The University of British Columbia, which takes pride in promoting environmental responsibility and sustainability, is appealing a conviction for dumping fish-killing ammonia into a tributary of the Fraser River and, if the conviction is upheld, UBC will also appeal the $1.2 million fine that was designated for habitat restoration, arguing for a much-reduced fine.

The appeal has been heard in B.C. Supreme Court by Justice Neena Sharma, but no ruling has been made.

UBC spokesman Matthew Ramsey said, as the matter has not yet been settled, he cannot answer questions from The Narwhal on the reason for the appeal, who made the decision, the amount it is costing in legal fees and whether the case is being funded by public money.

“We are not commenting because the case is before the courts,” he said.

Last year the university was fined $1.15 million for releasing ammonia-laden water into a storm sewer and ditch connected to Booming Ground Creek, a fish-bearing stream that drains into the Fraser Estuary, in violation of the Fisheries Act. The university was fined a further $50,000 for failing to report the incident, which killed 70 fish, in a timely manner.

UBC did not report the spill to Environment Canada until three days later and argued at the Provincial Court trial that the delay amounted to a “technical breach.”

However, Justice Bonnie Craig, in her reasons for judgment, wrote: “Even this report was not initiated by UBC. It was a response to a request by Environment Canada for a report of the incident.”

“There was no evidence that UBC had a system in place to ensure employees understood their obligations to report under the Fisheries Act and followed through with those obligations,” she wrote.

CIMCO Refrigeration, a contractor working with UBC staff on the refrigeration plant at UBC’s Thunderbird Arena, pleaded guilty to depositing a deleterious substance into water that may be frequented by fish and was separately fined $800,000.

The university was ordered to conduct five years of electronic monitoring of storm-water quality in the area where the ammonia release occurred and the names of both the university and CIMCO have been added to the federal environmental offenders registry.

The ammonia-containing solution was released after Michael Paulson, a CIMCO mechanic, and Jeff Harley, chief engineer at the arena, worked on the ice rink refrigeration system. The discharge was described by Harley as “heavy-duty ammonia vapour going down the storm drain for about 15 to 30 minutes. Yet he permitted it to continue,” Craig wrote.

Harley also turned off ammonia alarms in the arena so they would not go off while the system was being worked on while there were members of the public in the arena.

“Mr. Harley told Mr. Paulson he did not want him to discharge the solution in the sanitary drain in the plant because he was concerned with ammonia vapours setting off the alarms in the arena. As a result, Mr. Paulson discharged the solution into a storm sewer drain located outside the building,” Craig wrote.

During the Provincial Court trial lawyers for UBC argued that Harley’s role in releasing the ammonia was “a mistake or a lapse in judgement.”

Three years later CIMCO was involved in a fatal ammonia leak at a municipal hockey rink in Fernie that killed two arena workers and a repairman.

The ammonia from the UBC arena killed fish in the creek, which runs through Pacific Spirit Park, and the strong smell of ammonia was reported by passersby.

A team with the Raincoast Conservation Foundation surveys juvenile salmon in the Lower Fraser where the organization has been improving fish access to Sturgeon Bank, a brackish marsh important for young salmon transitioning to salt water. Photo: Alex Harris / Raincoast

Fines would help in much-needed restoration in Lower Fraser

All the fines resulting from the incident are intended to go to the federal government’s Environmental Damages Fund and are expected to be used to help organizations involved in Fraser River fish habitat restoration, such as Raincoast Conservation Foundation, Rivershed Society of B.C. and the Pacific Salmon Foundation.

But UBC is fighting the conviction and seeking a reduction in fines.

The decision to appeal is puzzling, Fin Donnelly, Rivershed Society founder and chair, told The Narwhal.

“I don’t know why they are appealing. I think the judge was very clear in his ruling, saying that the award needs to go to restoration and remediation — although you can never really fully remediate what happens in terms of the damage it caused to the environment,” he said.

“Obviously we know that, especially where this happened — in the Lower Fraser, in the estuary — there’s a significant threat to the ecosystem, so looking at restoration is one way to make amends,” said Donnelly, former NDP MP for Port Moody-Coquitlam.

The uncertain fate of the lower Fraser River’s last salmon island strongholds

UBC has very publicly focused on becoming a sustainable university, Donnelly noted.

“So I would encourage them to aspire to what they are trying to teach to their students and to the world. I think we can all improve our practices,” he said.

A change that has been made since the 2014 ammonia dump is that staff at UBC’s athletics department have undergone extensive training in procedures to prevent pollution entering storm water drains and sanitary sewers.

The procedure requires approval from UBC’s Environment Management Services before any effluent is discharged down a storm drain and was in place before the ammonia incident, but had not been implemented in the athletics department.

“Had this procedure been in place in the arena on Sept. 12, 2014, it would have prevented the discharge of the ammonia solution into the storm drain,” Craig wrote.

The discharge was into one of the most heavily polluted areas of the Fraser River system, where huge amounts of habitat has been lost and the ammonia release “certainly didn’t help,” said Donnelly, who is heading an effort to raise $500 million over 10 years for habitat restoration in the watershed.

Donnelly said his organization has already secured a philanthropic contribution of $50 million and is proposing the province contribute $150 million and the federal government $300 million to the effort spread out over the next decade.

