Canada and global warming: a state of denial

Meanwhile, as the world continues to hurdle towards global warming catastrophe, Canada's greenhouse gas emissions continue to grow while the federal Liberal government proclaims there is nothing to worry about as we will meet our 2030 emissions, after similar Liberal promises were broken in failing to meet our Kyoto and 2020 emission reduction commitments. 

After decades studying climate change, chairing international committees on the issue and hoping for more progress on addressing emissions, one of Canada’s original climate change activist says it’s time to start adapting to the reality of a warming world.

“I thought we would be, and should be, farther ahead by now,” said Gordon McBean, professor emeritus at Western University and research chair for the Institute for Catastrophic Loss Reduction. “We have to climate change adapt . . . Take actions to reduce your vulnerability, your exposure, your risk due to a changing climate in the future.” ...

New numbers from Environment Canada show the country is farther away from meeting its Paris Agreement emission reduction target. Canada is projected to fall 79 megatonnes short of its goal by 2030. A year ago, Canada was on track to fall 66 megatonnes short of that target.

Despite the latest projections, the federal government is confident it will be able to reach its goal =of cutting emissions 30 per cent below its 2005 levels over the next 11 years.

But even if all new carbon emissions were to end immediately, the earth would still warm over the coming decades, McBean said. So he says we need to start planning for that reality.

“We’re dealing with a warmer climate, which means more heavy rain events, more risk of high wind events, more flooding,” he said. “We should be taking action to reduce our vulnerability to those things . . . Adapt to the reality that the climate of the future is not the same as the climate of the past.”

Discussions about where to build roads and buildings and how to plan communities need to be done while thinking of how the changing climate could affect those investments, McBean said.

https://lfpress.com/news/local-news/adapt-to-climate-change-fallout-fame...

The NDP BC government has made two decisions that counter each other in terms of dealing with climate change: the release of its Clean BC Plan and its approval of LNG Canada. 

The CleanBC plan divides all of B.C.'s emissions into three big groupings: Industry, Transportation, and Buildings & Communities. The problem is that while the Transportation, and Buildings & Communities sectors are projected to reach their 2030 target reductions of 40% below 2007 levels, the Industry sector is expected to increase, with the LNG projects being the main contributor to the growing greenhouse gas emissions. Furthermore, these projections do not include two other LNG projects, Woodfibre and Kwispaa LNG, that are currently pushing to also get approval. If these two additional LNG projects are approved, they would increase emissions another 50%. 

In other words, industry is being let off the hook, even though it is the primary polluter while communities and individuals will bear the burden of the greenhouse gas reduction costs. 

The LNG Canada project is massive. It will sprawl from new fracked gas wells in northern B.C., across the coast mountains via the hotly-contested, 650 km "Coastal GasLink" pipeline, to a new liquefaction terminal in Kitimat. From there, the gas will be loaded onto supertankers and shipped to Asia. The LNG terminal is designed to be built in two phases, each of which will produce 13 million tonnes of liquid natural gas. The first phase is now going ahead.

If both phases get built it will become the "biggest capital project in B.C. history." And probably the most climate polluting as well, with projections for up to 10 million tonnes of climate pollution (MtCO2) per year. For scale, that's more than the emissions from all passenger cars, trucks and SUVs in the province today.

Despite the increase in emissions, the B.C. government says that LNG Canada will be compatible with the province's legislated climate targets. And now the government has unveiled their CleanBC climate plan that charts the path for meeting those targets. ...

First up is B.C.'s 2030 climate target that calls for emissions to fall 40 per cent below 2007 levels. Then then in 2040, the target drops to a 60 per cent cut below 2007 levels.

First, the good news: CleanBC is expected to get two sectors close to the province's 2030 climate goal. The best performer is the Buildings & Communities sector shown by the dashed green line. With CleanBC policies, this sector is projected to cut its climate pollution even faster. It's expected to end up a bit below (i.e.: better than) the province's 2030 target. The biggest change in direction is in Transportation, shown by the blue dashed line. Under CleanBC policies, this sector's emissions are projected to start falling. By 2030 the government expects them to end up close to the provincial target.

Now the not-so-good news. Climate pollution from Industry is projected to stay stubbornly high. And the primary cause is — you guessed it — pollution from LNG Canada. To illustrate the projected impact of LNG Canada I've added three scenarios to my chart.  ...

Putting it all together — the 'missing chart'

Assuming LNG Canada is the only project approved, the chart's orange zone shows the potential range for Industry depending on whether phase two gets built. When it comes to calculating the project's benefits, the government uses numbers that assume phase two will be built — $40 billion in spending and $22 billion in revenue. But when it comes to calculating the climate pollution, and what to do about it, the government uses numbers that assume phase two will not be built.

