海角社区官网

Former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau made climate promises and enacted worthwhile policies. Then he bought a bitumen pipeline with taxpayers鈥� money. Prime Minister Mark Carney axed an effective climate policy 鈥� the carbon levy. Now his government is promoting liquefied natural gas and speculative聽oil industry projects (e.g., carbon capture that 鈥� even if proven possible and safe 鈥� won鈥檛 meet demands). He鈥檚 also suggested modifying the West Coast oil tanker ban and building more pipelines.

Carney鈥檚 call to flood global markets with LNG is textbook petro-state sovereignty. It posits the national interest as a licence to expand toxic fossil fuel exports and ignores people living the consequences of a destabilized climate. By framing LNG as a strategic economic asset, he ignores Canada鈥檚 international duty to protect the climate system and not perpetuate transboundary environmental harms.

Carney noted that Jeff Bezos鈥檚 Amazon company is worth billions to the economy but the Amazon rainforest 鈥� Earth鈥檚 greatest terrestrial ecosystem 鈥� has no economic worth until it鈥檚 used by humans. We know he understands the existential threat that climate change poses, but his actions now suggest his priorities are political 鈥� the election cycle, short-term economic gain and appeasing oil industry 鈥� promoting opposition members and provincial premiers.

Canada continues to in history with billions of dollars a year in tax breaks, favourable loans and other incentives, then pleads funds are insufficient to do what鈥檚 necessary.

Carney鈥檚 鈥渘ation-building major projects plan鈥� backtracks on Canada鈥檚 Paris Agreement commitments. He won鈥檛 say whether his government will meet emissions-reduction targets. He鈥檚 supporting what will be the world鈥檚 second-largest LNG facility and a 鈥渃arbon capture, utilization, and storage project with additional energy infrastructure that would support a strong conventional energy sector while driving down emissions and emissions intensity from the oilsands.鈥�

Carbon capture, for heavy industry and a magic way of getting to net zero without having to actually cut emissions,鈥� contributes nothing to emissions reductions.聽It鈥檚 expensive, hasn鈥檛 been proven to work and only reduces production emissions while ignoring the massive contribution of continuing to burn the product.

The International Court of Justice says states are legally bound to prevent activities that worsen climate change. Approving carbon-intensive projects like LNG expansion breaches this duty, undermines Canada鈥檚 climate commitments and jeopardizes competitiveness in a global economy speeding toward decarbonization.

continuing to develop fossil fuels during a climate crisis is suicidal and will sabotage economies by 鈥渋ncreasing costs, weakening competitiveness, becoming stuck with stranded assets, and missing out on the greatest economic opportunity of the 21st century.鈥�

Carney knows this.

True nation-building projects would strengthen a renewable-powered east-west electricity grid, ramp up community clean energy projects and focus on Indigenous rights and land restitution.

Renewable energy, including wind, solar and storage, is now the most cost-effective and efficient way to power societies 鈥� and it鈥檚 popular. A recent Leger and David Suzuki Foundation survey showed 63 per cent agree Canada should prioritize renewable energy investments over fossil fuel developments; 46 per cent prefer a connected east-west grid with renewable energy over a new pipeline to transport oil to the East or West Coast for export (33 per cent).

Digging up and burning oil, gas and coal means more extreme weather events, droughts, floods, heat waves, agricultural failures, water shortages, wildfires, pollution-related health care costs and deaths, biodiversity loss, increasing conflict and human migration.

With the United States rejecting climate policies and expanding fossil fuel development, it鈥檚 even more important for Canada to do everything possible to confront the crisis. We must lead by example, not blame other nations or聽follow their insanities.

The world is moving on from fossil fuels. Our interest can鈥檛 be the right to profit while outsourcing ecological collapse abroad; that鈥檚 domination, not protecting national sovereignty or meeting our international responsibilities. The science is in: renewable energy is less expensive than fossil fuels and reducing emissions is far cheaper than living with consequences, so failure to act is not rational; it’s ideological.