The Rivershed Society of B.C. and the Pacific Salmon Foundation have talked to representatives from the Environmental Damages Fund and put in a proposal for a restoration project in the estuary, with an education proponent, but have not yet heard back, Donnelly said.

How scientists are giving Fraser River salmon a fresh chance

David Scott, a biologist with Raincoast Conservation and a PhD student at UBC, said Raincoast is specifically eyeing the fines for potential restoration projects in the Fraser.

“If they do pay the fine it should go into the Environmental Damages Fund and then be available for restoration projects in the vicinity where the offence occurred. … I’m not sure of the grounds for appealing, but it’s a pretty big fine … we could definitely use it,” Scott said.

The creek where the ammonia killed fish meets the the north arm of the Fraser just before the river meets the ocean and Raincoast is interested in doing restoration in that area, Scott said.

“There’s been a lot of loss of habitat and impacts to connectivity because, in that area of the river, there are a couple of jetties and causeways that really disconnect all the habitats,” he said.

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.

Alternatives to the $10 billion Site C dam would produce significantly more jobs than construction of the controversial hydroelectric dam, according to a new study led by the University of British Columbia.

The analysis by researchers from UBC’s Program on Water Governance found that if Site C is scrapped, there would be modest job losses in the short-term — 18 to 30 per cent until 2024 — but job gains of between 22 and 50 per cent through 2030.*

A recent three-month investigation conducted by the B.C. Utilities Commission found alternatives to Site C, including wind energy and conservation measures to reduce provincial electricity demand, could replace the dam at an equal or lower unit energy cost.

“By 2054, the B.C. Utilities Commission alternative portfolio will have created three times as many jobs as Site C,” Karen Bakker, one of the authors of the report and co-director of the Program on Water Governance, told DeSmog Canada.

“Site remediation, geothermal construction and energy conservation will create thousands of jobs each year,” she said.

Alternative energy, such as wind power, creates many more jobs for every dollar spent, Bakker told DeSmog Canada.

ICYMI: Geothermal Would Create 15 Times More Permanent Jobs Than Site C, Panel Told

Using BC Hydro and BCUC figures, the researchers concluded that between now and 2024 continuing Site C would create 35,398 cumulative person-years of employment compared to up to 24,612 for alternative portfolios.

However by 2054, the alternative portfolio will have completely eclipsed Site C, with 37,618 job-years in the Site C scenario and 105,618 for alternatives.

Wind power and conservation efforts would create three times as many jobs as #SiteC https://t.co/FcRG4wzKKV #bcpoli #alternatives #cleanenergy #energyconservation

— DeSmog Canada (@DeSmogCanada) November 28, 2017

Pressure to Go Ahead

As government mulls over Site C options, with a decision on whether to continue or scrap the project expected by the end of the year, the spectre of more than 2,000 construction workers losing their jobs shortly before Christmas has weighed heavily. The government is also facing pressure from union groups, such as the Allied Hydro Council of B.C. and Christian Labour Association of Canada, who say the project is too far along to quit.

But, if the project is terminated, remediation of the site will require many workers and provide a transition period for the workforce and the local economy, Bakker said.

“It is a big project. It would absorb most of the workers on site… and there will be similar pay scales and skill levels to construction jobs,” she said.

“Two years of remediation and 10 years of monitoring will create about 10,000 jobs at similar pay levels — that’s the transition term for workers — and then, looking at the long term, you can generate more jobs for the dollars spent and generate jobs across the province and especially in the Peace region because it has the best wind resources in the province,” she said.

The analysis found that every direct job at Site C costs over $1 million and, if all jobs are taken into consideration, the cost per job is about $225,000.

BC Hydro figures put current Site C employment at 2,375, but, once construction is complete in 2024, Site C would employ only 74 people each year.

Job Losses Overstated

Even current employment numbers are being questioned by some groups, such as the Peace Valley Landowner Association, which claims the job numbers have been inflated.

“We are concerned that public confusion on this point may make things more complicated for decision-makers in an already complex situation,” says an Association statement.

West coast energy consultant Robert McCullough, who has acted on behalf of the Peace Valley Landowner Association and Peace Valley Environment Association, agrees that there is a common misconception that cancelling Site C will mean the loss of construction jobs.

“The reality is that, while some of the construction jobs will end at Site C, more than twice the person-years of employment will be created with investment into alternative energy projects across the province,” he said in a report.

A bonus is that the jobs will have a wider range of specialization than simply energy and resource development, he said.

More than $2 billion has already been spent on Site C and remediation would cost another $1.8 billion, but, costs of continuing construction are likely to skyrocket from the current $8.9 billion budget.

Site C was not sent to BCUC for recommendations and scrutiny before the previous BC Liberal government pushed the project ahead, but a BCUC report requested by the NDP government, concluded it is already behind time and over budget and is likely to cost at least $10 billion to complete.

*Update Wednesday Nov. 29, 2017 10:15am pst. This article previously stated the UBC analysis was independently reviewed. It did not receive an independent review.

Image: Wind turbines in B.C. Photo: Garth Lenz | 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.

The Site C dam no longer makes economic sense and construction on the project should be halted immediately, according to researchers from the University of British Columbia.

That recommendation comes on the heels of a major new study that examines the business case for Site C given major changes in economic and energy market conditions since the project was first proposed in the 1980s.