As the chart shows, both the Transportation and Buildings & Communities sectors are already tasked with doing their share via big cuts. Will they also have to shoulder an extra burden to make even deeper cuts? Or will some collection of non-LNG companies in the Industrial sector be required to do it?

To provide a hint of how challenging this could be, consider that a full build out of LNG Canada could create an emissions gap (10+ MtCO2) that exceeds the expected emissions from the entire Buildings & Communities sector in 2030 (9 MtCO2).

For its part, the B.C. government says they will unveil more new policies in 2019 that will close the gap. British Columbians will get a better idea at that point who gets to shoulder the extra burden.

https://www.nationalobserver.com/2018/12/20/analysis/cleanbc-vs-lng-here...

2018 was another year of intensifying extreme weather around the world. 

The world in 2018 experienced many extreme weather events, from debilitating blizzards to raging wildfires to powerful hurricanes. They underscore the mounting costs and disruptions of changing climate patterns, experts say. ...

the global scientific consensus is that climbing temperatures, rising sea levels, and shifting atmospheric dynamics are already raising the probability that extreme weather events will be more frequent, more severe, and more deadly. Four notable trends made themselves felt in 2018.

I. Wide Temperature Swings and a Changing Jet Stream: The winter of 2018 was the warmest on record in the Arctic, which is warming twice as fast as the global average. Scientists say this has contributed to dramatic temperature variations elsewhere, including record-setting extremes of both heat and cold. January saw record low temperatures from Toronto to Virginia, accompanied by a massive bomb cyclone that formed as cold arctic air met warmer air farther south, covering the entire Eastern Seaboard.

In February, Europe experienced a similar system as a mass of arctic air moved from Siberia across Central and Western Europe. Dubbed the “Beast from the East,” it dumped snow from Italy to Ireland, disrupted transport across the continent, and caused dozens of deaths. ...

NASA data shows that the global average temperature has risen by 1.6°F in the past century, mostly in the past three decades. Scientists warn that arctic warming is changing the patterns of the jet stream, the area of the atmosphere where cold arctic air meets warmer southern air. A result has been that warmer air has been pulled farther north in some places—Alaska’s winter was more than 14°F above average—while arctic air dips further south elsewhere, contributing to frigid lows and powerful winter storms. ...

II. Prolonged Heatwaves and Intensifying Wildfires:  Around the world, temperature records were broken, including record highs of 120°F near Los Angeles in July. Japan recorded a national record high of 106°F, with the sustained heat killing dozens of people. Oman experienced what is likely the highest minimum temperature ever recorded anywhere, with temperatures never dropping below 108°F for several days straight.

The sustained heat was accompanied by severe fires. Across Europe, major fires spread from Scandinavia to southern Italy. Fires killed nearly one hundred people in Greece, drawing an emergency European Union response. Meanwhile, the American West suffered a historically severe fire season. California’s Mendocino Complex Fire in July was by far the state’s largest ever, burning nearly five hundred thousand acres. Then, in November, Northern California’s Camp Fire became the state’s deadliest, killing at least eighty-five people and leaving thousands homeless. ...

Experts say that warming has exacerbated fire risks as higher temperatures and drier conditions provide fuel for conflagrations and extend the fire season. The five warmest years on record have all happened since 2010, and many fire-prone regions are warming faster than the average. The American (and Canadian) West, for instance, has warmed twice as fast as the global average since 1970, lengthening the fire season by several months, according to U.S. government climate assessments. In parts of Europe, some scientists say, the fire season now runs from June to October rather than from July to August. ...

III. Rising Ocean Temperatures, Intensifying Storms: Early in the year, torrential downpours in Southern California, driven by unusual atmospheric rivers of moisture, caused flooding and mudslides. The Atlantic hurricane season later produced several unprecedented storms, which caused major damage and loss of life on the U.S. East Coast. September’s Hurricane Florence dumped thirty-five inches of rain over parts of the Carolinas. In October, Hurricane Michael hit the Florida Panhandle as a Category 4, becoming the strongest storm ever to make landfall in the region.

The year 2018 had the strongest storm season on record. In the eastern Pacific, ten major hurricanes formed. The strongest single storm of the year was Super Typhoon Mangkhut, which hit the Philippines and Hong Kong with force equivalent to that of a Category 5 hurricane, leading to more than 130 deaths. ...

Oceans are absorbing over 90 percent of the increased atmospheric heat. Climate scientists say this is likely making storms bigger and wetter. Warmer water means more energy in the storm system and more moisture in the air, making increased extreme precipitation one of the most confident findings of climate research. Several widely cited academic studies suggest that climate change boosted the rainfall totals of some previous hurricanes by more than 20 percent. ... some initial expert assessments of Florence estimate that its rainfall was 50 percent greater than it would have been without warming. Moreover, rising sea levels increase storm surge, or the amount of water pushed inland by powerful storms, worsening the effects of flooding. 

