Climate activists file complaint about claims that gas is the cheapest way to heat homes and is ‘clean’ and ‘low carbon’

This article was written by Marco Chown Oved and was published in the Toronto Star on September 9, 2023.

Elizabeth Carswell doesn’t understand why anyone would want to pay thousands of dollars to get a natural gas hookup when a cheaper, environmentally friendly heat pump would do a better job for less.

She would know, she’s had one for more than 25 years.

With the increasing frequency of extreme weather, including a recent tornado and the forest fire smoke that blanketed the skies this summer, she was surprised to learn that some of her neighbours in Sandford, a town on the edge of Uxbridge, are nevertheless signing up as Enbridge Gas expands into the community.

“We can’t keep on burning fossil fuels and contributing to climate change. We know it,” she said. “It’s absolutely wrong to convert to natural gas. Why is anyone doing this in 2023?”

In communities from Bobcaygeon to Scugog, Enbridge Gas has been distributing marketing materials to convince homeowners to connect to its expanded natural gas pipelines, telling them it’s the cheapest way to heat their homes and that it’s “clean” and “low carbon.”

These flyers are now the subject of a false-advertising complaint filed with the Competition Bureau.

“Enbridge is misleading customers into connecting to its gas system through deceptive marketing,” states the complaint filed by a coalition of environmental groups, including Environmental Defence, Ontario Clean Air Alliance and Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment.

“Enbridge knows … that gas is not the most cost-effective way to heat homes, and that gas is a potent greenhouse gas that contributes far more to climate change when used to heat homes in comparison to electricity,” the complaint says.

“With each week that passes, more customers sign up to convert their heating to gas instead of purchasing a high-efficiency electric heat pump, resulting in unnecessarily high energy costs and carbon pollution to the detriment of consumers, competition and the climate.”

The Enbridge Gas materials fail to tell potential customers that natural gas — which is mostly methane — is responsible for a third of all greenhouse gas emissions in Ontario, according to the complaint, and ignore the fact that heat pumps have been found to be significantly cheaper to operate.

The complaint is the latest in a spate of greenwashing claims made to the Competition Bureau, including two filed last year against the Canadian Gas Association for suggesting that natural gas is “sustainable” and another alleging RBC’s claims to fight climate change are false.

A subsidiary of Calgary-based Enbridge Inc., which will soon be North America’s largest natural gas utility, Enbridge Gas is expanding its pipeline network to communities on the fringes of the GTA and must convince residents to pay thousands of dollars to buy new furnaces so they can convert their houses for natural gas heating.

In flyers, community meetings and local and online advertising, Enbridge states that switching to natural gas could save homeowners up to 54 per cent on heating costs.

The environmental groups cite research showing that new customers in a natural gas expansion community (who must pay a surcharge on their natural gas for up to 40 years) would actually save $20,000 over the 15-year lifetime of their equipment by switching to a heat pump instead.

“For a long time, methane gas was the cheapest way to heat homes. However, electric cold-climate heat pumps are now much cheaper than gas for consumers,” states the complaint. “Customers are very vulnerable to deceptive advertising about the benefits of gas heating because most are not aware of heat pumps or the advancements that have been made in heat pumps in recent years.”

In response to questions, an Enbridge Gas spokesperson said the cost of a heat pump can vary greatly between houses.

“As such, a simple comparison of the technology costs alone can be misleading,” Andrea Stass said in an email. “Based on our analysis, conversion to a high-efficiency electric cold-climate air source heat pump configuration could be more costeffective for space heating in some situations … whereas in others, a natural gas solution would be more cost-effective,” she wrote.

According to filings, Enbridge expects to connect more than 100,000 households to its natural gas network in the next three years. The environmental groups are asking the Competition Bureau to require Enbridge to send price comparisons between natural gas and heat pumps to all of them.

“Enbridge is trying to push gas into more communities and trying to hook more customers up to gas at a time when we’re in a climate emergency and we should be moving away from burning fossil fuels,” said Keith Brooks, programs director at Environmental Defence.

“If you’re going to be installing new HVAC, you’ve got to be going for a heat pump. It’ll save you money. It’s better for the climate. Every time we install a new gas furnace, that’s an appliance that will be burning fossil fuels for a decade or more.”

After learning about the new pipeline coming to Sandford, Carswell started doing research online. She was surprised to learn that the network expansions aren’t economical, so the provincial government authorized a $1 per month surcharge on all 3.8 million Enbridge Gas customers (totalling more than $45 million per year) to pay for the new pipelines.

“Why are we facilitating the expansion of natural gas?” she asked. “You can have affordable utilities without increasing your emissions.”

Carswell has been heating her home with a heat pump since the 1990s and stands by the technology as cheaper — and better for the climate — than natural gas.

In materials filed with the Ontario Energy Board, Enbridge Gas compared the costs of different heating systems in Sandford, but claimed there was “no data available” for heat pumps.

“That’s absolutely misleading,” Carswell said. Since Enbridge Gas administers the government grants for heat pumps, “they know exactly how much they cost. They should be telling people about the grants.”

Programs offered through the federal and provincial governments now offer $10,000 to homeowners switching to a heat pump.

‘‘ With each week that passes, more customers sign up to convert their heating to gas instead of purchasing a high-efficiency electric heat pump,

resulting in unnecessarily high energy costs and carbon pollution to the detriment of consumers, competition and the climate.

