In a rare rebuke, the United Nations has instructed Canada to suspend construction of the Site C dam on B.C.’s Peace River until the project obtains the “free, prior and informed consent” of Indigenous peoples.

Canada has until April 8 to report back to the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination outlining steps it has taken to halt construction of the hydro project, which would flood 128 kilometres of the Peace River and its tributaries in the heart of Treaty 8 traditional territory.

The unusual request from one of the world’s top human rights bodies was made by committee chair Noureddine Amir in a December 14 letter to Canada’s UN Ambassador Rosemary McCarney.

It comes as Canada vies for a coveted seat on the UN Security Council and two Treaty 8 First Nations await a court date to determine if the Site C project unjustifiably infringes on their constitutionally protected treaty rights, as they claim in civil actions filed last January.

“The Committee is concerned about the alleged lack of measures taken to ensure the right to consultation and free, prior and informed consent with regard to the Site C dam, considering its impact on indigenous peoples’ control and use of their lands and natural resources,” wrote Amir, an Algerian law professor and former diplomat.

“The Committee is further concerned that the realization of the Site C dam without free, prior and informed consent, would permanently affects the land rights of affected indigenous peoples in the Province of British Columbia. Accordingly, it would infringe indigenous peoples’ rights protected under the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination.”

Canada missed an August 2018 deadline to report back to the committee on the Site C project, which was approved by the federal government in 2014 and green-lighted by B.C.’s new NDP government in December 2017.

Amnesty International spokesperson Craig Benjamin told The Narwhal that the federal and B.C. governments “misinterpreted” the UN committee’s 2017 recommendation that work on the Site C project be suspended, pending a full review in collaboration with Indigenous peoples that includes identifying alternatives to the irreversible destruction of Indigenous lands.

Parks Canada shirks UN request for review of Site C dam impacts on imperilled national park

Both governments “took far too casual an approach” to the committee’s languishing request for an update, he said.

“That was very much reflective of their view that they could get away with that, that they could ride on their reputation as a human rights defender and that the committee wouldn’t take them to task,” said Benjamin, Amnesty Canada’s campaigner for the human rights of Indigenous peoples.

“They’re discovering now just how seriously the committee takes this issue.”

Grand Chief Edward John, a lawyer and hereditary chief of Tl’azt’en First Nation in B.C.’s northern interior, pointed out that the Trudeau government has repeatedly committed to forging a new relationship with Indigenous peoples and to upholding international human rights standards.  

“If that’s the case then there needs to be action on this matter,” said John, a former member of the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues.

“Canada can’t condemn China on its human rights record while at the same time a UN body is questioning its ability to deal with human rights issues dealing with Indigenous peoples in this country,” John said in an interview.

Both the federal and B.C. governments have pledged to uphold the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which states that resource projects like the Site C dam must have the free, prior and informed consent of affected Indigenous communities.

Roland Willson, chief of West Moberly First Nations, one of the nations challenging the legality of the Site C dam, has called the project “cultural genocide.”

Among many other impacts, the dam’s reservoir would flood dozens of places of cultural and spiritual significance for Treaty 8 nations, including Indigenous gravesites. It would also destroy traditional hunting and trapping grounds, poison bull trout and other fish with methylmercury and eliminate habitat for more than 100 species vulnerable to extinction.

Benjamin pointed out that the committee is not asking Canada for any more information about its decision to approve the Site C dam and to issue multiple permits for the 9-year construction project, whose price tag has soared from $6.6 billion to $10.7 billion.

“There’s really no room here for Canada to respond and offer excuses.”

Arguments in Site C dam court case represent ‘cynical denial’ of Indigenous rights: B.C. Indian Chiefs

The UN committee sent the letter to the Trudeau government following a 5-page letter it received from the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs noting Canada’s failure to report back to the committee and asking the committee to elevate the status of the case.

“We are gravely concerned at Canada’s disregard for the CERD [Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination] recommendations and the rights of Indigenous peoples in general,” said the November 20 letter from the UBCIC executive, a copy of which was shared with The Narwhal.

The letter also noted that First Nations were denied an interim injunction to halt work on Site C until their civil suits could be heard. The UBCIC said it is concerned that “irreparable harm will be done before the court is able to rule on this crucial outstanding issue of the impact on Treaty Rights.”

Amir’s letter encourages Canada to seek expert UN advice on the rights of Indigenous peoples through a mechanism that provides states with technical advice and helps facilitate dialogue with Indigenous peoples — a mechanism Canada has strongly supported in the international arena.

“That’s a huge, good piece of advice for Canada and the provincial government,” commented Chief Judy Wilson, secretary treasurer of the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs.

“I think the letter is timely, seeing that we have not only Site C but the Taseko mine and the Wet’suwet’en [standoff over construction of oil and gas pipelines] and… the TransMountain pipeline,” said Wilson, who attended a meeting of the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination in Geneva in 2017 and spoke to committee members about the Site C project and other issues of pressing importance to Indigenous communities in B.C.

“Clearly the nations are saying they have not given their consent and they’re still ploughing through with major projects through territories,” Wilson told The Narwhal. “Canada has not responded to that. In all of their reconciliation talks and announcements they’re largely ignoring that.”

