Holy smokes.

Polls are in and Canadians across the country are expressing surprise at the strong win for the federal Liberal party.

While there’s much ink to be spilled over former Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s reign, he’s likely locked in a bathroom now, so we’ll save that for another, less change-y time.

Canada, you have a new Prime Minister. I would say ‘go home, you’re drunk.’ But don’t, because you’re not. This is actually happening.

But wait, what is actually happening? We have a new majority government. Before the fun gets away with us, let’s do a quick reality check for what the Liberal Party and incoming Prime Minister Justin Trudeau have been promising all y’all on some of our top DeSmog Canada topics: climate, environment, science and transparency.

Justin Trudeau’s Liberals on Climate

On the issue of Canada’s climate commitments for the UN climate summit this fall in Paris, the Liberal platform is underdeveloped. On the campaign trail last week party leader Justin Trudeau told the CBC he would not commit to specific emissions targets.

“Everybody has thrown out numbers and different targets, and what they’re going to do and what is going to happen,” Trudeau said.

“What we need is not ambitious political targets. What we need is an ambitious plan to reduce our emissions in the country.”

The federal Conservative party promised to reduce emissions by 30 per cent from 2005 levels by 2050, a target that has been roundly criticized as weak. Others have pointed out the Conservative plan made no mention of the Alberta oilsands, the fastest growing source of emissions in Canada.  

Although the Liberals don’t have a specific plan yet, the party has promised to establish a new climate change framework by February 2016 that includes an eventual phase out of fossil fuel subsidies. The plan will also include investment in climate resilience, clean technology and low-carbon infrastructure.

The party will also set aside $2 billion for emissions-reducing projects through a new Low Carbon Economy Trust.

Trudeau has also promised to attend climate negotiations in Paris with all of the premiers and to work with the provinces on emissions reduction plans that are location specific.

Importantly the Liberals have also promised to work with other countries like Mexico and the U.S. in developing shared clean energy plans.

Liberals on Environment

The Liberal party is promising to undo some of the damage done to Canada’s environmental laws and environmental assessment process for projects like pipelines.

The party promises to establish new, credible reviews for proposed development that are comprehensive, consider full and cumulative impacts, including upstream impacts like development in the oilsands, as well as greenhouse gas emissions.

Their revamped review process promises to be evidence-based and allow for more meaningful participation by the public.

Liberal party candidate Jonathan Wilkinson, who took the North Vancouver riding with 56 per cent of the vote, has also promised to scrap the current Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain pipeline review in favour of a revitalized process.

Trudeau has voiced his support for pipelines, including the Kinder Morgan and Keystone XL pipelines, but has also acknowledged “even though [it is] governments that grant permits, ultimately it’s only communities that grant permission.”

In that light, the party is also promising to engage more respectfully with First Nations during the consultation process. Considering cumulative impacts around the oilsands has been a major issue for local First Nations. On this note the Liberals have also promised to immediately implement the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples — something that will alter the manner in which First Nations are approached and consulted on major energy projects.

Since 2012 the Conservative party has weakened and eliminated many of Canada’s strongest environmental laws, including the Fisheries Act and the Navigable Waters Act.

The Liberals have promised to review changes to both of these Acts, re-instate what was removed from them and possibly up protections where warranted.

Significantly for B.C. the Liberal party has promised a moratorium on crude oil tanker traffic on the province’s north coast.

Liberals on Science

The Liberal party has taken a strong stance on the war on science in Canada, promising to free scientists to speak publicly about their work.

Trudeau has also promised to instate a Parliamentary Science Officer to ensure transparency, expertise and independence of federal scientists. This position will mirror that of the Parliamentary Budget Officer.

In addition to unmuzzling scientists, the party also wants to work collaboratively with the provinces, First Nations and other stakeholders when it comes to ocean management.

This is significant in light of the Conservative government’s de-funding of numerous marine science programs, including the only research being conducted into the effects of industrial pollutants on marine mammals. The Liberal party has promised to reinstate $40 million of funding for the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.

The Liberals plan on incorporating more science into federal environmental assessments including the consideration of climate change and environmental impacts of oilsands development on pipeline projects. Under the Conservatives both emissions and environmental impacts of the oilsands were considered ‘outside the relevant scope’ of pipeline reviews.

The federal Conservatives also fought against First Nations and conservation groups regarding the Species at Risk Act and its implication for major projects like oilsands mines or pipelines.

The Liberal party has promised to respond more quickly and more scientifically to the issue of at risk species. This means species will be listed faster and mandatory timelines will be put in place for species once they are listed as at risk.

A new version of the Species at Risk Act is already on the Liberal’s environmental plan.

Liberals on Transparency

When it comes to dealing with media, Trudeau has promised to have a much more open and transparent relationship with journalists.

Through its Transparency Act, the party has promised to make access to information much easier for Canadians, including making all government documents freely available online.

