The federal election, the U.S., and climate action

Parties quiet on climate

Our environmental crises continue to worsen from climate change to biodiversity to microplastics to the state of our forests.

I thought climate would be front and centre in the current federal election. A Leger poll last month found 65% of Canadians think Canada should invest in renewables rather than fossil fuel development. Also, 62% felt Canada should maintain its climate commitments independent of the U.S. administration’s decisions and 67% agreed the next Canadian government should make climate action and protecting nature a priority.

So why do we not hear more about climate action and other environmental issues in this election?

It is true the U.S. President Donald Trumpis taking up a lot of the oxygen in our election. One of his main policies is to halt action on climate and environmental regulations and increase fossil fuel exploitation, even to the point of putting pressure on trading partners to buy more American fossil fuels.

In the tariff crisis Trump has created, it is inevitable all lobby groups, from industry to NGOs, will declare the crisis response should include putting a higher priority on their preferred projects.

Conservative Leader, Pierre Poilievre has been a consistent booster of the fossil fuel industry and is silent on the subject of climate. He has used the tariff crisis to declare the need for new oil pipelines. That assertion ignores the $50 billion the Canadian government has now invested in the Trans Mountain Expansion pipeline, an amount no company is going to be willing to invest in the future.

It also neglects the fact pipelines will take a decade to build, while, in only four short years, Trump will be out of power. Also in four years, the International Energy Agency predicts oil and gas demand will have peaked and start falling. The Carbon Tracker, a London-based climate think tank, predicts oil and gas prices at that time will begin to fall as demand softens.

They also note Canada’s oil and gas are relatively expensive to produce and will not be in a good market position when prices begin to fall. Poilievre also promises to fast-track new resource projects which will ensure a decade of litigation by First Nations, who will not have been adequately consulted and may not agree with those projects.

Liberal Leader Mark Carney, while much more aware of the need for climate action, has claimed we can expand oil and gas production while reducing their greenhouse gas emissions, which are currently 30% of Canada’s total emissions.

He purports to do this for oil by reducing the GHG intensity per unit of oil produced. Even if true, the solutions may reduce the GHGs per unit but not the total if more oil is produced. More oil produced means more oil burned, resulting in more GHGs, regardless of where the burning takes place. Additionally, the main method currently proposed to reduce GHGs of oil production is through carbon capture and storage, which has proven to be extremely expensive and only feasible if taxpayers pay for most of it, for which the industry is lobbying hard.

This is similar to B.C. Premier David Eby’s claims that LNG will be “carbon neutral” because the industry will use electricity to run its operations. The amount of electricity required to do that makes the proposal more fantasy than fact.

All of this ignores the urgency of the climate crisis and Canada’s and B.C.’s commitments to reduce our carbon pollution. Two years ago, U.N. Secretary-General, Antonio Guterres, called for a phase-out of fossil fuel production if the world was to avert the worst of the climate crisis. Last year, he called for a ban on fossil fuel advertising, a tax on fossil fuel windfall profits and urged financial institutions to stop funding fossil fuel projects. Canada has made a modest effort towards the first of these and nothing at all on the others.

Climate and other environmental issues may be downplayed in this election because a lot of our mainstream media is American-owned. As well, according to a 2020 Stand.Earth report, 70% of oil sands production is owned by wealthy foreign investors and shareholders.

In B.C., the Prince Rupert Gas Transmission pipeline and massive Ksi Lisims LNG project that Eby must decide on this spring are mainly owned by Western LNG, an American consortium.

Other countries, even the U.S., are moving ahead with climate action. American battery storage capacity, allowing more efficient use of renewable energy, reached 20.7 gigawatts in July 2024, or the equivalent of 20 Site C dams. It is expected to double again by the end of this year.

Canada needs to step up and meet our climate commitments regardless of who is elected. Phasing out fossil fuels, while not solving all our problems, will mean a livable planet with good jobs and less pollution.

This article is written by or on behalf of an outsourced columnist and does not necessarily reflect the views of Castanet.

The problem with fossil fuel subsidies

Subsidizing fossil fuels

Photo: Trans Mountain

The now completed Trans Mountain expansion project under construction.

A subsidy is a financial aid, granted by the government, to assist an industry so price of its commodity is artificially lowered.

