In an earlier post I noted that British Columbia presently mines, transports and ships metallurgical coal used in the steel industry in Asia.  However in recent months there has been a push to expand our coal exports to include vast amounts of US thermal coal used to produce electricity. Washington, Oregon and California have all said no to the export of this excess thermal coal through their ports. So why do we think its okay to ship the coal through British Columbia ports? There are very few jobs associated with coal export and we know that coal combustion is the dirtiest way to produce electricity. In fact, North American markets are drying up for this thermal coal due to an explosion of shale gas production and shale gas burns much cleaner and more efficiently than coal. Even China recently announced plans to significantly reduce their use of coal.

In order to increase our export capacity for thermal coal, Fraser Surrey docks have proposed the creation of a Direct Transfer Coal Facility. This facility would transfer coal from trains to barges for transport to a handling facility at Texada Island. There coal would be stored and loaded onto ships destined for the Asian market.  I understand the desire of Fraser Surrey docks to expand their operations, but is coal really the only option? I think not.

According to Port Metro Vancouver “Container traffic through the west coast of Canada is expected to double over the next 10 to 15 years and nearly triple by 2030“. In my earlier post mentioned above, I pointed out how the Port of Prince Rupert seized upon some of their natural geographical advantages to host a modern container facility. Presently their container facility does not have a capacity for destuffing and restuffing containers upon their arrival from Asia. But by adding such a capacity, hundreds of local jobs would be created.

This week I toured the Alberni Inlet and the port in Port Alberni to get a sense of what potential for growth existed there. The CEO of the Port Authority, Zoran Knezevic, together with the Port Authority directors that I met, shared a vision that has enormous potential for both local job creation and the environment. It sure looks like a win-win proposition for industry, the citizens of Port Alberni, their Huu-ay-aht First Nation partners, Fraser Surrey docks and Vancouver as a whole.

At present, container ships entering the Strait of Juan de Fuca from Asia and elsewhere will first head to Seattle to unload/load. There they will typically spend a day before moving on to either Deltport or facilities on the south shore of the Burrard Inlet. Another day or so will be spent in the Vancouver region before the ships head back to Asia. Many of the containers unloaded/loaded in the Burrard Inlet are put onto or taken off trucks which drive across the city to the existing distribution and industrial centres largely located on the south arm of the Fraser River. The trucks — more than a million of them a year — add to traffic congestion in the Metro Vancouver area.

So what’s the solution? Port Alberni is proposing to build a container trans-shipment terminal in partnership with the Huu-ay-aht First Nation about 35 km down the inlet from the town of Port Alberni. The facility would be used to unload container ships from Asia and reload their cargo onto barges that would head to either Seattle or Vancouver. The shipping industry wins as their large container ships only unload/load once and save the ~4 day trip to Seattle, Vancouver and back out the Strait of Juan de Fuca. Vancouver wins as the barges can now travel up the south arm of the Fraser River directly to the industrial/distribution sites thereby eliminating more than a million truck trips a year off Metro Vancouver roads. Fraser Surrey Docks win as they can grow to include an expanded container handling facility which would allow them to load/unload trains with cargo instead of coal. And with the expected doubling of container traffic in the next 10 to 15 years, there is indeed a need for additional container handling capacity.

Let’s hope that Fraser Surrey docks, the Port of Metro Vancouver, the Port Alberni Port Authority and the BC Government can all get together to work this out. After all, we all win as the power basin thermal coal stays in the ground.

British Columbia presently mines, transports and ships metallurgical coal used in the steel industry in Asia. These are where B.C. jobs are focused. However, the proposed Port Metro Vancouver, Texada Island and even recent Prince Rupert expansion of coal exports, is largely for thermal coal produced in the United States that is burned to produce electricity. North American markets are drying up for this thermal coal due to an explosion of shale gas production. Shale gas burns much cleaner and more efficiently than coal. Even China recently announced plans to significantly reduce their use of coal.

Washington, Oregon and California have all said no to the export of this excess thermal coal through their ports. So should British Columbia.

This is not about lost B.C. jobs or economic growth. It’s about turning the Best Place on Earth or Beautiful British Columbia into a petro province and the message that this sends internationally.

The premier recently toured Asia touting B.C. natural gas as a means of reducing Asian greenhouse gas emissions arising from the burning of thermal coal. Even in the case of Japan, which is shutting down its nuclear reactors, the premier is arguing that B.C. should earn credits for potential greenhouse gas reductions. She argues that Japan could build coal-fired electricity plants if they don’t switch to natural gas — arguably a bit like me saying “give me a credit or I’ll buy an SUV instead of a hybrid.”

The B.C. government needs to be consistent with its approach to greenhouse gas management. We need to send a strong signal to the market that our principles: that the well-being of future generations of British Columbians are not for sale.

But this isn’t just about saying no to development. We can instead promote real opportunities for the growth of stable, well-paid BC jobs.

The Port of Prince Rupert is the third largest port on the west coast of North America and the closest to Asia. Prince Rupert also benefits from having the lowest-grade passes through the Coast and Rocky mountain ranges. This means that ships can get to Asia three days faster than from any other North American port, and trains can be longer, and burn less diesel, as they transport goods eastward.

The modern Fairview container facility built in 2007 is a highly efficient direct ship-to-train system used for both importing and exporting goods to and from Asia.  Most of the exports are wood products, grains, metals, and other resources and most of the imports are manufactured goods (see Figure).

Figure: Prince Rupert cargo category exports (left) and imports (right) by percentage of total. Source: Prince Rupert Harbour Authority.

The potential for job growth at this port is profound. Presently the container facility does not have a capacity for destuffing and restuffing containers upon their arrival from Asia. Let’s suppose a company like Walmart or Costco wants a large order of fridges, stoves, ipods, kettles, shoes and cell phones all manufactured in China. Right now, containers would come into the Port of Prince Rupert; they would be loaded onto a train and shipped to east or to the mid-west US where destuffing/restuffing would occur (in Chicago, for example). There is no reason why the containers couldn’t be destuffed and all of the Walmart or Costco orders restuffed together in their own containers in Prince Rupert instead of in Chicago. Such a process would involve hundreds of jobs and would give North American distributors faster and potentially less costly access to their inventory.

So together let’s say no to coal and yes to jobs.

In recent years, governments and industry have become more and more interested in supporting so-called nature based climate solutions. So what are such solutions? The Nature Conservancy provides a concise definition: Nature-based climate solutions “are actions to protect, better manage and restore nature to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and store carbon.”

Such solutions aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions (mitigation) fall into two categories: 1) those that the enhance the uptake and storage of carbon within natural ecosystem; 2) those that reduce the emissions of greenhouse gases (e.g., carbon dioxide and methane) from natural ecosystems.

While the above definition recognizes the link between natural ecosystems and the global carbon cycle, nature based solutions also play a critical role in climate change adaptation strategies. A more complete definition that includes both their roles has been offered by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), and subsequently used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

“Nature-based Solutions are actions to protect, sustainably manage, and restore natural and modified ecosystems that address societal challenges effectively and adaptively, simultaneously benefiting people and nature.“

Below I attempt to highlight the important role that such solutions play in both climate change mitigation and adaptation strategies. But I try to put such solutions in the bigger context of what needs to be done to meet the challenge of global warming. I’ll attempt to outline why governments and industry appear to be so supportive of such solutions, yet point out the danger of over-relying on them.

To be clear, nature-based climate solutions have a crucial role to play. Cumulative anthropogenic fossil carbon emissions from 1750 to 2021 have been 474 GtC (billions of tons of carbon), while deforestation and land use changes have contributed another 203 GtC. That is, anthropogenic disruption of natural ecosystems has accounted for about 30% of historical greenhouse gas emissions, so it seems reasonable to expect nature-based climate solutions to have an important role to play moving forward. But there are limits. In fact, a recent paper published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences suggested that nature-based solutions could be used to meet 20% of the required emission reductions to be implemented prior to 2050 to keep global warming to below 2°C. I’ve pointed out for years (and summarized these views again recently), that the 1.5°C target was not attainable even when proposed in the 2015 Paris Accord, due to socioeconomic inertia in our built environment, the role of atmospheric aerosols, and potential effects from the permafrost carbon feedback.

