Category Archives: Climate Change

Atlantic Canada faces climate consequences for our energy choices

November 24, 2013Climate Change, Climate SciencefeaturedDr. David Suzuki

Atlantic Canada faces climate consequences for our energy choices — Hurricane Earl strikes Peggys Cove, Nova Scotia, in 2010. (Andrew Vaughan/CP)

David Suzuki Foundation supporters who live in Western Canada often have eyes riveted on Ottawa to see what the federal government’s next move will be when it comes to environmental issues. So we sometimes too easily overlook Canadians in the Maritimes and Newfoundland and Labrador – coastal regions, like ours, on the front lines of climate change.

As oceans warm, water expands and sea levels rise. Melting glaciers, icebergs and ice sheets add to the water volume. Scientists predict oceans could rise by more than a metre before the end of the century. They’re also increasingly convinced that escalating carbon emissions are linked to the risk of extreme weather events and intensified storms, such as the recent Typhoon Haiyan in the Philippines or super storm Sandy in the U.S. in 2012. A key finding from the latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report is that Atlantic Canada faces similar risks if climate change is left unchecked, with more severe storms causing surging tides, flooding and widespread coastal erosion.

Climate change already affecting Atlantic Canada

For his captivating documentary, Climate Change in Atlantic Canada, Ian Mauro, an environmental and social scientist at Mount Allison University in New Brunswick, interviewed farmers, fishers, local residents, First Nations community members, scientists and business people from all around the Atlantic provinces. All say climate change is affecting their communities and livelihoods. They also agree something must be done and that the “business as usual” scenario is no longer an option.

Extreme energy, extreme weather

The heart of the problem is our seemingly unquenchable thirst for mainly fossil-fuel based energy resources. As our desire for comfort and efficiency grows, so does our energy consumption, prompting the search for sources increasingly difficult to extract. The words tar sands, shale gas, offshore drilling and fracking have only entered our vocabulary in just the past few decades – including in Atlantic communities, many of which now also rely on these fossil-based industries to fuel economic prosperity.

But with current talks about oil and gas exploration in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, shale gas fracking in New Brunswick, and moving tar sands bitumen from Alberta to the East Coast, we must ask if economic profit and prosperity for a few are worth the environmental and social risks to so many – especially when the latest IPCC report suggests that to avoid global catastrophic climate chaos, we must leave much of the known reserves of fossil fuels in the ground.

Increased wealth ≠ improved health

In light of what the scientific community is telling us about the scope and impacts of climate change – largely a result of burning fossil fuels – we owe it ourselves and our children and grandchildren to consider the implications of the choices we’re about to make in Atlantic Canada and the rest of the country. As former Environment and Sustainable Development Commissioner Scott Vaughan reminded us before leaving his position earlier this year, Canada is not prepared for a major oil spill off the East Coast. And, as New Brunswick Chief Medical Health Officer Eilish Cleary points out regarding the economics of shale gas development:

[quote][We] cannot simply assume that more money equates to a healthier population.[/quote]

Oil and gas development threatens valuable tourism economy

Coastal regions such as Atlantic Canada have a long cultural history based largely on fishing, tourism and other marine activities. Although fossil-fuel activities have been in Atlantic Canada for decades, proposed new on- and offshore energy projects will likely put Atlantic Canada’s existing economy and way of life at risk, affecting tourism and fishing in the ocean and on rivers like New Brunswick’s famous Miramichi.

We have a choice

When it comes to climate change, our future will not be determined by chance but by choice. We can choose to ignore the science, or we can change our ways and reduce carbon emissions and our dependence on fossil fuels. It’s up to us and our leaders to consider and promote energy alternatives and other solutions that modernize our energy systems, provide a clean, healthy environment for our families and offer long-term economic prosperity.

I’ll be touring Atlantic Canada with local and national experts at the end of November, premiering Mauro’s film and holding conversations with Atlantic communities about climate change and energy issues. Please join us and be part of the solution!

With contributions from David Suzuki Foundation-Quebec Science Project Manager Jean-Patrick Toussaint.

International Coal Summit’s pipe dream of carbon capture & storage

November 18, 2013Climate Change, Coal, Energy and ResourcesfeaturedKevin Grandia

A new study released today at the UN climate conference underway in Warsaw, Poland finds that new coal plants cannot be built if we are to keep global warming below the 2° Celsius threshold.

That is, unless the coal industry can deploy commercial-scale carbon capture and storage (CCS).

The report, titled: New unabated coal is not compatible with keeping global warming below 2°C, finds that of all the fossil fuels, coal is the easiest to substitute with renewable technologies and that:

[quote]The current global trend of coal use is consistent with an emissions pathway above the IEA’s [International Energy Agency] 6°C scenario. That risks an outcome that can only be described as catastrophic, beyond anything that mankind has experienced during its entire existence on earth.[/quote]

In other words, CCS better work and work fast.

Carbon capture on agenda at coal conference

Down the road from the UN conference, the Polish government (of all people) is hosting the “International Coal and Climate Summit” which heavily features CCS experts and discussion panels.

There will likely be little talk at the coal summit of just how ridiculous the idea of commercially deployed CCS is becoming.

Carbon capture and storage technology has been a “future” solution for many years now, with governments abandoning experimental projects due to cost overruns and lack of progress. Governments like the United States, at the behest of the coal lobby, have pumped billions into CCS technology experiments, yet it continues to fail as a commercially viable option.

A recent study by the Global CCS Institute found that the number of large scale CCS projects has dropped to 65 from 75 over the last year. If this was the grand solution to the urgent issue of climate change, you would think we would be seeing more projects coming on line, not fewer.

Even if we saw a breakthrough in CCS, huge issues remain. The first hurdle is finance.

As renewable energy technology prices continue to drop and reach parity with fossil fuels like coal (something we are already seeing), CCS begins to make less and less sense from a financial point of view. Coal prices will inevitably go up to cover the costs of CCS development making it uncompetitive with renewable energy.

A second big hurdle is regulation of carbon storage. CCS can only work as a solution to climate change if the captured carbon stays safely in the ground forever. So who is in charge of ensuring that all that carbon stays underground? Coal companies? If a coal company takes on that responsibility, what happens when that company goes under? Who then is responsible? Taxpayers?