COMPLAINT FILED WITH COMPETITION

BUREAU ABOUT ENBRIDGE

Report offers fix, including halting fuel subsidies

This article was written by Seth Borenstein and was published in the Toronto Star on September 9, 2023.

With the world far off track on its 2015 pledge to curb global warming, a new United Nations report central to upcoming climate negotiations details how quickly and deeply energy and financial systems must change to get back on a safer path.

“The window of opportunity to secure a livable and sustainable future for all is rapidly closing,” Friday’s report warned.

The globe has to cut its emissions of heat-trapping gases by 43 per cent by 2030, compared to 2019 levels, and 60 per cent by 2035, the report said. To get there, the report said, “the phase-out of unabated fossil fuels is required,” using a phrase international climate negotiators have shied away from before. It also said phasing out the internal combustion engine would be a huge help.

And the way money flows — such as investments, subsidies, loans, grants and payments for people and places hurt by warming’s extreme weather — also has to change, the report recommended. It said countries need to stop $450 billion in annual subsidies for coal, oil and natural gas.

“Halting and reversing deforestation” and adopting better crop-growing practices are critical to fighting climate change, the report said. It noted that about 95 per cent of deforestation is in the tropics, but global consumers drive the tree loss.

“We must urgently disrupt business as usual and unite like never before to move from ambition to action and from rhetoric to real results,” upcoming international climate negotiations president Sultan Al Jaber said in a statement.

The report put such an emphasis on change that it used variations of the word “transform” more than 50 times in 47 pages.

The report “feels like a final warning,” said Climate Analytics CEO Bill Hare. “‘If you guys don’t get your act together, we’re going to cook.’ ”

This article was written by Jeffrey Jones and was published in the Globe & Mail on September 7, 2023.

Technology the oil industry is counting on to reduce emissions – carbon capture and storage – is too expensive and difficult to deploy quickly enough to help Canada meet its climate commitments, a global environmental think tank says.

Relying on carbon capture and storage (CCS) to cut greenhouse gases from oil and gas production will mean large public subsidies for projects that are unable to compete on costs against expanding renewable energy sources, rendering the benefits “questionable,” the International Institute for Sustainable Development said in a report released Thursday.

“The track record for CCS thus far just doesn’t line up with the emissions reductions we need to see, particularly between now and 2030,” said Laura Cameron, policy adviser for the Winnipeg-based institute’s energy team and co-author of the report.

“The cost is a big piece and that’s the focus of our research here – that CCS for the oil and gas sector is expensive, and despite the industry’s claims, we don’t see evidence that the costs are likely to come down in the short term,” Ms. Cameron said in an interview.

The technology is a cornerstone of the industry’ s de carbonization plans, and touted as away to promote Canadian fossil fuels as preferable to supplies from other countries while the world transitions to cleaner energy. Alberta is particularly enthusiastic, offering grants for projects integrating carbon capture and hydrogen production.

But companies have been slow to construct CCS projects to advance those aims, and proponents say that is a function of uncertainty over the future price of carbon and a more welcoming set of incentives available under the Inflation Reduction Act in the United States.

The Pathways Alliance, a coalition of major oil sands companies, is planning to spend $16.5-billion on CCS as the key pillar of a strategy to achieve net-zero upstream emissions by 2050.

That would begin with a 22-million-tonne reduction in absolute emissions from those companies by 2030. The industry is counting on public money to foot a large part of the bill, and it is also seeking guaranteed minimum value for carbon credits to be generated under the country’s industrial carbon pricing system.

Discussions on those guarantees appear to be bogged down, with the government – or the Canada Growth Fund, a new agency supposed to offer such contracts – worried offering such protection to a project of that scale is too risky, Reuters reported this week.

The institute says carbon capture costs have proven to be stubbornly high because of a number of factors. For one, projects are technically complex and often require customization to be retrofitted onto existing oil and gas facilities. Costs also depend on process type, carbon dioxide transport and storage location.

In Canada, only three projects have been developed in the oil and gas industry – two that produce hydrogen for use in bitumen upgrading and refining, and another venture tied to natural gas production. This means there is limited domestic experience and operating data available to scale, adapt and expand use of the technology to meet the country’s climate related commitments, it said.

Another issue is the amount and type of energy to power CCS projects. The institute makes the distinction between CO2 captured and CO2 avoided, with the latter including emissions that stem from operating a CCS project.

“There is some research that shows up to a 20-per-cent increase in energy use with a CCS retrofit,” Ms. Cameron said. “Even if that is renewable, we need to weigh that against what that amount of renewable energy could be used for elsewhere. But often, it is fossil-fuel energy and that does increase the emissions.”

Renewable energy, such as wind and solar, is already well developed, generating revenue and expanding quickly, which lowers its overall costs. Expanding the use of renewables for electricity grids would be a better use of public funds, as those technologies will be used to 2050 and after, she said.

Alberta’s United Conservative government has taken the opposite approach, last month freezing new wind and solar project applications, partly to examine the impact on grid reliability, it said.

The institute says CCS does have a place in Canadian emission-reduction plans, notably in hard-to-abate activities such as cement and steel manufacturing, which will still be required through an energy transition.