Benjamin called the letter a “pretty serious blow to the complacency of the federal and provincial governments.”

The B.C. government has taken the view that ignoring treaty rights obligations and continuing with business as usual is “perfectly okay” while the fundamental issue of constitutionally protected rights is still before the courts, Benjamin said.

“Here we have one of the world’s top human rights bodies, the body specifically established to address racial discrimination, not only contradicting this view [and] saying this is not okay but elevating it to this level of urgency.”

Global Affairs Canada requested e-mailed questions from The Narwhal that, once received, were left unanswered.

Wilson said the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs sent a letter to the federal government this week asking them to respond to the UN committee’s request to suspend Site C dam construction.

“The federal government signed those conventions, those covenants,” she said. “The human rights one is a major one and the UN declaration [on the rights of Indigenous peoples] is the global human rights standard.”

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 has more mine tailings spills than most other countries in the world, according to a report from the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), which urges governments and the mining industry to improve safety, accountability and oversight.

During the last decade there have been seven known mine tailings spills in Canada, only one less than reported in China, which tops the list, says the report.

The UNEP assessment “Mine Tailings Storage: Safety Is No Accident” looks at 40 tailings accidents, including the 2014 Mount Polley disaster that saw 24 million cubic metres of sludge and mine waste flooding into nearby waterways.

It is estimated that, since 2008, mining waste failures have killed more than 340 people, damaged hundreds of kilometres of waterways, affected drinking water sources, wiped out fish populations, destroyed heritage sites and monuments and jeopardized the livelihoods of many communities.

And the documented disasters may not tell the whole story as there is no global database of mine sites and tailings storage facilities — something the report calls for.

“This is just a glimpse of what we know. A lot of the data is missing. We need an international database of mining spills and mining failures. If you don’t collect that solid data, you are not in the best position to correct the problems,” Ugo LaPointe of MiningWatch Canada told DeSmog Canada.

“We should be asking the regulators and the industry why no one on the planet is tracking spills and failures.”

The root of the problem is that environmental and human safety is not the first priority for mining operations, says the report, which recommends that regulators, industry and communities move to a “zero-failure objective” rather than focusing on the bottom line.

“The increasing number and size of tailings dams around the globe magnifies the potential environmental, social and economic cost of catastrophic failure impact and the risks and costs of perpetual management,” says the report.

“These risks present a challenge for this generation and, if not addressed now, a debt we will leave to future generations.”

Canada Has Second-Worst #Mining Record in World: UN https://t.co/wHdbhwaiAM #mountpolley #bcpoli #cdnpoli @MiningWatch pic.twitter.com/r5ED6hkkUd

— DeSmog Canada (@DeSmogCanada) October 27, 2017

Jessica Draker, Mining Association of Canada (MAC) communications director, said the organization wholeheartedly agrees with the United Nations call for a zero-failure objective.

“In fact, MAC and its members committed to a goal of zero catastrophic failures of tailings facilities and no significant adverse effects on the environment and human health well before the report was published,” she said.

MAC’s tailings management guide is recognized as leading the field globally, Draker said in an e-mailed response to questions.

After the Mount Polley mine disaster, MAC struck an independent task force — with 29 recommendations now being incorporated in the guidelines — and held a parallel internal review, Draker said.

“Next month MAC will release a revised Tailings Guide informed by these reviews,” she said.

The guide will incorporate recommendations by the Mount Polley expert panel, said Draker, adding that it is important to learn from mistakes such as Mount Polley.

The United Nations report does not speculate about why countries such as China and Canada have a high dam failure rate, but the data underlines that Canada is doing poorly, with almost 20 per cent of the documented failures, LaPointe said.

“The problem is that the industry is not yet acknowledging publicly that there are too many financially risky, marginal mines that are being permitted,” he said.

Marginal companies cut corners in safety, dam construction and monitoring and then do not have the financial capacity to ensure the safety of people and the environment around those sites, LaPointe said.

Alaska and Quebec demand large financial securities, paid up front, and other provinces should follow suit and consider the financial profile of each mine as one of the criteria for approval, LaPointe suggested.

“If we were to put the bar higher and require payment of financial securities ahead of permitting and ahead of mining, this would be one one way to get rid of the mines that would be marginal and you would end up with the mines that are safest,” he said.

A paper by researchers Lindsay Bowker and David Chambers, published this month in the journal Environments, draws the connection between economics and high failure of mining waste storage facilities and concludes that financially marginal mines push existing infrastructure beyond design capacity.

The paper estimates that between one third and one half of technically operating mines are no longer economically viable or never were viable.

However, regulators stand by passively, assuming production of the mines will resume and jobs will be retained, despite the flaws in infrastructure, it says.

“These are not assumptions supported by available data or expert economic analysis,” says the paper.

Meanwhile, B.C. is facing increasing criticism from Southeast Alaskans who say they do not trust B.C.’s regulation or oversight after the Mount Polley spill and decades of inaction on the Tulsequah Chief, which is leaking acid mine drainage into a tributary of one of Alaska’s major salmon rivers.

With up to 10 mines planned on the B.C. side of the border, Southeast Alaskan tribes, fishing organizations, local politicians and environmental groups are pushing for the U.S. federal government to step in and mediate water quality concerns.

