A New Horrifying High Our Leaders Will Ignore

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.

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

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.

More Evidence That The Emperor Has No Clothes

The Mound notified me that he is having problems accessing his blog, and so directed me to the following story. Given the stellar job he has been doing on the climate file and other issues relating to the earth's viability, I know my post will be a mere shadow of the quality and depth he brings to bear, but here goes anyway.

The Guardian reports a truth about Justin Trudeau that his supporters are loathe to acknowledge: despite his election pledge, he is leading us farther away from any chance of meeting Canada's promised greenhouse gas emission reduction targets.

... Justin Trudeau’s newly re-elected government will decide whether to throw more fuel on the fires of climate change by giving the go-ahead to construction of the largest open-pit oil sands mine in Canadian history.

Approving Teck Resources’ Frontier mine would effectively signal Canada’s abandonment of its international climate goals. The mega mine would operate until 2067, adding a whopping 6 megatonnes of climate pollution every year. That’s on top of the increasing amount of carbon that Canada’s petroleum producers are already pumping out every year.

Approving Teck Resources’ Frontier mine would effectively signal Canada’s abandonment of its international climate goals. The mega mine would operate until 2067, adding a whopping 6 megatonnes of climate pollution every year. That’s on top of the increasing amount of carbon that Canada’s petroleum producers are already pumping out every year.

And despite Trudeau's repeated and lofty rhetoric about consulting Indigenous people, this project has grave implications for them:

The Teck mega mine would be on Dene and Cree territory, close to Indigenous communities. The area is home to one of the last free-roaming herds of wood bison, it’s along the migration route for the only wild population of endangered whooping cranes, and is just 30km from the boundary of Wood Buffalo national park – a Unesco world heritage site because of its cultural importance and biodiversity.

Most Canadians are aware of the filthy nature of tar sand development, but even if this project does not go ahead, much further damage is being planned:

Even without Teck Frontier, there are 131 megatonnes per year in approved tar sands projects just waiting for companies to begin construction. No wonder the industry is on track to take up 53% of Canada’s emissions budget within the next 10 years.

And the signs that Trudeau is giving little more than lip service to emission-reduction is becoming very evident:

Less than two months ago, two-thirds of Canadians voted for parties vowing to do more to fight climate change. Trudeau promised during the campaign to introduce legally binding targets for Canada to reach net zero emissions by 2050. But all the current national climate policies, including a carbon tax and coal phase-out, would be overwhelmed by this carbon juggernaut and Canada would radically fail to meet its climate commitments.

There are alternatives:

By rejecting the Teck mega mine, the Canadian government could signal that it is committed to stopping this runaway train. That it does represent the two-thirds of Canadians who voted for increased action against climate breakdown. It could launch a serious program to help the oil and gas workers of Alberta, the people who are out of work and need a future to believe in, by redirecting the many billions of dollars for pipelines and fossil fuel infrastructure into diversifying and decarbonizing Alberta’s economy.

In rejecting the Teck mega mine, Canada would be joining France, Costa Rica, New Zealand, Norway and recently California – all jurisdictions that have recently constrained expansion of oil and gas due to the urgent need to build cleaner safer energy systems and fight climate change.

Based on the Trudeau government's past performance, I would say the odds of the Teck project being approved are great. But I would very much welcome being proven wrong.

UPDATED: Patently Ridiculous

That is my assessment of our faux Environment Minister, Catherine McKenna, in her latest political statement in answer to the question of whether or not Canada should ban the export of our plastic waste:

Environment Minister Catherine McKenna says she has asked her department to look at what else Canada can do to reduce the amount of Canadian garbage that is ending up overseas.

As recently as Aug. 1, McKenna’s officials dismissed the idea of banning plastic waste exports entirely, fearing such a move could be economically harmful to countries with recycling industries that rely on the material. [Italics mine.]

Canada pointed to Australia, New Zealand and Japan as countries with similar policies.

But last week, Australia’s federal and state governments came together to start planning for an eventual ban of plastic waste exports.