IV. Drought, Crop Failure, and Famine: In South Africa, a multiyear drought came to a head in Cape Town, nearly forcing officials to cut off water to four million people. In East Africa, several years of extreme drought and poor harvests have caused more than ten million people to face acute water shortages and potential famine. In the spring of 2018, meanwhile, torrential rainfall and record-setting flooding there displaced hundreds of thousands of people and further devastated farmland.

In the United States, drought conditions intensified in April and covered nearly the entire southwest by summer. Arizona, Colorado, Missouri, New Mexico, and Utah reached what the U.S. government considers “exceptional drought” levels, subjecting tens of millions of people to dangerous heat, reducing crop yields, and threatening water supplies.

Europe also experienced drought and crop failures. Farmers in Germany, Poland, and Scandinavia estimated crop losses of up to 50 percent in some places, costing billions of dollars in damages. ...

Scientists increasingly believe that warming temperatures, shifting rainfall patterns, and changes to soil moisture are making droughts more likely and more severe even as extreme precipitation and flooding are also on the rise, a phenomenon known as precipitation whiplash. The Food and Agriculture Organization, a UN agency, warns that the area of the planet affected by drought has doubled over the past forty years, placing agricultural production and food security under duress, especially in developing countries. ...

The U.S. National Climate Assessment, issued by thirteen federal agencies every four years, updated its outlook in November, concluding that warming would cost the United States at least 10 percent of its gross domestic product by 2100.

https://www.cfr.org/article/year-extreme-weather-climate-2018?gclid=EAIa...

There are alternatives to GDP, which is a neoclassical economic measure, that take into account income distribution and environmental sustainablility. One of them is ISEW. 

The Index of Sustainable Economic Welfare (ISEW) is an economic indicator intended to replace the Gross Domestic Product, which is the main macroeconomic indicator of System of National Accounts (SNA). Rather than simply adding together all expenditures like the gross domestic product, consumer expenditure is balanced by such factors as income distribution and cost associated with pollution and other unsustainable costs. It is similar to the Genuine Progress Indicator (GPI).

The Index of Sustainable Economic Welfare (ISEW) is roughly defined by the following formula.

ISEW = personal consumption
+ public non-defensive expenditures
- private defensive expenditures
+ capital formation
+ services from domestic labour
- costs of environmental degradation
- depreciation of natural capital

GDP is misleading as an indicator or even as a proxy of the welfare of a nation, let alone as a measure of people’s well-being,[1] although the makers of economic policy commonly think to the contrary. This problem already became apparent in practical economic policies in most[citation needed] industrialised countries in the early 1970s. The most famous examples of this development are the MEW index developed by William Nordhaus and James Tobin in their Measure of Economic Welfare (MEW) in 1972, the Japanese Net National Welfare (NNW) indicator in 1973, the Economic Aspects of Welfare index (EAW) index of Zolatas in 1981, the ISEW indicator of Daly and Cobb in 1989 and the UN’s human development index, or HDI, in 1990[citation needed]. They are all based on neoclassical welfare economics and use as the starting point the System of National Accounts (SNA). The basic idea behind all these approaches is the inclusion of nonmarket commodities, positive and negative, to yield an aggregated macroindicator in monetary terms.

The ISEW was originally developed in 1989 by leading ecological economist and steady-state theorist Herman Daly and theologian John B. Cobb, but later they went on to add several other "costs" to the definition of ISEW[citation needed]. This later work resulted in yet another macroeconomic indicator Genuine Progress Indicator (GPI): see sustainability measurement. The GPI is an extension of ISEW that stresses genuine and real progress of the society and seeks especially to monitor welfare and the ecological sustainability of the economy. The ISEW and GPI summarise economic welfare by means of a single figure according to the same logic by which GDP summarises economic output into a single figure. Beside economic issues, social and environmental issues in monetary terms are included. ...

The calculation of the ISEW in the United States from 1950 to 1986 was done by Cobb and Daly in 1989. The results reveal that the increase in economic welfare of an average American has stabilised after the 1970s although the economy, measured by GDP, has continued to grow. According to Cobb and Daly’s calculations the external effects of production and the inequity of income distribution are the main reasons for this development in which an increase in production does not necessarily lead to an increase in welfare.

Besides the USA there have been at least seven other countries or regions which have attempted to implement the ISEW, namely the UK (Jackson & Marks 1994), Germany (Diefenbacher 1994), The Netherlands (Rosenberg & Oegema 1995), Austria (Stockhammer et al. 1995), British Columbia (Gustavson & Lonergan 1994), Sweden (Jackson & Stymne 1996), Chile (Castaneda 1999) and Finland (Hoffrén 2001).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Index_of_Sustainable_Economic_Welfare

Here's how GPI works.