“There aren’t currently any enforceable protections for Southeast salmon rivers should Canadian mine runoff impact water quality,” said Southeast Alaska Indigenous Transboundary Commission Chairman Frederick Olsen Jr.

Among the concerns is the Red Chris mine, owned by Imperial Metals, which also owns Mount Polley. Despite recommendations by the Mount Polley expert panel for companies to move to dry tailings, Red Chris uses a tailings pond that has seven times the capacity of Mount Polley.

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 end of the fossil fuel era is being signalled loud and clear here at the Paris climate conference as ministers enter the final hours of negotiations.

It's crunch time and everyone is saying the elements needed for an ambitious deal are still on the table. An essential part of this includes establishing a clear long-term goal to guide investor confidence toward a low-carbon society.

And with a 1.5C degree target option currently alive in the text, along with words such as ‘decarbonisation’ and ‘carbon neutral’, the signal couldn’t be clearer.

“The message that we expect this conference to send investors in the fossil fuel industry is get out now,” said Michael Brune, executive director of the Sierra Club. “There is no future in fossil fuels.”

Pointing to the 1.5C target, Kasia Kosonen from Greenpeace added: “We are now for the first time really having a serious debate around strengthening the temperature target to 1.5C and recognising that 2C is already too much. This de facto means that we are talking about moving away from fossil fuels in a short period of time.”

Policy Framework

And it’s not just those inside the negotiations that are looking for clarity. Businesses have also been calling for a clear long term goal, stressing its importance for investors.

As Michael Jacobs, senior advisor at the New Climate Economy project, explained: “Emissions will be cut through the application of investment and technology in a whole series of infrastructure projects… that’s how you actually do this. And the piece of paper that will be signed is a push to those processes but it doesn’t guarantee them."

“The way it pushes them is it requires government to respond to goals by putting in place policies which will then help drive investment, and demand creation, and technological innovation.”

Alden Meyer, strategy director at the Union of Concerned Scientists, agreed – and he’s been to virtually all the major climate talks since 1995.

He explained that a Paris deal must send a clear signal to the global industry that investments can shift from high-polluting industries towards clean energy – a trend he said we were already witnessing. 

“That will affect their decisions on trillions of dollars of asset investments,” Meyer told The Guardian. “If they think that governments are serious about going where the science says we need to go, then they will respond in kind. If they think that governments are wishy-washy, and are wobbling or uncertain, then they will hedge their bets.”

It seems the oil and gas industry is at the very least hearing what’s being said. But will it listen?

The Industry's Future

We’re already seeing dramatic shifts in the energy market signalling the end of coal. According to estimates by commercial intelligence company Wood Mackenzie more than 65 per cent of the world’s coal production is unprofitable as prices decline for the fifth year in a row.

Last Friday at a side-event inside the COP21 delegates’ space, oil executives from Shell, Total, and Statoil, along with industry trade bodies, sat down to discuss the future of their industry. While there was little talk of renewables, the industry figures recognised that there was strong global pressure to cut fossil fuel emissions.

Elliot Diringer, executive vice president of Virginia-based non-profit C2ES – and who was described as being close to negotiators – explained: “Paris has already sent many signals… The [pledges], the presence of world leaders, the agreement itself… [and] the debate on long term goals such as the decarbonisation of the economy.”

He continued: “If all of that comes together what we’ll have is a reshaped, reframed political and policy context. The question for all stakeholders is how do we engage coming out of Paris to achieve the transformation we keep talking about?”

Jean-Francois Gagne, head of technology policy division at the International Energy Agency, told industry figures in the room: “We have to realise the rate at which we decarbonise is going to have to increase, so we need to think about [what we invest in] in the future.”

Solutions which “would give credibility” to the industry, he said, included energy efficiency and renewables, as well as ending coal and reducing methane emissions from gas.

As Margaret Mistry, sustainability communications leader at Statoil, added: “We need to relate to the climate goals that people are talking about outside of our industry. Whether it’s two degrees or net zero emissions. It’s important to speak the same language.”

“From our point of view,” she continued, “the stronger the agreement the better. What we’re seeking is predictability and investment signals. The more certainty… the better it is for us to plan our business.”

Photo: UN Climate Change 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.

BY KYLA MANDEL AND BRENDAN MONTAGUE IN PARIS

French energy giant Engie is perhaps the most prominent and most promoted corporate sponsor of the COP21 climate talks in Paris.

Engie, formerly known as GDF Suez, can be seen everywhere from the launch of India’s Solar Alliance on Monday to a ‘wind tree’ outside the COP21 venue at Le Bourget and the white lock-boxes spread throughout the halls where attendees can charge their devices.

And today the company will lead the charge at the opening of Solutions COP21 where corporates are gathering in central Paris to promote their various climate solutions. Here, Engie will be discussing opportunities for start-ups as well as showcasing a solar-powered race car and an air purifying robot.

But as the energy giant continues to boast of its COP21 sponsorship, DeSmog UK takes a closer look at its climate track record.

Energy Lobbying

Engie is one of France’s two largest electricity and gas providers (the other being EDF) and the French government owns 33 percent of the company.

