Jump to content

Russ Francis

Moderators
  • Posts

    60
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

Russ Francis's Achievements

  1. The BC NDP government's insistence on promoting LNG production and export is a dead giveaway that it is not really serious about doing its share to tackle the climate crisis. THE PLANET IS NOW ON THE BRINK of runaway heating, meaning disappearing glaciers, exponentially bigger and more numerous wildfires, more fatal heat domes and even greater periods of highly destructive flooding. Global temperatures are now expected to reach 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels within the next few years, and appears to be heading much higher, in part due to “tipping points”—irreversible, unstoppable changes to the climate. On May 17, 2023, the World Meteorological Organization warned that there is now a 66 percent chance of the annual near-surface global temperature reaching the 1.5 degree threshold for at least one year between 2023 and 2027. And Canada is warming at twice the average global rate. The Arctic is heating up faster still, at three times the global rate. Damage and repairs at Bonaparte 1 Bridge in Cache Creek, BC. The changing climate is costly in a myriad of ways, including flooding, landslides, droughts, heat waves and wildfires. (Photo: BC Ministry of Transport) Once we reach 1.5 degrees, it is highly likely that the global temperature will hit 2 degrees by 2050. A group of Swiss-based researchers has proposed a novel way of demonstrating how our lives will change in a 2-degree world. Vancouver and everywhere else in the mid-latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere will soon experience the warmer climes of places further south. On this view, southern BC’s average “climate velocity” would be 20 km per year, or around 2.25 meters per hour, according to the research, published in the July 2019 issue of the peer-reviewed journal PLOS ONE. In reality, of course, it is the climate that would move north, rather than the geography that would travel south. But it’s one way of reminding us that our local climate is no longer static. The tipping points Even at the current level of 1.1 degrees, the planet may already have passed no fewer than five tipping points, leading to the collapse of the ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica, die-back of the Amazon, the shutting down of critical Gulf Stream currents off Canada’s East Coast, the loss of nearly all mountain glaciers, and melting of permafrost—releasing yet more carbon into the atmosphere and pushing temperatures even higher. In turn, passing those tipping points can increase the likelihood of crossing others, warns Johan Rockstrom, director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research. In an interview published in September 2022, Rockstrom noted the danger of crossing multiple tipping points: “To maintain livable conditions on Earth and enable stable societies, we must do everything possible…”. Adding to the worry is a coming natural event. On May 17, the World Meterological Organization, a United Nations Agency, reported on the effects of an expected El Niño beginning later this year. “A warming El Niño is expected to develop in the coming months and this will combine with human-induced climate change to push global temperatures into uncharted territory,” said Secretary-General Petteri Taalas in a May 17 statement. “This will have far-reaching repercussions for health, food security, water management and the environment. We need to be prepared.” Thanks to those tipping points, the world is now on a path toward global heating of between 2 and 3 degrees Celsius, according to research led by British academic David Armstrong McKay, published in Science on September 9, 2022. The location of climate tipping elements in the cryosphere (blue), biosphere (green), and ocean/atmosphere (orange), and global warming levels at which their tipping points will likely be triggered. SOURCE: Science, September 9, 2022, D. Armstrong McKay et al. (Link to article abstract is here.) Armstrong McKay and colleagues warned that even if all net-zero pledges and national targets are implemented as promised, global temperatures could reach just below 2°C, they said. “This would lower tipping point risks somewhat but would still be dangerous as it could trigger multiple climate tipping points.” Just what a dying planet needs—more LNG Despite the dire warnings from the WMO and environmentalists far and wide, an outsider could be forgiven for thinking that British Columbia isn’t at all worried about the climate crisis. I am not counting the government’s insightful public advice about how to avoid dying in the next heat dome (“Don’t go out in the heat”). Car dealers are still pushing carbon-spewing, Hummers and Lincoln Navigators. John Horgan stepped out of the premier’s office into a cushy job with one of the province’s dirtiest fossil companies. And the BC government is planning to dole out even more of taxpayers’ precious dollars for more LNG plants. Longtime environmentalist Bill McKibben recently suggested a simple rule when deciding what to do: “If something makes climate change worse, then we shouldn’t do it.” Environmentalist Bill McKibben: “If something makes climate change worse, then we shouldn’t do it.” (Photo: Storyworkz) Forget all the distractions of irrelevant measures such as emissions per capita and emissions per square feet—both of which are routinely reported by BC’s environment ministry as showing climate progress. Forget ramping up fracked gas wells, while claiming that carbon capture and storage (CCS) and carbon offsets will let the fossil industry carry on trance-like through the coming apocalypse it caused. Don’t bother with those strictly false claims that the oil and natural gas industries can soon be “net zero.” Instead, in coherence with McKibben’s rule, published in the May-June 2023 issue of Mother Jones, pay attention to just one issue: Does the policy make climate change worse? In the case of LNG, regardless of whether the compressors that turn the gas into liquid are gas-powered or electric, the answer is a resounding yes. Why? Because approximately half of the life-cycle emissions from LNG do not occur in BC. Rather they occur where it is regasified, transported to the generating station, and then burned. So claiming that LNG liquefaction plants powered by electricity approach ”net-zero” is next to irrelevant. In March, the Environmental Assessment Office advanced the Ksi Lisims LNG project to the next step. In addition, Woodfibre LNG in Howe Sound and Cedar LNG in Kitimat are in the offing, as well as a doubling of LNG Canada’s output beyond its first phase, now under construction in Kitimat. How does the government justify such a huge expansion of one of the world’s dirtiest industries? So concerned was it about negative reaction to its March 13, 2023 issuance of an environmental assessment certificate for Cedar LNG that it issued an 8-page Ministers’ Reasons for Decision, signed by environment minister George Heyman and energy minister Josie Osborne. Cedar LNG is a partnership with a majority ownership held by the Haisla Nation. “We understand Cedar LNG is a key element of Haisla Nations’ economic and social development strategy,” wrote Heyman and Osborne, “and it would create jobs, contracting and other economic opportunities for Haisla Nation, the local community, Indigenous nations, and the northwest region of BC.” The construction workforce would peak at “up to 500 full-time equivalent workers,” and 100 over the facility’s 40-year life. Not only that, said the ministers, the project would result in contributions to BC’s GDP of $257 million, including indirect and induced effects. The ministers did not mention how many of those precious jobs would actually be in China—as many were in the case of nearby LNG Canada—nor that promised indirect and induced GDP effects are often wildly exaggerated. In a May 2023 report for the David Suzuki Foundation, Concordia University researcher Daniel Greenford writes that the science is unequivocal. “LNG is a fossil fuel and producing it in Canada and shipping it abroad for combustion—even if it replaces coal—will increase the likelihood of missed emissions targets while exacerbating the climate crisis at home and around the world,” said Greenford. Climate policy fails to deal with, er, climate But not to worry: The BC government is on it. In the latest report on the progress of its much-touted Clean BC flagship climate policy, the government boasted of helping wealthier voters buy electric vehicles and heat pumps. Even more intriguing, in the latest version of the Climate Change Accountability report, published November 23, 2022, the government announced it has “eliminated the largest fossil fuel subsidy in the province.” But what exactly is BC’s “largest fossil fuel subsidy?” The November 23 news release didn’t say. Has the government finally woken up and kiboshed its $6 billion subsidy to LNG Canada? Not exactly. In fact, not only is the government considering allowing this carbon-spewing monstrosity to continue, courtesy of BC taxpayers, it is considering allowing the consortium of foreign fossil companies to double in size. Worse still, both the pending expansion of LNG Canada and all future LNG projects have been promised similar handouts, credits, reduced Hydro rates, and cancelled LNG tax. Fortunately, the progress report itself sheds light on the mysterious large fossil giveaway: It’s the infamous fossil fuel royalty program, which has doled out untold billions to help fossil corporate welfare bums, as they laugh all the way to the bank. So did the government finally wake up to the absurdity of the multi-billion royalty dole? Not quite. In fact, despite repeating the claim that it “has eliminated” the program, it has done no such thing. For one thing, the myriad fossil-heads who already have the royalty credit can keep getting it from existing wells, unchanged, till September 1, 2024, less than 2 months before the next BC election, scheduled for October 19, 2024. And even then, it doesn’t end. The royalty credit program is merely being replaced with another one that does similar things, albeit at a reduced level, and for fewer types of wells. BC’s legislation requires the province’s emissions to fall 40 percent from 2007 levels by 2030. How are we doing? In short, abysmally. In 2020, the last year for which figures are available, BC’s GHG emissions totalled 64.6 megatonnes (Mt) of CO2e. This amounts to a drop of 0.9 Mt from the 65.5 Mt emitted in 2007, or 1.4 percent. In other words, by 2030, our emissions are required to fall a further 25.3 Mt. This amounts to chopping approximately 39 percent from our current emissions by the end of the decade. Progress to date is hardly encouraging. The myth of steel-making coal What to make of former premier John Horgan’s move to join the board of Elk Valley Resources, currently part of Teck Resources Ltd, a would-be oil sands developer and infamous polluter of local waterways? Coal is among the dirtiest of fossil fuels, and countries with any semblance of climate consciousness are rushing to get out of it. A Teck subsidiary was fined more than $16 million this year for failing to control selenium and nitrate pollution in the Fording River in southeastern BC. Yet Horgan’s move sits in perfect harmony with the NDP’s sleazy exclusion of environmentalist Anjali Appadurai from last fall’s NDP leadership race. (Horrors! A small-g greenie as premier!) As well, there’s Horgan’s 2018 out-Liberalling the then-BC Liberals in handouts to the LNG industry. Not to mention his deliberate lawbreaking in 2020 by violating the legislated fixed election date for the last BC election, ensuring that his New Democrats remain entrenched in power, without having worry about co-operating with their former partners, the BC Greens. Though Horgan has boasted that he no longer gives a flying fig about what anyone thinks, he did toss out a morsel of supposedly climate-related justification for his new role: Elk Valley Resources will be digging coal out of the ground only for steel-making, not for generating electricity. The Globe and Mail reported in April that Horgan said that while there are other ways to generate power than coal, there are “limited ways to make steel.” Several sympathetic commentators helpfully noted at the time that steel is used to make windmills, the obvious implication being that Horgan’s new job involves supporting environmentalists with their goals of boosting renewable energy. As it turns out, Horgan was wrong to imply that steel-making requires coal. Just three weeks after Horgan’s comments, on May 21 the New Zealand government announced a grant of up to $140 million to NZ Steel Ltd for an electric arc furnace, designed to replace coal in making steel at its Glenbrook plant in south Auckland. The purpose is to reduce that country’s carbon emissions. And the concept is hardly new. The electric arc steel-making process has been known since the end of the 19th Century, though it has become more commercial in recent decades. So commercial, in fact, that the American Iron and Steel Institute reports that electric arc furnaces now account for more than 70 percent of US steel production. Hardly “limited.” Perhaps Horgan’s just motivated by the money. The plan to split off Elk Valley Resources from Teck is now on hold, so to gain insight into Horgan’s likely pay range for his new director job we need to examine Teck directors’ pay. According to documents filed April 3, 2023 with securities regulators, in the year ended December 31, 2022, Teck directors serving the entire year were paid from $248,000 (at the lowest level) to $647,000 (for board chair Sheila Murray) in total compensation. Given Horgan’s impressive resume, it would be surprising if his Teck pay falls in the lower part of that range. To pick the mid-point, let’s say the former premier is now collecting $448,000 annually from the coal miner. Combined with the legislature pension—approximately $153,000, based on 70 percent of his best three years—Horgan’s total income is likely in the neighbourhood of $600,000. (All figures are rounded to the nearest $1,000.) The silent ones Two MLAs stand apart from the others by speaking up about the government’s MIA climate policy: Green Party leader Sonia Furstenau and her house leader colleague, Adam Olsen. Both have been unrelenting in their criticism of the government’s half-baked climate actions, Furstenau referring to the government’s Clean BC climate plan as a “shield,” used to deflect criticism that the NDP’s climate policies have gaps large enough to drive a coal train through. In a May interview with Focus, Furstenau said she has long puzzled about the collective silence of other MLAs in light of how dire the current climate situation is. Sonia Furstenau: BC Green Party leader Sonia Furstenau: “We need people to stand up and say what they think--I want better from my colleagues.” “I am mystified,” she said. “We need people to stand up and say what they think. I want better from my colleagues,” added Furstenau. “I can’t begin to speculate what goes on in the minds of other MLAs.” Stuck in a system that apparently requires them to be loyal to their party may make the jobs of those other MLAs more stressful, Furstenau suggests. This is in contrast to how she and her house leader colleague act. “Our jobs are quite easy,” says Furstenau. “We say what we think.” One politician with an especially stressful job may be premier David Eby. In his first speech as incoming premier, in October 2022, Eby outlined his agenda. Included was this: “We cannot continue to expand fossil-fuel infrastructure and hit our climate goals.” Yet just five months later, in March 2023, Eby continued to expand fossil-fuel infrastructure by giving implicit thumbs-up to three new LNG plants, and to doubling LNG Canada's planned output. The total annual output of those four new LNG sources, if approved, amounts to an additional 21.1 Mt of LNG beyond the 14 Mt expected from the first phase of LNG Canada. Adding the output of LNG Canada’s first phase brings BC’s total potential LNG exports to 35.1 Mt annually. And where are the rest of our 85 present MLAs? (Two legislature seats are currently vacant.) Not one of the other 83 has stood up in the legislature or other public forum and said: “Hey, this is serious. BC needs to stop approving new LNG plants, halt the handouts to fossil fuel firms to clean up their own messes, stop allowing former premiers to join polluting coal companies, and create and implement a real climate plan that explains exactly how we’re going to urgently reduce emissions.” Did all 83 drink a special potion that convinced them that climate science is bunkum? They are implicitly acting like some 1960s kids who jumped out of tall buildings because they were convinced the law of gravity didn’t apply if they were stoned enough. All is not lost—maybe In the last few years, dozens of books on the climate crisis have been published. Nearly all are intelligent, well-researched and skilfully written. But most are less than rosy about our prospects, even their titles. For instance, one of the most detailed is the 2020 book by British author Mark Lynas: Our Final Warning: Six Degrees of Climate Emergency. One of several exceptions is No Miracles Needed: How Today’s Technology Can Save Our Climate and Clean Our Air, the February 2023 book by Mark Jacobson, who directs the Atmosphere/Energy Program at Stanford University. The earth could actually be saved, if we act quickly, says Jacobson. His solution is for civilization to promptly switch