Effective policy influencing and environmental advocacy: Health,climate change,and phasing out coal

Health impacts and costs of coal-fired electricity

In March 2013, a coalition of three health NGOs (Asthma Society of Canada, Lung Association of Alberta & Northwest Territories, and Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment (CAPE)) and one environmental/energy research center (Pembina Institute) released a landmark study entitled A Costly Diagnosis: Subsidizing Coal Power with Albertans’ Health to draw attention to the health threats and economic costs of burning coal to generate electricity. The province of Alberta by itself currently burns more coal than the rest of Canada combined. In 2012, 64 percent of the province’s total electricity was generated through the burning of coal in six coal plants to generate 6200 MW (Weis et al., 2013). In the report, the NGOs underlined the health effects of coal-generated electricity that produces several pollutants that threaten human health and the health of ecological communities. For instance, in 2011, coal plants in Alberta emitted

The health implications of these toxins are considerable. Neurological development and functioning in children in the early years of development can be affected by exposure to mercury. An increase in the incidence of cardiac difficulties and problems in lung development have been linked to even short-term exposure to fine particulate matter, both as direct pollutants and as the product of sulfur dioxide emissions. Asthma can be exacerbated through exposure to sulfur dioxide as well as low-level ozone, formed through the reaction of nitrogen oxides to the atmosphere. In addition to human health, these pollutants are also threats to the health of ecological communities of animals and ecosystems. For instance, nitrogen oxides function as the precursors of acid rain, which damage environmental systems, as does mercury (Weis et al., 2013).

In 2008, concerned about the effects and costs of air pollution and their detrimental impact on air quality, the Canadian Medical Association (CMA) developed a model, the Illness Cost of Air Pollution (ICAP). ICAP yields a profile of the health impacts and economic costs of air pollution from correlating pollution levels in the atmosphere with densities and distribution of population. Using this methodology of modeling developed by the CMA, the four health and environmental NGOs estimated projected physical illness rates and health impacts in Alberta as well as the financial impacts and economic damages that result from the incidence of illness related to air pollution. The inquiry yielded these results:

Utilizing the ICAP modeling as a heuristic to quantify monetary costs, the economic impacts of coal-sourced pollution are equally disturbing, with the financial health costs estimated at about CAN$300 million annually, costs that are not included in a full-cost accounting of the coal industry. Instead, these economic costs of air pollution from burning coal are externalized outside the economy. Rather than following the ‘polluter pays principle’ where costs are shouldered by the coal industry themselves, costs are displaced as a burden onto ordinary citizens and taxpayers. The social and psychological costs fall squarely on the most vulnerable members of Albertan society: children, the elderly, and the ill (Weis et al., 2013). These medical and economic costs are exacerbated by the additional impacts of climate destabilization where the health risks of exposure to excessive heat are especially acute for those individuals suffering from respiratory and cardiovascular illness.

Prospects of phasing out coal

Given the health and economic costs of coal as part of the electricity mix in Alberta, what are the prospects of a phase-out of coal as an energy source? Coal phase-outs in other provinces in Canada highlight that a coal phase-out is feasible. Historically, the number of coal plants in Ontario was about the same as Alberta’s, and yet the Ontario government made it a priority to phase coal out due to health concerns and has completed this task (Schneider, 2013). In Nova Scotia, dependency on coal was even greater. However, the government of Nova Scotia has enacted legislation that will reduce its use of coal by 50 percent through both an aggressive energy efficiency program and implementing targets of ramping up renewable energy by 40 percent.

Despite the success of these jurisdictions in Canada in shifting from coal to renewable energy, thus far, the government of Alberta has failed to provide leadership to do the same. After promising policy frameworks and initiatives for promoting renewable energy for years, the government has not produced either legislation or policies for renewable energy or energy efficiency. If anything, it appears that the Alberta government is moving in the opposite direction by re-opening the Sundance 1 and 2 coal power plants when they were scheduled for closure.