“We brought together a team of experts in energy and engineering and took a look at the business case for Site C as it stands today,” Karen Bakker, professor at the University of British Columbia and co-author of the report, told DeSmog Canada.

“In fact it’s so weak, we’re arguing the project should be paused.”

So what are the facts that undermine the case for Site C?

1) B.C. Doesn’t Need the Power and B.C. Hydro Has a Long History of Overestimating Demand

The Site C dam would create a huge amount of new power that the province of B.C. simply doesn’t need. In fact, B.C.’s electricity consumption rates have been essentially flat since 2005, thanks in part to major conservation programs.

B.C. Hydro insists the province needs the power Site C will generate, but B.C. Hydro has a long history of getting the numbers wrong.

“B.C. Hydro has consistently overestimated future energy demand and they’ve consistently overestimated for the past couple of decades,” Bakker told DeSmog Canada.

“Go back to 1981, then they were predicting that demand would double within 10 years. That’s why they argued for Site C at that point but 35 years later demand has still not reached the levels they were predicting.”

2) Site C May NEVER Be Needed

The UBC analysis found that, according to B.C. Hydro’s own numbers, future electricity demand has dropped so dramatically, Site C isn’t likely to be needed for another decade after commissioning — or possibly never.

But, you might ask, won’t new LNG projects or a mass electrification of our systems create the need for Site C?

Nope. Actually we have gotten so much better at conservation and creating cheaper, less environmentally destructive renewable energy, the argument for Site C gets weaker the further into the future you gaze.

Five Facepalm-Worthy Facts from UBC’s New Analysis on the #SiteC Dam https://t.co/ZoG6FcrDuc @DrKarenBakker @carollinnitt #bcpoli #bcelxn17 pic.twitter.com/VERATWXfJF

— DeSmog Canada (@DeSmogCanada) April 19, 2017

3) Site C Means ZERO Electricity Conservation

Because the province wants to justify building the very expensive Site C dam, the government has cancelled B.C.’s energy conservation programs.

Kind of unbelievable, right? But B.C. Hydro needs two things right now: higher electricity consumption rates and higher hydro bills. Cancelling conservation measures helps make those two things happen.

“The decision to scale back on energy conservation right now is essentially designed to get people to consume more and, yeah, pay higher bills. That makes sense if you consider the very large debt load that B.C. Hydro is taking on to pay for Site C,” Bakker said.

“The unfortunate side of this is that energy conservation is a lot cheaper than Site C. Energy conservation only costs about a third as much as building Site C.”

“We’ve met all of our energy needs for the past several years through energy conservation and our analysis suggests we could meet our energy needs for the next decade, approximately, through conservation,” she said.

4) Already at $9 Billion, Site C Keeps Getting More Expensive

British Columbians were originally told the Site C dam would cost roughly $5.8 billion to build. But now that estimate has surged to $9 billion.

Those cost increases aren’t likely to stop any time soon, the UBC researchers found.

“Site C will be 100 per cent surplus when it’s finished in 2024,” Bakker explained.

“That surplus energy will have to be sold, will have to be exported, from the province and B.C. Hydro’s own numbers show that those exports will occur at a high loss. Our figures show that loss will be about $800 million and could be as high as $2 billion.”

5) Site C Energy is Way More Expensive Than 21st Century Renewables

The decision to move away from conservation measures means by choosing Site C, we’re choosing a very expensive way to manufacture and then meet demand.

While that one-two punch is already a very, very bad deal for British Columbians, it’s happening within the context of the renewable energy revolution.

The UBC report recommends using conservation options to keep demand low while we explore clean and cheap renewables to meet any future demand.

“[Conservation] would cost us a lot less and in the meantime it would allow us to explore other cheaper and less environmentally damaging renewables — alternatives that are dropping in price as we speak — like wind power,” Bakker said.

“Wind power costs have dropped about 20 per cent since 2013 and they’re predicted, conservatively, to be dropping another 20 per cent within the next decade.”

“Whereas we know that Site C costs have risen on the order of hundreds of millions, if not billions, of dollars.”

Photos: Site C dam construction by Garth Lenz; Alex Proimos 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.

The Site C dam, advanced as the province’s showcase clean energy project by the B.C. government, will cause significant environmental damage without any significant climate benefit, according to a new report from the University of British Columbia.

Authored by Rick Hendriks from Camerado Energy Consulting, the report found Site C, a BC Hydro megadam proposed for the Peace River near Fort St. John, will not provide energy at a lower greenhouse gas (GHG) emission rate than other alternative energy projects.

“The government stated that the unprecedented level of significant adverse environmental effects from Site C are justifiable, in part, because the project delivers energy and capacity at lower GHG emissions than the available alternatives,” Hendriks, an energy consultant with more than 20 years experience analyzing large-scale hydropower projects, said.

“Our analysis indicates this is not the case.”

Comparing BC Hydro’s own data on Site C and alternative energy scenarios, the report found the megadam provides no substantial benefit over other renewable sources like wind and solar.

“I feel like the discussion in the public has made a few assumptions about the Site C dam that merit reexamination,” Karen Bakker, professor of geography at UBC and Canada Research Chair in Political Ecology, told DeSmog Canada.

“The assumption that Site C is clean and green is one that we actually need to scrutinize rather than assume,” she said.

Bakker, who oversaw the new greenhouse gas analysis, is one of several scholars who recently found the Site C project represents the largest amount of significant adverse environmental impacts ever reviewed under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act since its introduction into law.