The Access to Information Act will be amended to make information ‘Open by Default,’ that is, more easily available to the public, on quicker timelines and for less money.

Current requests under the act cost $5 per request but may be subject to additional fees if the request is large or requires a lot of time. The amended act will limit the possible fee to the initial $5 charge.

In addition the Act will be reviewed every five years and expanded to include the Prime Minister’s Office, which is usually exempt from disclosure rules.

Trudeau has also promised to repeal certain elements of the Conservative’s controversial anti-terrorism legislation Bill C-51.

Former prime ministers, national editorial boards, tech experts, legal scholars, civil society organizations, democracy watchdogs and droves of citizens opposed the bill, saying it undermined the democratic rights of Canadians.

Many were outraged at the Liberals’ decision to support it.

Trudeau has promised to “take a constructive approach to improving the bill” including instituting greater oversight of Canada’s national security agencies and establishing an “all-party committee of Parliamentarians, to provide oversight of various agencies, including CSIS, CSE, the RCMP and DND.”

No matter what, Canadians are in for a real mix up under this new leadership. Reuters is reporting Justin Trudeau will bring “glamour, youth and charisma” to Ottawa in the dawning of this new age. I’ll reserve that kind of cheer for another moment. For now, I’ll just say the Liberal party certainly has their work cut out for them.

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.

Promises made by governments across the globe to limit their national greenhouse gas emissions in advance of December’s UN Climate Summit in Paris, where a binding post-2020 international climate treaty is to be struck, are insufficient to limit warming to the 2˚C threshold.

That’s the conclusion of a new analysis released last week during the final round of pre-Paris negotiations in Bonn, Germany, by a consortium of climate research organizations called Climate Action Tracker. The consortium includes Ecofys, Climate Analytics, NewClimate Institute and the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research.

In the lead-up to the summit, 29 governments have released their “Intended Nationally Determined Contributions” (INDCs), the vast majority of which are too weak to limit global warming to scientifically advisable levels.

According to Climate Action Tracker, the current plans address about 65 per cent of global emissions.

The group analyzed 15 of the 29 contribution promises and rated seven as “inadequate” (Australia, Canada, Japan, New Zealand, Singapore, South Korea and Russia) and six “medium” (China, the EU, Mexico, Norway, Switzerland and the U.S.).

Only two of the plans — from Ethiopia and Morocco — were considered “sufficient.”

On Track to Surpass 2˚C

According to Bill Hare of Climate Analytics the commitments “need to be considerably strengthened for the period 2020-2025.” 

“It is clear that if the Paris meeting locks in present climate commitments for 2030, holding warming below 2˚C could essentially become infeasible, and 1.5˚C beyond reach,” he said.

Scientists and policymakers around the world have agreed we must limit warming to within 2˚C of pre-industrial temperatures if we want to avoid catastrophic climate change (although some climate scientists, like Kevin Anderson of the Tyndall Centre, worry even a 1˚C change could bring us into dangerous climate territory).

Hare added that, “given the present level of pledged climate action, commitments should only be made until 2025.”

Canada’s Weak Climate Record

Complicating the process are countries like Canada that have submitted plans that conflict with the country’s own internal emissions projections.

To understand how a country like Canada has been handling its various climate pledges, it’s important to delve into the numbers. Canada has shifted its baseline numbers a number of times, which makes it difficult to understand how previous pledges stack up against new ones. 

In 2005 Canada signed onto the Kyoto Protocol, pledging to reduce emissions 6 per cent below 1990 levels by 2012. Canada withdrew from the Kyoto Protocol in 2011 and in 2012 reported an emission increase of 18 per cent above 1990 levels.

Canada subsequently signed onto the Copenhagen Accord, promising to reduce emissions 17 per cent below 2005 levels by 2020. That’s the equivalent of an increase of 7 per cent above 1990 levels.

The Copenhagen commitment should have resulted in reducing overall emissions to 611 megatonnes of CO2 equivalent by 2020, but according a the most recent emissions trend report released by Environment Canada, Canada’s emissions are expected to grow to 727 megatonnes in 2020 because of a dismal lack of climate policy.

In May, Canada released its late INDC, promising to reduce emissions by 30 per cent from 2005 levels by 2030. But as the Carbon Action Tracker points out, under current policies Canada’s emissions are expected to continue increasing to one per cent above 2005 levels in 2020 and eight per cent by 2050.

Based on the 1990 baseline, emissions are expected to increase 26 per cent by 2020 and 35 per cent by 2050.

No matter how you slice it, emissions are going up and Canada, as the ninth largest emitter in the world, is not doing its fair share to reduce its portion of the global warming pie.

As the World Resources Institute points out, Canada’s pre-Paris commitment works out to a mere 1.7 per cent emission reduction each year.

In comparison, other industrial nations like the EU and the United States have committed to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions by 2.8 per cent each year.