to what he calls WWS: wind, water (hydro) and solar. “The world needs to eliminate 80 percent of climate-relevant emissions by 2030, and the rest soon after if we are to avoid the harshest consequences of global heating,” Jacobson says. How relevant is Jacobson’s thesis to BC? For starters, there is the pending approval of three new export LNG plants, as well as the doubling of LNG Canada’s output, as noted above. A basic thesis of the BC government’s attitude to the exports is the claim that natural gas is a “bridging fuel.” By selling the liquefied gas to Asia, the claim goes, it will displace much dirtier coal-burning electricity generating plants till cleaner energy processes come along. Jacobson has a firm response to this claim: “When used in an electric power plant, natural gas substantially increases, rather than decreases, global warming compared with coal over a 20-year time frame.” The reasons are to do with the fact that methane—the main component of natural gas—is a much more powerful planet-heater than carbon dioxide over 20 years. And more natural gas leaks to the air during mining, transport and processing than it does in coal mining. A further reason is that burning coal releases more nitrogen oxides and sulphur dioxide than does gas combustion, substances that produce cooling aerosol particles that offset much of coal’s global warming over a 20-year period. (See this paper for Jacobson’s analysis.) Admittedly, over 100 years, coal is slightly worse than natural gas. But we do not have 100 years. BC is required by its own legislation to reduce its emissions by 80 percent from 2007 levels by 2050—just 27 years from now. The planet is already well on its way to 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels and the more LNG we produce, the sooner we will exceed that worrisome threshold. What we do have, Jacobson argues, is already-existing technology that can replace the combustion-based energy we now rely on with 100 percent clean, renewable energy from wind, hydro and solar power, along with storage. Presently, 95 percent of the required technology is now commercially available, he says, and we know how to build the rest, mostly using hydrogen fuel cells to power long distance ships and planes. We do not need miracle technologies to solve the problems of air pollution, global heating and energy security, says Jacobson. “[But] we need the collective will power of people around the world to solve them.” Is the BC government doing its part? Or is it ignoring Bill McKibben’s advice and making climate change worse? Russ Francis won Webster Awards for his Focus environment reporting in 2021 and 2022. He holds advanced degrees in physics (Duke), philosophy (Toronto), and public administration (Victoria). His major project for the MPA degree at UVic examined performance management and program evaluation in the BC government.
  2. BC won a COP26 climate award—for doling out yet more fossil fuel handouts AMONG THE BIGGEST SURPRISES at the November 2021 meeting of COP 26 in Glasgow was BC’s award for its handling of the climate crisis. Coming just months following Premier John Horgan’s deny-everything approach to the June heat dome disaster and only days after his government revealed provincial emissions continue to grow, a climate award to the province comes across as something from Alice in Wonderland. The carbon leakage problem The award was for the “most creative climate solution” and for going “above and beyond” to implement change, to use the words from the award’s organizer. To be sure, the Clean BC Program for Industry (CPI)—the winning program—is a smart, sophisticated way of dealing with a nagging problem in a world where trade is relatively free. If a jurisdiction such as BC institutes a carbon pricing system, many of our industries will be competing with those in countries with a lower carbon price, or even no price at all. Consequently, our industries will suffer for the misfortune of operating here. This means that BC’s early leadership in taxing carbon could inadvertently help producers in those other jurisdictions, at the expense of our own. Worse still, it could mean that global emissions end up higher than they would without our policies. This is known as the problem of carbon leakage, and CPI is aimed at mitigating the problem. However, there is an unfortunate consequence of the way CPI has been implemented. Rewarding fossil fuel companies The BC government was quick to broadcast the achievement. “It’s an honour to receive the award recognizing the success of this program is (sic) about strong collaboration supporting innovation,” Environment and Climate Change Strategy Minister George Heyman beamed in a November 7 statement. “The award is another indication that we are on the right path through the new Clean BC Roadmap to 2030.” Not exactly. For one thing, the Clean BC Program for Industry—meant to encourage investment in reducing emissions—hands out public funds to fossil fuel firms, as well as to other industries. In the first two years of the program, fossil companies ConocoPhillips, Canadian Natural Resources, Fortis BC, Petronas and Shell were among those picking up a little pocket change under one part of CPI, called the Clean BC Industry Fund. In 2019 and 2020, the fund shovelled a total of $43 million out the door. Petronas and Shell, of course, are already recipients of government largesse as members of the foreign consortium comprising LNG Canada, now under construction in Kitimat. (On January 20, 2022, LNG Canada CEO Peter Zebedee claimed the project was more than half-built.) It is helped along by federal and BC government taxpayers, in the form of cancelled taxes, reduced hydro rates, tax credits and related considerations totalling approximately $7.275 billion. And there is still more for LNG Canada in the offing, since it qualifies for rebates under part of CPI. A November 7, 2019 cabinet order brought liquefied natural gas (LNG) into the Clean BC Industrial Incentive Program. It ensures that LNG producers will likely never pay more than $30 per tonne in carbon tax: qualifying projects, like LNG Canada, will benefit for as long as they are operating. Or till the end of the planet, whichever comes first. Shell CEO Ben van Beurden Petronas is wholly owned by the Malaysian Government, meaning that BC taxpayers are essentially sending money to a foreign power under the guise of fighting global overheating. And Shell hardly needs any handouts, having brought in revenue exceeding $60 billion US in the third quarter of 2021 alone. Shell CEO Ben van Beurden was paid $6.9 million US in 2020, despite a collapse in profits that the company blamed on COVID-19. As for its attitude towards the environment, Shell recently fought South African environmental, indigenous and fisheries groups for the right to conduct seismic surveys in the breeding grounds of southern right whales and humpbacks. (On December 28, 2021 a South African high court ordered a temporary halt to Shell’s plans.) Wholesale change needed Even the government’s Climate Solutions Council advised against letting LNG double-dip. An industry like LNG already receiving targeted taxation and/or policy relief “should not be eligible” for additional money through the incentive program, the council told Heyman in a January 13, 2021 letter, which was signed by council co-chairs, Merran Smith of Clean Energy Canada and Colleen Giroux-Schmidt of Hydro-Quebec subsidiary Innergex. The 2019 cabinet order infuriated BC Green Party leader Sonia Furstenau. In a Focus interview soon afterwards, she called the order an abuse of the industrial incentive program. “It was never intended to provide incentives to new fossil fuel industries,” she said. “It’s Orwellian to apply it in this way.” BC Green Party leader and MLA, Sonia Furstenau Following the November 2021 award, Furstenau had more to say: “We have a government that talks about climate change but has made several decisions over the course of two terms now to exacerbate it,” she said in an email to Focus. “We need wholesale change in forestry practices, in energy production and we need to recognize that subsidizing the oil and gas industry can in no way be seen as climate leadership in 2021. This award is an indication to me that the judges are willing to reward incrementalism when what we need is transformation.” One quick way of fixing this: Repeal the 2019 cabinet order granting LNG access to the program. Don’t hold your breath. The award givers The Under2 Coalition is a group of cities, provinces and other sub-national jurisdictions, with the stated goal of keeping the global temperature rise to “well below 2 degrees C.” Before anyone gets too excited about this award—chosen by a six-person panel—it did have one slight catch: Only coalition members were eligible to apply. And the Canadian competition was hardly fierce. There are just four Canadian members. One is BC, which filed its two-page application September 9, 2021. One other point about BC’s application for the Under2 Coalition award. “BC has had a broad-based carbon tax in place since 2008 when it was $10 [per tonne] with regular increases up to $30…in 2012,” the application proudly proclaims. What the application didn’t bother to mention is that it was Gordon Campbell’s Liberal government which introduced the carbon tax. And in the next election, in 2009, the NDP actively campaigned against it, with the slogan, “Axe the Tax.” That is arguably one of the more shamelessly populist planks ever to grace a political platform. In any event, the campaign failed; the election resulted in a third consecutive majority for the Liberals. New Democrats have apparently since seen the light. The tax, now at $45, is due to rise to $50 on April 1, 2022, and to $170 in 2030, under a federal government mandate. A second climate award November 2021 was an active time for climate awards. Also in that month, Efficiency Canada handed BC the top score for energy efficiency. Minster Heyman, in a November 18 statement celebrating the honour, said: “Our government understands that by focusing on energy efficiency, we can improve our homes and workplaces, reduce climate pollution and save money for people and businesses along the way....” And so on. Or, as Greta Thunberg would say: Blah, blah blah. I wouldn’t get too carried away by this apparent success story. For while BC did score the most points in a total of five categories, it led the other provinces in just two of them, buildings and enabling policies. Not only that, the score card included spending by two utilities, BC Hydro and Fortis BC. Including BC Hydro in the province’s scorecard makes sense: It is a Crown corporation, owned and controlled by the BC government. But Fortis BC? It’s a private company, not a Crown corporation. Its parent company, Fortis Inc., trades on the Toronto and New York stock exchanges. Yet its spending on energy efficiency is included in BC’s energy efficiency spending category. In fact, of the $130.9 million in the province’s purported 2020 energy efficiency spending, 51.6 percent came from Fortis. (BC Hydro’s contribution was 40.9 percent of the total, leaving a paltry 7.5 percent by the energy ministry.) Fortis BC rates one other mention on Efficiency Canada’s website: It is one of the organization's top two donors, called “Game Changers.” The other is Calgary-based pipeline giant Enbridge—which prefers to call itself an “energy delivery company.” And guess what? Enbridge shows up in the energy efficiency scorecard for Ontario, via its subsidiary Enbridge Gas, the utility which distributes more natural gas than any other in North America. How convenient. Both members of Efficiency Canada’s largest donor category just happen to make it into the respective provincial energy efficiency listings. In Quebec, 7.0 percent of that province’s energy efficiency spending was from Energir, a private company not listed as a donor. And for Newfoundland and Labrador, nearly two-thirds of the efficiency spending was listed under “Utilities,” without further detail. As donors, Enbridge and Fortis BC are entitled to a series of other benefits, not available to outsiders. For instance: training in government relations, receiving embargoed copies of reports before their public release, and the right to call on Efficiency Canada's senior staff to “create a customized experience” for their teams or clients. Like any other company, Enbridge and Fortis have one goal above all others: To make money. One has to wonder about their motivation in turning over some of their shareholders’ precious funds to Efficiency Canada. A little greenwashing, perhaps? I am not suggesting that donations from the two fossil fuel companies in any way influenced Efficiency Canada’s decision to include their spending on efficiency under provincial totals. But their inclusion doesn’t pass the smell test. It stinks. A footnote: The BC government gave Fortis BC $1.07 million in 2020 under the Clean BC Industry Fund. The size of Fortis BC’s Efficiency Canada donations is unknown. Fortis BC did not respond to a Focus request for comment by the time of publication. Efficiency Canada did not respond to a Focus emailed request for comment by the time of publication. The accelerating climate emergency During BC’s present relative calm between catastrophic floods and heat domes, one can be forgiven for forgetting about the seriousness of our present situation. A report by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), due to be published in February, 2022, provides a stark reminder. Agence France-Presse obtained a draft copy of the report in June 2021. Even if we reduce GHG emissions, life will be very different in the next few decades, says the report. These consequences, the result of unrestricted carbon pollution, are unavoidable in the short term, it says. While the 2015 Paris Agreement aimed at keeping warming (beyond pre-industrial levels) well below 2 degrees Celsius—and preferably below 1.5 degrees—current trends indicate we will hit 3 degrees, and we will reach it long before the year 2100 previously predicted. Even 2 degrees would result in passing more point-of-no-return tipping points, leading to irreversible overheating. The melting of ice sheets in Greenland and the West Antarctic will raise the world’s oceans 13 meters, more than enough to flood Premier John Horgan’s office in the West Annex of the legislature. “The worst is yet to come,” the report says, “affecting our children’s and grandchildren’s lives much more than our own.” Canada’s oil and gas production is projected to continue growing through 2040. EJ/yr is exajoules per year. (1 EJ = 1 x 1018 joules.) Mb/yr is million barrels per year. Bcm/yr is billion cubic meters per year. (The Production Gap, (2021), UN Environment Program) Given this, what are BC and Canada doing subsidizing and promoting fossil fuels? Well, from 1990 to 2019, Canada’s emissions grew by 21 percent—more than any other G7 country. And there appears to be little prospect of an improvement. The United Nations Environment Program’s The Production Gap (2021) projects that both oil and gas production in Canada will continue to grow through 2040. In the same 29-year period, BC’s emissions jumped 22 percent. When Clean BC was released in December 2018, the province’s emissions gap—between policies and the 2030 target—was 25 percent. But the 2021 Climate Accountability Report demonstrates that the gap is now between 32 percent and 48 percent. Hardly a sign of progress. Isolate the fossil fuel industry In light of the seriousness of the situation, one has to wonder how the fossil fuel industry has managed to so thoroughly permeate government climate advisory groups, news media outlets and quasi-academic non-profits. For instance, as well as the industry’s involvement with Efficiency Canada, the government’s own Climate Solutions Council includes a vice president of would-be tarsands developer Teck Resources, as well as a manager of policy and advocacy of LNG Canada principal partner Shell Canada. Moe Sihota is a former NDP cabinet minister, whose company Parhar Investments and Consulting is a successful developer. But Sihota is also a lobbyist, pushing Woodfibre LNG; in 2021, he lobbied various government officials 18 times, most recently in November 2021. So what is he doing on CBC Radio’s regular Vancouver Monday morning political panel, where he comments on Clean BC and other political issues? On this topic, Greenpeace USA senior climate campaigner John Noel had this to say, as quoted in a December 2021 Mother Jones article. “We need to have a political, financial and cultural full-court press to isolate the fossil fuel industry in all corners of life,” said Noel. “In policy circles they should not be allowed at the table. They should not be allowed to advertise. They shouldn’t be invited to any serious meeting.” Russ Francis wonders why the fossil fuel companies—that have done so much to bring the planet dangerously close to unlivabililty—cannot clean up their own mess? Since the publication of the article, the government has announced an additional $70 million in handouts for 2021, under the Clean BC Industry Fund. The aim of the funding is commendable: To reduce GHG emissions. But as in 2019 and 2020, fossil fuel companies did well last year from the fund. Companies winning BC’s GHG lottery in 2021 include: Arc Resources, Canadian Natural Resources, ConocoPhillips, Crew Energy, NorthRiver Midstream, Petronas, Storm Resources (recently bought by Canadian Natural Resources), and Tourmaline Oil. Under the program, taxpayers have now donated $113 million to these worthies, along with those in other industries.