Examples of Nature Based Climate Solutions

To start, I thought it would be illustrative to provide a few examples of nature based climate solutions in action. This list is by no means comprehensive, but rather serves solely to give the reader a sense of what such solutions entail.

The most obvious example of a nature based solution is planting trees. Widespread deforestation, particularly in the creation of pastures for cattle grazing and land for farming or other human uses, has provided the lion’s share of the historical 203 GtC released to the atmosphere. Reforestation (planting trees where they once were) and afforestation (planting trees in places where they weren’t historically present) both have the potential to draw carbon from they atmosphere as they grow. But of course, if we want to use tree planting in carbon budget accounting, we would also have keep track of the carbon released during forest fires.

Urban planners also incorporate tree management in their climate adaptation strategies. For example, they recognize that increasing the tree canopy can help keep cities cooler in the summer than they would otherwise be. Homeowners, for example, might plant deciduous trees in their front yard that blocks the sun from their main windows in the summer, but allow the sunshine in during the late fall and winter once the leaves have fallen.

The use of biochar to enhance the properties of soil has also been proposed as a potential nature-based climate solution. Biochar (a charcoal like substance) is created through a process known as biomass pyrolysis. (high temperature decomposition of plant material). The addition of biochar to agricultural soil leads to enhanced soil carbon uptake and storage, reduced requirement for fertilizer use (and hence reduced nitrous oxide emissions), and improved water use efficiency. Other agricultural nature-based solutions involving tiling practices, crop/grazing rotations, cover crops etc. have also been proposed.

In the coastal ocean, mangroves, salt marshes and seagrass meadows more efficiently capture and store carbon than land based, slow-growing forests. Many of these so called “blue carbon” sinks have been stressed by human activity in research decades and steps have been taken to both preserve and enhance their health and extent. These rich, biodiverse ecosystems also play key roles in climate change adaptation as they serve to protect coastal erosion from storms and sea level rise.

Recognizing the importance of nature-based solutions, the Canadian federal government developed a natural climate solutions fund to protect, enhance and preserves Canada’s biodiverse and carbon rich wetlands, grasslands and forests, in addition to a commitment to plant two billion trees over a ten-year period.

What’s required to stabilize atmospheric temperature

As most everyone is aware, the goal of the internationally-negotiated Paris Agreement is to limit global warming to well below 2 °C above pre-industrial levels while pursuing efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5 °C. Yet we’ve known for more than 15 years that such a target would ultimately require rapid decarbonization and the introduction and scale-up of negative emission technology. In a paper entitled Long term climate implications of 2050 reduction targets that we published in 2007, we note in the abstract (and discussed below):

“Our results suggest that if a 2.0°C warming is to be avoided, direct CO₂ capture from the air, together with subsequent sequestration, would eventually have to be introduced in addition to sustained 90% global carbon emissions reductions by 2050.“

Earth has already warmed by ~1.1-1.2 °C since preindustrial times and if worldwide fossil fuel combustion was immediately eliminated, the direct and indirect net cooling effect of atmospheric aerosol loading would rapidly dissipate through gravitational settling and precipitation scavenging of these aerosols. As such, the source of the ~0.5 °C aerosol cooling realized since the preindustrial era would be eliminated (see Figure 1), thereby taking the Earth rapidly to ~1.6-1.7 °C warming. The Earth would warm further as we equilibrate to the present 523 ppm CO₂e (NOAA 2023) greenhouse gas loading in the atmosphere (only 417 ppm of which is associated with CO₂), and that is not including the committed warming from the permafrost carbon feedback that would add another 0.1 to 0.2 °C this century (Macdougall et al, 2013).

Figure 1: Observed global warming (2010-2019 relative to 1850-1900) and the contribution to this net warming by observed changes to natural and anthropogenic radiative forcing. Reproduced from IPCC (2021).

Let’s once more explore the level of decarbonization required to keep warming below 2°C (recognizing that 1.5°C is no longer attainable).  I present results from the UVic Earth System Climate model discussed in Weaver et al. (2007) and my book Keeping our Cool: Canada in a Warming World.

Starting from a pre-industrial equilibrium climate, I force the UVic model with observed natural and human-caused radiative forcing until the end of 2005. After 2005, future trajectories in emissions must be specified. Each of the post-2005 scenarios I use assumes that contributions to radiative forcing from sulphate aerosols and greenhouse gases other than carbon dioxide remained fixed throughout the simulations. An alternative way of looking at this is that any increase in human- produced, non-carbon dioxide greenhouse gases is assumed to be balanced by an increase in sulphate aerosols (or some other negative radiative forcing). This assumption should be viewed as extremely conservative, since most future emissions scenarios have decreasing sulphate emissions and increasing emissions of non-carbon dioxide greenhouse gases.

We’ll start by examining the effects of a hypothetical international policy option that linearly cuts emissions by some percentage of 2006 levels by 2050, and maintains emissions constant thereafter until the year 2500 (see Figure 2a). Of course, my baseline case of constant 2006 emissions is substantially more optimistic than the IPCC scenarios, some of which have 2050 emissions at more than double 2006 levels. The various pathways in emissions lead to atmospheric carbon dioxide levels in 2050 ranging from 407 ppm to 466 ppm, corresponding to warming relative to 1800 of between 1.5°C and 1.8°C (Figure 2b and Figure 2c). As the twenty-first century progresses, the atmospheric carbon dioxide levels and warming begin to diverge between scenarios, and by 2100 the range is 394 ppm to 570 ppm (we are presently at 417 ppm), with a warming of between 1.5°C and 2.6°C. None of the emissions trajectories lead to an equilibrium climate and carbon cycle in 2500, although the 90% and 100% sustained 2050 emissions reductions have atmospheric carbon dioxide levels that are levelling off. Of particular note is that by 2500, the scenario depicting a 100% reduction in emissions leads to an atmospheric carbon dioxide level below that in 2006, although global mean surface air temperature is still 0.5°C warmer than in 2006 (1.5°C warmer than 1800). While this version of the UVic Earth System Model only calculates the thermal expansion component of seal level rise and ignores contributions from glacier and ice sheet melt, the results shown in Figure 2d indicate that sea level rise still has not equilibrated even after 500 years. Figure 2: (a) Observed anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions from 1800 to 2006 (red) followed by linear reductions of 0–100% of 2006 levels by 2050. From 2050 onwards emissions are held constant. Transient evolution of globally-averaged (b) atmospheric carbon dioxide, (c) surface air temperature, and (d) sea level rise due to thermal expansion for all experiments. Note that the sea-level curves have no contribution from the melting of land-based ice.

All simulations that have less than a 60% reduction in global emissions by 2050 eventually break the threshold of 2°C warming this century. Even if emissions are eventually stabilized at 90% less than 2006 levels globally (1.1 billions of tonnes of carbon emitted per year), the 2°C threshold warming limit is eventually broken well before the year 2500. This implies that if a 2°C warming is to be avoided, direct CO₂ capture from the air, together with subsequent sequestration, would eventually have to be introduced in addition to 90% reductions in global carbon emissions.

I purposely kept emissions constant after 2050 in my idealized scenarios to illustrate that cutting emissions by some prescribed amount by 2050 is in and of itself not sufficient to deal with the problem of global warming. Even if we maintain global carbon dioxide emissions at 90% below current levels, we eventually break the 2°C threshold. This is because the natural carbon dioxide removal processes can’t work fast enough to take up the emissions we emit to the atmosphere year after year. Any solution to global warming will ultimately require the world to move towards net zero emissions carbon which requires the introduction and global scale up of negative emission technology.

Figure 3: As in Figure 2 but the emissions in (a) continue the linear decrease until zero emissions are reached. The year in which zero emissions is reached is indicated in the table below.

Now let’s examine the effects of another hypothetical international policy option that starts from the results obtained in the previous suite of experiments at 2050 but now continues to linearly decrease emissions at the same rate until zero emissions are reached. The resulting emissions are shown in Figure 3a and the date at which emissions fall to zero is given in table to the right.

