Vancouver’s municipal election and pipelines

It seems ironic that people who argue vaguely that we should all do our part against accelerating carbon pollution will then react to specific efforts by saying “sorry, wrong jurisdiction.” The Canadian government cannot act because climate change is a global problem, so we must wait for all countries to act simultaneously. Nice. And even though we know that carbon pollution goes up as we expand fossil fuel infrastructure, like oil pipelines, the government of B.C. should not try to stop the Kinder Morgan oil pipeline because this is federal jurisdiction. Ditto municipal governments, like that of Vancouver and Burnaby.

We know where this leads. Everyone shirks their responsibility, and we stay on course for a catastrophe.

This is why the municipal elections in Vancouver and Burnaby are important. In both cities, we have municipal governments that understand their responsibility. In both cities, these governments are challenged by opponents who are saying “sorry, not our jurisdiction.”

If you want to stop oil pipeline expansion to metro Vancouver as part of the climate effort we must have, remember to blame yourself next Saturday if you waste your vote so that the pro-pipeline parties attain power.

Our Comment in Nature calling for oil sands moratorium

Here is the press release for our Nature paper, released June 25, calling for a moratorium on oil sands expansion. This means no loss of current jobs in the oil sands. But it does mean a return to sanity from this selfish rush to accelerate global warming, ocean acidification and ecological destruction - events that will lead to huge economic and social costs according to a just-released study by the World Bank. It does mean that we should not build new pipelines like Keystone XL, Northern Gateway and others.

Press release:

Scientists call for a Halt to Oil Sands Expansion Until Policies Address True Costs and Global Impacts.

A Comment published today in the journal Nature calls for a moratorium on new oil sands projects in Alberta, Canada due to flaws in how oil sands decisions are made. The authors are a multidisciplinary group of economists, policy researchers, ecologists, and decision scientists. They argue that the controversy around individual pipelines like Keystone XL in the US or Northern Gateway in Canada overshadows deeper policy flaws, including a failure to adequately address carbon emissions or the cumulative effect of multiple projects. The authors point to the contradiction between the doubling of the rate of oil sands production over the past decade and international commitments made by Canada and the US to reduce carbon emissions. “The expansion of oil sands development sends a troubling message to other nations that sit atop large unconventional oil reserves,” said lead author Wendy Palen, Assistant Professor at Canada’s Simon Fraser University. “If Canada and the United States continue to move forward with rapid development of these reserves, both countries send a signal to other nations that they should disregard the looming climate crisis in favor of developing the most carbon-intensive fuels in the world.” The authors point out that oil sands development decisions (e.g. pipelines, railways, mines, refineries, ports) made in isolation artificially restrict public discussions. Debate in the news media and during hearings for individual projects are limited to evaluating the short-term costs and benefits to the local economy, jobs, environment and health, and do not account for the long-term and cumulative consequences of multiple projects or of global carbon pollution. Co-author Joseph Arvai, Professor and Research Chair in decision science at the University of Calgary, explained the problem. “Individual projects – a particular refinery or pipeline – may seem reasonable when evaluated in isolation, but the cumulative impacts of multiple projects create conflicts with our commitments to biodiversity, aboriginal rights, and controlling greenhouse gas emissions. Though we have the knowledge and the tools to do better – to more carefully analyze these tradeoffs and make smarter long-term choices – so far governments have not used them.” A moratorium would create the opportunity for Canada and the United States to develop a join North American road map for energy development that recognizes the true social and environmental costs of infrastructure projects as well as account for national and international commitments to reduce carbon emissions. Anything less “demonstrates flawed policies and failed leadership”, the authors state.

