New fossil projects like the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion will make it far tougher to meet the 1.5°C global warming target that is essential for averting the worst effects of climate change, a Canadian climate scientist told the National Energy Board this week.
“If we build new fossil fuel infrastructure now, which will lock us into carbon emissions for decades, it will make it very difficult, if not impossible, to keep warming below 1.5,” said Kirsten Zickfeld, associate professor of climate science at Simon Fraser University, after Stand.earth filed a motion urging the NEB to factor climate impacts into its latest Trans Mountain review.
“If the oilsands expansion is inconsistent with 2.0°C, it’s especially inconsistent with a target that tries to limit temperature increase to only 1.5°C,” agreed Simon Fraser climate economist Mark Jaccard.
Zickfeld and Jaccard have both served as lead authors with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Zickfeld for the IPCC’s October 2018 report on 1.5°C pathways.
National Observer recalls that an earlier NEB panel planned to include climate impacts in its criteria for evaluating the proposed Energy East pipeline in September 2017. Now, Stand.earth is “asking them to simply apply the same standard to Trans Mountain that they applied to Energy East when it comes to the pressing issue of climate change,” said legal counsel Casey Leggett.
“The board cannot possibly fulfill its mandate of determining whether the project is in the public interest without considering whether the project is reconcilable with Canada’s international obligations to substantially reduce GHG emissions,” the organization said in its NEB submission. “Stand.earth respectfully submits the project is not reconcilable with these international obligations.”
“It is simply irresponsible that the government has so far refused to review the full climate impacts of this project,” said International Program Director Tzeporah Berman. “We need to ensure that emissions decline from all sectors because if we don’t, it’s simply not fair. Other provinces and other sectors are reducing emissions and Canadians are working hard to reduce emissions. We all see the fires, the increase in floods, the water shortages.”
The NEB’s decision on the motion will also be a measure of the credibility it wants for the court-mandated redo of its original Trans Mountain assessment. “This process has been based for the last many years more on political posturing than it has on evidence,” Berman said. “If the NEB is to have any credibility in this country moving forward, then now is the time to change that and to ensure both transparency and analysis of these critical issues and consistency with our federal government’s commitments on climate change.”
After Stand filed its motion, Berman had to bat away a bit of hyperbole from fossil provocateur Vivian Krause, who dusted off her claim that Canadian pipeline protests are driven by U.S. funders.
“The amount of money that has gone to environmental organizations for campaigns is a drop in the bucket compared to what the oil industry and the governments are spending,” Berman told CBC. “This is a campaign that’s run by Canadians and is Indigenous-led. To fearmonger that somehow it’s run by American foundations is insulting to the thousands of Canadians who are standing up.”
In its own NEB submission, the federal Crown corporation that now owns Trans Mountain said there was no new evidence to prevent project approval, adding that the devastating impacts of increased tanker traffic on endangered killer whales would be justified by the project’s “incontrovertible” importance to Canadians, the Toronto Star reports.
“These significant effects are justified in the circumstances, given the critical need for the project and its important benefits to Canada,” Trans Mountain wrote. “The need is real and it is immediate. Canada needs the project now.”
The company “proposed three new ‘mitigation measures’ it is willing to take: instruct oil tankers to avoid killer whales’ foraging areas; evaluate the use of escort tug boats to help respond to oil spills; and work with shipping companies to optimize boat loads and reduce the overall number of shipments from the Trans Mountain terminal in Burnaby, B.C.,” the Star adds. “The company has also committed to developing a marine mammal protection program as a condition for the approval of the pipeline expansion.”
Meanwhile, the Globe and Mail is reporting that the Trudeau government based its decision to buy the pipeline “on a two-month analysis from industry insiders, including one consultant who had previously worked for pipeline owner Kinder Morgan Inc.” The Globe’s report goes into detail on the documents unearthed by pioneering Access to Information researcher Ken Rubin.
Includes is my answer to Mr Newman’ open letter to «those who opposed Canadian Pipelines and oilseeds». To read Mr Newman’s letter , please click on the #1 at the bottom of my text. You may publish my text if you wish.
Open letter
I have read the “Open letter by Demian Newman to those who oppose Canadian pipelines and oilsands” [1] Since Mr Newman «…desperately wants to have a conversation with…” people like me, I will try to be “… the opposing opinion…” which he welcomes in his letter. Yes, like thousands, I have been opposed to Energy East, as others have been opposed to Northern Gateway, to TransMoutain, to the NLG gas pipeline in BC and even to KeystoneXL in the USA. Using solid ecological and economic arguments, I also plan to denounce the planned gas pipeline(projet gasoduct) from Eastern Ontario to the Saguenay River.