What if there’s an earthquake near a carbon storage facility? A recent study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science concludes that even a small earthquake event in the US has the potential to release stored carbon back into the atmosphere, making “large-scale CCS a risky, and likely unsuccessful, strategy for significantly reducing greenhouse gas emissions.”

In the United States, the coal industry argues that the government (read: taxpayers) should take on the responsibility and the liability for stored carbon – a convenient stance for the coal industry.

Finally there are the logistics of capturing carbon and moving it either by pipeline, train or truck to a designated storage facility.

A 2008 article on CCS by author Jeff Goodell describes the challenge of transporting carbon best:

[quote]Vaclav Smil, an energy expert at the University of Manitoba, Canada, argued recently in Nature that ‘carbon sequestration is irresponsibly portrayed as an imminently useful option for solving the challenge [of global warming].’ Smil pointed out that to sequester just 25% of the CO2 emitted by stationary sources (mostly coal plants), we would have to create a system whose annual volume of fluid would be slightly more than twice that of the world’s crude-oil industry.[/quote]

Smil’s own words, to sequester just a fifth of current CO2 emissions:

[quote]… we would have to create an entirely new worldwide absorption-gathering-compression-transportation- storage industry whose annual throughput would have to be about 70 percent larger than the annual volume now handled by the global crude oil industry whose immense infrastructure of wells, pipelines, compressor stations and storages took generations to build.[/quote]

Any practical thinker should by now be asking themselves: Wouldn’t it just be easier to put up a bunch of solar panels and wind turbines?

Unfortunately, the mythical distraction of ‘clean coal’ and still unrealized CCS commercialization remain a shiny penny for the technocentric crowd.

Japan puts global climate change action in jeopardy

November 16, 2013Carbon Tax - Cap and Trade, Climate ChangefeaturedCanadian Press

WARSAW, Poland – Japan’s decision to drastically scale back its target for reducing greenhouse gas emissions could hurt efforts to craft a global deal to fight climate change, delegates at U.N. talks said Friday.

The new target approved by the Japanese Cabinet calls for reducing emissions by 3.8 per cent from their 2005 level by 2020.

The revision was necessary because the earlier goal of a 25 per cent reduction from the 1990 level was unrealistic, the chief government spokesman, Yoshihide Suga, told reporters in Tokyo.

The new target represents a 3 per cent increase over 1990 emissions.

Given Japan’s status as the world’s third largest economy and fifth largest source of greenhouse gas emissions, the decision to back away from the more ambitious target could be a significant setback for efforts to reach a new global climate agreement in 2015.

The European Union’s delegates at the climate talks in Warsaw “expressed disappointment,” while U.N. climate chief Christiana Figueres summed up the mood by saying there’s “regret” over Japan’s decision.

However, she praised Japan’s advances in increasing energy efficiency and in solar energy investments, and predicted that the Japanese “will soon see that the current target is actually conservative.”

“I don’t have any words to describe my dismay,” China’s official Xinhua News Agency cited Su Wei, deputy chief of the Chinese delegation to the climate talks, as telling reporters in Warsaw.

Japanese delegate Hiroshi Minami acknowledged that “most of the developing countries are very disappointed” with the move.

Under the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, Japan pledged to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 6 per cent to 1.186 billion tons a year on average over the five years to March 2013.

It has since opted out of the agreement, though came close to meeting that goal before the 2011 accident at the Fukushima Dai-Ichi nuclear power plant prompted shut-downs of all nuclear plants for safety checks.

The resulting shift back toward reliance on coal, oil and gas for power, and use of diesel generators, has hindered further progress.

Emissions in the fiscal year that ended in March were up 2.8 per cent from the year before, and at 1.207 billion tons, the second highest after a record 1.218 billion tons in fiscal 2007.

Climate activists following the talks in Warsaw named Japan “fossil of the day,” a dubious honour meant to tag a country blocking progress on combating climate change. Dressed up in dark suits to look like Cabinet ministers, the activists ate sushi over colleagues pretending to be victims of the typhoon that has killed thousands of people in the Philippines.

Wael Hmaidan, director of Climate Action Network, called Japan’s move “outrageous,” saying in Warsaw that it will have a “serious and negative impact on the negotiations.”

Oxfam spokeswoman Kelly Dent said Japan’s “dramatic U-turn” is a “slap in the face for poor countries” struggling with climate change.

The new goal announced Friday doesn’t take into account possible emissions reductions if Japan restarts some of its nuclear plants, as the government is hoping to do. So it will be revised before the next climate pact is due to be set two years from now, said Masami Tamura, director of the Foreign Ministry’s Climate Change Division.

Tokyo also is planning to provide $16 billion in aid for emissions reductions in developing countries and to commit $110 billion to research on energy and the environment.

Before the Fukushima disaster, Japan’s carbon emissions were on a par with European industrial nations such as France, Germany and Britain.

They will hit 1.227 billion tons this year, the government-affiliated Institute of Energy Economics Japan estimates, up nearly 16 per cent from 1990.

AP Business Writer Elaine Kurtenbach in Tokyo and AP writer Karl Ritter in Stockholm contributed to this report.

Blame Canada’s carbon complacency for the Philippine typhoon

November 15, 2013Climate ChangefeaturedKevin Grandia

Blame Canada's carbon complacency for the Philippine typhoon — Fort McMurray, Alberta (photo: Kris Krüg)

The human tragedy playing out in the Philippines deserves a moment of pause to think about how we can help and to reflect on what it must be like to be in the shoes of a mother or a son who has lost everything.

Experts are saying Typhoon Haiyan is the strongest ever recorded. Anyone who thinks that this typhoon is not due to the atmospheric disruption and rising sea levels resulting from our changing climate has their head firmly planted in the comfortable soil of ignorance, ideology or both.

Scientists at esteemed organization like NASA and the Royal Society have been warning us for years that warmer oceans will lead to stronger weather events, like typhoons and hurricanes, and rising sea levels will lead to larger and more devastating storm surges.

Something is definitely up with the weather

Typhoon Haiyan is the latest and most poignant, not to mention the most tragic, example of what is in store for humanity as governments like Canada continue to allow fossil fuel producers to pump carbon pollution into our atmosphere unregulated.

So if we know that the intensity and devastating impacts of Typhoon Haiyan are a result of climate change and record levels of industrial greenhouse gas, what is Canada’s level of responsibility for what happened in the Philippines?

The impacts of climate change are a cruel joke in that it is the poorest most vulnerable countries that are being hit the hardest, but it is the developed nations, countries like the US and Canada, who are responsible for the majority of the climate pollution in the atmosphere.