“They have different needs than the energy sector. For decarbonizing oil and gas, we need to compare that to renewable-energy production. Whereas with steel and cement, we don’t see alternatives yet, so it is worth investigating and continuing to explore research and development of CCS in these applications,” Ms. Cameron said.

This opinion was written by David O’Reilly and was published in the Globe & Mail on September 4, 2023.

There is no way to net-zero if people and businesses do not start taking initiative

Despite intentions, incentives and taxes, Canada is poised to miss its 2050 carbon goals. Aside from the coal and gas power plants that are hindering the country’s transition to a net-zero power grid, the biggest headwind is the immense amount of renewable/ emission-free power generation required to meet its emissions goals.

Driven by the projected electrification of the economy – including electric vehicles, population boom and residential electrification – electricity demand is set to double by 2050. Given where we are, Canada is simply not equipped to generate sufficient capacity in that timeframe.

What we need is a new model: Homeowners and businesses need to be incentivized to generate their own electricity. When homes and buildings are turned into producers of electricity, instead of simply consumers, they become “prosumers” – things that are both consumers and producers.

By prioritizing smart buildings, every Canadian household and business can contribute to the solution. With the use of solar panels, battery storage and the adaptation of existing inverter technology, Canada can substantially reduce demand from households and businesses and potentially move entire communities off positions where they exert pressure on the grid.

This is not a new idea. Other countries have been shifting to the prosumer model for years. Britain and Germany each have roughly 1.5 million homes that are producing their own electricity. In Italy, there are more than three million homes. In the U.S., this is happening as well. Communities in California have built entire new developments that are on their own microgrids.

It’s entirely possible to replicate this in Canada. All that is needed is the political will.

Implementing the prosumer model requires co-ordination between federal and provincial building codes, as well as the various regulators. This is why it is imperative the federal government takes the lead at this time. Canada cannot afford to let regulatory and bureaucratic hurdles stand in the way of meaningful progress in a time of crisis.

In addition to eliminating red tape, government should introduce incentive programs and leverage tax dollars to support Canadians’ transition to energy saving improvements to their homes and businesses.

Currently, buildings are the third-largest carbon producers in the country. By making sure commercial, industrial and residential structures are also clean power contributors to the grid, we can simultaneously reduce electricity demand on the grid and alleviate the impact of the large carbon footprint these buildings currently have.

The first step must be to mandate solar with a minimum generating potential of 7.5 kilowatt hours a day and a battery storage solution for all new homes built from 2025 onward.

Assuming each new home comes with a solar panel and generates 7.5 kilowatt hours a day, the 275,000 new homes built in Canada each year would produce two gigawatt hours of clean electricity each day. Battery storage will allow the use of energy at peak hours, compounding the savings.

Under this approach, by 2050 we could have 6.9 million homes adding an extra 62 gigawatt hours just through new builds alone, saving billions in costs and operating expenses.

The crisis is real. Canada’s situation with nuclear power puts it in perspective.

As it stands, nuclear power is the largest and most sustainable source of energy available. The largest nuclear plant in Canada is Bruce Power’s nuclear generating station, near Kincardine, Ont., which produces 40.5 terawatt hours a year and would cost about $19-billion to build today.

To meet net-zero goals, Canada would require nine Bruce Power plants at a cost of $171billion by 2035, and 28 Bruce Power plants at a cost of $532-billion by 2050. This is clearly not in the realm of possibilities.

There is no way to net-zero if people and businesses do not start generating their own electricity. The time to act and accelerate is now. The energy landscape in Canada is reaching a crisis point.

Why extreme weather is igniting premiums in Canada and around the world

This article was written by Omar Mosleh and was published in the Toronto Star on September 3, 2023.

When the Sumas Prairie, a low-lying area formed from a drained lake, flooded and forced Marcel Ackermann and his family out of their home in Abbotsford, B.C., he said he was determined to muscle through it “hell or high water.”

One might say he’s been through both. Ackermann and his family were forced from their home for about five months in 2021 — along with thousands of others. His house was flooded with roughly two feet of water, while his barns saw about four feet. He ended up gutting his house and needed to replace many amenities, such as counters and cabinets.

“You gotta understand when you’re in a disaster like this, it’s not five minutes later and everything’s fixed,” said Ackermann, who makes his livelihood from a farm and welding business on the property that was flooded.

“I won’t be working for a year. I need to still pay bills … and we’re homeless now. Like, everything is gone.”

It’s a situation more and more Canadians are experiencing as they contend with the reality of living in a country where climate-related catastrophes are an annual theme. There’s a catalogue of cascading effects from increasingly common natural disasters that are being seen coast to coast, according to experts.

It’s creating more uncertainty in the insurance industry, apprehension among real-estate buyers and delays in construction and the issuance of building permits.

And it’s costing a lot more money.

“A decade ago, between 2001 and 2010, the insurance industry

was paying out on average about $675 million a year,” said Rob De Pruis, national director of consumer and industry relations for the Insurance Bureau of Canada (IBC).

“Over this past decade, that number has increased to over $2.3 billion dollars a year on average annually.”

In 2022, the total insured damage for severe weather events reached $3.1 billion, according to IBC. Unlike 2016, the highest loss year on record, where the Fort McMurray wildfire accounted for roughly 75 per cent of national losses, last year saw natural disasters taking a toll “from nearly every part of the country,” IBC said.

That’s likely to be the case again this year, with wildfires causing destruction from B.C. to Nova Scotia.

