Mr. Speaker, the warnings of climate scientists are becoming increasingly urgent and worrying.

The most recent, days ago, was that the world was watching the weakening of the Gulf Stream ocean currents, with potentially catastrophic impacts. The scientists are warning that we must reduce greenhouse gases far more rapidly than our current commitments. If we fail to do so, if we blow through our carbon budget, we will pay dearly. This is a budget we cannot afford to ignore. It is incompatible with completing Kinder Morgan.

Could the government show us the numbers of how we build a pipeline and meet our climate targets?

Jonathan Wilkinson – Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change

Mr. Speaker, this government agrees that climate change is an extremely important issue. We have been working very actively to implement the pan-Canadian framework on clean growth and climate change.

The latest national inventory report from the United Nations shows that carbon pollution declined between 2015 and 2016. In fact, Canada’s third biennial report, which was published in 2017, shows that Canada’s emissions are projected to be 232 megatonnes lower than was projected just last year.

The Trans Mountain emissions, both upstream and direct, are incorporated into the pan-Canadian framework. When these policies and programs are fully implemented in Canada, we are very confident we will meet the targets under the Paris agreement and set even more ambitious targets as we move forward.

The post How can we build a pipeline and meet our climate targets? appeared first on Elizabeth May.

Madam Speaker, I rise tonight at adjournment proceedings to review a question and a response I received on October 4, 2017. It relates to the challenge of climate change.

My question was for the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister did rise and provide a response, but it was not entirely to the point of the question. It was certainly positive, and he was very generous in praising my long-time personal work on the file.

I quoted from our colleague, the late Arnold Chan, who in his last words to the House in a speech that was read by the hon. member for Ajax, who said to all of us:

It is imperative that we stop treating climate change as solely an environmental issue, but recognize it as an all-encompassing priority that we as a society and a government must confront with the utmost urgency.

When I stood to ask that question October 4, the day before we had had the release of the report of the commissioner of the environment and sustainable development, within the office of the Auditor General, Julie Gelfand, the commissioner, happened to have said this about how we were doing as a country and as a government to meet our climate change targets. She said:

Climate change is one of the defining issues of the 21st century. These audits show that when it comes to climate change action, Canada has a lot of work to do in order to reach the targets it has set.

As my colleague, the parliamentary secretary to minister of environment, will know, because I have made this point in the House in debate before, Canada showed leadership in 2015 in Paris. In the negotiations of the Paris accord, Canada was the first industrialized country to step up and agree with the developing world that we had to aim to hold global average temperature increase to no more than 1.5o C above what it was before the industrial revolution. These sound like trivial numbers, but in the context of survival for the low-lying island states, survival for people in the African content, and survival for the Arctic ice to be present over our north pole, seasonally, year round, and into the future, we have to hold global average temperature to 1.5o.

However, the target that Canada chose domestically was the very one that our Minister of Environment and Climate Change criticized in Paris, pointing out that the target of the previous prime minister, Stephen Harper, was really, as the minister said at the time, the floor, that we had to do better and aim higher. Certainly, the target of 30% below 2005 levels by 2030, put in place by the previous government in May of 2015, is entirely insufficient to meet the goals of the Paris accord.

This inconsistency is troubling, but even more troubling is the observation that we do not yet have a plan. We have the promise of a global carbon price across all of Canada, and that is a step in the right direction. However, in the context of what needs to be done, as Arnold Chan said, we need to make this an all-encompassing priority. That means we do not approve one project that increases greenhouse gas emissions, like approving pipelines full of bitumen and diluent, and then claim we can somehow meet the targets even though we have not yet put in place energy efficiency measures, gotten rid of fossil fuel subsidies, nor delivered on a comprehensive plan to avoid going above 1.5o. We need more. We need action.

Jonathan Wilkinson – Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change

Madam Speaker, the government very much agrees, and I personally agree, with the hon. member that this is an urgent and pressing issue that needs to be addressed in an all-encompassing way.

