PAUL JAY: Welcome to the Real News Network. I'm Paul Jay.
Critics say Canada's climate record is abysmal, ranking last among 58 countries in a 2014
performance index survey, despite the fact that Canada bears some of the worst effects
of climate change. A new report published Monday in Nature Geoscience finds that Canada
faces 70% glacier loss by the end of the century. This could have devastating impact on natural
ecosystems and access to drinking water.
Next week on April 14th, Canada's provincial premiers are meeting in Quebec City for the
First Ministers' conference. They will discuss energy and the environment, which may result
in a possible national energy strategy.
A large coalition of environmental organizations and activists have called for a national day
of action this Saturday, April 11th, with events taking place across the country. Thousands
are expected at the Act on Climate march in Quebec City to demand the premiers act on
climate change and stop building pipelines to transport the tar sands from Alberta.
Well now joining us to discuss all of this first of all is Keith Stewart. Keith leads
Greenpeace Canada's Climate and Energy campaign and is also a part-time faculty member at
the University of Toronto, where he teaches a course on energy policy and the environment.
Carol Linnitt is managing editor and director of research for DeSmog Canada, and is a doctoral
candidate at the University of Victoria.
Thanks very much for joining us.
CAROL LINNITT: Thanks.
JAY: Carol, given how draconian, dramatic the data keeps getting -- the glacier loss,
if I understand it correctly, I think the Arctic ice shield is the thinnest it's ever
been in recorded history. We're getting temperature readings that are the hottest in recorded
history. Why do you think Canadians aren't demanding more action on climate change? And
why is the Harper government, which seems barely to believe in the science of climate
change, able to ignore all this?
LINNITT: Well, I think the Harper government is less and less able to ignore this issue.
And I think we're going to really see that on Saturday as projected maybe even 10,000
people come out to the Act on Climate march in Quebec City.
Traditionally we have been at something of an impasse politically when it comes to climate.
The fact that our federal government isn't acting on climate isn't always exactly representative
of what Canadians themselves want, but there's certainly been some disconnect between what
Canadians want and what we see our politicians doing. And in previous polling in previous
years we've seen some really low levels of faith or trust in politicians, in our federal
leaders, to actually do what Canadians feel is necessary, to actually be serious about
climate change.
The most recent polling that I've seen come out from the Canadian Climate Action Network
just this past week shows that the majority of Canadians across the political spectrum
actually feel climate change is extremely important. They believe it's a moral imperative,
they believe federal leaders have a duty and an obligation to act. And probably what is
most at the crux of the issue for Canadians, they believe that acting on climate is more
important than expanding our major petroleum reserves and building pipelines.
When it comes to expanding our oil development and natural gas and building pipelines, I
think we're seeing something of a catalyst for a lot of climate activists in the country.
People who had proposed pipelines perhaps coming into their communities are finding
themselves looking at climate change as an issue that actually has really, really critical
bearing for where they live and their daily lives and ways of being.
JAY: Right. Keith, is there a difference amongst any of the premiers? Is there any more activity
happening at the provincial level, and is there any, you know, conflict or contradictions
between any of the premiers and the federal government on climate change policy?
KEITH STEWART: Yeah. Well, we have this really interesting dynamic in Canada that I've tried
to explain to my international colleagues within Greenpeace, and they think I'm crazy.
Because I talk about how we're developing a national energy strategy in Canada, but
the federal government isn't actually involved in the discussions. They won't come to the
meetings. So it's being developed by the provinces.
And this, actually, idea originally came out of Alberta. It was proposed by Alberta, because
they basically wanted to have a national pipeline strategy. This got some pushback from other
provinces, particularly Ontario and Quebec, who said, well, if we're going to talk about
energy, then we should talk about all forms of energy, not just oil. And we should also
talk about climate change, because our energy plan is actually our climate plan. They're
one and the same. How we use -- how we get, where we get our energy from, how we use it,
that is how we're going to, that's going to basically define what our climate impact is.
So we've seen in Canada there's been this battle the last few years between, amongst
the provinces ? it's kind of a friendly thing. Their discussion [ongoing]. But last year,
Ontario and Quebec really put their foot down together, and they jointly said, okay, look.
We want to go ahead with a national energy strategy. We're not going to do it unless
climate is part of that discussion. And they called a special meeting that's happening
next Tuesday. A meeting on climate change. How does this fit into the national energy
strategy. Bringing together all the provincial premiers.
So that's one of the reasons there's this big rally on the weekend, it's to sort of
send a message to the premiers that if you guys are willing to stand up to big oil, we're
here for you. You know, we want this kind of action. We're going to have people out
in the streets. There's this new kind of ?
JAY: But Harper is not attending. The prime minister's not attending.
STEWART: No. The federal government won't come. They haven't come to any of these meetings.
They really don't even like the idea, I think because -- they knew that climate would become
part of this discussion, and they really just want to talk about pipelines. They're all
about how can we build pipelines. They changed almost every environmental law at the federal
level in Canada to make it easier to build pipelines.
