The Government of Alberta (GoA) is hell-bent on facilitating the development of new coal mines in the Province. To that end, it purported to rescind the long-standing Coal Development Policy (CDP) of 1976 effective June 1, 2020. The CDP prevented development of coal resources in Category I lands on the eastern slopes of the Rockies and only permitted the development of new underground mines (rather than open-pit mines) in Category II lands (see Figure 1, below, also available here).
An application for judicial review of the decision to rescind the CDP is pending: Blades et al v Alberta.
These mines will all require approvals under the Coal Conservation Act, RSA 2000, c C-17 and other regulatory statutes, but they will also require something else – water. And water in the South Saskatchewan River Basin (SSRB) – and especially within the Oldman River Basin – is in short supply. Indeed, the SSRB (with the exception of the Red Deer Basin) has long been considered to be over-allocated in terms of licensed appropriations and accordingly it (outside the Red Deer Basin) has been closed to new licence applications since 2007 (with some exceptions discussed below). In closing the basin, the GoA was giving effect to the terms of the approved Water Management Plan for the South Saskatchewan River Basin (SSRB WMP).
We are at a moment of overlapping planetary health emergencies: COVID-19 and climate change. Both have their origins at the intersection of humanity and the rest of the natural world, both exacerbate pre-existing health inequities and both have the ability to bring health systems and economies to their knees.
The health impacts of COVID-19 are well-known — those of climate change less so. A new report by the Lancet Countdown on Health and Climate Change, an international collaboration among 38 leading academic institutions and U.N. agencies, shows that as the globe warms humans are experiencing increasing heat emergencies, wildfires, severe weather, trouble with food yields and potential for novel infectious diseases.
We need to “multisolve” — manage COVID-19 and climate change at the same time, looking for the sweet spots where a single measure can deliver the triple-win of improving public health, contributing to a sustainable economy and reducing the drivers of future crises.
The Canadian policy brief associated with the Lancet report has suggestions for doing just that.
Protect our homes
The report shows a record 2,700 heat-related deaths occurred among people over the age of 65 in Canada in 2018. Globally, the last two decades have seen a 59 per cent increase in heat-related mortality in older people.
The economic costs are also growing: work hours lost due to extreme heat exposure were 81 per cent higher in 2015-19 compared to 1990-94. Immediate action is required.
Many Canadians have had their living circumstances made precarious through COVID-19. In its fall budget update, the federal government announced $1 billion in funding, through the Rapid Housing Initiative, to be used for the construction of modular housing and affordable housing units.
All of the projects funded through this and other federal construction and retrofit programs should be evaluated for their location relative to flood-prone areas, their ability to ensure adequate ventilation and air filtration to cope with heat emergencies and wildfire smoke, and their alignment with our goal of living in a net-zero nation by 2050.
Clean the air
We must also clear the air of the pollution we can control. The Lancet report shows that in 2018 there were 7,200 premature deaths in Canada related to fine particulate air pollution from human-caused sources. This is four times higher than the number of deaths from transport accidents.
The largest portion, found by the Lancet to be over 30 per cent, was due to emissions from households, such as burning fuel for heating. That means that energy efficient retrofits can save lives!
Finally, we need to increase the resilience of health systems. In addition to ensuring health-care structures are prepared for floods and fires in terms of siting, adequate ventilation systems, and more, we must take another look at supply chains.
We learned through the pandemic that producing personal protective equipment (PPE) at home helps to ensure its availability in the face of supply chain disruption. We’ve also seen the disadvantages of not having the ability to produce the leading COVID-19 vaccines at home.
With climate set to drive further health-related emergencies as well as economic crises a shift from a culture of efficiency to one of resiliency is required. We could decrease our healthcare-related footprint and reduce the risk of supply disruption by switching to reusable medical supplies such as gowns and blood pressure cuffs.
Canada is now full of armchair epidemiologists, but few of us could draw an approximation of the country’s projected warming curve. A leap in understanding is required: this forecast must inform planning in all sectors.
As the Lancet report says, unless immediate action is taken this will threaten not only lives and livelihoods, but also compromise the hospitals and clinics we depend on.
