbon tax.

Weeks later, Abbott announced Australia would repeal the carbon tax.

Media does matter 

The media, as DeSmog Canada pointed out after Harper and Abbott’s meeting, is no help in the matter. Harper’s suggested conflict between the environment and economy, for example, was met with zero pushback in traditional Canadian media coverage.

And the English-speaking world, as Mooney points out, is at a particular disadvantage with major media outlets linked together by Rupert Murdoch, a media magnate with an apparent tendency towards climate skepticism.

Canada, the U.S., the U.K. and Australia are all home to Murdoch-owned news outlets NewsCorp and 21st Century Fox.

Mooney writes:

In the US, Fox News and the Wall Street Journal lead the way; research shows that Fox watching increases distrust of climate scientists. (You can also catch Fox News in Canada.) In Australia, a recent study found that slightly under a third of climate-related articles in 10 top Australian newspapers "did not accept" the scientific consensus on climate change, and that News Corp papers—the Australian, the Herald Sun, and the Daily Telegraph—were particular hotbeds of skepticism. "The Australian represents climate science as matter of opinion or debate rather than as a field for inquiry and investigation like all scientific fields," noted the study.

And then there's the UK. A 2010 academic study found that while News Corp outlets in this country from 1997 to 2007 did not produce as much strident climate skepticism as did their counterparts in the US and Australia, "the Sun newspaper offered a place for scornful skeptics on its opinion pages as did The Times and Sunday Times to a lesser extent." (There are also other outlets in the UK, such as the Daily Mail, that feature plenty of skepticism but aren't owned by News Corp.)

Mistrust runs deeper than climate

Although Canada is among the surveyed nations least likely to agree climate change is the result of human activity, Canadians still expressed some concern over the environment.

Canadians largely agreed (79 per cent) that companies do not pay enough attention to the environment and agreed (66.9 per cent) that society at large needs to change its bad habits if we are to avoid evironmental disaster.

Ipsos MORI, Global Trends 2014.

Ipsos MORI, Global Trends 2014.

Yet Canadians along with many other nationalities expressed concern that governments are using environmental issues to raise taxes. Canadians were also basically split over the issue of whether scientists really even know what they’re talking about when it comes to the environment.

Ipsos MORI, Global Trends 2014.

Ipsos MORI, Global Trends 2014.

And interestingly the majority of Canadians report being okay with the "fuss" being made about the environment. The only countries that did express this majority green-fatigue were Brazil, India and Poland.*

Ipsos MORI, Global Trends 2014.

The general problem of fatigue and mistrust is something scientists, policy-makers, environmental advocates and climate change communicators are growing more aware of.

Recent research from the Environics Institute shows the majority of Canadians, although convinced of man-made climate change, are not convinced governments will do anything about it. In this situation Canadians believe governments bear the responsibility for taking climate action but – for political or ideological reasons – will not. If Canada’s absence of climate legislation is any indicator, Canadians have every reason to retain their skepticism about the current federal government’s climate capabilities.

Without a government prepared to make meaningful progress when it comes to emissions and fossil fuel consumption, society really finds itself between a rock and a…hot place.

*An earlier version of this post stated the majority of Canadians were 'tired of the fuss' but has since been corrected.

Image Credit: Prime Minister Stephen Harper attends the Calgary Stampede from the Prime Minister of Canada press gallery.

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, Natural Resources Canada released a major report on climate change and its potential impacts in Canada. The report is novel-thick, the first significant NRCan missive on climate change since 2008, and it rattles off a list of near-future worries that will be familiar to anyone watching climate news closely — heavier rains, more extreme weather events, rising sea levels and acidifying oceans.

You can be forgiven if this is the first you heard of it, since the report was published without so much as a press release. I can only assume this is because the report represents a straightforward, data-driven, thoughtful analysis of the status of the planet’s climate and the likely impact of a changing climate on Canada’s environment, economy and society. And this kind of serious talk is just not how you talk about climate change in Ottawa these days.

I speak often to a wide range of Canadian audiences – from conventional and renewable energy professionals to academic crowds to municipal officials – about the status of the green economy’s vanguard, much of which is situated in western Europe. And I frequently encounter some variation on the same question: Why has Canada lagged so far behind in building a low-carbon society? There’s no single answer, but when I’m in need of a shorthand, I say that we’ve failed for the most part to develop and maintain a serious public conversation about climate change. We talk about climate change – a ubiquitous, universal problem of epochal scale – as something distant in time and space, self-contained and inconsequential, unworthy of intense and sustained scrutiny. Sometimes, our government doesn’t even tell the public when it has issued a major report on the subject.

Another textbook example of Canada’s stunted climate conversation transpired just days before the NRCan study’s launch, when Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott paid a visit to Stephen Harper in Ottawa. It was a perfunctory state visit for the most part. Harper and Abbott had no big announcements to make, no agreements to sign or policies to peddle. There was a photo op, then a press conference at which a joint statement was delivered. The media, in Harper’s preferred style, were strictly limited to four questions, two from the Aussies and two from the Canadians. Later in the evening, there was a formal dinner, which the Aussie press corps didn’t bother sticking around for. As Colin Horgan put it in a Guardian post-mortem, the whole thing was “a lesson from political message makers on how to create nothing out of something.”