This just created a backlash. Because when people see their government basically acting
as a cheerleader for industry rather than as kind of a referee amongst competing interests
, [which is what] I think most people expect, then they lose faith in the process.
And so the National Energy Board now can put out a verdict like they did in the case of
the Northern Gateway Pipeline in British Columbia, saying okay, you can go ahead and build this.
And the company can't build it because they just don't have any kind of social license,
any popular support.
We're seeing the same thing on every pipeline in the country. And I think the pipeline battles
have really catalyzed this discussion, because it's a very concrete thing. If we build this
pipeline, it means we're expanding the tar sands. It means we're contributing to climate
change. It would be [inaud.] here or somewhere else.
JAY: And has, and are any -- have any of the premiers, Carol, come out against, on the
pipeline issue? About expanding pipelines?
LINNITT: We've seen some really interesting dynamics in the provinces and also these interdynamics
between the premiers themselves. Recently with the Energy East pipeline, there was some
discussion in Ontario that the greenhouse gas emissions associated with the pipeline,
not just the pipeline itself but the fuel source that it was actually reaching into,
would be considered for the province in terms of its standing on the pipeline. About a week
later you see the premier of Alberta traveling to Ontario, and then Ontario's gently backtracking
on that position.
So these interdynamics are really interesting, and there's such dissonance among the provinces
that it's going to be really interesting to see what comes out of these meetings. But
despite that dissonance, it's really encouraging to see them get together to actually talk
about these issues. That's something that we just don't have happening at the federal
level at all. So people are really relying on these sub-national conversations to get
things moving.
JAY: Now there's, Keith, there's been some suggestion I understand from Quebec, perhaps
some of the other premiers, about a cap and trade scheme. Which sounds like it's something
that's better than nothing, except there's been a lot of critique of cap and trade, that
it's really just a financialization of the problem and doesn't really lead to overall
really lower carbon emissions. I mean, is that -- if they're going to do something,
and if that's the something, is that really something?
STEWART: So you know, we have in Canada, British Columbia actually has a carbon tax. It covers
any fossil fuel that is burnt in the province. At $30 a tonne, which is by international
standards pretty good. You know, obviously a lot more needs to happen there, but they've
actually got a good base. Quebec is just joining --
JAY: But that's carbon taxes. That, are premiers, other premiers talking carbon tax? Or is it
more cap and trade?
STEWART: Other premiers are talking putting a price on carbon. So Quebec is doing it through
cap and trade jointly with California. Ontario has committed to introducing some kind of
a price on carbon. It probably will be cap and trade. And cap and trade basically, the
devil's in the details. If you do it well, it can be effective. If you let the polluters
build in all sorts of loopholes, it will be ineffective.
JAY: It seems like if you can confine it to, like California, then they can actually regulate
and keep control of that the trade actually is a meaningful trade. It seems when cap and
trade is international, it's virtually really uncontrollable and most of it is smoke and
mirrors.
STEWART: Yeah. For instance what Greenpeace has said is we don't want to see any offsets
in the system, where you can [buy] credits somewhere else to sort of not have to reduce
at home, because that's one of the big loopholes. Because how do you verify whether those reductions
wouldn't have happened otherwise? Or were they real?
We also would like to see, rather than giving away the permits for the cap and trade system
for free, to put, just auction them all. To sell them all. Because then basically a cap
and trade system, if you auction all the permits and you don't allow these loopholes called
offsets, then it's pretty much a type of carbon tax. It functions basically the same from
an economic perspective.
So you know, we'll wait to see the details. But putting a price on carbon is a part of
the solution. It's not going to solve all the problems, but it's a big part of the solution
because it builds it into the -- polluters are having to pay. And you know, that will
get passed on to consumers, it will make highly polluting products more expensive. It will
make -- it in particular makes them more expensive relative to less-polluting products.
JAY: But Carol, the IPCC is saying 80% of the fossil fuels that are in the ground need
to stay in the ground, or we're going to hit temperatures that are going to be catastrophic.
I mean, take that meaning 80% of the tar sands needs to stay in the ground. That's, you would
think unacceptable to large sections of the Canadian political elite, and I would say
lots of ordinary people whose incomes are connected to the oil industry.
LINNITT: Yeah, presumably that will be the case. One of the things that we need to do
is, as Keith said, making it more expensive to produce this carbon in the first place
is one step in the right direction. Canada certainly needs to take other steps in the
right direction, like putting regulations on greenhouse gas emissions from the oil and
gas sector. This is something that our prime minister Stephen Harper said would be crazy
to do and that no one else is doing anywhere else. Which isn't at all the case.
So I think it's going to be a blend of things that will eventually lead to slowing down
the pace and scale of production in the Alberta oil sands. I mean, it's just, it's running
off the rails at this point, and that's because there's nothing. There are no limits in place
to actually rein it in. and that's what we need to see happen.
