Premiers Headed in Wrong Direction on Energy, Climate

Canada’s 13 provincial and territorial premiers are gathering in Quebec City on April 14^th to discuss a co-ordinated approach to take action on climate change.  For those concerned about the anticipated impacts of climate change on our economy, this initiative sounds like it might be a positive step forward by our subnational levels of government.

It would be prudent to hold the applause.

Whatever progress made by provincial leaders in Quebec is likely to be put at risk from another agreement made by the very same provincial and territorial premiers.  Last fall in Charlottetown, under the guise of the Council of the Federation, the premiers announced a provisional Canadian Energy Strategy.  According to the premier’s public relations people, the new strategy will facilitate fossil fuel resource expansion, while considering climate change impacts.  “Greener” bitumen pipelines – whatever those are – will be the order of the day (see: “Premiers tout their own national energy strategy”, the Toronto Star, August 29, 2014).

Greenpeace Canada’s Mike Hudema called the premiers out on this ploy. “A pan-provincial climate deal that greenlights tar sands expansion is a complete non-starter to any serious climate discussion,” Hudema wrote recently on the Tar Sands Solution Network’s website as part of a call for a citizen mobilization later this month in Quebec City (see: “Provincialenergy-climate agreement cannot trade climate for tar sands pipelines”, Tar Sands Solutions, March 27, 2015).

Hudema is right.  The expansion of the tar sand, facilitated by new pipeline development, is incompatible with holding warming at 2 degrees Celsius.   Studies have shown that most of the world’s known fossil fuel reserves must stay in the ground if we are going to have a good chance to keep warming below the 2 degrees C threshold nations pledged to honour in 2009 in Copenhagen.

A recent study published in the journal Nature indicates that as much as 85% of the Alberta’s proven tar sands reserves – which contain some of the world’s dirtiest oil  – will need to stay in the ground (see: “Oil sands must remain largely unexploited to meetclimate target, study finds”, the Globe and Mail, January 7, 2015).  Of course, sequestering reserves as unburnable carbon is completely at odds with Alberta’s plan to more than double production by 2030, from current levels of around 2 million barrels a day to 5.2 million.  That plan calls for extra capacity to move the bitumen. Hence the numerous pipeline proposals, including TransCanada’s Energy East – a pipeline which would move over 1.1 million barrels of bitumen a day from Alberta to ports in Quebec and New Brunswick, where most of it will be loaded onto tankers and shipped overseas for value-added refining (see: “Energy East pipeline boon for refineries an ‘emptypromise’ because most oil will go overseas: Report”, the Financial Post, March 18, 2014).

Although the fossil energy sector may be frightened by the  idea of sequestering carbon reserves, there really is no reconciling the needs of the planet with the notion that industrial society can continue to burn vast quantities of fossil fuels for our energy needs.  If we are to take the threat of climate change seriously, the only responsible option is to aggressively switch to renewable energy.

Other nations have already started shifting.  Canada, however, is largely missing out on the benefits of the global clean energy revolution (see: “Canada missing out ongreen energy revolution, report says”, CBC News, September 22, 2014).  Clean energy is now the world’s fastest growing economic sector, yet instead of creating more well-paying clean-tech jobs, we’re subsidizing fossil fuels to the tune of $34 billion a year (see: “IMFpegs Canada’s fossil fuel subsidies at $34 billion”, the Tyee, May 15, 2014).

A real national energy strategy would focus on how Canada will manage phasing out fossil energy, while making the switch to renewables.  It would provide carbon budgets for provincial governments, established strong targets to reduce emissions, and put a price on carbon pollution. 

It would not promote building pipelines under the guise of a taking action on climate change.

Of course, with past Council of the Federation meetings having been sponsored by pipeline-builder TransCanada (see: Canada’s Premiers,55th Annual Premiers Conference – page down for list of sponsors), it seems unlikely that current premiers will put the health of our economy and the Earth’s climate ahead of short-term profits for fossil resource companies.

(opinions expressed in this blog are my own and should not be interpreted as being consistent with the views and/or policies of the Green Parties of Ontario and Canada)

Originally published as "Premiers wrong about energy, climate change" the Sudbury Star, Saturday, April 4, 2015 (print and online), without hyperlinks.