Canada and global warming: a state of denial 2

625 posts / 0 new
Last post

In the Arctic the rate of ice melting not the 57% of the entire Earth discussed in the previous post, but 600% since the 1990s, showing how incredibly fast Canada's Arctic is changing because of global warming. This alone threatens coastal flooding for 400 million people by 2100. 

Icebergs in Disko Bay, Greenland.

Icebergs in Disko Bay, Greenland. IAN JOUGHIN / IMBIE

The polar ice caps are melting six times faster than in the 1990s, according to the most complete analysis to date. The ice loss from Greenland and Antarctica is tracking the worst-case climate warming scenario set out by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), scientists say.

Without rapid cuts to carbon emissions, the analysis indicates there could be a rise in sea levels that would leave 400 million people exposed to coastal flooding each year by the end of the century.

Rising sea levels are the one of the most damaging long-term impacts of the climate crisis, and the contribution of Greenland and Antarctica is accelerating. The new analysis updates and combines recent studies of the ice masses and predicts that 2019 will prove to have been a record-breaking year when the most recent data is processed. ...

The average annual loss of ice from Greenland and Antarctica in the 2010s was 475 billion metric tons – six times greater than the 81 billion metric tons a year lost in the 1990s. In total, the two ice caps lost 6.4 trillion metric tons of ice from 1992 to 2017, with melting in Greenland responsible for 60 percent of that figure.

The IPCC’s most recent mid-range prediction for global sea level rise in 2100 is 53 centimeters (cm). But the new analysis suggests that if current trends continue the oceans will rise by an additional 17 cm.

“Every centimeter of sea level rise leads to coastal flooding and coastal erosion, disrupting people’s lives around the planet,” said Andrew Shepherd, of the University of Leeds. He said the extra 17 cm would mean the number of people exposed to coastal flooding each year rising from 360 million to 400 million. “These are not unlikely events with small impacts,” he said. “They are already under way and will be devastating for coastal communities.” ...

Almost all the ice loss from Antarctica and half of that from Greenland arose from warming oceans melting the glaciers that flow from the ice caps. This causes glacial flow to speed up, dumping more icebergs into the ocean. The remainder of Greenland’s ice losses are caused by hotter air temperatures that melt the surface of the ice sheet.

The combined analysis was carried out by a team of 89 scientists from 50 international organizations, who combined the findings of 26 ice surveys. It included data from 11 satellite missions that tracked the ice sheets’ changing volumes, speeds of flow, and masses.

About a third of the total sea level rise now comes from Greenland and Antarctic ice loss. Just under half comes from the thermal expansion of warming ocean water and a fifth from other smaller glaciers. But the latter sources are not accelerating, unlike in Greenland and Antarctica.


Approaching A Risky 1.5 C Global Overshoot

"Whether by avoidance or ignorance, one third of the nations to the Paris climate agreement are failing to meet goals. The plans of the remaining two-thirds are unknown at his time, but the trend doesn't look very promising. Therefore, it's probably a good idea to plan for a global termperature overshoot beyond +1.5 C (2.7 F).

So then, what does +1.5 C above pre-industrial look like? The failure by countries to achieve results according to Paris 15 is immoral at best, and at worse, a criminal activity against humanity..."


The Alberta Conservative government has asked Trudeau Liberals for $30 billion to "explore carbon capture, utilization and storage (CCUS) technologies " in order to reduce emissions. Kenney describes talks on this with the Liberals as "productive" and that there have been "a lot of good discussions with senior people in the federal government recognizing they need something like this to have any hope, realistically, of achieving their emissions targets. When Harper was in power, he always talked about reducing emissions intensity per barrel as a way of increasing total fossil fuel production. Claiming that this would help Canada reach net-zero greenhouse gas emissions is pure BS.

 Kenney said his government will form a working group of officials from the governments of Alberta and Canada in collaboration with Ottawa "to develop CCUS opportunities and technologies".

If the federal government does support pouring billions into carbon capture rather than into shifting to green energy, and into a technology that has failed to show it can work on a large scale, this will only leave Canada further behind in the shift towards a renewable green energy that is already starting to happen in the US, China, Britain, Japan, Germany etc.  This would leave Canada as an economic dinosaur. 

                       Kenney -always the gas station attendant to the oil industry

Alberta is asking the federal government for $30 billion in funding to explore carbon capture, utilization and storage (CCUS) technologies.

News of the request was first reported by the Globe and Mail on Monday morning, who said it was outlined in a "discussion document" obtained by the publication ahead of the next federal budget. ...

At a news conference on Monday, Premier Jason Kenney said a robust investment in CCUS technologies are necessary for Canada to reach the federal government's target of net-zero. "We have been world leaders in the (CCUS) technology … [and] we're at risk of falling behind if we don't up our game. That's going to require major investments," Kenney said. "The government of Canada has, of course, committed to very ambitious emissions reduction targets, and it's our view that there's no feasible way for Canada to achieve those targets within the stated timelines without a widespread application of game-changing technology like CCUS." ...

Kenney said the expansion of CCUS technology has been identified by the provincial government as a "potential game-changer for the reductions of emissions," and particularly for Alberta's energy sector. 

He said conversations with the federal government about the importance of the large investment have been productive — particularly because the U.S. has shot past Canada in its application of CCUS technology, and in part because of a tax incentive program the U.S. created for the technology.

"I can tell you that we've ... had a lot of good discussions with senior people in the federal government recognizing they need something like this to have any hope, realistically, of achieving their emissions targets," he said.  ...

Chris Bataille, a researcher with the Institute for Sustainable Development and International Relations, says carbon capture should be shouldered by companies, not taxpayers. "It's a very legitimate part of our decarbonization toolkit but we cannot use it as an excuse to keep on doing things the way we used to," Bataille said. "And it should not be used as a way to keep the oil from going past their natural lifetime."



Despite all the celebration that Covid had helped the world, including Canada, lower its greenhouse gas emissions, the reality is we will soon break previous record emissions. 

Power plant smokestack

International Energy Agency data showed that by December 2020 carbon emissions were 2% higher than in the same month the year before. Photograph: Jeff Zehnder/Alamy

The world has only a few months to prevent the energy industry’s carbon emissions from surpassing pre-pandemic levels this year as economies begin to rebound from Covid-19 restrictions, according to the International EnergyAgency.

New figures from the global energy watchdog found that fossil fuel emissions climbed steadily over the second half of the year as major economies began to recover. By December 2020, carbon emissions were 2% higher than in the same month the year before.