Fossil fuel subsidies increase sales of gas, oil and coal—sources of the carbon pollution we must lower. Rather than making pollution expensive, subsidies make it cheaper. This is like raising taxes on cigarettes to discourage smoking, while also giving tobacco companies tax breaks so they can make more cigarettes and profits.

To make matters worse, fossil fuel subsidies disadvantage clean energy. They make fossil energy cheaper than renewables. Consequently, investing in renewable energy becomes less attractive. Subsidies distort the market, pushing investment toward sectors that might not otherwise be viable.

When fossil fuel producers receive hundreds of millions of dollars in subsidies each year, vital government resources aren’t available for important sectors, such as renewable energy and social services.

There are three major types of fossil fuel subsidies, royalty reductions, direct subsidies such as grants, loan guarantees and fossil fuel specific tax measures and indirect subsidies such as public infrastructure investments, reduced utility rates, general tax measures and the cost of pollution borne by society.

All of these help fossil fuel companies lower their cost of business and increase profits. Some incorrectly think that removing fossil fuel subsidies means advocating for job losses and energy insecurity. In truth, fossil fuel subsidy reform can be done in a way that supports job creation and enhances energy security, setting Canada up to thrive in the emerging low-carbon economy.

Four of the top oil companies in Canada (Cenovus, Imperial Oil, Suncor and Canadian Natural Resources Ltd.) had a combined annual profit of more than $25 billion in 2021. Oil and gas extraction companies in Canada made more than $63 billion in profits in 2022.

In 2009, at the G20 meeting, Canada committed to eliminate “inefficient” fossil fuel subsidies by 2025. The G20 decision on fossil fuel subsidies set an important international precedent. Unfortunately, Canada has failed to significantly reduce its level of support to the fossil fuel industry. Canada is one of the largest international fossil fuel financers in the world, ranked last among 11 OECD countries on progress in ending fossil fuel subsidies.

• In 2019, the Canadian government purchased the Trans Mountain pipeline and expansion project for $4.5 billion.

• In 2022, Environmental Defence Canada reported tracking $21 billion in federal fossil fuel subsidies, adding that it believed that was likely an underestimate.

• In 2023, the Government of Canada provided at least $18 billion in financial support to fossil fuel and petrochemical companies, including:

• $8 billion in loan guarantees for the Trans Mountain expansion pipeline.

• $7.3 billion in public financing through crown corporation Export Development Canada

• More than $1.3 billion for carbon capture and storage projects.

One of the last things Chrystia Freeland did as federal finance minister was to authorize an additional $20 billion loan to the Trans Mountain pipeline project, bringing the total disclosed federal commitment to nearly $50 billion. The guarantee appears to violate a commitment made by Freeland in 2022 that no further public money would be invested in the project after the pipeline’s cost swelled to $21.4 billion.

In 2022, the Government of Canada introduced a 15 per cent windfall tax on excess profits in the banking and insurance sectors (the Canada Recovery Dividend). Oil and gas companies were not included in this new tax.

The Parliamentary Budget Office estimated that applying the Canada Recovery Dividend to oil and gas profits in 2022 would have generated $4.2 billion in one year alone.

In addition to those supports, federal subsidies are available through numerous funds, such as Canada Infrastructure Bank, Clean Fuels Fund, Strategic Innovation Fund, Sustainable Development Technology Canada (not monitored for use for sustainable development), and Trade Corridors Fund and tax credits, such as the Accelerated Capital Cost Allowance for LNG, Canadian development expenses, Canadian exploration expenses, Canadian oil and gas property expense, Flow through shares, and foreign exploration and development expenses.

Avoiding financial responsibility for climate pollution created by oil and gas companies is an indirect subsidy. Climate costs borne by society include health costs, property damage from extreme weather events and decreased agricultural productivity due to changing weather patterns.

The Government of Canada has developed a tool to calculate these costs, and they would have been over $52 billion in 2023.

(This is the first column in a three-part series about fossil fuel subsidies. The second part, on April 15, will cover royalty, direct and indirect subsidies in B.C. and the third, on April 29, will cover LNG, coal and offer some conclusions.)