Höhne said Canada isn’t doing enough for a nation of its capacity.

“In rating Canada ‘inadequate,’ our lowest rating, we note that other governments will have to take a lot more action to make up for the hole left by Canada’s lack of ambition — if warming is to be held to 2˚C,” he said. 

The Climate Action Tracker also noted Canada plans on purchasing carbon market credits that will take the place of true emissions reductions from major emitters like the oil and gas sector.

Emissions from Canada’s oilsands, the country’s fastest growing source of greenhouse gas emissions, have increased 79 per cent since 2005. Currently nine per cent of Canada’s total emissions come from the oilsands, but that portion is expected to jump to 14 per cent by 2020.

Canada’s commitments do not address growing oilsands emissions and the current federal government has refused to regulate emissions from the oil and gas sector, despite promising rules for a decade.

Last week the New Democratic Party, the official opposition, promised to strengthen Canada’s INDC pledge and indicated the new target would be in line with the party’s pledge to reduce emissions 34 per cent below 1990 levels by 2025, and 80 per cent by 2050. (For comparison, the current federal government’s pledge is equivalent to reductions of 51 to 63 per cent below 1990 levels by 2050, but as Climate Action Tracker points out, this aspirational target has never been legislated for).

During a campaign stop Friday Prime Minister Stephen Harper said he did not see climate policy as an election issue.

Stronger Policy Needed to Meet Targets

“One would have expected all the new government climate targets combined to put the world on a lower emissions pathway, but they haven’t,” Louise Jeffery from the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research said. 

“One contributing factor is the fact that Russia, Canada, and New Zealand’s INDCs are inconsistent with their stated long term (2050) goals.”

Climate Action Tracker found many countries, Canada included, don’t have the policies in place to actually implement the emissions reductions necessary to meeting their own INDCs.

China and the EU are the exception in this case with only minimal policy adjustments needed to meet their contribution targets.

“With current policies being insufficient to limit emissions even to the INDC levels by 2025, it is clear that ramping up greater policy action needs to be encouraged as part of the Paris Agreement,” professor Kornelis Blok with Ecofys said.

“Most governments that have already submitted an INDC need to review their targets in light of the global goal and, in most cases, will need to strengthen them,” Niklas Höhne of NewClimate Institute said.

"Those still working on their targets need to ensure they aim as high as possible.”

Image: Prime Minister Stephen Harper 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 David Suzuki.

A little over a year ago, I wrote about a Heartland Institute conference in Las Vegas where climate change deniers engaged in a failed attempt to poke holes in the massive body of scientific evidence for human-caused climate change. I quoted Bloomberg News: “Heartland's strategy seemed to be to throw many theories at the wall and see what stuck.”

A recent study came to a similar conclusion about contrarian “scientific” efforts to do the same. “Learning from mistakes in climate research,” published in Theoretical and Applied Climatology, examined some of the tiny percentage of scientific papers that reject anthropogenic climate change, attempting to replicate their results.

In a Guardian article, co-author Dana Nuccitelli said their study found “no cohesive, consistent alternative theory to human-caused global warming.” Instead, “Some blame global warming on the sun, others on orbital cycles of other planets, others on ocean cycles, and so on.”

Nuccitelli and fellow researchers Rasmus Benestad, Stephan Lewandowsky, Katharine Hayhoe, Hans Olav Hygen, Rob van Dorland and John Cook note that about 97 per cent of experts worldwide agree on a cohesive, science-based theory of global warming, but those who don’t “are all over the map, even contradicting each other. The one thing they seem to have in common is methodological flaws like cherry picking, curve fitting, ignoring inconvenient data, and disregarding known physics.”

It’s astounding and tragic that, with all the evidence — from volumes of scientific research to the very real effects we are experiencing everywhere — some people stubbornly refuse to believe there’s a problem worth addressing. Sadder still: many of them are political leaders.

Part of the problem is that fossil fuel interests spend enormous amounts of money to sow doubt and confusion, often by funding or setting up organizations like the Heartland Institute in the U.S., the Global Warming Policy Foundation in the U.K., Ethical Oil and Friends of Science in Canada and the International Climate Science Coalition, based in this country but affiliated with similar organizations in Australia and New Zealand and with close ties to Heartland. A number of industry-funded websites also promote fossil fuels at the expense of human life, including Climate Depot and Watts Up With That?

These secretive organizations rarely reveal funding sources, prey on the uninformed and ignorant, and blanket the media with opinion articles, letters to editors and comments, often referring to misleading charts and graphs and bogus “studies” from organizations with names that imply they’re scientific when they’re anything but. They’re assisted by a compliant news media and politicians who also receive fossil fuel industry funding. It’s likely the people behind these organizations know they’re lying but care more about making money and preserving the lopsided benefits of a polluting sunset industry than finding ways to contribute to human health, well-being and survival.

