1) Nearly 200,000 hectares of new coal leases issued since the policy change are still valid
According to the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society, 194,281 hectares of leases have been granted since May 2020, including 186,186 hectares in what are known as Category 2 lands.
In 1976, the government offered to “buy back” leases it had issued on land where development would be restricted by the new coal policy.
At the time, the government said it “recognizes that the restrictions now imposed on exploration and development in [areas with restricted development] will affect persons holding Crown leases … and is prepared to purchase such leases.” It was an effort to get industry to pull back from Category 2 lands.
Not this time.
Minister Savage’s announcement paused new coal leases, but did not reverse leases granted since the coal policy was rescinded last year.
“Despite increased climate ambitions and net-zero commitments, governments still plan to produce more than double the amount of fossil fuels in 2030 than what would be consistent with limiting global warming to 1.5°C and 45% more than consistent with limiting warming to 2°C,” according to the report.
The main findings include: (sourced from the press release)
The world’s governments plan to produce around 110% more fossil fuels in 2030 than would be consistent with limiting warming to 1.5°C, and 45% more than consistent with 2°C. The size of the production gap has remained largely unchanged compared to our prior assessments.
Governments’ production plans and projections would lead to about 240% more coal, 57% more oil, and 71% more gas in 2030 than would be consistent with limiting global warming to 1.5°C.
Global gas production is projected to increase the most between 2020 and 2040 based on governments’ plans. This continued, long-term global expansion in gas production is inconsistent with the Paris Agreement’s temperature limits.
Countries have directed over USD 300 billion in new funds towards fossil fuel activities since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic — more than they have towards clean energy.
In contrast, internationalpublic finance for production of fossil fuels from G20 countries and major multilateral development banks (MDBs) has significantly decreased in recent years; one-third of MDBs and G20 development finance institutions (DFIs) by asset size have adopted policies that exclude fossil fuel production activities from future finance.
Verifiable and comparable information on fossil fuel production and support — from both governments and companies — is essential to addressing the production gap.
In the report Canada shows up as the world’s fourth-biggest oil and gas producer, and global fossil fuel production in 2030 will still be more than double the amount that would match a 1.5°C climate pathway, according to the 2021 Production Gap Report by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP),” writes Mitchell Beer in The Energy Mix.
IEA calls for Faster Fossil Phaseout
In yet another recent article, Beer focused on the IEA’s (International Energy Agency) call for a much “faster fossil phaseout and more renewables investment to keep 1.5°C withing reach.” Current climate pledges “cover less than 20% of the gap in emissions reductions that needs to be closed by 2030 to keep a 1.5°C path within reach,” says the IEA World Energy Outlook report.”
To shift those trends, the IEA Report calls for: (excerpt from The Energy Mix)
• A doubling of countries’ current commitments to deploy photovoltaic solar and wind, along with a “huge buildout” of grid infrastructure, greater flexibility in electricity systems, more reliance on hydropower, a rapid coal phaseout, electrification of transportation and space heat, and “use of nuclear power where acceptable”;
• A “relentless” focus on energy efficiency, making better use of materials and shifting behaviours to speed the reduction in the amount of energy the global economy uses for each unit of output it produces;
• A “big boost” to clean energy innovation, focused on technologies like hydrogen, low-carbon fuels, and carbon capture, utilization, and storage—particularly to drive emission reductions in energy-intensive industries like steel and cement, and in long-haul transport. While “all the technologies needed to achieve deep emissions cuts to 2030 are available,” the IEA says, nearly half of the reductions required by 2050 “come from technologies that today are at the demonstration or prototype stage.”
“Every data point showing the speed of change in energy can be countered by another showing the stubbornness of the status quo…for all the advances being made by renewables and electric mobility, 2021 is seeing a large rebound in coal and oil use. Largely for this reason, it is also seeing the second-largest annual increase in CO2 emissions in history.” — IEA
The “Net-Zero by 2050” fantasy is now the “de facto climate goal” writes Peter Kalmus in his latest Guardian opinion piece. “This is deadly procrastination,” he adds. Kalmus tweeted that there are two fatal flaws with “net-zero by 2050”. One is “net zero.” The other is “by 2050.” The net-zero craze has been embraced by world leaders, politicians of all stripes and even fossil fuel executives, which in itself is a big red flag.