This article is written by or on behalf of an outsourced columnist and does not necessarily reflect the views of Castanet.

Myths of the B.C. forest industry

Case against clearcutting

Photo: Eli Pivnick

A replanted clear cut near Rock Creek, B.C.

Successive B.C. governments have failed to seriously overhaul forestry policy.

The late Upton Sinclair, a distinguished American author and political activist (1878-1968), pointed out a truth that is applicable today.

“It is difficult for a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it,” he said.

A good example is the March 7 letter to Castanet by Brian LaPointe. LaPointe has worked in the forest industry continuously since 1973. His letter expresses many of the myths propagated by the forest industry.

The industry has always said, echoed by Lapointe, that clear cuts mimic insect and disease infestations and wildfires. However, that is true only when a forest is regarded as a supply of timber. But forests are much more than that. Forests are critical to the hydrological cycle. Trees hold back water from melting snow and rain, allowing it to seep deep into the soil following tree roots.

Trees shade and cool the land and water evaporates from trees, keeping the forest air moist.

Dead trees are important for wildlife. Biologists employ bat boxes, bluebird nesting boxes and artificial bear dens to make up for the loss of dead trees. Many insects use dead trees for food. Birds, especially woodpeckers, and mammals feed on those insects. Have you ever tried to burn rotten wood? It is often wet, as it holds water.

After insect or disease outbreaks, as well as wildfires, dead trees remain as do some healthy trees due to luck or valuable properties that they can pass on. Dead standing trees provide habitat and food for wildlife, provide shade and hold back water with their roots for years afterward. Downed trees also provide habitat and moisture but if the area is logged—with the healthy trees cut down as well as the dead ones—downed logs are removed prior to re-planting.

LaPointe’s idea that our forests need to be “refreshed” by clear-cutting and re-planting, and that it is “gentler than wild fires” and has “conservation and bio-diversity benefits” is simply propaganda. The forest industry in B.C. has been successful at it, convincing B.C. residents and trading partners our forests are sustainably managed.

If this were the case, why are caribou and spotted owl populations collapsing, moose and furbearers on the decline, many lumber and paper mills closing and forestry jobs having declined by 50% in the last 20 years?

Two reports in the last five years found only 3% of our high-value low-elevation old growth forests remain. There is not more public outcry in B.C. because everywhere you look there are trees. However, the trees are mostly replanted, small and dense, and are of one or two species with few deciduous trees, shrubs, mushrooms or herbaceous plants. That is because of soil compaction from heavy machinery, herbicide sprays and soil disturbance carried out before planting.

It may look like a forest but animals know different and they are not found there. A replanted forest is like a city where everyone over the age of 15 has left. There would still be people, but the community would not be functional. If you want to get a sense of what we have done to the forests in B.C., use Google Earth’s time lapse. There you can look at time lapse videos of anywhere on the planet from 1984 to 2022. In most areas of B.C., it would appear there is a giant infestation eating our forests. That “infestation” is our forest industry.

B.C. forests used to store carbon, now they emit it. The B.C. government does not include those emissions in its yearly reports. However, they are as big as all the emissions reported. In bad fire years (2017, 2018, 2021 and 2023), forest emissions were two the three times as big as all reported emissions. Forests sequester less carbon because the trees are smaller and less healthy than they used to be.

Our forestry practices contribute to climate change, which is partly responsible for the increase in fires, floods, landslides and droughts that we are experiencing. But forestry practices are also directly responsible. Ministry of Forests recommendations are that no more than 20% to 30% of a forested area can be clearcut over a 60- to 80-year period without comprising the forest’s ability to hold back water. That recommendation is rarely respected.

That and the lack of shade means clearcut areas are more susceptible to fires for 20 years, even if re-planted. Ironically, herbicide spraying removes deciduous trees which are able to slow down forest fires.

If clearcuts are so harmful, why are they the dominant form of logging? In a word, profit. Clear cutting means faster and bigger machinery can be used. So it is more efficient and cheaper. The downside is on jobs, tourism, wildlife, fires, floods, scenery, landslides, biodiversity and the climate.

Selective logging, which cuts down trees without destroying the forest, is a sustainable way to log. In 20 years, clearcut logging will be recognized for the barbaric and destructive practice it is, like smoking cigarettes on an airplane, or spraying people with DDT to get rid of lice. No one in the future will clear cut.

