Time: 03/10/2022 15:11:55
Context: Question
Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP): Mr. Speaker, back in April, even before the current government approved the drilling in Baie du Nord, UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres pointed out that we are on track to more than double the 1.5°C Paris target. He stated, “Some government leaders are saying one thing and doing another. Simply put, they are lying.”

Since 1990, our emissions have risen more than any other G7 country. When Antonio Guterres said some government leaders are lying, which countries’ leaders do we think he is referencing?

Hon. Steven Guilbeault (Minister of Environment and Climate Change, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. member for her comment and her dedication to the issue of climate change over many decades.

As the IPCC has said, countries need to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions by at least 43% by 2030. We are on track to meeting at least a 40% reduction and on our way to meeting a 45% reduction.

We are doing more right now than any other country in the G7 to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. Our investments, on a per-capita basis, are three times what the Americans just announced with the IRA in the U.S.

The post UN Secretary General says leaders are lying about climate. Does he mean Canada’s leaders? appeared first on Elizabeth May.

Within six months, Canada ratified the treaty – the first industrialised country to do so.

In that treaty, we pledged to cut emissions and plan for adaptation. So far, we have gone in the wrong direction on emissions. In 2019, the last year for which we have statistics, Canada was 13% above 1990 levels. The drop in total emissions of approximately 9% between 2019 and 2020 was largely due to the Covid 19 pandemic. Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC) confirms that it expects emissions to have risen between 2020 and 2021. We must stop adding and start subtracting our emissions. We are still the worst performer in the G-7.

That poor record is matched by our lamentably slow pace in adapting to those levels of climate change we can no longer avoid.

We committed in 1992, and again in the Paris Agreement, to act on adaptation.

Only now, thirty years later, has Canada committed to developing a national adaptation strategy.

Click here to read the full submission.

Supplementary materials:

• INTEGRATING SCIENCE TO ADDRESS FOOD AND HEALTH WITHIN GLOBAL AGENDA 2030 – Gordon A. McBean
• The Influence of Denier’s Science on Not Addressing Climate Change – Gordon McBean
• Building Climate Resilient Communities: Living Within the Earth’s Carrying Capacity SSHRC Knowledge Synthesis Grant April 2021 G.A. McBean and P. Kovacs, Western University and ICLR – Co-Principal Investigators J.A. Voogt and G.A. Kopp, Western University and S. Guilbault, ICLR – Collaborators
• Building Climate Resilient Communities in Recovery from COVID-19 and Moving to a Green and Resilient Society

The post Green Party of Canada submission to Canada’s National Adaptation Strategy appeared first on Elizabeth May.

Time: 07/06/2022 23:31:50
Context: Question

Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today at Adjournment Proceedings. I have to say the hour is awfully appropriate. I am going to be following up on a question I asked in question period on May 2, related to what are called small modular reactors and their connection to nuclear proliferation, so it certainly is appropriate that the clock is approaching midnight. It reminds me very much that there is something called a doomsday clock that is kept up to date by the bulletin of atomic scientists. I just checked it and it shows we are 100 seconds to midnight.

The combined factors are increased threats of nuclear war brought on by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine as well as the significant risk to the whole planet brought on by the climate crisis. These issues are related, and I related them in my question in the House on May 2. The answer from the Minister of Natural Resources was not sufficient and that is why I have brought it forward this evening.

The so-called small modular reactors are not part of any solution to the climate crisis. Moreover, they are untested and essentially experimental. Last, I again draw the attention of this place to the risk of nuclear proliferation.

Just to walk through those three points, the Minister of Natural Resources has said frequently in this place that there is no pathway to climate solutions that does not include small modular reactors. That is simply not true. Reducing greenhouse gases involves phasing out fossil fuels, cancelling the TMX and not pursuing Bay du Nord. These are tangible things that have nothing to do with nuclear. Nuclear is actually in the way. It is highly expensive. Per tonne of carbon reduced, it is about the most expensive way we can go and it also has a long timeline before we see any results from a decision to go with nuclear.

The fact that these reactors are untested and essentially experimental has not had enough attention in this country. I turned to an expert in the area, Professor Allison M. Macfarlane, as a source. She is actually the former chairperson of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and is currently at the University of British Columbia.

She told this to the CBC:

Nobody knows what the numbers are, and anybody who gives you numbers is selling you a bridge to nowhere because they don’t know…

Nobody has ever set up a molten salt reactor and used it to produce electricity.