The return of rising emissions began only months after Covid-19 triggered the deepest slump in carbon dioxide output since the end of the second world war, and threatens to dash hopes that the world’s emissions might have peaked in 2019.

Dr Fatih Birol, executive director of the IEA, said: “We are putting the historic opportunity to make 2019 the definitive peak of global emissions at risk. If in the next few months governments do not put the right clean energy policies in place, we may well be returning to our carbon-intensive business as usual. This is in stark contrast with the ambitious commitments made by several governments one after the other.”

The agency’s first ever report to record monthly carbon emissions by region found a strong correlation between countries that put in place economic stimulus packages with a net environmental benefit – such as France, Spain, the UK and Germany – and those that have kept a lid on the carbon emissions rebound.

Meanwhile, the countries that had made the smallest contributions to green economic stimulus measures, such as China, India, the United States and Brazil, recorded steep carbon rebounds in the second half of last year as their economies began to reopen. ...

“This is a clear signal that governments did not put as many green energy policies in their economic recovery packages as they should have. We warned that if the policies were not put in place, we would go back to where we were before the crisis – which is what is happening today,” he said.

China was the first major economy to emerge from the pandemic and lift restrictions, and the only major economy to grow last year, causing its emissions in the last month of the year to climb 7% higher than the levels in December 2019. Its emissions fell 12% below 2019 levels in February last year, but for the year as a whole China’s carbon emissions were 0.8% above 2019.

In India and Brazil, the monthly carbon emissions recorded for December were both 3% higher than at the end of 2019, a stark increase from the depths of lockdown restrictions in April last year, when India’s emissions were 41% lower than in 2019 and Brazil’s 23% lower than the year before.

The EU also reached an emissions nadir last April of 22% below 2019 levels, and emissions remained 5% lower than the year before by December, in part due to ongoing restrictions on travel to help limit the spread of Covid-19 and its variants.

Birol said it was “not too late” for governments to prevent remissions from rebounding to higher levels than before the coronavirus pandemic, “but it is becoming a very daunting task”.

“Governments of all countries, and especially major economies such as the US, China, India, Europe and Japan, need to include clean energy policies in their economic recovery packages,” he said.


The Trudeau Liberals are following the same delay, delay, delay climate plan they have since Chretien in 1993 by refusing to have a target for greenhouse emissions reduction target for 2025 and instead setting the target date as 2030, when they would have been in power for 15 years, which given history is unlikely to happen. In other words, they don't want any target that could hold them accountability for failure in the forseeable future, depsite demands from environmentalists that early target dates are critical to dealing with global warming. 

Cartoon by Malcolm Mayes, Edmonton JournalCanada’s environment minister says he is reluctant to ask the public service to come up with a plan to achieve an emissions target in 2025, setting up a possible clash with opposition members over the government's climate bill.

Environment and Climate Change Minister Jonathan Wilkinson said he would rather his department work on implementing the initiatives contained in the federal government’s new climate plan that are designed to achieve their objectives by 2030.

Bill C-12, the Canadian Net-Zero Emissions Accountability Act, would require the federal government to come up with national climate targets for the year 2030 and every five years thereafter, ultimately reaching net-zero carbon pollution by 2050. 

Prominent climate scientist Corinne Le Quéré, who chairs France’s High Council on Climate and is a member of the U.K.’s Climate Change Committee, as well as Canadian environmental lawyers and opposition members of Parliament have all called on the government to plan for a 2025 target instead of waiting for 2030, saying climate action can’t be delayed

NDP environment and climate change critic Laurel Collins, an environment committee member, said she would like to see a 2025 target, arguing that waiting until 2030 was “extremely problematic.” The Green Party has also released a plan that calls for “clear enforceable targets and timelines starting in 2025.”


Covid has taught us that national security is not just a military issue because no nation is secure in a global pandemic. The same is true of global warming as we are already starting to learn. We now have more soldiers deployed dealing with climate change events in Canada than we have overseas and there are impacts that are occurring around the world, including flooding, famine, mass migration, drought, increased poverty, extreme weather events and war that will impact global security and that of Canada. However, global warming is not part of any Canadian national security plan. It is past time it was.


Climate change is impacting the global security landscape, and experts have warned about climate change's implications on security risks such as political instability and conflicts. Photo by Wikimedia Commons

The impacts of climate change on security issues such as political instability and mass migrations are well-documented. It is time for Canada to make climate change a national security priority and develop a national climate security plan.

Climate change is impacting the global security landscape. Security experts have warned about climate change's implications on security risks such as political instability and conflicts. At the recent United Nations Security Council open debate on climate change and world peace, UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres urged world leaders to step up their efforts to address climate security. Despite these warnings, Ottawa does not have a national climate security strategy, which leaves Canada vulnerable to security risks related to climate change.

Climate change has been generally considered an environmental issue. But military scholars call climate change a “threat multiplier” that can intensify a wide range of security issues. Globally, climate-related disasters such as floods, wildfires, droughts and storms have led to food insecurity, water shortages, loss of properties and poverty. These social and economic grievances can increase many security risks such as wars, terrorism and forced migrations.

In places like Yemen and Afghanistan, climate change impacts have exacerbated conflicts between communities and complicated the ongoing peacebuilding efforts. On island nations such as Kiribati, rising sea levels and saltwater intrusions have forced people to leave their homes. According to some estimates, climate change could displace more than 1.2 billion people globally by 2050. 

As past and ongoing events have demonstrated, political instability and conflicts in other parts of the world can undermine Canada’s national security.

Climate change is already putting pressure on Canada's military. In 2019, Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan said there has been a growing need for the Canadian Armed Forces to provide disaster relief at home and overseas. Currently, there are more Canadian troops deployed to provide disaster relief at home than to operations overseas. An internal Department of Defence analysis found climate impacts will increase security risks and the demand for Canadian troops in African countries. Climate change also presents risks to Canada’s defence infrastructure and equipment. For example, Canadian naval bases in Halifax and Esquimalt are prone to sea-level rise, which may impact Canada's readiness to respond to other security threats.

Climate change is also undermining Canada’s Arctic sovereignty. The melting Arctic ice has opened up the Northwest Passage and allowed world powers such as the U.S. and Russia to increase their military presence in the region. China's growing interestin the Arctic Ocean for its cargo ships also poses a new challenge to Canada's security interest in the Arctic. 