In contrast, unlike the governing Progressive Conservatives (PCs) who have not taken action on coal and its related health and energy issues and do not possess any policy on coal and health, two opposition parties in the Alberta Legislature (Wildrose and Liberals) do have party policies aimed at improving Alberta’s air quality monitoring system. The Wildrose Party also advocates a coal phase-out to reduce air pollution. On 10 June 2013, at a political panel in Calgary called ‘Cheap Power at What Cost?’. Rachel Notley (Environment Critic) described how the New Democratic Party (NDP) is developing a policy to phase-out coal to accompany their existing policy of increasing renewable energy in Alberta. In 2013, polling results in Alberta (Kleiss, 2013) indicated that 68 percent of Albertans were open to or actively supported the phase-out of coal from the electricity grid in Alberta. However, despite the growing support for a coal phase-out among opposition parties and in the public at large, there has been no sign by the current Alberta government of any plan to phase out coal-fired electricity.

Advocating for a coal phase-out: A chronology

With the time of the release of the coal report in March 2013, representatives of the health and the energy/environment NGOs engaged the media through media releases and a press conference, resulting in widespread media coverage. The Canada’s public broadcaster (CBC) website announced, ‘Coal Plants cost Alberta $300M in Health Costs: Report’ (CBC, 2013), echoed by the national newspaper, The Globe and Mail (Wingrove, 2013). In response, both a representative of the coal industry and the Minister of Energy offered counter-perspectives, suggesting that coal-fired electricity was not a serious health issue and that the government had already taken steps to address the issue. But the first objective of the four NGOs had been achieved: More Albertans now knew that the province generates a large proportion of its electricity through burning coal and that coal threatens human health.

While the ‘Costly Diagnosis’ report (Weis et al., 2013) was being written, I acted as a reviewer and also as a member of the advisory group for planning the report’s release and developing a communications strategy that launched the report into the public domain. After the release of the report and the media coverage that ensued, it appeared that no follow-up was being planned, largely because of the limited capacity of the participating NGOs. Through a series of informal consultations, a consensus emerged that the NGOs supported the formation of an ongoing network. When I offered to chair this emerging network, NGO representatives were supportive of my taking on this role of network facilitator. Interestingly enough, organizational representatives felt that the role of network facilitator was ‘a good fit’ for me as a social worker professor. At this point, the original group of NGOs joined together with other NGOs to form a larger network with a broader diversity of membership to coordinate further action promoting a coal phase-out and more renewable energy in Alberta.

As the network developed a plan of action, a strategy emerged that focused on two priorities: (1) engaging provincial MLAs and other opinion leaders to endorse a phase-out of coal-fired electricity and (2) deepening public awareness of the health impacts of coal through education. A task force within the network agreed to take on the ongoing task of building support among MLAs, while individuals in the network began to plan public education events in Alberta.

A few months later on 1 May 2013, another organization, Clean Energy Canada, announced the results of a poll of 600 Albertans and ‘found 68 percent of Albertans want coal phased out or shut down and replaced with natural gas or renewable energy such as wind, solar, and hydro’ (Kleiss, 2013). This project not only moved the issue of coal as a health concern and renewable energy as a replacement energy source further into public awareness but also provided a greater legitimacy and authority for the network to push for a coal phase-out as we began to meet with both political and institutional leadership. Now polling provided evidence that a majority of Albertans considered coal to be a serious health threat and wanted a coal phase-out.

The following September 2013, the three health NGOs in the network (CAPE, Asthma Society, Lung Association) launched a series of advertisements in various newspapers in Alberta, featuring a young girl with a puffer and encouraging readers to ‘tell Premier Redford you want a coal-free Alberta’. More media coverage (Weber, 2013) on coal and its health impacts also emerged at this time. Meanwhile, the network met with more MLAs and health leaders, as the network systematically engaged a widening circle of influential opinion leaders.