While some might be fooled by McKenna's expressions of concern for jobs in other countries, others are not:

Kathleen Ruff, founder of the online advocacy campaign RightonCanada.ca, wants Canada to agree to stop shipping plastic waste out of the country. She has been critical of the federal Liberals for refusing to agree to amend the Basel Convention to stop plastic waste exports. The convention is an international agreement to prevent the world’s wealthiest nations from dumping hazardous waste on the developing world.

Ruff said she was happy to hear McKenna say there was room to do more — and suspects the Oct. 21 federal election may have something to do with it.

Politics, indeed. I think I would have more respect for McKenna if she took the almost unheard of route of speaking honestly to the public and state that a ban of plastic exports would require the elimination of a wide array of single-use products that Canadians are addicted to, ranging from plastic water bottles to bubble wrap to takeout containers to coffee cups (lined with plastic). Such a move would take real courage and vision, but the initial public backlash might be politically costly.

Instead, we have a visionless shill masquerading as the Environment and Climate Change Minister taking faux pride in the fact that we will ban plastic straws in another year or two.

In closing, it is useful to remind ourselves that we are all complicit in this minister's posturing:

Canadians are among the biggest producers of waste in the world, churning out as much as two kilograms per person every day.

Not a pretty picture


UPDATE: Now here is something we should all find sobering about plastic pollution:

Abundant levels of microplastic pollution have been found in snow from the Arctic to the Alps, according to a study that has prompted scientists to warn of significant contamination of the atmosphere and demand urgent research into the potential health impacts on people.

Snow captures particles from the air as it falls and samples from ice floes on the ocean between Greenland and Svalbard contained an average of 1,760 microplastic particles per litre, the research found. Even more – 24,600 per litre on average – were found at European locations. The work shows transport by winds is a key factor in microplastics contamination across the globe.

The scientists called for research on the effect of airborne microplastics on human health, pointing to an earlier study that found the particles in cancerous human lung tissue.

A Verbal Tap Dance

Talk, as they say, is cheap. Watch the following clip to see Environment Minister Catherine McKenna further debase its value by her non-answer regarding the now-stalled Trans Mountain pipeline expansion and the threat West Coast oil tanker traffic poses:

On Canadian Hypocrisy

While many (but not our strangely silent allies) have cheered Canada's tweet critical of Saudi Arabia's abuse of human rights' activists, it has not escaped others that the gesture has the stench of hypocrisy about it. The Star's Tony Burman reminds us:

that it was this Liberal government that approved the $15-billion deal to sell military vehicles to Saudi Arabia originally worked out by the previous Harper government. There is reason to believe that some of these vehicles have been used by the Saudis to crush the very internal dissent that Canada embraces.

If the Middle East has taught us anything, it is that talk is cheap.

Similarly, Star letter writers offer some critical thinking:

The Canadian admonition of the Saudi government is evidently hypocritical, and lacks moral integrity.

Hamid S. Atiyyah, Markham

So Canada will have to stop selling weapons of war to the Saudi Arabians for them to use against their own people and against civilians in Yemen.

Good.

Alan Craig, Brampton

A year ago it was reported that Canada was Saudi Arabia’s second largest arms supplier. While Foreign Affairs Minister Chrystia Freeland expresses outrage at Saudi Arabia’s human rights abuses, she conveniently turns a blind eye to scathing reports by UN officials and a long list of civil society groups over Canada’s lucrative weapons trade in defiance of international norms.

Joe Davidson, Toronto

My guess is, had Canada known the kind of overreaction its tweet would provoke from the Saudis, it would not have issued such a public castigation of the dictatorial state. On the other hand, I'm sure there is a bright side to the whole situation, as a government and a prime minister hoping for reelection can now once more assert to a largely uncritical world that Canada is back; it certainly worked wonders for Justin Trudeau's image when he declaimed thus after winning the last election.

Lord knows, given the massive disappointment he has been on so many fronts, a little prolonged diversion may be just what the spin doctor ordered.