Canada's defence strategy, Strong, Secure, Engaged, highlights the military’s commitment to "bolster its ability to respond to severe weather events and other natural disasters, both at home and abroad." But the Department of Defence alone cannot address climate security. In its new climate plan, "A Healthy Environment and a Healthy Economy,” Ottawa outlines 64 ambitious measures to reduce Canada's greenhouse gas emissions. Unfortunately, this plan does not address climate security nor explain how Canada will adapt to climate impacts. 

Canada must develop a national strategy to protect Canadians from security risks related to climate change. The federal government should first incorporate this strategy into its climate plan to ensure it is consistent with the country's overall approach to tackling climate change.

Moreover, the government needs to immediately fulfil its promise to develop a national adaptation strategy to ensure communities can respond to climate impacts. Increasing community resilience to climate change will reduce potential damage associated with climate disasters and the demand for the Canadian Forces’ help for disaster relief. Ottawa also needs to work with other countries to minimize security risks related to climate change globally, such as monitoring climate risks in hot spots. Additionally, Canada should focus its official development assistance on helping vulnerable countries increase their climate adaptation capacity.



A significant event in the fight against fossil fuels and the global warming they produce occurred last August without much notice: Exxon Mobil, which led the climate denier fight and was the largest company globally in terms of capital as late as 2013 and was on the Dow Jones for 92 consecutive years, which is a record, fell out of the Dow Jones average, consisting of the largest 30 companies, as oil prices fell and the increasing demand in a shift to green energy has developed. Environmentalists see this as a major change. 


Corporate duplicity, it seems, knows no bounds.

Exxon Mobil’s demotion from the Dow Jones Industrial Average after nearly a century is being celebrated by environmentalists as a harbinger of the fossil fuelindustry’s demise. 

The oil behemoth was the longest-running member of the blue-chip stock market index after being added in 1928 when it was still called Standard Oil of New Jersey. In 2013, Exxon was the most valuable company on earth, valued at around $418billion. ...

Exxon Mobil’s drop appears emblematic of the changing fortunes of the fossil fuel industry, as calls to tackle the climate crisis gather momentum. Emissions from fossil fuels are the primary cause of global heating, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Some 89 per cent of greenhouse gas emissions came from fossil fuels and industry in 2018, according to CarbonBrief.

In a statement, May Boeve, executive director of environmental non-profit, wrote: “Big Oil has fallen. Our job is to make sure they don’t take us down with them. Fossil fuel companies like Exxon knew and lied for decades about the main cause of the devastating impacts we’re now experiencing across the globe: from fires, storms and floods to droughts and rising seas. As the finance world wakes up and cuts ties with these climate criminals, we are rising up to make polluters pay for their destruction.” She added: “Exxon’s deep fall today is another powerful reminder of how fossil fuels are too volatile to be the basis of a resilient economy. It is past time for Exxon to recognise that it is not only one of the most responsible for the climate crisis, but also that its assets are quickly becoming stranded as we move towards more sustainable, resilient, and regenerative economic systems, based on renewable, accessible and just energy sources.” 

Dr. Peter Gleick, climate scientist and member of the US National Academy of Sciences, tweeted: “This is some kind of milestone. Exxon-Mobil is out of the Dow Jones Industrial Average. Fossil fuels are dying. Most people just don’t know it yet.”

“Oil is on its way out,” Greenpeace posted. 

From its peak market value of $446bn in mid-2014 – when crude oil was last above $100 a barrel – Exxon Mobil is now worth $267bn, CNN reported.

Mighty Middle

Conservative delegates reject adding 'climate change is real' to the policy book

Delegates voted down green-friendly policies by a margin of 54 per cent to 46


Mighty Middle wrote:

Conservative delegates reject adding 'climate change is real' to the policy book

Delegates voted down green-friendly policies by a margin of 54 per cent to 46

Yes the Conservatives have a terrible record on climate change, but so do the Liberals, whether under Chretien, Martin or especially Trudeau, as the following examples illustrate: 

The Liberal 25 year history of promising to deal with global warming has been one long series of promises followed by actions that always fail to meet their greenhouse emissions reduction targets and often result in an increase in emissions.

(1) “Canada has missed two separate emission reduction targets (the 1992 Rio target and the 2005 Kyoto target) and is likely to miss the 2020 Copenhagen target as well. In fact, emissions in 2020 are expected to be nearly 20 per cent above the target.” (

The Chretien Liberals were deeply involved in negotiating the 1997 Kyoto Accord agreeing that "Canada's Kyoto target was a 6% total reduction by 2012 compared to 1990 levels of 461 Megatonnes (Mt)". Instead the 1997 emissions of 671 Mt during the year of the signing of the Kyoto Accord had risen to 747 Mt in 2005, the last full year of a Liberal government before the Conservatives took over. This was 33% above the 1997 Liberal Kyoto target. Martin did little in office to fulfill the Liberals Kyoto promises.  The Liberals have failed previously failed to meet their greenhouse gas reduction goals of 1992, 1997, and 2005. (

(2) The Trudeau Liberals declared a climate emergency in June 2019 as he prepared for an election and then announced the next day the tripling of the Trans Mountain pipeline to carry bitumen to the coast bringing about a massive expansion of the fossil fuel production. Trudeau won the understatement of the year award today when he said "Not everyone will agree with this".  

(3) In March 2018 the auditor general concluded  the Trudeau Liberal government "is likely to miss the 2020 Copenhagen target as well". (

(4) In April 2019 Environment Commissioner Julie Gelfand concluded "Canada is not on track to hit its 2030 target,". These targets were actually those of the Conservative Harper government. (

(5) the Trans Mountain pipeline to the BC coast to triple tarsands oil transportation that Trudeau purchased and is building it with "the total cost of taxpayers' investment in the Trans Mountain expansion to more than $17 billion" ( that will further increase emissions, money that could have been used to shift to green renewable energy;

(6) Trudeau looked at approving the Frontier Mine in Alberta, which "would  cover 24,000-hectares (roughly double the size of the City of Vancouver) and would produce 260,000 barrels of bitumen each day at its peak ( making it one of the largest oilsands mines until the company pulled out of the plan;

 (7) Trudeau pushed the completion of Enbridge's Line 3 to Manitoba in December 2019 that " will have oil export capacity of 760,000 barrels per day (bpd)" when the US portion is finished this year ( The final approval and start of construction of the American portion began at the beginning of December 2020 over the legal objections of two American First Nations, thereby contributing to more Canadian greenhouse gas emssions in the future.