  3. Moving to electric vehicles is a key part of BC’s climate action strategy. Let’s crunch some numbers… VEHICLES ON BC ROADS spew out nearly one-third of the province’s greenhouse gas emissions. According to the latest emission summary published by Environment and Climate Change Canada, vehicles emitted 19.0 megatonnes (Mt) of GHGs in 2019, or 29 percent of BC’s total emissions. Owing to many more vehicles on our roads, that is nearly double the 1990 figure of 9.6 Mt, despite significant improvements in vehicle efficiency since then. These emissions include all on-road vehicles: gasoline and diesel-powered light cars and trucks, motorbikes, and heavy-duty trucks, as well as those fuelled by propane and natural gas. (Not included are a further 5.16 Mt from off-road vehicles, used in forestry, mining, construction and the like.) EVs save drivers save 80 percent in fuel costs. But it’s not quite that simple. (Credit: BC Hydro) Direct emissions from vehicles are not the only ones resulting from our use of fossil fuels to carry us around. Oil and gas extraction, petroleum refining, and fugitive emissions produce an additional 12.04 Mt annually in Canada. While not all of our fossil fuels go to powering vehicles, eliminating internal combustion power for transport would lead to additional reductions in those “upstream” and “midstream” emissions. For British Columbia, where the electricity is mostly clean, there is a relatively painless way of reducing transportation emissions: switch to electrically-powered vehicles (EVs). This is especially true for light-duty cars and trucks, which emit approximately half of our road transportation pollution and which are becoming more available to the general consumer. (Note: This article considers only electric vehicles without fossil-fuelled engines; it does not deal with so-called hybrids.) And British Columbians are enthusiastically switching: One in ten new cars sold in BC last year was an EV, the highest rate in North America. There are now more than 60,000 light-duty electric vehicles on the province’s roads—exceeding the energy ministry’s 2021 target by 11,000. BC Hydro forecasts there will be 300,000 by 2030. Are EVs really cleaner? One nagging question, often raised by fossil fuel industry advocates, concerns the lifetime emissions of EVs compared with vehicles powered by internal combustion engines: What about the emissions in building EVs, particularly their big batteries? Due to the extraction of the required minerals and battery manufacturing, more GHGs are emitted in making an EV than a gas-powered vehicle. But once the vehicles are driven, the difference shrinks, and eventually disappears. The timing depends on the efficiency of the vehicles and the source of electricity. BC, as mentioned, is fortunate to have virtually all its electricity supplied by clean hydro power. But even in the US, where 23 percent of its power is still generated by burning coal, EVs’ total emissions soon fall behind, in as little as one year of average driving. Recent research provides details of the life-cycle emissions of the two types of vehicles. A study by the International Council on Clean Transportation, released in July 2021, examined vehicles’ life-cycle emissions, starting with the extraction of the raw materials, manufacturing, driving, through to their final disposal. The short answer: EVs produce much less GHGs. A model developed by Chicago’s Argonne National Laboratory predicts that a Tesla Model 3, driven in a jurisdiction like BC where electricity is nearly all from hydro, would have fewer lifetime emissions than a Toyota Corolla after less than a year of driving. Consequently, there is little doubt that EVs are good for cutting emissions. Total lifetime emissions in millions of grams. SOURCE: Argonne National Laboratory. How much power do EVs need? Natural Resources Canada reports that a typical BC car is driven 13,100 km annually, an average of 36 km per day. Finnish EV charger company Virta estimates that each kilometre in an EV uses about 0.2 kilowatt-hours (KWh), meaning that a typical BC car will use 13,100 x 0.2 KWh = 2.62 megawatt-hours (MWh) of electricity annually. (A megawatt-hour is 1,000 kilowatt-hours.) In other words, the 60,000 EVs currently on BC roads consume 60,000 x 2.62 MWh = 157,200 MWh, or 157.2 gigawatt-hours (GWh) annually. (A gigawatt-hour is 1,000 megawatt-hours.) Based on Hydro’s prediction of a five-fold increase in nine years, the province’s EVs will draw 5 x 157.2 GWh = 786 GWh annually by 2030. Does that explain the government’s hasty rush to complete Site C? Hardly. If it is ever finished—still highly doubtful--the $16 billion boondoggle is forecast to churn out 5,100 GWh annually, more than six times the anticipated EV energy demand in 2030. Well aware of EVs’ growth, BC Hydro projects that it has sufficient energy until at least 2030. EV affordability increasing, with some provisos On May 1, 2021, BC Hydro announced that free charging at its 90 fast charging stations is history. While the stations are handy, if not essential, for long distance drivers, it costs more to charge an EV at the Hydro chargers than at home, even twice as much. The 25 KW Level One chargers now cost $3.60 for a 30-minute session, which works out to 28.8 cents per KWh, compared with the residential Step 2 rate of 14.08 cents. While the 100 KW Level Three chargers cost less, 16.2 cents per KWh, the price still exceeds the top residential rate. As well, BC Hydro says it is working on a reduced rate for charging EVs at home, probably in off-peak hours. This would make the vehicles even cheaper to drive per kilometre. Various rebates are available for installing chargers in both single family and multifamily buildings. Those who drive EVs are generally very happy with them, citing much lower fuel costs, good acceleration, quietness and less maintenance, not to mention virtually eliminating their GHG emissions with every kilometre driven. Depending on make and model, EV “fuel” costs—based on residential hydro rates—are approximately 20 percent of those for an equivalent gas-powered car—based on Greater Vancouver gas prices. However, the financial situation is muddier when also considering the purchase prices of EVs and internal combustion-powered vehicles. BC Hydro reports that somebody driving 20,000 km annually in an electric 2020 Nissan Leaf S Plus, will save about $1,448 each year around in fuel costs, compared with what Hydro regards as the gas-powered equivalent, a 2020 Chevy Spark 1 LT. This means that for the typical 13,000 km per year driver, fuel savings amount to $941 annually. The costs are based on BC Hydro’s residential rates, and Greater Vancouver gasoline prices in 2019. What about maintenance costs, another aspect in which EVs prevail over their gas-powered cohorts? According to an October 2020 Consumer Reports study, in the US a typical gas-powered car costs approximately twice as much per mile in maintenance and repair costs over its lifetime than an EV. When converted to Canadian currency, using the October 19, 2021 exchange rate, the difference is 1.83 cents per kilometre. (This assumes that Canadian repair and maintenance costs are comparable to those in the US.) For our typical 13,000 km per year BC driver, that amounts to an extra $238 in annual savings for EVs. The combined fuel and maintenance savings results in a total annual benefit of $941 + $238 = $1,179 each year for EVs. Even with federal and BC government rebates of up to $8,000, EVs are not cheap to buy. The 2020 Nissan Leaf Plus S listed for nearly $47,000, while the 2020 Chevy Spark 1 LT sold for a list price of just under $15,000 in Canada. Taking advantage of the $8,000 in rebates from the federal and BC governments, the Nissan Leaf Plus S comes in at approximately $24,000 more than the Chevy Spark. Ignoring the opportunity cost for the more expensive Nissan, the average BC Leaf 13,000 km/year driver would take 20.3 years to break even with the Chevy. If the Leaf buyer has an old car that meets the requirements for BC’s $6,000 Scrap-It rebate, it would take 15.3 years. Several cautions are in order. First, this comparison ignores the opportunity cost—essentially the interest charge over the years to borrow the difference between EVs and gas-powered cars. Second, the repair and maintenance costs are average. For a particular model, they may vary: Some models are more reliable than others. Third, the fuel prices. On September 1, 2021, BC Hydro applied to the BC Utilities Commission for a net increase of 3.3 percent for residential customers over three years, starting April 1, 2022. While electricity costs are somewhat constrained by requiring the commission’s approval, there is no such mechanism for gasoline. One portion of gas prices is expected to go nowhere but up in the next nine years. BC’s carbon tax, currently $40 per tonne of CO2 , due to increase to $50 April 1, 2022. Presuming that BC adopts the federal government plan to increase it by $15 for each year after 2022, we will be paying $170 per tonne in 2030. At present, the carbon tax costs approximately 9 cents per litre of gasoline. In 2030 it will reach approximately 38 cents per litre. Crude oil prices are the biggest factor in gasoline costs, and they are commonly believed to be headed upwards. Though they collapsed during the worst of the COVID-19 pandemic, they have since returned to pre-pandemic levels. According to a September 20, 2021 Reuters report, New York bank Goldman Sachs said that a colder winter in Europe and Asia could boost demand for oil worldwide, which would mean higher gasoline prices. As well, demand for gasoline is increasing. Rory Johnston, founder of the Commodity Context newsletter, said in an October 7 report that worldwide demand for gasoline has since recovered: [G]asoline appears to have mostly returned to its modest pre-COVID growth trajectory.” More assured pricing predictions exist around EVs: lower prices are coming in the next decade. In a draft September 29, 2020 report written for BC Hydro, Vancouver consultancy Navius predicts that EV prices will drop significantly by 2030, mostly due to much cheaper batteries. The cost to manufacture batteries will drop by approximately half by 2030, and could possibly fall by three-quarters. The latter scenario means that an EV with a range of 160 km could sell for the same price as a gas-powered equivalent as early as 2025. But will EVs make a significant dent in BC’s emissions? Given the increasing affordability of EVs, BC’s requirement under the Zero-Emission Vehicle Act that all light-duty cars and trucks sold in 2040 will be zero-emission vehicles, may be met well ahead of schedule. (Zero-emission vehicles include those powered with hydrogen.) Ignoring the significant emissions from building EVs outside of Canada, how much will this help the province meet the goals of its struggling CleanBC climate plan? According to BC’s 2020 Climate Change Accountability Report, incentives to boost zero-emissions light vehicles will save 1Mt of emissions by 2030, or about 11 percent of GHGs currently emitted annually by cars and small trucks. That doesn’t take us very far towards the BC government’s target of cutting total emissions by 16.8 Mt in 2030, as laid out in its climate crisis plan, Clean BC. In general, BC’s emissions are going in the wrong direction. In 2017, the year in which the NDP formed a minority government, the province’s official GHG emissions totalled 66 Mt. They have since grown to 68.6 Mt in 2019, the last year for which the provincial government has released data. That’s an increase of 4 percent since 2017, despite the now-urgent necessity to quickly reduce emissions. However, given British Columbians’ penchant for beating EV sales projections, we may in fact easily meet the goal of all light vehicle sales being zero-emission well ahead of the 2040 target. That would count as a rare success story in BC’s attempts to reduce emissions, though making little more than a dent in the overall emissions picture. The Jevons Paradox There is another confounding factor when estimating the future use of EVs: The Jevons Paradox, also known as the “rebound effect.” In his 1865 book, English economist William Jevons noted that providing a raw material more efficiently results in higher consumption. In modern times, researchers discovered that the effect occurs with lighting. When LEDs first penetrated the market, the expectation was that less energy would be used for lighting, since LEDs use about one-fifth as much power for the same lighting. It never happened. Instead of saving energy, lighting became brighter and was left on for longer each day. The net effect was more lighting, while the proportion of global GDP used by lighting remained constant, according to a survey article by researchers at Germany’s University of Freiburg, published January 2018 on the ResearchGate website. It may even continue to grow, say the researchers: “In addition to the global number of many poorly lit areas…new application possibilities for LEDs could also drive demand [higher.]” Could this happen with EVs? Once they sell for the same price as comparable gas-powered vehicles, so that the initial financial hit for going electric disappears, it’s not much of a stretch to predict that average British Columbians will drive a lot more than the current 13,100 km per year. Fuel costs down by 80 percent, repair and maintenance costs cut in half, minimal GHG emissions, and fun to drive: Our roads may be jammed with EVs—meaning more road wear and tear, more accidents, less physical exercise, and all the other disadvantages of driving instead of walking or cycling. Russ Francis won the 2021 Webster Award for excellence in environment reporting, announced November 3. He is thrilled that the BC government announced October 6 that it will review the countless billions given to the fossil industry through the so-called royalty credit scheme. But first, BC will consult the industry and any other “interested” British Columbians, says oil and gas minister Bruce Ralston. After that he will tell us more about the review—in February 2022. After all, it just wouldn’t be right to make those wealthy fossil companies go without taxpayer handouts cold turkey..