Two Fatal Flaws
“These two flaws provide cover for big oil and politicians who wish to preserve the status quo. Together they comprise a deadly prescription for inaction and catastrophically high levels of irreversible climate and ecological breakdown.” — Peter Kalmus
“Net-Zero” is wishful thinking because it assumes a knock-out technological breakthrough on carbon capture that is nowhere on the horizon. The concept is a very useful distraction that “representsmagical thinking rooted in our society’s technology fetish,” says Kalmus. “Net-Zero” is the new climate science denialism which is more subtle but yet more effective than the outright climate denial of previous years.
“By 2050” is the other fatal flaw. There is zero sense of urgency in a deadline that is three decades away. It leaves everybody off the hook. Individuals who are concerned about climate change—but not concerned enough to do something about it—find “by 2050” quite convenient, something they’ll get around to eventually. Elected leaders find the phrase very user-friendly—in the short term—because they’ll no longer be around to answer for their inaction on climate after their term in office.
My latest: There are two fatal flaws with “net zero by 2050.” One is “net zero.” The other is “by 2050”.https://t.co/yssrNNBOGQ
Empty commitments to Net-Zero by 2050 by the fossil fuel sector, the world’s big banks, governments and large corporations do nothing to tackle the climate crisis in the short or medium term. The recent code-red alert by the IPCC makes it abundantly clear that the world must transition away from high-carbon-emitting fossils starting immediately. We are running out of time.
Kalmus, and others like Canada’s Seth Klein, are calling for society to shift into emergency mode with a WWII herculean effort to tackle the climate crisis.
Kalmus points out that “any zero goal must be paired with a commitment to annual reductions leading steadily to this goal year by year, and binding plans across all levels of government to achieve those annual targets.” Forget “by 2050”. We should be looking at no later than 2035.
Plus we need to forget the “net” in “net zero”. Carbon capture and other negative emissions schemes will only “continue to provide the distraction and delay sought by the fossil fuel industry. It would be beyond foolish to gamble our planet on technologies that may never exist at scale,” according to Kalmus.
Klein has four markers for when you know that a government has shifted into emergency mode:
It spends what it takes to win;
It creates new economic institutions to get the job done;
It shifts from voluntary and incentive-based policies to mandatory measures;
It tells the truth about the severity of the crisis and communicates a sense of urgency about the measures necessary to combat it.
Our planet is being pummeled by the worsening impacts of climate change. Adults and world leaders have a deep moral obligation to not saddle the youth of the world with the climate failures of our generation.
Rolly Montpellier @Below2C_
Roland (Rolly) Montpellier is the co-founder and Editor of Below2°C. He’s a climate activist, a climate communicator and a blogger. He’s a member of Climate Reality Canada, 350.Org (Ottawa), Citizens’ Climate Lobby (Canada) and climate ambassador for We Don’t Have Time. You can follow him on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Linkedin.
Jonathan Wilkinson, Minister of Environment and Climate Change
By Below2C | GASP| @Gasp4Change –
August 17, 2021
The message to Jonathan Wilkinson, Minister of Environment and Climate Change, in a letter drafted by two members of GASP (Grandmothers Act to Save the Planet) is powerful. Lorraine Green and Carole Holmes express their disapproval of Wilkinson’s support of fossil fuels while acting as Climate Minister. You can’t do both.
There is not a person in Canada today who will escape the effects of the deceit of the Trudeau government climate plan which includes the expansion of fossil fuels. In May, the EPA called for a drastic scaling back of all new fossil fuel investments as it laid out a clear pathway to net-zero 2050. And the latest IPCC Report—which is sounding alarm bells around the world—also calls for a massive decline in CO² emissions to have just a 50-50 chance of keeping warming below 2°C. (Editor comment)
As Climate Minister, You Can’t Promote Fossil Fuels
Dear Honourable Jonathan Wilkinson,
GASP was terribly disappointed when we heard your comments that Canada will continue to extract oil from the Trans Mountain Pipeline because the revenue is needed to help Canada achieve its long-term climate objectives. This comes on the same day, August 9th, 2021, that the IPCC published its report that forecasts catastrophic environmental consequences if humans continue burning coal and other fossil fuels.