Those who argue that seven billion people pumping massive amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere aren’t having a serious negative impact are out to lunch.

Fortunately, most thinking people don’t buy the lies. People from all sectors and walks of life — religious, academic, business, political, activist, social justice and citizenry — are calling for an urgent response to the greatest threat humanity faces. From Pope Francis and the Dalai Lama to Islamic scholars and Hindu, Sikh and Jewish leaders; from Volvo, Ikea and Apple to the International Monetary Fund, World Bank and World Health Organization; from every legitimate scientific academy and institution to enlightened political leaders — all have warned about the serious nature of global warming and the urgent need to do something about it.

Polls and marches, demonstrations and citizen initiatives show that people want action. Yet, despite this tremendous recognition of the reality of our situation, governments have failed to come up with a legally binding, ambitious and universal climate agreement, thanks in part to efforts by countries like Canada, Japan and Australia to stall or water down agreements at economic summits and UN climate conferences.

As world leaders prepare for the December UN climate meeting in Paris, Canadians must impress upon all those who hope to govern us after October 19 the importance of making a positive contribution. As voters, we have the power to make a difference in this critical conversation. Let’s exercise it.

Written with contributions from David Suzuki Foundation Senior Editor Ian Hanington.

Learn more at www.davidsuzuki.org.

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.

It may come as a surprise to some that Alberta pioneered carbon pricing — not just in Canada, but for all of North America.

That’s right: the province with the fastest growing greenhouse gas emissions in Canada was the first place on the continent to put “polluter pays” legislation into place almost exactly eight years ago.

“Even back in 2007, Alberta was getting pressure over its environmental management, particularly of the oilsands. This may have been in response to that,” Matt Horne, associate B.C. director at the Pembina Institute, told DeSmog Canada.

Since then, three other provinces have joined the carbon pricing club: British Columbia with a carbon tax and Quebec and Ontario with cap and trade.

Each system is meant to, in theory, shrink provincial carbon footprints while allowing economies to remain strong and competitive. (If you want to totally geek out on the differences between Canada's carbon pricing systems, check this paper out).

With support for a national carbon pricing system growing, Canada need look no further than these provinces to learn some lessons. So, let's start with the first: Alberta.

Canada’s First Carbon Price: The Alberta Carbon Levy [view:in_this_series=block_1]

Although a pioneering system, Alberta’s carbon levy or Specified Gas Emitters Regulation (SGER) has not been effective in decreasing emissions in the province.

The carbon levy goes after the big emitters in the province — those producing more than 100,000 tonnes of GHG emissions. Mainly oilsands operations and coal-fired power plants — which make up roughly 50 per cent of the province’s total carbon footprint — fall into this category.

Rather than requiring emitters to make overall reductions in GHG emissions, the Alberta system requires a 12 per cent reduction in GHG-intensity of their product.

That means that as long as a project or facility produces 12 per cent less GHG emissions per dollar or barrel of bitumen than it did in the baseline year, the overall carbon footprint of that project is free to grow.

“Alberta’s system is an intensity-based system, which means you can potentially increase your total emissions as long as your intensity goes down,” Philip Gass, a senior researcher at the International Institute for Sustainable Development, said.

Companies unable to make the 12 per cent reduction in energy intensity pay a $15 levy per tonne of GHG emissions.

Source: Pembina Institute

The Alberta system also allows for carbon offsets — the option to purchase the right to emit from other large emitters that have met their reduction targets. 

However, the flexibility provided to polluters in Alberta is both the system’s strength and weakness.

“The short answer is Alberta’s carbon levy has not been effective,” Horne said.

“But that is not an indictment of the system itself. The problem stems from the relatively weak parameters they’ve used to populate it.”

Alberta’s carbon levy may need to toughen up as international pressure to limit emissions grows.  

As the world prepares for the upcoming UN climate summit in late 2015, some countries have turned their attention to the oilsands, asking how Canada plans to curtail the resource’s growing emissions. A recent report argues development of the oilsands stands at odds with Canada’s climate targets.  

For more on Alberta's carbon levy read How Carbon Pricing Currently Works in Alberta from the Pembina Institute. For a more detailed analysis of the levy read Andrew Leach's analysis in the Canadian Tax Journal (pdf).

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 will almost certainly not meet its international greenhouse gas emission reduction target by 2020 and doesn’t even have a plan showing how the nation might achieve its climate change goals, according to a blistering new report released Tuesday.

Julie Gelfand, the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, said a climate change audit found current federal measures will have little effect on emissions by 2020, the year Canada committed under the Copenhagen Accord to reduce domestic greenhouse gas emissions 17 per cent below 2005 levels.

Gelfand said in her report that the government has introduced regulations in the transportation and electricity generation sectors.

She noted, however, that regulations in the oil and gas sector — where emissions are growing the fastest — are still not in place eight years after the government first indicated it would regulate this area.

