Will Trudeau’s climate action match his rhetoric this time—or ever?

CHELSEA, QUE.—There are ominous signals from the new Trudeau government that federal action to curb climate change will not be accelerating any time soon—certainly not in time to ward off the increasingly dire consequences. The appointment of Vancouver-area Liberal, Jonathan Wilkinson, as environment minister, for instance, was widely interpreted as an olive branch to Alberta’s fulminating oil patch champions, led by Alberta Premier Jason Kenney. Unlike the annoyingly blond and female Catherine McKenna—a lively and compelling advocate for environmental protection, within the limits of her mandate—Wilkinson is a low-key Saskatchewan-born businessmen. He is unlikely to be subjected to the misogynist abuse McKenna endured, so there’s that. He also spent 15 years in the clean tech industry before being elected in North Vancouver. Catherine McKenna, pictured Nov. 20, 2019, with her daughters arriving at Rideau Hall in Ottawa. The Hill Times photograph by Andrew Meade A fisheries minister in Trudeau’s previous cabinet, and, before that, parliamentary secretary to McKenna, Wilkinson is well versed on environmental issues and said to be a good listener. But his initial comments do not signal any urgent resolve to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Instead, he speaks of searching for technological innovation that will allow Canada to continue producing oil and gas, presumably indefinitely, in a way that is “thoughtful and sensitive” to the troubled oil patch. “I’m not going to say to you that I have a magic bullet. I certainly don’t,” the new minister told reporters, but it would be “silly” not to keep looking. What he didn’t add is that the search for a magic bullet has been ongoing for decades and heavily subsidized by both federal and provincial governments. It amounted to the sum total of Stephen Harper’s final climate plan: get government out of the way and let the market solve this. Continued research can’t hurt and there has been success in reducing carbon intensity per barrel of oil. But increasing production—and abundant oil is being pumped every day, despite the economic apocalypse described by Kenney—has undone any progress towards reducing overall emissions. Another supposed tech “fix”—carbon capture and storage—has proven useful in small applications, but ineffective in dealing with emissions from giant fossil-fuel operations. In fact, it has proven so expensive and unpromising it has been abandoned by major oil companies and staggers on largely on government subsidies. If this is what Wilkinson is counting on, don’t expect greenhouse gas reductions any time soon. Meanwhile, according to a recent report commissioned by the UN Environment Program, oil production in Canada is scheduled to increase by 60 per cent from 2017 to the end of this year, with a 34 per cent jump in natural gas production in the same period. And it continues to rise for the rest of this decade, according to oil patch projections. This makes reaching our Paris target of 30 per cent reduction in emissions under 2005 levels by 2030 impossibly remote. Indeed, the UN report, which looked at fossil fuel production in 10 major countries, puts Canada among the top offenders in driving the world 120 per cent over the Paris targets. As lead author Michael Lazarus said: “If countries are saying they plan to reduce emissions and, on the other hand, that they plan to increase production, that creates not only a contradiction, but also undermines the ability to reach climate goals.” Welcome to the Liberal climate plan, Mr. Lazarus. At the least, Wilkinson, and his government, should focus on halting further expansion of the oilsands. That opportunity could come as soon as February, when federal cabinet is expected to rule on the 24,000-hectare Frontier mine proposal, a truck-and-shovel fossil fuel play in northern Alberta, that will damage the immediate environment, inevitably, and pump out additional greenhouse gases for 41 years. Trudeau managed to survive electorally despite having purchased the $4.5-billion Trans Mountain pipeline and committing another estimated $10-billion to tripling its capacity. He promises to divert the pipeline’s estimated $550-million annual profits into green energy spending—although no one can justify that figure, or explain the logic behind encouraging more pollution, then using money generated to discourage more pollution. Why not simply put the billions into clean energy and skip the intermediate step? That battle may be lost, despite the presence of Steven Guilbeault, an esteemed Quebec climate activist and pipeline critic in cabinet. The fact that this serious climate campaigner wasn’t given the environment portfolio, while no surprise, is telling. It is small consolation that Mckenna is now dispensing federal infrastructure funding, which should be good news for public transit and green energy. Steven Guilbeault, pictured on Nov. 20, 2019, with his family arriving at Rideau Hall in Ottawa. The Hill Times photograph by Andrew Meade Meanwhile, the majority of Canadians who worry about climate—and the dire prospect of the world warming by 3.2 degrees by the end of this century—and who voted Liberal, NDP, or Green last month, must be watching in dismay as Trudeau’s minority government sends forelock-tugging emissaries to Alberta and Saskatchewan, apparently determined not to upset “Westerners” with adult talk about looming climate disaster. If the feds have decided to let the oil sands grow, virtually unabated, the only way to meet targets—if they still mean anything—is to double down on other efforts: massively increasing support for vehicle electrification, including a nationwide charging network; inducing auto-makers to build electric vehicles in vacated plants in Ontario, for domestic and American consumers; more support for municipalities intent on greening housing and infrastructure. And, as the business-friendly Ecofiscal Commission reported last week, the federal carbon tax has to increase to 40 cents a litre by the end of the decade to be effective—a pledge Trudeau has refused to make. It is true that all this—anything more than virtue signalling—will cost billions. But so does subsidizing fossil fuels, so does keeping the Ontario auto sector afloat through recessions and changing markets. The moment demands decisive action, a break with the familiar, political courage and personal conviction. As for “listening," that is always useful. But, in these early says, the new government appears to be listening harder to its enemies than to the many Canadians who voted for them in hopes of serious climate action. Susan Riley is a veteran political columnist who writes regularly for The Hill Times. The Hill Times

Will Trudeau’s climate action match his rhetoric this time—or ever?

John Wilkinson is well versed on environmental issues and said to be a good listener. But his initial comments do not signal any urgent resolve to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Health misinformation is hurting patients and undermining trust. Let’s do something about it.

News

Get free news updates

Opinion

Submit a guest opinion article

resources

Follow us

Advertise

subscribe

get help

Get free news updates

Submit a guest opinion article

Will Trudeau’s climate action match his rhetoric this time—or ever?

John Wilkinson is well versed on environmental issues and said to be a good listener. But his initial comments do not signal any urgent resolve to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Become a Political Insider