Tag: global-warming

Counting climate deaths per project

On By patrickccanning2 Comments

45 people died in Jamaica last week, from Hurricane Melissa. At roughly the same time typhoons killed at least 259 people in the Philippines. This post is dedicated to them, and their families.

Their deaths were predictable and preventable. They were predicted, but they were not prevented. They were caused by the decisions of our governments, who have continued to license and permit new oil and gas projects despite 30 years of promises to get climate change under control. Those decisions (particularly those made since October, 2018) were made in full knowledge that people would die as a result. They didn’t know who, but they knew someone would.

We now have the know-how to make a reasonable estimate of climate deaths per project. I recommend this to all my clients taking part in the EA review of new projects, or additions or changes to projects. Of course regulators refuse to do this, that’s to be expected. In my view we must keep insisting until we get it. Which may ultimately take litigation. In that case having asked repeatedly, and been refused, is probably helpful.

Here are a few key milestones on the way to being able to do this, there were many more.

The first time the IPCC mentioned deaths from climate change was in the October 2018 Report on 1.5, which assessed the difference between 1.5 and 2 degrees as being equivalent to 150 million deaths (that’s what got me started writing this blog, seven years ago). This was based on a paper by Drew Shindell, and others, entitled “Quantified, Localized Health Benefits of Accelerated Carbon Dioxide Emissions Reductions.”

Death and the Gamester, Wenceslaus Hollar, late 18th century. Public domain. The Met.
Death and the Gamester, Wenceslaus Hollar, late 18th century. Public domain. The Met.

Then in 2019 David Wallace-Wells wrote The Uninhabitable Earth, where he openly discussed the coming death toll of climate change and a failure to stay below 1.5 degrees by the year 2100, saying:

“Numbers that large can be hard to grasp, but 150 million is the equivalent of twenty-five Holocausts. It is three times the death toll of the Great Leap Forward – the largest non-military death toll humanity has ever produced.”

They (the IPCC, Shindell et al, and Wallace-Wells) were only discussing the difference between 1.5 and 2 degrees – not the projected number of deaths for a situation where we exceed 2 degrees. That would be a lot more. That is still the path we are on, heading for at least 2.6 degrees of warming by 2100, despite promises made in the Paris Accords.

In 2021 R. Daniel Bressler published a paper called “The Mortality cost of carbon,” proposing a method to estimate the number of deaths caused by the emissions of one additional metric ton of CO2. This opened the door to assessing the number of deaths per project, or per nation, industry, etc. But no one did it right away, it took some time to percolate.

After that I started advising my clients to insist of regulators that this calculation be made.

Then in July of this year a team based at University New South Wales, Sydney, Australia, did it. For the first time, they calculated the number of deaths which are likely to be caused by a particular project – Woodside’s Scarborough gas project.

In other words, this is now doable. We can make a reasonable estimate of the number of deaths per project. Or per industry, or nation.

Is there any right more sacred than the right to life? When our governments permit projects that will likely lead to a certain number of deaths, there is a good argument to be made that people have a right to know.

Lawyers and climate justice advocates, we should be pushing for every project to be assessed on this basis.

Canada has abandoned the 1.5 and 2 degree targets

On By patrickccanningLeave a comment

What does it mean to abandon something? It means to “cease to support or look after (someone); desert,” to “give up completely (a course of action, a practice, or a way of thinking)” or to “discontinue (a scheduled event) before completion.”

Basic Facts

The Carney government is well aware of the global carbon budget. Mark Carney described the carbon budget well in his book, published in 2021: “The carbon budget to limit temperature rises to below catastrophic levels is rapidly being exhausted. If we had started in 2000, we could have hit the 1.5 C objective by halving emissions every 30 years. Now, we must halve emissions every 10 years. If we wait another four years, the challenge will be to halve emissions every year. If we wait another eight years, our 1.5 C carbon budget will be exhausted.” So, he knows that at this point we would have to halve emissions every year.

Canada ratified the Paris Accord on October 5th, 2016, following a vote in Parliament. The commitment to 1.5 and 2 degrees is found in the Paris Accord, at Article 1(a), which reads:

“Holding the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2°C above preindustrial levels and pursuing efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels, recognizing that this would significantly reduce the risks and impacts of climate change.“

Atmospheric CO2 is rising faster than ever. 2024 saw an increase in atmospheric CO2 of 3.5 ppm, the biggest annual increase since measurements began in 1957. We are currently at 422.33ppm.

Perhaps Canada would argue that we are only responsible for our emissions. This defence, or explanation, fails for two reasons. One, the most obvious – our emissions are barely coming down, largely due to increased emissions from the oil & gas sector.

Two – the ICJ demolished this argument by stating what makes basic sense, that states are responsible not just for their emissions, but for the oil and gas which they produce. The ICJ said:

Failure of the state to take appropriate action to protect the climate system from GHG [greenhouse gas] emissions including through fossil fuel production, fossil fuel consumption, the granting of fossil fuel exploration licenses, or the provision of fossil fuel subsidies may constitute an internationally wrongful act which is attributable to that state.

And:

… the relevant conduct for the purposes of these advisory proceedings is not limited to conduct that, itself, directly results in GHG emissions, but rather comprises all actions or omissions of States which result in the climate system and other parts of the environment being adversely affected by anthropogenic GHG emissions.

Carney and Canada’s actions which show this abandonment

The first actions of a new government sets the tone, they are intended as a statement of the government’s priorities. Mark Carney’s very first act as PM was to cancel the consumer carbon tax. Carney then canceled the EV mandate, and signaled that more oil & gas projects would be approved, and funded as “Projects of National Interest” under Bill C5. LNG Canada Phase 2, Kitimat, British Columbia, was the first fossil fuel project to receive this distinction.

Then in the November 4th budget (yesterday) the Liberal government announced they were weakening the relatively new greenwashing law, reducing industry oversight, and winding down two important climate programs, the Canada Greener Homes Grant and the 2 Billion Trees program. It also signaled there will be no oil & gas emissions cap.

The budget also contained billions for new projects, which will include oil and gas subsidies. It creates a program to reduce carbon intensity (to reduce the amount of emissions per barrel of oil) – geared to help the Carney government justify increasing production. And it created a youth climate corps, really the only good climate news to come from this government.

Canada is the fourth largest producer of oil and the fifth largest of gas in the world. We are practically at 1.5 degrees already, and rocketing towards 2.

Ergo

If the federal government has any hope of climate change getting under control they must be counting on other countries to do the heavy lifting. The Carney government has “ceased to support or look after” (our children), has deserted, and “given up completely” any attempt or thought of keeping global warming below 1.5 or 2 degrees, and has discontinued such attempt before completion.

PM Carney and his government have abandoned the 1.5 and 2 degree targets enshrined in the Paris Accord, as well as our children and their futures.