The Government of Canada has made taking action on climate change a very high priority. One of the first things the Minister of Environment and Climate Change did, once appointed, was to lead the Canadian delegation to the successful achievement of the Paris Agreement. Our government committed to an ambitious greenhouse gas emissions target. We then worked actively with our partners in the provinces, territories, and with indigenous leaders to develop the pan-Canadian framework on clean growth and climate change. This is a detailed plan that provides a well-defined path through which we will achieve the target.

The previous Harper government set greenhouse gas reduction targets, but never developed a plan nor did the work required to meet them. That hurt Canada’s credibility at home and around the world and was unhelpful in the context of developing an international consensus. Step one for us is to show that when we set a target, we mean it. Two years after Paris, we have a lot to show for our efforts. We are introducing new legislation and regulations to ensure that a price on carbon pollution will apply across the country. The government is accelerating the phase-out of traditional coal-fired electricity units. We are establishing a clean fuel standard to reduce our emissions by incentivizing the use of lower carbon fuels, energy sources, and technologies. We are developing increasingly stringent model building codes so that all new homes will be built to a standard that will allow them to generate as much energy as they use.

We have made significant investments to support clean growth and innovation. In December, we invested more than $1 billion in the low-carbon economy fund, which will help the provinces in their fight against climate change.

We are also investing over $2.3 billion to support clean technology and innovation and to support the creation of good jobs in growing sectors of our economy. We are 100% committed to achieving our target and to working collaboratively with the international community. On December 9, 2017, we released the first annual progress report on the implementation of the pan-Canadian framework. This report highlights the strong progress that federal, provincial, and territorial governments have made in putting the pan-Canadian framework into action. We have made very significant progress, but we know we need to do more. That is part of the Paris Agreement. All countries will need to increase their level of ambition over time.

The pan-Canadian framework establishes a concrete plan to meet or even surpass our commitments under the Paris agreement. The measures we are taking today will have a real and lasting impact on the well-being and resilience of our communities and the environment.

This government will continue to work every day to turn Canada’s clean growth and climate action into new laws, regulations, actions, investments, jobs, and economic opportunities for Canadians.

Elizabeth May

Madam Speaker, here is the problem. The very same target that the hon. member just described as an ambitious target was the one that was put in place by the previous Harper government, which the hon. Minister of Environment described in Paris as the floor and that we could do better. The reality is that achieving our target—and there are large questions about whether we will—means achieving the weak target of 30% below 2005 levels by 2030, which does not get us to what we promised to do in Paris.

This will become glaringly apparent in October of this year when the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports, as it was asked to do in Paris, on the pathway to 1.5°C. That moment of ratcheting up that the hon. member mentioned, the fact that we all have to do better, and I mean all countries on earth, could be led by Canada by going into the next Conference of the Parties prepared to say that we are stepping up and that we are going to move that 2030 deadline to 2025, because Canada wants to be a leader in reality, not just rhetoric.

Jonathan Wilkinson – Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change

Madam Speaker, as the hon. member knows, Canada has a history, under governments of all political stripes, of establishing targets and not meeting those targets because no clear and comprehensive plan was developed. This government took the very firm position that we would establish a target. We would work with our provincial and territorial counterparts and with indigenous leaders across the country to develop a detailed plan that would enable Canadians to have visibility about how we will achieve our targets. We will work very hard to ensure that those are achieved and to the extent that we can make progress more quickly, we are certainly willing to ratchet up our level of ambition.

This government cares very much about climate change and ensuring a good future for our children and grandchildren. It is something we are committed to and we look forward to working with all parties in the House, including the hon. member, to ensure we actually play our part in this important international issue.

The post We need a comprehensive plan to meet our Paris target appeared first on Elizabeth May.

“The Trudeau administration still refuses to update Canada’s Harper-era greenhouse gas emissions targets, which are among the weakest the developed world. This is leading to poor coordination on GHG reduction plans across government departments, and delayed action by industry,” said Elizabeth May, Leader of the Green Party of Canada (MP, Saanich-Gulf Islands). “The latest Emissions Gap Report should compel this government to end fossil fuel subsidies, shut down diluted bitumen pipelines, and aggressively pursue clean energy innovation to create long-term, high-paying jobs in Canada. It is a matter of basic math: we have a carbon budget, and we are deeply in deficit.”