She said although the joint federal-provincial review panel tasked with considering the Site C project did some good work, they were limited in resources and scope when it came to a fulsome project analysis. The panel did not consider the greenhouse gas emissions associated with the project.

“That’s the simple way to sum up why we’re doing what we’re doing,” she said.

Bakker said the report did not conduct an independent review of BC Hydro’s own greenhouse gas estimates for the project, but said, “even using their own numbers Site C is not cleaner or greener than other renewables.”

“Our analysis suggests that other renewables like wind and solar would help Canada achieve its climate change goals more quickly and cheaply and with much lower environmental impact than Site C.”

Bakker said the new report highlights the need for more thorough analysis of Site C’s environmental impacts. She added more research, which doesn’t rely on BC Hydro’s estimates, needs to be conducted.

“There’s much more to be done,” she said. “It would be great if this had been studied and geothermal had been examined as well.”

The Site C dam will power a proposed 1100-megawatt electricity facility, producing far more electricity than B.C. is projected to need for roughly two decades.

Local farmers, landowners and First Nations say the dam, which will flood 107 kilometres of the Peace River valley, will unnecessarily destroy wildlife habitat, First Nations archaeological and hunting sites and some of the province’s most productive agricultural land.

The chair of the Site C Joint Review Panel, Harry Swain, has come out against the project, saying B.C.’s domestic electricity demand has not significantly increased since 2007, meaning the province has no need for the estimated $9-billion project.

“I think we’re making a big mistake, a very expensive one,” Swain recently told DeSmog Canada. “Of the $9 billion it will cost, at least $7 billion will never be returned. You and I as rate payers will end up paying $7 billion bucks for something we get nothing for.”

“There is no need for Site C,” Swain said. “If there was a need, we could meet it with a variety of other renewable and smaller scale sources.”

Swain and the other panel members were prevented from making a recommendation on the Site C project, saying their review was too limited in scope and that the province consistently failed to investigate alternatives to the dam.

Bakker said the new greenhouse gas report highlights the need for more thorough and independent analysis of Site C. She urged the federal government to take the new information into consideration.

“The federal government committed to doing greenhouse gas assessments of all projects — upstream and comprehensive assessments,” Bakker said, saying both Environment Minister Catherine McKenna and Natural Resources Minister Jim Carr promised as much in their January 27th statement on project reviews.

“We are sending a copy of this report to those ministers suggesting what we’ve done is a small input into what should be a much bigger process and asking who is doing that review, because that is what they’ve committed to.”

Bakker said how the federal government proceeds with the Site C project will determine whether or not Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and his cabinet will honour their campaign promises and public mandates.

“The most significant precedent-setting litmus test in all of this is the First Nations issue,” she said.

“The fact that this government hasn’t publicly assessed whether Site C would infringe treaty rights, despite the fact that the joint review panel presented evidence that directly supports the claim that treaty infringements would occur, is a problem.”

“But we want to make sure that the broader discussion about balancing that against Canada’s climate change goals is not continuing on the basis of false assumptions.”

Image: W.A.C. Bennett Dam and the Williston Reservoir on the Peace River. Photo: Jayce Hawkins/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.

There are a few unarguable truths about mine tailings, the pulverized rock, water and sludge left over from mineral extraction — mining is a messy business, the leftovers have to be dealt with forever and it’s impossible to guarantee against another tailings dam failure such as the Mount Polley catastrophe.

In B.C., there are 98 tailings storage facilities at 60 metal and coal mines, of which 31 are operating or under construction and the remaining 67 are at mines that are either permanently or temporarily closed

That means communities throughout B.C. and Alaska are looking nervously at nearby tailings ponds, which sometimes more closely resemble lakes, stretching over several square kilometres, with the toxic waste held back by earth and rock-filled dams. The water is usually recycled through the plant when the mine is operating, but, after the mine closes, water, toxins and finely ground rock must continue to be contained or treated.

It’s the realization that tailings have to be treated in perpetuity that worries many of those living downstream, especially as the Mount Polley breach happened only 17 years after the dam was constructed.

“The concept of forever boggles people minds. In one thousand years is the bank account still going to be there? These people are going to be dead,” said Chris Zimmer of Rivers Without Borders.

“There are time-bombs up there without a plan to deal with them. Are they going to be able to build a mine that’s going to keep its integrity forever?"

[view:in_this_series=block_1]

It raises the question of whether there should be any mining in an area that is vital to five species of salmon and sustains the livelihoods of so many Alaskans, said Heather Hardcastle, a Juneau fisherman and coordinator of Salmon Beyond Borders.

“This is why this region of the world is so globally significant and why we care so much,” said Hardcastle, who is among those pushing for the issue to be referred to the International Joint Commission.

Two B.C. Tailings Dams Expected to Fail Every Decade: Expert Panel

The unease is heightened by the expert panel report on the Mount Polley dam failure, which concluded that, without significant changes to current mining practices, two tailings dams could be expected to fail in B.C. every 10 years.

Karina Brino, Mining Association of B.C CEO, said the association is aiming for a zero failure rate with members committed to implementing the panel’s recommendations for best practices.

But no one controls nature, Brino warned.

“I don’t think anyone can say this will never, ever happen again. It would be irresponsible to say that, because these are man-made structures that may be affected by natural causes,” she said.