According to the EU transparency register Engie spent between €2.25 million and €2.49 million in 2014 lobbying the European Commission on energy and the environment.

The company is also a member of BUSINESSEUROPE – an umbrella lobby organisation that is notorious for trying to weaken environmental and climate policies. In fact, just yesterday on December 3 the lobby group held a seven hour meeting in the EU Commission headquarters between Jean-Claude Junker, head of the commission, and several big energy companies.

It is no surprise then that Engie’s chief executive Gérard Mestrallet frequently appears at official events here at the climate summit.

As Olivier Petitjean of Multinationals Observatory explained: “There has been a growing trend, especially when you listen to what the French government says, to suggest that corporations have all the solutions to deal with the climate crisis, and that they are the ones that will deliver on the objectives set in Paris.”

“This is particularly the case in the energy sector,” he continued. “The French government has always been very explicit about its intention to use COP21 to promote the French ‘national champions’, Engie and EDF.”

In September for example Mestrallet spoke alongside French President Holland at a pre-COP21 event. And then in November Engie celebrated the launch of internal discussions  to discuss ‘climate and energy’ with French environment minister Ségolène Royal.

As the company’s website reads: “Under the discussions, ENGIE employees will express their views on key points to be taken up at the annual Conference of the Parties (COP21) climate talk event.”

Over the course of the two weeks at COP21 Mastrallet will also be speaking on issues such as access to energy in Africa and on the Paris deal itself.

But as a report released this week shows, Engie has a poor track record in reporting its greenhouse gas emission transparently and taking into account emissions along its value chain – from sourcing raw materials to waste disposal.

Corporate Sway

Asad Rehman of Friends of the Earth International addressed a press conference about corporate influence at the climate summit.

He told DeSmog UK: “Of course we recognise in terms of tackling the climate crisis we need all sectors to play their part, but the question is of course in terms of who determines the role of each of those sectors.

“Is it the state and government acting in the interest of its citizens or are the solutions packages being put forward in the interest of business and corporations?”

“Not only [have] they got a grip on our policy but now we want to put them in the driving seat?” he questioned not just of Engie’s involvement in the COP but of corporate presence generally. “It’s like putting Dracula in charge of a blood bank.”

Engie has been working to promote its clean energy initiatives in the lead up to and throughout the climate talks. But the fact is that still only 4 percent of its power is generated from renewables. If you include nuclear and hydro power this comes closer to 22 percent.

Natural gas on the other hand forms the majority of its generating capacity along with coal and nuclear. And just outside of Paris in Saint Ouen – less than 10km away from the COP21 climate summit – there is a coal plant operated by CPCU, a subsidiary of Engie.

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.

Some corporate sponsors of the COP21 Paris climate talks are failing to properly report their greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions a new report reveals.

The Paris climate conference is sponsored by over 60 companies including big polluters EDF, Engie and BNP Paribas. And while countries continue to negotiate a deal on tackling climate change, what have these corporate sponsors brought to the table?

A new study published this week by French social research group BASIC and the Multinationals Observatory shows that very few of the COP21 sponsors are declaring their GHG emissions in a transparent way.

The report looked at the GHG emission reduction policies of ten COP21 sponsors: Accor, BNP Paribas, Carrefour, EDF, Engie, Kering, LVMH, L’Oréal, Micheline and Renault.

Of these, only one company – EDF – has actually reduced its overall carbon footprint in line with EU targets.

Corporate Transparency

Olivier Petitjean of Multinationals Observatory told DeSmog UK: “There has been a growing trend, especially when you listen to what the French government says, to suggest that corporations have all the solutions to deal with the climate crisis, and that they are the ones that will deliver on the objectives set in Paris.”

“But as we show in our report, private companies are not as exemplary as they'd like to pretend. Only a minority of them report on their emissions in a transparent, accessible way,” Petitjean said.

Only four of the ten companies examined actually publish their GHG emissions data: BNP Paribas, Carrefour, Kering and LVMH. However, none of these companies take into consideration the full impact of its business’ value chain – from raw materials to waste disposal.

And while half of the companies in the study – Accor, Kering, L’Oréal, Michelin and Renault – did commission a full assessment of their emissions over the value chain, none of them have shown any GHG emission cuts at this scale.

The failure to address a companies’ upstream and downstream emissions is troubling given that for these COP21 sponsors, the majority of their emissions are located in these areas which represent up to 85 percent of their global GHG footprint.

Where companies do make GHG reductions, many times this is done through carbon offsets elsewhere rather than investing in emission cuts at their home-operations in Europe.

EDF and Engie

In particular, Petitjean highlighted the contradiction between EDF and Engie’s prominence at the climate talks compared to their environmental performance.

“The French government has always been very explicit about its intention to use COP21 to promote the French ‘national champions’, Engie and EDF,” said Petitjean, noting that both companies have large-scale advertising campaigns going on which highlight their sponsorship of the climate talks.”

He continued: “When you look at the reality of their investments and their portfolio, the share of renewables is still really minimal, and it mostly comes from gobbling up smaller companies.”

Both also continue to invest in coal and have also just signed contracts with Cheniere to import liquefied natural gas from the U.S. starting in 2017.