I feel like carbon tax, cap and trade, all these schemes have a role to play in that.
JAY: Keith, how much power do the provinces actually have? I mean, can they create a national
energy strategy without the prime minister?
STEWART: Well, the Canadian constitution is an odd thing. It was designed in 1867 when
no one imagined that there would be a problem called climate change. And actually most of
the legal powers to control the polluting industries is actually in the hands of the
provinces. So what I would say is we need a federal government to actually help them
come together, build a plan that's going to work overall, and avoid having some provinces
skip out on their responsibilities.
But a lot of the legal authority is with the provinces, and they're going to have to take
action, because they control the electricity sector, they control mining ? but you know,
the feds also have a role.
Greenpeace today actually put out a report in advance of the meeting next week, where
we just crunched the numbers from Environment Canada data and sort of showed that the biggest
single thing we could do to make sure Canada [meets] its carbon taxes is to say no to pipelines.
Not build new pipelines, because when you build new pipelines you expand the tar sands.
Right now, Alberta has emissions ?. Alberta, 11% of the population, has emissions that
are higher than Ontario and Quebec, which are the two largest provinces. According to
Environment Canada's current projections, by 2020 Alberta will have emissions higher
than Alberta, Quebec, and BC, which holds 75% of the Canadian population. So until we
do something about the tar sands, which is what's driving that increase, to hold back
that growth. Because --
JAY: Well, to do that you need the federal government. Because there's no way the other
provinces can impose that on Alberta. I mean, even if they say you can't --
STEWART: But they can say no to the pipelines. Which is actually one of the [inaud.]
JAY: Well, they can say no to the pipelines going east or west. They can't say much to
a pipeline going south.
STEWART: Yeah. They've tried that pipeline going south, and it's been eight years that
we've managed to hold it up. And I think it's going to get canceled this year. So you know,
they can tweak some of the [southern] pipelines, but when you look at the growth projections
that they have, which is to triple the production. You know, this isn't like a little bit of
growth. They don't need one pipeline or two pipelines or three. They need all five pipelines
currently proposed and more if they're going to grow the industry the way the government
thinks they will, the way the industry thinks they will, and the way that the government
has actually already handed out the permits to allow them to do.
JAY: So right now you think it's possible you could have British Columbia say no, you
can't put your pipeline and get to a port in Vancouver. Or Ontario will say, you can't
get your pipeline entering our province. I mean, is that really a possibility?
STEWART: Yes. If you look at the politics in BC, BC has put five conditions on allowing
any pipeline to go through. And basically, those pipeline -- those conditions can be
interpreted politically to mean they can say yes or no, and they basically are looking
at public opinion. And what they've said so far is no, because the public is, in BC, is
firmly against.
Similarly in Quebec, where you'd have to build a thousand kilometers of new pipeline for
Energy East, there's only 30% support for this pipeline in Quebec. The Quebec government's
looking at that, and saying why would we take a big political hit for Alberta? And also,
for Quebec it's, they get all the risk of oil spills, the conflict that's going to come
around the pipeline, they don't actually get any of the economic benefit.
This is why it's so fascinating having this meeting between the provinces, because the
other provinces actually hold a lot of cards vis-a-vis Alberta. And they've been saying
to Alberta, okay, you've got to come to the table with something [significant] if you
want to ? us to actually have a kind of a national energy strategy.
And what we've been saying is there's no room in any kind of climate strategy for new pipelines.
Let's talk about how we're going to make the investments in the alternatives. We know we're
not going to end ? we're not going to get off oil tomorrow. We're not going to shut
down the tar sands tomorrow. But for God's sakes we can stop making them bigger.
JAY: And just one quickly, just a final, to finish off, Carol. The price of oil right
now, is that taking some of the interest out of new pipelines in terms of investment interest
in expanding anything to do with the tar sands? I mean, I would think at the current levels
of oil prices, tar sands oil's not all that attractive to investors, anyway.
LINNITT: Absolutely. And it's really interesting to see what market forces have done to the
production of oil in Canada. I mean, we've seen some major developers back out of projects
in the tar sands, and that's been quite interesting. What it does is it takes away the incentive
to produce more oil, and that takes away the need for these pipelines. And at the same
time, we're seeing such tremendous gains being made in renewables. They're so much cheaper
to produce than ever before, and they're getting cheaper at exponential rates.
So we're seeing these really dramatic shifts happen in the fossil fuel market, or in the
energy market, and I think that that is going to be a critical part of changing the tide,
along with this lack of social license, concern about climate change, international pressure
to regulate emissions.
I think all of these things are happening in tandem, and Canadians are getting more
serious about leveraging their power when and where they can. Even if the federal government
is stubborn on these issues.
JAY: Okay, well, thank you both for joining us. We'll see what happens at the protests
on the 11th and the premier's meeting on the 14th. Thank you.
STEWART: Thanks.
LINNITT: Thank you.
JAY: And thank you for joining us on the Real News Network.