If we keep emissions on a linearly decreasing emissions path to carbon neutrality, it turns out that in the UVic model about 45% or larger reductions (relative to 2005 levels) are required by 2050 if we do not wish to break the 2°C threshold. And peak atmospheric carbon dioxide levels reach a little over 450 ppm before settling down to slightly above 400 ppm. Notice that in all cases, even though emissions have gone to zero, sea level continues to rise. It’s further important to note that these simulations were conducted and published in 2007 and assumed the hypothetical scenario of an immediate curtailing of emissions. The reality is global fossil carbon emissions (excluding land use emissions) were 10.1 GtC (billions of tonnes of carbon) in 2021 which is a 25% increase from 2005 levels (when they were 8.1GtC).

In this section I have tried to emphasize that the only means of stabilizing the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is for humanity to achieve net zero carbon emissions. While the implementation of nature-based solutions provides some additional time before net zero must be reached to avoid breaking the 2°C guardrail, there is a danger that such efforts are being overly promoted by governments and industry to allow them to maintain the status quo of oil, gas and coal exploration and combustion.

It’s a question of timescale

Millions of years ago when the atmosphere had much higher concentrations of carbon dioxide, trees, ferns, and other plants were abundant. These plants used the sun’s energy, together with carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and water, to create glucose or sugar and release oxygen back to the atmosphere (photosynthesis). As the years went by, plants would grow and die, and some of these dead trees and other vegetation would fall into swampy waters depleted in oxygen. In this environment, the organic matter only partially decayed and so turned into peat, a precursor for coal formation. Over time, shallow seas covered some of the swampy regions, depositing layers of mud or silt. As the pressure started to increase, the peat was transformed, over millions of years, into brown coal, then soft coal, and finally hard coal.

A similar process occurred within shallow seas where ocean plants (e.g., phytoplankton) and marine creatures would die and sink to the bottom to be buried in the sediments below. Over millions of years, the sediments hardened to produce sedimentary rocks, and the resulting high pressures and temperatures caused the organic matter to transform slowly into oil or natural gas. The great oil and natural gas reserves of today formed in these ancient sedimentary basins.

Today when we burn a fossil fuel, we are harvesting the sun’s energy stored from millions of years ago. In the process, we are also releasing the carbon dioxide that had been drawn out of that ancient atmosphere (which had much higher levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere than today). So, unless we can actually figure out a way to speed up the millions of years required to sequester carbon from the atmosphere and to convert dead plants back into peat and then coal (or oil and gas) the idea that we can somehow stop global warming solely through nature-based solutions isn’t realistic.

Nevertheless, and I reiterate, there are many positive reasons for planting new forests (afforestation), replanting old forests (reforestation), or reducing the destruction of existing forests (deforestation), including the restoration of natural habitat and the prevention of loss of biodiversity. However, trees only store carbon over the course of their lifetime. When these trees die, or if they burn, the carbon is released back to the atmosphere.

The danger of over reliance on nature based solutions

While nature-based solutions have an important role to play in climate change adaptation and the preservation of biodiversity, there is a growing danger that governments, industry and the general public will come to rely on them as a means to maintain the status quo.

Let’s take British Columbia’s LNG experience as an example.

In the lead up the the 2013 provincial election I repeatedly pointed out the economic and environmental folly of somehow believing that BC would build prosperity through liquifying natural gas and shipping it to Asia. In fact, I quantified my concerns in one of the first blog posts I wrote in the BC Legislature. British Columbia residents were being told that at least five major LNG facilities would be built in BC by 2020. Today we have none, so I would suggest that my concerns about the economics of LNG were spot on.

In 2018, when it was clear that BC’s plans for LNG were not going to materialize, the BC NDP picked up where the BC Liberals left off and further sweetened the tax credit regime for LNG Canada, the one remaining major LNG company left in BC. It was clear to me that British Columbia could not meet its legislated greenhouse gas reduction targets if the LNG Canada project was ever built and I wrote a detailed blog post pointing out that it was time for both the BC NDP and the BC Liberals to level with British Columbians about LNG. The BC NDP government remained adamant that BC could still reduce emissions to 40% below 2007 levels by 2030. I remained skeptical and feared that this target can only be achieved through creative carbon accounting and appealing to “nature-based solutions”. I believe I was and remain correct. The analysis above and my earlier blog posts should make that obvious. And nobody should be surprised to see Shell Canada now promoting its efforts to ensure “the protection and restoration of natural ecosystems such as forests, grasslands and wetlands” as a central component to its greenhouse gas mitigation strategy. Of course, there is no mention of greenhouse gas emissions from the ever increasing area burnt by Canadian wildfires, nor the emissions being triggered as permafrost thaws and the previously frozen organic matter begins to decompose.

The Darkwoods Forest Carbon project offers a glimpse into what is likely being considered by BC government and industry decision-makers as a means of offsetting emissions from the natural gas sector. The problem with this is threefold.

First, claiming that the preservation of a forest should be considered a carbon offset using an argument that the wood would otherwise be harvested is a bit like me say to you: “give me $10,000 or I will buy a gas-guzzling SUV”! Second, if you want to claim a carbon credit for planting a tree, then you have to also accept a debit if that tree, or another, burns down. Third, their is no international mechanism to get credit for such a nature-based offset and these are purely considered voluntary.

Summary

In this post I have tried to outline the important role that nature-based climate solutions play amid the suite of policy options available to government and industry. The cautionary tale is that while these represent important contributions to a jurisdiction’s overall climate change adaptation and mitigation strategy, they cannot take away from the requirement to decarbonize energy systems immediately. As outlined in a recent article published in the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B by researchers from Oxford University in the UK, “there are concerns over their reliability and cost-effectiveness compared to engineered alternatives, and their resilience to climate change.”

For years I have noted that the signing of the Paris Agreement in 2015 had immediate consequences for oil, gas and coal exploration. At the time of its signing, and given the availability of existing technologies, the Paris Agreement translated to the notion that effective immediately, no new oil, gas or coal infrastructure could be built anywhere in the world if we want to keep warming to below 2°C. This follows since such major capital investments have a long payback time; you don’t build a natural gas electricity plant today only to tear it down tomorrow. Socioeconomic inertia in the built environment also suggests that the capital stock turnover time would be decades, not years.

Nature based-solutions are really a natural branch of other so-called Carbon Dioxide Removal geoengineering projects. Another solution that has received some attention of late concerns increasing the alkalinity of surface waters through dissolution of limestone. This geo-engineering fix was one of many examined by the IPCC in a 2005 special report assessing the possibility of capturing and storing carbon dioxide. To sequester 1 kilogram of carbon dioxide without the negative effects associated with acidification 3.5 kilograms of calcium carbonate (limestone) would have to be artificially dissolved in the ocean. Today, about 6.6 Gt of limestone is mined annually. If the entirety of this global production was dissolved in the ocean, about 1.9 Gt of carbon dioxide could be sequestered annually (or 0.5 Gt of carbon equivalent). This represents about 5% of the world’s 2021 global carbon dioxide emissions. A twenty-fold increase in limestone mining to sequester our present-day emissions would have enormous energy implications (with their concomitant emissions), not to mention the potential environmental impacts of such expanded mining activities. We would also have to stop producing cement, which uses this limestone, throughout the world, meaning that concrete could no longer be used in construction. It should be clear that attempting to modify surface alkalinity using the world’s limestone resources is not a serious proposition to combat global warming.

So in summary, despite the many benefits of nature-based solutions, what is required to keep global warming to below 2°C (or, frankly, to stabilize it at any level), is the immediate transition towards the decardonization of global energy systems along with the widespread introduction of negative emission technology, such as direct air carbon capture and deep underground storage. At this stage, I am of the belief that this remains the only hope humanity has for a long term solution to this problem. We can take comfort in the very real successes of nature-based solutions, and their many co-benefits, but we cannot take our eyes off the scale of the challenge before us. Fortunately, all the solutions are known. It is a matter of individual, institutional, corporate and political will as to whether or not we will achieve the goals of net zero emissions in the future.

Today in the legislature I rose during question period to ask the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources how he reconciles his government’s claim that it is committed to reconciliation with Indigenous peoples while at the same time introducing measures that will restrict their opportunities for clean energy economic development. I also asked him whether he was willing to instruct B.C. Hydro to declare force majeure on the existing Site C construction contracts, as opposed to the IPP contracts, to save billions upon billions of ratepayer dollars, and instead instruct B.C. Hydro to issue calls for power at market rate for any future power needs.