“There is strong evidence that Canada will not meet its international 2020 greenhouse-gas-emission reduction target,” she said. “The federal government does not have an overall plan that maps out how Canada will achieve this target. Canadians have not been given the details about which regulations will be developed, when, nor what greenhouse gas reductions will be expected.”

"Canadians are being grossly misled if they think that this government has even the remotest intention of ever trying to achieve any greenhouse gas targets, let alone join the realm of civilized nations," Liberal environment critic John McKay said in response to the audit.

As DeSmog Canada has previously reported, Canada’s total lack of national climate legislation became international news after a major report highlighted its absence.

Gelfand added the federal government has also not provided the necessary coordination so that all levels of government, working together, can achieve the national target in six years’ time.

The report plays into the growing impression that Canada, often seen as a pariah internationally for its lack of climate change leadership, is too-heavily invested in the fossil fuel industry, especially in Alberta.

The Harper Government, which currently came under fire after Prime Minister Stephen Harper declined to attend the UN Climate Summit in New York City, recently released a public document to highlight Canada’s climate achievements. Critics called the document “Orwellian” for suggesting Canada had made climate progress.

Another audit found that joint Canada-Alberta monitoring projects looking at air, water and biodiversity need to be better integrated to understand the long-term environmental effects of oilsands development, including cumulative impacts.

“Among other questions, the government does not know what Environment Canada’s role will be in oil sands monitoring beyond March 2015,” Gelfand said.

“It has not made clear the rationale for what projects will be subject to environmental assessments, and I am concerned that some significant projects may not be assessed.”

Gelfand’s comments are in line with concerns raised by First Nations in the oilsands’ region, many of which are currently embroiled in legal battles against government and industry for permitting new projects without addressing cumulative impacts that negatively affect treaty rights.

A third audit of the Canadian Arctic revealed that many higher-risk areas are inadequately surveyed and charted with some maps and charts over 40 years old.

“I am concerned that there seems to be no overall vision of what the federal government intends to provide in this vast new frontier, in terms of modern charts, aids to navigation and icebreaker services, given the anticipated increase in vessel traffic.”

Gelfand added this year’s audits show that, despite some initiatives and progress in certain areas, there remain many unanswered questions.

“In many key areas that we looked at, it is not clear how the government intends to address the significant environmental challenges that future growth and development will likely bring about.”

In conclusion, she said Canadians expect the government to prepare for the future and that the difficulty of addressing climate change will only increase as the nation delays.

The environmental footprint of oilsands development is steadily increasing, Gelfand concluded, adding that increased Arctic shipping routes due to melting sea ice will create higher environmental risks.

NDP environment critic Megan Leslie said the results of the audit are “disappointing,” especially given the resource push in the north.

"We have delicate ecosystems in the Arctic. Further to that, there is a really small window right now of when we could actually do that cleanup. We've seen a lot of discussion about drilling in the Arctic and that's one of the major concerns is that if something were to happen, the ice comes pretty quickly,” she said.

“Is there enough time to even clean up the damage that could be done?"

Gelfand also noted an absence of preparatory knowledge. “In each case it is likely that a lack of action today will translate into higher costs tomorrow,” she stated.

Image Credit: Prime Minister 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.

Vote-hungry politicians reluctant to act on climate change because they are beholden to the powerful fossil fuel sector just received a poor prognosis from the medical profession.

Climate change is not only happening but it can exacerbate many environmental health risks familiar to clinicians and public health professionals, according to The Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA).

Harm from climate change includes respiratory disorders, infectious diseases, food insecurity, and mental health disorders, said the JAMA study, Climate Change: Challenges and Opportunities for Global Health.

Published Tuesday, one day before the UN Climate Summit in New York, the study said health care professionals have an important role in understanding and communicating the related potential health concerns and the co-benefits from reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

Part of that implied role, although not directly mentioned in the study, would see doctors reminding politicians to begin dealing aggressively on reducing toxic greenhouse gas emissions caused by coal, oil and gas that are dangerously warming our atmosphere.

Saying that health is inextricably linked to climate change, and canvassing 56 previously published articles related to global warming, the study also noted that many cities will experience more frequent extreme heat days by 2050.

“For example, New York City and Milwaukee could have three times their current average number of days hotter than 32 C, which would exacerbate heat stress,” said the study,

The most direct effect of a warming planet is heat stress and associated disorders, the study said, adding heat-related deaths are routinely attributed to causes such as cardiac arrest without citing temperature as the underlying factor.

High-risk groups include elderly persons, the study added, those living in poverty or social isolation, and those with underlying mental illness.

“Depression may be aggravated; suicide has long been observed to vary with weather. Dementia is a risk for hospitalization and death during heat waves. Psychotic illnesses such as schizophrenia, as well as substance abuse, also are associated with an increased risk of death during extremely hot weather. Increased frequency of kidney stones (likely precipitated by dehydration) also occurs during heat waves.”