Canada, who is by far one of the largest producers of greenhouse gas, will likely not see any major impacts of climate change for many decades. The Philippines by comparison is a very minor producer of carbon pollution, but that country is feeling the results of Canada’s unwillingness to act on climate change. Industry in Canada gets to drink Tequila all day long, but it is developing nations that are feeling the nasty hangover.

Canadians want climate leadership

To be clear, I am not blaming individual Canadians for what happened in the Philippines. Canadians want leadership on climate change and they are demanding that the government listen.

I am blaming Typhoon Haiyan on the Canadian government and all those actively involved in blocking moves to reduce carbon emissions and cheerleading the accelerated expansion of carbon-intensive resources like the oil sands.

In a functioning democracy the will of the majority ultimately dictates decisions by lawmakers. Unfortunately our democracy isn’t working too well at the moment, with divided parties, split votes, weak-willed leaders and a majority government not elected by the majority of the people.

As individuals we can switch all our lightbulbs to CFC. drive less and make our houses more efficient etc., but all those actions (while very important) are not going to come close to compensating for a federal government that refuses to put in place the measures needed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by industry. This is a government that refuses to listen to the people.

A recent opinion poll found that more than 76% of Canadians want our government to sign on to an international agreement to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions,. The Canadian government not only refuses to do sign a deal, it is considered a laggard at climate negotiations by many in civil society. This weekend there are events planned across the country to put pressure on our government leaders to regulate carbon emissions and halt projects like the Keystone XL and Northern Gateway pipelines.

These carbon mega-projects ensure that Canada will continue to grow as a source of greenhouse gas. They will also ensure more destruction and dead children on the other side of the planet. Watch CNN’s coverage of Typhoon Haiyan tonight.

Look at the dead children covered in tarps as their mother sits in the rubble that was once their house, and I dare you not to show up this weekend and demand our country lead on climate change.

Typhoon Haiyan tragedy shows urgency of Warsaw climate summit

November 12, 2013Carbon Tax - Cap and Trade, Climate Change, Climate SciencefeaturedDr. David Suzuki

As people in the Philippines struggle with the devastation and death from the worst storm to hit land in recorded history – Typhoon Haiyan – world leaders are meeting in Warsaw, Poland, to discuss the climate crisis. “What my country is going through as a result of this extreme climate event is madness. The climate crisis is madness,” Yeb Sano, lead negotiator for the Philippines, told the opening session of the UN climate summit, which runs until November 22. “We can stop this madness. Right here in Warsaw.”

[quote]The only hindrance to developing a fair, ambitious and legally binding climate plan for the world is lack of political will.[/quote]

Given the slow progress at the 18 meetings held since 1992 – when countries from around the world joined the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change – it’s hard not to be pessimistic. Canada, in particular, has been repeatedly singled out among the close to 200 member countries for obstructing progress and not doing enough to address climate change at home.

Lack of political will is main challenge to tackling climate change

But as scientific evidence continues to build, and impacts – from extreme weather to melting Arctic ice – continue to worsen, with costs mounting daily, the impetus to resolve the problem is growing. We’re exhausting Earth’s finite resources and pushing global ecosystems to tipping points, beyond which addressing pollution and climate issues will become increasingly difficult and costly. The only hindrance to developing a fair, ambitious and legally binding climate plan for the world is lack of political will.

Part of the problem is that much of the world is tied to the fossil fuel economy, and the rush is on to get as much oil, coal and gas out of the ground and to market while people are still willing to pay for it and burn it up. We’re wasting precious resources in the name of quick profits, instead of putting them to better use than propelling often solo occupants in large metal vehicles, and instead of making them last while we shift to cleaner energy sources.

Solutions to climate change are real and available

But there’s cause for hope. Solutions are available. Governments just have to demonstrate courage and leadership to put us on a path to a healthier future.

For example, a recent report by energy consulting firm ECOFYS, “Feasibility of GHG emissions phase-out by mid-century”, shows it’s technically and economically feasible to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions to zero from 90 per cent of current sources with readily available technology. It shows we could phase out almost all net emissions by 2050 by innovating further. In doing so, we could likely meet the agreed-upon goal of limiting global average temperature increases to below 2 C, and we’d stand a 50 per cent chance of staying below 1.5 C by the end of the century. All of this would have the added benefit of reducing “water, air and soil pollution associated with traditional energy generation.”

The report echoes the David Suzuki Foundation’s findings regarding Canada’s potential to meet its current and forecasted demand for fuel and electricity with existing supplies of solar, wind, hydroelectric and biomass energy.

Whether or not any of this is politically feasible is another question. But the longer we delay the more difficult and expensive it will get.

Poll: climate change a top political priority for Canadians

Polling research also shows Canadians expect our government to be a constructive global citizen on climate action. A recent Leger Marketing survey sponsored by Canada 2020 and the University of Montreal found the majority of Canadians understand that human activity is contributing to climate change and believe the federal government should make addressing the issue a high priority. Of those polled, 76 per cent said Canada should sign an international treaty to limit greenhouse gas emissions, with most supporting this even if China does not sign.

The poll also found majority support for a carbon tax as one way to combat climate change, especially if the money generated is used to support renewable energy development. Although B.C. has recently stepped back from previous leadership on climate change, its carbon tax is one example among many of local governments doing more than the federal government to address climate change.

Typhoon Haiyan a wake-up call for climate summit

We and our leaders at all political levels – local, national and international – must do everything we can to confront the crisis. As Mr. Sano told delegates in Warsaw, “We cannot sit and stay helpless staring at this international climate stalemate. It is now time to take action. We need an emergency climate pathway.”

With contributions from David Suzuki Foundation Senior Editor Ian Hanington.

World Energy Outlook 2013 – Executive Summary

November 12, 2013Climate Change, Climate Science, Energy and ResourcesCommon Sense Canadian

Executive Summary from the World Energy Outlook 2013

The International Energy Agency’s authoritative World Energy Outlook provides an analysis of global energy markets highlighting the world’s energy and environmental challenges.