Mining experts say that, with proper management, the ponds are safe.

“Different accidents happen, but is a plane safe? There are more accidents with planes than tailings dams. It depends on how you maintain them,” said University of B.C. mining professor Marcello Veiga.

Reclamation is a long-term commitment and communities need to be reassured that there are systems in place to look after the facilities, he said

It’s a claim met with skepticism by those battling for better safeguards for watersheds and an international assessment of the new-age gold rush on the B.C./Alaska border.

“Proposed Canadian mining and energy development on several headwaters within this region pose a major threat to fisheries and local communities downstream,” says a letter from Irene Dundas, Ketchikan Indian Community council member and former president.

“Our concern about Canada’s rush to develop this extraordinary region is compounded by recent legislative initiatives that have weakened Canadian environmental assessment standards and oversight.”

Mine Inspections Have Dropped Dramatically

According to the Chief Inspector of Mines annual reports, the number of mine inspections dropped dramatically from 2,021 in 2001 to 1,496 in 2002, after the B.C. Liberals came to power. The low was 494 in 2011 and in 2013, the latest figure available, there were 904 inspections. Mount Polley had 14 inspections, the highest of all mines.

First Nations land is ground zero for many of the dams and a June report by the B.C. First Nations Energy and Mining Council, which looked at 35 tailings ponds in northern B.C., found that 8,678 kilometres of streams, rivers and lakes, 33 First Nations communities and 208 cities and settlements would be in the path of contaminants if those dams failed.

Copper, a common contaminant in acid rock drainage, is acutely toxic to salmon and the First Nations Mining Council is calling for protection of river, lake and wetland ecosystems from industrial activities, protection for rivers with high numbers of migratory fish and better funding for problems that might arise after a mine closes.

Red Chris, KSM Mines to Use Tailings Ponds Despite Expert Recommendation

However, in northwest B.C., the two newest mines, Red Chris and KSM, are both close to important salmon rivers that flow into Southeast Alaska and both will use tailings ponds — despite a recommendation after the Mount Polley disaster that companies look at other methods, such as dry stack tailings, a method that involves filtering out water and piling dry tailings.

Several other mine proposals in the province’s northwest also specify the use of tailings ponds. The exception is the recently approved Silvertip project, owned by JDS Silver, which will use dry stacking and underground storage, despite the extra expense.

Red Chris, owned by Imperial Metals, which also owns Mount Polley, is close to the Iskut River, in the Stikine watershed. In June, Red Chris was handed its final operating permit by the province, following an evaluation of the tailings dam.

The dam is different from Mount Polley and has no lacustrine clay layer in the foundation – something that was instrumental in the Mount Polley breach — said Energy and Mines Ministry spokesman David Haslam.

“The Red Chris tailings storage facility has been the subject of three independent reviews done to assess seepage and design considerations,” he said

The province has been assured that Red Chris and its consultants have done extensive reviews of the site’s hydrogeology and made the necessary adjustments, Haslam said.

B.C.'s Push for New Transboundary Mines 'Astonishing'

But the decision to approve the Red Chris tailings pond has horrified Alaskan groups, who call the decision ill-conceived.

It is reckless for B.C. to permit a new mine with the same type of tailings technology that failed so catastrophically at Mount Polley, said a statement from Salmon Beyond Borders and the United Tribal Transboundary Mining Work Group.

“It’s astonishing to me how B.C. is dead set on getting these transboundary mines operating at all costs — even when their own experts say that current mining technology will fail,” said Rob Sanderson Jr., co-chair of the United Tribal Transboundary Mining Work Group.

Seabridge Gold’s KSM mine, which will stash its tailings behind a 239-metre high dam, making it among the highest in the world, is located in the Unuk River watershed, which drains into Alaska’s Misty Fjords National Monument.

Each mine has to be looked at individually and, for some, water management of tailings continues to be sound technology, Brino said.

“Dry stack is not new technology. It has been around for a long time and it’s more appropriate for dry climates and small operations because a lot of material needs to be hauled to the site,” she said.

“B.C. has a very wet climate and most are very large tailings facilities,” she said.

One of two mines operating in Southeast Alaska, Greens Creek, an underground silver and gold mine, uses dry-stacking and Pretium’s Brucejack, an underground mine in the Unuk watershed, recently approved by the province, plans to backfill waste underground or in lakes.

The province is moving to a requirement to have all mines with tailings ponds establish Independent Tailings Dam Review Boards, something Red Chris already has in place and a requirement that will apply to KSM, Haslam said.

Some additional requirements will not apply to those two mines as they have already received environmental assessment certificates, but, any changes to the Health, Safety and Reclamation Code for Mines, following a review this summer, will also apply to Red Chris and KSM, Haslam said,

No Compensation for Downstream Losses in Case of Tailings Dam Failure

Hardcastle, looking at the risks Southeast Alaska is facing, wants B.C. to take on more of the onus with an adequate bonding mechanism.

“There’s currently no mechanism for compensation for downstream losses when pollution occurs,” she said.

Security deposits the province requires from companies to ensure reclamation have gone from $10 million in 1984 to more than $791 million by the end of 2013, according to the Chief Inspector of Mines annual report.

The province currently holds $12 million in reclamation securities for Red Chris and $19 million for Mount Polley. The securities, which will be returned only when the sites are reclaimed, may change over the life of the mining operations.