Below I reproduce the text of our exchange.

Video of Exchange

Question

A. Weaver: Many Indigenous communities in British Columbia anticipated being able to sell surplus electricity to B.C. Hydro. Despite this government’s professed commitment to reconciliation, the decision by B.C. Hydro to cancel its standing offer program has placed these communities in a very difficult position.

As I’m sure the minister is aware, reconciliation is a multifaceted process that involves building genuine, long-lasting economic partnerships with Indigenous communities. Otherwise many such communities will continue to struggle economically. More recently, with the proposed changes to the self-sufficiency clause in the Clean Energy Act, First Nations aspiring to become clean energy producers will be dealt yet another serious blow.

My question is to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources. How can this government claim that it is committed to reconciliation with Indigenous peoples while at the same time introducing measures that will restrict their opportunities for economic development?

Answer

Hon. B. Ralston: I want to thank the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head for his question. Let’s begin by remembering that the old government signed insider deals for power at five times the market price. That created a $16 billion obligation owed by British Columbians. That’s $16 billion in unnecessary costs.

We are committed to keeping B.C. Hydro rates low and building a low-carbon economy for people. Maintaining affordable electricity is critical to electrifying our economy and meeting our CleanBC goals. The standing offer program was not compatible with this.

Our government understands — and I acknowledge the import of the member’s question — that many Indigenous communities view small-scale private power as economic development opportunities. Indeed, when we suspended the standing offer program in February 2019, we exempted five projects in development that had significant First Nations involvement.

I agree with the member that it’s important to support Indigenous communities in clean energy economic development. Just last month we announced $13 million for four clean energy projects to help remote communities get off diesel.

Supplementary Question

A. Weaver: Over the last decade, numerous First Nations have banked heavily on clean energy projects as an economic development strategy. Many have entered into agreements with independent power producers to do the same. On Vancouver Island, for example, 13 of the 14 Nuu-chah-nulth First Nations are either current or perspective stakeholders in renewable energy products. The Tla-o-qui-aht Nation has poured over $50 million into clean energy projects and has plans to spend an additional $100 million.

Successful endeavours, such as the T’Sou-ke Nation’s solar farm in the Premier’s own riding, have helped get Indigenous nations off diesel, while others that have received financial backing from the government promise to do the same. For many Indigenous communities across British Columbia, the opportunity to sell excess electricity is a vital component of their future economic plans.

My question, once more, is to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources. Will the minister instruct B.C. Hydro to declare force majeure on the existing Site C construction contracts, as opposed to the IPP contracts, to save billions upon billions of ratepayer dollars, and instead instruct B.C. Hydro to issue calls for power at market rate for any future power needs?

To remind the minister, market rate is not 20 cents a kilowatt hour. It’s not 15 cents a kilowatt hour. It is a few cents a kilowatt, as is demonstrated worldwide with the price of solar and wind being lower than the price of coal and natural gas combustion in most jurisdictions.

Answer

Hon. B. Ralston: Once again, I’d like to thank the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head for his question. As a government, we are committed to working collaboratively with Indigenous communities on opportunities for economic development. We consulted widely, including engagement with Indigenous nations, on the Comprehensive Review of B.C. Hydro: Phase 2 Interim Report, which includes the proposal on the self-sufficiency requirement.

I think it’s important to note that the changes that we are proposing will not happen overnight. They will allow B.C. Hydro to consider out-of-province energy, as one option — one option among many — to providing clean and affordable energy, as part of their next 20-year plan. These changes support our climate plan, CleanBC, and they allow B.C. Hydro to continue purchasing power from First Nations-owned projects.

My ministry has a wide range of programs that support Indigenous communities to transition to clean energy and improve energy efficiency. For example, we’ve invested $5 million in the B.C. Indigenous clean energy initiative. This initiative supports community clean energy projects. I appreciate the member’s questions on this important topic. Our government will continue to work with Indigenous communities to identify clean energy opportunities.

Yesterday in the legislature we debated Bill 38: Climate Change Accountability Amendment Act at second reading. Working with government to develop this bill required a lot of work, including many hours of discussions with the Minister of Environment and his staff about the importance of transparency, regular reporting and setting sectoral targets and interim targets. Climate policy rhetoric is nothing without transparent, accurate, timely and publicly accessible data, and political promises are worthless without legislative accountability. Bill 38 is important in this regard as it incorporates a rigorous accountability framework into the climate policies my office and I have jointly developed with government.

Without a doubt, a highlight of my time in the Legislature has been the pleasure of working with the Minister of Environment in developing both this climate accountability legislation as well as CleanBC before that.

Below I reproduce the video and text of my second reading speech.

Video of Speech

Text of Speech

A. Weaver: It’s a great honour for me to be able to stand here to speak in support, at second reading, of Bill 38, the Climate Change Accountability Amendment Act.

Let me start by saying…. I thank the Minister of Environment for bringing this in. This was a lot of work, I know, bringing it in. There were many, many hours of discussions about the importance of various targets, the sectoral targets and interim targets. One of the highlights of my time in this Legislature has been the pleasure of working with the Minister of Environment in developing both this climate accountability legislation as well as CleanBC before that. I mean that in all sincerity. I raise my hands and thank the minister for his work in this effort.

You know, incorporating a rigorous accountability framework into the climate policies we have jointly developed with government was not only a key priority for me. It was a clear condition of our continued collaboration with this government. I’m very pleased that it has continued to this day and will continue in the foreseeable future.

As a climate scientist, I know that transparent, accurate, timely and publicly accessible data is absolutely crucial to achieving our climate commitments and, actually, to ensuring that the public trusts that government will deliver into it, for words like “trust us” are simply not good public policy.

Now, throughout my scientific career, I’ve advised and criticized numerous governments on their climate policies. The member from Langley just discussed some of the earlier issues with respect to his government under the leadership of Gordon Campbell, where indeed very fine climate policy, quite internationally leading at the time, was brought into the province of British Columbia.

Unfortunately, many other jurisdictions, as well as in B.C., bring these policies forth and then fail to live up to the commitments that they brought them forward to actually address. That is true not only of the previous government, where in 2010 the commitment to this issue essentially fell by the wayside as the leaders changed. Ultimately, that’s what prompted me to run for politics.

What prompted me to run for politics was being part of the previous administration’s Climate Action Team, meeting with the Premier at the time, numerous times, on an ongoing basis, meeting with the cabinet to have presentations on climate science, really fruitful discussions with stakeholders. To me, that was a government that understood the direction that this needed to go and recognized, as all governments should, that every single environmental challenge really is nothing more than an opportunity for innovation and prosperity in addressing that challenge.

I ran, as you know, in 2013 because I felt that we’d lost our way in B.C. I’m very pleased to say that I think now we’re seeing the way actually moving forward in a direction that will address this problem, perhaps not to the extent that I’d like, perhaps not to the extent that some others would like, but certainly as a leader in North America in terms of pathways to emissions reductions.

Let me consider a couple of major reports that have been published this last year to put some context of why we need to deal with this and why the accountability act is so important to ensure that transparency, moving forward, is there for not only government but also for the people of British Columbia.

As you will note, in 2018, the IPCC released a special report, in which the world’s leading climate scientists warned that we don’t have a lot of time if we want to keep warming to below 2 degrees. To be perfectly blunt, we know that the world has already warmed by over a degree. We know that we have a committed warming of about 0.6 degrees to existing levels of greenhouse gases.

Now, my friend opposite from Langley mentioned the importance of reducing coal emissions from China, and I concur. Coal is a significant source of greenhouse gases. But what is not often said is that coal is also a significant source of particulate matter and black carbon. Now, particulate matter, these so-called aerosols in the atmosphere, actually cool the planet.

One of the ironies of actually replacing coal with natural gas is that particulate matter decreases. When the particulate matter decreases, its effect on not only cloud formation but also on the direct scattering of radiation back to the sun is that we get an amplification of the warming. So in fact, it’s not quite as simple as saying: “Replace coal by natural gas. We get less warming.” Because, in fact, replace coal with natural gas, and there’s a warming jump as the particulate matter associated with the coal is scrubbed out of the atmosphere.