Orientation for a fast-changing energy world

[quote]Many of the long-held tenets of the energy sector are being rewritten.[/quote] Major importers are becoming exporters, while countries long-defined as major energy exporters are also becoming leading centres of global demand growth. The right combination of policies and technologies is proving that the links between economic growth, energy demand and energy-related CO2 emissions can be weakened. The rise of unconventional oil and gas and of renewables is transforming our understanding of the distribution of the world’s energy resources. Awareness of the dynamics underpinning energy markets is essential for decisionmakers attempting to reconcile economic, energy and environmental objectives. Those that anticipate global energy developments successfully can derive an advantage, while those that fail to do so risk making poor policy and investment decisions. This edition of the World Energy Outlook (WEO-2013) examines the implications of different sets of choices for energy and climate trends to 2035, providing insights along the way that can help policymakers, industry and other stakeholders find their way in a fast-changing energy world.

[quote]The centre of gravity of energy demand is switching decisively to the emerging economies, particularly China, India and the Middle East, which drive global energy use one-third higher. [/quote]In the New Policies Scenario, the central scenario of WEO-2013, China dominates the picture within Asia, before India takes over from 2020 as the principal engine of growth. Southeast Asia likewise emerges as an expanding demand centre (a development covered in detail in the WEO Special Report: Southeast Asia Energy Outlook, published in October 2013). China is about to become the largest oil-importing country and India becomes the largest importer of coal by the early 2020s. The United States moves steadily towards meeting all of its energy needs from domestic resources by 2035. Together, these changes represent a re-orientation of energy trade from the Atlantic basin to the Asia-Pacific region. High oil prices, persistent differences in gas and electricity prices between regions and rising energy import bills in many countries focus attention on the relationship between energy and the broader economy. The links between energy and development are illustrated clearly in Africa, where, despite a wealth of resources, energy use per capita is less than one-third of the global average in 2035. Africa today is home to nearly half of the 1.3 billion people in the world without access to electricity and one-quarter of the 2.6 billion people relying on the traditional use of biomass for cooking. Globally, fossil fuels continue to meet a dominant share of global energy demand, with implications for the links between energy, the environment and climate change.

[quote]As the source of two-thirds of global greenhouse-gas emissions, the energy sector will be pivotal in determining whether or not climate change goals are achieved.[/quote] Although some carbon abatement schemes have come under pressure, initiatives such as the President’s Climate Action Plan in the United States, the Chinese plan to limit the share of coal in the domestic energy mix, the European debate on 2030 energy and climate targets and Japan’s discussions on a new energy plan all have the potential to limit the growth in energy-related CO2 emissions. In our central scenario, taking into account the impact of measures already announced by governments to improve energy efficiency, support renewables, reduce fossil-fuel subsidies and, in some cases, to put a price on carbon, energy-related CO2 emissions still rise by 20% to 2035. This leaves the world on a trajectory consistent with a long-term average temperature increase of 3.6 °C, far above the internationally agreed 2 °C target.

Who has the energy to compete?

[quote]Large differences in regional energy prices have sparked a debate about the role of energy in unleashing or frustrating economic growth.[/quote] Brent crude oil has averaged $110 per barrel in real terms since 2011, a sustained period of high oil prices that is without parallel in oil market history. But unlike crude oil prices, which are relatively uniform worldwide, prices of other fuels have been subject to significant regional variations. Although gas price differentials have come down from the extraordinary levels seen in mid-2012, natural gas in the United States still trades at one-third of import prices to Europe and one-fifth of those to Japan. Electricity prices also vary, with average Japanese or European industrial consumers paying more than twice as much for power as their counterparts in the United States, and even Chinese industry paying almost double the US level. In most sectors, in most countries, energy is a relatively minor part of the calculation of competitiveness. But energy costs can be of crucial importance to energy-intensive industries, such as chemicals, aluminium, cement, iron and steel, paper, glass and oil refining, particularly where the resulting goods are traded internationally. Energy-intensive sectors worldwide account for around one-fifth of industrial value added, one-quarter of industrial employment and 70% of industrial energy use.

[quote]Energy price variations are set to affect industrial competitiveness, influencing investment decisions and company strategies.[/quote] While regional differences in natural gas prices narrow in our central scenario, they nonetheless remain large through to 2035 and, in most cases, electricity price differentials persist. In many emerging economies, particularly in Asia, strong growth in domestic demand for energy-intensive goods supports a swift rise in their production (accompanied by export expansion). But relative energy costs play a more decisive role in shaping developments elsewhere. The United States sees a slight increase in its share of global exports of energy-intensive goods, providing the clearest indication of the link between relatively low energy prices and the industrial outlook. By contrast, the European Union and Japan both see a strong decline in their export shares – a combined loss of around one-third of their current share.

Searching for an energy boost to the economy

[quote]Countries can reduce the impact of high prices by promoting more efficient, competitive and interconnected energy markets.[/quote] Cost differentials between regional gas markets could be narrowed further by more rapid movement towards a global gas market. As we examine in a Gas Price Convergence Case, this would require a loosening of the current rigidity of liquefied natural gas (LNG) contracting structures and oil-indexed pricing mechanisms, spurred by accelerated gas market reforms in the Asia-Pacific region and LNG exports from North America (and an easing of costs for LNG liquefaction and shipping). There is also potential in some regions, notably China, parts of Latin America and even parts of Europe, to replicate at smaller scale the US success in developing its unconventional gas resources, though uncertainty remains over the quality of the resources, the costs of their production and, in some countries, public acceptance for their development.

[quote]A renewed focus on energy efficiency is taking hold and is set to deliver benefits that extend well beyond improvements in competitiveness.[/quote] Notable policies introduced over the past year include measures targeting efficiency improvements in buildings in Europe and Japan, in motor vehicles in North America and in air conditioners in parts of the Middle East, and energy pricing reforms in China and India. As well as bringing down costs for industry, efficiency measures mitigate the impact of energy prices on household budgets (the share of energy in household spending has reached very high levels in the European Union) and on import bills (the share of energy imports in Japan’s GDP has risen sharply). But the potential for energy efficiency is still far from exhausted: two-thirds of the economic potential of energy efficiency is set to remain untapped in our central scenario.