  4. WHILE FAMILY AND FRIENDS of the 569 British Columbians who died in June as a direct result of runaway global heating were still grieving, the provincial government was quietly approving the initial project plan for another huge fossil fuel facility. Producing 12 million tonnes of liquefied natural gas (LNG) annually, Ksi Lisims LNG in northwestern BC will do nothing but increase worldwide emissions, leading to even more extreme heating, more deaths and more unprecedented weather events. Adding insult to injury, BC taxpayers can expect to cough up additional billions of dollars in subsidies, royalty credits, reduced BC Hydro rates, a sales tax holiday, and cancelled LNG tax for the ill-advised project. Approving the project, ever-so-quietly On July 16, 2021, less than three weeks after southwestern BC’s heat dome disaster, the associate deputy minister for BC’s environmental assessment office, Elenore Arend, signed an order approving the initial plan for the Ksi Lisims LNG project. The proponents are Texas-based Western LNG, with Canadian partners Rockies LNG, and Nisga’a Nation. The facility will be built at Wil Milit on undeveloped Pearse Island, 80 km north of Prince Rupert, near the Alaskan panhandle. It will sit on Nisga’a land and water, and is estimated to begin production in late 2027 or 2028. The liquefying modules themselves would float offshore. Pearse Island, BC: A lovely spot for a huge fossil fuel plant? (Photo: Ksi Lisims LNG) The Ksi Lisims (pronounced “S’lisims”) LNG project is still some distance from final approval, as it has yet to clear other hurdles, including permission to disturb more than 2 hectares of foreshore and underwater land, arrange for a new BC Hydro line, and build a new pipeline from the Montney Basin gas field on the northern BC-Alberta border, to the project site. The island was previously logged, but has seen no industrial activity of the scale of a large LNG facility. While the partners have yet to make a final investment decision, they have already devoted years of work to the venture, as evidenced by a detailed 135-page initial project description they submitted to the federal and BC governments. Ksi Lisims LNG would be only marginally smaller than the under-construction LNG Canada facility in Kitimat—dubbed the largest infrastructure project in the history of Canada. Yet, in sharp contrast to the hoopla that surrounded the October 2018 announcement of LNG Canada, there was not a peep out of the well-oiled $28.3 million Government Communications and Public Engagement unit. No BC minister gave a speech; there was no government statement or news release about Ksi Lisims. Certainly no marching bands or balloons. Answering questions from Focus, an official in the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Low Carbon Innovation, said in a July 27 email: “We are aware of the partnership between the Nisga’a Nation, Rockies LNG and Western LNG for the proposed Ksi Lisims LNG project.” The government supports LNG development, said the official, provided it guarantees a “fair return” for BC’s natural resources as well as jobs and training opportunities for British Columbians; respects and forms partnerships with First Nations; and “protects BC’s air, land and water, including living up to the Province’s climate commitments.” The ministry official added that “the environmental assessment process will provide an opportunity for the public to learn more about the environmental, social and economic impacts of the proposed project.” What about the $6 billion in subsidies, tax deferments and other goodies given to LNG Canada? Would Ksi Lisims get comparable amounts? In a follow-up July 28 email, the official said that Ksi Lisims had yet to ask to be considered under the March 22, 2018 LNG Fiscal Framework. “The Ksi Lisims project is still at an early stage of development, and the Province does not generally undertake analysis of potential fiscal implications of a project like Ksi Lisims until a request is made,” said the official. “If a request is made, any information on credits or other tax frameworks specific to the project would not be made public due to commercial confidentiality.” Despite this, the 2018 LNG Fiscal Framework includes the following statement, near the top: “These measures [i.e. subsidies, tax and hydro breaks] below would apply to the entire LNG sector.” Western LNG estimates that it will pay $3 billion in local and provincial taxes over Ksi Lisims’ 30-year lifetime, or $100 million per year. The description does not mention whether this is after the billions in tax credits and other benefits available under BC’s LNG financial framework and the royalty tax credit scheme. Direct and indirect economic benefits, says the company, would total another $35 billion. Western did not point out that there is widespread criticism of so-called “indirect” benefits, which often turn out to be far less than predicted. As for those jobs, at least some will be overseas, as is the case for LNG Canada. The project’s liquefaction modules, designed to float offshore, are “constructed in foreign shipyards overseas, to BC and Canadian engineering standards, and then towed into position,” says the project plan. Keep in mind that LNG Canada’s decision to have its modules built in China has been less than a raging success. Adding to the mystery of the missing government news release on the project is the opening by the Environmental Assessment Office and its federal counterpart, the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada, of a brief period for public comment. Having started August 10, the period closes at midnight on September 24. That gives the impression that the government is pushing this project through, come climate hell or high seas. While I could find nothing from the BC government, the federal government did post a statement August 10 on Newswire, a news release site. The news release was carried by just one newspaper, the Terrace Standard, according to a newspaper database search. Doubtless Terrace residents, as well as the Ksi Lisims proponents, know about the “public” comment arrangement. But who else does? A few weeks following the unheralded approval of the Ksi Lisims LNG initial plan, the August 9 report from the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) warned that without radical, imminent change in the way we live, humans and other animals are not long for this planet. It’s going to take vastly more than all of us installing heat pumps and switching to EVs. LNG Canada and Ksi Lisims LNG will make it that much more difficult. A slide from the IPCC’s August 9 presentation accompanying its “Code Red” report But perhaps the government doesn’t care about that. Premier John Horgan doesn’t seem to understand the link between fossil fuels and climate change. Responding to the deaths of nearly 600 British Columbians from the heatwave in June, he stated, “Fatalities are a part of life…The public was acutely aware that we had a heat problem, but it was apparent to anyone who walked outdoors that we were in an unprecedented heat wave and again there’s a level of personal responsibility.” He certainly wasn’t taking responsibility or admitting that BC’s vast fossil fuel subsidies had helped boost global heating. A few weeks later came the Horgan government’s approval of the initial project plan for Ksi Lisims LNG. BC’s—and LNG’s—contribution to overheating the Earth The latest GHG inventory from Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC), published in April 2021, showed that for the fourth year in a row, BC’s emissions had increased, reaching 65.7 megatonnes (Mt) in 2019, 200,000 tonnes more than in the previous year. Oil and gas extraction emissions increased 230,000 tonnes—meaning that reductions in emissions from light vehicles, for example, were more than counterbalanced by the fossil fuel industry’s increased emissions. Yet 2019 was the first year covered by Clean BC, the government’s plan towards a low-carbon future. Neither ECCC nor BC’s Climate Action Secretariat, which publishes the Province’s own inventory, includes in its official total the largest source of GHG emissions: wildfire smoke. In 2018, BC’s wildfire smoke totalled 199.7 Mt, approximately three times as much as the Province’s official GHG total. ECCC’s reasoning? Because along with insect outbreaks, wildfires are “natural disturbances” and are consequently non-anthropogenic—a demonstrably false statement. But even so, it would mean that reducing other high emission contributors—like fossil fuel production—was even more essential to tackling the climate crisis. Of course, the fossil industry—and the BC Government—love to claim that LNG will displace coal in China as a fuel for producing electricity, pointing out correctly that burning LNG is cleaner than burning coal. For instance, Ksi Lisims partner Western LNG said in a July 19, 2021 statement that environmental benefits of the Project are “extensive.” Said the statement: “Replacing coal and oil with LNG exported from Ksi Lisims LNG would result in a reduction of global carbon emissions of more than 45 million tonnes per year, or 1.3 gigatonnes over a 30-year period, which is equivalent to nearly two years of total carbon emissions from Canada.” What this claim ignores are the emissions released during extraction, processing, pipeline transport, liquefaction, tanker transport, regasification and transport of the resulting gas to the power plants. For US LNG, the actual burning of gas in an Asian power plant results in just over half (53 percent) of LNG’s life-cycle emissions, according to a detailed analysis published December 8, 2020 by the New York-based Natural Resources Defence Council (NRDC). The remaining 47 percent are from everything else. Not only that, the vast LNG infrastructure locks in a fossil fuel source for decades, well beyond the time by which humans need to drastically cut emissions, according to NRDC report co-author Christina Swanson. “Instead of pursuing these white elephant projects, we should be investing in clean-energy technologies, technologies that are genuine climate solutions,” Swanson said in a statement. A slide from the IPCC’s August 9 presentation accompanying its “Code Red” report The Province of Quebec appears to have heeded such advice. Just a few days after the BC Government gave the go-ahead for the Ksi Lisims LNG plan, Quebec rejected a similar proposal to pipe gas from BC and Alberta, and then liquefy it for export overseas. GNL Quebec planned to spend $14 billion on the project on the Saguenay River. It would have produced 11 Mt of LNG annually, compared with Ksi Lisims’ 12 Mt. Like LNG Canada and Ksi Lisims LNG, it promised jobs, economic stimulus and a reduction in worldwide emissions. But Quebec environment Minister Benoit Charette said his government was not convinced that the plant would reduce greenhouse gases. “The promoter has not succeeded in demonstrating this—on the contrary,” Charette was quoted as saying in a July 22 Canadian Press story. “This is a project that has more disadvantages than advantages.” He added that LNG would discourage natural gas buyers from switching to cleaner energy—just as environmentalists have argued in connection with LNG Canada. Charette’s decision was doubtless made easier by a 120,000-signature petition against it, and by the fact that nearly 1,000 scientists, health professionals and economists, three Innu communities, and all opposition parties opposed the project. Another claim commonly heard is that Canadians need not worry about reducing emissions, since in 2018 we produced only around two percent of worldwide emissions, according to data published by the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS). While China’s emissions totalled 10.06 gigatonnes (Gt), Canada’s were 0.56 Gt. So why bother doing anything? Let’s continue on the path to destruction, and let the Big Bad Guys do the hard work. However, on a per capita basis, the tables are turned. We produce more GHGs per person annually (15.32 tonnes) than all but four other countries, and are not far behind the worst, Saudi Arabia, at 18.48 tonnes. Ours were more than double China’s 7.05 tonnes per capita. It would not be surprising to learn that those in the dozens of countries producing less emissions than Canada per person are saying: Let Canada reduce its emissions first. We’ll continue business as usual. But from the planet’s perspective, Canada, BC and other jurisdictions need to stop passing the buck. Immediate action needed In a summary for policy makers accompanying the IPCC’s August 9 stirring “Code Red for Humanity” report, the United Nations agency warned of the planet’s imminent future: “Global surface temperature will continue to increase until at least the mid-century under all emissions scenarios considered. Global warming of 1.5°C and 2°C will be exceeded during the 21st century unless deep reductions in carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gas emissions occur in the coming decades.” What does that mean for BC? By all means continue Clean BC’s successful subsidies for home energy savings and EVs. But far more is needed, including halting all under-construction and proposed fossil fuel projects. Shut down LNG Canada now, reject Ksi Lisims LNG before any more public time and money is wasted on it, and make it clear that we will consider no more LNG projects. Divert the untold billions in taxpayer-funded subsidies, BC Hydro discounts and royalty credits from the dying fossil industry to solar and wind energy. Consider a back-of-the-envelope estimate: If the $6 billion in LNG Canada subsidies and credits were instead put towards solar power, they would pay half the cost of 800,000 typical home installations of photovoltaic solar power. That includes site inspection, the panels, installation, and grid tie-in for a common $15,000 home solar project. The result would be a sharp drop in BC Hydro bills, much smaller transmission lines, and even less need than now for Site C. In other words, start supporting the preservation of life on earth. Russ Francis worries that runaway global heating will make the planet uninhabitable for most non-human animals, none of whom can be regarded as supporting the fossil fuel industry.
