Thursday, May 2, 2019

He Will Never Be Green



My past two posts have consisted of editorial cartoons featuring well-known 'green'characters. The first depicted Kermit the frog trumpeting the very significant electoral gains made by the Green Party in Prince Edward Island, where they now form the government's Official Opposition. The second depicted The Hulk as climate change, about to pummel Andrew Sheer, sheltering under a wholly inadequate umbrella labelled climate plan.

One whom I doubt will ever be depicted as green, either in the mind of editorial cartoonists or the informed public, is Justin Trudeau.

Our pipeline-loving Prime Minister relishes touting his government as having a serious plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The only problem is, it isn't true.

Consider Trudeau's much-touted carbon tax. Distilled to its essence, it is a plan that essentially returns more money (through a rebate) to most people than than it exacts from them. Putting aside the obvious politics involved in the rebate, one can legitimately ask the obvious: How will this deter people from using energy profligately? (The stock answer is that Canadians will appreciate that they stand to gain money if they reduce their carbon usage, a kind of enlightened self-interest that I have rarely witnessed from our fellow-citizens.)

Sadly, the Trudeau charade of constructive action against climate change is also pierced by his ongoing advocacy for tarsands bitumen, made evident in the aforementioned pipeline purchase, and one reinforced by a new deal on emissions he is offering to Alberta:
The type of oilsands developments that emit the most greenhouse gas could be exempt from new federal reviews for major projects—but only if Alberta keeps its cap on emissions from that sector.

The proposed exemption was included in draft regulations published Wednesday that outline which new developments would be subject to federal reviews under Bill C-69, legislation to revamp project assessments in Canada that has been denounced by some industry groups and the Conservative opposition.
Under the proposed regulations, Ottawa would exempt new “in situ” oilsands projects in Alberta from federal reviews because the province’s emissions cap for the sector—set at 100 megatonnes per year—is in line with Canada’s climate change framework, which aims to cut greenhouse gas emissions to 30 per cent below 2005 levels by 2030, government officials said during a background briefing Wednesday.

Emissions from these projects nearly quadrupled to 42 megatonnes from 2005 to 2017, when they made up more than half the emissions from Alberta’s oilsands, according to the federal government’s most recent tally of national greenhouse gas emissions.
Environmental defence groups are appalled:
Nichole Dusyk, a senior federal policy analyst for the Pembina Institute, said Ottawa is backing away from its environmental responsibilities if “in situ” oilsands projects aren’t placed under the new review process.

“Exempting it because there is a cap misses all of the other impacts that are within federal jurisdiction,” said Dusyk, pointing to potential effects on the habitats of “at-risk” species.

Julia Levin, climate and energy program manager with Environmental Defence, questioned why other emissions-intensive projects like pipelines that don’t cross borders will continue to be exempt from review, when renewable energy projects like certain hydroelectric, wind power and tidal energy facilities will be placed under the new federal assessments.

Like Dusyk, Levin said the regulations should ensure projects with a certain amount of greenhouse gas emissions fall under federal review, so that Ottawa can manage emissions as it strives to hit its targets under the Paris Agreement.

“This was not the place to abdicate responsibility and that is what the government has done,” she said.
Today sees a new report on how rapidly permafrost is melting in Canada's Arctic.
Nearly one-fifth of Arctic permafrost is now vulnerable to rapid warming, [Merritt] Turetsky’s [University of Guelph biologist] paper suggests. Plenty of it is in Canada, such as in the lowlands south of Hudson Bay.

Soil analysis found those quickly melting areas also contain the most carbon. Nearly 80 per cent of them hold at least 70 kilograms of carbon per cubic metre.

That suggests permafrost is likely to release up to 50 per cent more greenhouse gases than climate scientists have believed. As well, much of it will be released as methane, which is about 30 per cent more efficient at trapping heat than carbon dioxide.
And yet, to hear the official propaganda, Canada is serious about climate change mitigation. Time for Canadians of all political stripes to wake up, understand the grave peril we are in, and make their next electoral choice an informed one.