[quote]Action is needed to break down the various barriers to investment in energy efficiency.[/quote] This includes phasing out fossil-fuel subsidies, which we estimate rose to $544 billion worldwide in 2012. Enhancing energy competitiveness does not mean diminishing efforts to tackle climate change. The WEO Special Report: Redrawing the Energy-Climate Map, published in June 2013 identified four pragmatic measures – improving efficiency, limiting the construction and use of the least-efficient coal-fired power plants, minimising methane emissions in upstream oil and gas, and reforming fossil-fuel subsidies – that could halt the increase in emissions by 2020 without harming economic growth. This package of measures would complement the developments already envisaged in our central scenario, notably the rise in deployment of renewable energy technologies. Governments need, though, to be attentive to the design of their subsidies to renewables, which surpassed $100 billion in 2012 and expand to $220 billion in 2035. As renewables become increasingly competitive on their own merits, it is important that subsidy schemes allow for the multiple benefits of low-carbon energy sources without placing excessive burdens on those that cover the additional costs. A carefully conceived international climate change agreement can help to ensure that the energy-intensive industries in countries that act decisively to limit emissions do not face unequal competition from countries that do not.

Light tight oil shakes the next ten years, but leaves the longer term unstirred

[quote]The capacity of technologies to unlock new types of resources, such as light tight oil (LTO) and ultra-deepwater fields, and to improve recovery rates in existing fields is pushing up estimates of the amount of oil that remains to be produced. But this does not mean that the world is on the cusp of a new era of oil abundance.[/quote] An oil price that rises steadily to $128 per barrel (in year-2012 dollars) in 2035 supports the development of these new resources, though no country replicates the level of success with LTO that is making the United States the largest global oil producer. The rise of unconventional oil (including LTO) and natural gas liquids meets the growing gap between global oil demand, which rises by 14 mb/d to reach 101 mb/d in 2035, and production of conventional crude oil, which falls back slightly to 65 mb/d.

[quote]The Middle East, the only large source of low-cost oil, remains at the centre of the longer-term oil outlook.[/quote] The role of OPEC countries in quenching the world’s thirst for oil is reduced temporarily over the next ten years by rising output from the United States, from oil sands in Canada, from deepwater production in Brazil and from natural gas liquids from all over the world. But, by the mid-2020s, non-OPEC production starts to fall back and countries in the Middle East provide most of the increase in global supply. Overall, national oil companies and their host governments control some 80% of the world’s proven-plus-probable oil reserves.

[quote]The need to compensate for declining output from existing oil fields is the major driver for upstream oil investment to 2035.[/quote] Our analysis of more than 1 600 fields confirms that, once production has peaked, an average conventional field can expect to see annual declines in output of around 6% per year. While this figure varies according to the type of field, the implication is that conventional crude output from existing fields is set to fall by more than 40 mb/d by 2035. Among the other sources of oil, most unconventional plays are heavily dependent on continuous drilling to prevent rapid field-level declines. Of the 790 billion barrels of total production required to meet our projections for demand to 2035, more than half is needed just to offset declining production.

[quote]Demand for mobility and for petrochemicals keeps oil use on an upward trend to 2035, although the pace of growth slows.[/quote] The decline in oil use in OECD countries accelerates. China overtakes the United States as the largest oil-consuming country and Middle East oil consumption overtakes that of the European Union, both around 2030. The shifting geography of demand is further underlined by India becoming the largest single source of global oil demand growth after 2020. Oil consumption is concentrated in just two sectors by 2035: transport and petrochemicals. Transport oil demand rises by 25% to reach 59 mb/d, with one-third of the increase going to fuel road freight in Asia. In petrochemicals, the Middle East, China and North America help push up global oil use for feedstocks to 14 mb/d. High prices encourage efficiency improvements and undercut the position of oil wherever alternatives are readily available, with biofuels and natural gas gaining some ground as transport fuels.

The great migration in oil refining and trade

[quote]Major changes in the composition of oil supply and demand confront the world’s refiners with an ever-more complex set of challenges, and not all of them are well-equipped to survive.[/quote] Rising output of natural gas liquids, biofuels and coal- or gas-to-liquids technologies means that a larger share of liquid fuels reaches consumers without having to pass through the refinery system. Refiners nonetheless need to invest to meet a surge of more than 5 mb/d in demand for diesel that is almost triple the increase in gasoline use. The shift in the balance of oil consumption towards Asia and the Middle East sees a continued build-up of refining capacity in these regions; but, in many OECD countries, declining demand and competition in product export markets intensify pressure to shut capacity. Over the period to 2035, we estimate that nearly 10 mb/d of global refinery capacity is at risk, with refineries in OECD countries, and Europe in particular, among the most vulnerable. The new geography of demand and supply means a re-ordering of global oil trade flows towards Asian markets, with implications for co-operative efforts to ensure oil security. The net North American requirement for crude imports all but disappears by 2035 and the region becomes a larger exporter of oil products. Asia becomes the unrivalled centre of global oil trade as the region draws in – via a limited number of strategic transport routes – a rising share of the available crude oil. Deliveries to Asia come not only from the Middle East (where total crude exports start to fall short of Asian import requirements) but also from Russia, the Caspian, Africa, Latin America and Canada. New export-oriented refinery capacity in the Middle East raises the possibility that oil products, rather than crude, take a larger share of global trade, but much of this new capacity eventually serves to cater to increasing demand from within the region itself.

The power sector adjusts to a new life with wind and solar

[quote]Renewables account for nearly half of the increase in global power generation to 2035, with variable sources – wind and solar photovoltaics – making up 45% of the expansion in renewables. [/quote]China sees the biggest absolute increase in generation from renewable sources, more than the increase in the European Union, the United States and Japan combined. In some markets, the rising share of variable renewables creates challenges in the power sector, raising fundamental questions about current market design and its ability to ensure adequate investment and long-term reliability of supply. The increase in generation from renewables takes its share in the global power mix above 30%, drawing ahead of natural gas in the next few years and all but reaching coal as the leading fuel for power generation in 2035. The current rate of construction of nuclear power plants has been slowed by reviews of safety regulations, but output from nuclear eventually increases by two-thirds, led by China, Korea, India and Russia. Widespread deployment of carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology would be a way to accelerate the anticipated decline in the CO2 emissions intensity of the power sector, but in our projections only around 1% of global fossil fuel-fired power plants are equipped with CCS by 2035.

