The new climate denialism

Over the years, the language of climate denialism has changed. First, those funded by the oil and gas industry gave some half-baked ideas about how the climate wasn’t actually changing. Then they explained, yes, the climate is changing, but it always has. Then, that humans weren’t causing it. Thankfully, these versions of denial are behind us. Sadly, new ones continue to emerge. The most prevalent form of climate denialism today goes like this: yes, the climate is changing, but Canada’s role in it is small and our opportunity cost for taking action—that is, job losses—is high. And another: even if we did act to cut our oil exports, other countries with dirtier oil would just fill the gap. Neither is true. The sooner we can dispel of these myths, the greater chance we will have for survival. Canada is a top 10 emitter, and among countries with more than a million people, we are at the top of the list per capita. We have a huge responsibility. We also know the energy transition is happening, and our oil—which is more expensive and more polluting (fourth highest in greenhouse gas intensity worldwide and has increased by 16 per cent since 1990)—will never be the last barrel standing. Today, the climate crisis is at a point where only transformational action gives us a hope of limiting global temperature rise to 1.5 C—the threshold set by the Paris Agreement, above which the impacts of the climate crisis become catastrophic and irreversible—at a time when we’re already at a 1.1 C rise. As environmental activist and author Bill McKibben has said, “even winning slowly is the same as losing.” As a country, we can still be a climate leader. We can create millions of good jobs in doing so. And we can influence others around the world to follow our lead. But it will require us to turn down the politics, listen to one another, and be more honest. Case in point: the House Standing Committee on Natural Resources’ current study on the government’s proposed cap on oil and gas sector emissions. The energy transition is happening, and our oil—which is more expensive and more polluting—will never be the last barrel standing. Photograph courtesy of Pixabay The trick of course is in the wording: that the sector’s emissions are being capped, and not production. Which means that the whole exercise could be simply one of shifting towards exporting our oil—and our emissions—for other countries to burn, while knowing full well that combustion of fossil fuels account for 85 per cent of their GHGs. One witness to the committee quoted a recent Forbes article, observing the sole focus on emissions from domestic extraction and production: “It would be like Philip Morris promising that none of its workers will smoke while manufacturing cigarettes.” The climate crisis is global, and the atmosphere isn’t concerned with borders when it comes to where fossil fuels are burned. In light of this—and recognizing natural resource production is provincial jurisdiction—here are some federal options that have been already been suggested to the committee: Exports are federal jurisdiction, so just as the federal government should ban exporting thermal coal, the federal government could impose limits on oil and gas exports. Cancel plans to build or expand pipeline infrastructure and end offshore oil production, reinvesting these funds in a just transition for workers. Today, we provide about 14.5 times more public financing for fossil fuels than we do renewables. Reinvest the $18-billion currently invested in oil and gas subsidies—which are currently going to companies primarily foreign owned—in clean energy projects by Canadian-owned businesses. In turn, we could also then lead on the international stage: as one example, we could follow Quebec’s lead to become a signatory of the Beyond Oil and Gas Alliance, which was also launched at COP26 this past year and is being jointly chaired by Denmark and Costa Rica. In the face of the new climate denialism, let’s be more honest: we can create the jobs of the future, and we can lead on the world stage, at a time when we must wind down the production of fossil fuels globally if we have any hope of sincere efforts to be part of the global effort to halt the climate crisis. Anything less is an affront to future generations. Mike Morrice is a Green Party MP representing the riding of Kitchener Centre, Ont. The Hill Times

The new climate denialism

The most prevalent form of climate denialism today goes like this: yes, the climate is changing, but Canada’s role in it is small and our opportunity cost for taking action—that is, job losses—is high.

Sudan’s warring sides and the long-simmering ethnic conflict

Balanced approach needed on right-to-repair bill, protecting IP rights and public safety

Reflections from a new citizen

Public Safety Canada’s dealing with natural and communication infrastructure disasters

As COP29 wraps up, will Canada finally stop funding fossils this fall?

Environmental groups urge an end to fossil fuel subsidies in two reports outlining Canada’s oil and gas financing

Environmental advocates push back against ‘loopholes’ and ‘false solutions’ at UN climate conference

Yet another tranche of propaganda from the oil industry: McElroy

Waking up: Australia and the El Niño

Green caucus priorities include congruently addressing climate and housing crisis

News

Get free news updates

Opinion

Submit a guest opinion article

resources

Advertise

subscribe

get help

Get free news updates

Submit a guest opinion article

The new climate denialism

The most prevalent form of climate denialism today goes like this: yes, the climate is changing, but Canada’s role in it is small and our opportunity cost for taking action—that is, job losses—is high.

Get The Policy Briefings Newsletter