(8) Trudeau supported a $14 billion LNG pipeline from Ontario to Saguenay Quebec for export to Europe, Asia and Brazil that only failed to come to fruition when Warren Buffet concluded it was not going to work financially (

ETA: (9) Trudeau also supported Energy East to build a pipeline to the Maritimes until he realized its lack of support in Quebec threatened his 40 Quebec Liberal MPs. "The reason Prime Minister Justin Trudeau spent billions of taxpayer dollars to keep the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion alive while letting the Energy East pipeline proposal die is simple.“Just do the seat count,” Black, an elected member of the Canadian Senate representing Alberta, told BNN Bloomberg in a telephone interview from Calgary. “Quebec was opposed to Energy East and at that point in time it just became insurmountable.” (

(10) The Trudeau government "treated Donald Trump’s election as “positive news” for Canada’s energy industry and welcomed the help of Canada’s main corporate oil group in lobbying the US administration, documents show." ( Therefore, there is no doubt the Trudeau Liberals are celebrated the announcement that work on the US portion of the XL pipeline would resume in February. Again this fell through, this time because of US court action, not because of the Trudeau government. 

(11) Once again the Trudeau government is speaking out of both sides of its mouth as it changes offshore drilling rules in Newfoundland in order to make it easier for the fossil fuel industry to meet them and then proclaiming that the industry must live up to those standards while environmental organizations complain about the changes.  The Liberal government has also excluded new drilling from environmental assessment there. This has become even more important with the announcement of the discovery of oil in two new places in the Newfoundland offshore. 

(12) The Trudeau Liberals are redefining emissions to make them look lower. 

Canada's vast managed forest lands used to be critical allies in our climate fight and efforts to build a sustainable, carbon neutral forestry economy. That's because these forests used to be healthy enough to absorb the huge amounts of CO2 created by the logging industry's harvests — plus lots more. ...

Unfortunately for all of us, our forests' deep and valuable carbon sink has nearly dried up. Decades of human abuses — from climate disruption to clearcutting — have left them too battered and weakened to even keep up with business-as-usual logging. Put simply: Our continent-spanning managed forests are now being cut down faster than they are growing back. The result has been a rising flood of CO2 pouring out of our managed forests and accumulating in our atmosphere — worsening both the climate and ocean acidification crises. (

(13) In December 2020 , the Trudeau Liberals gave $41.5 to Husky Oil in Newfoundland to keep the "idled West White Rose offshore oil project going, particularly to "protect the option of restarting" in the next year — although there is no guarantee that will happen." Meanwhile Trudeau continues to proclaim his devotion to stopping greenhouse gas emissions. I guess he is just following his strategy before the last election of proclaiming a climate change emergency one day and literally the next day buying the Trans Mountain pipeline.  The $41.5 million, which is half the project cost, is in addition to the $325 million the Trudeau government handed the Liberal Newfoundland government to support the Newfoundland oil industry, after Husky stopped construction on the project in April due to the low price of oil. More subsidies poured into a sunsetting industry. (

(14) The Trudeau Liberals are following the same delay, delay, delay climate plan they have since Chretien in 1993 by refusing to have a target for greenhouse emissions reduction target for 2025 and instead setting the target date as 2030, when they would have been in power for 15 years, which given history is unlikely to happen. In other words, they don't want any target that could hold them accountability for failure in the forseeable future, depsite demands from environmentalists that early target dates are critical to dealing with global warming. 

     A prominent French-Canadian scientist who chairs France’s High Council on Climatesays Canada needs to commit to a 2025 carbon pollution reduction target and strengthen its net-zero advisory body. Le Quéré has led a new scientific analysis of global emissions, published March 3 in the peer-reviewed journal Nature Climate Change, that found global pollution cuts need to increase tenfold to meet the goals of the Paris Agreement. ... The analysis, “Fossil CO​2​ emissions in the post-COVID era,” points out that Canada is one of 150 countries where emissions increased between 2016, after the Paris Agreement was adopted, and 2019, the year before the pandemic.(


Jerrym, the big difference that I see between the Liberals and Conservatives on environmental issues is that Liberals lie about what they will do and the Conservatives lie about what needs to be done. In the end neither of their governments have been doing even the bare minimum, for the last thirty years.


"My unpopular take is that the carbon tax has long been a strategic concession advocated by Canada's corporate class as green cover for more frenzied fossil fuel extraction. If our climate debate remains stuck in 'yay' or 'nay' to a carbon tax we're screwed."


kropotkin1951 wrote:

Jerrym, the big difference that I see between the Liberals and Conservatives on environmental issues is that Liberals lie about what they will do and the Conservatives lie about what needs to be done. In the end neither of their governments have been doing even the bare minimum, for the last thirty years.

Well put, but the NDP isn't great on it either. 


Pondering wrote:

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Jerrym, the big difference that I see between the Liberals and Conservatives on environmental issues is that Liberals lie about what they will do and the Conservatives lie about what needs to be done. In the end neither of their governments have been doing even the bare minimum, for the last thirty years.

Well put, but the NDP isn't great on it either. 

Provincially they have been marginally better and federally they have never formed government so they have no record to compare to the parties that have actually ruled.


'Why Are People Not Doing More About Climate Change?' - BBC

"The world's top 1% produces more than double the carbon emissions of the poorest 50% of the world's population. Also, how would ordinary people combat the US military, which according to studies is a bigger polluter than 140 countries combined?'

True. And we have the Tar Sands.


While the financial sector now proclaims it has seen the light and is shifting to funding green energy, the world's biggest banks are still providing trillions to the fossil fuel industry. Although US and Canadian banks are only 13 of the 60 major fossil fuel funders, these banks provide almost half of the fossil fuel financing. This is despite the fact that renewable energy investments have provided a 367% greater return on investment than fossil fuels since 2010. The banks keep investing in the poorer performer financially. 

A coal-fired power station in China.

A coal-fired power station in China. Despite the pandemic cutting energy use, overall funding of fossil fuel firms remains on an upward trend. Photograph: Wang Meng/Getty Images/iStockphoto

The world’s biggest 60 banks have provided $3.8tn of financing for fossil fuel companies since the Paris climate deal in 2015, according to a report by a coalition of NGOs.

Despite the Covid-19 pandemic cutting energy use, overall funding remains on an upward trend and the finance provided in 2020 was higher than in 2016 or 2017, a fact the report’s authors and others described as “shocking”.

Oil, gas and coal will need to be burned for some years to come. But it has been known since at least 2015 that a significant proportion of existing reserves must remain in the ground if global heating is to remain below 2C, the main Paris target. Financing for new reserves is therefore the “exact opposite” of what is required to tackle the climate crisis, the report’s authors said.

