Science, politics to play role in future of energy

When Prime Minister Stephen Harper said this week that “science” would determine the fate of the proposed Northern Gateway oilsands pipeline it seemed reasonable to assume it would be the same science that governs Canada’s GHG reduction strategy: political science.

With the emphasis, presumably, on the former.

For instance, Environment Canada reported this week that Canada is halfway to its goal of reducing emissions of greenhouse gas linked to global warming by 2020. Skepticism ensued.

Given the links between pipelines, oilsands and GHG emissions in Canada and the debate about science and climate change globally, it was a telling intersection of near-term Canadian political dynamics and long-term environmental consequences of petroleum-based economies.

There are political overtones to all energy and environment matters in Canada under Harper’s Tory government.

There’s been progress — although Environment Canada’s report is mostly based on projections and estimates — toward what are less-ambitious GHG reduction goals for Canada than under the 1997 Kyoto Protocol.

Canada’s “accomplishment” in 2010 was modest, at best: carbon dioxide emissions were 692 million tonnes, slightly higher than 2009.

The Canadian government has made commitments to reduce GHGs since 1992. All the while emissions have risen. The goal now is to get back to 2005 levels by 2020.

P. J. Partington of the Pembina Institute concluded Environment Canada’s latest report “is overstating its own efforts to tackle greenhouse gas emissions and understating the challenge.”

Environment Canada noted essentially all provinces made progress in reducing GHG emissions with one notable exception. The report’s concentration on what amounts to the exhaust records of human and industrial activity simply confirms Alberta is the economic engine of Canada.

With GHG-intensive production of oilsands forecast to almost double by 2020 to 3.3 million barrels a day, it’s hard to envision a scenario where Alberta’s continued pumping out of more carbon dioxide isn’t going to create political ramifications. Quebec, Ontario and British Columbia have all expressed concern over essentially unmitigated oilsands development in Alberta.

It’s interesting that Environment Canada’s report noted how Ottawa launched emissions reductions programs in the transportation and electricity sectors, but when it came to addressing regulations for the Calgary-based oil and gas industry repeatedly referenced a “partnership” with the sector.

With a prime minister from Calgary, who champi- ons global markets for Canadian oil and gas, it gives critics and cynics plenty of ammunition.

The bad news is Canada’s accomplishments so far were the easy part.

In May, The National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy said Canada wasn’t likely to make up the remaining 50 per cent of its emissions target without significant new government measures.

“No other conclusion is possible,” warned the soonto-be-disbanded federal agency.

There’s still an exit strategy. Canada’s 2010 submission to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change noted the GHG target is to be “aligned with the final economywide emissions target of the United States in enacted legislation.”

As long as the next president, or two, can get climate change legislation through the U.S. Congress, then Canada has its target. Skepticism abounds.

Then again, Harper walked away from Kyoto when it became evident Canada had no ability, or political will, to meet its targets.

There has been progress. Between 2005 and 2010, Canada’s economy grew by 6.3 per cent but GHG emissions fell by 6.5 per cent. Environment Canada called it a clear “decoupling” of emissions and economic growth. Others said it actually reflects a more servicebased economy.

Since 1990, GHG emissions globally have increased more than 40 per cent. Canada’s emissions are rising at about half that rate. GHGs hit a record 34 billion tonnes globally in 2011 and Canada produced about two per cent.

As Harper touted science to resolve routing concerns for West Coast pipelines, the world of environmental science has been taken aback by a prominent U.S. climate change skeptic’s about-face.

As emissions rise, Berkeley professor Richard Muller now says human GHG emissions are almost entirely to blame for global warming.

“Call me a converted skeptic,” Muller wrote in the New York Times.

It seemed like a deathbed confession, minus the death, but given there are some seven billion living, breathing and consuming people on Earth essentially all wanting one thing — more — it’s hardly a radical conclusion.

More interesting is the fact the oil-rich anti-Kyoto Koch Brothers, through the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation, funded the studies that prompted Muller’s flip-flop. The Foundation has subsequently said its only interest is “sound, non-partisan, scientific research.”

Apparently, its now all the rage to support science, not politics, to resolve environmental challenges.

Call me an unconverted skeptic.