This inevitably trickles down to the consumer, and will lead to higher premiums for everyone, said Mary Kelly, a professor in finance and insurance at Wilfrid Laurier University.

“It’s not that huge storm or the wildfire in Kelowna that is directly affecting my premiums,” Kelly said. “But the insurance company knows that for everybody, they’ll have to retain more risk … that’s really how it impacts us.”

The flood in Abbotsford was caused by more than 500 millimetres of rain — the most the city had ever recorded in a month — which led to local rivers overflowing and several sections of dikes failing. It resulted in the evacuation of more than 1,100 properties, 3,300 people and caused an estimated $2 billion in damage.

While Ackermann believes the city should have given the evacuation order earlier, the flood didn’t come as a total surprise — the area sits on a lake that was drained about 100 years ago and saw significant flooding events in 1948, 1972, 1990 and 2007.

The frequency of floods in the area, as well as the city’s preparedness and response to them, has caused him to consider whether it’s worth staying.

“We’ll give it another three years to see what the government plans on doing to this area,” he said. “And we’ll take that risk.”

The flood was catastrophic, but in some ways, it was only the start of his frustrations. One of the greatest surprises was when he was refused by his bank for a small loan to help with the repairs.

Ackermann said he has paid off the mortgage on his home and owns another house, two barns, a welding business, a vegetable farm, machinery and 50 acres of land.

“They said we can’t even give you $100,000, we can’t give you $50,000, we can’t even give you $10,000. I was shocked,” Ackermann said. “None of this makes any sense. When you have (millions) worth of assets, and they won’t even lend you $10,000?”

He said he was never given a clear reason for why he was refused. But he heard several of his neighbours were in the same boat, and he suspects it’s because the bank has deemed him as living in a “high-risk area.”

“You might as well just say the whole world’s risky,” he said. “There’s earthquake fault-lines everywhere, there’s mountains, there’s trees and when it’s hot, they can burn. I mean, it’s getting to the point where they’re all just making excuses because they’re losing too much money.”

There is some truth to this, according to experts, specifically in how the insurance industry is responding to more frequent and destructive extreme weather events, which most scientists agree are being driven by climate change.

“Insurance companies have known that this is going to be an issue, but they really were sort of ignoring it for a while … They knew climate change was becoming a thing, but they really weren’t thinking about it seriously because they could off-load the risk onto other players,” Kelly said.

Until recently, it was relatively easy for Canadian insurance companies to transfer that risk to reinsurers, or what are essentially the insurance companies’ insurers, she said.

While Canada may seem like it’s literally and figuratively on fire, the losses have been minor compared to the hurricanes in Florida and the bush fires in Australia, Kelly said.

“That really changed last year when the reinsurers are basically saying ‘You know what, Canada? You’re becoming as risky as every other country in the world and we’re not willing to take on all this risk — you have to keep some of it,’ ” she said.

“That’s a really important change that I would say really woke up the Canadian insurance industry last year.”

The increasing frequency of extreme weather events is also having a knock-on effect on the real estate and construction industries, insiders say. Some people are wondering if it’s worth staying in areas such as Kelowna, where destructive wildfires have become a regular occurrence during summer.

The cost of home insurance, especially in high-risk areas, is increasingly a top-of-mind consideration when purchasing a property, said Tamara Stone, a real estate agent

with RE/MAX Kelowna.

“When I started 29 years ago we didn’t talk about insurance … now on every contract that we’re doing, we write in ‘subject to the buyer getting insurance,’ ” Stone said.

“It’s something that people do factor in — can I afford it with the interest rates? Can I afford it with insurance? It’s just another piece of the puzzle,” she added.

Some buyers won’t purchase a home if it backs onto a forested area, Stone said.

“There are definitely people who say ‘No I’d rather live in the centre of town or I’d rather live backing a vineyard or backing a golf course where there’s a bit of a fire protection built in,” she said.

It’s not a straight line between extreme weather events and the rising cost of losses. There are many factors, such as aging infrastructure, but also the fact that there are more people and communities in areas that are prone to fire and floods.

“That’s the other driver — we all have more stuff, and we’re all living closer together,” Kelly said. “So even a storm with the same intensity as 20 years ago is going to cause significantly more damage … We just have all these big bull’s eyes across Canada now.”

Insurance companies also know more about fire behaviour than ever before, with much more data available, which could be influencing their overall risk profiles, De Pruis said.

The cost to replace and rebuild properties is also going up, due to multiple factors including inflation, fluctuating interest rates, gaps in the supply chain and skilled labour. In some cases, there are also delays from municipalities in completing inspections and issuing building permits. This all puts pressure on insurance premiums, De Pruis said.

On top this, the country is increasingly seeing situations where it’s not just one house that needs to be rebuilt, but entire communities.

“The way insurers do business with mass climate-related events is going to have to change as an administrative model,” said Erik S. Knutsen, a professor at Queen’s University and an expert in insurance law.

“Because (for example) you don’t just have one guy with a fire loss in Fort McMurray,” he added. “You’ve got half a town.”

Knutsen said the courts are seeing an increase in disputes between insurance companies and policy holders.

“We are seeing an uptick in insurers, particularly on climate-related issues, having to take a more nuanced stance about whether or not they’re covering a loss … on the insurance end, I think we’re going to start to see insurers take a harder line on the litigation side,” he said.