US and Canadian banks make up 13 of the 60 banks analysed, but account for almost half of global fossil fuel financing over the last five years, the report found. JPMorgan Chase provided more finance than any other bank. UK bank Barclays provided the most fossil fuel financing among all European banks and French bank BNP Paribas was the biggest in the EU.

Overall financing dipped by 9% in pandemic-hit 2020, but funding for the 100 fossil fuel companies with the biggest expansion plans actually rose by 10%. Citi was the biggest financier of these 100 companies in 2020.

A commitment to be net zero by 2050 has been made by 17 of the 60 banks, but the report describes the pledges as “dangerously weak, half-baked, or vague”, arguing that action is needed today. Some banks have policies that block finance for coal, the dirtiest fossil fuel, but almost two-thirds of funding is for oil and gas companies.

The report’s authors said targeting of banks by campaigners and activist shareholders could help change bank policies but that action by governments was also needed.

“When we look at the five years overall, the trend is still going in the wrong direction, which is obviously the exact opposite of where we need to be going to live up to the goals of the Paris Agreement,” said Alison Kirsch, at Rainforest Action Network and an author of the report. “None of these 60 banks have made, without loopholes, a plan to exit fossil fuels.”

“We have seen progress in restricting financing for special places like the Arctic or greenhouse-gas-intensive forms of oil, like tar sands, but these are such a small piece of the pie,” she said.

“One bank after another is making solemn promises to become ‘net zero by 2050’,” said Johan Frijns, at BankTrack, part of the coalition behind the report. “But there exists no pathway towards this laudable goal that does not require dealing with bank finance for the fossil fuel industry right here and now.”

“Banks provide the financial oxygen that allows the fossil fuel industry to breathe,” said Mark Campanale, at financial thinktank Carbon Tracker, which was not involved in the report. “It reveals the shocking fact that lending has grown since the Paris Agreement, [which] should concern everyone, not least policymakers and shareholders of the banks themselves.

“The cost of carbon in terms of extreme weather events, lost lives and livelihoods will be borne by society and sadly not the banks, nor the fossil fuel companies,” said Campanale. “Next time the banks come looking to taxpayers for a bailout, they shouldn’t be surprised to find backs are turned.”

The report was produced by six NGOs and is endorsed by over 300 organisations from 50 countries. It used Bloomberg data to analyse both direct loans by banks to fossil fuel companies and funding from other investors that the banks arrange via bond and debt sales.

“A surprising result from the 2020 data is that BNP Paribas, a bank that never loses an opportunity to boast of its clean, green credentials, and those of its US subsidiary Bank of the West, came in as the fourth-worst fossil bank in 2020,” the report said, with the $41bn provided by far the biggest sum in last five years.

BNP Paribas has some of the strongest policies on unconventional oil and gas, such as fracking and tar sands, Kirsch said: “But it’s a relatively small part of their overall funding and the bank hasn’t reined in its financing to the oil and gas supermajors, which get really big deals.”

A spokesperson for BNP Paribas said the report has ranked the bank second for the strength of its restrictions on financing coal, fracking and tar sands. “During the Covid-19 crisis, all sectors of the economy needed support and BNP Paribas, like other banks, played an important stabilising role for the economy. However, BNP Paribas supported the oil and gas sector to a lower extent than other sectors of activity.”

JPMorgan Chase launched a “Paris-aligned financing strategy” in October, pledging to set intermediate emission targets for 2030 for its financing portfolio. It declined to comment on the report. 

A Barclays spokeswoman said: “We have made a commitment to align our entire financing portfolio to the goals of the Paris Agreement, with specific targets and transparent reporting, on the way to achieving our ambition to be a net zero bank by 2050.” Citi did not respond to requests for comment.

A separate report last Thursday from the International Energy Agency and Imperial College London found that investments in renewable energy have seen a 367% greater return than fossil fuels since 2010.


Below is the Conclusions section of the report mentioned in the last post that showed renewable energy earning a 367% greater return for renewable energy over fossil fuels. Maybe greed will get governments, including Canada's, and the financial sector to start shifting even more investment into renewables since they often only mention platitudes when it comes to climate change. 

We analyzed the financial performance of a global portfolio of listed fossil fuel and renewable power companies, with detailed comparisons of underlying performance between advanced economies, emerging market and developing economies, and China. Renewable power portfolios have produced better risk-adjusted returns than those of fossil fuel portfolios on average over the last 5 and 10 years. This finding is consistent with that from the first report of the series, which focused on companies in four advanced economies: United States, United Kingdom, Germany, and France. Our main findings are:

–Listed renewable power portfolios have outperformed listed fossil fuel portfolios in all markets.

–Annualized volatility for the renewable power portfolios was on average lower than the fossil fuel portfolios, except in emerging market and developing economies and China.

–The most recent market downturn caused by the coronavirus pandemic has highlighted the industry's resilience, with the renewable power portfolios outperforming during recent crises.

–In normal and volatile market conditions, the renewable power portfolio showcases enhanced diversification benefits due to their lower correlation to the broader market relative to fossil fuel.


Governments and the private sector are still in a state of denial the rapid decrease in costs of renewable energy nor the ever growing evidence of continuing to depend primarily on fossil fuels as the following article illustrates.


5 bar chart – what is the safest form of energy

For the world to transition to low-carbon electricity, energy from these sources needs to be cheaper than electricity from fossil fuels.

Fossil fuels dominate the global power supply because until very recently electricity from fossil fuels was far cheaper than electricity from renewables. This has dramatically changed within the last decade. In most places in the world power from new renewables is now cheaper than power from new fossil fuels.

The fundamental driver of this change is that renewable energy technologies follow learning curves, which means that with each doubling of the cumulative installed capacity their price declines by the same fraction. The price of electricity from fossil fuel sources however does not follow learning curves so that we should expect that the price difference between expensive fossil fuels and cheap renewables will become even larger in the future.

This is an argument for large investments into scaling up renewable technologies now. Increasing installed capacity has the extremely important positive consequence that it drives down the price and thereby makes renewable energy sources more attractive, earlier. In the coming years most of the additional demand for new electricity will come from low- and middle-income countries; we have the opportunity now to ensure that much of the new power supply will be provided by low-carbon sources.

Falling energy prices also mean that the real income of people rises. Investments to scale up energy production with cheap electric power from renewable sources are therefore not only an opportunity to reduce emissions, but also to achieve more economic growth – particularly for the poorest places in the world.

The world’s energy supply today is neither safe nor sustainable. What can we do to change this and make progress against this twin-problem of the status quo?