And yet there was some news generated by this Seinfeldian summit. It emerged when one of the Australian reporters who’d been granted the rare privilege of a question asked about Barack Obama’s recently unveiled climate plan. Abbott and Harper, who take evident pride in being two of the world’s least enthusiastic climate change warriors, used the question as an opportunity to lecture the rest of the world on its irrationality and hypocrisy regarding the climate file.

A shrug and a sneer at climate change

The full responses of the respective prime ministers to this question are in this post from Mike De Souza if you’d like to read the whole thing. The takeaway was a two-parter, a shrug and a sneer at taking action on climate change. Abbott handled the shrug. “It’s not the only, or even the most important problem that the world faces,” he said. Then he aimed his rhetorical sneer at do-gooder wastrels like the ones who’d passed a carbon tax in Australia. “We shouldn’t clobber the economy and that’s why I’ve always been against a carbon tax or an emissions trading scheme because it harms our economy, without necessarily helping the environment.”

Harper, not to be outdone, switched into the smug lecturing mode that has become his default approach to international policy discussions of this sort. “No matter what they say, no country is going to take actions that are going to deliberately destroy jobs and growth in their country. We are just a little more frank about that.” He also indulged in a dusty old NDP-bashing talking point, thanking Abbott for cutting taxes, “most notably the job-killing carbon tax.”

A shrug – climate change? No big deal, guys – and then a sneer at treehugging lefties who’d rather have us wreck the economy to do barely anything at all about climate change anyway. The daily press dutifully reported on the limited story they’d been given, the CBC explaining that both PMs “took a hard line” on climate change and the Globe & Mail noting the “unapologetic tone” both shared on the subject. The Globe story placed the exchange in the context of the forthcoming Northern Gateway pipeline decision, while the Ottawa Citizen filled out its story with a bit of background on Harper’s relationship with previous Australian leaders.

All in all, though, nothing much to see here. Move along.

But let’s be just a little more frank, shall we, about what actually transpired in this summit about nothing. The leaders of two G7 countries met in the wake of a major climate plan rollout by the United States – a policy package that appears to be the signature initiative of the president’s second term – and just ahead of a G20 summit in Australia at which one of them (Abbott) is doing everything he can to keep climate change off the agenda. Both of them glibly dismissed the very notion of taking meaningful action on an issue that the other of them (Harper) once called “perhaps the biggest threat to confront the future of humanity today.”

Reporters transcribe glib comments … and that's about it

And Canada’s mainstream press, conditioned to ignore that which official Ottawa shrugs at, filed the most rote and routine of stories. They transcribed the glib comments, padded them with a bit of vaguely relevant context. And, like the hapless stormtrooper convinced by Obi-Wan’s dismissive Jedi hand wave that these aren’t the droids he’s looking for, they moved along.

Try to imagine this response in another context. Let’s say Abbott and Harper were discussing national defence and the global security situation. Someone asks about the Middle East, the Syrian civil war and the rise of ISIS. Abbott says really it’s all been overblown, nothing to worry about. Harper says devoting government resources to something as trivial as the conquest of Iraq by jihadists would get in the way of higher priorities, then takes an offhand dig at Trudeau.

In this context, is it plausible that any reporter would file a story with no contextual detail at all about, for example, the actual situation on the ground in Iraq? Would there be barely a word about previous policy positions on the Middle East or the strategic importance of the region or the rather shockingly indifferent tone being taken regarding such a grave crisis? Would the coverage marvel at what a non-event this was? Of course not. War is serious business. Global security issues are always a top priority.

But climate change? ¯_(ツ)_/¯

Consider each PM’s soundbite comment on the subject, the ones that marked off that “hard line” and struck such an “unapologetic tone.”  Abbott: “We shouldn’t clobber the economy.” Harper: “No country is going to take actions that are going to deliberately destroy jobs and growth.” Both of them are referring to a carbon tax. The one Australia has, which Abbott is dead-set on repealing (though his government hasn’t yet, despite Harper’s suggestion otherwise, which not a single report on the summit bothered to correct). And the one Harper wields as a Question Period bludgeon, that “job-killing” threat which is just one reason why only his government should be trusted with the keys to the treasury.

Here's a thought: how about verifying climate change claims?

In the midst of this non-story, how is it that not one reporter thought to verify these claims? Given that both PMs spoke explicitly about carbon taxes, why didn’t reporters fill out their stories with detail on what carbon taxes are and what they do? Does a carbon tax actually clobber the economy and destroy jobs and growth? Australia’s economy has operated under a carbon tax for nearly two years. British Columbia’s had one for three times that long. Do either of these economies resemble a punchdrunk boxer in the late rounds of an epic beating?