  5. In a revised “Letter to Council,” Aryze says it has now abandoned plans to use the BC Housing Affordable Home Ownership Program (AHOP) to help finance construction and to provide second mortgages for the proposed 18 townhomes. In the undated letter, posted to the city’s development site on June 2, 2021, Aryze principal Mari cites several reasons for dropping the idea. “Unfortunately, due to the length of processing time, volume of off-site improvements, rampant increase in construction costs, and the Fall 2020 BC Provincial Election, we don’t have firm direction from BC Housing on the details surrounding this program.” It was partly Premier John Horgan’s fault for calling the last election early, on October 24? The connection escapes me. And Aryze has no “firm direction” from BC Housing? One can’t help but wonder whether it has merely a soft direction—or any direction at all. “With these details in mind,” the letter continues, “we are pivoting the project to include four homes (22%) to fall under the Capital Regional District’s price restrictive resale program whereby the homes are sold between 15% - 25% below market in perpetuity.” Just two of the one-bedroom units and two of the three-bedroom units would sell “below market.” June 29 2021 UpdateAryze June 2021 Letter to Council.pdf In a June 29 email to interested parties, Mari suggests that the public hearing for the project will occur “this summer.” “While we are driven by our commitment to advocate for attainable housing in our city, the road for 902 Foul Bay has been challenging,” Mari says in the letter. “Every day we are reminded about the lack of housing supply within Victoria, yet it continues to take far too long to bring townhomes to market—especially affordable ones.” Later in the letter, Mari adds: “We’re disappointed with the process to date . . .” I understand his disappointment: Those annoying neighbours, heritage advocates and tree-lovers sure do slow things down! Mari adds that the two 1-bedroom units will sell for $360,000 and the two 3-bedroom units for $640,000. Aryze June 29 2021 902 Foul Bay Project Update.pdf
  6. Happy Clean Air Day! On June 2, environment and climate change strategy minister George Heyman urged us to celebrate "Clean Air Day." So how clean was Clean Air Day? Well, in Valemount, near the Alberta border, at 10 pm on June 2, PM2.5s hit 54.2 micrograms per cubic meter--which is the fifth-highest level in B.C.'s health risk ranking. At the Topaz monitoring station in Victoria, at 5 a.m. on June 2, it was a mere 12, though a few weeks earlier, at 11 p.m. on May 13, it hit 28 at that station. The so-called "Provincial Air Quality Objective Criterion" is 25 micrograms per cubic meter, averaged over a 24-hour period. Note the word "objective." Even 25 micrograms per cubic meter is not safe, as WHO and others have pointed out. See Topaz chart here: https://www.env.gov.bc.ca/epd/bcairquality/data/station.html?id=E231866 To his credit, Heyman acknowledged "the significant impacts climate change can have on air quality through increased forest fires." So what is his ministry doing about it? They're working on the "Climate Preparedness and Adaptation Strategy, which will be released shortly for public comment." Hey, let's not rush into things! Here's one thing the government could do immediately: Add wildfire emissions to its annual inventory of emissions. And here's how we can quickly reduce the severity and frequency of wildfires: Stop all clearcutting. See David Broadland's excellent piece on this:
  7. For more on health problems caused by burning wood, fossil fuels or anything else, see here.
  8. Tiny particles (PM2.5s) produced by burning anything are destroying our bodies. And they are making the COVID-19 pandemic worse. THEY ARE NEARLY EVERYWHERE: Tiny particles produced whenever anything is set on fire. Particles measuring 2.5 microns or less are so small that they are dwarfed by a single human hair. (A micron is one-thousandth of a millimetre.) And they are killing us. The particles, known as PM2.5s, are small enough that they slip past our bodies’ natural defence mechanisms—primarily nose hairs—to gain easy access to every cell in our bodies. (‘PM’ stands for ‘Particulate Matter.’) Once there, they wreak havoc, causing cancers, heart attacks, lung disease, strokes, dementia, and Parkinson’s disease. They even increase the risk of permanent blindness. Where do they come from? Burning gasoline, wood, candles, incense, natural gas or anything else: all produce PM2.5s. According to the 2021 edition of Canada’s air pollutant emission inventory report, a significant portion of Canadian PM2.5s comes from road dust, construction and the production of crops. But those resulting from burning fossil fuels kill tens of thousands of us every year, according to recently published research. Comparative size of PM2.5s: Tiny particles caused by burning stuff kill millions every year. Source: EPA The health damage Unlike other substances which cause harm only at high levels, PM2.5s have no safe limit. In the words of the World Health Organization: “Small particulate pollution has health impacts even at very low concentrations—indeed no threshold has been identified below which no damage to health is observed.” A UK study reported in the January 25, 2021 issue of the British Journal of Ophthalmology found that the particles increase the risk of irreversible blindness. Eyes are especially vulnerable, since there is a very high flow of blood to the retina, meaning that the eyes are exposed to an especially high volume of PM2.5s. This, says the study, raises the risk of age-related macular degeneration (AMD)—a leading cause of permanent blindness in older people. As well as threatening our eyes, PM2.5s are killing us. Recent work by an international team of experts suggests that previous estimates of the number of deaths due to particle pollution were far too low. The study, published in the April 2021 issue of Environmental Research and Public Health, reports that PM2.5s from the fossil fuel industry alone resulted in 8.7 million premature deaths of adults older than 14 in 2018, across the world. That compares with 3.4 million deaths worldwide from COVID-19, as of May 15, 2021. In other words, fossil fuel-generated PM2.5s kill 2.6 times as many adult people in just one year as the pandemic has killed in total. The groundbreaking study suggests that earlier estimates were too low because previous calculations relied on an incorrect model for the number of excess deaths at both high and low levels of PM2.5s. Canadian deaths On the world scale, Canada does not fare well, having a higher death rate from fossil-fuel generated PM2.5s than the US. Our rate is also higher than the following regions: South America; Western Asia and the Middle East; Central America and the Caribbean; Africa; and Australia and Oceania. Details of the study were supplied to Focus by lead researcher Karn Vohra of the University of Birmingham. More than one in seven (13.6 percent) deaths of Canadians over 14 are due to fossil fuel-produced particle pollution, compared with 13.1 percent in the US. (However, several parts of the world had higher rates still. Eastern Asia had 30.7 percent, and Europe 16.8 percent.) In 2018, approximately 281,000 Canadians older than 14 died from all causes. According to the study’s data, more than 38,000 premature Canadian deaths in 2018 are attributable to the particulate pollutants from oil and gas. Acknowledging that fossil fuels are not the only source of PM2.5s, the researchers point out the importance of concentrating on oil and gas. “Fossil fuel combustion can be more readily controlled than other sources and precursors of PM2.5 such as dust or wildfire smoke, so this is a clear message to policymakers and stakeholders to further incentivize a shift to clean sources of energy,” they conclude. That’s something to think about when fossil-heads warn us to take our time in phasing out the tar sands and shutting down pipelines, or when we consider installing a gas fireplace. The study did not report on PM-related province-by-province deaths, due to a lack of suitable data. Keep the home fires burning? Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC), to its credit, reports annually on the levels of air pollution, according to pollutant, source and province. The latest report, published April 30, 2021, reveals that home firewood burning remains the largest source of PM2.5s in Canada’s Commercial/Residential/Institutional category. This is despite the fact that the amount of PM2.5s generated across the country from home wood burning has dropped by nearly half in the period 1990-2019, in part owing to the replacement of open fireplaces with fireplace inserts, heat pumps, furnaces and more efficient wood stoves. The ECCC data reveals that PM2.5 emissions in British Columbia from all sources totalled 64.1 kilo-tonnes in 2019, an increase of more than 8 percent compared with 2010. About 7 percent of the total was from home firewood burning, far less than the 32 percent that came from unpaved roads, but still a serious problem. According to an article in the December 2020 issue of the peer-reviewed journal Atmosphere, PM2.5 levels triple inside dwellings when wood stoves are in use, much of it occurring when the door is opened to add wood. Consequently, the researchers recommend that wood stoves be sold with a health warning. Every time we light the wood stove, we are harming family and friends. Worse still, our dogs and cats. Canada’s fossil-heavy future How is Canada working to reduce fossil fuels and their devastating impact on both human and planetary health? In December 2020, Ottawa released an updated climate plan, including a promise to raise the carbon tax by $15 per year, reaching $170 per tonne in 2030. It also promised $15 billion in new climate spending. It sounds reassuring: We have the climate crisis under control, with the goal of reaching “net-zero” emissions for the country by 2050. But a few facts get in the way of this convenient view. For instance, to succeed, the plan relies on carbon capture and storage (CCS), of which there are no commercially successful plants. As a January 2021 report from Friends of the Earth Scotland and Global Witness put it: “The [CCS] technology still faces many barriers, would only start to deliver too late, would have to be deployed on a massive scale at a scarcely credible rate and has a history of over-promising and under-delivering.” A technical paper published by the Cascade Institute in April 2021 warns that despite the December 2020 climate plan, Canada will produce more oil and gas in 2050 than in 2020. Using projections from the Canada Energy Regulator and the federal government, the paper says that even with our stronger climate policies, Canada will be producing more natural gas and oil by 2050 than in 2019. This will result in the oil and gas industry’s annual emissions growing to 200 megatonnes of CO2-equivalent by 2050. But that counts only the upstream emissions—those emanating from extraction and processing. By the time those fossil fuels are transported and burned, Canada expects to have added to the atmosphere 26.1 gigatonnes of GHG emissions from oil, plus another 10.1 gigatonnes from gas. This amounts to more than 50 times the total 2019 GHG domestic emissions reported in Canada’s April 2021 National Inventory Report, which counts only emissions inside Canada, ignoring emissions generated when Canadian fossil fuels are ignited elsewhere. This is in keeping with international emission reporting rules, according to which GHGs are counted only in the country in which they are produced. But that doesn’t mean that they don’t matter to Canada, which is warming twice as fast as the global average. Put another way, for the official GHG inventories, the fossil fuel industry and their friends in the BC and Canadian governments who subsidize it worry only about the supply side of the fuels. If we care about the planet, we should also pay attention to the demand side, where emissions for each barrel of oil or thousand cubic feet of gas are vastly higher. PM2.5s and COVID-19 Much has been written in the last year about the fact that the COVID-19 pandemic has inadvertently improved the health of the planet, by reducing demand for fossil fuels, if temporarily. For instance, the Canada Energy Regulator reports that end-use energy demand fell in 2020 from 2019 levels, with the sole exception of residential electricity, as more people worked from home, fewer cars were on the road, and some factories closed. In other words, the pandemic has slightly reduced the use of fuels, including natural gas, diesel and gasoline: The virus temporarily helped the planet. COVID-19 impact on Canadian energy use: All Canadian energy use declined in 2020 except residential electricity. Source: Canada Energy Regulator But what about a related question: Has pollution from fossil fuels helped spread the virus? Quite possibly. There are at least two ways in which this could happen. First, it has long been known that air pollution, including from PM2.5s, causes inflammation in the lungs, inhibiting our ability to fight infections. As BC’s Centre for Disease Control says in a September 11, 2020 statement: “Exposure to air pollution can irritate the lungs, cause inflammation, and alter immune function, making it more difficult to fight respiratory infections such as COVID-19.” In smoky conditions, more people who are exposed to the virus may develop COVID-19 and some cases of COVID-19 may become more severe, warns the centre on its wildfire web page. There is another way that PM2.5s from fossil fuels can make the pandemic worse: PM2.5s could carry the virus directly into our bodies. PM2.5s transport a range of substances into the human body, including polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and heavy metals including mercury, chromium, cadmium, arsenic, lead, and uranium. Once inhaled, these hitchhiking substances only increase the toxicity of PM2.5s. They can