To see the way forward we have to understand the present. Today fossil fuels – coal, oil, and gas – account for 79% of the world’s energy production and as the chart below shows they have very large negative side effects. The bars to the left show the number of deaths and the bars on the right compare the greenhouse gas emissions. My colleague Hannah Ritchie explains the data in this chart in detail in her post ‘What are the safest sources of energy?’.

This makes two things very clear. As the burning of fossil fuels accounts for 87% of the world’s CO2 emissions, a world run on fossil fuels is not sustainable, they endanger the lives and livelihoods of future generations and the biosphere around us. And the very same energy sources lead to the deaths of many people right now – the air pollution from burning fossil fuels kills 3.6 million people in countries around the world every year; this is 6-timesthe annual death toll of all murders, war deaths, and terrorist attacks combined.1

It is important to keep in mind that electric energy is only one of several forms of energy that humanity relies on; the transition to low-carbon energy is therefore a bigger task than the transition to low-carbon electricity.2

What the chart makes clear is that the alternatives to fossil fuels – renewable energy sources and nuclear power – are orders of magnitude safer and cleaner than fossil fuels.

Why then is the world relying on fossil fuels? 

Fossil fuels dominate the world’s energy supply because in the past they were cheaper than all other sources of energy. If we want the world to be powered by safer and cleaner alternatives, we have to make sure that those alternatives are cheaper than fossil fuels.


As the Biden government plans to shift enormous resources towards electric vehicles, the Trudeau Liberals are barely in the game and are in danger of leaving Canada in the dust both economically and environmentally when it comes to the auto and other industries. 

General Motors has partnered with EVgo to deploy more than 2,700 fast chargers across the U.S.

General Motors has partnered with EVgo to deploy more than 2,700 fast chargers across the U.S. CREDIT: GM

Last month’s failure of the Texas electric grid, coming just weeks after General Motors’ pledge to make only electric vehicles by 2035, highlights the daunting task the United States faces as it takes the first steps toward weaning its economy off fossil fuels. While GM’s announcement is striking from a historical vantage point — the nation’s largest automaker choosing to jettison the internal combustion engine — the collapse of the Texas grid underscores how far the country has to go as it attempts to “electrify everything.”

Despite these challenges, the U.S. finds itself at a promising turning point, with new economic, social, and political forces driving a key aspect of the decarbonization of the economy — the electrification of cars and, eventually, trucks. The U.S. lags behind China and the European Union in the transition to electric vehicles, or EVs. But if the private sector and federal and state governments make a commitment to electric vehicles — something that has already begun with the Biden administration and U.S. automakers — we think that within two decades a majority of new automobiles sold in the U.S. will be electric.

The road to that goal is strewn with obstacles, most notably establishing an extensive nationwide network of charging stations and improving batteries to the point where any EV can go as far on a rapid charge as an internal combustion car can on a tank of gas. And consumer attitudes will need to change, with individuals no longer viewing gasoline as the only reliable way to power a vehicle. But as technology steadily advances, with consumers installing solar panels on their roofs and batteries in their garages, the EV transition will hold tremendous appeal as a decentralized, empowering system where individuals can rely on self-generated electricity for their homes and cars, while also selling surplus power back to the grid. ...

GM is by no means the sole company launching bold initiatives on EVs. Ford, which has had an electrification program for longer than GM, is offering electric versions of iconic brands such as the Mustang and F-150 truck. Volkswagen says it will invest €30 billion ($35.8 billion) in e-mobility by 2023, and by 2028 vows to offer 70 new fully electric VW models, with projected EV sales of 22 million for the VW Group. Startups also are increasingly active, with e-truck innovator Rivian signing a big deal with Amazon to purchase Rivian’s all-electric delivery vans, and new Chinese EV firms emerging seemingly each month.

Tesla, of course, jump-started all the excitement about EVs, and new Tesla plants are planned for Austin and Berlin. Its Shanghai plant is steadily boosting output of Model 3s. Meanwhile, new sources of private sector investment are pouring into EV and battery firms. ...

Given the huge number of new EV models now promised by automakers, charging infrastructure is taking center stage as the crucial bottleneck for faster EV adoption. The “chicken and egg” line with respect to EVs and charging infrastructure is often cited, but a more fitting analogy (thanks to the movie, “Field of Dreams”) might be, “If you build it, they will come.” ...

China has shown how important it is to build charging infrastructure ahead of demand, inducing purchases by creating a sense of cultural momentum and addressing range anxiety. A Columbia University report credits the central government’s strong support for charging infrastructure and for setting national standards, with just a single recharging interface. (The U.S. has three.) China also centrally collects more data on EV charging, whereas the U.S. charging network has many different owners with little coordinated analysis, the Columbia report said. ...

The Biden administration is backing a major effort on EV infrastructure, with plans to install 500,000 individual chargers (five times what exists now) at 28,000 charging stations. Biden’s plan could meet more than half of U.S. charging demand by 2030 and “spark the sale of as many as 25 million electric vehicles,” according to Inside EVs. A major push to create EV charging infrastructure would also create many thousands of jobs — a key selling point in the drive to decarbonize the U.S. transportation sector.

It is tempting to view these extraordinary innovations in the EV market as the product of visionary entrepreneurs like Elon Musk. But the private sector and entrepreneurs operate within a world of law and regulation. An approach that acknowledges an essential role for states and the federal government can further accelerate the EV transition. Government actions include regulation aimed at reducing emissions from new motor vehicles, the use of government procurement power to stimulate demand (the federal government fleet has more than 600,000 vehicles), and significant financial incentives for replacing internal combustion engine vehicles with EVs.


A new Canadian study shows that, surprise, surprise, racism has played a major role on the impacts of pollution, including that of the fossil fuel industry, on who suffers the most from environmental damage. 


A sign for the Aamjiwnaang First Nation Resource Centre is located across the road from NOVA Chemicals (mostly petrochemicals) in Sarnia, Ontario on April 21, 2007. File photo by The Canadian Press/Craig Glover

A new tool that measures the environmental quality of any urban street in Canada — and maps it out in colour — illustrates vividly the many neighbourhoods in the country that have poor environment scores, neighbourhoods that are often home to racialized communities.

GoodScore assesses air quality, street greenness, amenities, transit and recreation on a scale of 1 to 100. The prototype tool was made for the public and policy-makers alike “so people can create evidence and stories that will illustrate inequity,” says Eleanor Setton, the Victoria-based managing director of the Canadian Urban Environmental Health Research Consortium.