As I said, we’ve already warmed by one degree. We have 0.6 degrees committed warming to existing levels of greenhouse gases, and not a single climate model in the world has actually accounted for the permafrost carbon feedback, which we know will add another 0.2 to 0.3 degrees. So even this notion that somehow we’re going to keep warming to below 1½ degrees is really not on.

You can see that in the IPCC reports. The IPCC report, this special edition one, quite clearly indicates that negative emissions are required in order for us to meet the 1½ degree target. That doesn’t mean we can’t meet the 2 degree target — but negative emissions.

Some might take this as something to be distraught about. But rather, again, we should be viewing this as an incredible economic opportunity. Negative emissions means economic opportunity, means taking carbon out of the atmosphere and means companies like Carbon Engineering in Squamish are potentially game-changers in our broader society. That’s the kind of technology and knowledge — initially started by a friend of mine, David Keith, who’s now at Harvard — that can actually game-change the world. And it’s here in B.C. I’ll come back to that in a bit.

A few months after that IPCC report Canada’s Changing Climate Report was published by the federal government. It noted what the scientific community has known for a very long time — that northern Canada is warming at twice the global rate, and that’s no surprise to anybody who has been in this field.

It also talked about B.C. as being particularly vulnerable to drought. We’ve seen that in recent years. Glacier loss — well, I can tell you, from the work done by a fellow friend of mine named Shawn Marshall at the University of Calgary, that all southern glaciers in British Columbia will be gone this century. That’s really something we can’t stop. There are very profound effects with that that will occur as a direct consequence of that.

There are also issues with respect to sea level rise. It’s quite complex because of the way that sea level rise is not a global rise. There are regional differences. I suspect there’ll be issues moving forward in the delta, in terms of salination of existing farmland.

Now, shortly after that report, the UN Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services put out a report and stated, in stark terms, that we’re in the midst of an extinction crisis, with a million species likely disappearing within the next few decades. Again, if you’ve been working in this field since the 1980s like I have, there’s nothing new in that report. The report is essentially pointing out that the sixth-greatest extinction event in Earth’s history is occurring as we speak, in the Anthropocene — a profound consequence of global warming.

The consequences are not only on land but in the oceans, in particular, as a direct response to ocean acidification. The single biggest sink for the carbon in the atmosphere is the ocean. When the ocean takes up that carbon, it becomes less…. Well, it acidifies. What that does is it makes it very difficult for calcium carbonated shell–bearing species to make their shells. In some cases, they dissolve, which is one of the reasons that most of the world’s reefs will go extinct in the next couple of decades. There’s very little we can do about that.

Again, when we look in historic times, the last time we had the kind of acidity levels change like this as a direct consequence of volcanism — that’s volcanos for many tens and hundreds of millions of years — we saw 80 percent to 90 percent of marine species going extinct. Because what happens is when you kill the corals, and they’re going in a century, you kill the life around the corals and the biodiversity food chain starts to collapse. This is yet another consequence that was warned by the UN Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services.

Again, a very significant challenge. Also could be viewed as a very significant opportunity for innovation for those jurisdictions that recognize this for what it is: a challenge that is also an economic opportunity.

Then we get, of course, the UN special rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights. Professor Alston said that the world is on course for climate apartheid — quite strong words. What Professor Alston is saying is that the rich will be able to buy their way out of the worst effects of global warming, and the poor will suffer the most. “Even under the best-case scenario,” he wrote, “hundreds of millions will face food insecurity, forced migration, disease and death.”

Again, another stark warning, and again, for those in the field, it’s no surprise that this came out, because there’s nothing new in that as well. If you simply plot GDP as a function of latitude, ignoring a few outliers like Singapore, you find that those jurisdictions that are economically prosperous tend to be further away from the equator.

Then if you ask the question, “Where will climate change, global warming, manifest itself the worst?” of course it will be in the sub-Saharan areas, the subtropical areas, which will get drier. It will be with the desertification of southern Europe — very profound problems there — the potential changes to the Indian monsoon and sub-Saharan Africa, places like that. So there are some very serious consequences.

But these jurisdictions, you can imagine, have not been part of the problem, because the climate system does not actually care about emissions in any given year. It cares about the cumulative emissions. It’s a stock-and-flow problem, in the language of economics. We know how much more we can build, put into the atmosphere, to keep warming in a probabilistic sense before some level. We know how much is coming in, and we know how much we can take out.

So the question then comes: do we, as a collective society, believe that we should be dealing with this problem, yes or no? I’m pleased that this government is suggesting the answer to that should be yes and is hoping to do its part in that regard.

Moving through the reports. This past summer, we had the province quietly releasing a strategic climate risk assessment for British Columbia, a really interesting report. I would quibble with one of the potential conclusions of it, the low risk to Lyme disease, when, in fact, we’ve known within the scientific community for quite some time that vector-borne diseases are moving northwards simply because the carriers of such diseases, whether it be mosquitoes or ticks, are moving northwards as well, as a direct consequence of warming and warmer winters.

We then can move to last week — the Climate Transparency analysis of the G20 nations. They found that Canada is in the top three countries furthest off track from meeting their emissions-reduction targets. The Canadian target really hasn’t changed since Mr. Harper was our Prime Minister.

It’s ironic that we went through this last federal election, with parties climbing over themselves trying to argue they have the most progressive policies towards greenhouse gas reduction when, in fact, the targets that we’re aiming for were put in place by the Conservative government, have been unchanged and very little has actually been done to reduce emissions nationally in Canada, although some good work has been done in terms of movement towards phasing out coal-fired electricity plants.

The replacing of coal-fired with natural gas, particularly when that natural gas comes from horizontal drilling and fracking, highly subsidized…. It’s not clear to me that, in fact, you’re actually getting ahead in the greenhouse gas game because of the fugitive emissions associated with horizontal drilling.

Our per-capita emissions are 18.9 tonnes. The average per-capita emission in the G20 is 7½ tonnes.

You know, we talk a really good game in Canada, and in B.C., we are very environmentally conscious. But the data often tell a different story from the game we talk, particularly at the national level. Although the country is looking to the leadership of Quebec and British Columbia, Quebec has actually continued to be the leader in per-capita emissions in this country.

British Columbia was on track to recognizing the economic opportunity associated with decarbonization until about 2010. Then we started this quest for the impossible. Even to this day, there are still people believing that our economic prosperity lies somehow in staying stuck and chained to the economy of the last century through natural gas extraction, as the rest of the world has a glut in said product.

In 2016, in the most recent global data available from the International Energy Agency, the United Kingdom’s per-capita emissions were 5.65 tonnes per capita of CO2 equivalent. New Zealand was 6.45 tonnes CO2 equivalent. Norway, 6.78.

Now, Norway is actually a very northern nation and a strong oil and gas producer. They followed the lead of people like Peter Lougheed in Alberta, recognizing that the prosperity that they gained from the extraction of this resource, which they knew was a sunset resource, should be put aside for tomorrow so that their society could benefit from the ways of the former governments and people who didn’t have alternatives before them. They are a very prosperous nation now, poised very well to take advantage of the opportunities moving forward with greenhouse gas emission reduction.

Denmark is 5.84. Sweden, 3.83 — Sweden, another northern nation. This puts the average British Columbia carbon footprint at 2.32, 1.9, 2.2 and 3.4 times larger than that of the average person living in the U.K., Norway, New Zealand, Denmark and Sweden respectively. If we go to a country in Africa — say, Chad, for example — the multiples are hundreds, not two to three, which brings me back to my opening sentiment.

Climate policy rhetoric is nothing without transparent, accurate, timely and publicly accessible data, and political promises are worthless without legislative accountability. It is for exactly that reason that this bill, in my view, is so important.

It gives the public the transparency, as I’ll outline in a second, the information on which they can hold government to account. Frankly, it can give opposition parties the transparency and information that can hold government to account. It signals out the direction that government wishes to take to see sectoral reductions, recognizing that such reductions will not be legislated but are guiding principles. This sort of transparency is important for holding government to account and, frankly, for government to actually think this through in a greater sense to ensure that they’re following the path to which they’ve committed.