However, the securities do not include cleaning up after disasters. Imperial Metals, which last year estimated the cleanup costs for Mount Polley at $67.4 million, is raising $100 million through debentures to cover the mop-up .

That should make all Alaskans feel insecure about corporate promises, said Zimmer, who has seen companies walk away after going bankrupt.

Photo: Cariboo Regional District

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.

Ditching fossil fuel stocks and replacing them with green energy investments will have little effect on greenhouse gas emissions until there are government and institutional policy changes, according to a new report.

The white paper, written by two University of British Columbia (UBC) researchers working with the Pacific Institute for Climate Solutions, finds that even if divestment campaigns – now being waged at more than 30 Canadian universities – are successful, there will be minimal impact on emissions, partially because governments, rather than shareholder companies, control the vast majority of the world’s oil reserves. If conventional energy companies were serious about avoiding surpassing the 2 degrees Celsius temperature limit recommended by scientists and policy makers, that would require "deep structural changes," the authors, Hadi Dowlatabadi and Justin Ritchie, argue.

However, the good news for those fighting for divestment, is that, with the right policies in place, divestment could speed up the change to a low carbon economy and change social norms when it comes to investing, the researchers concluded.

“Divestment movements are socially significant, but currently exert little influence on financing transition to sustainability," Dowlatabadi said.

“A lot of very well-meaning people put a lot of energy into the divestment campaigns and they are our friends – we believe that the symbolic value of their activities is significant,” Dowlatabadi told the Globe and Mail. “But for that symbolic value to be translated into progress towards decarbonization of the economy, all sorts of supported policies are needed.”

One of the reasons divestment may not be enough to tackle climate change is that fossil fuel energy is integrated into multiple areas, including low carbon industries.

“This means that divestment may end up being greenwash, when money is taken away from fossil fuel companies and reinvested, for example, in banks, which, typically, fund such companies anyway,” Dowlatabadi said.

Among policy changes suggested for municipal and provincial governments are the creation of an energy transition bank that could offer bonds and help ease investors into the low carbon economy while supporting B.C.’s green tech sector, a low carbon transition investment tax credit and support for public fund managers.

Universities and other institutions should set timelines for divestment, review their goals and screening of investments and use in-house expertise to come up with divestment strategies.

Those working on divestment campaigns should consider launching a separate low carbon or fossil free endowment fund so the performance can be compared to traditional funds, possibly with crowdfunding help, and explore how investment returns fit with broader campus sustainability goals, the paper says.

The University of Victoria and Simon Fraser University are circulating student and faculty-led divestment petitions and more than 200 UBC professors recently voted for the university to divest from the 200 most polluting companies over the next five years. The UBC Faculty Association is currently voting on whether the endowment fund should divest.

In December, Concordia University committed to divest itself of $5-million of fossil fuel investments and has plans for a new sustainable investment fund.

Image Credit: Daily Collegian 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.

This is a guest post by Andrew Gage, Staff Counsel and head of the Climate Change program at West Coast Environmental Law, and Michael Byers, the Canada Research Chair in Global Politics and International Law at the University of British Columbia. This article originally appeared in the Globe and Mail.

Climate change is no longer a distant threat. Peer-reviewed science has already linked climate change to drought in Texas and Australia, extreme heat in Europe, Russia, Japan, and Korea, and storm-surge flooding during Hurricane Sandy and Typhoon Haiyan.

Climate change is already causing about $600-billion in damages annually. Here in Canada, the National Roundtable on the Environment and the Economy estimated that climate change will cost Canadians $5-billion annually by 2020.

Canadian oil and gas companies could soon find themselves on the hook for at least part of the damage. For as climate change costs increase, a global debate has begun about who should pay.

Nobel Peace Prize laureate Desmond Tutu recently called on global leaders to hold those responsible for climate damages accountable. “Just 90 corporations – the so-called carbon majors – are responsible for 63 per cent of CO2 emissions since the industrial revolution,” Tutu said. “It is time to change the profit incentive by demanding legal liability for unsustainable environmental practices.”

So far, the fossil fuel industry has successfully opposed litigation for climate damages, brought in the United States by victims of hurricanes and sea level rise. But new areas of litigation often fail at first; in the 1980s, tobacco companies were still boasting that they “have never lost a case to a consumer, have never settled, and do not expect that picture to change.” As the tobacco industry learned, changes to the interpretation and application of laws sometimes occur quite rapidly.

Nor is litigation in the U.S. or Canada the only thing the fossil fuel industry should worry about. It is becoming increasingly likely that companies could be sued by victims of climate change overseas, in countries with quite different legal systems. There, they might face lawsuits based on constitutional rights to a healthy environment, strict liability for environmental harm, or any number of other legal principles that don’t currently exist in Canadian law.

Once a foreign court has ordered a Canadian company to pay for climate damages, that order is a debt – which Canadian courts can be asked to enforce. Chevron is currently fighting court actions in Canada, the United States and Brazil that seek to enforce a $9.5-billion award handed down by the supreme court of Ecuador – for pollution caused by oil spills.

Moreover, new laws could be introduced to facilitate climate litigation. When Canadian provinces encountered impediments to their ability to sue tobacco companies for public health costs, they eliminated those impediments by passing new laws. It’s not hard to imagine countries impacted by climate change enacting new laws to clarify the liability of greenhouse gas producers.