Photo: UNFCCC 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.

Women from around the world are mobilising today to call for action on climate change as international leaders meet in New York at the United Nations General Assembly.

"There is no climate justice without gender justice," the movement argues. Solutions and policy demands will be presented in New York City as part of the Global Women’s Climate Justice Day of Action in an effort to highlight the reality that while women are among those most severely vulnerable to the effects of climate change, women are also the "key to creating climate solutions."

The aim is to get political officials to agree “equitable, immediate, and bold action on climate change" as we enter the final two months before the COP21 climate change negotiations in Paris in December. At this time, the Women’s Climate Declaration will be presented to world governments.

Connecting Women

“Women around the world are facing the impacts of the climate crisis every day,” said Osprey Orielle Lake, co-founder and executive director of the Women’s Earth and Climate Action Network, which helped organise the event. “We are issuing a wake-up call to the world that the time has come for bold action to address the roots of the climate crisis, with women’s leadership at the forefront.”

Among the women speaking at the event in New York are Mary Robinson, the UN special envoy on climate change, and May Boeve, head of climate campaign group 350.org. Other leading international women speaking include Jacqui Patterson, director of the NAACP Environmental and Climate Justice Program, Melina Laboucan-Massimo, First Nations and anti-tar sands activist, Jody Williams, American political activist and Nobel Prize laureate, and Patricia Gualinga, international relations director for the indigenous community of Sarayaku in Ecuador.

As Orielle Lake explained, the day of action is “about connecting women working on vital climate projects around the globe. It is about bringing our passion and determination to the surface and manifesting our vulnerabilities and fierce strengths.”

According to the UN, women form a disproportionately large share of the poor. In rural areas and developing countries women are typically the ones responsible for securing water, food and energy for cooking and heating – this dependence on local natural resources makes them highly vulnerable to climate impacts, including drought, uncertain rainfall and deforestation.

And, compared to men in poor countries, women face historical disadvantages such as limited access to decision-making and economic assets, and this further increases the challenges of climate change.

Global Action

This is why it is not just in New York City that women are mobilising. Throughout September, women in over 30 countries have been holding events calling for change.

For example, in the Niger Delta region of West Africa, women held a summit on gender and oil. Meanwhile, in the Amazon Rainforest indigenous women protested fossil fuel extraction in their territories. And, in Canada documentary photography depicts women from across the country seeking to protect water from pollution.

As the UN argues, it is “imperative that a gender analysis be applied to all actions on climate change and that gender experts are consulted in climate change processes at all levels, so that women's and men’s specific needs and priorities are identified and addressed.”

Melissa S. United States

Hala Alhaffar. Damascus, Syria

In addition to asking for a transition away from fossil fuels, protection of our forests and oceans, and increased funding for adaptation, the Women’s Climate Declaration lays out a series of gender-conscious demands. These include: a gender-responsive climate change policy and programme; recognising that gender-sensitive climate policy benefits men, women, children and the planet; and respecting and learning from the traditional ecological knowledge, wisdom and experience of the world’s indigenous peoples.

It argues: “Unsustainable consumption and production reverses development gains in the global North and the global South: Women and men of industrialized nations have a responsibility to educate themselves, examine their worldviews, commit to action, and lead by example.

“No one person, organization, community, province, region, or nation is capable of solving the challenge of climate change alone. This is a time for collaboration at a global level as never before required.”

Photo: 350.org via Flickr / Omnia Abdallah, Khartoum Sudan

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.

An astonishing 720 million people around the world face falling back into extreme poverty unless we tackle climate change immediately, warns a new report by the Overseas Development Institute (ODI).

The report was published as world leaders gathered this week at the United Nations General Assembly and agreed the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), among which is the eradication of extreme poverty by 2030.

This goal is achievable, according to the ODI, but not without a greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions peak in 2030, and a fall to near zero by 2100. “Climate change increases the probability that those who emerge from extreme poverty will be at risk of falling back into it,” it concludes.

Beyond 2030

Sustaining poverty reduction therefore relies on curbing climate change the report argues.“If the global community is serious about eradicating extreme poverty for good, it needs to think beyond 2030. Eradicating poverty by 2030 will be no great accomplishment if we are incapable of sustaining that achievement from 2030 onwards.”

It continues: “It is policy incoherent for big GHG emitting countries, especially industrialised ones, to support poverty eradication as a development priority, whether through domestic policy or international assistance, while failing to shift their own economy toward a zero net emissions pathway.”

As the report notes, progress on poverty eradication over the past two decades has reduced the percentage of people living on less than $1.25 a day in the developing world – defined as the extreme poor – from 43 percent in 1990 to about 17 percent as of 2011.

"In order to stop poverty, we must stop climate change." – Jay Winter Nightwolf, Echota Cherokee nation. #ActOnClimate

— Sierra Club (@sierraclub) September 24, 2015

Analysing data on the impact of climate change on food prices, the effects of childhood malnutrition and stunting, the productivity of primary sectors (such as agriculture or mining), and increased droughts, the ODI estimates that up to 720 million people are at risk of facing extreme poverty from 2030 to 2050 under a business-as-usual scenario. As the report starkly points out, this is roughly the same number of people that exited extreme poverty over the last two decades.