Well, actually, Australia’s GDP has grown by three per cent or so in 2012 and 2013. Electricity prices are up a bit, but the carbon tax is not the sole cause of that. And at the same time, Australia saw its biggest drop in greenhouse gas emissions in 24 years, refuting Abbott’s claim that such policies don’t help. Similarly, B.C.’s carbon tax has utterly failed to kill jobs or clobber economic growth. Again, fuel prices are up a bit, but B.C. consumers have responded, as expected, by consuming less. And this week a new World Bank report actually indicated seriously tackling climate change could increase GDP.

But hey, maybe carbon taxes are too esoteric, too wonky, too “inside baseball.” What about at least some discussion of the state of the planet and what climate change is doing to it and what the costs might be – today and in the future – if we continue to shrug at the problem and accept as fact the unproven argument that dealing with it would wreck the economy?

With the exception of Aaron Wherry at Maclean’s, who at least quoted an NDP MP talking about current climate change costs, the Canadian press was again mostly silent. Or what about that perennial Hill reporter’s favourite – the reading of the Harper tea leaves? To go from claiming (falsely) that the government will meet its climate change targets to saying they don’t really matter represents a significant shift in rhetoric if not necessarily in policy. Wouldn’t that warrant a bit more substantial discussion? Evidently not.

This is, after all, not the only or even the most important problem the world faces. Why bother reporting on it like it matters at all?

Image Credit: RHL images 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.

Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Australian Prime Mininster Tony Abbott took turns Monday criticizing efforts by governments to make polluters pay for greenhouse gas emissions.

Abbott, who is visiting North America, and Harper, both said their respective governments weren’t trying to avoid dealing with the problem, but suggested they were trying to avoid damaging the economy.

The comments were immediately challenged by one of the Harper government’s former political advisers, David McLaughlin, who headed a panel that warned Canada would pay an economic price by not taking action to address climate change.

McLaughlin wrote on his Twitter account that the message from Harper and Abbott was reinforcing a “meme” that dealing with the environment, comes at the expense of the economy.

‘Either/or’ construct on combatting climate change heard today reinforces meme that dealing with environment comes at expense of economy.

— David McLaughlin (@DavidMcLA) June 9, 2014

@mikedesouza Economic impacts on Canada from NOT arresting climate change. Other side of coin we heard today in Ottawa. #cdnpoli

— David McLaughlin (@DavidMcLA) June 9, 2014

McLaughlin, a former chief of staff to the finance minister, is now a strategic advisor on sustainability at Waterloo University’s Faculty of Environment.

Harper’s government abolished the panel headed by McLaughlin, the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy, in its 2012 budget, stating that it no longer needed its advice since it believed it could find the expertise elsewhere. The cut was projected to generate savings of about $5 million per year.

The government later deleted the panel’s website, but moved its reports and research over to a website hosted by Library and Archives Canada.

Harper also said that President Barack Obama’s proposal last week to limit carbon pollution from coal-fired power plants “do not go nearly as far” as actions already proposed by Canada in the electricity sector.

Coal plants are one of the most challenging and significant sources of carbon pollution in the U.S. economy.

Harper’s government hasn’t yet taken action to address carbon emissions from the oil and gas industry, including in the oilsands which are the fastest growing source of heat-trapping greenhouse gases in the country.

Here’s a transcript (edited for grammar) of the comments by Abbott and Harper at a joint news conference in Ottawa in response to a question from an Australian reporter who asked whether Obama’s recent announcement to crack down on carbon pollution from coal plants was putting pressure on their own governments to do more to fight climate change:

Tony Abbott:

“As you know, the Australian government believes in strong action to deal with climate change. We think that climate change is a significant problem. It’s not the only, or even the most important problem that the world faces. But it is a significant problem and it’s important that every country should take the action that it thinks is best to reduce emissions because we should rest lightly on the planet.”

“I am encouraged that President Obama is taking what I would regard as direct action measures to reduce emissions. This is very similar to the actions that my government proposes to take in Australia. We should do what we reasonably can to limit emissions and avoid climate change – man-made climate change. But we shouldn’t clobber the economy and that’s why I’ve always been against a carbon tax or an emissions trading scheme because it harms our economy, without necessarily helping the environment.”

Stephen Harper:

“Look, I don’t feel any additional pressure other than the pressure we all feel to make progress on this important issue. I think it’s important to lay out the facts here and certainly our officials can give you more of the facts. The measures outlined by President Obama, as important as they are, do not go nearly as far, in the electricity sector, as the actions Canada has already taken, ahead of the United States, in that particular sector. Now that particular sector is obviously, and the effects of climate change regulations in that particular sector in the United States, are obviously more sensitive to the overall American economy than they are in Canada. The reason I mention these things, is just to make the point that, as I think Tony has also made, that it’s not that we don’t seek to deal with climate change. But we seek to deal with it in a way that will protect and enhance our ability to create jobs and growth, not destroy jobs and growth in our countries. And frankly, every single country in the world: This is their position.”

“No country is going to undertake actions on climate change, no matter what they say, no country is going to [take] actions that are going to deliberately destroy jobs and growth in their country. We are just a little more frank about that, but that is the approach that every country is seeking.”

This article originally appeared on mikedesouza.com and was republished here with permission.

Image Credit: Prime Ministers Stephen Harper and Tony Abbott via Twitter

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