The study said other adverse affects caused by climate change include respiratory disorders exacerbated by fine particulate pollutants, such as asthma and allergic disorders; infectious diseases, including vectorborne diseases and water-borne diseases, such as childhood gastrointestinal diseases; food insecurity, including reduced crop yields and an increase in plant diseases; and mental health disorders, such as posttraumatic stress disorder and depression, that are associated with natural disasters.

Deliberate, well-funded attempts to deceive the public and sow confusion over global warming have succeeded, the study said. “Despite robust scientific consensus on climate change, there is widespread perception that scientists disagree, which in turn fuels public disbelief.”

The study suggested that health may be a compelling frame for communication about climate change, reflecting views that change threatens health. “Although further research is needed to define the role of health in climate communication, practical communication resources are becoming available, implying an important role for health care professionals.”

If the JAMA study alone doesn’t encourage some reluctant politicians to begin engaging in the low-carbon future, an accompanying editorial says that doctors should be concerned about climate change and its associated effects on health.

“The great gains in well-being in the 20th century occurred because of the concerted effort to improve the health of entire populations,” the editorial said.

“Today, in the early part of the 21st century, it is critical to recognize that climate change poses the same threat to health as the lack of sanitation, clean water, and pollution did in the early 20th century. Understanding and characterizing this threat and educating the medical community, public, and policy makers are crucial if the health of the world’s population is to continue to improve during the latter half of the 21st century.”

Together, the study and the editorial represent another important step in establishing a necessary green energy revolution, one that just might include an influential army of stethoscope-wearing doctors telling politicians to embrace healthy living and do the right thing on climate action.

Image credit: Doctor holding a globe in her hands via Shutterstock.

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.

Facing criticism in the lead up to today’s UN Climate Summit, which prime minister Stephen Harper is not attending, the Harper Government released a new public outreach campaign through Environment Canada, praising the country’s action on climate change.

The campaign points to four pillars of Canada’s climate progress including efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, investing in climate adaptation, “world-class scientific research to inform decision-making,” and international leadership in climate action.

Already critics are pointing to the apparent disparity between the Environment Canada campaign and Canada’s waning reputation on the international stage for its climate obstruction, the muzzling of scientists, the elimination of environmental legislation and massive cuts to federal research and science programs.

“Reading the Harper government’s claims about its climate efforts is like reading one of Orwell’s books,” Mark Jaccard, professor at Simon Fraser University’s School of Resource and Environment Management, said.

“Eliminating policy is to implement policy. Blocking and abandoning global negotiations is to lead global negotiations. Muzzling scientists is to have science inform decision-making. Working hard to increase carbon pollution is to decrease it. Black is white. Dishonesty is truth.”

Jaccard told DeSmog Canada, “We can no longer say that we are unsure what meaningful action on climate would look like.” Provinces across the country could follow Quebec’s lead and join California’s cap-and-trade system, he said, which would increase the effectiveness of the whole system, “making it much harder for some U.S. politicians to continue to present this as an economy killer.”

Recently prime minister Stephen Harper publicly criticized a polluter pay solution to growing emissions, saying no country would undertake climate action that might harm the economy. Onlookers were quick to critique Harper’s economy versus environment framing, an outmoded way of viewing the transition to clean energy, a growing sector of the global economy.

Katie Gibbs, co-founder of the science advocacy group Evidence for Democracy, told DeSmog the Harper government’s cuts to science positions and research stations prevents the country from responding strongly to the challenge of climate change.

She said Environment Canada “has undergone many staff and funding cuts which means they simply don't have the research capacity that they used to.”

“This hurts the government's ability to make science-informed decisions on many environmental issues, including climate change,” she said. 

Gibbs also pointed out that a special working group within Environment Canada that was tasked with working on oil and gas regulations with industry appears to have been disbanded in early 2013. 

Similarly, the Harper government also disbanded the National Roundtable on the Environment and Economy (NRTEE), a government solutions think tank, after the body recommended the government implement carbon pricing.*

“Instead of listening to the experts at NRTEE, the government cut their funding,” Gibbs said.

“The government needs to listen to the experts: scientists, policy analysts and economists all agree that some form of carbon pricing is need to get our CO2 emissions down to safe levels.”

Despite Environment Canada’s claim that Canada is taking climate action, there are no binding emissions regulations for oil and gas development in the country. Canada committed to reducing greenhouse gas emissions 17 per cent below 2005 levels by 2020 under the Copenhagen Accord, although a recent Environment Canada report showed Canada’s current weak emissions reduction measures will prevent us from meeting that target.

“The government has been saying since 2011 that they were going to introduce regulations for oil and gas sectors but it hasn't happened yet,” Gibbs said.