"Bad" neighbourhoods have hazards that are linked to poor mental health, cancer, asthma, diabetes, and low birth weights.

Homes in the Aamjiwnaang First Nation reserve, nestled in the midst of petrochemical plants in southwestern Ontario, most often record scores under 10 and appear in blazing red on the map. The neighbouring city of Sarnia shows scores of 50 and above and is presented in less alarming colours of tan and blue.

“This is systemic racism,” says Scott Grant, the air-quality expert at Aamjiwnaang First Nation, as he looks at the red-covered map of the community. “It’s a sensitive topic too, because the community doesn’t want to be seen as a horrible place, and it isn’t, it’s a wonderful community, friendly people. It’s just patently unfair what they’ve had to endure.”

Pollution has been harming people in the community for decades, “and people don’t even think about it. This would not be allowed in Oakville, Ont." ...

Setton and her team have found that Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver all have more impoverished households in neighbourhoods with lower walkability, lower streetscape greenness and worse traffic-related air pollution. They note the health impacts of these features are linked to diabetes, lower physical activity and poorer birth outcomes.

Poor people living in poor-quality neighbourhoods experiencing poor health isn’t revelatory, but when it intersects with race, those impacts can be exacerbated, says Ingrid Waldron in her book "There’s Something in the Water." She explores the long history of environmental racism, such as Africville in Nova Scotia, a Black community that experienced years of industrialization and marginalization.

Waldron explains that socioeconomic status is a key driver for environmental racism: poverty stops people from being able to move out of poor-quality environments, but sociopolitical factors also contribute. These communities can have less political clout in anything from local city planning — such as where the new sports facility will be built — to decisions on large-scale projects.

Waldron points out examples where public hearings are held in places community members can’t easily get to and only in English, or require technology and internet access. ...

Canada needs a national strategy using “data that looks at the links among race, gender, education, employment, income, health and environmental harms, as well as other factors,” Zann says.

Setton and her team have been doing just that. GoodScore is a prototype they will continue to develop over the next three years with a grant from the federal government.

“What can public health people learn from using these data? Visualizing them, intersecting them with low socioeconomic indicators and seeing where we need to change, where we need to prioritize our efforts,” Setton says. “It's really about setting priorities using mapping.”


A just released paper from Simon Fraser University estimates the losses from the Trans Mountain pipeline to be $12 billion. Below is a petition to defund TMX. 

Earlier today, researchers at Simon Fraser University released a report that confirms something the climate movement has been saying all along: TMX makes no sense. The team from SFU’s School of Resource and Environmental Management ran a cost/benefit analysis of the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion and found that the project will lead to almost $12 billion in losses for Canada.1

If you haven’t already signed our Defund TMX petition, add your name today.

On top of being a climate disaster, the economics of TMX have always been shaky. Now it’s clear that Trudeau made a terrible mistake when he used our tax dollars to buy the pipeline from Texas oil giant Kinder Morgan in 2018. Since then, construction costs have doubled and global action to reduce emissions has finally started to ramp up. Those factors mean TMX is a clear financial loser and, as the study’s authors advise, the federal government would be better off cancelling the project now and redirecting funds into renewable energy projects.

The next federal budget is just a few weeks away. Tell your MP you don’t want another dollar of public money wasted on Trans Mountain.

In stark contrast, today President Biden announced a $2 trillion infrastructure spending plan, much of which will be directed towards accelerating the green energy transition in the United States.2 It's more sweeping and ambitious than anything Canada has done to date and it underscores just how much Trudeau’s brand of "climate leadership" depended on Donald Trump being in the White House.

The case against TMX has never been stronger and it’s clear our movement is winning the argument. A recent poll showed that, in addition to ranking job-creation and climate action as the two most important issues, a full two-thirds of Canadian voters believe oil and gas pipelines are the area least deserving federal support.3

Can you forward this email to a friend and ask them to sign the Defund TMX petition too?

It’s been just over 3 years since I was arrested resisting the construction of this pipeline. In that time, the company which first proposed this project abandoned it altogether, the Supreme Court of Canada overturned its initial approval, the project has struggled to secure insurers to back it, and Indigenous-led resistance to this pipeline has remained strong from the unceded Coast Salish territories, where I live, to Secwepemc territories in the interior of BC. It’s clear this pipeline isn’t getting built so why does Trudeau keep wasting our public money on it? Let’s speak up to defund TMX once and for all. 



Global warming is already reducing world food production with its effects expected to get worse over time with the intensification of farming methods in order to increase production further increasing problems. The regions already facing the greatest food insecurity, such as the Sahel and Central America, are the regions where global warming is already doing the greatest damage. Even if Canadian agricultural production benefits in the long run from warming temperatures, there will be a transition period where farmers will have to adjust to changing agricultural conditions that reduce production for a while.

Research shows rising temperatures since 1960s have acted as handbrake to agricultural yield of crops and livestock

A wheat farm in Dixon, Illinois. With the global population set to rise to more than 9bn by 2050, the UN estimates food production will have to increase by about 70%.

A wheat farm in Dixon, Illinois. With the global population set to rise to more than 9bn by 2050, the UN estimates food production will have to increase by about 70%. Photograph: Jim Young/Reuters​

The climate crisis is already eating into the output of the world’s agricultural systems, with productivity much lower than it would have been if humans hadn’t rapidly heated the planet, new research has found.

Advances in technology, fertilizer use and global trade have allowed food production to keep pace with a booming global population since the 1960s, albeit with gross inequities that still leave millions of people suffering from malnutrition.

But rising temperatures in this time have acted as a handbrake to farming productivity of crops and livestock, according to the new research, published in Nature Climate Change. Productivity has actually slumped by 21% since 1961, compared to if the world hadn’t been subjected to human-induced heating.

With the global population set to rise to more than 9 billion by 2050, the UN’s Food and Agriculture Organization has estimated that food production will have to increase by about 70%, with annual crop production increasing by almost one 1bn tonnes and meat production soaring by more than 200m tonnes a year by this point.

Meanwhile, global temperatures are rising at a rate that scientists warn is extremely dangerous for human civilization.

“The impact already is larger than I thought it would be,” said Ariel Ortiz-Bobea, an economist at Cornell University who led the research.

“It was a big surprise to me. The worry I have is that research and development in agriculture takes decades to translate into higher productivity. The projected temperature increase is so fast I don’t know if we are going to keep pace with that.”

The research measured productivity by inputs – such as labor, fertilizer and equipment – and the output in food they produce, using a model to determine how climate change has influenced this relationship.

