In the lead up to the next round of UN climate talks, instead of taking responsibility for their own pollution problem, the Canadian Government is focusing on a full scale public relations and diplomatic campaign to ensure no door is closed to Canada's highly polluting tar sands. The cost of this campaign goes beyond taxpayers dollars -- the real cost is our international credibility, and even worse a safe climate and future for Canadians and the world.
Over recent weeks we have been inundated with dire warnings about climate change and the dangers of our addiction to fossil fuels. We have heard from the International Energy Agency that we are perilously close to locking ourselves into a world where runaway global warming will become inevitable. Just last week we heard from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that, among other things, extreme heat waves are expected to increase tenfold by the end of the century. The science is undeniably clear -- our window to avoid the worst is closing and it is closing fast.
Not surprisingly, many countries have recognized the urgency of this problem and are making efforts to clean up their own acts through reducing emissions and investing in clean energy as well as preparing and supporting the world's most vulnerable regions for what is to come. Not the Government of Canada.
The Canadian government's record on climate change is well known. We hear about it, at the very least every year when Canada is awarded yet another 'Colossal Fossil of the Year' for being the most counter-productive country at the UN climate talks. We know that the government has slashed funding for environmental science and renewable energy incentives. We know they abandoned their Kyoto commitments and were the only country to return from Copenhagen and weaken their emissions reductions target. We know they muzzle their climate scientists and bury critical data on our greenhouse gas pollution. And we know that Canada's federal energy and climate change positions revolve predominately around the reckless expansion of the fastest growing source of greenhouse gas pollution in the country -- the tar sands.
As you read this, European member states are preparing to vote on the implementation of their groundbreaking policy, the Fuel Quality Directive. This policy would see Europe encourage the use of cleaner fuels. One dimension of this policy is that it includes specific values for certain types of highly polluting fuels, including oil from tar sands. Not just Canadian tar sands, all tar sands deposits around the world. Despite the global application of the policy, Canada is the only country from outside of the European Union to intervene, and their interventions were not insignificant. This aggressive lobby campaign included over 110 meetings and millions of dollars in taxpayer money over the course of 2009 and 2010.
As the proposed December vote approaches, member states of the European Union have been subjected to yet another round of aggressive lobbying from the Canadian Government. Unfortunately the Fuel Quality Directive is only one of a handful of policies under attack by Canada.
As doors close on Canada's highly polluting tar sands oil, most recently with the debilitating delay of the Keystone XL pipeline, the government's reaction has been overtly defensive. They have equated different perspectives on the Keystone pipeline from the official opposition in Canada to treason, they have threatened trade consequences behind closed doors in Europe, and they have desperately clung to the oh-so-ironic 'ethical oil' brand that has been ridiculed by many, not the least of whom are recipients of the Nobel Peace Prize.
Canadians and the world are desperate for the Canada we once knew. The Canada that was a global role model on environmental issues and the Canada that often chose the moral high ground even when it was not politically palatable. It is not too late for leadership.
The tar sands have a serious pollution problem. By the government's own data, tar sands are projected to account for over 100 per cent of emissions growth in Canada over the coming decade, and despite multiple promises, there is still not a single federal regulation to address tar sand's greenhouse gas emissions. Until the Government of Canada understands that they have a pollution problem that will never be solved with public relations or diplomacy, they are going to be fighting a losing battle.
If the government is going to put so much energy into fighting, it would be great if it was fighting against climate change, instead of protesting clean energy and climate policies abroad. Canadians want our climate and energy policy to be defined by reducing our pollution instead of increasing it and we hope the government arrives at the same conclusion sooner rather than later.
With the Durban climate talks fast approaching, wouldn't it be great if this were the moment when Canada became a good guy again?
Oilsands output could triple by 2035: report
Oil sands output to more than triple - NEB
Extension Requested in Oilsands Quest's proposed Wallace Creek sale
US energy policy: What have we got against Canada?
Um. Well no it doesn't actually. Also anyone who can't see what's wrong with this sentence probably had a really hard time in math, (Hanna I'm looking your direction).
That may be in human nature somewhat but one thing it's not is "critical thinking" or, to a degree, honesty, which is a requirement of problem solving.
Are you afraid of what you might find if you took an honest look at it?
The SOLE purpose of the pipeline is to connect the oil sands to warm water ports in the Gulf of Mexico so the oil can be easily exported onto the world market for the highest bidded to buy -- NOT for the US to consume unless the US wants to be the highest bidder on the world market. Therefore once the oil starts flowing into the Gulf (hopefuly only figuratively and not literally), the oil will be INDISTINGUISHABLE from Saudi oil or any other oil because it will just be part of the world market for oil.
Could it be the Gulf Coast just happens to have wonderful WARM WATER ports from which to export this oil -- that'll be the saviour of the US -- to the rest of the world? If this oil is supposed to be the grand saviour of the US, then it doesn't need to go anywhere near any ports. Send it directly to the midwest refineries.
The little exposed truth is there are already Canadian pipelines running to midwest refineries that -- shock of shocks! -- have EXCESS capacity being left unused. Hey, NO new pipeline required!!!! Just start pumping this oil that's "intended to make everything wonderful for the US" through those existing pipelines that go to the midwest refineries. Done deal!! Everybody gets what they want, right?
Or do perhaps some people actually want something else and they're lying about it? Like maybe a couple warm water ports from which to EXPORT the oil onto the world market and to heck with the US consumer?
Rather than blithering away about how harmful oil is, why don't you get onside with companies that are actively working to extract the oil with methods less harmful to the environment.
I wonder how many of you have actually taken the time, as I have, to visit the Oil Sands. You just might be in for a surprise.
How can we have a bustling economy without burning fossil fuels? It's a conspiracy I tells ya!!!
Canada is now sending soldiers for wars, not peacekeeping. We were always energy hogs, now we don't try to hide it. We say we want to help poorer countries, yet we are cutting aid and shipping them products that are filled with dangerous things like asbestos.
If Canadians really don't like our true self, then people better wake up and change it. And the first huge step is stop voting in regressive politicians like Harper or Ford of Toronto, because there is NOTHING in the rightwing platform that meshes with the ideals you write about in this column.
Canada did not shift right, not remotely, and while many members of the Conservative party may be harder right than others, fact is they were elected because people were sick of the Liberal party and the Conservatives made no "social-politics" overtures. To do so is a near death sentence for any party.