I agree with Mr Newman on one point. The massive development of the oil industry”…has become a name calling divisive shouting match, where no one listen to the other side…”These “open letters” must avoid this pitfall at all costs. The information for our respective position must not come from “…rogue websites…”; or for that matter, from think tanks financed by the industry. This leads to PR (public relations) campaigns that systematically try to obscure the facts. One glaring example; EXXON Mobile knew for at least 40 years of the links between its product and climate change; its scientists and engineers were aware of the facts. Yet, in public, Exxon systematically denied that CO2 could have a significant effect on the climate. Presently, New York and possibly California are preparing to sue Exxon and other companies for misleading the public. [2]
The reliability of the sources of information is at the heart of your argument “for” the tar sands as well as my argument «against». The foundation on which I base my opposition to the petroleum industry is Science. The «Collectif des scientifiques» (scientific advisory group) double checks our texts to weed out any inaccuracies before they are published on our website.[3] Furthermore, there is the document signed last year by 15 364 scientists warning humanity to drastically reduce our carbon footprint. [4] Another reliable source of information are the periodic reports from the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Their overwhelming evidence about climate change is the best support for my opposition to the tar sands [5]
You mention that Canada has better environmental standards than many countries. Perhaps! But I have seen the photos of the tar sands near Fort McMurray; if things are much worse in the rest of the world, then God have mercy on our planet!!! [6 ]
Even those who don’t care about the environment, may notice that the economy is being mauled by a climate gone berserk. Think of the cost of those massive wildfires in British Columbia and California; floods in Quebec during the spring of 2017; monster hurricanes such as Harvey, Irma and Maria in the USA; empty water reservoir for the 4 millions citizens of Cape Town(South Africa). And, did I forget to mention the monster fire which forced the evacuation of Fort McMurray two years ago. True, it is difficult to pin each climate catastrophe directly to climate change, but the trend toward global warming is undeniable. As governor of the Bank of England (and former governor of the Bank of Canada), Mark Carney must weigh his words carefully. In September 2015, he “… said insurers were heavily exposed to climate change risks and that time was running out to deal with global warming…The challenges currently posed by climate change pale in significance compared with what might come… So why isn’t more being done to address it?…” [7]
Indeed! I can understand that you and the workers in the oil patch feel vulnerable; your way of live is threatened. Just like the breeders of horses and the manufacturers of buggies a century ago, you bemoan «the good old days». Back then, blacksmiths and harness makers lost their jobs; but new job opportunities appeared for car mechanics.
The times are changing. Coal was the main source of energy in the 19th century; Oil became the standard in the 20th. At the dawn of the 21st, 7,4 billions humans have to realise the wisdom of Dennis Meadows; “infinite growth is impossible on a finite planet”. To burn fossil fuels at the present rate, means that mankind is digging its own grave. You claim to write this open letter not as a Calgarian, but as «…a human being with two young children, and one who doesn’t go a day without being concerned about how we’re leaving this planet…».
“To be or not to be; that is the question!” Mankind faces a Shakespearean choice. Either we deny the problem and keep on burning fossil fuels leading us into the sixth great extinction of species. [9] Or we develop a more sustainable economy based on renewable energies so that younger generations may have a future. [10]The latter choice means that 80% of fossil fuels – and that includes tar sands- must remain in the ground. Therefore, the choice is not between Canadian oil versus foreign oil; its about having the courage to give up our addiction to a substance that is destroying us.
I believe the maxim “Think globally, act locally” was coined in Rio de Janeiro. Alongside science, that admonition is the reason I was opposed to the Energy East pipeline…. and to the tar sands. Each person must do their share in the global scheme of things. In your letter, you ask “ What if you win?“ If our side wins, we all win! Alberta can finally get to work on a diversified, sustainable economy of the 21st century. But best of all, the children of the world, like your daughter Olivia and and your son Liam, will not have to face the horrors of an apocalyptic wasteland… as the preliminary step to the 6th great extinctions of species on the planet![11]
Gérard Montpetit
Member of RVHQ(Regroupement vigilance hydrocarbures du Québec)
Member of comité des citoyens et citoyennes pour la protection de l’environnement maskoutain
January 8, 2019
PS. I am willing to continue this dialogue in a series of open letters. Besides the rvhq website, you may read my texts at
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/author/gerard-montpetit/ (English)
http://quebec.huffingtonpost.ca/author/gerard-montpetit/ (French)
1] https://energynow.ca/2018/12/open-letter-to-those-canadians-opposing-canadian-pipelines-and-oilsands-what-if-you-win-demian-newman-please-share/
2a] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2018/01/10/new-york-city-sues-shell-exxonmobil-and-other-oil-majors-over-climate-change/?utm_term=.c586088950f3
2b] https://www.reuters.com/article/legal-us-usa-oil-climatesuits/california-cities-sue-big-oil-firms-over-climate-change-idUSKCN1BV2QM
3] http://www.rvhq.ca on the left side of your screen , check under “comité réplique”
4] http://scientistswarning.forestry.oregonstate.edu/
5] https://report.ipcc.ch/sr15/pdf/sr15_spm_final.pdf
6] https://www.theguardian.com/environment/gallery/2015/aug/03/canadas-tar-sands-landscape-from-the-air-in-pictures
7] https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/sep/29/carney-warns-of-risks-from-climate-change-tragedy-of-the-horizon
9] http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/07/climate-change-earth-too-hot-for-humans.html
10] http://gas2.org/2017/07/16/scientists-say-sixth-mass-extinction-way/
11] https://350.org/why-we-need-to-keep-80-percent-of-fossil-fuels-in-the-ground/
In Harper’s day the NEB was told to ignore downstream emissions resulting from burning the tar shipped through pipelines. We shall see whether things have improved.
Yes, in August 2017, the NEB announced it would consider upstream and downstream GHG emissions in determining whether the Energy East pipeline was in the national interest. It was noticeable that the NEB declined to consider upstream emissions from the oil sands in reviewing the TMEX There may be a legal case for a mandatory NEB review of the upstream emissions. Additional pipeline capacity means more bitumen production — otherwide why build the pipeline. So upstream emissions will inevitably rise. Increased emissions cannot be in the national interest if a reduction of emissions has been committed to under the Paris Agreement. This fundamental contradiction should be addressed in the courts. Who has standing?.
“These significant effects are justified in the circumstances, given the critical need for the project and its important benefits to Canada,” Trans Mountain wrote. “The need is real and it is immediate. Canada needs the project now.”
With the price differential between WTI and WCS now at near record lows due to the end of the maintenance shutdown period and with Line 3 set to come online later this year, how can they still justify this claim?