Genuine progress indicator (GPI) is a metric that has been suggested to replace, or supplement, gross domestic product (GDP). The GPI is designed to take fuller account of the well-being of a nation, only a part of which pertains to the size of the nation's economy, by incorporating environmental and social factors which are not measured by GDP. For instance, some models of GPI decrease in value when the poverty rate increases.[1] The GPI separates the concept of societal progress from economic growth.

The GPI is used in ecological economics, "green" economics, sustainability and more inclusive types of economics. It factors in environmental and carbon footprints that businesses produce or eliminate, including in the forms of resource depletion, pollution and long-term environmental damage.[1] GDP is increased twice when pollution is created, since it increases once upon creation (as a side-effect of some valuable process) and again when the pollution is cleaned up; in contrast, GPI counts the initial pollution as a loss rather than a gain, generally equal to the amount it will cost to clean up later plus the cost of any negative impact the pollution will have in the mean time. While quantifying costs and benefits of these environmental and social externalities is a difficult task, "Earthster-type databases could bring more precision and currency to GPI's metrics."[1] It has been noted that such data may also be embraced by those who attempt to "internalize externalities" by making companies pay the costs of the pollution they create (rather than having the government or society at large bear those costs) "by taxing their goods proportionally to their negative ecological and social impacts".[1]

GPI is an attempt to measure whether the environmental impact and social costs of economic production and consumption in a country are negative or positive factors in overall health and well-being. By accounting for the costs borne by the society as a whole to repair or control pollution and poverty, GPI balances GDP spending against external costs. GPI advocates claim that it can more reliably measure economic progress, as it distinguishes between the overall "shift in the 'value basis' of a product, adding its ecological impacts into the equation".[1]:Ch. 10.3 Comparatively speaking, the relationship between GDP and GPI is analogous to the relationship between the gross profit of a company and the net profit; the net profit is the gross profit minus the costs incurred, while the GPI is the GDP (value of all goods and services produced) minus the environmental and social costs. Accordingly, the GPI will be zero if the financial costs of poverty and pollution equal the financial gains in production of goods and services, all other factors being constant. ...

The Genuine Progress Indicator is measured by 26 indicators which can be divided into three main categories: Economic, Environmental, and Social. Some regions, nations, or states may adjust the verbiage slightly to accommodate their particular scenario. For example, the GPI template uses the phrase "Carbon Dioxide Emissions Damage" whereas the state of Maryland uses "Cost of Climate Change"[13] because it also accounts for other greenhouse gases (GHG) such as methane and nitrous oxide. (see the url below for a full listing of these 26 indicators)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genuine_progress_indicator

David Suzuki has spoken out once again about the failure of Canadian governments to deal the existential crisis created by global warming and its impacts on all forms of life. 

Here in Canada, politicians claim to take climate change seriously but reject plans to mitigate it without offering better alternatives. Some provincial and federal leaders are governing or building campaigns around rejection of carbon pricing, a proven tool for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. It's interesting, because carbon pricing is a market-based strategy, whereas the kind of government regulation that would be required in its absence is something conservative thinkers usually reject.

To be fair, few politicians are emerging as climate heroes, regardless of where they sit on the political spectrum. Our federal government has some good climate policies, including carbon pricing, but is still pushing for pipelines and oilsands expansion. It's even watered down carbon-pricing plans to appease industry.

Alberta's NDP government has likewise implemented some good policies and encouraged clean energy development, but by promoting pipelines and the fossil fuel industry to appease a bitumen-beholden voting base that likely won't support it anyway, the party is alienating young people and others who care about climate and the future.

It bewilders me that so many people are opposed to environmental protection, to ensuring Earth remains habitable for humans and other life. It doesn't take much to see that we've screwed up in many ways. Climate disruption, species extinction, plastic pollution, and contaminated water and air are all symptoms of our wasteful, consumer-driven lives, in which profit is elevated above all else. Prioritizing a relatively recent economic system designed when conditions were much different over the very things that keep us healthy and alive is suicidal.

We can't stop using fossil fuels or shut down the oilsands overnight. But if we don't start somewhere, we'll get nowhere. ...

As we head into an election year in Canada, we must ensure that climate and the environment are priorities for all parties. This costly crisis will bring devastation to economies, food production, human health, and much more if we fail to put everything we can into resolving it. ...

Now, as humanity faces an existential crisis, we must do everything we can to push those who would represent us to truly act in our interests rather than kowtowing to a dying industry. Climate change should be the top issue in this year's federal election and all others.

http://rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/david-suzuki/2019/01/political-climate-h...