However, this number is likely to be much higher if the effects of sea-level rise, an increase in airborne diseases, and conflict – among other climate impacts – are factored into calculations.

Ecomodernist Manifesto

The ODI report comes at the same time as a group of individuals calling themselves the ‘Ecomodernists’ launched their manifesto in London yesterday – among those promoting it include self-styled ‘climate lukewarmist’ Matt Ridley, and former environment secretary and climate denier Owen Paterson.

As the manifesto explains, ecomodernism believes in human rights and freedoms – chief among these, the alleviation of global poverty.

However, in contrast to the ODI’s report, their manifesto goes on to argue that “climate change and other global ecological challenges are not the most important immediate concerns for the majority of the world’s people. Nor should they be.”

Instead, technology should be the main driver in helping developing countries to achieve modern living standards and end material poverty it says. This includes intensive agriculture, nuclear energy, reforestation and urbanisation. Furthermore it argues that renewable energy is inadequate for meeting global energy demands and that there need not be a limit to economic growth.

Economic Growth

But as the ODI argues: “While [economic] growth is unquestionably part of reaching zero extreme poverty, relying on high growth rates alone to achieve this goal would be unwise. First, recent high growth rates may not be sustained. Projecting them decades into the future paints an overly optimistic view of extreme poverty in 2030.

“In reality, economic growth has become increasingly less effective at reducing poverty because of the increasing inequality of that growth. Since 2005, inequalities have widened even further in developing countries, leading to lower rates of poverty reduction than would have been the case if inequality had remained constant.”

Achieving a zero-emissions future, with peak emissions within 15 years, requires all countries to “transform” their economies, the ODI explains. Deep domestic GHG cuts are part of developed countries’ obligation it says, with middle and low-income countries also ensuring their current investment choices reduce their forecast emissions.

“This presents a global challenge that some argue conflicts with the goal of eradicating extreme poverty,” ODI acknowledges, “However, early evidence suggests low-emission economic development, although radically different from historic experience, is consistent with the combination of moderate, sustained and pro-poor growth and reductions in inequality needed to eradicate poverty.”

Therefore addressing growth and inequality together is “far more likely to reduce poverty than a strategy reliant on attempts to maximise growth alone, based on unrealistic projections.”

Agriculture and Cities

Pointing out that industrialised agriculture is a significant contributor to GHG emissions, the ODI looks to the World Bank which argues that “improving the productivity, profitability and sustainability of smallholder farming is the main pathway out of poverty in using agriculture in development.”

Doing so presents a “major synergy”, says the ODI, for reducing poverty and emissions “where there is the institutional capacity and political will to limit the land-use conversion of forests and other natural stores of GHGs.”

And on urbanisation, the ODI agrees it can drive positive change but only if city planners and policymakers tackle poverty and climate change together rather than “entrench and perpetuate old problems for new people”.

“The impact of unchecked climate change creates an insurmountable challenge for the zero poverty target,” it argues, “but climate change mitigation need not.”

Photo: Asian Development Bank 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 Sustainable Prosperity, a national green economy think tank.

This is a big week for Canadian energy and climate policy, with Monday’s Canadian Round Table on the Green Economy and Tuesday’s premiers’ climate summit. With all the talk of a “green economy,” we’re releasing a new video explaining what that ubiquitous term really means.  

What better time than now to bust a few myths about the “what” and the “how” of a greener Canadian economy?

Myth #1: A greener Canadian economy only exists in fairy tales.  

Many people view a green economy as something a long way out that will be difficult to achieve. But the good news is that the green economy is already here in many respects. It’s in the new ways to create energy, water, food and many of the other basic necessities. It’s also reflected in programs like British Columbia’s carbon tax and Quebec’s cap-and-trade system for emissions reductions. We already know how to green our economy. We just need to do more of it.

Myth #2: Greening the economy is incompatible with prosperity

Sustainable Prosperity’s vision of a greener economy is compatible with a strong economic future for Canada, including increased productivity, employment and innovation. Leading economic voices are pointing to the tremendous economic opportunities that await those economies that figure out how to “green while we grow.”

The global consultancy McKinsey, for example, believes that by 2020 there will be a global market in excess of US$ 2 trillion for technologies and services that deliver sustainability solutions. The recent United Nations report on the “new climate economy” identified trade in US$2.2 trillion low-carbon and energy-efficient opportunities alone.  Some countries are already taking advantage of such opportunities. Germany, for example, has reduced its carbon dioxide emissions by 22 per cent during the past 20 years while doubling its economic output.

Myth #3: Greening the economy is just about windmills and organic food.

The view that a green economy is made up of things that are unambiguously “green” – like windmills or organic food – is pretty widespread. But if we are going to green our economy – that is make it truly sustainable in the long-term – we will need to focus on the whole of the economy. In a greener Canadian economy, every sector is improving its environmental performance.

We are not going to stop trading our resources, nor is the world going to stop needing them. But there is a great deal we can do to make our economy as a whole – resource sectors included – greener. The benefits of that will not only come in the form of greater efficiency and a smaller environmental footprint, but also in the development of sustainability solutions that will find their own markets.