The post Paris Agreement: U.N.’s Emissions Gap Report shows Canada, world has four years to avoid catastrophic temperature rise appeared first on Elizabeth May.

Obviously, the Paris agreement is a historic one. According to Laurent Fabius, president of COP21, the agreement is “fair, sustainable, dynamic, balanced and legally binding”. François Hollande, the President of France, said, “It is rare to be given the opportunity to change the world. Seize it so that the planet can live on, so that humanity can live on”.

What we did in the debates and negotiations at the Paris discussions was to put in place a framework in which we have the opportunity to save ourselves. The Paris agreement by itself does not avoid the most catastrophic impacts of a warming world.

We Canadians played a role in having the agreement made tougher. Our Minister of Environment and Climate Change was the first industrialized country negotiator to say that the agreement must strive to hold global average temperature to no more than 1.5° Celsius.

What is the difference between 1.5 and 2 degrees? It does not sound like a lot to people who do not know climate science. It means a lot to people living in low-lying island states. It is the difference between their surviving and disappearing below the seas. It means a lot when we understand the threat of the loss of Arctic ice, the threat to the Greenland ice sheet. If we lose summer ice over our North Pole, it has a profound impact on climate around the world. If we increase greenhouse gases, we will see increased acidification of our oceans. This is not dependent upon temperature; this is simple chemistry. Carbon dioxide is mixing at upper ocean levels and our oceans are already 30% more acidic than they used to be, with the risk of our marine ice shelves melting and actually killing our oceans. That is the ultimate end if we do not reduce greenhouse gases. We are looking at climatic disaster and ocean acidification as a result. They are separate threats from the same cause.

What faces us here is that we ratify the Paris agreement. That is a good thing to do. It must be done. Yet, we have committed ourselves to trying to avoid more than 1.5° increase in global average temperature. It is essential that we stay well below 2°. However, the aggregate total of all of the current commitments by governments around the world, when calculated, takes us to somewhere between 2.7° and 3.5° Celsius. In other words, it was an overshoot from the get-go, from the minute we signed this agreement. If we keep the Harper target, we will not keep our commitments under the Paris agreement. It is about the math.

As Bill McKibben says, “This is literally a math test, and it’s not being graded on a curve. It only has one correct answer”. That answer has to be that we reduce greenhouse gases and accept that we are making a global transition off fossil fuels.

We cannot get out of a hole while we dig at the same time. We cannot approve pipelines or LNG projects and think we can meet the Paris targets.

In the words of Winston Churchill, from a different era:

The era of procrastination, of half-measures, of soothing and baffling expedients, of delays, is coming to its close. In its place we are entering a period of consequences.

The post Elizabeth May Speech on Paris Climate Agreement (COP21) appeared first on Elizabeth May.

It really matters when Canada shows up and works to do the right thing. The Minister of Environment and Climate Change deserves tremendous credit as well, for seeking the 1.5 more ambitious goal.

However, here is the problem. With the deepest of regrets, I have to ask our Prime Minister, how can he reconcile adopting the Paris agreement while accepting the Harper target, which will make achieving Paris impossible? These are irreconcilable and incompatible targets if we are to give our kids a livable world, and that is what we are talking about.

The Prime Minister has it exactly right. These children have names. We see them across the table, at breakfast. These are our kids. For the livable world that they want, the opportunity is given to us in the Paris agreement. However, the window is closing rapidly. Where we are right now as a country will not save the planet for our kids.

The post Elizabeth May speaks during Paris Climate Agreement debate appeared first on Elizabeth May.

“I commend the Trudeau administration for being first to implement a national carbon pricing plan, but $10/tonne is too low to be taken seriously. I remain perplexed as to why this administration refuses to update our climate targets to meet our Paris Agreement commitments,” said Elizabeth May, Leader of the Green Party of Canada (MP, Saanich-Gulf Islands).

