Pipelines, Politics and Perjury

Here is the announcement for my my VPL talk to be held Thursday Feb. 5, 2015 at 7 pm at the Vancouver Public Library.  Click on it for a larger view.

Here is the VPL link.

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.

Energy: Consider the global impacts of oil pipelines

Please follow the link to get free access to our Commentary in Nature calling for a moratorium on new oil-sands development and transportation projects until better policies and processes are in place. 

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.]

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.

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.

How we can counter the delusional tactics of the carbon polluters

by Mark Jaccard

Originally published in The Vancouver Sun March 15, 2013

Over the past year, readers of The Vancouver Sun have been bombarded with op-eds, columns and editorials that argue British Columbians should accept carbon-polluting projects like the Northern Gateway oil pipeline, but that never explain how to prevent the climate disaster these would cause. The writers of these articles consistently ignore two glaring realities.

First, scientists agree that carbon pollution from burning coal, oil and natural gas must start declining in this decade if we are to limit the global average temperature increase to 2 C, a critical threshold in terms of preventing intensified storms, droughts, ocean acidification, ecological destruction and human suffering. The world's leading politicians, including Stephen Harper, agree that we should not surpass two degrees - which is why he committed Canada to emission reductions of 17 per cent by 2020 and 65 per cent by 2050 (targets that are unachievable with expanded production of oilsands, coal and shale gas).

Second, carbon pollution in the atmosphere is a global "tragedy of the commons." Since virtually all countries must reduce emissions to prevent a disaster, proponents of the next carbon-polluting project argue that theirs is small relative to the total, which is true no matter how big, and that stopping theirs won't help since others will go ahead, which is self-fulfilling if everyone follows this logic. (Likewise, the fishers who devastated the Atlantic cod argued that each was only a small contributor and, in any case, would be replaced by others if they stopped.)

What is sad and frightening is that the writers of these articles seem to lack the moral conscience and logical honesty to address these two critical realities of the global warming threat and our causation of it. Instead, they exhibit what Ayn Rand once called, "not blindness, but the refusal to see; not ignorance, but the refusal to know."

Proponents and supporters of carbon polluting projects focus exclusively on the jobs, wealth and tax revenues from projects x, y and z. They talk about how each project is essential and unavoidable. If they talk about the climate at all, it is to point out that each contributes only a small per cent of global emissions. They never talk about how we should act to avoid the tragedy of the commons from global warming, because to do so would undermine their project.

But the simple reality is that more carbon pollution equals more global warming. We have to stop extracting carbon from the earth's crust for ourselves and other countries. Then, we should join with leading jurisdictions, like California and several European countries, to use trade measures as necessary to pressure Alberta, China and others to reduce their pollution. There is no other way to tackle this extremely difficult global problem.

Imagine if this newspaper's editors refused to be complicit in the deceit and delusion, and asked every writer advocating an investment that increased carbon pollution to explain what B.C. should be doing to help humanity avoid sleepwalking over a climate cliff. If the writer would not explain, the paper could follow the article with a public health disclaimer, such as "The author has declined to explain how the increased carbon pollution he or she is proposing would not lead to a climate catastrophe for ourselves and our children - as found by scientists."

Of course, the newspaper is unlikely to play this role. But you can. Every time you see an article promoting more carbon pollution here and abroad, ask yourself if the author explains how this project can occur in a world that prevents global warming. If the author does not explain, ask yourself why.

When you hear, "We need this project for the economy," you might ask, "You mean we need extreme storms and ecological destruction - that we could not have a thriving economy if we ran our vehicles on electricity and biofuels or generated electricity from renewable energy?"
When you hear, "We need to be good neighbours to Alberta," you might ask, "You mean we need to help our neighbours get rich while devastating the planet?"

When you hear, "The Chinese will just get the carbon polluting fuels from someone else," you might ask, "You mean it's better for our children that we help the Chinese increase carbon pollution rather than discouraging China and other polluters in a peaceful, responsible manner?" When you hear, "The oilsands and other polluting projects will be developed no matter what we do," you might ask yourself, "Does this person have me and my children's best interests in mind?"

US politicians should reject the Keystone pipeline

By Mark Jaccard
Originally published in The Hill on March 13, 2013

As a Canadian energy and climate economist, I have first-hand experience with the magician-like techniques of the Canadian government and petroleum industry as they try to double the output of our highly polluting tar sands. Politicians in Washington should be wary, especially if they are sincere in wanting to spare us and our children from an increasing barrage of Katrinas, Sandys and droughts.

Magicians use slight-of-hand to distract us from what they are really doing. The fossil fuel industry and its allies have spent a lot of money to bombard us with messages about the jobs and tax benefits of increasing carbon pollution via this or that fossil fuel project. Count how many times they explain how this carbon pollution is consistent with what scientists say and politicians promise in terms of avoiding devastating climate change. Of course, they don’t explain. That is the art of deception on which magic is based: to get you looking the wrong way. If you were to look the right way, you would see that we cannot be expanding fossil fuel infrastructure today and keep global temperature increases below 2 degrees Celsius (3.7 Fahrenheit). That infrastructure – all of it – must be stable or contracting.