While farming has generally become far more efficient in recent decades, it is increasingly menaced by heatwaves that exhaust farm workers and wither certain crops. Extreme weather events and drought can also affect the output of a farm, particularly smaller operations in poorer countries.

In 2019, scientists who analyzed the top 10 global crops that provide the majority of our food calories found that climate change is reducing the worldwide production of staples such as rice and wheat. Again, less affluent countries are suffering worst from this situation.

The intensification of farming to boost output has in itself caused major environmental damage, through the deforestation of grazing land, loss of valuable topsoil, pollution from pesticides and the release of vast amounts of greenhouse gases that contribute to global heating.

“Ultimately we want to increase productivity in a changing climate but a bad way to do that is by increasing inputs such as land and water,” said Ortiz-Bobea. “If we were more productive we could produce more with less of an environmental footprint.”

Weston Anderson, a researcher of food security and climate at Columbia University who was not involved in the study, said the new research provides fresh insight into the magnitude of the impact upon agriculture.

“The regions that this paper highlights as experiencing the largest reductions in agricultural productivity – Central America and the Sahel – contain some of the least food secure countries in the world, which is a real concern,” he said.

“It means that populations that were already food insecure are shouldering the heaviest burden of climate change, and highlights the importance of doing all that we can to improve agricultural production in these vulnerable regions immediately.”


Climate change activist Greta Thunberg is refusing to go to COP 26 in Glasgow because of inequality of Covid vaccine access that means many people from many countries unable to attend. As with climate change itself, the burden of inequality is being shared unequally around the world when it comes to vaccination. 


Too loud.

Climate activist Greta Thunberg said on Friday she will not go to the United Nations climate conference due to be held in Scotland in November over concerns that inequality of access to COVID-19 vaccines will leave many countries unable to attend.

"Inequality and climate injustice is already the heart of the climate crisis," the 18-year-old Thunberg said on Twitter.

"If people can't be vaccinated and travel to be represented equally, that's undemocratic and would worsen the problem."

Thunberg criticized nations she said were unwilling to share vaccines with those that have little access to the drugs.

"Of course I would love to attend the Glasgow #COP26," she tweeted. "But not unless everyone can take part on the same terms. Right now many countries are vaccinating healthy young people, often at the expense of risk groups and frontline workers (mainly from global south, as usual...)"


Enbridge's line 3 which runs from Hardisty Alberta to Wisconsin was built in 1968. Like the Trans Mountain pipeline, it is being expanded under the Trudeau government in a $5.3 billion construction project, with the Canadian portion to Manitoba already finished at the end of last year in order to carry an additional 150,000 barrels per day of tarsands oil  and a doubling of the pipeline's capacity to 750,000 barrels a day if the American section is completed.(

The largest inland oil spill in US history was along Enbridge's Line 3 pipeline, giving little confidence that the company will pay much attention to the environment or spills, as so often in its past.

"A study authored by over a dozen climate justice organizations found that the greenhouse gas emissions from constructing the new Line 3 pipeline would be equivalent to building 50 new coal-fired power plants. The EIS estimated that the social cost of carbon from those emissions would total more than $120 billion over 30 years. (

 Once again there are environmental activists, led by indigenous people, attempting to stop this expansion in the United States that includes tunnelling under the Mississippi with all the dangers that that presents in terms of oil spills.


Water protectors rally against the Enbridge Line 3 pipeline in Park Rapids, Minn., on March 15, 2021.Water protectors rally against the Enbridge Line 3 pipeline in Park Rapids, Minn., on March 15, 2021. Photo: Courtesy of Honor The Earth

Enbridge, the Canadian energy-transport firm, is planning to route its Line 3 pipeline under the Mississippi, near where it crosses Highway 40. In winter, a pollution-control rule bars drilling under the frozen waters. As the ice melts away, so do the restrictions. Those organizing against the project worry that Enbridge could begin tunneling under the Mississippi and other local rivers any day — and the pipeline-resistance movement is getting ready for it.

“They got a lot of money, they got a lot of equipment, but we got a lot of people,” said Anishinaabe water protector Winona LaDuke at an event last week with actor and activist Jane Fonda, which took place in front of the flowing Crow Wing River, not far from where Enbridge seeks to drill under its shores. “Spring is coming. Let’s be outdoorsy.” ...

Enbridge’s Line 3 project began construction four months ago. It was designed to replace a decaying pipeline of the same name; however, a large portion of its 338-mile Minnesota section, which makes up most of the U.S. route, plows through new land and waters. The project would double Line 3’s capacity for carrying tar sands oil, one of the most carbon-intensive fossil fuels in the world, at a moment when a rapid shift away from fossil fuels has become critical to address the climate crisis.

The delicate waterway ecosystems through which the pipeline passes have become the central organizing point of the anti-pipeline, or water protector, movement. Hundreds of rivers, streams, and wetlands face the specter of a tar sands leak after the replacement Line 3 begins operating. And the particularly intensive form of drilling required to tunnel the pipeline under rivers holds its own set of risks during construction. ...

Those same waters are central to the Anishinaabe people’s identity, and Anishinaabe women have led opposition to the Line 3 project. Over the past year, women and nonbinary people have organized small camps near planned construction sites. In recent weeks, they’ve led a steady schedule of gatherings and ceremonies at the edges of rivers, with some organizing more obstructive protests, known as direct actions, aimed at slowing pipeline construction. With spring on the horizon, pipeline opponents are poised to take even more obstinate stands to block construction at the river crossings.

Law enforcement agencies, with Enbridge’s support, are also preparing for the time when the rivers open up. Documents obtained by The Intercept confirm that local sheriff’s offices have for months been practicing for direct actions focused on the Mississippi River. ...

An escrow account set up by the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission and funded by Enbridge, primarily to cover the costs of policing pipeline resistance, has distributed more than $500,000 to law enforcement agencies as of March 15. ...

People’s greatest fears, however, center around what could happen once the workers leave the construction site: a spill. The largest inland oil spill in U.S. history happened in 1991 in nearby Grand Rapids, Minnesota; 1.7 million gallons of crude oil spilled from Line 3, the same pipeline that Enbridge is now replacing. In 2010, a Michigan community suffered a huge spill from another Enbridge pipeline.


'The Amount of CO2 in the Atmosphere is Now Similar to a Time When the Earth was About 7 Degrees Hotter.'

"These words are our death sentence, not our warning sign. If we don't all panic soon."

Kill TMX /Line 3 for a start.