Ultimately, every part our economy and society stands to benefit from a focus on “greening while we grow.”

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 can reduce its carbon footprint by 90 per cent, play its part in the fight against climate change and grow its economy at the same time according to a recent report by the United Nations Sustainable Development Solutions Network. 

“This is a really important piece of analysis for Canada. It shows that we can cut our carbon pollution dramatically by 2050, making a strong contribution to tackling climate change, while growing our economy by over 200 per cent,” Clare Demerse, a senior policy advisor at Clean Energy Canada says.

By powering transportation, buildings and electricity with largely renewable energy (water-power, wind, solar) and biofuels and applying wide spread use of greenhouse gas (GHG) capturing technologies such as carbon capture and storage (CCS) in the oil and gas sector the report argues Canada can cut its GHG emissions production by 90 per cent by 2050 based on 2010 levels.

The catch is none of this can happen unless Canada implements policies effectively regulating the production of GHG emissions, something the federal government has so far been unable to do.

“Many of the major changes described in the Canadian decarbonization pathway will not occur without strong policy signals, which will require public support and in many cases will be driven by public pressure,” the UN network concludes. 

Electrification of the Economy Is the Key to Reducing GHG Emissions 

Reducing GHG emissions of transportation and buildings sectors by 97 per cent and 96 per cent respectively are the “two of the core foundations of the Canadian deep decarbonization pathway.” The key to reaching these targets is a substantial shift to renewable energy.

Canada's projected GHG emissions by sector by 2050 in a 90 per cent GHG emissions reduction scenario. Source: UNSDNS

“Decarbonizing electricity production is essential, since it is a precondition to reducing emissions throughout the rest of the economy through electrification,” the report states.

Water-power (Canada’s largest source of renewable energy), biomass, wind and solar are projected to lead the way in decarbonizing Canada’s electrical supply with wind and solar generating as high as 17 per cent and 10 per cent of Canada’s electricity respectively.

Oil consumption for transportation will need to plummet with the majority of Canadian vehicles running off of biofuels, hydrogen or electricity in the 90 per cent GHG emissions reduction scenario. The report sees a slight shift to mass transit (trains, buses) over personal vehicles and a large transformation from trucks to trains for freight.

Electricity production (left) and fuel consumption (right) by source by 2050. 

“The results the modelers presented are one way to hit the target they were given, but they’re not a prescription. As they point out, Canadians and our governments will need to make policy choices about what kind of low-carbon path makes the most sense for us,” Demerse told DeSmog Canada.

British Columbia’s successful and surprisingly popular carbon tax and Quebec’s cap-and-trade system are two homegrown Canadian climate policy examples Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s government could follow to fulfill Canada’s international responsibilities to cut global warming GHG emissions.

Report Surprisingly Projects Oil and Gas Output Will Double by 2050

The report assumes Canada can remain an oil and gas “energy superpower” in a world that has gone nearly zero-carbon. The report predicts Canadian oil and gas production will double by 2050 as well.

“The report’s assumptions on global oil demand seem a little unrealistic. Studies have shown that demand will drop as countries transition to low carbon economies,” Professor Mark Jaccard, an energy economist at Simon Fraser University says.

Canada's GHG emissions by sector (2010 baseline). Source: UNSDSN

“If Canada is able to power its cars and buildings with virtually zero fossil fuels by 2050, why wouldn’t the rest of the world want to do the same? If global demand for oil drops, oil prices will drop too — and then we would see far lower production than the oilsands industry is counting on today,” Demerse told DeSmog Canada.

To keep the oil and gas sector in play in a near zero-carbon scenario the report recommends Canada employ widespread use of technologies such as carbon capture and storage (CCS) in the sector. CCS captures carbon emissions, and converts them into a dense fuel that can be transported to sites below ground for storage.

Canada only has one operational CCS project. The Pembina Institute, an energy policy think tank, predicts Alberta alone will need twenty-five large-scale CCS projects to meet its own GHG emissions reduction targets.

“Why would companies adopt expensive CCS (carbon capture and storage) technology if at the moment they can dump waste into our atmosphere for free?” Jaccard says.

The authors of the report admit CCS is not “commercially viable” in Canada at the moment given “current climate policy stringency.” The low price on carbon and lack of regulations on GHG emissions in the Canadian oil and gas sector provide very little financial incentive for companies to invest in expensive technologies that decrease the carbon footprints of their operations.

“Until there are regulations on carbon in Canada technologies like CCS are going nowhere,” Jaccard told DeSmog Canada.

Unclear If the Oilsands Have A Place In A Decarbonized Canada

The UN network behind the report is unable or unwilling to say if the oilsands (also called tar sands) industry, the fastest growing source of GHG emissions in Canada, has a future in a low carbon Canada. The report cites “literature conflicts on whether production from the oil sands can be cost-effective in a deep decarbonization scenario.”

Image Credit: Blue Green Canada, United Nations Sustainable Development Solutions Network

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 welcome message from DeSmogBlog executive director Brendan DeMelle.

We’re pleased to introduce DeSmog UK, a brand new investigative journalism and research outlet dedicated to clearing the PR pollution that clouds climate science and exposing the individuals and organizations attacking solutions to global warming.