COVID-19 is a hinge moment in human society — a time to pause, to reset. Although health workers have been appropriately lauded through this pandemic for the care they are providing, it is becoming clear that from wearing masks to retrofitting our homes, we all share the responsibility, and the honour, of saving lives.
Some RCMP tactics during the 2013 anti-shale gas protests in New Brunswick may have broken the law, while other practices raise concerns about how Mounties conduct surveillance on protesters, according to an investigation by the force’s watchdog.
The Civilian Review and Complaints Commission released its final report this morning on how the RCMP responded to anti-fracking protests that erupted into a riot in the fall of 2013 near Elsipogtog First Nation in Kent County, N.B.
While the 200-plus-page report notes many officers acted reasonably, it flags deep-seated concerns with the way Mounties gather intelligence, restrict individuals’ movement during protests and approach Indigenous culture.
I would like to introduce myself first. Hello my name is Amanda Polchies I am a Lakota Sioux and Mikmaq woman and I live in Elsipogtog First Nation.
I am the woman who knelt in the road with my feather and prayed in front of a line of armed RCMP officers. They were hired by SWN Resources to raid our peaceful camp on highway 134, just outside of Rexton New Brunswick.
October 17, 2013 started off with a call out on Facebook for help. The 134 highway camp had been raided and our Warriors had been arrested. The call out for help was clear. Everyone who could get to the camp should.
Videos emerged of armed RCMP and tactical armed force units pointing guns at women, our children and our elders with footage of attack dogs barking viciously wanting to be let lose on my people. I couldn’t watch anymore and knew I had to be there with my people. I heard the call out and I was going to answer. I didn’t know how I was going to help but I knew I needed to be there.
My head was pounding and I had a fever of 101 but I couldn’t just stand by and do nothing. I kissed my baby son. Told him I loved him and gave him a hug. He looked at me and smiled. I gave him to my sister in law and left. I jumped in my car with 3 others and we headed out.[Read more]
Elispogtog anti-fracking blockade had ‘violent Aboriginal extremists’ according to former RCMP intelligence analyst
A former criminal intelligence analyst for the RCMP who reported that an energy project in New Brunswick was up against “violent Aboriginal extremists” was also the administrator of a Facebook group which featured current and former Mounties, at times, making racist and disparaging remarks about Indigenous Peoples.
For six years Tim O’Neil’s duties included putting together reports for the top brass at the RCMP on issues including threats to energy projects in Canada by Indigenous groups or environmental organizations.
One of these reports, Criminal Threats to the Canadian Petroleum Industry, which is available publicly, is a criminal intelligence assessment report about the 2013 anti-fracking protests led by people in Elsipogtog First Nation near Rexton, New Brunswick.
Along with using the phrase “violent Aboriginal extremists,” O’Neil’s 2014 report also uses wording that includes “criminal intentions of the eco-extremists and violent rhetoric.
“Analysis of existing intelligence and open source reporting indicates that violent Aboriginal extremists are using the internet to recruit and incite violence and are actively engaging in direct physical confrontation with private company officials” says the report under the “Aboriginal Opposition” heading. [Read more]
He also promised to eliminate federal subsidies to the oil industry and move to net-zero emissions by 2050. President Donald Trump, sensing a major blunder by his opponent, called on voters in Pennsylvania, Texas, Oklahoma and Ohio to vote against Biden’s energy plans.
The moment was noteworthy because it highlighted the new political importance of climate change and energy policy in U.S. politics. The Democratic candidate, now the president-elect, enthusiastically committed to taking action on climate change and energy transition. What’s equally significant is that Biden’s strong climate change position doesn’t appear to have hurt him in the key swing state of Pennsylvania or in the general election more broadly.
Serious climate plan
Although Biden’s climate plan is not as ambitious as the Green New Deal advocated by the left of the Democratic Party, his plans are serious.
He has called for a “Clean Energy Revolution” that includes mandatory emission cuts from electric utilities and support for electric vehicles. An interesting aspect of his overall plan is a commitment to spend at least 40 per cent of funds in historically disadvantaged areas.
