News that Antarctica just reached new horrifyingly high temperatures, forerunner of the deluge to come, once more reinforces the perilous state our world is in. Despite that, it seems likely that the Trudeau government will approve the massive tarsands project known as the Teck mine, which I posted about the other day.
Indeed, the most startling fact about the development is that it will add to our-already massive greenhouse gas emissions which, despite the pious rhetoric of the Trudeau government, means our country, with a mere 0.5% of the planet’s population, will use up one-third of the world's remaining carbon budget.
A new petition opposing the development is available to sign at the David Suzuki Foundation.
Still not sure that this development flies in the face of ecological sanity? Perhaps the following thoughtful missives from the Toronto Star will help convince you:
I oppose the expansion of tar sands production and call on Liberal cabinet ministers to reject the Teck Frontier mine.Despite the bellicose rhetoric emanating from Alberta over this development, which you can view with this link, in a sane world, there really would be no debate over this ill-conceived and very, very dangerous project.
The Trudeau cabinet’s decision is due at the end of February. It’s the first real climate test for this government.
I am one of the two thirds of voters who voted for increased climate action in last year’s federal election. We have less than 10 years to limit climate catastrophe and must act quickly to cut carbon emissions.
The Frontier mine is incompatible with our climate targets. It will produce about four million tonnes of carbon emissions per year.
It would result in significant adverse effects on Indigenous rights and cause irreversible environmental damage. The mine would result in a loss of habitat for local species including wood bison and whooping cranes.
And it will never be financially viable due to its reliance on unrealistically high oil prices.
Dorothy Goldin Rosenberg, Toronto
Can any of us really afford to wait another 30 years for Teck Resources to become carbon neutral? Canada’s federal cabinet ministers are deciding whether to reject or approve the Teck Frontier Mine, slated to be developed 110 kilometres north of Fort McMurray, Alta. — a mine that would become Canada’s largest tar sands project.
This mine would produce 260,000 barrels of oil per day. It would cover 290 square kilometres, almost the combined area of Vancouver, Burnaby and Richmond, and have a lifespan of 41 years. During those years, this mega-mine would add 4 million tonnes of CO2 per year to Canada’s emissions, singlehandedly guaranteeing we will not meet our Paris Accord targets.
A federal-provincial joint review panel found that the mine would not only cause permanent and irreversible damage to our environment, but it would also cause “significant adverse effects” on the rights, land use and culture of local Indigenous peoples.
So I ask again: Can Canada, my grandchildren and your grandchildren afford to wait 30 years for Teck to become carbon neutral? The answer from the future is a resounding and imploring cry of “no!”
Patricia Smith, Barrie
As author of “Hawk,” a novel about the oil sands being used in many Canadian schools, I want to raise awareness about the Teck Frontier mine proposal currently up for approval by our federal government.
This mega-mine, the biggest yet, will add an area twice the size of Vancouver to an already questionable tarsands industry and is undoubtedly incompatible with our climate targets.
Canadians are doing their part to cut back on emissions, but our efforts to eat less meat or use public transport pale in comparison to the harm that will be done by this proposed project.
We pray for Australia and send money to help burned koalas, we criticize others for cutting down the Amazon forest, depriving orangutans of their habitat, and we judge the U.S. for its climate-denying leadership.
But here in Canada, with scientists telling us we have less than 10 years to limit climate catastrophe, we are poised to eradicate more boreal forest and add more greenhouse gases to an already beleaguered atmosphere.
I saw former U.S. president Barack Obama on his recent visit to Toronto. He praised Canada for listening to the science. Have we stopped doing that?
Jennifer Dance, Stouffville
It seems, Lorne, that insanity has become the conventional wisdom.
ReplyDeleteTruly, it often seems that the inmates are running the asylum, Owen.
DeleteI banged together a post yesterday based on the latest research suggesting we're more vulnerable to a climate impacts "cascade" than previously imagined. It used as an example this year's Australian brushfires. It's a story of knock-on effects and how they create a destructive synergy that makes them far more powerful than the sum of their components. The worst part of the message was that we focus our efforts and resources on responses that tackle individual problems but are powerless against the great threat, cascades.
ReplyDeleteI wrote it then I left it. I came back to it a few hours later and realized I couldn't post it. It was just too dark. When I post this sort of stuff the reader stats plummet. Within the progressive/liberal ranks even we don't want to know. I can understand the myriad reasons for that but I find it disheartening.
Churchill's line about how sometimes it is not enough to do our best, we must do what is required is also dispiriting because, while inarguable, it reveals how ill prepared we are to accept it. Even the group we might consider most aware and enlightened now prefer to look the other way.
I cannot bring myself to believe that Trudeau will greenlight the Teck mine proposal. I am not confident, however, that he has the courage to reject it. My hunch is that he'll try to weasel out of it, finding some excuses to delay a decision, if possible to foist it off on whoever comes along next.
As for Antarctica, that's been the focus of a lot of attention over the past year. The Thwaites glacier alone could add more than two feet of sea level rise. That would be devastating to my town. It could wreck our tourism industry and savage parts of our essential infrastructure. It would hammer the low-lying parts of the Lower Mainland. America's eastern seaboard and Gulf coast would be even harder hit because of the problem of subsidence. Adios, New Orleans. Nice knowing you, Miami. The US Navy is already crying "uncle." I don't know what it would portend for our Maritime provinces but it won't be good.
I came across a report earlier this week about the global ocean current (there's really just one ocean that circulates its waters). Increasing winds have been speeding up the current while also increasing wave action. And, of course, the water is also absorbing ever more heat. Faster currents, bigger waves, warmer water - there's an example of uncontrollable synergy. Again, I chose to leave that alone.
We've seen that looming mountain of ice off our bows for at least 20 years. We haven't reversed our engines. We haven't altered our course. It feels like we've even abandoned the wheelhouse.
Ignorance, whether blissful or not, seems to be the order of the day, Mound. For example, I saw a report the other night about the melting taking place in Antarctica, but the reporter said that this could lead to a three-metre rise in sea levels, "in the coming centuries."
DeleteSorry, I think most of us know the inundation is much closer that that.