As the fall activities continued, the network developed a key strategic objective as an indicator of getting traction on the coal issue. The network decided that it needed to organize a public panel with representatives from two or more of the provincial parties agreeing that (1) coal is a threat to human health and that (2) Alberta must adopt a public policy of phasing out coal-generated electricity. Although the network concluded that agreement among provincial politicians on these two objectives was beginning to emerge, little public action or legislative activity (e.g. asking questions in the legislature regarding health and coal) was taking place. Furthermore, private meetings with individual legislators might not yield anything further in the way of precipitating movement toward a policy or generating pressure within the parties to take action on a coal phase-out (Siu, 2014: 91, 115). The politicians, the network decided, needed to take a public position on a coal phase-out, thereby creating a public context of accountability. Parties taking a positive stand on a coal phase-out would be lauded as leaders in protecting public health. As one political party took a public stand on a coal phase-out as a health issue, it was hoped that this would exert pressure on the other parties to also take a public stance. In addition, because of the growing media discussion, the network was confident of garnering strong media coverage of a public panel. This media publicity from the public panel would not only put pressure on the political parties to develop a public policy on coal phase-out, but would also amplify the public’s awareness of the issue by shining a light on the positions (or lack of policies) of the political parties, creating a measure of public transparency (McKenzie and Wharf, 2010).

By way of preparation, the network continued to meet with provincial MLAs to press for a public declaration from their political party on a coal phase-out as a means to protect public health. After researching the policy positions of the political parties on pollution and health, the network then used this research to frame conversations with MLAs in the lexicon and world-view of each political party, believing that MLAs would feel more comfortable considering a coal phase-out. For instance, with the governing PCs, the network would underline the strategic priority of child health outlined in the Premier’s (leader of the government) mandate letter to all cabinet ministers. We suggested that they could frame a coal phase-out as one of their policy priorities of protecting the public health of children and demonstrate that they were providing political leadership in this area. In doing so, the PCs could rehabilitate their weak political reputation and rebuild their sagging electoral support.

Meanwhile, with the Wildrose Party, the network pointed to their existing policy position on air and water pollution relative to human health and applauded the leader of the Wildrose Opposition for publicly advocating a coal phase-out for health reasons when our report was first released. In addition, we highlighted the potential of the Wildrose Party further developing their energy policy on distributed and decentralized energy generation, suggesting that they could become champions of renewable energy as a source of clean electricity, replacing coal-generated electricity. We framed this policy as a way of remediating their strategic mistake of denying climate change in the last provincial election (which effectively branded the party as an extreme right-wing party in the eyes of many voters and the media), opening the door for the Wildrose party to occupy a more moderate position in the political spectrum.

The two smaller opposition parties – the Liberals and the NDP – were more predisposed to support a coal phase-out, but with some exceptions (e.g. the Liberal Health Critic, Dr David Swann) had not yet moved beyond expressing support to actually taking action. As with the other parties, the network also provided capacity-building for both the Liberals and the NDP by highlighting their unique strengths as well as trouble-shooting and problem-solving their political liabilities. Dr Raj Sherman, the new Leader of the Alberta Liberals, came to be a supporter for a coal phase-out, seeing this policy as a way to more securely occupy the political center in the province. The Liberal Party MLAs liked the idea of linking coal as a public health concern with their existing policies on environmental sustainability to give them a political advantage.

The NDP caucuses were also strong supporters of a coal phase-out for both health and environmental reasons, but were more inclined to frame the coal phase-out and renewable energy phase-in as policies that would help to make Alberta more socially just, economically more inclusive (especially agricultural and aboriginal communities), and local communities and cities more sustainable. By using these frames, our ongoing consultations with the four political parties appeared to help MLAs in the parties to feel more at home with the coal phase-out by highlighting each party’s strengths and assets and showing how endorsing a coal phase-out offered each party potential political advantages.

All of the parties raised a variety of well-founded concerns regarding a coal phase-out in Alberta, necessitating ongoing discussion of how these barriers might be addressed. Perhaps the two most common objections concerned (1) what energy sources would replace coal in the electrical grid and (2) how government could address the job losses that would result from a coal phase-out. In meetings with politicians, we highlighted both the research into the feasibility of 100 percent renewable electricity as a replacement for fossil fuels in an electricity grid (Jacobson et al., 2013) and the progress made by regions in transitioning to 100 percent renewable electricity (Moser, 2013). We advocated for support enabling workers in the coal industry to transition to the renewable energy sector through job re-training. We also underlined how research (Pollin et al., 2009) has indicated that solar power has the greatest capacity to generate jobs per million dollars invested in energy generation (9.8 jobs), followed closely by wind (9.5 jobs), in contrast to both oil and gas that create considerably fewer jobs (3.7) for the same amount invested. In both cases, the coal phase-out network quickly learned that providing access to such research is crucial for the capacity-building of political leaders so that they are empowered to move forward with implementing effective public policy.