also transport virus particles. COVID-19 virus particles are spheres, approximately one-tenth of a micron in diameter. This means that COVID-19 particles are about 1/25th the size of the largest PM2.5 particles, suggesting that small particulate matter could carry the COVID-19 virus into our lungs. In an article published in the June 2020 issue of Environmental Research and Public Health, four Italian researchers raise that very question. Particulate matter “could act as a carrier through the aerosol, conveying the virus and increasing its spread,” write the researchers. In turn, this could magnify the havoc wreaked by COVID-19. “Cardiovascular effects induced by PM are linked to particles’ deposition in the lungs, to their translocation through the air-blood barrier to extra-pulmonary sites, and to the resulting systemic inflammation.” This inflammatory storm “may increase the mortality rate and the severity of expression of [COVID-19] in the most polluted areas.” Bum rap? The 38,000 premature Canadian deaths described above are for 2018—more than a year before the pandemic began to take hold. If fossil fuel-derived PM2.5s increase the number of deaths attributed to COVID-19, shouldn’t fossil fuel providers share part of the blame? If major oil companies knew beforehand about the damage their products do to human health, is COVID-19 being unfairly blamed for more harm than it actually causes? But did the fossil fuel producers know? Recently released documents from oil companies prove that they did. An internal Shell technical report completed in July 1968, available from the University of California, San Francisco, was apparently written as a way of warning the company that it will likely face future regulations. (In May 2021, Shell, the lead partner in the LNG Canada project in Kitimat, reported profits of $3.2 billion US in the first three months of 2021.) The 1968 report notes that “air pollution is largely a function of the use of fuels.” As a result, the fossil fuel industry is inevitably facing dreaded regulation: “When the concentrations reach adverse levels, controls must be applied, and because the oil industry is a major source of fuels control, legislation will affect us, both as a supplier and manufacturer.” The Shell report even anticipates the damage done by PM2.5s. “Particulates in combination with toxic substances are generally considered to be the real villains in health effects. This is explained on the basis that the particles concentrate the chemical on their surfaces or in their interstices and produce locally a high concentration of an otherwise very dilute substance. Further, as in the case of [sulphur dioxide], the particles carry a substance deep into the lungs which would otherwise be removed in the throat due to its high water solubility.” The report also warns of the consequences of regulating the industry. “Regulations will affect our major product, gasoline, and hence have great potential for affecting operations, manufacturing, transport, dispensing, etc.” Is COVID-19 getting a bum rap, one that should properly be shared by fossil fuels? In any case, things must change, and quickly. We need to stop setting fire to things, especially fossil fuels. As longtime environmentalist Bill McKibben has said, it’s time to bring the combustion age to a close. Russ Francis believes, on good evidence, that the climate crisis is real. But he wonders whether the Conservative Party of Canada exists. Read the abstract of the Environmental Research and Public Health research report
  9. Photo: The neighbourhood around 902 Foul Bay Road has sprouted many "Save the Trees" signs. A proposed high-density development on the Victoria-Oak Bay border will either destroy the neighbourhood’s ambience—or help save the planet. Go to story
  10. A proposed high-density development on the Victoria-Oak Bay border will either destroy the neighbourhood’s ambience—or help save the planet. WHO COULD OBJECT TO A MULTI-DWELLING PROJECT that—according to the developer—encourages walking, helps solve the climate crisis and eases housing pressures? “The project enables a high quality, densified, compact, walkable lifestyle which is critical to solving our climate and housing crisis [sic] all while creating more livable and healthier communities,” said Aryze Developments in a January 20, 2021 letter to the City of Victoria. Some neighbours in the Foul Bay Road-Quamichan Street area don’t see it that way, believing that the 18-unit townhouse project on a small lot adds too many dwellings, means the removal of too many trees, and will damage the neighbourhood’s ambience. Some are also very unhappy with what they regard as an attempt to intimidate them into supporting the development. The property The lot at number 902 sits just where Foul Bay Road, heading south, departs Oak Bay and ventures into the Gonzales neighbourhood of Victoria, where it remains before ending at Gonzales Beach. The property at 902 Foul Bay Road is a familiar one to those who follow heritage properties and to fans of large urban trees. The 1911, two-storey, cross-gabled house was reminiscent of a country estate, with an external granite chimney and a two-storey verandah nearly encircling the house, according to information from the Victoria Heritage Foundation. A heritage designation awarded in 2003 included the property’s rock wall and landscape. The heritage designated house that occupied the site until 2016 Large and Co. purchased the property in 2014 with hopes to develop some townhouses on the property, though also preserving the house. The company subsequently applied for a demolition permit and removal of the heritage designation, citing contamination from mould, feces and urine: the house had been unheated for two years and housed an estimated 100 cats. In 2015, the City of Victoria’s heritage panel recommended that the council reject the request to demolish. But in January 2016—before the City council had determined its fate—an unexplained fire badly damaged the house. One year later, Victoria police arrested Earl Large (who heads sales for Large and Co.), holding him in jail overnight. Large was released without charges the next day, because the Crown did not approve charges. Following the fire, the remains of the house were demolished. The 0.503 acre lot is currently assessed at $2,566,000, and is now owned by Lions West Homes Ltd, with Aryze as the developer. It is currently zoned R1-G, which permits four single family houses. Each is allowed one accessory use, such as a secondary suite. For the proposed development to proceed, the property would need to be rezoned to permit multi-family dwellings, as well as be granted a development permit. The project Aryze is a Victoria developer, active in numerous area projects from infill housing to the Telus Ocean office building. The privately-held company proposes to build 16 three-bedroom and 2 one-bedroom townhouses at 902 Foul Bay, according to the latest version of the project posted on the City’s website, dated January 20, 2021. The average size of the units is 1,100 square feet. These would be contained in two three-storey structures. An illustration of Aryze’s proposed townhouse project at the corner of Foul Bay and Quamichan An aerial illustration of how the proposed development will occupy the 1/2-acre site Aryze says it has applied to the BC Housing Affordable Home Ownership Program (AHOP), which would allow prices to be reduced by from 5 to 20 percent for eligible buyers, in part by providing interim construction financing at reduced rates. To support what it calls “middle income” families, BC Housing would hold the second mortgage to cover its contribution. There are a number of hurdles to be passed before BC Housing approves a project under AHOP. For instance, community support for the project should be “evident,” and projects should be “consistent with official community plans and strategies,” according to AHOP’s published principles. As well, the townhouses would not be available to the open market. Ineligible are any would-be purchasers who already own or part-own a dwelling anywhere in the world. To buy an AHOP dwelling, purchasers must currently be in rental or other non-tenureship housing, must be Canadian citizens or permanent residents, and must have lived in BC for the past 12 months. These rules apply to everyone on the title of a townhouse. In addition, buyers are limited by household income, which cannot exceed the 75th income percentile of BC families with children—currently $163,220—for those purchasing a three-bedroom unit. For one-bedroom units, their household income must not exceed the 75th percentile of BC families without children—currently $116,330. As of March 13, 2021, 902 Foul Bay Road had not been approved for the AHOP program. To give an example of the strength of these restrictions, somebody just arrived from Ontario, would not qualify, even if living in a tent. A family that part-owns a quarter-acre lot in Australia or earns $164,000 annually would also be ruled out. It remains to be seen how many prospective buyers there are who both meet the stringent qualifications and can afford to pay the mortgage. Aryze principal Luke Mari has said the three-bedroom townhouses would sell for $725,000 each, assuming that the project is approved under AHOP for the maximum 20 percent of the project’s market value. This means that the market value is 5/4 x $725,000 = $906,250. If, on the other hand, AHOP covers just 5 percent, the selling price would be $860,937—or approximately $136,000 more than the $725,000 figure quoted by Aryze. In an email, Mari responded, “Even though the BC Housing AHOP program allows the discount to be anywhere from 5-20 percent, we have committed to the City and BC Housing to use an income test methodology instead. This would cap the sale values of the one-beds at $375,000 and the three-beds at $725,000. This will be secured by a tri-party agreement should we move past committee of the whole.” Neighbours have expressed concerns about added traffic resulting from the addition of 18 new housing units, as well as parking issues. To judge by the latest version of the proposal, Aryze appears to be bending over backwards to support cycling over driving. The proposal includes a bike repair station and 36 bike stalls, but just 16 places to park a car. As well, it is promising 18 memberships in the Modo car-sharing service. Aryze claims there are no fewer than 841 street parking stalls within a five-minute walk. The proposal does not state how many of those stalls are already occupied much of the day. Signs like this abound throughout the neighbourhood Aryze proposes to plant 39 trees, of which 21 would be native, including 4 Garry Oaks. At the same time, it will remove 7 existing Garry Oaks, and two much-admired mature Copper Beech trees, among others. This has led to some of the most vociferous complaints, with signs throughout the neighbourhood proclaiming “Save the Trees at 902 Foul Bay.” Responding to criticism of the proposed tree-cutting, in an August 20, 2020 letter to neighbours, Mari said: “We take no pleasure from cutting down trees.” However, he added, “to retain all trees on the property, only a small single building can be built.” Mari also commented on the beech trees. “The two large beech trees, while beautiful, are in declining health and are non-native species,” he said in the letter, which did not mention the fact that nearly half of the promised new trees would also be non-native. Heritage concerns Though the house is now gone, the property’s landscape heritage designation means that any development project must still pass muster at the City of Victoria’s Heritage Advisory Panel. At the panel’s November 10, 2020 meeting, chair Pam Madoff—a longstanding heritage advocate—asked about the proposed removal of the beech trees. In response, architect Erica Sangster told the panel that the trees grow in a “challenging part of the site,” according to minutes of the meeting. “We tried to keep one of the copper beeches, but it was not in the best health,” added Sangster. “We had to choose which had to be removed. Ultimately both would need to be removed.” In the end, the development sailed through, with five voting in favour, and just Madoff opposed. In a later interview, Madoff told Focus that it’s rare for a property owner to designate the landscape, and she wants to honour that decision. “We are the stewards of that intention,” she says. The treed property at 902 Foul Bay Road, with two large copper beeches The loss of the two beech trees was a particular concern. “I just felt that there was not enough attention paid to the mature trees on the site,” Madoff says. Though not native, the beeches are a significant feature of the site, storing significant quantities of carbon that new trees would not. Monique Genton is a neighbour of the proposed project who would also like the older trees to remain. “There’s value in mature trees, even if they’re not native,” says Genton, a member of UVic’s Native Plant Study Group, and who is registered as a native-plant salvager in Saanich. She adds that the beech trees are very much loved by the neighbours. “The best tree is the one you’ve got.” A $2 million neighbourhood? In arguing that the 16 three-bedroom town homes will sell for $725,000 each, Mari said they would be far cheaper than the $2.1 million he says is the average price for a three-bedroom house in the neighbourhood. To some, that $2.1 million figure is on the high side. Madoff, for one, questions Mari’s claim regarding local house prices. “I thought that was very misleading,” she says, adding that the average price is likely much lower. A check of assessed values in the immediate area lends support to the view that the Aryze claim is far too high. BC Assessment lists nine properties as “neighbouring” 902 Foul Bay. Of these nine, just three are three-bedroom; one has two bedrooms. The average assessed value of these four properties is $971,624. Only four properties adjoin 902 Foul Bay, all on the north side. The 