The following video shows temperature anomalies by country (how much warmer or cooler each country was than the average temperature) each year from 1880 to 2017 with the increasing frequency of red for warmer become totally dominant as the year approaches to 2017. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PhbdyNnUliM

While the Liberals and Conservatives continually promote jobs in the fossil fuel industry, this industry creates few jobs per dollar invested compared to renewables and fossil fuel sector employment has been in decline globally for more than five years while renewables have been the fastest growing sector in terms of employment. Furthermore, Trudeau has inflated both the number of construction and permanent jobs involved in the Trans Mountain pipeline. 

When Prime Minister Trudeau announced approval of the Trans Mountain project, he said the expansion would “create 15,000 new, middle class jobs, the majority of them in the trades.” ...

Kinder Morgan told the National Energy Board (NEB) that construction employment for the project would be an average of 2,500 workers a year, for two years. It was laid out in detail in Volume 5B of the proponent’s application. ...

Trans Mountain’s estimate of 15,000 construction workforce jobs is a scam. The more realistic figure is less than 20 per cent of that size. That Trudeau, Carr and Notley so eagerly got behind Kinder Morgan’s manipulated jobs figure — without checking to make sure it made any sense — amounts to a betrayal of the public trust.

https://ipolitics.ca/2017/08/30/those-trans-mountain-employment-numbers-...

Only 50 permanent jobs will be created by Trans Mountain, according to Kinder Morgan itself.

Kinder Morgan has projected 50 direct full-time jobs once the pipeline is up and running.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/kinder-morgan-s-trans-mountain-p...

Both Unifor, Canada's largest private sector union, and the Alberta Federation of Labour have concluded the project is not worth its economic and environmental costs.

"The Kinder Morgan expansion project is all risk and no gain for the public or our environment," said Joie Warnock, Unifor's Western Director. "Despite applying conditions for approval, in the absence of any realistic, enforceable regulations, the NEB failed to consider the very serious risks a project of this magnitude has for residents and our economy."

Over the past year, Unifor called on the NEB to reject the Kinder Morgan expansion project expansion citing it was not in the public's interest. Unifor supports regulated, sustainable development of the oil sands. "This expansion is about foreign companies dictating over our future and Canadian jobs; it's a classic case of foreign profits winning over our jobs and the public's interest," said Warnock.

https://www.unifor.org/en/whats-new/press-room/unifor-says-pipeline-expa...

While Canada continues to pour more and more money into the fossil fuel sector, the rest of the world is shifting to renewables both in terms of investments and jobs, including the world's biggest economies, leaving Canada in danger of being an economic dinosaur. 

​BOOMING BUSINESS: HOW THREE COUNTRIES ARE PUTTING RENEWABLE ENERGY TO WORK 

Clean energy employs an incredible 9.8 million people worldwide. Here’s how three countries – the US, China, and Germany – are making clean energy work at home. 

Clean energy employs an incredible 9.8 million people worldwide. Here’s how three countries – the US, China, and Germany – are making clean energy work at home. 

THE UNITED STATES

Even with the White House’s vocal support for all things fossil fuels, clean energy is powering more and more of the US economy every year. And it’s not just happening in California and New York – thanks to the power of market trends, the clean energy revolution is taking hold even in states like Texas and Iowa. Here’s the scoop:

• The American renewable industry is growing – and hiring – rapidly. According to the US Bureau of Labor Statistics, wind and solar technicians top the list for fastest-growing jobs in America over the next decade. Between 2012 and 2017, solar employment grew  about 16 percent annually. That’s about nine times faster than the overall US economy!
• Clean energy jobs tend to pay well. Not only is the industry rapidly expanding, it’s giving Americans steady, reliable, and well-paying jobs with a future. Wind turbine technicians and solar panel installers are making a median of $52,260 and $39,240 per year, respectively, while other jobs such as electrical engineer in the field of renewable energy are making even more—up to $88.50 dollars an hour.
• Renewable energy industry is booming in states that many may not expect. States are investing in clean energy because it makes good economic sense and reduces emissions. Midwestern states are leading the clean energy revolution: Iowa’s largest utility plans to generate 85 percent of its electricity from wind while Kansas’s utilities are on track to supply over half of the state’s power with wind by 2019. And Texas, alone, hosts more than a quarter of the country’s wind capacity.

CHINA

China is already a renewable powerhouse—and the country is really putting its money where its mouth is. Check it out:

• China invests big in clean energy. Yes, China is the world’s biggest country by population – but you might be surprised to learn that it’s also leading the world in the renewable energy investment. That’s right! China is investing more in renewable energy than any other nation on Earth: In 2017, the country invested more than $44 billion in clean energy projects. China also accounts for about 60 percent of global solar cell production, and is the largest wind turbine manufacturer in the world.  
• Renewable energy is creating jobs in China, too. Thanks to massive investments in renewables and energy efficiency, China has become the world leader in clean energy jobs, with nearly four million employed in 2016. The country aims at creating 13 million clean energy jobs by 2020.