Contact:

Wendy J. Palen

Department of Biological Sciences

Simon Fraser University

Burnaby, BC, Canada

Thomas D. Sisk

Landscape Conservation Initiative

School of Earth Sciences and Environmental Sustainability
Northern Arizona University

Flagstaff, Arizona

Maureen Ryan

School of Resource and Environmental Management

Simon Fraser University

Burnaby, BC, Canada

Joseph L. Árvai

Department of Geography

University of Calgary

Calgary, AB, Canada

Mark Jaccard 

School of Resource and Environmental Management

Simon Fraser University

Burnaby, BC, Canada 

Anne Salomon

School of Resource and Environmental Management

Simon Fraser University

Burnaby, BC, Canada

Thomas Homer-Dixon

Balsillie School of International Affairs

University of Waterloo

Waterloo, ON, Canada

Ken Lertzman

School of Resource and Environmental Management

Simon Fraser University

Burnaby, BC, Canada

It’s the climate, not the oil spill

Sorry, folks, but if you care about the environment – the planet for that matter – your strategy to stop oil pipelines is futile if its only focus is oil spills on land and sea. You may stop one or two poorly conceived projects, but you won’t stop industry expansion. There is too much money to be made in a world that allows carbon pollution to remain largely unpriced and unconstrained.

Difficult as it is to get the attention of enough people to influence our political process into acting on climate, there is unfortunately no other way to win this long-term battle than to focus on the fact that carbon pollution changes the climate – for the worse – and so we must stop the expanding extraction of fossil fuels from the earth’s crust. No expansion of oil sands. No new coal mines. No new delivery infrastructure like pipelines and coal ports. No aiding and abetting of the carbon pollution that will wreak havoc on the environment everywhere – not just the environment in the path of pipelines, tankers and trains.

Curiously, one environmental activist sort-of acknowledged this when she said to me, “We have to focus on local environmental impacts from oil spills because that’s all the public is interested in. But, yes, I don’t think we have slowed down fossil fuel expansion – if anything it is accelerating.” My response? “How can you expect enough people to talk about climate if even you aren’t talking about it?”

(Note that I keep saying “enough people.” We don’t need 50% of the population demanding action. If 10% really care and get vocal, then politicians, ever in pursuit of the swing-voter, have to pay attention – their survival instincts kick-in.)

While I have been saying this for a long time, the urgency of the message got stronger this past week with the launch of National Energy Board hearings into Enbridge’s proposed reversal of an oil pipeline (Line 9) to move more oil from Alberta’s oil sands east through Ontario and Quebec – again to aid and abet oil sands expansion. The NEB – and the government, and the oil industry – only wants to hear evidence and testimony about local impacts. They don’t want anyone mentioning the fact that the impacts of climate change are local – everywhere!

Forest Ethics and Donna Sinclair are challenging in court the rules that the NEB has for allowing evidence and testimony and asked me to provide an affidavit on the direct causal relationship between oil sands, pipelines, climate change and environmental impacts everywhere, which obviously includes people living near the pipeline – and far from the pipeline. In it I explain how all of the world’s leading, independent energy-economy modeling institutes show that the promise of Stephen Harper and other global leaders to not allow temperature increases greater than 2 C is completely inconsistent with expansion of oil sands, coal mines and other fossil fuel projects that lead to carbon pollution. Take a look and if you like it, please pass on to others.

[Mark Jaccard Affadavit to the Canadian Federal AppealsCourt in the Case of Forest Ethics Advocacy Association and Donna Sinclair vsThe National Energy Board and The Attorney General of Canada.]

European fuel regulations and Canadian hypocrisy: My trip to Europe with Jim Hansen

Prime Minister Harper promised in 2006 to reduce Canadian emissions 20% by 2020 (in 2009 he changed it slightly to 17%). Only two policy approaches can achieve this: emissions pricing or regulations (or a combination). But he rejected emissions pricing, whether carbon tax or cap-and-trade. So this leaves regulations on technologies and fuels, which he promised. However, he has not implemented regulations to achieve his 2020 target, and, according to Canada’s Auditor General, even an immediate aggressive effort is unlikely to succeed – he only has 7 years left after doing virtually nothing since making the promise 7 years ago. In any case, he is instead promoting rapid expansion of the Alberta oil sands, which, according to Environment Canada, will leave Canadian emissions in 2020 at least 7% above rather than 17% below their 2006 level.

The Doublespeak of the Dirty Carbon Economy

I wrote this piece which appeared as an Op-Ed in the Vancouver Sun and in the Huffington Post Canada edition via DeSmog Canada on August 13, 3012.