910 Foul Bay Road address consists of two properties, one of which has a 2,236-square-foot house; the other is vacant. The two properties are currently assessed at a total of $1,249,500. On Hawes Road, a small cul-de-sac that runs off Redfern Street, sit 1940 and 1946 Hawes. They are assessed at $846,000 and $910,000 respectively. The property at 910 Foul Bay that adjoins 902 makes for an interesting comparison with the Aryze proposal. The single house on the two properties at 910 occupies 0.47 acres, just less than 902’s half-acre. Put another way, this means that the Aryze proposal would result in 18 times more dwellings on roughly the same size lot as its only immediate, single-family, Foul Bay Road neighbour. One concern for neighbours is that if the Aryze proposal is approved by the City, it might set a precedent for subsequent redevelopment of nearby properties. The covenant: A hindrance or irrelevant? There is a longstanding covenant executed against the title of 902 Foul Bay Road, and approximately 100 neighbouring properties. Registered October 24, 1924, the covenant reads as follows: “No building is to be erected upon any lot other than a private dwelling house with suitable outbuildings; and no dwelling house to be erected upon any lot adjoining or fronting on Foul Bay Road shall cost less in erection thereof than Four Thousand Dollars ($4,000.00) and on other lots not less than Two thousand dollars ($2,000.00).” (The minimum prices for houses seems positively laughable in today’s runaway real estate prices; they reflect typical prices of nearly a century ago.) Such restrictive covenants remain in effect when the property passes on to successive owners. This feature of covenants is often referred to as “running with the land.” If enforced, this restrictive covenant may well rule out 18 townhouses on the lot. Or does it? Mari claims that some other properties covered by the covenant already violate it, since they have basement suites. Answering a question from Focus, Mari says the effect of the covenant is “unclear” regarding townhouses. “The covenant restricts the property to ‘private dwellings,’ but does that exclude townhouses?” Mari says in the emailed response. He adds, “The Strata Property Act did not exist at the time of drafting. Under property law, a strata townhouse is a form of private dwelling.” With regard to the trees, Mari notes, “the private covenant does not save the trees as the existing zoning rights allow potentially even broader tree removal in order to build out the four single-family dwellings under existing zoning.” In general, the practical impact of restrictive covenants is questionable. Many are found in older neighbourhoods, even predating zoning bylaws. Sometimes, they are placed by developers as a selling point, in an attempt to control the neighbourhood. They are technically separate and apart from anything the city does. Municipal governments are not obligated to abide by them, though some cities do take note of them in deciding on a proposal. In the case of Victoria, a City official told Focus the City ignores restrictive covenants in determining the fate of a proposed development. The only exception is when the City is a party to the covenant; in the case of 902 Foul Bay Road, it is not. Are restrictive covenants immutably attached to the properties they govern? The short answer: No. Under BC’s Property Law Act, a court may discharge a restrictive covenant. Section 35 of the Act lays down a number of conditions under which a restrictive covenant can be set aside. How difficult is that? According to an in-depth 2012 report on restrictive covenants for the British Columbia Law Institute, the threshold for modifying or cancelling a restrictive covenant under section 35 is “quite high.” Said the report: “The courts will not exercise the powers given by section 35 lightly, recognizing that a restrictive covenant is a valuable property right.” The report notes that restrictive covenants have been seen as “a useful means of protecting valuable interests connected with the use and enjoyment of land at a localized and private level that public planning does not reach.” On January 22, 2020, 902 Foul Bay Road property owner Lions West Homes Ltd filed a petition asking the BC Supreme Court to discharge the covenant. In support, Lions West lawyer Lindsay LeBlanc cited changes in the nature of the neighbourhood, as well as the covenant’s “impediment of practical use.” The petition claims that since the covenant was signed, “the neighbourhood has experienced significant densification with the restrictive covenant not being followed or enforced.” Noting that 31 of the approximately 100 lots to which the covenant applies have more than one dwelling, Lions West said in the petition that the restrictive covenant is now “obsolete,” and “is unreasonably impeding the petitioner’s plans to build on the property.” Representing a number of area residents, lawyer Kyle Hamilton filed a response to the Lions West petition on June 24, 2020. In the response, the neighbours said that the covenant provides them with a such practical benefits as natural beauty, the park-like feel of backyards due to the collective view of all yards together, peaceful setting of their homes, established green space, uniform visual appearances, low turnover rate of owners, and a sense of neighbourhood. In the court filing, the neighbours said that removing the covenant would lead to loss of privacy, increased residential noise and traffic, loss of the neighbourhood’s current character, removal and destruction of green space, and their uniform park-like view replaced with three storey, multi-family units. To the surprise of neighbours, on August 13, 2020—less than two months after the response was filed—Lions West asked the court to adjourn hearing the petition. Asked in March 2021 for the reason, Mari provided a single sentence in an email to Focus: “It was adjourned to gather additional material as requested by the respondents.” A threat? Or helpful advice? A letter from Aryze, headed “Common Questions and Answers” was distributed to residents served with petition materials in February 2020. It said that Aryze was pursuing removal of the covenant because there is a “potential grey area” between the proposed development and the covenant. “As such, we are pursuing the removal of this covenant for clarity moving forward,” said the letter. The Aryze letter also contained what some recipients regard as a threat. Said the letter: “While not ideal, we should note that if property owners decide to pursue legal action to oppose this discharge, and we are successful in the removal through the courts, we will be seeking legal compensation from those opposing property owners due to the added costs of additional court processes.” In their response filed with the court, the neighbours said the letter had two purposes. Quoting from the court filing, these are: “(a) To downplay the significance of the petition and what Aryze was seeking to do with the covenant and (b) threaten the respondents with possible financial repercussions should they oppose the removal of the covenant and lose.” Heritage advocate Madoff is not happy with Aryze’s statement that it will ask the court to order that opponents pay costs. “A letter like that would be very unsettling,” Madoff says. “The threat of an award of costs would be terrifying.” Asked for a response to residents’ concerns about that section of the letter distributed to the respondents, Mari said the following: “I can say with absolute sincerity, this portion of the letter was to give residents a clear understanding of what they were getting into,” Mari said in an email. “If they didn’t oppose, it’s a 3-4 week process to discharge the agreement, $5,000 in fees kind of thing. If they chose to oppose, it takes months and months and tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees. We take no joy in these situations and even conveyed that in a follow up letter that we welcomed their right to oppose but the added time, complexity, and costs then afforded us via the Courts to recoup some of those costs.” A neighbourhood website has been seeking donations to help cover legal costs. How many is too many? Despite their court-filed objections to the project, some neighbours regard an increase in density as acceptable. Neighbour Peter Nadler says that while some want no more than what current zoning allows on the site—four single-family houses—others would accept some densification, as long as most of the trees are preserved. “We have to accept increased density,” says Nadler, speaking for the second group. “What we’re after is balance.” Focus asked Mari if he would consider fewer townhouses on the property. He replied: “Yes, we could provide less homes on the property, but it would mean that we would be unable to provide 100 percent of the project under the BC Housing Affordable Home Ownership Program, which offers homes at more than 20 percent below market rates,” he said in an email. He also stated: “Regarding neighbour feedback, we have found some inconsistencies. On one hand some claim to express support for added density on the property but then are also seeking to enforce a restrictive covenant that limits the project to no added density, as the covenant supports the existing zoning to build four single family homes which will certainly be priced at well over $2m each. So we are left wondering which is it?” What’s next? The development proposal is expected to soon head to the City of Victoria’s committee of the whole to decide whether it merits proceeding to a public hearing. Aryze is well known to council members from numerous development proposals as well as its recent spearheading of a project to re-purpose shipping containers as tiny homes for 30 homeless citizens. As with other developers, Aryze officials were generous in their support for some candidates during Victoria’s 2018 municipal election. Mari donated $500 to the campaigns of successful council candidate Marianne Alto and Mayor Lisa Helps, according to Elections BC records. A $500 donation to Councillor Jeremy Loveday was declined by Loveday. Mari also gave to unsuccessful candidates Anna King ($500), and Grace Lore ($485.20). In addition, Aryze staffer Ryan Goodman donated $500 to Helps, and $485.20 to Lore. Donations to Victoria candidates from both Mari and Goodman in the 2018 campaign totalled $3,470.40. These donations fall well below the permitted limit. Elections BC rules set maximum individual donations to a single local election candidate at $1,200 for 2018. (Only individuals may contribute to candidates for municipal councils; companies, unions and other and organizations are now banned from reimbursing individuals who make campaign contributions.) While some claim donations from developers put council members in a conflict of interest, a recent ruling from the BC Supreme Court confirmed donations to local election candidates do not in themselves restrict successful candidates from voting on donors’ projects. Two lawyers with Vancouver-based law firm Young Anderson, Kathleen Higgins & Sarah Strukoff analyzed the court ruling in a January 12, 2021, report. “In summary, this case, along with others, suggests that a campaign contribution made by a developer, assuming it has been accepted in accordance with other applicable legislation such as the Local Elections Campaign Financing Act and even if made while the developer has an ‘in-stream’ application before council, is not a ground in and of itself for a disqualification of a council member on the basis of the conflict of interest provisions in the Community Charter.” Asked when he expects to see shovels in the ground, Mari replies: “In an optimistic world, Fall 2021.” As an intense wave of high-density development sweeps through Victoria, Madoff is troubled by what she sees as a common attitude about new projects, the mistaken view that there is no such thing as bad development. Says Madoff: “I really care about what’s happening to this city.” Russ Francis admits to liking both houses and trees—not necessarily in that order.
  11. I agree that residential wood burning is a serious problem. The BC Government reports that residential wood burning causes approximately 27 percent of BC's emissions of fine particulate matter (particles that are 2.5 microns or less in diameter, called PM 2.5), though in some areas the levels are much higher. The World Health Organization reports that there is no safe level for PM 2.5, which causes cancers, as well as serious heart and lung disease. As well, wood burning produces volatile organic compounds, carbon monoxide, and poly-cyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. And while BC's GHG inventory reports emissions from slash pile burning (3.3 Mt in 2018), it does not include this in BC's total emissions. How much does burning wood to heat homes contribute to GHG emissions? We don't know. The annual inventory lumps residential wood-burning in with all other types of home heating (4.1 Mt in 2018.) There is a common misconception that burning wood for heat is green, because trees absorb carbon dioxide when they are growing. In fact, it can be much worse than burning even fossil fuels, depending on how it is burnt and other factors. CleanBC's Better Homes program currently has rebates available for switching from wood heat to a high-efficiency central heat pump. Some become emotional about their dedication to wood burning, calling it cosy, traditional and romantic. To me, it's not terribly romantic living in a place where neighbours are dying from COPD--or on a planet made unlivable by GHG emissions.
  12. Globe and Mail columnist Scott Barlow says there is a quickly growing bubble in hydrogen stocks. Writing in the newspaper's February 15 issue, he says that "investors are currently pouring money into companies that won’t be profitable, or even have revenue in many cases, for many years." Adds Barlow: "Currently, 99 per cent of hydrogen is produced using fossil fuel-generated electricity."