The newest addition to the international DeSmog network, DeSmog UK seeks to expose the same fossil fuel industry funded attacks on science and democracy that its colleagues at DeSmogBlog and DeSmog Canada investigate every day. 

DeSmog UK has appointed as Editor the intrepid British journalist Brendan Montague, who has spent the past three years examining climate denial and the origins of the think tanks and front groups that have waged war on climate science and policy solutions to global warming.

A small number of individuals and organizations have crafted a polluter-friendly echo chamber to confuse the public about the scientific consensus on global warming.

They hope to gain an outsized amount of influence over public policy debates on a range of environmental and public health priorities, most notably climate change and energy policy.

Their goal is simple: to delay action to curb global warming pollution and foster a clean energy future by creating doubt in the minds of the public. They use the same tactics — and many of the same PR firms and individuals — deployed by the tobacco industry in its decades-long campaign to protect cigarette profits and avoid accountability for killing millions of people.

Wherever the climate deniers and anti-science disinformers go, DeSmog will be right on their heels working to expose their spin and holding them accountable.

Although the UK government used to be respected for understanding the urgency of identifying policy solutions to combat global warming, the country’s leadership has shifted in recent years to an anti-science position that is leading Britain and much of Europe in the wrong direction on climate and energy policy.

Through original investigative journalism and crowd-powered deep research, DeSmog UK will expose the individuals and organizations responsible for delaying action on climate change in the UK.

With the international climate negotiations process stalled in dire straits, and the critical COP 21 meeting of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change coming up in Paris in December 2015, there is an urgent need to clear up the denial campaign that has hindered progress toward climate policy solutions around the world.

The science is clear, the clock is ticking and yet the public debate on solutions remains polluted by industry-funded misinformation and propaganda.

DeSmog UK seeks to hold accountable those responsible for these attacks on science and democracy, clearing the way for informed public discourse and political action to avert runaway climate change.

You are invited to partner with us in this important endeavor — in fact, we’re counting on you — so let’s get started.

First, take a minute to follow us on Twitter and Facebook and sign up for our newsletter so you can stay up to speed on all of DeSmog UK’s activities.

Now let’s begin with an introductory series by DeSmog UK editor Brendan Montague.

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.

More than 100 scientists and economists "concerned about climate change and its impacts" signed an open letter Monday calling on U.S. President Barack Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry to reject the proposed Keystone XL pipeline project, which would transport oilsands crude from Alberta to refineries on the Gulf Coast, mainly for export.

The signers "urge [President Obama and Secretary Kerry] to reject the Keystone XL tar sands oil pipeline as a project that will contribute to climate change at a time when we should be doing all we can to put clean energy alternatives in place."

The letter, signed by prominent leaders in science and economics, is the latest addition to an already strong and growing opposition to the Keystone XL project in the U.S., including 2 million public comments sent to President Obama and a previous open letter signed last month by over 200 business leaders and entrepreneurs asking for the rejection of the pipeline.

The signers write:

"As you both have made clear, climate change is a very serious problem. We must address climate change by decarbonizing our energy supply. A critical first step is to stop making climate change worse by tapping into disproportionately carbon-intensive energy sources like tar sands bitumen. The Keystone XL pipeline will drive expansion of the energy-intensive strip-mining and drilling of tar sands from under Canada's Boreal forest, increasing global carbon emissions. Keystone XL is a step in the wrong direction."

The signers remind President Obama and Secretary Kerry of their previous commitments to combating climate change, and reiterate that "evidence shows that Keystone XL will significantly contribute to climate change."

The letter emphasizes that fuels from oilsands crude result in higher greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions than fuel from conventional oil. The Keystone XL pipeline would open up overseas markets for higher-polluting oilsands fuels, causing "a sizeable expansion of tar sands production and also an increase in the related greenhouse gas pollution."

President Obama and Secretary Kerry have yet to make a final decision on Keystone XL. The U.S. State Department's Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (FSEIS) on the pipeline, released in January, has been criticized by environmental groups as flawed and narrow in scope.

As the open letter observes, "the State Department environmental review chose an inconsistent model for its 'most likely' scenarios, using business-as-usual energy scenarios that would lead to a catastrophic six degrees Celsius rise in global warming," a potential rise that, the signers note, "has no place in a sound climate plan."  

A decision to reject the Keystone XL pipeline, write the signers, would be one "based on sound science," given the 8.4 billion metric tons of CO2e emissions the pipeline could produce over its expected 50-year lifespan.

"These are emissions that can and should be avoided with a transition to clean energy," states the letter.

The signers in the letter include Nobel Prize winners Dr. Philip W. Anderson and Dr. Kenneth J. Arrow, environmental activist and broadcaster Dr. David Suzuki, several authors for the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change assessment reports, Fellows of the American Academy for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) including Dr. James McCarthy and Dr. Richard Norgaard, and Fellows of the Royal Society of Canada (FRSC) including Dr. Mark Jaccard, Dr. Lawrence Dill, among numerous other lauded scientists and economists.

The public can add their voice against the Keystone XL pipeline to an online petition hosted by the National Resource Defence Council (NRDC).

Image Credit: maisa_nyc / 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.