George Orwell used parody and caricature to expose the propaganda lies of the fascists and communists who threatened humanity in the mid-20th century. Today, his talents are badly needed to counter the propaganda of corporate executives who seek self-enrichment by accelerating the burning of the coal, oil and gas here and abroad.

The right use of carbon tax revenue? Sorry, there isn’t one

It never ceases to amaze me that some people can be so utterly certain about the right answer to questions that don’t have simple answers. The answer to “What is one plus one?” is simple. The answer to “How should we use carbon tax revenue?” is not. And for good reason.

To reduce carbon pollution we need to price it or regulate the technologies and fuels that cause it. We could just regulate. We could just price. But we know we have to do one or both to seriously reduce the pollution that causes global warming. After that, the certainty dissipates rapidly as each jurisdiction tries to mesh its carbon pollution policies with its other policy goals, the preferences of its voters, and the actions of its major trading partners.

"The necessity of coal expansion" and other delusions

In my July 16, 2013 op-ed in the Vancouver Sun I counter arguments for rapid expansion of coal exports from North America by showing how these are based on self-serving arguments that ignore the resulting increase in carbon pollution – which scientists show we must do everything to decrease, not increase. Today, without regulations here and abroad requiring carbon capture and storage, expansion of fossil fuel infrastructure can only mean increasing carbon pollution and hence global warming. But it need not be so. Our only chance is if we refuse to expand coal mines and coal exports unless coal purchasers are not increasing carbon pollution. In the case of using coal to produce steel, we have the technologies today to capture and permanently store about 90% of the CO2 emitted from steel mills, and a range of industry, government and independent estimates suggest that this would gradually increase the cost of steel production by 10% over twenty years. Instead, those who would benefit by rapidly increasing carbon pollution offer countless rationales for starting this new coal mine, expanding that coal port, etc. 

In upcoming blogs and op-eds I will be writing more on what I call the “This particular fossil fuel development is necessary” delusion – a chapter in my draft manuscript, which currently has the working title “Deluding Ourselves.”

Obama avoids the silly delusions of oil executives and the Canadian government

After months (years actually) of incessant delusional messaging from the oil industry and its political puppets about how expanding carbon polluting activities (production, pipelines, ports) won’t accelerate global warming, Obama’s speech today was much needed. In addition to directing the EPA to reduce carbon pollution from existing coal plants, he also said that Keystone XL won’t be approved if it leads to increased greenhouse gas emissions.

Of course, he still is not quite asking the right question. Were he to ask “how do we decrease emissions here and abroad?” the obvious answer is “by doing everything we can to prevent new production facilities and delivery infrastructure here and abroad.”

We cannot expand carbon polluting infrastructure and meet targets

Here is a link to my interview with Bloomberg TV's Michael Crumpton on The Bottom Line, explaining that long-lived infrastructure to increase carbon pollution, like the Keystone XL pipeline, is inconsistent with political promises to do what is needed to avoid a greater than 2 C increase in global average temperatures - and explaining that where we shift away from carbon pollution we can create just as many jobs as has been occurring with good news stories around the world.

Asking the wrong question about Keystone XL

Oral Testimony to the US Congress Subcommittee on Energy and Power hearing entitled

“H.R. 3, the Northern Route Approval Act.”

April 10, 2013

The State Department assumes that future production of the Alberta oil sands will be the same even if it denies construction of Keystone XL. Yet a great deal of evidence contradicts this assumption. Ironically, much of this evidence comes not from environmentalists, but from industry analysts, Canadian politicians, and even the oil sands producers themselves.

Media and climate delusion

In my March 15, 2013 op-ed in the Vancouver Sun I described how promoters of carbon polluting investments and their allies avoid mentioning global warming when trumpeting the benefits of their favorite new coal mine, oil pipeline, tar sands project, coal port expansion, shale gas development, or natural gas liquification plant. My suggestion was that a paper like the Sun should provide a public health disclaimer underneath such articles that says: “The author has declined to explain that, according to scientists, this project would contribute to a climate catastrophe for you and your children.”

I was going to say that surely this is what the paper would do when publishing an op-ed by a tobacco company executive who was encouraging children to smoke. But then I realized that the paper would simply refuse to publish such an article. It would claim that it was not in the business of helping people profit at the expense of public health, especially of the vulnerable.

