While more than 50% of the impact on tropical rainforests since 2002 has occurred in the Amazon, Indonesian forests have also been ravaged,
with palm oil plantations the chief culprit. Ranking third for
rainforest destruction is Central Africa, with the Congo River Basin
suffering particularly from the incursions of farming (both traditional
and industrial), as well as logging.
As dense tropical forest vegetation constitutes the planet’s “largest living reservoir of carbon,” all of this activity could increase the potential for climate change, Reuters notes.
“It’s a terrifying cycle,” said report author and tropical forest
researcher Anders Krogh. He explained that more rainforest destruction
means less carbon stored, which in turn means rising global temperatures
that further weaken the forests that remain—all coming together to
create an accelerating feedback loop.
Alberta’s energy minister has promised people will be able to say “no” to coal mining in the Rocky Mountains during upcoming consultations.
“Albertans will tell us how they want to see coal development—if they want to see coal development—and, if they want to see coal development, where it will be,” Sonya Savage said Tuesday.
Savage was responding to questions from NDP Opposition critic Kathleen Ganley during a meeting of the standing committee on resource stewardship, The Canadian Press reports.
The story appeared a day after the NDP put forward legislation to ban coal mining in Alberta’s Rocky Mountains. A day later, Environment Minister Jason Nixon was “reassuring rural municipalities in the province’s dry south that their water supply isn’t threatened by industrial development such as coal mines,” CP adds.
“Alberta continues to have some of the most rigorous water licence rules [and] environmental rules when it comes to the protection of water,” he told a Rural Municipalities Alberta convention.
The province’s United Conservative government has promised consultations on Rocky Mountain coal development will begin March 29. They were announced in February in response to public outcry over the government’s decision to revoke a policy that had protected the summits and eastern slopes of the Rockies from surface coal mines since 1976.
Exploration leases on thousands of hectares were sold on formerly protected so-called Category 2 land. Those leases remain active, although new sales have been halted.
No details about the consultations have been released. Critics have wondered if the consultations will give Albertans the option of telling the government not just under what circumstances they would accept mines, but whether they want them at all.
The land in question includes the headwaters for much of the province’s drinking water.
Savage said Tuesday that details are to be released shortly. She suggested their scope will be broad.
“We’re going to hear the views of Albertans,” Savage said. “We’re going to listen to them before we take any next steps with respect to what can or can’t be developed on Category 2 lands.
“You’re trying to suggest that…those leases are going to stay after the coal consultations and that coal mining will be permitted in Category 2 lands, which is as far from the truth as possible,” Savage told Ganley.
Savage also promised talks with area First Nations.
“There will definitely be government-to-government direct consultations with Indigenous communities,” she said. “That will run parallel with consultation that will start on the 29th.”
If the government wanted to assure Albertans its mind was really open on the issue, it could start by stopping any further work on exploration leases already sold, Katie Morrison of the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society told CP’s Bob Weber.
“I would have more confidence if they cancelled the exploration permits…pending the outcome of these consultations,” she said in an email.
“If they really have no predetermined outcomes, then companies should not be able to continue to damage these landscapes and incur costs that could be subject to compensation from Albertans later.”
Morrison said the further along coal companies get, the harder it will be to implement land use plans and the more expensive it will be to reclaim damage caused by exploration activities such as drilling and road-building.
Elements of this report by The Canadian Press were first published March 15-17, 2021.
Norway’s US$1.3-trillion sovereign wealth fund is following through on its threat to drop investments in Canadian tar sands/oil sands production, with four Alberta fossils showing up among the 15 companies the fund blacklisted last year, the Globe and Mail reports.
Canadian Natural Resources Ltd. (CNRL), Cenovus Energy, Imperial Oil, and Suncor Energy all fell off Norway’s list, “sending yet another message that the era of Big Oil is coming to an end and the future belongs to renewable energy players,” the Globe and Mail reports.
Now, “the trend is clear and unsettling” for fossils everywhere, but particularly in the tar sands/oil sands, Reguly says. “Vanishing investors will make it harder for them to raise capital, boosting the cost of doing business. As their market values fall, index funds that seek out companies with big market values will have to give them a pass,” while rising carbon prices “will intensify the misery”. And reducing production emissions “can only go so far”, when by far the majority of the fossil industry’s carbon pollution occurs when its product reaches its final destination and is used as directed.
Reguly cites Vancouver-based Teck Resources as one company that is trying to sell off its tar sands/oil sands investment. But “unloading it won’t be easy in a market that is becoming aggressively anti-oil sands.” Other colossal fossils like BP are trying to shift their image and their operations from Big Oil to Big Energy, following a small number of companies that have made the switch so far.
Seattle environmental activist Eileen V. Quigley is one of the authors of Washington state’s official plan to nearly eliminate the use of fossil fuel.
Exactly 10 years after that Republican majority retook the House, Quigley and her colleagues can point to a new and officially endorsed blueprint for how Cascadia — the eco-friendly region comprised of Washington State, Oregon, and B.C. — can successfully kick the fossil-fuel habit.