Economics and policies, in different doses, are key to the outlook for coal and gas

[quote]Coal remains a cheaper option than gas for generating electricity in many regions, but policy interventions to improve efficiency, curtail local air pollution and mitigate climate change will be critical in determining its longer-term prospects.[/quote] Policy choices in China, which has outlined plans to cap the share of coal in total energy use, will be particularly important as China now uses as much coal as the rest of the world combined. In our central scenario, global coal demand increases by 17% to 2035, with two-thirds of the increase occurring by 2020. Coal use declines in OECD countries. By contrast, coal demand expands by one-third in non-OECD countries – predominantly in India, China and Southeast Asia – despite China reaching a plateau around 2025. India, Indonesia and China account for 90% of the growth in coal production. Export demand makes Australia the only OECD country to register substantial growth in output.

[quote]Market conditions vary strikingly in different regions of the world, but the flexibility and environmental benefits of natural gas compared with other fossil fuels put it in a position to prosper over the longer term.[/quote] Growth is strongest in emerging markets, notably China, where gas use quadruples by 2035, and in the Middle East. But in the European Union, gas remains squeezed between a growing share of renewables and a weak competitive position versus coal in power generation, and consumption struggles to return to 2010 levels. North America continues to benefit from ample production of unconventional gas, with a small but significant share of this gas finding its way to other markets as LNG, contributing – alongside other conventional and unconventional developments in East Africa, China, Australia and elsewhere – to more diversity in global gas supply. New connections between markets act as a catalyst for changes in the way that gas is priced, including more widespread adoption of hub-based pricing.

Brazil is at the leading edge of deepwater and low-carbon development

[quote]Brazil, the special focus country in this year’s Outlook, is set to become a major exporter of oil and a leading global energy producer.[/quote] Based mainly on a series of recent offshore discoveries, Brazil’s oil production triples to reach 6 mb/d in 2035, accounting for one-third of the net growth in global oil production and making Brazil the world’s sixth-largest producer. Natural gas production grows more than five-fold, enough to cover all of the country’s domestic needs by 2030, even as these expand significantly. The increase in oil and gas production is dependent on highly complex and capital-intensive deepwater developments, requiring levels of upstream investment beyond those of either the Middle East or Russia. A large share of this will need to come from Petrobras, the national oil company, whose mandated role in developing strategic fields places heavy weight on its ability to deploy resources effectively across a huge and varied investment programme. Commitments made to source goods and services locally within Brazil add tension to a tightly stretched supply chain.

[quote]Brazil’s abundant and diverse energy resources underpin an 80% increase in its energy use, including the achievement of universal access to electricity.[/quote] Rising consumption is driven by the energy needs of an expanding middle class, resulting in strong growth in demand for transport fuels and a doubling of electricity consumption. Meeting this demand requires substantial and timely investment throughout the energy system – $90 billion per year on average. The system of auctions for new electricity generation and transmission capacity will be vital in bringing new capital to the power sector and in reducing pressure on end-user prices. The development of a well-functioning gas market, attractive to new entrants, can likewise help spur investment and improve the competitive position of Brazilian industry. A stronger policy focus on energy efficiency would ease potential strains on a rapidly growing energy system. Brazil’s energy sector remains one of the least carbon-intensive in the world, despite greater availability and use of fossil fuels. Brazil is already a world-leader in renewable energy and is set to almost double its output from renewables by 2035, maintaining their 43% share of the domestic energy mix. Hydropower remains the backbone of the power sector. Yet reliance on hydropower declines, in part because of the remoteness and environmental sensitivity of a large part of the remaining resource, much of which is in the Amazon region. Among the fuels with a rising share in the power mix, onshore wind power, which is already proving to be competitive, natural gas and electricity generated from bioenergy take the lead. In the transport sector, Brazil is already the world’s secondlargest producer of biofuels and its production, mainly as sugarcane ethanol, more than triples. Suitable cultivation areas are more than sufficient to accommodate this increase without encroaching on environmentally sensitive areas. By 2035, Brazilian biofuels meet almost one-third of domestic demand for road-transport fuel and its net exports account for about 40% of world biofuels trade.

Team Harper should rack a win at climate talks…if they’re smart

November 12, 2013Carbon Tax - Cap and Trade, Climate Change, International, PoliticsfeaturedKevin Grandia

With another round of international climate negotiations opening this week in Warsaw, Poland, and a new poll finding Canadians wanting leadership on the issue, Stephen Harper and his Conservative government have an opportunity to begin turning the tides on what has been up until now an abysmal failure.

Since taking the helm, Harper and his party have floundered at the United Nations climate events, with the likes of former environment minister John “Bull in a China Shop” Baird ham-handedly relegating our country to perpetual fossil of the day and year awards.

Canada’s fall from grace

As someone who has been working in and around these international climate talks, and other such global negotiations, for many years now I have witnessed first hand Canada’s fall from grace. Our small country (population-wise) has historically hit well above its weight in many international forums, with a reputation for neutrality and expert diplomacy. Now, we are called a “petro-state” and a fly in the ointment at such talks.

Up until Harper, Canada has been a international leader on global efforts to battle environmental issues. Former Progressive Conservative Prime Minister Brian Mulroney was an outspoken global leader on reducing CFC’s and his leadership culminated in the Montreal Accord that saw 191 countries agree to phasing out ozone depleting chemicals.

Under Jean Chretien and the Liberals Canada was one of the first countries to sign on to the Kyoto Protocol to reduce global climate change pollution, and that leadership started a domino effect with many countries following our lead. Harper’s lack of performance, and in many cases outright opposition to deal on climate change, is not only being noticed by the international community, it is also starting to be noticed at home.

New poll: Canadians want climate change to be a top issue

A poll out late last week finds that a large majority – almost 60 percent – of Canadians agree that climate change should be a top issue for the Harper government. A whopping 76 percent say that Canada should sign on to a new international agreement to limit greenhouse gas emissions.

While I am the first to admit that public opinion polls can fall well short of reality, in this case there is substantial proof at the street-level. Everyday people and not just the media or opinion-makers are wanting Harper to rejuvenate Canada’s international reputation on the issue of climate change.

Canadians to rally for climate this weekend

Look no further than the hundreds of events being planned across the country for a “Defend our Climate, Defend our Communities” day of action being held this coming weekend. Such a show of discontent in the streets and in front of MP’s offices has to have Harper and his minions at least a little worried.

And it is only going to get worse for Harper as more and more extreme weather events pile up week after week on the nightly news. Climate change is no longer a theory. The atmospheric disruption and extreme weather scientists talked about almost 20 years ago when Canada signed on to the Kyoto Protocol is now “the new normal.”