It’s my sincere hope that the transparency and accountability mechanisms in the bill, if passed, will last well beyond the current government and set an evidence-based foundation from which future climate policy can be built with whatever government happens to be in place at that time.

We have an awfully long way to go, but the amendments included in this bill add some real credibility to the CleanBC plan. Again, I come back to these last two years. I go back to 2018, when I’m sitting on holiday and I read the newspaper and I hear that the Premier is off to Asia to stump for LNG. I would describe those times as the challenging times for the relationship between the B.C. Green caucus and the present government.

But what has happened in the two years since then is really quite remarkable. I’ve seen a government actually recognize that challenge is an opportunity. We’ve seen CleanBC come through. I recognize that there’s an LNG plant embedded with that, and I’m very cynical about the ability to deliver our targets with that. That’s for me to take with me when I move on, as I’m not running again.

However, government has actually had to balance the competing interests and has done a good job in B.C. It’s been an honour working with the Premier and the Minister of Environment in helping develop that plan — and particularly the civil service as well and the staff in my office.

But that wasn’t enough. I mean, that happened after legislating some targets. What’s really important is this bill here, because CleanBC gives some guidance as to what government is going to do. But it is the reporting measures and the transparency and the accountability component of that which will allow others to judge whether government is or is not successful. Again, it was a great pleasure working with government on this bill.

I will say that one of the highlights — in fact, the highlight of my time in this office…. Unfortunately, I wasn’t able to attend. It was quite ironic, actually. It was receiving, as a co-recipient, a clean capitalism award. I love the fact that the Minister of Environment also was a co-recipient of a clean capitalism award, for a government not often known for capitalism, from the Delta group in Clean16, an award we received on October 7 of this year.

That showed that others recognize that when people work together on issues that transcend traditional partisan boundaries, you can get a lot done. And actually, the whole is certainly much greater than the sum of the parts.

If we had been government, I don’t think we would have done what was being done. And I don’t think the NDP, frankly, would have done what they’ve done if we weren’t in this situation, being forced to work together. That has led, actually, to what I believe is some good public policy in this regard.

Again, I come back to how pleased I have been to work with the minister. I think I’ve said that enough now; I think that’s on record.

Interjection.

A. Weaver: And with the member for Vancouver–West End. It’s always a pleasure working with the member for Vancouver–West End as well.

We’ve got a long way to go, of course, but the amendments included in this bill actually do, as I say, add real credibility to the CleanBC plan. The main components of Bill 38, which we’re debating at second reading here, is as follows. There’s a requirement for government to set an interim emissions target on the path to a legislated 2030 target, which is 40 percent greenhouse gas reductions below 2007 levels.

Now, why this is important is that this parallels exactly what happened back with the previous Liberal government under Gordon Campbell, when the Climate Action Team was put together. They were tasked with coming up with said interim targets, which were legislated. We’re not requiring the government to legislate but, rather, to come up with targets.

The reason why these are important is because you can actually assess the trajectory to where you want to go in a time frame that’s relevant to electoral cycles. Obviously, a ten-year target is several electoral cycles from now. When you start to have interim and sectoral targets, you’re starting to be held more accountable. In fact, under the leadership of Gordon Campbell at the time, the 2012 target was actually met, and we were on track to meet the 2016 target — until this folly of pursuing the impossible and the complete abandonment of climate policy occurred, just after 2010.

The bill also includes a requirement for governments to set separate 2030 sectoral targets following engagement with stakeholders, Indigenous peoples and communities throughout the province. Now, this, again, is also important. This isn’t about legislating a sectoral target. It’s about providing the transparency to ensure that the public and the sectors have a sense of what government is thinking. This is a signal to broader society that this is the direction and we’re going ahead.

Now, I recognize there’ll be some industries out there absolutely beside themselves, thinking that somehow they’re going to be targeted. This is not about legislation. This is about guidance and about sending a signal to which government will be held to account. As well, industry will be able to see the direction and the signal that government is sending.

It’s going to ensure that the responsibility to reduce carbon pollution is effectively distributed across B.C.’s economy and between ministries. The Minister of Environment alone, of course, cannot tackle the entire challenge, as much as some of us would like him to have this multiministerial portfolio embedded in others as well.

There’s also a requirement for government to table an annual report on actions taken to reduce carbon emissions, along with their cost and how they will achieve government’s legislated emission reduction targets. This annual report — or these reports every year — will outline the latest emissions data and projections, as well as actions planned for future years and the effect they are expected to have.

Imagine that it’s sort of like the budget process, whereby we put out a three-year fiscal review in the budget. Here government will put out a multi-year kind of assessment as to where emissions will go on an annual basis. The report will also include a determination of climate risks our province is facing. That’s not going to have to be changed every year. I mean, the first one is going be written, and then they’ll be increased incrementally as time goes on. It’ll include a discussion of risk reduction policies that are to be taken, and any mitigation or adaptation plans.

To be perfectly blunt, I think we need all hands on deck on the adaptation side. I’ve been watching this file since the 1980s, and I’ve watched, year after year, emissions target after emissions target being ignored. I’m hoping British Columbia will continue down that path, but we cannot ignore the fact that adaptation is going to be critical.

Embedded in the report is also a requirement for government to establish an independent advisory committee that will be modelled on the Climate Solutions and Clean Growth Advisory Council now that the council has fulfilled its mandate. Again, this is an important external agency that’s not just a validation group but rather is a group that would be engaged with a variety of stakeholders to ensure that stakeholders are engaged in government’s thinking as they move forward in terms of reporting and accountability, and that any issues, which often are not the sole purview of one minister but actually are brought to the government by stakeholders, can have a conduit to get there in a timely fashion.

The committee will hopefully be made up of members from diverse areas of expertise and regions from across the province. They’ll be providing the minister advice on things like policies that can lead to further reductions. Some of that…. I mean, I recognize that many people who sit on these committees are not actually policy experts — they have good ideas — and that we must rely upon the civil service to develop the said policies. However, a lot of good ideas can be brought forward from these stakeholders from which the government can actually develop the necessary policies.

This group will also examine progress towards targets and raise opportunities for sustainable economic development, opportunities for climate change mitigation and adaptation among other matters that are related to this act. Lastly, this bill gives government the ability to set more detailed targets and other environmental standards for publicly owned buildings and vehicular fleets to help reduce emissions, improve environmental performance, save money and support innovations.

Again, coming back to what the member from Langley pointed out, many of these amendments build on policies that were actually first introduced under Premier Campbell’s Liberal government. That’s not to say that, you know, one government is better than the other. What I’m trying to point out here is that it’s very positive when we can recognize that issues like this transcend political boundaries. We have good work done by the Liberals in 2007-08-09. We have good work being done by the B.C. NDP in 2018, 2019 and, soon to be, 2020. That is a testament to the desire within British Columbia for climate policy to be central to our decision-making. I’ll come to that later.

As I mentioned, I was a member of Gordon Campbell’s advisory council in 2007-2008 when he first introduced the first comprehensive price on carbon to set greenhouse gas reduction targets as well and also developing interim targets — the first proper, revenue-neutral, celebrated carbon tax. I remember the cynicism at the time. I was quite upset when many people that I knew who were with the now government were riding this Axe the Tax kind of rhetoric. It was particularly upsetting.

But frankly, I knew it was going to flop. That campaign started in the summer, right in the peak driving season, and everyone knows gas prices are going to drop in the fall. So the campaign was initiated just as the gas prices went up, and when the fall came, the campaign fell through the floor because the gas prices had gone down. Frankly, I think the now government learnt from that and have been quite progressive in terms of pushing for this ever since.

There’s no doubt that what Campbell did in 2007 and ’08 was groundbreaking. But now, honestly, it’s due for an upgrade. That is what the present government is doing — taking that to a whole new level. One of the first signs of that in our confidence and supply agreement was the actual continuation of the carbon tax from $30 to $50 — to show Canadian leadership, to meet the $50 target that Trudeau is going to bring forward — a year before the rest of Canada, but at the same time recognizing the importance of giving price certainty to the business sector. That is done through incremental $5-a-year changes. The government deserves a lot of credit for following through with that.