Canada is one of the only major developed nations to have no climate legislation.

According to Keith Stewart, climate and energy campaigner with Greenpeace Canada, that likely has to do with the current government’s close ties to the oil and gas sector.

“Our current federal government confuses what is good for oil companies with what is good for Canada and so refuses to recognize all of the amazing opportunities that would be open to us if we started pushing action on climate change rather than desperately trying to hold it back,” he said.

“There are, however, some promising signs at the provincial level such as Ontario's coal phase out and Green Energy Act, B.C.'s carbon tax and Quebec's focus on electrification of transportation.”

But he adds, in order to take meaningful action on climate change, the current government may need to distance itself from industry influence.

A report by the Polaris Institute showed industry lobbyists met with the federal government 463 per cent more than environmental organizations between 2008 and 2012.

“Meaningful action on climate change requires kicking the oil industry lobbyists out of the backrooms so we can get on with finally putting a price on pollution and investing in green alternatives like great public transit, wind and solar power, and more efficient homes, offices and factories,” he said.

* An earlier version of this article stated the NRTEE proposed introducing a carbon tax. They called for carbon pricing.

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.

As a Canadian and a celebrated actress known for her roles in Lost and The Hobbit, Evangeline Lilly has a lot to contribute to current conversations about Canada, the country’s international reputation, and recent criticism leveled against the Harper government for its failure to meaningfully address climate change.

Critics expressed concern when Stephen Harper announced he would not be attending the U.N. Climate Summit in New York City, beginning tomorrow, even though world leaders are gathering to discuss international commitments to reducing greenhouse gas emissions worldwide in preparation for U.N. climate talks taking place in Paris in 2015.

Lilly said Canadians deserve to know their country is represented in the global movement to reduce emissions and limit climate impacts.

“I’m here in New York City at the People’s Climate March and I feel that I’m here as a representative of all those Canadians who care about their natural wilderness and care so much about global warming, and who don’t have a government representative here to represent them on a worldwide stage.”

“Of course, Mr. Harper has decided to avoid the event and he’s not here to make any commitments on behalf of Canada to do our part in making the world a greener, safer, healthier, more beautiful place. But I know at the heart of Canada is a massive groundswell of people who care so much about this issue.”

“And I stand here as a Canadian saying: as Canadians we care, and we’re here and we’re represented.”

Lilly told a massive crowd gathered on the street that she wants to lend her celebrity to support the individuals within the movement: “I’m showing my face in support of all of you people who are gathered here.”

Addressing the crowd at the march, Lilly said being a part of the environmental movement is about celebrating.

“One of the things I love the most about being part of an environmental movement is that a lot of us in this group are really angry, we’re really mad about a lot of the things we see going on in the world, a lot of the injustices and a lot of the horrible abuses of our natural world. And yet somehow we always manage to show up with smiles on our faces and love in our hearts.”

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.

“I think it’s because we remember at the core of all of this what we’re really doing is we’re celebrating the beauty of mother nature, we’re celebrating life on planet earth,” she said.

“We say, let’s do it right, let’s be positive, let’s focus on the future, let’s focus on our children, let’s focus on clean energy.”

Lilly said she was recently asked by a journalist what she hopes to accomplish by attending the march.

Lilly said “with conviction, I was able to look him in the eye and say I’m actually not here for the people who are listening or who aren’t listening. I’m not worrying about whether my action is the most powerful action in the world that will change the course of history. What I’m worrying about is looking my son in the eye when he’s 15 and saying, ‘I did what I was convicted to do. I did everything I knew how to do in that moment.’”

Lilly ended by encouraging march attendants to get involved with the organizations behind the event.

“And don’t forget to smile, and dance and kick up your feet,” she said. “Don’t forget to love mother nature through your joy, because I think she’s joyful right back at us today.”

Image Credit: Carol Linnitt

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.

Renewable energy and other low-carbon technologies are now a successful mainstream business with investors spending $207 USD billion in the sector last year, according to a report released Monday by Clean Energy Canada.

The report — Tracking the Energy Revolution — also said that carbon-based fuels would remain an important part of the global energy system for decades but added that “for the first time in more than a century, multiple signs suggest that their dominance is beginning to wane.”

Global fossil-fuel power generation investment last year totalled $270 billion, the report said, only $63 billion more than for clean energy investments.

It is clear that falling equipment costs, strong investor interest, and government and business leadership are driving a global clean energy revolution, the 18-page report added.

“When it comes to addressing climate disruption, the countries that succeed on the world stage are those taking action at home,” Merran Smith, director of Clean Energy Canada, said in an accompanying media release.

“We found scores of countries and leading companies — from China to the United States — that are fighting climate disruption by cleaning up their energy systems.”

Smith was critical, however, of the Canadian government for showing a lack of interest in supporting green energy.

“Provincial governments are helping Canada play a growing role in that revolution, despite scant federal support for the sector,” she said.

