Canada cannot fight climate change and promote oil industry at the same time

Increasing oil and gas production while at the same time trying to reduce carbon emissions are conflicting priorities, argues a joint study by the University of Victoria, the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives and the Parkland Institute. The Climate Leadership Plan of the province of Alberta allows to expanding oil sands production by 53 per cent and emissions by 47 per cent above 2014 levels. To compensate and still meet Canada’s Paris Agreement commitments the rest of the Canadian economy should reduce emissions by 47 per cent by 2030. This will be virtually impossible in the time remaining barring an economic collapse.

Three new pipelines have been approved in Canada and a fourth (Energy East) is under review even though oil supply forecasts show that not all are needed. This shows, according to the study that "Canada has no energy strategy beyond liquidating its remaining non-renewable resources as fast as possible to serve the economic interests of governments of the day. What we really need is a comprehensive energy strategy that addresses both the future energy security of Canadians and Canada’s commitments on climate change".

Increasing oil and gas production while at the same time trying to reduce carbon emissions are conflicting priorities. Expanding oil sands production by 53 per cent and emissions by 47 per cent above 2014 levels, as allowed under Alberta’s Climate Leadership Plan, will require the rest of the Canadian economy to reduce emissions by 47 per cent by 2030 to meet Canada’s Paris Agreement commitments. This will be virtually impossible in the time remaining barring an economic collapse. Three new pipelines have been approved and a fourth (Energy East) is under review even though oil supply forecasts show that not all are needed. Of these, the TMEP is perhaps the worst choice because it must cross rugged, environmentally sensitive terrain, and would require greatly expanded tanker traffic into Vancouver’s Lower Mainland, southern BC’s most-populated area, and its ecologically vulnerable marine environment. The fact that the TMEP was approved by the NEB based on inflated oil supply and price assumptions, and without considering the other approved pipelines, should also have been a key consideration before federal approval was granted. These conflicting priorities stem from the fact that Canada has no energy strategy beyond liquidating its remaining non-renewable resources as fast as possible to serve the economic interests of governments of the day. What we really need is a comprehensive energy strategy that addresses both the future energy security of Canadians and Canada’s commitments on climate change.

One of the primary rationales for Kinder Morgan’s Trans Mountain pipeline expansion project (TMEP) is to maximize the price for Alberta bitumen by getting oil from Alberta to “tidewater”. Tidewater refers to ocean access in order to ship oil to overseas markets via tankers. Industry and the federal and Alberta governments argue that a pipeline to tidewater will unlock new markets (Asia in the case of the TMEP) where Canadian oil can command a better price than in the US, where the majority of Canadian oil is currently exported.

This paper examines the tidewater argument and other problematic assumptions that led to the pipeline’s approval.

This study is part of the Corporate Mapping Project, a research and public engagement initiative investigating the power of the fossil fuel industry in Western Canada. The CMP is jointly led by the University of Victoria, Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives and the Parkland Institute.

Author: David Hughes.

Download the publication here.

Source: Canadadian Center for Policy Alternatives (CCPA).