GERMANY

Ever heard of the Energiewende? It’s Germany’s revolutionary plan to secure “a reliable, economically viable, and environmentally sound energy supply.” The country is aggressively moving away from nuclear energy and fossil fuels in favor of clean power. It’s right there in the name – the word literally means “energy turn.” Some highlights:

• Germany is a renewable energy leader. Not only has Germany been replacing fossil fuels with wind and solar energy, it’s also the fifth-largest clean energy employer in the world. An incredible 334,000 Germans work in the renewable energy sector, making the country the largest clean energy employer in the European Union.
• Renewable energy is shaping new businesses and transforming the job market in Germany. With nearly two million jobs belonging to environmentally related fields, the German Federal Environmental Agency estimates that at least half of those jobs are tied to the Energiewende.

 

https://www.climaterealityproject.org/blog/booming-business-how-three-co...

There is good news and bad news when it comes to renewables. The good news is that renewable energy and the jobs associated with it are growing rapidly. The bad news is that the growth is not fast enough to deal with our global warming crisis. 

It’s good news, bad news on the renewable energy front this week. First, the good news. The latest report from the International Energy Agency suggests as much as 1.3 terawatts of new renewable energy could come online between now and 2023 if the most optimistic scenario becomes a reality. Even if more conservative forecasts prevail, 1 terawatt of new renewable energy can be expected before that date. 1 terawatt is enough electricity to power all of Europe, the IEA says. ...

At the current pace of development, renewables will only account for 18 percent of the energy the world uses by 2040. That is far short of the 28 percent threshold the IEA believes is necessary to mitigate the impacts of climate change, produce cleaner air and provide access to modern energy around the world.

IEA says renewable energy could grow 25 percent faster, if governments enact policies and regulations that give companies and investors confidence to invest in clean energy.

The group now expects renewables to meet 40 percent of new global energy demand between 2018 and 2023.

By 2023, China is forecast to surpass the European Union as the world's top consumer of renewable energy, thanks to policies aimed at decarbonizing the energy sector and cutting the country's notoriously high pollution levels. The nation will account for 40 percent of the growth in renewable energy over the next five years alone, the agency predicted.

After China, the European Union will see the fastest growth in renewable energy deployment, topping the United States as the 28-nation bloc aims to achieve renewable energy targets in 2020 and 2030.

Renewable energy capacity is still projected to rise by 44 percent in the United States, but the IEA warns that changes to the tax code, trade policy and energy plans under President Donald Trump could hold back growth.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/10/07/renewable-energy-needs-to-speed-up-to-me...

BC's proposed LNG does not make economic sense, so BCer's will pay for it in their taxes and their environment.

In British Columbia, LNG (Liquefied Natural Gas) is an industry on life support. The problem: the public is paying for the treatment.

At the height of ex-Premier Clark’s LNG-mania in 2013-14, high prices in Asia for the super-cooled fuel provoked a gold rush frenzy in BC. The business idea – to liquefy and ship cheap, fracked BC gas to Asia for high profit – spawned two dozen projects. An obliging National Energy Board granted each of them a permit to export a non-renewable resource. The high prices of 2013, nearly $20 per million British Thermal Units (mmBTU) subsequently tanked in 2015, scuttling the economic case for BC LNG. The current Asian price for LNG ($9/mmBTU) is lower than the $11-$12 costs of mining, piping, liquefying and shipping it to Asia. ...

So we now have publicly-funded concessions that Federal and Provincial Governments – past and present – have placed in the industry’s begging bowl, including:

• no Provincial Sales Tax on gas purchased;
• subsidized (6 cents/ kilowatt-hour) electricity rates (residential customers pay 12 cents/KWh). The 6-cent industrial rate was originally conceived for labour-intensive industries, which LNG definitely is not;
• zero percent LNG royalty tax; 9 percent corporate tax rate on future profits declared in BC. Royalty taxes are payments to the resource owners – in this case the BC public. Much of the LNG industry is financially structured to offshore any profits to lower-tax jurisdictions, as Australia has already learned to its chagrin;
• $35/tonne carbon tax cap and $0/tonne on “fugitive” (vented and leaked) gases. The public will pay much higher carbon taxes, as this is ramped up in future years to limit global climate disruption. Fugitive emissions, when fully and accurately accounted for, make LNG a worse climate-warmer than coal;
• $120 Million a year for infrastructure costs (roads and pipelines to fracking holes). When this is factored into the skimpy returns to the public purse, the fracked gas industry remits less to BC’s coffers than do parking fees and fines in the City of Vancouver;
• reduced property assessments and property taxes. BC has legislated discounted property tax rates for all port facilities;
• relaxed Temporary Foreign Worker restrictions for imported workers. Unlike Australia, Canada has not negotiated local employment guarantees for the construction and operation of LNG facilities and pipelines;
• exemption from 25% import duty on machinery and equipment. The industry is also appealing a ruling by Canadian International Trade Tribunal imposing a hefty anti-dumping tariff on LNG modules constructed in Korea and floated here for final assembly. Constructing these units abroad denies jobs to Canadian steelworkers and revenue to Canada;
• accelerated capital cost write-downs. The Harper Government hiked the speed at which the LNG industry could write off its huge capital costs (to 30 percent per annum, previously 8 percent), effectively delaying income taxes and reducing borrowing costs for the industry.

