Jason Moscovitz |
By
Jason Moscovitz
I haven’t heard anyone talk about acid
rain in ages and yet I imagine when it rains, the rain water still contains a
significant dose of toxins. It is so hard to declare victory when it comes to
the environment. You have to wonder if the problem is bigger than any possible
solution.
Acid rain
discussion in the 1980s primarily focused on the damage being done to our
cherished Canadian lakes. Then prime minister Brian Mulroney tenaciously
embraced the cause, making acid rain an important agenda item for his government.
It wasn’t the beginning of pollution talk in Canada, but the conversation was
more scientific than it had ever been.
With the science,
and an activist government, a new wave of environmental awareness was ushered
in. In almost four decades since, there have been many waves, big and small,
that have kept the environmental pot simmering while Rome burns. What was a
debate about acid rain is now a worldwide debate about climate change.
It is clear the
environment will be an important issue in the October federal election. While
it is a safe bet environmental issues will play a more significant role than in
any previous election, progressing on climate change is going to be as
formidable a task as ever.
While melting ice
caps in the far north is a scientific fact, and while there are more global
examples of extreme weather than ever before, climate change deniers are active
and boisterous and determined to continue to deny the obvious. Their act of
denial is not for nothing, because really caring about the environment means
changing old habits and spending a lot of money.
Ultimately, it is
political leadership that says thumbs up or down to measures to cut the high
levels of greenhouse gasses that are bad for the planet. To make impactful
change means diminishing our dependence on fossil fuel. It also means paying
more in taxes.
When Prime
Minister Justin Trudeau says Canadians will be reimbursed for the carbon tax,
just remember that Mulroney used to say the goods-and-services tax would be
revenue neutral. There is no such thing as a tax that doesn’t come out of your
pocket.
In Ontario, a
decade ago, then Liberal premier Dalton McGuinty set out on a green agenda. His
government closed coal generating plants and spent countless millions on
windmill farms. After all the “green” changes were made, Ontarians’ hydro bills
skyrocketed. According to a 2017 study by the Fraser Institute, Ontario hydro
bills were the highest in Canada, yet climate change is as big a threat as
ever.
Getting rid of
straws and plastic bags can’t be bad ideas but the reality check is this: as
long as we use gas powered cars and diesel trucks, how is significant change
going to happen? Last month we celebrated the 50th anniversary of landing on
the moon, and yet clean electric-powered cars are still not practical enough to
put them on every driveway in North America, let alone around the world.
In the October
election campaign, Trudeau will try to run as the leader with a practical plan
to clean up Canada’s carbon footprint. Yet, at the same time, socio-economic
and political considerations will force him to support Alberta in selling and
distributing dirty oil from what used to be commonly referred to as the tar
sands.
In fairness,
Alberta rejects the notion its oil sands is dirty oil. Alberta’s recently
elected premier, Jason Kenney, is fulfilling his take-no-prisoners campaign
promise to fiercely defend Alberta’s resource sector – even if that shakes the
unity of the country. There was nothing subtle about getting people to talk
about Alberta separatism again. Obviously, doing things to curtail climate
change is not Kenney’s priority.
And that brings us
back to Trudeau. He’s a big climate guy who is now also a big oil and pipeline
guy. After all, his government actually bought a pipeline company. That $4.5
billion investment to buy the Trans Mountain Pipeline from Kinder Morgan means
the still-to-be-built pipeline from Alberta to the coast of British Columbia
now has to be built or Trudeau will have thrown away almost $5 billion. His own
fiscal credibility is on the line.
The bottom line is that committed environmentalists,
by definition, are not pipeline builders.
No comments:
Post a Comment