A molten salt reactor is exactly what the Government of Canada and the Government of New Brunswick are throwing tens of millions of dollars at, to a private-sector operator who proposes this and has been approved to go ahead and build it. It is being reviewed at this moment, but the money is flowing toward a molten salt reactor that will use plutonium from the spent fuel at Point Lepreau in order to create this unproven technology and allegedly to produce electricity.

It is all very much in question, except for one thing. There is a huge risk in taking plutonium from spent fuel. It is the kind of risk that existing nuclear non-proliferation treaties are very careful to prevent us from doing. If we are promoting a global plutonium economy, even a tiny, infinitesimal amount of plutonium in the hands of terrorists could create a dirty bomb. In the hands of other countries around the world, there is the very large risk that they will produce a nuclear weapon.

We had this experience in 1974 when Canada gave India one of our CANDU reactors. It turns out that these new SMRs, as reported in The Globe and Mail this week, produce far more nuclear waste than conventional reactors. They produce two times to 30 times more.

Therefore, I ask the government to think twice. This is a mistake. This is radioactive snake oil.

The post “Small Modular Reactors” are not part of a solution to the climate crisis appeared first on Elizabeth May.

With no one on the farm, John is heading back there to place sprinklers on the roof to do what can be done to protect the house in case the fire leaps the Bonaparte River to his family home.   I remain unable to drive – or walk, for that matter.  Dear friends are coming over to stay with me (so please do not worry about me!)  I just worry about my husband, but he is smart and competent about disaster preparedness. Still, I cannot help but worry.

The climate emergency is now blaring an ear-splitting siren across British Columbia.  The ten-year average for wildfires to this point in the summer is 209. This year we already have had 1100 fires.  Mayors and others across the province are begging the premier to call a provincial state of emergency. Horgan continues to refuse.

The BC Coroner’s Office has still not determined how many of our fellow citizens died at the end of June in the heat dome.  We know it will likely top 500 people. All people whose deaths were avoidable had the province acted quickly to provide cooling centres and warnings to citizens for steps that can be taken to avoid heat stroke and death.  Heat dome warnings are now being issued from Idaho to Montana, the Rockies to the Prairies into Alberta and Saskatchewan.

https://www.axios.com/heat-wave-temperatures-to-soar-100s-montana-canada-c165aadf-0fd0-4b97-9f5f-c3d650063fc3.html

Meanwhile, the climate emergency is dominating the news in Barrie Ontario, where tornadoes swept along a five kilometre path, causing catastrophic damage.  https://www.theweathernetwork.com/ca/news/article/photos-ef-2-tornado-strikes-barrie-amid-powerful-storms-in-ontario

Looking at the photos, it is amazing that no one was killed. Meanwhile, 55 million Americans are under flash flood warnings this weekend. https://abcnews.go.com/US/55-million-americans-risk-flash-flooding-weekend/story?id=78899986

But the worst flooding has been in Germany, Belgium and the Netherlands.  The death toll in Germany is now over 150 people.

“This is the climate crisis unravelling in one of the richest parts of the world — which for a long time thought it would be ‘safe’. No place is ‘safe’ any more,” tweeted German climate activist Luisa Neubauer.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/rescuers-race-find-survivors-deadly-floods-europe-n1274270

The rainfall amounts smashed previous records. The Guardian reported: “Parts of Rhineland-Palatinate and North Rhine-Westphalia were inundated with 148 litres of rain per sq metre within 48 hours in a part of Germany that usually sees about 80 litres in the whole of July.”

More rain in 48 hours than parts of Germany usually receive in an entire month – 54% more.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/jul/16/climate-scientists-shocked-by-scale-of-floods-in-germany

Yet, just when Greens are needed more than ever to call for the kind of “all hands on deck” the climate emergency requires, we are sidelined by internal debate and in-fighting.  The leader has asked both of us MPs not to speak publicly about internal party matters. My recent surgery has been a substantial reason that I am actually not able to take on the long list of media requests that press on me.

But Greens in Canada are not alone in our values, our inherent differences from all other parties and in a structure that relies on grassroots democracy — and which emphatically rejects the notion of leader as “boss.”

This week, after stunning electoral success across England in local elections, the co-leader of the Greens stepped down.  Siân Berry, who has served as sole co-leader since Jonathan Bartley stepped down last month for unrelated reasons, resigned over a controversy relating to solidarity with the trans community.  I am so dreadfully sad about this. Recently, I had done a zoom event with Siân in her campaign to win the Mayoralty of London.  She is a terrific and inspiring Green.  Summarizing the conflict, the Guardian reported:

“A vocal supporter of trans equality, Berry had said one of the first things she would do as mayor would be to set up a commission on the rights of trans Londoners. In her resignation letter on Wednesday, Berry said there had been significant disagreement with colleagues elected to the party’s frontbench team.