  13. Image: An valley in BC's Interior fills with smoke from a forest fire. Three years after the New Democrats assumed power, BC is further behind in meeting emissions reductions targets. Go to story
  14. Three years after the New Democrats assumed power, BC is further behind in meeting emissions reductions targets. ON THE DAY FOLLOWING the BC government’s release of its 2020 Climate Change Accountability report, the December 17, 2020 Times Colonist front page was brimming with stories: COVID-19 rules, a column on government process, as well as a non-announcement of a possible future film studio, a story promising that unnamed investors for the studio were “hiding in the woodwork.” Notable for its absence—from the entire December 17 issue—was the one story that is arguably far more significant than nameless, invisible investors: that the target for BC’s greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions has become ever more distant; that the government failed to come through on its promise to tell us how it is going to meet the required emissions reductions. And that BC’s emissions are vastly larger than the usually quoted figures, once forest-management-related emissions are counted. A ProQuest newspaper database search revealed that the Times Colonist was not alone in its inattention. Three other large dailies—the Vancouver Sun, the Province and the Globe and Mail all ignored the report on BC’s worrisome emissions predicament in a year when the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change told us we had to begin reducing emissions if we are to avoid making Earth uninhabitable. Readers of some regional newspapers fared better. The Abbotsford News ran a Canadian Press story in its December 17, 2020 issue, a story that included critical comments from environmental organizations Stand.earth, Sierra Club BC, Georgia Strait Alliance, and the Pembina Institute. Though the National Post ran a version of the same December 16 Canadian Press story, it was much shortened, and omitted the environmental activists’ criticisms. CBC’s online news site also ran a condensed version of the Canadian Press story, but offered no in-depth analysis. And the only person quoted by CBC was Environment and Climate Change Strategy Minister George Heyman. Not one environmentalist. Climate crisis? What climate crisis? Carbon intensity: not a relevant measure So what does the Province’s 2020 Climate Change Accountability report tell us? For one thing it proudly points to progress on the carbon intensity front: “Between 2007 and 2018, net GHG emissions grew by 6 percent while the economy grew by 26 percent. That means that the GHG intensity of our economy decreased by 16 percent since 2007.” It notes that the carbon intensities of population and buildings also decreased. Emissions per person and per square meter of building space both fell in the same 2007–2018 period. Does that mean we’re winning the climate change battle? Not so fast. The planet doesn’t give a flying fig about the economy’s carbon intensity, nor about how many tonnes of GHGs each person or each square meter in buildings is responsible for. When it comes to global heating, the relevant number is total greenhouse gas emissions. To demonstrate how silly focusing on carbon intensity is, consider this: By doubling the province’s gross domestic product—such as by having many more car crashes—the BC economy’s carbon intensity would halve, other things being equal, while our total emissions could increase. The energy intensity of floor space has dropped by 22 percent for commercial buildings and 23 percent for residential. However, the total building energy use has increased, thanks to more and bigger buildings. Similarly for population. Needless to say, the last thing the planet needs is more people, even though boosting the population would almost certainly reduce per-person emissions. Unfortunately, our total emissions continue to increase. The last year for which emissions are available is 2018, the first full year of the NDP’s reign. In that year, they jumped from 65.8 to 67.9 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent (Mt CO2e), 3.3 percent over 2017. To put that figure in context, Oregon’s emissions fell 1.1 percent from 2017 to 2018, though they increased slightly the following year, according to preliminary data for 2019. Washington State’s emissions rose 1.3 percent and California’s increased 1.9 percent in 2018. Once more, BC is lagging its US partners in the Pacific Coast Collaborative when it comes to getting a grip on controlling emissions, and getting further away from its legislated emissions reduction goal of 40 percent below 2007 emissions by 2030. Accountability lacking in accountability report In some respects, Clean BC’s 2020 Climate Change Accountability Report seems to have been rushed out the door weeks before the December 31, 2020 deadline, a deadline the NDP itself laid down when introducing CleanBC in December 2018. The report lacks a critical piece of information: How does the government plan to close the 6.5 Mt gap in emission reductions needed to reach CleanBC’s 2030 reduction target of 25.4 Mt? According to Environment and Climate Change Strategy Minister George Heyman, writing in the report’s introduction: “We encountered unexpected challenges, and while we have not met this target date we will redouble our efforts…” Translation: We failed. We still know nothing about where those extra emission cuts are going to come from, crucial information that we were promised by now. Heyman is now saying the new road map will come by the end of 2021. But it gets worse. That 6.5 Mt gap is now between 7.2 Mt and 11.2 Mt, thanks to improved estimates from the government’s own modelling. A second major problem with the December 2020 accountability report is that it says nothing about how well CleanBC is working, on the grounds that emissions data for 2019, the first year of the program, are not yet available. For reasons that are unfathomable to me, it takes approximately two years for the federal and BC governments to agree on emissions data for each year. In other words, there is little in the way of accountability concerning CleanBC—in CleanBC’s own accountability report. Perhaps the report should instead have been entitled: “A collection of euphemistic fog.” For what it’s worth, the report does update emission projections for 2030, admittedly not an easy task. The latest model estimates that BC’s emissions will then total 47.2 Mt, up from the earlier estimate of 44.3 Mt. Besides the accountability report itself, two related documents have also been released recently. One is a November 26, 2020 letter from the government’s Climate Solutions Council, which advises the government on meeting emissions. The Council’s letter warned that BC is falling behind schedule in reaching its legislated targets of 40 percent below 2007 levels by 2030, 60 percent in 2040 and 80 percent in 2050. “Recent ministry modelling shows that BC is not at present on track to meet its 2030 greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions target,” said the letter. Hence the 7.2 Mt to 11.2 Mt in emissions reductions yet to be found. The government-appointed volunteer council includes environmentalists, labour representatives, First Nations, industry representatives and others. One member is Scott Maloney, the “vice-president, environment” of Teck Resources, a company whose claim to fame includes proposing the development of one of Canada’s largest tar sands projects, near Alberta’s Wood Buffalo National Park. (Following energetic opposition by environmentalists, in February, 2020 Teck dropped the $20 billion project.) Another Council member is Skye McConnell, a manager with Shell Canada, which is the main partner in the wholly foreign-owned LNG Canada project. McConnell, a registered Shell Canada lobbyist, lobbied various deputy ministers and other senior officials in several ministries no fewer than 11 times since September 2020. As of February 4, her last reported lobbying involved Les McLaren, an assistant deputy minister in the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources. Topics discussed at those meetings included “LNG Bunkering: exploring opportunities for use of LNG [liquefied natural gas] as a marine fuel.” Speaking of LNG: neither the Climate Solutions Council’s letter nor the accountability report itself even mentions the 8.14 Mt that the LNG Canada facility in Kitimat will add to BC’s emissions each year, purportedly starting years before CleanBC’s 2030 target date. As Marc Lee of BC’s Corporate Mapping Project has written: “BC’s targets are incompatible with provincial plans for an LNG export industry.” The second supporting document, released in January 2021, is Supporting the Development of CleanBC by Vancouver consultants Navius Research. Submitted to the BC Climate Action Secretariat, its 123 pages comprise a closely reasoned analysis of the methodology, assumptions and results of CleanBC. (More from Navius’s analysis below.) Offsets: like “Indulgences” in the Middle Ages The Province refers to 2018’s emissions of 67.9 Mt as “gross.” However, according to the December accountability report, the “net” emissions are 1.0 Mt smaller, once “offset” forestry projects are counted. These projects are those “that improve the storage of carbon dioxide in BC’s forests,” says the report. What are offsets? To explain, suppose that a factory currently emits 10 tonnes of CO2 -equivalent each year. Being a good corporate citizen, it wants to cut its emissions by 10 percent, but it proves costly to achieve this by modifying factory equipment. Instead, the facility buys one tonne of offsets from the BC Government’s offset program. That money might, for instance, be used to replace diesel generators in a remote northern community with solar- and wind-powered electricity. Consequently, emissions in the remote community fall, ideally by more than one tonne and at a lower cost than had the factory instead cut its own emissions. The result is an overall reduction in emissions. In this hypothetical example, the benefit is obvious. But BC’s offsets as specified in the accountability report involve forest management, and that suggests a problem. Mark Jaccard, who teaches sustainable energy at Simon Fraser University, helped design BC’s carbon tax in addition to other climate and energy policies. As well, he sits on the Climate Solutions Council. Jaccard’s 2020 book, The Citizen’s Guide to Climate Success, is arguably the best book in years on climate policy. Its tone is irreverent, attacking various widely-held tenets of climate policy. He doesn’t hold back when it comes to carbon offsets, comparing them with “indulgences” paid the church in the Middle Ages by rich Christians to expiate their sins. Jaccard is especially tough on forest-related offsets, citing a Costa Rican program to help conserve forest land. Nearly all the land covered by the program could not be used for anything but forests. “Thus, forest land owners received money for not cutting down forests they were not going to cut down anyway,” says Jaccard. Put another way, the program lacked “additionality”—the requirement that it result in lower emissions than would have happened otherwise. Doubtless pushed by Jaccard, in a November 26, 2020 advice letter to Heyman, the Climate Solutions Council advised of the risks inherent in relying on offsets to meet emissions targets. In a three-page appendix, it cited several problems with offsets, including a lack of additionality. Another problem, said the council in the letter, is that offsets can be a disincentive to invest in carbon reduction, by encouraging the purchase of offsets rather than reducing emissions. Consequently, I will disregard the claim that BC’s 1.0 Mt in forest offsets means that emissions are really down by that much. BC’s 67.9 Mt of  “gross emissions” were the actual emissions in 2018, according to the latest GHG inventory. Smoke from a forest fire fills a valley in the Interior of BC Ignoring an emissions elephant But the province’s actual emissions are far greater than even the gross emissions addressed in the accountability report. As Focus publisher David Broadland has pointed out, missing from the official count are those connected with “Other Land Use.” In 2018, emissions in this category, by the government's own figures, totalled 236.0 Mt—approximately 3.5 times as much as the 67.9 Mt mentioned above. What caused this huge glob of emissions? The vast majority, 199.7 Mt, came from one source: wildfires, which were worse in 2018 than the previous year—though not by much. In 2017, wildfires resulted in 163.3 Mt of GHG emissions. Why not count those “other land use” emissions, which amount to 88 percent of BC’s emissions? In a phrase—they’re not our fault. Says the inventory’s so-called methodology book: They “are more volatile and largely determined by natural factors outside of human control.” The Chutanli Lake forest fire in 2018. Many forest fires in BC start in or near clearcuts. Huh? If the recent upsurge in forest fires isn’t largely anthropogenic, I don’t know what is. Of course, it is not just BC or Canadian humans contributing to the jump in forest fires. Does that mean we shouldn’t worry about it? Hardly. How about BC leading the way, and taking climate change more seriously than concerning ourselves with CleanBC’s politically-motivated goals of cutting only some of the trifling 12 percent of our actual emissions? Besides, as Broadland’s research found, clearcut logging increases the risk of wildfire—which BC can do something about. Moreover, the carbon emissions prematurely released as a result of clearcut logging on publicly owned land are also huge. By international convention, emissions associated with tree cover loss are attributed to the year in which the tree cover loss occurred. Those emissions in BC, according to Broadland’s research, have been averaging about 110 megatonnes each year over the past 11 years, and are completely within the control of the BC government. For 2018, the Province acknowledged 41.4 megatonnes of such emissions, but doesn’t include them in its account of “total” emissions. Slash piles being burned after logging on publicly owned land on Quadra Island By not counting BC’s largest emission source, we are at an even greater risk of contributing to runaway global heating. Suppose, for the sake of argument, that BC somehow does manage to hit its CleanBC 2030 target of a 40 percent reduction in “net” GHGs. But omitted from the ebullient government press releases at the time—as now—will be logging and wildfire emissions, which will doubtless be even larger nine years from now, larger because there is no requirement to reduce them to meet CleanBC targets. In turn, this will lead to even higher logging and fire emissions. Sierra Club BC senior forest and climate campaigner Jens Wieting urges the BC government to include forestry emissions in its official GHG inventory. In a September 3, 2020 news release, Wieting objected to the Province ignoring the “exploding growth” of BC’s forest management emissions, including those caused by clearcut logging, slash burning and worsening climate impacts like wildfires and insect outbreaks. “It is not too late for the BC government to amend CleanBC to make sure it addresses forest emissions as part of its efforts towards an economic recovery strategy post COVID-19,” said Wieting. The gaping hole in BC’s emissions inventory makes the entire reporting mechanism under the so-called Climate Change Accountability Act for GHG reductions a sorry joke, a gutless public relations exercise—one that the politicians hope voters will not see through. Forest management expert Dr Peter Wood wrote a detailed February 1, 2021 report for Sierra Club BC calling for a radical revision of how BC’s forests are managed. In particular, says the report, unless we stop clearcutting we face more frequent and intense forest fires, as well as increased risk of flooding, droughts and heatwaves. Wood agrees that it is unacceptable to omit wildfire emissions from the provincial inventory, and calls this part of “the mathematics of convenience.” We can expect more such numerical shenanigans, Wood told Focus. “As countries are pressured into making bigger commitments on emissions reductions, the temptation to look for or create loopholes will also increase,” he says. The slightly good news Of the 67.9 Mt of carbon emissions CleanBC is prepared to admit, the biggest source is transportation (including heavy trucks, passenger vehicles, and off-road industrial transport), which spewed out 41 percent of the province’s emissions in 2018—an increase of 6 percent over 2017. Next came the oil and gas industry (20 percent), other industries (19 percent), buildings (12 percent), waste (5 percent) and deforestation (4 percent, but this does not include industrial forestry since the assumption is made that clearcut areas are replanted). (The percentages do not add to 100 percent, due to rounding.)    There are a couple of bright spots in the CleanBC accountability report. One is electric vehicles. Electric cars have become an easy fix for part of BC’s growing greenhouse gas emissions. In 2019, helped by provincial and federal subsidies, sales of electric light vehicles more than doubled from 2018 and the province has nearly met CleanBC’s 2025 target—that 10 percent of new car sales be zero-emission—five years early, says the accountability report. (The term “zero-emission vehicles” includes those powered by hydrogen, a fuel which, depending on how the hydrogen is produced, may not be zero-emission—but that also applies to electricity.) In 2020-21, BC budgeted $20 million for rebates for plug-in hybrids and battery-electric light vehicles. The funding is growing. In the year beginning April 1, 2021, the Province will nearly double its spending on rebates, to $38 million. The Navius modelling assumes that this higher amount will continue through 2030. Thanks to the additional rebates, much cheaper batteries, and sharply reduced operating costs for electric cars—e.g., no oil changes, engine tuneups, or transmission repairs—it’s likely that the 2040 target that every new light-duty vehicle be zero-emission will also be reached early. As a result, Navius estimates that emissions from light-duty vehicles will drop 24 percent by 2030 from the 8.5 Mt they produced in 2020—about 10 percent of last year’s total emissions (i.e., without counting forest fires etc.) They would fall more, except for the fact that in 2030 there will still be many fossil-fuelled vehicles on the road. Another success lies in home heating, which represented 12 percent of 2018’s 67.9 Mt emissions. In 2019, the proportion of households warmed and cooled by heat pumps sat at 10 percent, more than three times the percentage in 2007, says the accountability report. Heat pump installations will likely continue to increase sharply, since government incentive money is projected to nearly quintuple in the next few years. By complete coincidence, these pending large increases in money to help voters buy nicer cars and home heating systems will take effect in the run-up to the next provincial election, due in October 2024. (Of course, Premier John Horgan has been known to ignore legislated election dates.) Despite these minor successes, BC’s total emissions continue to increase, while NASA reports that 2020 was tied with 2016 as the warmest year on record. Yet the Province still has no complete plan to help reverse this alarming trend. Russ Francis notes that a January 31, 2021 New Zealand Climate Change Commission report advises cutting livestock numbers in that country 15 percent by 2030 as a means of reducing biogenic methane emissions. The freed-up land in that country, heavily dependent on the animal exploitation industry, would instead be used for agriculture and exotic forestry. In BC, animal production caused 2.0 Mt of emissions in 2018. Yet CleanBC is silent on the issue.
  15. Posted December 30 2020 Late, over budget and made worse by the coronavirus, will “Canada’s largest infrastructure project” ever produce one gram of liquefied natural gas? Go to story
×
×
  • Create New...