The country is also seeing an increase in “concurrent causes” of a loss coming together, Knutsen said.

“So for example, if I have wind coverage, but not water coverage … and the wind blows my roof off, and then it rains and wrecks all my stuff. Am I covered? Or am I not covered? There are lots of these kinds of things where two or more causes are coming together in these weird weather events,” Knutsen said.

Earlier this summer, State Farm, the largest insurer in the United States, announced it would stop accepting applications for business and personal lines of property and casualty insurance, citing a challenging market, inflation and “rapidly growing catastrophe exposure.”

“We’re not seeing that type of reaction from insurance companies in Canada,” De Pruis said, but added “that may change in the future.”

Ackermann, in Abbotsford, has some advice for people who may find themselves in a similar situation as he did — don’t depend on your insurance company, because you may not get as much as you expect in a claim.

He also suggests reading between the lines — “there’s no better time than now to read the fine print and understand it 100 per cent,” he said.

As for him, his experience caused him to reflect on where he lives and if it’s the best place for him and his family going forward.

“I’ve been here my whole life. It’s not easy to just uproot … but how many years have I got left in my life? I think I might just uproot and choose an area that’s not surrounded by trees, that’s up high,” he said.

“Now I only have to worry about earthquakes.”

This article was written by Sudarshan Bala, Peter Zhang, Gillian Goobie, and was published in the Toronto Star on September 1, 2023.

SUDARSHAN BALA IS A RESIDENT PHYSICIAN AT THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA. PETER ZHANG IS A HOSPITAL PHARMACIST. GILLIAN GOOBIE IS A CLINICAL ASSISTANT PROFESSOR IN THE DIVISION OF RESPIRATORY MEDICINE AT

Recent wildfires in Canada have cast a dark shadow across the North American northeast. In an area not used to seeing the sky darkened by smoky haze, many came to a sobering realization: the dangers of air pollution are real. Air quality has deteriorated to concerning levels in metropolitan and non-urban areas, especially during regional wildfire events.

Many may not realize that “air pollution” reflects a catch-all term to describe a multitude of pollutants that exist within our atmosphere. These include gaseous pollutants such as nitrogen dioxide, sulphur dioxide ozone, as well as particulate matter pollutants.

Air pollutants have been linked to respiratory diseases such as asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, lung cancer, as well as flareups of existing conditions. Their effects transcend the respiratory tract and many air pollutants have been linked to diseases such as heart attacks, pregnancy complications and stroke risk.

Air pollution is the leading environmental risk factor for mortality globally, and its regulation is imperative to public health. Unfortunately, over 99 per cent of the world lives in areas with particulate matter levels above the annual recommended limit, according to the World Health Organization. Environmental advocates and policymakers have found success in mitigating air pollution. Many of us grew up learning about the hole in the ozone layer, but probably haven’t heard much about it recently. This is due to the Montreal protocol and the phasing out of ozone-depleting substances, which resulted in the stabilization of the ozone layer since the 2000s. Although our ozone layer remains fragile, this speaks to the effects of strong advocacy and policy making.

Another example is Los Angeles, which had some of the worst air quality in North America. Thanks to the Clean Air Act and later amendments and California regulatory action, air quality levels have improved dramatically, and an estimated 237,000 deaths may have been prevented in California from 1970 to 2020. These regulations were propelled by public advocacy as Californians saw visible effects of air pollution on smog-filled days. California continues to invest in its air quality with a planned transition to electric vehicles by 2035, which will be instrumental in reducing traffic-related pollutants.

Currently, the Exceptional Events rule in the United States means that states are not responsible for adhering to air pollution standards if they are caused by “exceptional” events, including wildfires. However, recent years have shown that wildfires have become frequent enough to question whether they are still “exceptional” or have become the rule. Such events will only get worse without substantive political, legislative, and regulatory action to combat climate change. A preventative rather than reactionary attitude is paramount. In this respect, driving innovation in the clean energy sector is necessary, and governments need to commit more funding and commercial incentives to bring novel solutions to market.

At a personal level, people should monitor local air quality and respond to poor air quality days through measures such as wearing N95 masks, limiting strenuous outdoor activities, or activating air purifiers. This is especially critical for individuals with pre-existing cardiopulmonary disease or other vulnerable groups such as elderly, pregnant, or pediatric populations.

Air pollution will only worsen with increased climate change and human activity. Over time, the damage from air pollution will become increasingly visible. With this summer’s wildfires serving as a premonition of what’s to come, now is the time to push for substantive environmental health policies and industrial regulation to mitigate the public health and environmental costs of our warming world.

This editorial was written and published by the Globe & Mail on September 1, 2023.

In the federal elections of 2019 and 2021, it was easy to support climate action. The daily pinch of the carbon tax was soft. In the next federal election, it will cost Canadians a lot more to back strong climate policies. Carbon pricing started in 2019. For gasoline, the initial cost was four cents a litre. In 2021, it was nine cents a litre. The Liberals narrowly won both elections, and the Conservatives’ lack of climate credibility was cited as a reason they lost.

The next election could be different. In 2024, the carbon tax on gasoline rises to 18 cents a litre. In 2025, it’ll be 21 cents. That’s about $12 on every fill-up of a 60-litre tank. Even with quarterly cheques from Ottawa to households in provinces like Ontario to cover such costs, the ever-higher price won’t go unnoticed like it was in the past.