Biden’s energy revolution will be limited by several factors, however.
His efforts will be constrained by the Democrats’ failure so far to win the Senate — two runoff elections in Georgia in early January will determine what party controls the chamber — combined with continued opposition from the fossil fuel industry and communities dependent upon fossil fuels.
Implications for Canada
Nevertheless, Biden can be expected to move ahead in response to climate science and pressure by some of his key constituencies, such as young people and progressives. This has significant implications for Canada and Canadians.
Any Canadians hoping for U.S. government support for the ongoing expansion of Canada’s fossil fuel infrastructure are likely going to be disappointed.
An example of this is the Keystone XL pipeline. Designed to bring Canadian oilsands bitumen to American refineries, its approvals were halted by former president Barack Obama in 2015 and renewed by Trump.
Opponents of the Keystone XL oil pipeline from Canada are seen demonstrating in sub-freezing temperatures on in October 2019 in Billings, Mont. (AP Photo/Matthew Brown)
Politically, this is a relatively painless action for Biden to burnish his climate change credentials. Canadian government and industry arguments about the need for more pipelines face an uphill battle.
More competition
A second implication is that Canadian industry can expect to see more competition from U.S. firms climbing on the climate change bandwagon. American companies will ramp up clean energy technologies and products. The question is whether Canadian-based industry will be up to the challenge and receive adequate government support.
There is some indication that even some of the most anti-environmental politicians are slowly starting to recognize the urgency to take climate action. Ontario’s Premier Doug Ford has vigorously campaigned against any form of a carbon tax and rolled back measures supporting renewable energy.
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau takes part in a news conference at the Ford Connectivity and Innovation Centre in Ottawa in October 2020, joined virtually from Oakville by Ontario Premier Doug Ford. THE CANADIAN PRESS/Sean Kilpatrick
Yet he also recently committed $295 million to the Ford car company for its plans to build electric vehicles in Ontario.
This realization of the significant economic opportunities offered by green technologies opens up the door to a more evidence-based discussion of how public policy can support both a green economy and economic growth.
The transition is coming. The question is whether Canada will turn it into an opportunity to clean our air and environment, or make the transition more difficult by delaying action and spending vast sums to maintain fossil fuel production and employment.
The energy transition is a challenge facing all countries, but it will be particularly difficult for Canada because so much of our economy and large regions of our country are heavily dependent on the exploitation of fossil fuels.
Assistance for affected communities and industries is vital, but at the moment, many politicians are more comfortable denying the necessity and inevitability of the changes that are coming.
Indigenous communities that have been marginalized and harmed by other people’s exploitation of natural resources, as well as racialized and poor communities exposed to dangerous environmental risks, need to be integrated into clean energy spending.
People pause in a forested area along the Brunette River where trees are to be felled as part of Trans Mountain pipeline expansion, during a guided tour in Burnaby, B.C., in August 2020, led by Indigenous leaders and environmental groups. THE CANADIAN PRESS/Darryl Dyck
The president-elect is committed to moving on the issue of climate change. Important parts of his electoral coalition are also adamant that he oversee a transition to renewable energy. Equally important, his policies reflect the overwhelming scientific evidence that aggressive action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is required to avoid serious economic and social consequences.
Can Canada respond similarly?
There is a discussion forum topic with a similar theme that’s titled, “How the U.S. election outcome could affect Canada’s environment and energy future” if anyone wants to discuss this topic.
On June 1, 2020, the Government of Alberta rescinded the provincial Coal Policy. This policy was created in 1976 to restrict open pit coal mining and coal exploration in the most environmentally sensitive areas in the Rocky Mountains. This decision came on the heels of another government decision in March 2020 to remove protections on 175 parks and recreation areas.
On November 18, join the Red Deer Chapter of the Council of Canadians, a concerned resident and Katie Morrison of the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Association (CPAWS) for an online discussion about the future of Alberta’s Rocky Mountains and how to protect them from the Alberta Government’s regressive decisions around the Coal Policy.