In an interview with Katie Simpson, on CBC’s Power and Politics, you reaffirmed Canada’s commitment to phasing out fossil fuels and achieving net zero carbon emissions by 2050, but as we see in the IPCC report, the planet cannot wait until 2050.
Our children, grandchildren, and children everywhere cannot wait till 2050
Forests and Canadian towns that have burnt down this summer in Canada cannot wait till 2050.
Crops, across the prairie provinces, that have withered this summer cannot wait until 2050.
The melting permafrost is impacting the Inuit way of life today. They cannot wait until 2050.
Canada’s commitment to lower emissions 40% – 45% is actually weaker than the IPCC called for. Canada has hugely benefited from extracting and burning fossil fuels and we now have a “CARBON DEBT “to the world. Decarbonization is our only path to survival.
Is it only, we grandmothers, who think it’s absolute nonsense to believe burning fossil fuels can transition us away from fossil fuels? That Canada needs the revenue from the Trans Mountain Pipeline to fight the proliferation of fossil fuels? That focusing on 2050 ‘long-term climate objectives’ sends a message of urgency?
Canada cannot waste time and money on false solutions being pushed by oil and gas companies that sanction more oil and gas production. As a top global and a major fossil fuel exporter, we have both the responsibility and the power to make a difference. We must cut emissions in half this decade, rapidly decarbonize all sectors of the economy, and phase out fossil fuels.
In the past, we have taken our issues to our Halton Liberal MPs – Pam Damoff; Anita Anand; Karina Gould; and Adam vanKoeverden, for whom we have great respect. They have always given us time to meet with them and have been excellent listeners. They all think very highly of you, your knowledge, and expertise, however, we feel they are reluctant to address our concerns with you.
There is no time for delay. The Climate Emergency is NOT a problem of the future, or the next government – it’s here and now and affecting every region of the world.
If, as you say, Canada is serious about the climate crisis, your response to the IPCC report must be a moratorium on fossil fuel expansion in Canada; a freeze on projects like Trans Mountain; and immediate action to fast track just transition legislation.
Every degree of warming that we can prevent means more lives saved; it means more species protected; it means our grandchildren and future generations will inherit a world they can live in.
Lorraine Green is a grandmother, advocate for social justice and gender equality, a climate activist and Co-Chair of GASP (Grand(m)others Act to Save the Planet). You can connect with her on Twitter, @lorraineagreen
Carole Holmes is Co-Chair of GASP, Grandmothers Act to Save the Planet, based in Oakville Ontario. GASP4change.org.
What if you could drive your car for 1,000 kilometres on a single tank of fuel and with zero emissions? That is just one example of what is possible in a hydrogen economy.
After decades of development, hydrogen and renewable electricity are poised to revolutionize the global energy system, enabling climate-friendly solutions. When combined with digital technologies, they will trigger economic growth as transportation, telecommunications and civil infrastructures become smart and interconnected.
In a post-pandemic world, several countries have included hydrogen fuel in their national recovery strategies. Canada and the United Kingdom have incorporated net-zero targets and disclosures to climate risk into national legislation. By identifying hydrogen’s role explicitly, the world is creating an international market for related zero-carbon solutions.
I have worked on hydrogen energy systems since 1993, and I have never seen such rapid changes in hydrogen policy, markets and technologies.
Carbon intensity is colour blind
Hydrogen is a zero-carbon fuel, and it comes in three basic colours: grey, blue and green.
Grey hydrogen can be produced inexpensively using coal or natural gas, but it has a significant carbon footprint. Most of the grey hydrogen produced today is made by a process called steam methane reforming, which generates between nine kilograms and 12 kilograms of carbon dioxide for each kilogram of hydrogen produced. Grey hydrogen can turn “blue” when most of these carbon emissions are captured and, for example, sequestered underground.
Green hydrogen is more expensive to produce, but it can be manufactured with zero emissions using renewable electricity to split water into oxygen and hydrogen. Globally, less than two per cent of hydrogen is produced this way.