Putting a price on carbon was, originally, a conservative idea, and the rising cost is exactly how it is supposed to work. A slow and steady squeeze shifts individual decision-making. It’s part of the reason electric vehicles are close to 10 per cent of all new sales, up from 3 per cent four years ago.

But the reality is most Canadians fuel their cars and trucks with gasoline. Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre has homed in on this, as prices for everything rise. He has, in his run for the party leadership last year and ever since, rejected the need for a robust climate platform. Instead, he supports more fossil fuels (increased natural gas exports), technology (nuclear power and carbon capture for fossil fuel production) and – most of all – scrapping the carbon tax.

Mr. Poilievre’s focus shows the Conservative Party’s continuing disdain for climate action. In 2019, Andrew Scheer’s Conservative platform acknowledged “climate change is real” but didn’t put forward tangible proposals to do something about it. In 2021, Erin O’Toole tried to do more but offered only half-measures.

Mr. Poilievre has circled back to Mr. Scheer territory – and doubled down. “Axe the tax” is his slogan this summer, even as Conservatives have had to postpone events because of raging wildfires, which are made worse by climate change. “The carbon tax does nothing to fight climate change,” Mr. Poilievre said in Sudbury in July. “It has failed.”

This rhetoric ignores that transportation emissions from cars and light trucks in 2021, the latest official figures, were at their lowest since the late 1990s. Less commuting during the pandemic was part of the reason but carbon pricing, still in its early stages, is beginning to take hold. Mr. Poilievre argues Canadians should burn fossil fuels at no direct personal cost.

His other ideas are equally unpromising. Canadian oil and gas production are at record levels. Mr. Poilievre, like Alberta Premier Danielle Smith, wants to further increase fossil fuel production and try to claim credit for lower emissions overseas if natural gas exports displace coal power. It is a convoluted idea that experts say is “implausible.”

He also wants to weaken environmental reviews of new industrial projects by scrapping the federal Impact Assessment Agency. It was created by the Liberals to replace Stephen Harper’s watered-down process, which had led to long delays when courts ruled environmental oversight and Indigenous consultations were inadequate.

Some of Mr. Poilievre’s proposals – federal subsidies for nuclear power and carbon capture – are already happening. The Liberals have spent $1-billion to help build a small reactor in Ontario and plan $12-billion for carbon capture (more than double what Mr. O’Toole proposed in 2021).

What Mr. Poilievre never seems to mention is the vast potential of wind and solar power. The federal Conservative leader’s approach to climate aligns closely with Alberta’s Premier, who this summer shut down approvals in the booming renewables business to favour fossil fuels.

Canada has long made promises, under Conservative and Liberals governments, to slash the greenhouse gas emissions that drive climate heating. That’s started to happen under the current Liberal government. Emissions in the oil and gas industry, for example, peaked eight years ago and have since fallen 7 per cent, even as output rose. It’s the result of strict regulations on methane emissions. Canada is still a long way from its goal to cut all emissions by 40 per cent by 2030, but it’s made more progress than ever before.

Mr. Poilievre would slow that progress, from removing the pillar of carbon pricing to a push to increase output of fossil fuels. He’s betting his pitch will resonate widely enough to win an election. Canadians need to be wary.

This article was written by Anthony Alexiou and was published in the Toronto Star on August 31, 2023.

ANTHONY ALEXIOU, A NATIVE OF TORONTO, IS THE FOUNDER AND PRINCIPAL OF THE MINOTAUR GROUP, A GEOPOLITICAL RISK ADVISORY

Afghanistan and Iran came dangerously close to war some weeks ago, but it had nothing to do with political ideologies or ancient rivalries; it had to do with a river and how much water each country is allowed to draw from it.

The waters of the Helmand River are shared by both countries and there was even an agreement drawn up in 1973 enshrining how much water from this river each country gets.

While it’s never been officially ratified, both countries had it figured out, that is until some weeks ago. Droughts and subsequent dams built in Afghanistan have decreased the flow of water into the region, causing shortages and agricultural issues, especially on the Iranian side. This created tensions that boiled over into both sides briefly shooting at each other and while there were some casualties, cooler heads prevailed.

In Somalia, while sitting in a camp for displaced persons just outside of Mogadishu, Nurata Hassan Ebow said “We had to leave because of the drought and the conflict.”

The conflict she’s referring to is the ongoing fighting between what are passing as government forces and the group al-Shabab. She is one of many people who have been displaced by drought, historic flooding and the conflict — a struggle for what are becoming more and more scarce resources.

This has put many parts of Somalia at the edge of famine and, according to Mohamed Abdi, Norwegian Refugee Council’s country director in Somalia, has driven more than one million people from their homes.

As climate change progresses, more of these types of scenarios will play out. Floods and droughts will lead to lands becoming uninhabitable, triggering mass migrations of people, much like we’re seeing in the Horn of Africa.

In other cases, we’ll see countries getting ready to fight not for oil or territory, but for control over water or arable land. These are the conflicts of the future.

The European Commission is seeing this on the horizon. They feel that climate change worsens conflict risks in fragile areas, destructive weather that can harm crop yields exacerbating food insecurity. In the Sahel in western Africa, migrations risk unleashing decades of armed conflict and displacement according to the UN.