We need that future now.

This article is written by or on behalf of an outsourced columnist and does not necessarily reflect the views of Castanet.

Clearcut logging and climate change: Problems and solutions

Dangers of clearcut logging

Photo: Eli Pivnick

Clearcut logging near Lumby in 2023.

Climate change is accelerating.

For the last 15 years, due to the increasingly unhealthy state of our forests, forest greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions have been approximately equal to all other reported GHGs in B.C. In fact, in the last three worst fire seasons, forest GHGs have far exceeded all our other emissions, based on the B.C. government’s own data.

In the past, B.C. forests stored carbon, on balance. Something needs to change and that something is clearcut logging.

Clearcut logging involves the removal of a mature stand of trees, which would otherwise sequester large amounts of carbon every year. Afterward logging, the amount of carbon sequestration is severely reduced for decades. Clearcut logging destroys understory plants and compacts the soil, killing much of the soil bacteria and fungi. That means the forest soil that the new tree growth will depend on will be severely depleted. As a result, tree growth is slower and trees are less healthy.

Clearcut logging also dries out the land. There are no old, decaying logs left. Those logs are not only important food and shelter for many animals, plants and the soil flora, they act like sponges to hold moisture and reduce drying of the land. After clear cutting, there are no trees to hold back moisture, so snow melt and precipitation run off more quickly, causing both floods and landslides in the spring.

There is also no shade, so the ground temperature is much higher, which increases evaporation, and dries out the land causing droughts and fire vulnerability.

In recent years, the B.C. government was successfully sued by landowners because of landslides and flooding due to reckless logging practices. Long standing guidelines from the Ministry of Forests are no more than between 20% and 30% of forested land should be logged within a 60-year to 80-year time span to maintain a healthy hydrological cycle. That guideline is not the law and has been routinely ignored by government ministries and the logging industry.

Clearcut logging is generally followed by tree planting of conifer species. That is still followed with herbicide spraying in B.C., although that practice is used less than in the past. Herbicide spraying kills broadleaf trees and shrubs.

A recent Canadian study by researchers in the Maritimes showed a more species-diverse forest in Canada can store more carbon than the kinds of forests left behind after clearcutting. Additionally, broadleaf trees (cottonwood, aspen, birch, alder and willow), because they are less flammable than conifers and hold more moisture, can slow, and even stop, wildfires.

Salvage logging after insect infestation or forest fires is another form of clear cut logging. After such damage, there is still a functioning forest ecosystem. That is because the soil is not compacted and because not all trees are damaged. Even dead trees are important. The surviving trees are valuable because they may have characteristics that make them less susceptible to insects or fire and can help restore the ecosystem.

Not only do some animals, birds and insects thrive in damaged forests but the forests will recover faster if left alone. Witness the massive production of edible morels in the spring after a fire in the forest. I visited the fire-damaged forest in West Kelowna in 2024, the spring after the fire. I found a mule deer buck grazing on new green growth, a gopher snake curled up in a hollow at the base of a burned tree and several woodpeckers looking for grubs in tree trunks.

If clearcut logging is so detrimental, why is it used so extensively?

In a word, profit. Logging is much faster with no, or few, trees in the way that must be left behind. That also means bigger machines can be used. Because of both of those factors, labour costs are lower. Fewer jobs and faster work means more profit.

The number of jobs in the forest industry has declined by approximately 55 000 in the last 20 years. That has been due to increased mechanization as well as a decrease in tree quality and quantity due to forest mismanagement.

Instead of clear cutting, we can selectively log, where individual trees are cut but the forest is left intact. This is still practiced today in B.C. in some woodlots and community forests.

Smaller machinery or, in some cases, horses are used to drag out the logs. Making use of small trees where forests could be thinned to make them healthier and more fire resistant is another opportunity. If the woody debris, left over after every logging operation was turned into biochar instead of burning it, the carbon would be fixed and could be used to increase soil fertility.

There are many possibilities to improve the health of our forests once clear cutting is taken off the logging menu.

This article is written by or on behalf of an outsourced columnist and does not necessarily reflect the views of Castanet.