Five companies traded on the Toronto Stock Exchange are among the “carbon majors” – Encana, Suncor, Canadian Natural Resources, Talisman, and Husky currently are collectively responsible for about $2.4-billion a year of global climate damages.

Canadians are broadly supportive of the “polluter pays” principle – the idea that those who cause pollution should pay for the harm. But because climate change has seemed far off, there has been relatively little discussion about who should pay. It has been assumed – by industry, politicians, even some environmental activists – that oil and gas companies can continue producing with impunity, at least until a global climate agreement is reached.

But rising climate costs cannot be born only by taxpayers and by those who suffer the impacts of climate change. We believe that a new global awareness of the moral and legal responsibilities of the carbon majors will lead to a wave of climate litigation. Foreign lawsuits – with damage awards that are potentially enforceable in Canada – will be difficult and expensive to defend.

Image Credit: Zack Embree

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

This post originally appeared on MikeDeSouza.com and is republished here with permission.

Some 300 scientists are urging Prime Minister Stephen Harper to reject a report that recommended approval of a major oil pipeline to the west coast of British Columbia, describing it as a “flawed analysis” that downplayed key environmental impacts.

Following lengthy hearings, a review panel last December recommended approving Enbridge's Northern Gateway project – a 1,177 pipeline network that would send 525,000 barrels per day of bitumen, the heavy oil from Alberta’s oilsands, to Kitimat, B.C. The panel recommended 209 conditions be attached to the project approval.

But the scientists, led by Kai Chan, an associate professor and principal investigator at the University of British Columbia’s Connecting Human and Natural Systems Lab, sent Harper a letter on Monday concluding that the review’s final report wasn’t balanced and had five major flaws that made it “indefensible.”

“We urge you in the strongest possible terms to reject this report,” wrote the scientists, who are mainly from Canada and the United States.

The five major flaws of the review, as identified in the letter, were:

• A failure to articulate a rationale for numerous findings;
• Considering narrow risks, but broad benefits and an omission of key issues such as the environmental impacts of increased production in the oilsands;
• Relying on information from the project proponent, Enbridge, without an external review of the risks;
• A contradiction of official government documents such as threats identified in federal recovery plans for species at risk;
• An inappropriate treatment of uncertain risks and a reliance on yet-to-be developed mitigation measures.

Natural Resources Minister Greg Rickford has said the government will make a decision on the project soon.

The Harper government hasn’t directly or openly stated its position on the project, but it has generally endorsed the idea of building new infrastructure to support expansion of Canada’s natural resources, starting with an open letter signed by former natural resources minister Joe Oliver — who is now finance minister — in January 2012, that attacked environmental groups and accused them of conspiring to hijack Canada’s economy with foreign funding.

Chan said the scientists are not trying to weigh in on the merits of the project, but instead are trying to highlight the “critical” mistakes made during the review that appear to downplay the risks.

He added that these weaknesses in the review don’t necessarily mean the project must be stopped.

“We recognize it’s not our call,” Chan said. “We just want to make sure that the decision doesn’t go forward relying upon a deeply flawed report as if it’s complete, balanced and accurate.”

Oliver’s 2012 letter kicked off an overhaul of Canada’s environmental laws that eventually led to the cancellation of nearly 3,000 environmental reviews of industrial projects in 2012.

One month before the letter was released, his deputy minister at Natural Resources Canada, Serge Dupont, drafted a series of personal notes that highlighted a strategy to “advance a strong and coordinated advocacy and communications plan, with early pre-positioning for legislative and other actions” including offering “support” for the Enbridge project, which would open up access to new markets in Asia for Canadian oil resources.

The oilsands are the fastest growing source of greenhouse gas emissions, the heat-trapping gases that contribute to climate change, in Canada. The Canadian government hasn’t introduced plans to slow down the oil industry’s pollution, even though its own estimates show that oilsands emissions growth would prevent Canada from meeting an international climate change commitment made by Harper.

Enbridge says the project would create about 560 long-term jobs and about 3,000 jobs during construction. But the project has also generated fierce opposition from First Nations communities and environmentalists, among others who say the economic and environmental risks of a catastrophe or long-term damage outweigh the potential benefits.

Scientists Enbridge NGP by mikedesouza

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Full list of ousted climate experts and letter signatories:

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

Image Credit: TransMountain

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

As major Canadian universities continue to invest in sustainable techonologies such as green buildings and renewable energy research, there's another kind of investment most are keeping quiet on: oil and gas companies. Universities across the country are entrusting millions of dollars of their endowments to the fossil fuel industry.

Last month the University of British Columbia announced it was adopting a responsible investment strategy using a relatively new system called environmental, social and governance investing. ESG approaches social responsibility by taking into account the environmental, social and governance principles of various companies across sectors, rather than excluding certain industries.

Despite the move forward, the university—and every other endowed university in Canada—is still refusing to withdraw money from companies involved in the oil and gas industry. Luckily the voices of those demanding greater change are growing louder.

Gordon Katic, a founding member of environmental justice group UBCC350, is disappointed by the university’s outright refusal to divest from oil and gas companies.

UBCC350 has requested an immediate halt to investment in the oil and gas industry, and full divestment in five years. Katic said the group recognizes that the process requires time, but he also sees this as an opportunity to break new ground.

“A part of this movement is really about pushing for that kind of financial innovation.”