Frankly, I have not heard complaints from the general public, because the general public actually believes in that. What they do have some reluctance in believing in is corporate subsidies that allow other certain polluters to not pay the carbon tax whereas individual citizens must continue to pay it. I’ll come back to that too.

I’m the designated speaker, and I’m getting really into this speech, so a little bit more.

British Columbia has already legislated greenhouse gas reduction targets, as well as a requirement to collect data for tracking emissions, but they’ll try to say we can do better. Our targets are set ten years apart, and data is published on a two-year delay. Combine that with a four-year government mandate and you create a situation where political parties, as we all know, blame each other, and spend the first two years blaming their predecessors for bad results and the next two years saying that they’re just getting started while making promises that they can only fulfil if you vote them back in. Then before you know it, a ten-year target is within sight and, by that time, it’s too late to substantially change the emissions trajectory and we don’t meet it.

Bill 38 is important in that regard as it aims to cut through those excuses and get right to the heart of the matter, shortening the time scale and increasing transparency on an annual basis. For example, with the interim targets, again, we’ll be able to, through them, evaluate progress before 2030. They’ll show whether or not we’re on track. If we are, great. That adds credibility to the government plans so that they can continue their course. If not, they’re going to have to explain to the general public why they’re not on track and what they’re going to do to get on track, or what has changed since they initially said they would be on track.

By reporting emissions annually, the public will get a better sense where emissions originate, what policies are being worked on, what are not being worked on — equally as important — how they all align amongst themselves and how they align in terms of the next fiscal forecast.

The existing Climate Change Accountability Act also already has a provision that allowed the minister to establish sectoral targets. But it’s written as an option. That’s in section 1.4, I think it is. It says, “The minister may, by order, establish greenhouse gas emissions targets for individual sectors,” instead of a requirement. That hasn’t been used to date, and so this act is actually requiring it and is actually important in terms of ensuring that.

That’s particularly relevant as we know that a commitment to set sectoral targets was included in the minister’s mandate letter and in the 2017 B.C. NDP election platform. So it should be no surprise that it’s included in Bill 38, although, admittedly, there was some to-and-fro trying to ensure that this actually happened over the last few months.

The idea of sectoral targets is not new. It’s being used in places like New Zealand, Australia, Germany and the U.K., for example, to help to guide government, guide policy-makers and give transparency so that people know the direction government is heading in. In New Zealand and Australia — Victoria, the state of Victoria — they have some very good proxy policies that compare well and directly with the policies here, particularly to what’s being done in this bill but also in terms of the size of the population of the jurisdictions there.

I understand that government has extensive consultation plans to ensure the targets are set at a correct level, these sectoral and these interim targets, and that these balance the realities of our current emissions rates and the reduction rates necessary to meet our legislative targets. But ultimately this bill is about good governance in the face of what can only be described as the single greatest challenge this planet has ever seen. I spin that and say that it’s also the greatest opportunity for innovation humans have ever seen and, frankly, our province has ever faced.

We’re so fortunate to live in a province like British Columbia, which is, quite literally, the most beautiful place in the world to live. Now, I’ve lived in a number of….

Interjections.

A. Weaver: I agree.

I’ve lived in many countries in the world, whether it be in Germany, England, Scotland, Australia or the United States, even other parts of Canada. I’ve travelled extensively around the world, from Asia through all of the world. I can say unequivocally, in my view, this is the best place to live. This is a beautiful jurisdiction.

That is one of our strategic advantages. We literally can attract and retain the best and brightest in the world to British Columbia because of the quality of life and the stable democracy that we can offer. This is a strategic choice that I’m hoping this government will continue to build on as we start to deal with the climate issue and through the transparency associated with this bill.

We also have a highly skilled and educated workforce. As we all know from the international PISA assessment exams, British Columbia ranks at the very top, above the much-touted Finland, in reading, writing and mathematics. Remarkable that we have some of this quality education here.

We also have outstanding post-secondary institutions, so we know that companies not only can attract and retain the best and brightest, but they have access to a highly skilled and educated workforce. We also have boundless renewable energy, fibre and water — like no other jurisdiction in the world. What an incredible opportunity for innovation using these strategic strengths, and I pivot back to exactly that.

When I just met today with the Canadian manufacturing association…. For so long, I’ve been trying to get both this and the previous government to recognize the opportunities for manufacturing in this province. Imagine this. We’re fixated on delivering corporate welfare to LNG Canada, where we actually give them steel tariff exemptions — try the manufacturers getting steel tariff exemptions — exemptions from carbon tax, below-market electricity. I could go on and on and on.

What we’re not doing is sending the signal that, look, there is clean manufacturing that happens in the world. We should be doing it in B.C. And we should be doing it in rural B.C., because we have a railway line that connects Prince Rupert’s deep port, closest port to Asia on the coast, and Chicago — the same line goes between the two — in the eastern U.S., which is the gateway to eastern America. What a strategic opportunity for manufacturing and clean manufacturing, because we have access to renewable energy like no one else does.

But that requires a vision. That requires a signal to be sent to industry that we’re not just hewers of wood and drawers of water, that we actually believe in value-added and innovation. We actually believe in recognizing that environmental challenges are really nothing more than economic opportunities.

We have the wherewithal, the skill, the innovation, the creativity, the people and the smarts to deal with these challenges here in B.C. if, and only if, government sends the right signals. It doesn’t send the right signals when it continues to provide subsidies for sunset industries that benefit a few multinational shareholders and maybe, in the short term, give a small economic stimulus to a region that will then suffer shortly thereafter because of the traditional economic booms and busts of commodity cycles.

You know, transitioning to a carbon-free world, a carbon-neutral world, doesn’t mean we have to go back to the Dark Ages. It means transforming and transitioning to a cleaner, sustainable society where economic, social and environmental concerns are central to all of our decision-making.

There should be a time when we don’t actually need a Ministry of Environment, where we actually think about the Ministry of Finance as thinking about general progress indicators that span beyond the single silo that is GDP and move beyond to recognize that we judge success as a society not so much by the GDP-per-debt ratio but more so by general progress indicators that talk about things like the quality of the education, the quality of the environment, whether people can live and work in the same community, the child welfare rates. This is what successful societies will be defined on. But that requires, again, a change in the thinking of many of our decision-makers today.

What I’m describing here is not impossible. It’s grounded in current economic trends, scientific evidence and, frankly, best practice in jurisdictions. We have so much to gain. It’s not just possible that the transition to a clean economy could create jobs; it’s, frankly, inevitable — jobs that are inspired, important, sustainable and valuable.

You just have to go to a place like Portable Electric in Vancouver and see the smiles on the faces of the people who work there, the young millennials who come to work every day and feel like they’re making the world a better place, building replacements for diesel generators based on lithium-ion storage technology that’s B.C.-based. Sadly, if we don’t actually start to nurture these B.C.-based companies, they’ll fall into the valley of death and not get out of it. So let’s start to think about the opportunities we have here.

It’s an incredible company that is a B.C. success story that we must nurture instead of having it, as so many of our companies do, get bought up and moved to other jurisdictions. B.C.-based innovation. B.C.-based families got together. B.C. engineers, B.C. people, working there. High-paid jobs. Excited to go to work. They even have a Hawaiian shirt day that I was able to participate in. It’s a great place to work, I’m sure.

This is what Bill 38 is about, frankly. It’s to assist a process that allows us to focus on transitioning our economy, which works for all of us, in a manner that is transparent. And governments will be held accountable, as through the measures outlined in Bill 38. These are policies that must be based on principles and evidence, not political calculation and opportunism. As government leaders, we must collectively do everything we can to develop policies that promote rather than hinder innovation in our economy.

Governments often talk a lot about competitiveness, saying: “If we ask too much of companies, they’ll leave.” But I’ve never understood why we want to be competing with other jurisdictions who are willing to sacrifice their clean air, their land and their water or willing to commit human rights abuses all in order to see if you can extract their resource cheaper and faster. Our resource sector, as we’re setting the sectoral targets embedded within Bill 38, should view this not as something to shy away from but as an incredible opportunity yet again.