The problem isn’t limited to developing or fragile areas of the world. The people that get displaced from western Africa or Somalia or Bangladesh all need to go somewhere and they go to countries that seemingly have the means; Europe, China, the U.S. and other places that might be less affected or simply are perceived as safer.

The stress mass migrations puts on receiving country systems is huge and creates a whole new set of problems. Those that stay behind either suffer or fight over what little is left.

Ahmadou Aly Mbaye and Landre Signe, both fellows at the Brookings Institution in Washington underscore this. In their economic study of the Sahel, the semi-arid region of western and north-central Africa, they found that poverty, instability and communal violence are already on the rise because of poor economic performance and deteriorating climate conditions. For populations there dependent on the natural resources for their livelihood, climate change reinforces long existing rivalries as groups fight over what resources are left.

The European Union is worried about that — spillover effects from climate-driven conflicts. In a draft paper published a few weeks ago, the EU feels that these spillover effects “… can arise through increased demand for aid, the disruption of supply chains or with people fleeing from uninhabitable areas or severe adverse conditions at home, with the potential of internal displacement and increased irregular migration.”

Essentially this is what’s happening in both East and West Africa, and to some degree along the U.S. southern border.

Climate change is not abstract. It’s not just a hot summer in Europe or forest fires in Canada. It’s the destruction of arable land and fights over key resources for life; water and land to grow food. While the West has the capacity to absorb any internal climate issues, Somalia, Niger, Bangladesh and other developing countries do not, and the inevitable conflicts and ensuring migrations will affect us all.

This opinion was written by John Vaillan, author of Fire Weather: The Making of a Beast, and was published in the Globe & Mail on August 30, 2023.

Wildfire is not just a public health and safety issue – it is fast becoming a national security threat that is overwhelming emergency response, destabilizing provinces, and affecting their GDPs. Here, in Canada’s own “Black Summer,” we are battling a new kind of domestic terror. Like gun violence in the United States, its causes and sources are well understood, and its damage – so frightening and disruptive in the moment – lingers on for years in ways that can break lives and bank accounts.

This year’s bill will be in the billions (again). As abundant evidence has made clear, 21st century fire burns aren’t the same as those in the past, and insurance companies know this. The situation is now so existentially, quantitatively dangerous that State Farm and Allstate are refusing fire coverage for new homes and businesses across entire swaths of the continent. Other insurers are watching, and the implications for Canada are grave indeed.

How is it then that the fossilfuel industry–the planet’ s biggest contributor of carbon emissions – along with the banks that finance it, and the governments that subsidize it, gets a pass, not just from responsibility, but even from accountability to the laws of chemistry and physics?

Before going further, let’s draw a sharp distinction between workers doing their level best to remain solvent and employed, and “owners” (as they’re known in Fort McMurray, Alta.) – the companies that have lately been saying the quiet parts out loud.

Wait–what have they been saying?

Here’s Exxon CEO Darren Woods: “At the end of the day, we’re a molecule company, not an electron company.” In other words, Exxon intends to develop, sell, and burn petroleum products for the foreseeable future while making no effort to transition to renewables.

Shell’s new CEO, Wael Sawan, had the chutzpah to tell the BBC that cutting oil production would be “dangerous and irresponsible.”

Has Mr. Sawan looked at a thermometer lately? Has he seen the fires burning in B.C., Alberta, and now, Louisiana, where so many petroleum workers (are trying to) live?

Meanwhile, Canada’s own Suncor, whose stated mission is “to provide trusted energy that enhances people’s lives while caring for each other and the Earth,” has sold off its forward-looking renewables business, and hired former Exxon VP Rich Kruger as its new CEO. We know where Exxon’s priorities lie, and so does Mr. Kruger, who has paid no lip service to renewables, decarbonizing, or anything else biologically life-affirming. “We are in the business to make money, and as much of it as possible,” he said, “and everybody, starting with me, needs to see how they do that.”

If I was an employee, I’d be nervous. (If you haven’t seen Mike Judge’s Office Space, watch it now.)

While Mr. Kruger conceded that lowering emissions is important, he emphasized that it’s not profitable (enough) and, therefore, not his main concern. Shareholders come first, second and third.

Here’s where the laws of nature – to which Mr. Kruger, Suncor, and every shareholder must answer – beg to differ: if you’re in the fossilfuel business, you’re in the fire business, which means you’re in the CO2 business, which means you’re part of the problem, aiding and abetting global climate disruption that is, right now, endangering millions of lives.

So, who decided that corporations were exempt from earthly consequences? And why do governments and voters tolerate it? The problem lies with the artificial, but sacred obligation to shareholders, which Mr. Woods, Mr. Sawan, and Mr. Kruger have been charged with honouring at all and any costs. In this way, the profit motive, which has metastasized, cancer-like, into the pursuit of endless growth on the body of our finite planet, has attained the sanctity of an orthodox religion, defying logic, science, common sense, and common decency.

Looked at objectively, this accountability gap enables what amounts to state-sanctioned sociopathy. As Mr. Kruger said himself, “I play to win.” Consequences be damned. And, boy, are there consequences: look at any metric of climate distress – air temperature, sea temperature, coral bleaching, glacier loss, polar ice loss, drought, wildfire intensity – all of them are spiking. Many of us will miss work if our body temperature goes one degree above normal; three degrees, and we might land in the hospital. Our planet, the source of all life, love, joy, and wealth, has a fever. Everyone can feel it. Most of us, including CEOs, bankers, prime ministers, and presidents, know what’s causing it. Collectively, we have the tools to reduce it. We have the tools to win.