But my Canadian government and the tar sands industries who want Keystone argue that somehow, miraculously, increasing carbon polluting infrastructure will not increase carbon pollution. (George Orwell’s Ministry of Truth has nothing on these guys.) They argue that even without Keystone Alberta tar sands would be developed to the same extent. So you might as well approve Keystone – so the argument goes.

But this is simply not true. Tar sands production is currently about 2 million barrels per day. At this level it already has trouble getting to market, which is why tar sands producers must accept a lower price for their oil – which is good news for U.S. gasoline purchasers, but not for investors hoping to expand tar sands.

Keystone would help tar sands producers expand output by 50 to 100 percent. Without it, output would stay constant. But this is where the magicians offer their next deception. They claim that even without Keystone tar sands production would increase because the oil would simply be shipped to China via a Northern Gateway pipeline through British Columbia. You might as well build Keystone and keep the oil from going to China, so the magicians argue.

In fact, the likelihood of this is slim – and getting slimmer every day. The reason is British Columbia. My province is the Canadian, and perhaps the North American, epicenter of two important social movements – environmentalism and rights activism by aboriginal peoples.

British Columbia has North America’s only real carbon tax, with all of its revenues returned as income and corporate tax cuts. And our electricity policy is the toughest in North America, allowing no fossil fuel power without carbon capture and storage. It is no surprise that polls consistently show that a majority of British Columbians oppose Northern Gateway.
Our provincial election is in May, and the opposition party, which is well ahead in the polls, has promised to prevent the project if it forms the next government.

British Columbia’s aboriginal peoples are proud, organized and active in defending their land and coast. Court rulings have made it extremely difficult to develop resource and infrastructure projects without their support, and almost all the tribes along the proposed pipeline route and on the coast are adamantly opposed to Northern Gateway. They have promised lengthy court battles and even civil disobedience should anyone try to build it.

The odds against Northern Gateway are huge. Without it and Keystone, there is no tar sands expansion, no increase in carbon pollution. Stopping Keystone will hinder tar sands expansion; believing otherwise is nothing more than a magician’s delusion.

If U.S. policy makers don’t want to lock-in a Sandy-Katrina future for our children, rejecting Keystone is one of the most obvious and easiest steps.

(Link to original article)

Why we need to stop oil sands expansion

On February 25th I and three climate scientists, along with activist-writers Tzeporah Berman and Bill McKibben, held a press conference to present our recent report on the huge contradiction between the Harper government's promise to reduce carbon pollution 17% by 2020 and its promotion of expanded tar sands production through new projects and new pipelines like Keystone and Northern Gateway. The report can be found at canadianclimatepolicy.org.

An article in the February 25th Globe and Mail refers to this report as well. I am misquoted in the original online version as being negative about the prospects for cap-and-trade. I actually said that I am agnostic about carbon tax versus cap-and-trade versus regulations. If the Harper government wants to do regulations, that's fine by me. California is using regulations to achieve about 90% of emission reductions and it is on course to meet its aggressive reduction target.

But the Harper government has not implemented the regulations it promised to meet its target and as the Environment Commissioner in our Office of the Auditor General noted last year, it is now too late to hit the 2020 target. This is why we need to not allow any investments that expand the production and transportation of fossil fuels to produce more carbon pollution. This does not mean shutting down the oil sands. It means stopping its expansion. It does not mean shutting down existing pipelines. It means stopping the construction of new capacity. Existing facilities will still operate for decades. But we must stop the insanity of new major carbon polluting infrastructure.

Countries like Canada are large enough to make a difference on climate change

The global warming threat requires a rapid reduction in the carbon pollution emitted from every country in the world. But just as each country is only a percentage of the planet’s population or GDP, each country emits only a percentage of total carbon pollution. This enables short-sighted or selfish people (perhaps profiting from carbon pollution) to argue that their country should continue with projects to expand carbon pollution (or at least not reduce it) because their individual effort will not solve the problem.

The response has two parts.

1. The first is to point out that the logical consequence of this approach is for no one to act, even major emitters, and so we would collectively march to disaster – a classic “tragedy of the commons” outcome.

But this elicits a follow-up argument that there is still no point acting until everyone acts simultaneously since free-riders will undermine one’s effort. This triggers the second part of the response.

2. It is true that the ideal is for everyone to act simultaneously. This would be wonderful. But, realistically, this is extremely unlikely since humanity lacks effective global governance, as 20 years of failed United Nations climate negotiations have shown. So, again, the logical outcome of the demand for simultaneous action is to collectively march to disaster.

 An effective way to make this point is to ask what we should do in our jurisdiction in the face of this world reality – eventually arguing that the answer (below) is trivial, obvious to any child.