Working early on from a converted garage with a balky heater, Quigley toiled for years with her policy shop, the nonprofit Clean Energy Transition Institute, to provide technical assistance in support of Washington state’s energy strategy. The 428-page 2021 remake released earlier this month by the Washington Department of Commerce maps out how to eliminate all but a sliver of fossil fuel emissions through a massive shift to renewable energy.
According to Dogwood, “Right now, B.C. hands over a billion tax dollars a year to the oil and gas industry—that’s twice as much as we spend fighting climate change, and five times as much as we get back in royalties.”
The province still needs to investigate the human health impacts of fracking in the province’s northeast as well.
The issue was flagged by Dawson Creek doctors as a potential cause for concern after they saw patients with symptoms they could not explain, including nosebleeds, respiratory illnesses and rare cancers, as well as a surprising number of glioblastomas, a malignant brain cancer.
Selenium poisoning from coal mines is closing down communities water sources, and there are lawsuits emanating from the United States as the toxic water pollutes their rivers. See the video with the story of B.C.’s quiet water contamination crisis.
The eco-friendly region comprised of Washington State, Oregon, and B.C.have a lot of challenges before them if they hope to kick the fossil-fuel habit.
Norway’s Prime Minister Erna Solberg greets Prime Minister Justin Trudeau at the G7 leaders summit in La Malbaie, Que., in June 2018. THE CANADIAN PRESS/Justin Tang
As major oil and gas producers and exporters, Norway and Canada share a particular responsibility for confronting the planet’s existential climate threat. However, their different political, economic and cultural features have resulted in major differences in their climate policy track records.
Overall, Norway is a leader on climate change performance and Canada is a laggard. The 2021 Climate Change Performance Index ranks 61 countries on their progress in reducing greenhouse gas emissions, energy consumption, renewable energies and climate policy. Norway ranked eighth overall, while Canada was near the bottom in 58th place.
Both countries face epic challenges in weaning themselves from petroleum dependence — and putting an end to exporting carbon emissions. Canada is a long way from winding down the oil and gas industry and implementing a green and inclusive recovery.
One of the advantages Norway holds is the high degree of equality and inclusivity in the policy process, which translates into a healthier democracy than Canada’s. This is something Canada can learn from and improve upon.
Norway’s exit ramp from oil dependence is bumpy. Despite some contradictory climate actions, Norway’s progress exceeds that of virtually all petro-states, with Canada trailing behind.
Canada recently introduced legislation to meet or exceed a 30 per cent reduction in carbon emissions by 2030 compared to 2005, in part by boosting its carbon tax, but continues to heavily subsidize fossil fuel production. Since early 2020, Canada has allocated US$14.6 billion to support fossil fuel energy and an equivalent amount on clean energy.
Norway also spends a lot on its fossil fuel industry — at least US$11.76 billion since 2020. And with an economy that runs largely on renewable energy, it allocated only US$382 million to renewables.
The good, the bad and the ugly
Neither Canada nor Norway has achieved absolute emissions reductions. Industry in both countries downplays this reality, choosing to focus instead on their progress in reducing carbon intensity — emissions per barrel of oil.
Neither country has committed to a production endgame either. Denmark is the first major oil-producing country to commit to terminating state-approved oil exploration in the North Sea and ending all oil extraction by 2050.
Climate change performance index (2021). The first three positions are blank because no country scores high enough. Canada is ranked among the worst performing countries and fell three spots in 2021. (Germanwatch 2020)
Canadian carbon emissions increased 20.9 per cent between 1990 and 2018, mostly driven in turn by a five-fold expansion of oilsands emissions. Canada’s energy regulator predicts oil production overall will grow 41 per cent from 2018 to 2040.
Norway is a unitary state giving the government uncontested jurisdictional authority over climate policy. As a federal state with divided jurisdictions, the Canadian federal government is in a much weaker policy-making position.
There is a high degree of political stability on climate action in Norway. Even the right-wing Progress Party acknowledges the climate threat and supports the government’s climate plan. In Canada, wide swings on climate policy over the past 40 years have thwarted sustained advances. While a majority of Canadians now support decisive action on climate change, there are splits along party lines and geography, with most Conservative provincial governments opposing a carbon tax.
Governing the decentralized Canadian federation is complex. This puts more weight on political leadership in all parties, in all regions, to acknowledge the truth about the climate crisis and build the necessary consensus to meet the challenge.
Political leadership is the art of persuasion: learning from the past, building coalitions, taking bold action. As a major carbon emitter, Canada must fulfil its global responsibility in helping to stop this runaway train.
Denial, delay and division are no longer an option. Leadership that fails avoid a cataclysmic future will be judged harshly by our descendents.
Alberta’s energy minister has promised people will be able to say “no” to coal mining in the Rocky Mountains during upcoming consultations.