“She said the party’s democratic structure meant decisions could be made that leaders did not agree with and she felt it was irreconcilable with her own position.”

In explaining her decision, she reveals a lot about the nature of leadership among Greens:

“Failing to win the confidence of a majority of my colleagues to reflect these [inclusive attitudes] is also a failure of leadership….

“Green leaders do not hold power, but we do have a duty to influence, so I must apologise to you all for this failure and hold myself to account.”

That is leadership at its heart-breaking best.

In all the coverage of the latest controversy, former leader and the Greens’ only MP in Parliament, Caroline Lucas, is not quoted. Like me, I imagine she shed some tears at home.  Former Green leaders, who continue to serve as MPs, need to do whatever we can to continue to support from behind the scenes.

It seems increasingly likely that we will be in a federal election very soon.  Time to do whatever we can as grassroots Greens to hold on to each other and do our best for the issues that matter most.

Thank you for your continuing support at this difficult time,

Love,

Elizabeth

P.S.  We have some non-partisan volunteer opportunities in my Sidney constituency office.  We need help with receptionist duties. If you are interested, please phone 250-657-2000.  Thanks!!

And petitions to sign!

 parliamentary petition on TMX here

e-3348 Canada‘s alleged political interference in Haiti (closes July 29)

e-3408 Work with First Nations to immediately halt old-growth logging (closes September 8)

e-3483 Moratorium on deep seabed mining (closes September 9)

e-3398 Redefine our nation’s defence policy (closes August 25)

Saanich-Gulf Islands Greens
http://www.sgigreenparty.ca/

The post Good Sunday Morning – July 18 appeared first on Elizabeth May.

Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands)
2021-06-03 20:16 [p.7954]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise virtually tonight in adjournment proceedings to address a question I initially asked on April 15 of this year.
People who have been paying close attention to the climate agenda and our rapidly shrinking opportunity to make the difference that we need to make, as time passes and our emissions are still rising, will recall the April 22 climate summit hosted by President Joe Biden, held virtually with leaders from 40 countries.

On April 15, first I noted that our emissions kept rising right up until COVID, with recently announced reports to that effect. My second point was that a report from a news outlet called The Breach said a special cabinet committee had formed during COVID with representation of senior levels of government from natural resources, finance, environment and elsewhere that was actually focused on helping the oil and gas sector. My third point was that our subsidies continued to go up.

The minister’s response was that we would see a new target soon. I return to the fundamental question on the not-so-new target now. Since 2015, the Liberal government has proclaimed that Canada is back and clearly understands that the climate issue is real. Has it actually grasped the science? This is my core question.

I will say again that as well-intentioned as the government might be, it does not seem to understand that we must hold to no more than a 1.5°C global average temperature increase above the global average temperature at the time of the Industrial Revolution. Blowing past this target by failing to put in place rigorous targets now will lead us to a place where we do not get a do-over. We cannot fix it later.

From the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and its special report on 1.5°C, which came out in October 2018, we know that if the world community does not move mountains in this coming decade, it will be too late.

In his book Values, Mark Carney said that understanding carbon budgets is very important. On page 273, he said:
If we had started in the year 2000, we could have hit 1.5°C by halving emissions every 30 years. Now, we must cut our emissions in half every 10 years. If we wait another four years, we will have to halve our emissions every single year. If we wait another eight years, our 1.5°C carbon budget will be exhausted.

The Prime Minister attended the Biden summit. He announced a new target and proclaimed that it was ambitious. It is not. It does not meet the demands of science, and neither does Bill C-12, which we are currently debating in the environment committee. They have good intentions, great press coverage and good public relations, but they fail to do what is necessary.

Years ago, I marched with my daughter in the streets of New York in the lead-up to the COP before the Paris agreement. I saw a sign as we marched that said, “It’s time to stop debating what is possible and start doing what is necessary”.

We have to cancel the TMX pipeline. We cannot afford $17 billion on a pipeline that blows our carbon budget. The choices are stark. The government is failing.

The post The government is failing to address the climate crisis appeared first on Elizabeth May.

Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands)
2021-01-26 13:29 [p.3532]

Mr. Speaker, I was pleased that the hon. member moved from Bill C-14 to talk about the climate crisis as well. I am disappointed that the current level of spending of federal money on the Trans Mountain pipeline will total $17 billion, which exceeds the amount of money for the good programs the member mentioned. I wonder if he does not believe we should stop subsidizing fossil fuels while we move forward to transition our economy.

Ryan Turnbull (Whitby)
2021-01-26 13:29 [p.3532]

Mr. Speaker, I have the utmost respect for the member opposite and I really appreciate the question. I believe the government in its new climate action plan has made a strong commitment to end fossil fuel subsidies by the year 2025, phasing those out over time. I believe that the new climate action plan is looking at hydrogen and other renewable energy sources to transition industries to that direction in the future.

We know that the economy can be grown and developed and that we can protect our environment. There is incredible opportunity for Canada to be a global leader in sustainable business. We are not there yet, but rest assured that we will get there.

The post We must stop subsidizing fossil fuels while our economy transitions to clean energy appeared first on Elizabeth May.

Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands)
2020-09-29 23:24 [p.309]

Madam Speaker, I want to congratulate the leader of the New Democratic Party and the team who made the improvements in the legislation we have before us tonight. It is very important. It is important to see people are not going to be receiving less off CERB as they transition to EI.

I also recognize, though, the leader of the New Democratic Party is in a position to do considerably more. About climate he said, “the climate crisis is still raging”. Of course it is. It is worse by the minute. With the power that party has, I wonder why in the election we heard that this was going to be a priority for the NDP. The NDP in British Columbia has of course increased greenhouse gases and bet its money on fracking and LNG.

I wonder when we will see this federal NDP press the federal Liberals to give us more than lip service on climate. This is the moment. We are running out of time.

Jagmeet Singh (Burnaby South)
2020-09-29 23:25 [p.309]

Madam Speaker, in fairness, the member is right when she talks about a Liberal government that pays lip service to the climate crisis but then does the opposite. The Liberals talk about these lofty goals, and then miss each and every one of them without any accountability. They talk about planting two billion trees and have planted zero. They talk about the importance of our climate and then buy a pipeline.

What we need to do is to stop the pretty, empty words. We need some concrete action. One of the things that we are fighting for and pushing for, once we get past the immediacy of the second wave of the pandemic, is the recovery where we invest in people, create jobs locally and fight the climate crisis by reducing emissions. We must do that. Nothing less can happen.

The post When will the Federal NDP press the government to do more on climate? appeared first on Elizabeth May.

Climate change with little coverage (July 26, 2020)

The post Good Sunday Morning – July 26 appeared first on Elizabeth May.

Good Sunday Morning!

Amazing. Tomorrow is June first; starting Week 13 in my own COVID timeline. Life in COVID-world is now assured to span four months of 2020 and will likely take us through months to come.

I have to return to Ottawa to take the last in-person shift for the Green Caucus of the parliamentary session, until June 18.  I will be traveling with John Kidder (thank you honey!) and taking the ferry today and the flight to Ottawa on Air Canada first thing tomorrow.

Checking the VIA Rail website the other day, I was crestfallen to see no trains will run from Vancouver to Toronto until November 1st.  Far more worrying is the impact of COVID-19 on the implementation of the Paris Agreement.  The climate negotiations (the Conference of the Parties – COPs) are annual. But some years are more important than others.  Clearly, COP3 in Kyoto, COP 11 in Montreal, disastrous COP15 in Copenhagen and successful COP21 in Paris were very important COPs.  So too is the upcoming meeting.

2020 is the year designated in the Paris Agreement for a full review of existing targets with a requirement that countries accelerate their carbon reductions to meet the treaty’s goals – holding global average temperature increase to no more than 1.5 degrees C (as compared to pre-Industrial levels) or as far below 2 degrees as possible.

The critical 2020 climate talks, COP26 scheduled for November 2020 in Glasgow, have been postponed. On April 1, the UK, as host country, explaining that due to COVID-19 the preparatory meetings for COP26 required this spring could not occur, asked that the COP be delayed until early 2021.  A few days ago, the UK proposed a delay of a full calendar year  – until November 1-12, 2021. The secretariat of the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change agreed.

While the COP is postponed, the requirement that Canada submit a new target (called a Nationally Determined Contribution –NDC- in UN-speak) is not postponed. The new target is still due in calendar 2020.  On Wednesday in hybrid parliament, I pointed out that the planet’s atmosphere hit an unprecedented 417 parts per million (ppm) this week, while one of the hottest places on earth was inside the Arctic Circle at 30 degrees C, 86 degrees F.  We must ensure that Canada at least double our NDC this year.  (See details at greenparty.ca by clicking on “Mission: Possible” for full details.)