Tech, one of our staple industries in B.C., can start to think about ways that it can do what it’s doing in more efficient and cleaner ways, knowing that if they can dig dirt out of the ground in a more efficient and cleaner way, they’re saving money and they’re developing technology that others will want to use as well. This is what innovation…. This is where signals like this send to innovation. It’s not about telling mining companies: “Begone.” It’s about saying to companies: “Innovate, and we’re there to support you in that, and we’re there to ensure that you’re successful in doing so.”

Again, I come back to tech. When you go into the communities whose livelihoods depend on the mining there, they are the strongest advocates for these companies because they understand that they have to live there. We have good corporate citizens, like tech, for example, in the Elk Valley. The people of the Elk Valley will have some complaints about this and that, but by and large, they like the fact that their company is concerned about the environment in which they live, and they’re some of their strongest advocates.

With that said, I’m confronted and deeply challenged by the knowledge that, as we stand here debating what I believe is a truly valuable piece of legislation, work is beginning on LNG Canada, the single biggest point source of greenhouse gas emissions in provincial history.

The irony is not lost on me, and frankly, I don’t think it’s going to be lost on others. The disconnection between politicians’ words and actions on climate is something I hope will be addressed by this bill so that people can point to this later and say: “You said this, and look at this. You did not follow through. You claimed you could get us a 40 percent reduction by 2030, and you claimed you could also add the single biggest point source of greenhouse gas emissions in B.C.’s history. Look what you’ve done.” History will judge those leaders accordingly.

I’m tired, frankly, of hearing touching speeches from members in this room and elsewhere when communities are threatened by forest fires or when species are threatened to extinction, only to see every single member in this House, whether they be on government’s side or the opposition side, stand to advance the corporate subsidy that embodies the past for the future as well — the corporate welfare associated with things like LNG Canada.

Now, I spoke to a clean energy conference last week, and I asked them: “How many of you wind energy companies have ever had a steel tariff exemption on your windmills?” Zero. Yet we think what we need to do here is to give a major…. These are small companies. They’re not the big Shell Internationals. But we think it’s okay to give billions of dollars of subsidies to multinationals whose interests are not ours. Those interests are clearly the shareholders of the multinationals, and many of those shares reside in other jurisdictions.

I just give my head a shake. I know history will judge, very harshly, legislators in this place for the decisions that they didn’t make — not so much for the decisions that they did make but for the decisions that they didn’t make. That will be one that I think will come back to haunt people in the years ahead.

As I was writing this speech with my staff, I received a copy of a Globe and Mail article, and this is what the heading said: “Alberta, B.C. to Advocate for Canadian Natural Gas in Asia,” The subheading was this: “Two provinces which are in ‘absolute alignment’ over the matter will send officials to Tokyo to make the case for accessing the Asian market.” Really?

We have a government that has committed to 40 percent greenhouse gas reductions by 2030 bringing in important legislation to ensure accountability, and we have Canadian, British Columbian people going out there, touting enhanced expansion of LNG. There needs to be some internal soul-searching, because I’m not sure that the left hand of this government actually knows what the right hand is doing or whether the right hand knows what the left hand is doing. Clearly, you can’t have it both ways.

It was also published in…. That same day, actually, there was an article in Reuters about Sweden. Think about this. This is the signal we’re sending. The article in Reuters said this. “Sweden’s central bank sells off bonds from Canadian province over climate concerns,” further stating: “Sweden’s central bank said on Wednesday it had sold off bonds from the oil-rich Canadian province of Alberta and parts of Australia because it felt that greenhouse gas emissions in both countries were too high.” This is the actual economic dilemma that we are facing as we continue to think that somehow we’re going to build an economy on the resources that others are weaning themselves off.

Riksbank deputy governor Martin Flodén said the bank would no longer invest in assets from issuers with a larger carbon footprint, even if the yields were high. You’re seeing the divest movements across North America. You’re seeing other jurisdictions move in this regard.

The article continues. It said this. “Australia and Canada are countries that are not known for good climate work.” Imagine that. We are known internationally as brokers of peace — or historically, we were — and now we’re known not as jurisdictions with good climate policy. The article says this. “‘Greenhouse gas emissions per capita are among the highest in the world,’ he said in the speech to Örebro University in Sweden.”

I think, frankly, as a society, and particularly as government, we need to grow up a little bit and recognize that what was once good for us is not good for us anymore. I’m sad to say that for fossil fuels, we’re at that point. The writing has been on the wall. Again, I’ve been in this field since the 1980s. It’s not like I’ve seen anything that we haven’t been saying for — what? — almost 35 years. Politicians have a moral responsibility to think further into the future and govern not just for their term but also for their children and grandchildren, for those who are not here to be part of the decision-making process today.

We make decisions that they have to live the consequences of, yet we don’t have to live those consequences. For me, what matters is how history judges us. I will say, sadly, in Canada, in this building, that history will look very sorely on a number of people who have not made this a priority and continue to push the fossil fuel agenda.

Bill 38, the Climate Change Accountability Amendment Act before us today, does demonstrate that minority governments, despite glaring differences, can move beyond political rhetoric and collaborate on ambitious climate legislation. I truly believe that the minister has the very best intentions with this legislation and that government has come to recognize now that in fact, economic prosperity is not going to be found in the continuing corporate welfare that is the natural gas sector in our province.

But we can’t leave those jurisdictions high and dry. That is why I’ve continued to try to articulate the importance of issues like forestry, value-added, mining, innovation in those sectors and the manufacturing sectors and our use of and access to clean energy like no other jurisdiction. But the barriers for innovation in there lie squarely within B.C. Hydro and the fact that the standing offer program has been shut down and that jurisdictions and Indigenous communities from north to south and east to west have projects stalled where they wanted to get themselves off diesel, where they wanted to bring prosperity into their communities.

That will be my next challenge over the coming months — to try to ensure that we get on track with B.C. Hydro, to ensure that we actually start to allow for the innovation in that sector, because the days of big dams are gone. Big dams are good for storage, sure, but so are old rock quarries that you can fill with water and have pumped hydro. There are lots of brownfield sites in this province that could be used for water storage, as well, some of which are right near the ocean.

Our federal leaders have been similarly called upon, just recently now, to unite in a minority government to address the issue of climate change, as we have done here in this province with CleanBC. Hopefully, it too will try to stimulate innovation in industry to compensate for jobs being shed in the sunset oil and gas sector: direct clean tech advancements in transportation, housing, to conserve energy in our daily lives and harnessing the advancements in clean tech to cut emissions and reduce pollution.

You know, I reluctantly began this journey from a climate scientist to a politician. In 2012 I first announced. But when I did, I told myself that I would speak truth to power on this file. I would call the government out if they weren’t following through with that. That’s something that I think I’ve done over the last six years.

You don’t need me to do that anymore. There are millions of students in the streets now calling out governments around the world, led by Greta Thunberg. In my view, the single most rewarding thing that I’ve had, as a climate scientist, was to be able to stand in the back on that legislative lawn a few weeks back — with my cane, because I had double vision, and I was dizzy as anything — watching what must have been 20,000 students and others on the lawn calling upon government for climate action.

The children have spoken. The people have spoken. The voters have spoken. Chantal Hébert summarizes it best. She said this on election night federally: “This should be the last election that any party in this country believes it can win without having a serious plan for climate change.”

Now, I would say that that’s true in the province of British Columbia as well. I look forward, as we watch as the next provincial election comes, and I’m on the sidelines — being a member of no party, because I’ll go back into a non-partisan role — to watching the B.C. Liberals, the B.C. NDP and the B.C. Greens fight each other as to who has got the best climate plans. Rest assured, I’ll provide a very frank, non-partisan assessment of all three.

I hope that each one strives to be better than the other, and the arguments then end up being: who has got the best plan? “Ours is better than yours because,” not “axe the tax.” Not “yours is terrible,” but “ours is better.” Given the tripartisan creation of this amended bill over many, many years with respect to the legacy that was shown by the B.C. Liberals in 2007 and 2008, I trust that it will be passing with all-party support.

Again, I conclude by thanking the minister and the Premier for taking this issue seriously and putting together the transparency, the accountability and the substance in this bill to ensure that not only this, but future governments are held accountable for their promises and words on this very important file.