BC’s ‘New’ Climate Plan Scales Olympian Heights of Political Cynicism

This blog was first published as an Op-Ed piece in The Globe and Mail Aug. 21, 2016

In 30 years of evaluating government climate plans, I have learned to classify them into three categories: somewhat effective, naively ineffective and cynically ineffective. BC’s new climate plan fits perfectly into one of these categories. Can you guess which?

Let me help. The thing about ‘effective’ climate policy is that it is never a political winner. Effective policies would start immediately to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by either pricing these or regulating fuels and technologies. The price can be achieved by a carbon tax, as in BC and Alberta, or an emissions cap with tradable permits, as in Ontario and Quebec. Alternatively, regulations, which dominate in California, would require a growing market share for zero-emission vehicles, furnaces, electricity generation, and industrial equipment. In every case, the stringency of these effective policies must be increasing – a rising carbon tax, a falling emissions cap, tightening regulations. Everything else is bogus.

Politicians know that effective climate policy is not a political winner because these effective policies cause gasoline prices to rise immediately, while the benefits from slowing climate change and sea level rise occur after the politician’s career is over. Only a politician willing to show ethical leadership would take effective action on this difficult global challenge. Politicians who are not leaders but seem to care would gravitate to ineffective policies. Politicians who are cynical and don’t care would deliberately fake it, implementing a long list of ineffective policies, engaging in endless ‘public consultation’ and dismantling the effective policies implemented by previous climate leaders.

Which brings us to BC Premier Christy Clark and her new climate plan. From 2007 to 2011, her predecessor, Gordon Campbell, led the world in implementing effective climate policies, out-muscling even Arnold Schwarzenegger’s efforts in California. He banned the use of coal and natural gas to generate electricity. He implemented a rising carbon tax. He established the legislative framework for an emissions cap, and for tightening regulations on fuels, vehicles, buildings and equipment. He not only set a climate target for 2020, but also interim targets for 2012 and 2016 to enable real-time monitoring of the effectiveness of his efforts.

But when Clark replaced Campbell in 2011, one of her first acts was to freeze the tax at its 2012 level. Because of inflation, this means the tax has been declining in real value for the last four years. She also undermined his zero-emission electricity requirement and his emissions-cap legislation, and she has done nothing to tighten any of his other regulations. At the same time, she has vigorously promoted expansion of the natural gas industry which, if successful, would dramatically increase emissions. And last year, she launched yet another public consultation.

In refusing to serve on her consultative panel, I pointed out that this was the last thing BC needed, and that anyone joining the panel was legitimizing a strategy of inaction. In BC, we already had effective policies, and Clark would know from her advisors that only by increasing their stringency would emissions fall. But endless public consultation is a convenient way of appearing to care without taking action. And the panel did not help by naively calling for an increase in the carbon tax. This played directly into Clark’s populist posture as defender of overtaxed car and truck drivers, and was unnecessary, as California’s smart regulations have proven.

Last week, Clark finally released her climate policy. Predictably, it perfectly fits the ‘cynically ineffective’ category. First, there is no immediate tightening of the stringency of any effective policies to achieve emissions targets in, say, 2020 and 2025. Second, consistent with the cynical category, the plan includes a list of innocuous policies that are known to be ineffective – subsidies to industry to electrify some processes, information programs for consumers, and statements about the government’s good intentions. And taking cynicism to a new level, the plan’s so-called emissions reductions are dominated by tree planting on lands that are already allocated to forestry, an action that does not decrease emissions in the long run.

If there were an Olympic event for political cynicism on the climate challenge, BC’s new climate plan would be a strong contender for the gold medal.

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.

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.”

A letter to Minister Oliver from climate scientist and energy experts

On May 7th 2013, I was among twelve Canadian climate scientists and energy experts who sent a letter addressed to Natural Resources Minister the Hon. Joe Oliver.

As professionals who have devoted our careers to understanding the climate and energy systems, we are concerned that the Minister’s advocacy in support of new pipelines and expanded fossil fuel production is inconsistent with the imperative of addressing the climate change threat. We are going to have to wean ourselves off our addiction to fossil fuels. Thus our choices about fossil fuel infrastructure carry significant consequences for today’s and future generations.

Crossing swords in US TV debate with KXL advocates

My whirlwind 2 days in DC April 10-11 included 3 hours of congressional testimony, meetings with EPA staff, a meeting with NGOs and media, and a debate on Keystone XL on the nationally televised TV show, The Hard Question. My co-panelists were people from the US oil industry, a representative of the Alberta government, and a former North Dakota senator. Fun. One thing that surprised me though, was that everyone agreed on the urgent need for global action on carbon pollution and strong domestic US policies to price or regulate carbon pollution. In other words, "Yes, we absolutely must act on this urgent global threat to us and our children. But, for now, let me and the people I represent get rich while making the problem worse and doing nothing about it."  There is also an abbreviated video showing highlights form the debate.

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.

Webcast of Keystone XL Hearing in Washington: testimony now online

I was invited by Rep. Henry Waxman  (of the former Waxman-Markey bill) to speak as a witness at the Congressional Hearing on Keystone, the "Northern Route Approval Act,” Subcommittee (April 10, 2013) which discussed approval of the Keystone pipeline.  My testimony and that of the other witnesses is now available for viewing as a webcast.  If you just want to hear my 5 minute testimony, skip to minutes 31:11 - 36:40.  This is followed by a question period and statements from the members of the Congressional Subcommittee on Energy and Power.

My written testimony to KXL Approval Congressional Hearing

On April 10, 2013 in Washington, DC I will present a 5 minute oral testimony.  I was also asked to prepare this more detailed written testimony before a congressional hearing on Keystone as a witness called by representative Henry Waxman of California (of the former Waxman-Markey bill). I will focus on exposing the delusion that each single infrastructure expansion like Keystone does not matter – even though of course they add up to climate calamity.