Do it for the shareholders. They need fire insurance, too.

Shell’s new CEO, Wael Sawan, had the chutzpah to tell the BBC that cutting oil production would be ‘dangerous and irresponsible.’

ANDREW COYNE and GARY MASON will return.

This opinion was written by Patrick DeRoche and was published in the Globe & Mail on August 28, 2023.

This summer’s heat waves, wildfires and floods aren’t stopping CPPIB’s investment in the primary cause of climate change

Senior manager of Shift Action for Pension Wealth and Planet Health, a charitable project that tracks the fossil fuel investments and climate policies of Canadian pension funds, and mobilizes pension beneficiaries to engage fund managers on the climate crisis

As Canada experiences a record-shattering summer of deadly extreme weather, it’s worth remembering that our national pension fund has poured much of our retirement savings into the primary cause of the climate crisis: fossil fuels.

In doing so, the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board is also undermining its own purpose: to provide Canadians with retirement security by achieving a maximum rate of return without undue risk of loss. Fossil fuel industries, after all, must be rapidly phased out to ensure a safe climate future.

This summer’s unprecedented heat waves, wildfires and floods have taken an immense toll on communities, workers, wildlife and ecosystems, underscoring the immediacy of the climate emergency for many Canadians.

Scientists are clear that climate change, primarily driven by the production and combustion of fossil fuels, is making this extreme weather more likely and more intense. The economic effects of climate disruption are already significant, and will only get worse.

That’s why it’s so problematic for CPPIB to continue investing Canada’s retirement fund in the high-risk fossil fuels driving the climate crisis.

CPPIB is the investment manager for the $575-billion Canada Pension Plan, with 21 million Canadians as members. CPPIB has taken some laudable steps to assess and manage climate-related financial risks, committing to net-zero emissions across all scopes by 2050, developing a “decarbonization investment approach,” setting climate-related expectations for portfolio companies, and making significant investments in climate solutions such as renewable energy and electrification.

Yet some of CPPIB’s investment decisions and portfolio companies are doubling down on fossil fuels, which accelerates the climate crisis and creates undue risk for our retirement portfolio. CPPIB has repeatedly refused to disclose an inventory of its holdings in oil, gas, coal and related infrastructure. But in July, 2022, CPPIB said it held a staggering $21.72-billion in fossil fuel producers alone.

CPPIB owns 43.5 per cent of Ireland’s largest offshore gas field, 98 per cent of one of the largest U.S. private oil and gas producers, and 49.9 per cent of Peru’s largest exporter of gas, whose pipelines transport gas extracted in the Amazon rain forest.

Here in Canada, through its 99-per-cent stake in Wolf Midstream, CPPIB owns the Access Pipeline System, which gathers and delivers diluent to flow bitumen through pipelines. These companies are included in CPPIB’s deceptively-named “Sustainable Energies” portfolio.

Despite the dire climate warnings of scientists and the millions of Canadians choking on wildfire smoke, CPPIB continues to bet our national retirement fund on investments that require expanding and prolonging oil and gas production to generate returns.

In February, Calpine Corp., the largest gas-fired U.S. electricity generator, 13.4 per cent owned by CPPIB, announced it will build a new gas plant in Texas. In March, CPPIB spent a reported US$400million to buy a 49-per-cent stake in Aera Energy LLC, California’s second-largest oil and gas producer. In June, Denver-based Civitas Resources Inc., in which CPPIB is the largest shareholder, announced it would spend US$4.7-billion to increase its oil and gas production by 60 per cent.

Last year, CPPIB committed US$100-million to Kimmeridge Fund VI, a private equity fund that will be used to produce more fracked gas and build a new Gulf Coast liquefied natural gas terminal.

CPPIB claims that it must stay invested in fossil fuels so that it can “share [its] expectations and use [its] governance rights” to influence companies that are failing to manage climate risks.

Yet CPPIB voted against climate-related shareholder resolutions at Imperial Oil Ltd., Enbridge Inc. and Royal Bank of Canada this spring, while voting for the re-election of almost all directors at Pathways Alliance oil sands companies. Pathways lobbies aggressively to undermine government climate policy and faces a formal greenwashing investigation, while its members admit publicly that they’re deprioritizing the energy transition.

CPPIB claims that it’s “difficult to overstate the urgency of reducing GHG emissions.” But CPPIB’s continued investment in fossil fuels is irreconcilable with its net-zero emissions commitment and its purpose of providing Canadians with retirement security across an investment horizon that spans decades.

There is scientific consensus that oil and gas production must be rapidly phased out to avert catastrophic climate outcomes. There must be someone at CPPIB, which spent more than $1-billion on personnel last year, with the skills to translate this decarbonization imperative into a credible climate plan for the CPP.

Like millions of Canadians, I have no choice but to contribute to the CPP with every paycheque. I’d like to collect those compounded savings when I retire in a few decades.

But that money might not be there if CPPIB keeps risking it on fossil fuels. It’s astounding that CPPIB won’t acknowledge that there is no retirement security without a safe climate to retire into.