At first, most of the parties were reluctant to participate in a conjoint public event. But as meetings progressed, one by one, the parties began to shift and feel more comfortable with this idea. When one party agreed to participate, the network shared this news with the other parties who were still undecided, implying that the committed party was ‘ahead of you’ in taking public leadership on this issue. All parties had an interest in increasing their reputation or public ‘brand’ as being the protector of public health, in contrast to the other parties who might be seen as laggards. Each party perceived that their party potentially could reap the political benefits of support from a majority of Albertans who supported a coal phase-out, as indicated by the polls (Kleiss, 2013). At the same time, the network hinted at the converse implication: There could be negative political consequences if the party ‘dropped the ball’ and missed the opportunity to brand the coal issue as their own, allowing it to be captured by a political competitor.

In time, all four parties did agree to participate in the public panel, at which some of the four representatives displayed a stronger endorsement of a coal phase-out than was anticipated. The network primed the media for the public panel through media advisories and follow-up phone calls to maximize the amount of news coverage. In addition, two doctors and the executive director of CAPE wrote an op-ed for the Edmonton Journal (Vipond et al., 2014) to draw attention to the issue and to amplify news coverage for the political panel itself the following day. The panel discussion of the four MLAs was itself extensively covered by radio, TV, and print media, with multiple ‘hits’ in different media formats. The front page of the business section of the Edmonton Journal, the main newspaper in the capital city where the legislature is located, read ‘Pressure on Alberta to phase out coal-fired power plants sooner than planned’ (Cooper, 2014).

The following week, the effectiveness of the panel and the reverberations through widening circles of media became apparent. Don Braid (2014), the widely read columnist in the Calgary Herald, unexpectedly endorsed a coal phase-out in his column: ‘Alberta has left too many chores undone. The record on environmental protection is spotty. Emissions are climbing.’ It was Braid’s endorsement of a coal phase-out that came as a pleasant surprise:

Another sure way to cut emissions quickly, according to the Canadian Association of Physicians’ for the Environment, is to phase out coal … These physicians say coal emissions contribute to more than 100 deaths annually, as well as many asthma attacks and emergency visits.

Braid (2014) concludes, ‘Phasing out coal would be costly … But the benefits to Alberta’s environmental performance would be huge’. The following week, another surprise surfaced. Debra Yedlin, the well-respected business columnist for the CBC, also supported a coal phase-out in her weekly radio column. As the media was beginning to pay more attention to the issue, this higher profile increased public awareness of the health/environmental issue of coal, making it more difficult for the political parties, especially the governing PC Party, to ignore the issue, and hopefully encouraged the parties to move toward taking action.

Interdisciplinarity and diversity of membership

Gray et al. (2013) propose that interdisciplinarity is a characteristic of effective environmental advocacy and policy influencing, suggesting that a new network would include a cross-disciplinary ‘knowledge base and working in unison with other professions in order to respond effectively to the many dimensions of climate change and environmental degradation’ (p. 13). Building working and trusting relationship with other professionals and environmental advocates is a key task for social workers (Lysack, 2010a, 2010b; Tester, 2013). For the network in Alberta, the inclusion of a diversity of professionals and NGOs was a conscious priority from its outset and is reflected in the breadth of membership in the network from many different sectors.

Building relationships with key allies

In policy advocacy in social work, building strong relationships with allies is critical (Mary, 2008). For instance, as social worker Ross (2013) worked in the Australian context to address negative health impacts for local communities, her work of establishing and deepening relationships with allies, such as aligning ‘with other concerned stakeholders, including sitting members of parliament … was crucial’ (p. 202). ‘Powerful alliances have to be formed with activist groups’ (p. 208). In like manner, the coal phase-out network in Alberta reached out to diverse NGOs and advocates who all brought valuable experience and unique skill sets to the network’s activities.