Harper could redeem himself in Warsaw

With these talks starting this week and next in Warsaw, Harper and his new environment minister, Leona Aglukaqq, have an opportunity to redeem themselves. It would be good for our international reputation to do so, not to mention my children’s children who, as it stands today, face a pretty bleak future. And according to public opinion polls, a strong stance on climate by Harper would be good politics.

So what’s stopping him?

BC struggles to reconcile carbon emissions with “clean” LNG claims

November 11, 2013Carbon Tax - Cap and Trade, Climate Change, Energy and Resources, LNGfeaturedCanadian Press

BC struggles to reconcile carbon emissions with clean LNG claims — Australia’s Colongra gas-powered electrical plant – BC LNG would be powered by carbon-intensive plants like this one

VICTORIA – Like the underground shale gas that Premier Christy Clark says will pave the way to a debt-free future, British Columbia appears caught between a rock and a hard place in balancing its hunger for a burgeoning liquefied natural gas (LNG) industry and meeting its ambitious 2007 greenhouse gas pollution-reduction targets.

Liberals mum on LNG economic, environmental plans

If there is a definitive plan in place, the government isn’t laying it out yet: Natural Gas Development Minister Rich Coleman says the Liberals’ LNG economic plan, which includes a tax structure developed with industry consultation, should be complete within thee next 30 days. It won’t be introduced to the legislature until next year.

Environment Minister Mary Polak says similar LNG environmental negotiations are underway, of which she indicates the options are limited and is refusing to fully elaborate.

But a process of elimination indicates B.C. will rely heavily on carbon offsets to meet its environmental goals.

Offsets in the offing for BC LNG emissions?

That means even if the actual pollution dumped into the atmosphere increases, rather than declines, B.C. will still be able to say the targets have been met because of the discounts offered by requiring industry to financially support environmentally-friendly initiatives to fight global warming.

Still, even if the offsets enable B.C. to claim it has met its pollution targets — targets trumpeted at the time as being among the most stringent in North America — the emissions levels Canada must report to the United Nations will tell a different story.

Those numbers are reported without the discounts of offsets and they are numbers environmentalists predict will rival the emissions of neighbouring Alberta’s oil sands industry. Even without the introduction of LNG plants, environmentalists argue, B.C. is already on its way to missing its legislated targets.

“There are only two ways to reduce emissions, you either actually reduce them or you find means of mitigation and many times that’s through offsets,” said Polak.

“We know many B.C. companies are carbon neutral — Harbour Air for example — but it’s not because they have no emissions. It’s because they purchase offsets.”

Full steam ahead with LNG: 5-7 plants targeted

Besides offsets, the government could reach the targets by taking its foot off the pedal on its ambitious LNG development goals.

That’s clearly not going to happen: Clark’s Liberal government says it wants to build the cleanest LNG industry in the world and continues to repeat election-campaign statements that B.C.’s natural gas will scrub clean China’s coal-darkened skies.

In the beginning, the Liberals pledged three LNG plants: Now, the proposal is for five to seven.

Greenhouse gas reduction targets to be dropped?

The government could back away from the targets committing it to cut greenhouse gas emissions 33 per cent by 2020 — targets created under a different Liberal government, before Clark’s aggressive push towards a liquefied natural gas industry and all the extra emissions it is bound to create.

The government has refused to say it will do that, but it has left the door open.

A government official, on background, says the targets are just that: targets. If they aren’t met, government will simply try harder to meet them next time. Much like balanced budget legislation, the official says, there are no penalties for not meeting the goal.

Environmentalists and noted climate scientists, including Green Party MLA Andrew Weaver and Simon Fraser University’s Mark Jaccard, who both consulted for the Liberals on the climate targets law in 2007, have already repeatedly said the province isn’t going to meet its pollution reduction targets.

”It’s certainly our goal,” says Coleman without committing to actually doing it.

“There may be some challenges around that,” he says in an interview shortly after returning from Asia where he toured an LNG plant in Malaysia and met with executives from Petronas, the Malaysian energy company planning a $36 billion LNG investment near Prince Rupert.

[quote]We’re going to have the highest environmental standards that there are and we’re going to have the cleanest industry that there is in the world as well.[/quote]

Carbon capture in its infancy

A third option to require the industry to explore other emission reduction techniques that could involve storing carbon emissions underground is appealing, but the technology is in its infancy and no one expects B.C. can rely on it in the short-term.

“You could potentially require certain technologies be employed,” says Polak. “You could require certain purchase of offsets, but all of that is subject to negotiations, discussions, in much the same way as having the discussions now with taxation policy.”

So that leaves offsets as the most likely way to allow British Columbia to meet or at least reach for its emission goals.

The challenge is not small.

Report: BC LNG would emit 3x more carbon than plants in other countries

A recent report by Clean Energy Canada, an affiliate of Tides Canada, warned that without B.C. government policy leadership, LNG produced in B.C. could emit more than three-times the carbon produced at other plants around the world.

The B.C. government has not stated publicly what it expects its greenhouse gas emissions to be from the proposed LNG plants. But Clean Energy Canada examined a similar LNG plant under construction in Australia and concluded that B.C. LNG facilities can expect to emit about one tonne of carbon pollution for every tonne of LNG produced.

Clean Energy Canada estimates that will work out to 36 million tonnes of carbon pollution for the initially-proposed three LNG plants in the Kitimat area.

Gas still cleaner than coal?

Prof. James Tansey is a business professor at the University of B.C. who is also the chief executive officer and founder of Vancouver-based Offsetters, a global carbon-management company that helps organizations and individuals understand, reduce and offset their climate impact.

Tansey says the carbon pollution debate in B.C. is focused on legitimate concerns about increased provincial emissions.

But like the government, he notes a global move towards natural gas ultimately reduces GHG emissions worldwide.

Tansey says natural gas is a cleaner energy than oil and coal and has the potential to reduce GHG emissions by 27 per cent (read a Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives report which argues the contrary).

He says he expects the government to introduce regulations that will require the natural gas companies to purchase the offsets as a cost of doing business in B.C.

Offsets can’t erase real pollution figures

“The companies will have to do it,” said Tansey. “People don’t like offsets in general, but it’s really the only way to say those millions of tonnes of extra emissions from running the LNG facilities can be addressed. If you don’t do that, then they’re going to appear as a black mark on the carbon accounts of the province.”

Offsets may allow B.C. to meet its targets or at least approach them while still reaping the economic benefits of LNG development.

