As Saskatchewan prepares to keep its coal-fired power plants running past the federal cutoff date of 2029, a group of Saskatchewan-based scientists is warning the decision flies in the face of international climate agreements and exposes residents to mounting environmental, health, and economic risks.
Climate scientists have warned for more than a century that the burning of fossil fuels would alter the planet’s atmosphere. The link between carbon dioxide emissions and global temperature increases was first calculated in the 1890s, with more precise evidence emerging throughout the 20th century. Canadian scientists have raised specific concerns about prairie climate vulnerability since at least the 1980s.
In a formal statement issued Aug. 12, four atmospheric scientists — including long-time federal meteorologist Ron Hopkinson — said the province’s plan violates the Paris Agreement and Canada’s Clean Electricity Regulations, while ignoring both climate science and the results of SaskPower’s own public engagement.
The group is calling for a shift away from coal and a renewed commitment to wind and solar energy, which they say could be well supported by Saskatchewan’s climate and geography.
“It commits Saskatchewan to emitting carbon dioxide for an indefinite period of time,” Hopkinson said of the decision in an interview.
“We need to take measures as a nation and as a province to reduce our greenhouse gases to avoid catastrophic climate change in the future.”
Hopkinson, who worked with Environment Canada from 1968 to 2003 and continued consulting for two decades after retirement, said the province’s decision to extend the lifespan of its coal plants is out of step with the science.
“The coal-fired plants are going to be refurbished and their lives extended well beyond 2029,” he said. “That goes counter to the clean electricity regulations and counter to the Paris Agreement of 2015, to which Canada was a signatory.”
Canada agreed under the Paris Agreement to reduce emissions to at least 30 per cent below 2005 levels by 2030. The treaty also commits participating countries to keep global temperature increases well below 2°C, and preferably under 1.5°C. Canada is not on track to meet its targets, Hopkinson said — and neither is Saskatchewan.
The scientists’ statement, titled Position Statement from Concerned Atmospheric Scientists, Saskatchewan, argues the province’s actions are particularly harmful because Saskatchewan is already one of the most emissions-intensive regions in the country. Despite a small population, it had the third-highest greenhouse gas output in Canada in 2023.
“I think it's worth remembering that our economy depends on our environment,” Hopkinson said. “And our environment is changing significantly because of our emissions of greenhouse gases."
Hopkinson noted that Canadians are affected by climate whether they like it or not. Insurance companies, for example, have some of the most robust statistical data in any industry, and they aren't in any doubt about the chances of extreme weather events increasing.
“Insurance companies are even starting to think whether they’ll insure for some hazards,” he said. “If you have a home in a forested area, you may not be able to get fire insurance. I think it’s going to affect us all as a society at some point.”
The position statement lists multiple expected impacts from unchecked climate change, including extreme weather, droughts, flooding, heat domes, and water shortages. These issues are already affecting Saskatchewan, it says, and are expected to intensify.
The province is described as a “hotspot” for climate risks due to its reliance on agriculture, its exposure to temperature extremes, and the vulnerability of prairie ecosystems.
It cites Canada’s 2019 national climate assessment, which found that warming in Canada is occurring at roughly twice the global average. In Saskatchewan, this has already translated into more wildfires, declining snowpacks, and lower river flows — all of which put stress on food systems, wildlife, public health, and infrastructure.
The scientists also reference a 2018 risk assessment prepared for the Saskatchewan Ministry of Government Relations. That report found the risks of drought and convective storms would reach “extreme” levels with continued warming.
Hopkinson said the scientific community is largely united on the causes and urgency of climate change.
“There’s a very wide consensus about the science of climate change,” he said.
“The vast majority of the world’s atmospheric scientists accept the basic concepts of climate change and the fact that our greenhouse gases are driving that climate change.”
While some critics point to dissenting voices among scientists, Hopkinson said such objections represent a minority and often get outsized attention due to political or economic pressures.
“Scientifically, there is no real debate,” he said.
He noted that some of the earliest warnings about fossil fuel emissions and the greenhouse effect date back more than a century, and that he’s watched the data become more urgent over the course of his own career.
“The major concern about climate change began when I was still working with Environment Canada in the 1980s,” Hopkinson said.
“Over 40 years, the CO2 in the atmosphere has continued to rise — more steeply — and of course, our emissions are continuing to rise as well.”
Still, he said, some jurisdictions have managed to turn the tide. The scientists’ statement highlights solar and wind potential in southern Saskatchewan, noting that Estevan receives more sunshine than any other city in Canada, and Swift Current has the country’s second-highest average wind speed.
In Europe, solar power was the largest single source of electricity generation in June. Saskatchewan, the statement argues, has the natural resources to do the same — if the political will exists.
“Some jurisdictions have found a way to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions, and we should look to them for an example,” Hopkinson said. “Europe is particularly at the forefront of doing this.”
CMOS, the Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society, also endorses decarbonization and renewable energy expansion. The scientists quote its 2019 and 2022 policy statements, which advocate for urgent emissions reductions and public preparedness for extreme weather.
Hopkinson confirmed the statement was released in conjunction with a legal challenge led by the Saskatchewan Environmental Society. That case argues the province’s coal extension plan is not only environmentally irresponsible but also illegal under current federal regulations.
“We’re certainly in [support of] ... the opposition to the coal-fired plants — for scientific reasons.”
In total, the statement was signed by at least four Saskatchewan scientists, including Elaine Wheaton and Terri Lang, both based in Saskatoon, and Nathen Schmidt of Regina. More names may be added, Hopkinson said.
Despite the scientific and legal pushback, the province has shown no signs of reversing course. In recent months, several government officials and union leaders have framed the coal extension as a matter of energy independence, job protection, and rural economic stability.
But Hopkinson said those arguments should not override the science, especially when viable alternatives exist.
“This is not about being anti-development,” he said. “It’s about making development sustainable — because we’re all going to live with the consequences.”