If (1) we do not want disaster, and (2) we know that humanity will not initially act in unison, then the only logical response is for individual jurisdictions to reduce their carbon pollution while simultaneously trying to get other jurisdictions to also act. One cannot possibly convince others to act if one is not acting oneself. And, even if one is acting, pressure of some kind is likely required to get others to act. This is likely to be restrictions on trade that help domestic industries compete with industries located in jurisdictions without effective climate policies.

Thus, the most likely path to success looks like this. The jurisdictions that are most motivated must act first. They may be motivated because they have an enlightened understanding of the path to success (northern Europe perhaps), or effective environmental governance institutions (California perhaps), or a special incentive because of higher global warming impacts (islands like the UK and Japan, climate-vulnerable regions like Australia). Initial efforts at trade restrictions will be difficult. But once the number of jurisdictions has passed a critical threshold, the difficulty will diminish rapidly as trade pressures mount on non-acting jurisdictions.

In the March issue of the Canadian magazine, The Walrus, I used Canada’s experience in confronting the global threat of Nazi Germany as an example of how to present these logical arguments. Here is an excerpt from that article.

We hear, “Canada contributes only 2 percent to global emissions, so there is no point making an effort until everyone acts at once.” 

Yet every year on Remembrance Day, the prime minister extols our critical role in confronting Nazi Germany’s global threat. He fails to mention that we actually contributed less than 2 percent of the Allied effort in World War II; one million Canadians served in our armed forces, compared with over 60 million who fought from the USSR, the US, the British Empire, France, Poland, and other countries. Even though we were only 2 percent of the solution, we have something to be proud of. We punched above our weight by joining France and England in declaring war on Germany in 1939, without knowing if and when the USSR and the US would join the cause. We did not wait for everyone to act simultaneously against a global threat, which is virtually impossible, but instead showed leadership. If we were to show leadership on climate, we would join forces with other leading regions, such as California, Europe, Australia, and Japan, and as this effort snowballed we would use trade measures if necessary to bring other countries along.

PM's Unintentions Exposed: Carbon pricing report reveals the fiction behind Harper's climate promises

By Mark Jaccard
Originally published in Alternatives Journal, 2011

In 1997, then-prime-minister Jean Chrétien committed Canada to dramatically reduce its greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 2010 by signing the Kyoto Protocol. This helped him win re-election in 2000. It mattered little that most independent policy experts claimed Chrétien’s modest climate policies would not stem the growth of Canada’s emissions. Their arguments proved true, but since Chrétien was no longer in office in 2010, there was little interest by then in learning from his failed climate policies.

Or maybe someone was learning.

In 2007, Prime Minister Stephen Harper committed Canada to dramatically reduce its GHG emissions by 2020. This helped him win re-election twice, including a majority government this year. It mattered little that most independent policy experts claimed Harper’s modest climate policies would not stem the growth of Canada’s emissions. Harper is unlikely to still be in office in 2020 should he fail to fulfill his promise to reduce emissions by 17 per cent. And, barring a miracle in human and political longevity, he is definitely not at political risk for his promise to reduce Canadian emissions 65 per cent by 2050. 

The parallels are uncanny. But is the comparison fair? Perhaps Harper is not a Chrétien disciple, carefully learning the master’s recipe for a successful climate politics that matches do-little policies with a heroic commitment to a safely distant deadline. So how can we know, in the case of climate politics, if Harper is Chrétien redux?

Actually, the question is easily answered. When governments are faced with skepticism about their commitments and policies, they can commission independent assessments. This is a frequent practice. In 2007, for example, the Harper government asked me, as well as four other independent economists, if we agreed with its analysis that a last-ditch effort to reach Chrétien’s 2010 Kyoto target would be devastating to the Canadian economy. We all concurred, an assessment the Harper government quickly made public. 

Thus, the Harper government could commission independent analysts or the National Roundtable on the Environment and the Economy to assess its climate policies for their likelihood of achieving the government’s 2020 promise. In fact, it did just that, albeit inadvertently, when it asked the roundtable to explain how to achieve its 2050 target. This analysis led to the 2009 report, Achieving 2050: A Carbon Pricing Policy for Canada. I say inadvertently because, while the government did not ask the roundtable to analyze the 2020 target, that date is on the path to 2050, making it a trivial task to extract from the report the approximate emission pricing and regulatory policies needed to achieve Harper’s 2020 promise. One can easily see that the government’s current policies will not achieve the 2020 target.

Because 2020 is nine years away, Harper benefits from an assumption that we cannot yet know if his policies will or will not achieve his promises. As the case above illustrates, however, independent climate-policy experts actually can tell well in advance if a target will be achieved. This is because many of our GHG emissions are associated with long-lived investments in energy supply, industrial facilities, buildings, vehicles and equipment. We know what needs to happen today for an emissions outcome 10 years hence. We already know that if government was serious about its 2020 promise, there would be no new investment today in oil sands development and oil pipelines, industries would face a rising price for GHG emissions, and regulations would be forcing a rapid transition to zero- and low-emission vehicles. But none of this is happening. While Jean Chrétien cannot be blamed for the actions of politicians who follow him, it appears that in the art of climate politics, he was a great teacher – and Stephen Harper an excellent student.