Meanwhile, Canada is going in the wrong direction. A study released May 26 found that of all the G20 countries, Canada is the worst offender fossil fuels subsidies:

“Canada has lavished at least C$13.8 billion per year in public financing on oil and gas projects since signing on to the Paris climate agreement, making it the fossil industry’s highest per capita source of public finance in the G20, and their second-largest overall benefactor after China, according to a blistering new report issued today by Oil Change International and Friends of the Earth U.S.”

We had other non-COVID news this week – as the crisis in loss of biodiversity continues. A very worrying new study demonstrated an unacceptable level of logging in BC, jeopardizing the survival of caribou.  Logging is continuing into critical caribou habitat despite the listing of caribou in the federal Species at Risk Act. According to University of Montana scientist Eric Palm, one of the study’s authors, “It is dire. They’re going extinct and it is happening now.”

Meanwhile, on our other coast, a coalition of conservation organizations and leading ecologist, Dr. Bob Bancroft, took the Nova Scotia Government to court for its multiple failures to act to protect endangered species. Mme Justice Christa M. Brothers for the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia, wrote a judgment that opened:

“UNLESS someone like you cares a whole awful lot, nothing is going to get better.  It’s not”.

                                               [Dr. Seuss – The Lorax, 1971]

It may be the Lorax’s first judicial citation.

Justice Brothers ruled:

“I am satisfied that the declarations requested by the Applicants should issue. For clarity, the Court declares that the following  unreasonable failures exist:

(1) failure to prepare a recovery plan for the Wood Turtle within the statutory deadline at s. 15(1);

(2) failure to appoint a recovery team for Canada Warbler within the statutory deadline at s. 15(1);

(3) failure to appoint a recovery team for the Ram’s-head Lady Slipper within the statutory deadline at s. 15(1);

(4) failure to prepare a recovery plan for the Ram’s-head Lady Slipper within the statutory deadline at s.15(1);

(5) failure to prepare a management plan for the Eastern Wood Pewee within the statutory deadline at s. 15(10);

(6) failure to set out core habitat for Black Ash in its recovery plan per s. 15(4)(h);

(7) failure to set out core habitat for the Mainland Moose in its recovery plan per s. 15(4)(h); and

(8) failure to review the Mainland Moose recovery plan within the statutory deadline per s. 15(12);

“… the Minister has exhibited a chronic and systemic failure to implement action required under the ESA [Endangered Species Act].”

We can say that of all ministers administering various bits of endangered species legislation, whether federal or provincial.  The whole system is failing. Species are going extinct.  It is time for a fundamental re-set to laws that work and ministers who will enforce them.

With that, more packing to do!  Talk to you next Sunday morning.

Stay well, stay safe stay home!

Love,

Elizabeth

PS.  For residents of Saanich-Gulf Island :  Community Meeting Tuesday June 2nd, 7pm PST

Register here

We have also created a link to submit questions in advance rather than being sent to the main MP email!

Submit a question here

AND a place to go for GOOD NEWS. “Yes! Magazine” As recommended by Jan Slakov.

This weekly blog is published by Elizabeth’s EDA in Saanich-Gulf Islands. You can sign up for it here.

The post Good Sunday Morning – May 31 appeared first on Elizabeth May.

Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands)
2020-02-28 12:07 [p.1749]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to raise the urgent matter of the climate emergency. Under the terms of the Paris Agreement, 2020 is the year in which Canada must improve its climate target. We agreed to do so in 2015. We are now delinquent, in that the COP decision in Paris called for the new targets to be tabled by February 9 of this year. We need to table our new target. It needs to meet the IPCC imperative.

Can the minister update the House on progress to deliver a climate accountability act and a new target?

Mr. Peter Schiefke (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for her work on this issue.

We took a leadership role in 2015 when we signed the Paris Agreement and encouraged other countries to do the same. Through the record investments, plans and programs we have put in place, we have been able to, projections show, bring us to 75% of the way there. We know there is more work to do, which is why we are committing to not only meeting that target but exceeding it and putting in place, in the coming months, the expert panel that will show this House and all Canadians how we plan on being carbon neutral by 2050. It is something we need to do for all of us and for our children and grandchildren.

The post We need a new climate target that meets the IPCC imperative appeared first on Elizabeth May.