7 comments:

  1. When it comes to climate change, most governments in Canada, federal or provincial, engage in Kabuke theatre. They piss in each other's direction from time to time but no one ever gets wet.

    I had one of those dreams last night, the kind that remain vivid after you wake up. It revolved around a grim, backroom discussion involving a few prominent leaders - Trudeau, Morneau, Kenney and others.

    In this dream they spoke candidly about matters they agreed must never reach the public. The focus of their talk was that Canada was simply too big and the budget too small to do anything significant about climate change. It's like some of those formerly wealthy Brits, now impoverished, who still live in the decaying family country estate, knowing that a day of reckoning is inevitable.

    It's the sort of economic bind that can force seniors out of the family home and into a small apartment. Could that be Canada's problem, a need to downsize? What if we can no longer afford the upkeep on this, the second largest country on Earth?

    That was only a dream but what if it holds a kernel of truth? What if we can't afford to redirect our economy? What if we have no means to deal with climate change? Could this explain the rampant cognitive dissonance displayed by our governments?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A provocative dream and question, Mound. I wonder, however, if it is less the means and more the political will that is lacking today. After all, to progressively and aggressively pursue a green economy would ultimately redound to our economic benefit, but the short-term consequences of the government abandoning the fossil-fuel industry (subsidies, etc.) is likely too painful for our 'leaders' to contemplate.

      Delete
  2. .. I recently sent a link to disaffected lib about Tar Sands Magazine. I found it very informative. Of course there was little or no concern or negativity about emissions, remediation, or anything living or green - and I expected and found the usual bright sunny wrapping of 'the environment deserves and gets our topmost attention - world class - blah blah - woof woof - and the buffalo shall roam.. soonly - the future is bright !

    What I did find and read / absorbed carefully was.. a very accurate summation & descriptions throughout all the pages.. regarding extraction, expansion, processing, shipping, export, related finance $$ in regard to the various Benchmarks.. whether, Brent (North Sea), West Texas Intermediate.. and the various Alberta blends such as Western Canada Select & others.. whether dilbit or synbit.. and their related extraction process - upgrading or actual refining.. and of course.. shipping (pipelines) and destination..

    This is a huge issue or reality to understand.. anyone for or against further bitumin extraction or expansion needs a solid basis of understanding.. the facts.. Let me know if you can easily find The Tar Sands Magazine online.. or I can supply.. But the point I make is.. Canadians need to easily duplicate how I found that fascinating link.. form their own conclusions.. and think about the motivation of Jason Kenney or Justin Trudeau.. The various and sundry political parties.. lobbying.. and measure it all in context to what science and biology is telling us.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for the recommendation, Sal. If I can't find it online, I will place a followup comment here. Your reference to the propaganda about the environment reminds me of those insufferable commercials put on by CAPP, in which the environment is depicted as pristine, and that's presented largely as a result of the reverence the petroleum industry has for all things natural. Needless to say, I think I have only watched one of their commercials through to the end.

      Delete
    2. Actually, I am having some trouble finding it. If you could supply the link, Sal, that would be great.

      Delete
  3. .. apologies.. my mistake, Lorne
    seems its oil being extracted & pumped
    not bitumin, which is very similar in consistency to brown sugar.. and most Canadians presume brown sugar would not 'flow' through a pipeline.. without some serious uh.. improvement of liquidity' .. make it more of a brown syrup for example

    https://www.oilsandsmagazine.com/
    Reviewing it very briefly this AM I see various specific sections.. so choose your own pathway.. explore / branch as you will. Not sure which page or specific segment / section is most informative.. perhaps all..

    Will be very gratefull to hear another's appraisal.. but in my view, this is what Justin Trudeau's pipeline and tar sands expansion 'game plan' is mapped upon.. he just won't say its so.. Yet as I suggested to Mound earlier today.. he only represents 'OUR Government'.. it is not nor ever will be HIS Government.. Trudeau is OUR public servant.. as are all elected MP's.. and those appointed or hired to support such endeavors - on OUR behalf - re OUR needs, dreams and wishes..

    ReplyDelete