All in all, this is extremely generous treatment for a foreign-owned industry which would employ, at most, a tiny fraction of BC’s 2.5 million-strong workforce – far fewer than each of BC’s high-tech, film and tourism industries. A 2014 study by the Centre for Policy Alternatives showed that, at a $12 LNG price in Asia, it would be 14 years before the capital costs of these projects were written off and LNG royalties begin to trickle into BC’s public coffers. The fracked gas industry has built up tax credits of a whopping $3 billion, meaning that, should it ever actually record a profit locally, the first $3 billion will be tax-free. As the LNG price has fallen to under $10/mmBTU, that 14-year break-even timing is likely to be further delayed. This mirrors the Australian LNG experience, which has shown break-even periods of 15 years or more for its LNG projects, and a tripling of local gas prices in the face of export competition for local supplies. Australians are paying more for their own gas than are foreign buyers.

https://commonground.ca/bcs-lng-industry-flogging-a-dead-horse/

Drought, Flood, Repeat 

A new study shows California weather is set to get even wilder, with more extreme droughts and floods in the state's future. UCLA climate scientists project wetter wets and drier dries as climate change increases California's "weather whiplash." The lead author of the study, Daniel Swain, said, "I can definitely attest to being unnerved by some of our findings." Increasingly extreme weather events could lead to $1 trillion catastrophes.

https://www.kqed.org/science/1930575/climate-cartoons-fiore

The Trudeau Liberals have a new problem with their Trans Mountain pipeline expansion that is raising major concerns with people in Metro Vancouver in addition to the greenhouse gas emissions that it will triple.

The fire on Saturday next to the Kinder Morgan oil depot that is the terminal point of Trans Mountain pipeline is also  likely to impact the Burnaby South byelection as it raises more concerns about what the increased storage of oil from the expanded pipeline would mean for Burnaby residents. A 2015 report discussed below describes the increased risk. In addition, the assistant Burnaby fire chief warned that it was lucky that the fire did not occur in the summer because it would be more difficult to deal with the fire. Even in winter conditions, it required 34 firefighters to put the fire out.

Opponents of the Trans Mountain Expansion Project said they are worried about fire risk at the Kinder Morgan tank farm on Burnaby Mountain, after flames from a dramatic fire on Saturday came within hundreds of metres of tanks storing petroleum products. ...

"I'm glad there were no explosions because that tank farm that is just 250 metres from there is like a bomb waiting to go off in our community," said Elan Gibson with Burnaby Residents Opposed to Kinder Morgan.

On Saturday, a fire broke out in a storage facility at a property owned by a demolition company on Aubrey Street near Pinehurst Drive. The facility is surrounded by forest, with a residential neighbourhood on one side and the tank farm on the other. It took 34 firefighters to keep the flames from spreading, while the structure was destroyed.

It took 34 firefighters to keep the flames from spreading, while the structure was destroyed. ...

"We did have a bit of concern," said Barry Mawhinney, an assistant fire chief with the Burnaby Fire Department, about the proximity to the tanks, which store a variety of petroleum products.

"If it was in the summer and the green space was a bit drier, we would have had a bigger concern," he added.

Gibson and the Burnaby Residents Opposed to Kinder Morgan are also worried a fire in the forest during dry summer conditions could end up spreading to the tanker farm and result in large fire involving hazardous materials.

The Trans Mountain Expansion Project would increase the amount of tanks at the site by 14 and the proximity to one another.

In 2016, SFU released a report which said the expansion—especially the increase in tanks—poses "significant health and safety risks" to the school and its community. The report, prepared by PGL Environmental Consultants, said that the extra tanks and the greater volume of refined bitumen will increase the risk of accidents, fires and exposure to toxic chemicals. It also said the greater number of tanks and their location near the intersection of Burnaby Mountain Parkway and Gaglardi Way could cut off access to and from SFU if there was a fire at the site.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/burnaby-mountain-fire-ki...

SO, WHAT IS CLIMATE CHANGE?