When UBCC350 met with the office of the vice-president of finance, resources and operations, the group was told the university can be more effective if it leverages its power as a large investor to push companies to shift their policies, but when asked whether UBC has written to any companies in particular to demand change, they said no.

The office’s website states that the university doesn’t invest directly in specific companies, instead investing in pooled funds managed by external managers.

“At various times, the funds in which UBC’s Endowment is invested include a number of companies in the oil and gas sector,” the announcement reads.

Jai Parihar, president of the UBC Investment Management Trust (IMANT), wouldn’t elaborate further on what goes into developing the university’s investing strategy, including whether student concerns are taken into account.

“UBC wants to be a responsible investor. That's why they put out the policy. If there’s any further development, we’ll put that on our website.”

Katic said he doesn’t understand why a university otherwise so concerned with environmental sustainability—UBC is home to some of the greenest infrastructure in Canada as well as some of the most comprehensive academic programs, including more than 400 course offerings that pertain to environmental issues—is willing to support tar sands development.

“All of this should be lauded to a certain extent but we want to go further,” he said. “There’s no evidence that UBC is using its position to influence these companies.”

Canada's largest universities are no small stakeholders. UBC and McGill both topped $1 billion last year, and the University of Toronto holds the country's largest endowment at more than $1.5 billion.

Is Divestment Merely Symbolic?

One of the primary criticisms of movement to divest, Katic said, is that it would be no more than a symbol because the moment a large university withdrew its money, other investors would rush in to fill the gap. Katic disagrees.

“It’s not symbolic to say we’re not going to profit from the destruction of our planet and have our teachers be a part of that and our students be a part of that. It’s not symbolic to say the oil sands is not the direction to take our country and to take our planet.”

The good news is that the ESG method of responsible investing is growing rapidly, putting more pressure on companies to develop strong policies and on financial firms to invest in them. The long-term outlook of ESG investing is well suited to university endowments, some of the most long-term portfolios around.

In a paper released earlier this month by American institutional investment firm Commonfund outlines the shift from socially responsible investing (SRI) to (ESG) investing. According to the paper, ESG investing aims to take a broader view than socially responsible investing or corporate social responsibility, evaluating funds and companies based on the strength of their environmental and social policies, thereby making success in those domains crucial to the success of the portfolio as a whole.

Portfolio evaluations based on ESG overweight companies with higher ESG rating and underweight those with lower ratings, but no particular companies or industries are excluded on principle.

Universities are notorious for citing fiduciary responsibility as a reason for refusing to divest from questionable industries, such as tobacco and energy companies. This is also the primary criticism of the SRI model of ethical investing. Opponents of these methods say that it’s too restrictive, thereby preventing funds from producing adequate returns, the primary goal of an investment portfolio. But restrictive is exactly what divestment groups want: absolutely no money going to dirty energy companies.

UBCC350 is taking steps to include the broader community in its work, including high school students and teachers and residents of the Point Grey neighbourhood next to the university. In the lead up to the provincial election in May, a committee of students and community members had a door-knocking campaign to raise awareness about environmental issues and to encourage residents to vote with the climate in mind. Katic feels the campaign contributed to premier Christy Clark losing her seat in Point Grey.

“This is a movement and there are calls of divestment springing up all over Canada, so this is a problem and we are taking a stand on it.”

UBC and Beyond

UBC students are not the only ones who feel this way. Groups at universities across North America are pressuring their administrations to divest from the energy sector. So far only a handful of small American schools have agreed.

Curtis Murphy, a recent McGill alumni and member of Divest McGill, said his university doesn’t employ a particular responsible investment strategy.

“There’s no proactive ethical investment strategy in place, which is something we’d love to see for sure.” On May 23, campus environmental organization Divest McGill presented a brief to the university’s Board of Governors outlining the social injury caused by the exploitation of fossil fuels. The group was told that proof of social injury is the only reason the board would consider divestment. The groups gave a 15-minute presentation, including 1200 signatures of McGill students in support of divestment. The board said no.

While he wasn’t surprised by the rejection, Murphy said, he finds it shocking that an industry built on the theft and destruction of land and responsible for millions of climate refugees could be innocent of social injury.

“Their definition of social injury is inadequate,” he said. “It seems to define it as breaking national or international laws. Murphy cited divestment from tobacco companies and companies who were involved in Apartheid South Africa as examples of the Board of Governors’ faulty logic.

“Tobacco is and was very legal but it’s still very harmful,” he said. “Apartheid was the law. They were following their own laws but breaking some very important moral principles.”

The board rejected the proposal based on a recommendation by its review body, the Committee to Advise on Matters of Social Responsibility (CAMSR).

Michael Boychuck, a member of the Board of Governors told the McGill Daily that the university only survives by its investments and government funding.

“Whether you like it or not, Canada is a resource-based company. That’s a fact. It’s not going to change any time soon.”

There was, however, a small ray of hope to come out of discussions with the board and with CAMSR, Murphy said. The terms of reference used to define social injury is under review this summer, and Murphy said Divest McGill plans to make another push after that has happened. He'd love to see McGill lead the way in divesting from fossil fuels, but he believes it would only take one university taking a stand to create have a ripple effect on other institutions.

“We’re definitely waiting for the first one to break, and then I think well see others get on board.”

Photo credit: Photo courtesy of Divest McGill

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.