Selecting a primary frame and orientation for advocacy activities and messaging

The network emerged out of the embryonic cluster of primarily public health NGOs that had crystallized for the writing of the report ‘A Costly Diagnosis’. As a result, the presence of three health NGOs and the health focus of the report on coal provided the primary frame of health for the network’s activity and messaging, although energy and environmental frames were also important for the network’s framing of issues. The network believed that a health frame for a coal phase-out would not only be novel in Alberta but would also provide more traction in a province where energy and environmental issues (such as climate change, the oil sands, and the fossil fuel industry) are highly polarized and politically charged. Protecting the environment and developing clean renewable energy continue to be crucial frames in communications and network activities. But health initially provided the primary frame and the point of entry for activity in the initial phases of the network’s campaign. Certainly, the polling has indicated that considerable health concerns regarding the impacts of coal and support for a coal phase-out are widespread in the general public in Alberta as well as in the political constituencies in all four political parties.

This frame expanded later through consultations with leadership of the US-based ‘Beyond Coal’ campaign led by the US Sierra Club, who stressed that they found multiple frames of health and economics were more effective in their campaigns of closing coal-based electricity generation plants. Shortly thereafter, the network gathered research data and used this information to open a ‘second front’ of the coal phase-out campaign in Alberta, now also highlighting the increasing economic disadvantages to Albertans of utilizing coal to generate electricity in an increasingly carbon-constrained environment.

Multi-partisan political orientation of advocacy

While there was interest in the network from sitting provincial politicians, especially from the two more progressive political parties, no politicians were included in the network in order to preserve a multi-partisan political orientation of the network. This exclusion of all political figures was primarily aimed at protecting the network from possible accusations of the network being the puppet of one political party, thus leading to the network being dismissed by political leaders, the media, or the public. This distancing also allowed the network to develop a multi-partiality in its relational positioning with all of the political parties, even if some individual members of the network might have their own political allegiances to a specific party. The network evolved a philosophy that all of the parties have a contribution to make in developing and enacting effective public policy on environmental, energy, and health issues.

At the same time, arms-length and ‘off-line’ relationships with a small number of key sympathetic politicians in all four parties were maintained or cultivated to learn about the sub-culture of politics. This information and strategic advice from the politicians assisted the network with its politically mapping of the parties, identifying allies within each party, which aided the network’s decision-making about which politicians to approach and how to best engage them.

Engaging political leaders

Among the various macro-practices, social work scholars highlight the centrality and necessity of skills centered on advocating policies with ‘local politicians and countering the impact of government passivity and corporate “green-washing”’ (Gray et al., 2013: 308). These skills are an extension and specification of social work’s long tradition of policy research and policy influencing in historical areas of public concern (Schneider and Netting, 1999). One crucial area of policy-influencing practices centers on building the capacity of politicians as well as policy analysts and senior managers on all three levels of government (federal, provincial, municipal) for developing science-based and politically ambitious environmental policy.

In the Alberta context, the network and many others have discerned that a key part of the problem lies in the lack of capacity in the provincial ministries to be able to develop robust environmental policies. For instance, in the Alberta Ministry of Energy consisting of 900–1000 employees, it is estimated that as few as 10 employees have renewable energy as part of their mandate. In their meetings with MLAs and policy analysts, the network seeks to assist MLAs and policy analysts build their capacity by providing them with relevant background information on the health impacts and economic costs of coal as well as on best practices in renewable energy.

Communications skills

To deepen the effectiveness of policy interventions at a macro level, Gray et al. (2013) underline the importance of the skill sets of communications and messaging as crucial, arguing ‘social work education can incorporate learning about the media and communication strategies that serve to mobilize public opinion and action’ (p. 308). Similar perspectives on the centrality of communication skills are echoed in Dominelli’s (2012) book as one of the skill clusters for social workers in their policy-influencing practice. The coal phase-out network in Alberta has made it a priority to utilize the media as a way of educating the public at large about the health effects of coal-generated electricity. As the work evolved and acquired more momentum, three of the NGOs have provided their expertise and resources to facilitate the engagement of the media in Alberta, culminating in extensive press coverage of the public panel with the four representatives of the political parties in Edmonton in January 2014.