“If we persist with Harper-era greenhouse gas (GHG) targets that are among the weakest in the industrialized world, we will fail to ensure Canada does its part in holding the global average temperature increase to no more than 1.5 degrees Celsius. This is not a theory – it’s basic math,” Ms. May said.

Daniel Green, Deputy Leader of the Green Party of Canada, said: “At only $10/tonne, we are doomed on climate change. Canada must adopt a much more consequential price on carbon pollution to ensure a faster transition to a clean energy economy. This is not a political preference – it’s a moral imperative. Our future is at stake.”

The post Carbon pricing plan won’t fix weak climate targets appeared first on Elizabeth May.

Publication source: CBC Ideas

Full episode:

The post CBC Ideas: Solutions for a Warming World appeared first on Elizabeth May.

“Even with environmental conditions, the Petronas LNG project will spew 5 megatonnes of carbon dioxide emissions each year,” said Elizabeth May, Leader of the Green Party of Canada (MP, Saanich-Gulf Islands). “This government is embracing polluter industries over real climate action. I’m outraged the Trudeau Cabinet would betray its science, climate and First Nations promises in such a brazen way.”

“The fragile, 8,000-year-old Flora Bank is also critical to the survival of a declining salmon habitat on B.C.’s Coast. Peer-reviewed research by Patrick McLaren studying this bank illustrates the importance of this unique habitat. This government should also heed the wisdom of Otto Langer, former Chief of Habitat Assessment at the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, who warned that pile driving, dredging, lights, ship and dock noises, and potential spills will devastate the fish and bird habitat near Lelu Island. We must keep industry out of this fragile area,” Ms. May said.

Dr. Lynne Quarmby, Green Party Science Critic, is one of more than 90 scientists who penned a joint letter to Environment and Climate Change Minister Catherine McKenna last March to address Petronas’ LNG project.

“There are serious scientific flaws in the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency’s report on this project,” Dr. Quarmby said. “When the authors conclude that the development ‘is not likely to cause significant adverse environmental effects’ to fish and fish habitat, they have lost credibility. Minister McKenna said repeatedly at her press conference last night that this decision was based on the best science and made in full respect of First Nations. She clearly has chosen to ignore the concerns of dozens of scientists from across Canada and affected First Nations about this ill-conceived LNG project,” Dr. Quarmby said.

The post Approval of Petronas LNG project further sabotages Canada’s climate action commitments appeared first on Elizabeth May.

“This news is nothing short of a disaster for the climate,” said Elizabeth May, Leader of the Green Party of Canada (MP, Saanich-Gulf Islands). “Minister McKenna always said the Harper-era target for greenhouse gas emissions – among the weakest in the industrialized world – would be ‘the floor,’ and Prime Minister Trudeau claimed we would ‘meet or exceed’ those previous targets. It is clear that the Harper target is incompatible with the Paris Agreement – to avoid going above 2 degrees Celsius and strive to hold global average temperature to no more than to 1.5 degrees C above what they were before the Industrial Revolution. Yet today, Minister McKenna abandoned any real commitment to avoid 1.5 degrees or even 2 degrees, even though her leadership in Paris helped get the treaty to embrace this necessary long-term goal,” Ms. May said.

Canada’s current Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDC) is part of the aggregate that was calculated by the United Nations climate secretariat in November – before COP21 –  to take the world well past a 1.5-degree increase, beyond the two-degree absolute red line, and to a range of 2.7-3.5 degrees.

“Catastrophic sea level rise and disastrous climate events become increasingly likely in this range,” Ms. May said.

“I am well aware negotiating with the provinces is difficult, but Canada must at least ensure we ratchet up to the same deadline year as the U.S. – moving from 2030 to 2025,” Ms. May said. “Even this small increase in ambition will push other nations to ratchet up their targets. Overseas carbon credits, which were endorsed in the Harper Cabinet’s decision document for the existing weak target, are just one option where Canada can demonstrate a real commitment and protect our children from the catastrophic impacts of leaving them a 3.5-degree world.”