But the actual pollution numbers — without adjustments due to offsets — must be reported to provincial, federal and international climate-change monitoring agencies.

Without LNG, BC making climate progress

Environment Canada’s national inventory submission last April to the United Nations Framework convention on climate change measured a decline of almost six per cent in B.C.’s GHG emissions since 2007, when the province passed its targets law.

The inventory measured B.C.’s carbon dioxide emissions at 59.1 million tonnes in 2011 — the most recent numbers — down from 62.6 million tonnes in 2007. The target for 2020 is about 20.6 million tonnes.

The Environment Canada report stated Canada’s total GHG emissions for 2011 were measured at 702 million tonnes, while Alberta’s GHG emissions were 242 million tonnes.

LNG would ramp up BC’s carbon emissions

Matt Horne, a climate change expert with the Pembina Institute, said he’s certain B.C.’s LNG dreams will increase the province’s GHG emissions well beyond Environment Canada’s most current totals.

“I don’t know where they are going to go with the targets,” he said.

“I haven’t seen any credible projections of how the province is going to meet those targets in particular around the idea of three to five LNG plants being developed. You can’t square that circle.”

Canadian communities to rally for climate as BC, Alberta pen pipeline deal

November 5, 2013Climate Change, Energy and Resources, Pipelines and SupertankersKevin Grandia

Canadian communities to rally for climate as BC, Alberta pen pipeline deal — Last year’s “Defend Our Coast” rally in Victoria (photo: TJ Watt)

Just this morning, BC Premier Christy Clark and Alberta Premier Allison Redford have announced that they have penned a deal to ram a pipeline from Northern Alberta’s oil sands fields to the West Coast. And according to news reports, there is “tentative” support for other pipelines.

In Canada we are at a major cross-roads, with some big government leaders pushing pipelines that will lock the country permanently into the “petro-state” column, while at the same time scientists, environmental experts and economists saying that we are lighting a “carbon bomb” for the long term.

Politicians, like Stephen Harper, Justin Trudeau, Clark and Redford think building massive pipelines to the US and off our coasts to send unprocessed oil sands from Alberta to out-of-country export facilities is a wonderful idea.

At the same time, scientists at esteemed scientific organizations like NASA, say that building Keystone and pumping more oil sands out of Alberta pretty much guarantees runaway climate change and atmospheric disruption.

On one hand, a political win and some short term payouts that will mainly go to foreign oil companies like ExxonMobil and PetroChina. On the other hand, extreme weather, droughts, wildfires and heat waves for generations to come.

Big bucks for foreign oil companies, drought and wildfires for Canadians! The choice is yours. Seems like a no-brainer to me. I think my kids deserve a safe and stable future.

Time to stand up.

On Nov. 16th, Canadians from coast-to-coast-to-coast will gather at events to voice their opposition to the direction politicians like Stephen Harper want to take our country.

Will you be there?

Vimeo video by Zack Embree

David Suzuki on right wing media’s War on Science

November 2, 2013Climate Change, Climate ScienceDr. David Suzuki

From government scientists to First Nations citizens and environmentalists, pretty much everyone working to protect the air, water, land and diversity of plants and animals that keep us alive and healthy has felt the sting of attacks from sources in government, media and beyond. Much of the media spin is particularly absurd, relying on ad hominem attacks (focusing on perceived character flaws to deflect attention from or invalidate arguments) that paint people who care about the world as greedy conspirators bent on personal enrichment or even world domination! It would be laughable if so many people didn’t take it seriously.

War on Science

Government tactics have been more insidious, often designed to silence anyone who could stand in the way of massive resource extraction and export policies. Politicians in the U.K., Australia, the U.S., Canada and elsewhere have created a false dichotomy between the environment and the economy in efforts to downplay the seriousness of issues like climate change and the need to address them. The arguments are wrong on so many levels.

[quote]Many scientists have been told to alter or exclude information from government documents for non-scientific reasons and prevented from speaking to the public or media about their work.[/quote]

‘The Economy’ is a human invention

First, the economy is a human invention, a tool that can be changed when it no longer suits our needs. The environment is the very air, water, land and diversity of plant and animal life we cannot live without. Why not work to build a healthy, prosperous economy that protects those things?

Volumes of research also conclude ignoring climate change will be far more costly than addressing it. The massive bills for cleaning up after events related to extreme weather, such as flooding, are just a start. Climate change is also affecting water supplies and the world’s ability to grow food, and is contributing to a growing number of refugees. According to the World Health Organization, close to 150 million people are already dying every year from causes related to global warming – and that doesn’t include death and illness related to pollution from burning fossil fuels.

Muzzling scientists

Here in Canada, the rush to exploit fossil fuels and get them to market as quickly as possible has sparked a concerted effort to muzzle anyone who would stand in the way, including the government’s own scientists. A recent survey by the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada found many have been told to alter or exclude information from government documents for non-scientific reasons and prevented from speaking to the public or media about their work. The survey also revealed cases where political interference actually compromised the health and safety of Canadians and the environment.

Canada blowing emissions targets

Meanwhile, a recent Environment Canada report says Canada is failing to meet its 2020 greenhouse gas reductions targets under the Copenhagen Accord. With the federal and some provincial governments relying on oil sands and gas fracking – mostly for export – as the cornerstones of both economic and energy policy, the situation is likely to get worse.

Right wing media bullies

The campaign to promote fossil fuels over clean energy has also been taken up by others. In several cases, it has devolved to the level of schoolyard taunts and bullying – in government, but even more so in certain mainstream media. Some outlets have stooped to ignoring ideas and rational argument in favour of lies, innuendo, exaggeration and personal attacks.

Ironically, one source is a media personality with government ties who has demonstrated a pattern of using bogus arguments and faulty reasoning, leading to a string of libel charges and convictions, censure over violations of the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council ethics code and complaints about racist statements.

It’s sad to see so much of our media and governance in such a sorry state that we can’t even expect rational discussion of critical issues such as climate change and energy policy. And there is room for debate – not over the existence of climate change or its causes; the science is clear that it is real and that we are a major contributor, mainly through burning fossil fuels and cutting down forests.

But there’s room for discussion about ways to address it. And address it we must. We won’t get there, though, if we hinder scientists from conducting their research and speaking freely about it, and if we allow the discussion to be hijacked with petty name-calling and absurd allegations.

With contributions from David Suzuki Foundation Senior Editor Ian Hanington.