The basic colours of hydrogen. Cleaner hydrogen produces less carbon dioxide, but it is more expensive. (Walter Mérida/Data: PEMBINA, IEA), Author provided
Many other colours have been added to the palette, but the focus on colour is a distraction. What really matters is the carbon intensity of the production process — that is, the tonnes of carbon produced for each tonne of hydrogen.
Hydrogen can be burned like any other fuel in cars, ships and airplanes, but because it does not contain carbon, it will not produce CO2 emissions. More importantly, it can also power fuel cells that convert hydrogen into clean electricity directly. This feature will trigger a revolution in portable, urban and autonomous power over long distances.
Challenges to widespread hydrogen adoption include the lack of a refuelling and distribution infrastructure, embryonic and evolving safety standards, and high costs. Most of these challenges are being addressed as the number and scale of demonstration projects increases.
A global market
The Hydrogen Council, a global industry group, estimates that by 2050 hydrogen will represent 18 per cent of the energy delivered to end users, avoid six gigatonnes of carbon emissions annually, enable US$2.5 trillion in annual sales and create 30 million jobs globally.
This month, British Columbia announced it would be the first province in Canada to introduce a hydrogen strategy to reduce emissions and create jobs. Other, similar strategies already exist elsewhere in the world. Canada may be late to the game, but it still has a chance to become a hydrogen powerhouse.
In the wake of a 750-billion euro recovery plan, the European Commission unveiled “A hydrogen strategy for a climate-neutral Europe.” Its investments in water electrolysis alone could be 24 billion to 42 billion euros by 2030. Hydrogen was also the focus of the first Energy Earthshot announced in June by the U.S. Department of Energy, and national hydrogen strategies have been developed by Japan, Germany, South Korea and Australia.
Canada unveiled its Hydrogen Strategy in December 2020. The government says that the clean fuel sector could be worth $50 billion, create 350,000 green jobs and help Canada reach its net-zero targets by 2050. In June, Canada launched a $1.5-billion Clean Fuels Fund to increase domestic capacity to produce low-carbon fuels, including hydrogen.
Largest green hydrogen projects under consideration as of December 2020. Their completion will depend on finding adequate market conditions. (Walter Mérida/Data: Recharge News), Author provided
Beyond guilt-free driving, hydrogen may enable Canada to respond to the global demand for solutions as the world embarks on a transformational energy transition.
Canada’s opportunity
Canada could become a leading blue and green hydrogen exporter.
Our country has been a global leader in hydrogen technologies for more than a century. Commercial products based on these technologies are running cars, buses and trains around the world.
British Columbia, Manitoba, Québec and Ontario could export green hydrogen made using hydro or nuclear electricity. Alberta can repurpose its oil and gas infrastructure and labour force to produce blue hydrogen at globally competitive prices
Scaling up investment and increasing domestic hydrogen demand will be critical to trigger local economic development, maintain Canada’s leadership and respond to global market signals.
Air Products recently inaugurated a hydrogen fuelling station in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia. (AP Photo/Amr Nabil)
At the end of June, Canada’s Senate approved Bill C-12, writing our national greenhouse gas emissions targets into law. The carbon tax and clean fuels initiative represent additional steps to create the incentives and regulatory certainty needed to promote private investment. In Budget 2021, Canada also proposed a tax credit for investments in carbon capture, use and storage technologies.
Informed by a similar measure in the United States, the tax credit will explicitly “support hydrogen production.” A public consultation is open until Sept. 7, providing an opportunity to refine and harmonize the role of hydrogen in Canada’s energy transition.
Beyond powering clean cars, the links between hydrogen and renewable electricity can decarbonize seasonal energy storage, steel manufacturing, urban and industrial heatingand aviation. Such links will trigger a revolution in the digital technologies required to monitor, control, trace and certify smart and sustainable energy systems.
By leading the way in hydrogen and digital technologies, Canada has a golden opportunity to pivot from a resource economy to a low-carbon economy in a single generation.
1) Nearly 200,000 hectares of new coal leases issued since the policy change are still valid
The UNEP 2021 
The “Net-Zero by 2050” fantasy is now the “de facto climate goal” writes Peter Kalmus in his latest Guardian 
Rolly Montpellier @Below2C_