Some day papers like the Sun will also take this approach to article submissions by promoters of carbon polluting projects. Unfortunately, it is likely to be much too late for a lot of people and other living things, especially the vulnerable – unless, that is, more of us start to demand more from the Sun and other mainstream media.

The Sun editorial of March 21 is a good place to start. In an article entitled “Open port crucial to a healthy economy,” the Sun’s editorial board chastises Vancouver mayor Gregor Robertson for opposing expanding coal and oil exports from Vancouver’s harbor with the facile argument that this will hurt our economy. Note that they never ask what is being exported. All that seems to matter is the volume of exports. Presumably if the exports were cigarettes destined for children, or landmines, or heroin, or plutonium, or carbon-laced fossil fuels like coal, oil and gas, it would not matter. In fact, never do the Sun’s editors even try to explain why Gregor Robertson might oppose coal and oil exports, except to ridicule him for promoting Vancouver as a green city. They avoid mentioning global warming, but make a big deal about Vancouver losing trade to other ports.

In my March 15 op-ed I deconstructed this “climate delusional” strategy, and this March 21 editorial provides a perfect illustration. No doubt there will be many more like it. But if you agree with me that this is an incredibly harmful and irresponsible bias of this newspaper, there are things you can do. For one thing, you can write a letter to the editor explaining that you will soon drop your subscription and will encourage others to do the same if the paper is unwilling to qualify its carbon pollution jingoism with an honest and consistent depiction of the scientifically-determined global health implications of continuing on this path. And you might ask for similar action from the people who are nearest and dearest to you – the very ones you would personally discourage from smoking.

Can McKibben and Nocera both be right?

In a March 15 op-ed in the New York Times, Joe Nocera described a coal gasification plant that the Summit Power Group plans to build in Odessa, Texas, starting this summer. The gasification plant would reduce greenhouse gas emissions perhaps as much as 90% by capturing the resulting CO2 and using it to (1) produce fertilizer and (2) inject into declining oil reservoirs in a process called “enhanced oil recovery.”

Nocera supports this as an important step for addressing climate change. He asked Bill McKibben if he supports the project and quotes McKibben’s response: “the worst possible thing to do with it [CO2] is to get more oil above ground. It’s time to keep oil in the earth, not to mention gas and coal.”

For Nocera, this suggests that McKibben is not thinking clearly, so he ends his article with, “To me, at least, his answer suggests that his crusade has blinded him to the real problem. The enemy is not fossil fuels; it is the damage that is done because of the way we use fossil fuels.”

In my view, they are both right – and both wrong. I don’t know the whole quote Nocera had to work with from McKibben, but it should have said something like the following.

“Yes, humanity should focus on carbon pollution, not on ceasing all use of fossil fuels. We must be driving carbon pollution rapidly toward zero, but if that can occur while still using fossil fuels, that’s fine. Maybe as a first step, some CO2 will be used for enhanced oil recovery. But a rapidly growing share of carbon from fossil fuel use must end up as liquid CO2 in deep saline aquifers or as solid carbon that can never be allowed to reach the atmosphere. If this is not feasible, then the use of fossil fuels must decline rapidly.”

And Nocera should have said something like the following.

“I understand why McKibben is reluctant to allow much use of CO2 for enhanced oil recovery because he has done such an excellent job of explaining how close we are to surpassing our carbon budget for preventing harmful levels of global warming. But, while governments dither we should support projects that get the fossil fuel industry working in the right direction.”

And both should have said in unison, “People should read Mark Jaccard’s book, Sustainable Fossil Fuels (CambridgeUniversity Press, 2005), which explains the likely role of fossil fuel use in a world in which humanity rapidly reduces its greenhouse gas emissions while providing much-needed energy for even the poorest on the planet.”

The right questions to ask about releasing more carbon pollution

It gets so frustrating watching the steady flow of op-eds, editorials, and columns (not to mention all of the advertisements) extolling the benefit of putting more carbon pollution into our atmosphere – without ever mentioning the extent to which this increases the risk that global warming will exceed the "safe" threshold of 2 degrees Celsius. Thus, it is so encouraging to see Pete McMartin of the Vancouver Sun finally asking the right questions.