“Thanks to provincial leadership, Canada is a significant player in the global clean energy market. In 2013, ours was the second-fastest growing clean-energy market in the G20, with a 45 per cent increase in investment to $6.5 billion.”

The report said China, the U.S. and Japan were the top three national investors in low-carbon technologies such as wind and solar power last year, spending $55 billion, $36 billion and $30 billion respectively.

By the end of last year 144 countries had renewable-energy targets, the report said. Uruguay has the top 2020 policy target of 100 per cent of primary or final energy to be sourced from clean and renewable sources in six years. Scotland’s 2020 target is 80 per cent and Norway’s is 68 per cent.

China, the world’s largest polluter, invested more last year in new clean energy power plants than it did in new coal power plants, said the report, released one day before the UN Climate Summit in New York.

Sixty per cent of Fortune 100 firms now have goals for renewable energy sourcing and/or greenhouse gas reductions, the report said, adding 6.5 million people now work in the global renewable energy industry.

In a telephone interview with DeSmog Canada, Smith said the federal government is reluctant to engage the low-carbon revolution because it doesn’t understand how big and how fast the clean energy transition is happening.

“This is where big investment dollars are already, and are going to,” she said. “Canada needs to wake up and quit ignoring this. We can’t put all our eggs in the fossil fuel basket.”

She said that the U.S., the European Union, China and other nations are embracing the clean energy economy because technology costs are plunging, it can clean up the air quality, it can provide national energy security, and there are many good business opportunities.

“We are at the tipping point and this is becoming the new business-as-usual,” she said. “This is real, this is big, this is unstoppable.”

The Vancouver-based Clean Energy Canada is a project of Tides Canada Initiatives Society, a group of charities dedicated to social and environmental issues.

Image Credit: Clean Energy 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.

A group of prominent Canadian academics has signed a letter that says the nation is “running a sustainability deficit” when it comes to climate change.

“Unlike budgetary deficits, it does not seem to preoccupy our politicians,” said the letter, penned by at least 53 frustrated academics in advance of the People’s Climate March held in New York City and many other urban centres around the world on Sunday.

“Canada has repeatedly missed its own climate change emission reduction targets. Last January, Environment Canada acknowledged that Canada won’t meet its least ambitious target to date, proposed in 2009 as part of international climate negotiations coined the Copenhagen Accord.”

The academics said that, as researchers who study climate change and sustainability, they strongly support Sunday’s global mobilization, which will include events in numerous Canadian cities.

They pointed out that a U.S. climate action plan indicates that, unlike Canada, the United States will meet its Copenhagen commitment to reduce toxic greenhouse gas emissions. The U.S. plan, they added, also emphasizes the positive legacies of confronting climate change including future job security, economic competitiveness, and overall well-being.

“Tomorrow is today; we can no longer wait to take up the opportunity to change course and begin to act. Countries must phase out fossil fuels to transition towards cleaner energy sources thereby guaranteeing both human and environmental well-being.”

The academics said they are cooperating to bring to public attention evidence-based research useful for developing constructive ambitious proposals that can deal with the consequences of global warming.

They also warned federal politicians that they need to start making laws and enacting regulations that reduce the continued growth of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere.

“In the upcoming 2015 [national] election, Canadians will have an opportunity to demand that politicians and parties protect Canada’s social well-being, economic competitiveness and extraordinary environmental assets by addressing climate change,” the academics said.

“Moving quickly and effectively on climate change will require a national conversation from all corners of society, a conversation we hope will benefit from evidence-based research on pathways forward.”

They said Canada’s current inaction on sustainability hinders the nation’s ability to play a positive role in the negotiations leading to the Paris climate change conference where more than 190 countries will meet in December 2015.

“We believe Canada should act as a leader rather than a laggard in this process,” the academics said.

One of the aims of the Paris conference is to produce an international climate change agreement that would limit warming to no more than 2 degrees Celsius higher this century than pre-industrial temperatures in order to avoid potentially devastating consequences associated with global warming.

The International Energy Agency (IEA) says, however, that the world is not on track to limit the global temperature increase to 2 degrees Celsius.

IEA Executive Director Maria van der Hoeven said in 2013 that an agency report indicates “the path we are currently on is more likely to result in a temperature increase of between 3.6 °C and 5.3 °C.”

The academics’ letter added it is time to accelerate the transition towards a low-carbon society ensuring that the next generation of Canadians can inherit a productive economy with high social well-being standards, live in sustainable cities and enjoy Canada’s unique wildlife, pristine lakes and ice capped mountains.

“For that world to be ours tomorrow, we must act today.”

A list of the Canadian academics who signed the letter can be seen here.

The People’s Climate March takes place two days before UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon has invited Heads of State to a Climate Summit in New York City designed to generate momentum for acting on climate change.

Image Credit: James Rowe 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.