If you’ve heard Bill Nye explain the basics of climate change, you know that greenhouse gases, mainly released by the burning of fossil fuels, are causing the average temperature of our planet to increase. By the end of the century, it could be 4–5˚C warmer. So what’s the big deal? XKCD shows how just a few degrees can cause a huge shift.

THE SIGNS ARE EVERYWHERE

https://www.climaterealityproject.org/blog/climate-change-explained-10-c...

While Google, Microsoft and Facebook have publicly stated that climate change is a major problem they have at the same time funded a climate change denial conference that claimed increased carbon dioxide atmospheric concentrations has a negligible affect on weather, correlates with wealth (which it may as the wealthiest nations tend to be the biggest per capita carbon dioxide producers) and increases life expectancy. As expected, the Kochs and Mercers who were major Trump contributors, also funded the conference. The tech firms see the libertarian climate change deniers as supporters in their fight against government regulation.

Google, Facebook, and Microsoft have publicly acknowledged the dangers of global warming, but last week they all sponsored a conference that promoted climate change denial to young libertarians.

All three tech companies were sponsors of LibertyCon, the annual convention of the libertarian group Students for Liberty, which took place in Washington, DC. Google was a platinum sponsor, ponying up $25,000, and Facebook and Microsoft each contributed $10,000 as gold sponsors. The donations put the tech companies in the top tier of the event’s backers. But the donations also put the firms in company with some of the event’s other sponsors, which included three groups known for their work attacking climate change science and trying to undermine efforts to reduce carbon emissions.

Among the most notable was the CO2 Coalition, a group founded in 2015 to spread the “good news” about a greenhouse gas whose increase in the atmosphere is linked to potentially catastrophic climate change. The coalition is funded by conservative foundations that have backed other climate change denial efforts. These include the Mercer Family Foundation, which in recent years has donated hundreds of thousands of dollars to right-wing think tanks engaged in climate change denialism, and the Charles Koch Institute, the charitable arm of one of the brothers behind Koch Industries, the oil and gas behemoth.

In the LibertyCon exhibit hall, the CO2 Coalition handed out brochures that said its goal is to “explain how our lives and our planet Earth will be improved by additional atmospheric carbon dioxide.” One brochure claimed that “more carbon dioxide will help everyone, including future generations of our families” and that the “recent increase in CO2 levels has had a measurable, positive effect on plant life,” apparently because the greenhouse gas will make plants grow faster.

In a Saturday presentation, Caleb Rossiter, a retired statistics professor and a member of the coalition, gave a presentation titled “Let’s Talk About Not Talking: Should There Be ‘No Debate’ that Industrial Carbon Dioxide is Causing Climate Catastrophe?” In his presentation, Rossiter told the assembled students that the impact of climate change on weather patterns has been vastly exaggerated. “There has been no increase in storms, in intensity or frequency,” he said. “The data don’t show a worrisome trend.”

He insisted that when he hears the news that carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere are rising, “I’m cheering!” That’s because, he said, carbon dioxide “is a fertilizer” that has made Africa greener and increased food production there, reducing human misery.

Google was a platinum sponsor, ponying up $25,000, and Facebook and Microsoft each contributed $10,000 as gold sponsors.

Rossiter also claimed that carbon dioxide emissions correlate with wealth and that the greenhouse gas “improves life expectancy” because poor countries that start burning fossil fuels have a more consistent power supply and can then clean up their water. “I’m happy when carbon dioxide is up, because it means poverty is down,” he declared.

“I come not to bury your carbon but to praise it,” he concluded.

Rossiter’s presentation puts him on the far fringes of the climate denial world. Not even Exxon is trying to make such arguments anymore. And it’s a long way from what Google, Facebook, and Microsoft have said about the dangers of carbon dioxide; all three companies have committed to reducing their own carbon footprints. Microsoft has pledged to cut carbon emissions by 75 percent by 2030. Google claims to be committed to a “zero carbon” future and is aggressively pursuing renewable energy sources for its operations to reduce its carbon footprint and help combat climate change. And Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg criticized President Donald Trumpafter he announced that the United States would withdraw from the Paris climate accord, writing, “Stopping climate change is something we can only do as a global community, and we have to act together before it’s too late.”

The presence of the tech sponsors at a libertarian conference is not itself unusual, as governments around the globe move to try to regulate social media and online privacy. Tech companies see libertarians as natural allies in the fight against regulation. Indeed, Google sponsored two different sessions at the conference, one on why “permissionless innovation” needs to be defended and another on whether the government will “continue to let the Internet be awesome.” But the companies’ underwriting of a conference with a climate denier on the schedule shows the hazards of trying to advance a policy agenda through interest groups without also supporting their fringe elements.

https://www.nationalobserver.com/2019/01/23/news/google-facebook-and-mic...