Greens continue to press for aggressive climate action, rejecting pipelines of bitumen for export, removing fossil fuels from electricity production, investing in critical infrastructure for an improved east-west electricity grid, ramping up renewable energy, energy efficiency, under-pinned by a carbon-fee-and-dividend pricing scheme to transition Canada to a smart, post-carbon, prosperous economy.

The post Liberals cave on climate – leaving weak Conservative targets in place appeared first on Elizabeth May.

The losses piled up from the minute in spring of 2006 when Harper’s new Conservative minority government cancelled every element of former Liberal prime minister Paul Martin government’s climate plan. The 2005 climate plan, under Martin, is so long ago that many forget it ever existed, or that it would have brought us close to our Kyoto target: six per cent below 1990 levels by 2012.

Canada became the first country to undermine the framework of global action by both repudiating Kyoto and abandoning the internationally accepted base year of 1990. The government announced Canada would cut emissions by 20 per cent below 2006 levels by 2020.

In shifting baselines and playing with the numbers, our former prime minister used climate targets the way a sideshow carny uses the shell game. Translated to the base year every other country was using, Canada’s 2006 targets would have left us above 1990 levels by 2020.

But setting the target did not mean the Conservatives intended to aim for it. With no measures to reduce emissions and a singular focus on boosting oilsands production, it was no surprise that Canada’s emissions kept rising. They kept rising through all manner of announcements.

John Baird, with great fanfare, announced his Turning the Corner plan. There was talk of regulations that never came. There was a “wait for Obama” gambit before Canada could take action, and Peter Kent’s “sector by sector” approach. These were all Conservative marketing schemes masquerading as climate policy.

Our emissions did drop in 2008-9, due to the global financial crisis. Harper took credit for that drop. When he was in Copenhagen for the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change 2009 negotiations, he once again weakened our target. This time the base year was 2005 to align with the United States and, conveniently, to a year when our emissions had been especially high (higher than in 2006).

Harper left Copenhagen with what was described as a “politically binding” commitment to 17 per cent below 2005 levels by 2020. That was the same target as the U.S., but Obama will reach that target as Canada blows by it once again.

Despite efforts at the provincial level—particularly Ontario closing its coal-fired power plants—once we recovered from the recession, Canada’s emissions kept rising. In May 2015, the previous government once again weakened the target, tabling with the UN the weakest target in the G7: 30 per cent below 2005 levels by 2030.

Under Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, Canada showed leadership in Paris. We were among the first industrialized countries to favour a long-term goal of holding global average temperatures to no more than 1.5 degrees Celsius above what they were before the Industrial Revolution. The 1.5 C goal is now the Paris accord’s goal. That’s the maximum global average temperature rise we can risk if we want to keep low-lying island states above the water line. That’s the maximum level to have a good chance of avoiding the loss of the Greenland ice sheet and the seven-to-eight-metre sea-level rise it would cause.

But even as we negotiated in Paris, the UNFCC had determined that the combined total of all pledged reductions (known as INDCs: intended nationally determined contributions), assuming all were achieved, would take the world to between 2.7 and 3.5 degrees Celsius. Twice too dangerous.

Unlike Kyoto, targets are not embedded in the Paris accord. The essence of Paris is that targets can be replaced at any time, but only to tougher targets. That’s the principle of “ratcheting up.” Canada needs to withdraw Harper’s target and table a new one soon. We need to ratchet up so that other nations will do the same.

What lessons can we draw from the lost decade? Some would have it that we now know setting targets doesn’t work. But most Kyoto countries met or exceeded their targets. The EU’s current target is 40 per cent below 1990 levels by 2030. And it will make it. Norway’s is also 40 per cent below 1990 levels by 2030. Norway will as well. Scotland will reach 40 per cent below 1990 levels by 2020.

Some say Canada’s emissions are too small to matter. But we are among the top 10 nations in total emissions and in the top three of per capita emissions. We have an obligation to do our fair share and make up for lost time.

Our problem wasn’t our target. Our problem was our prime minister. Trudeau’s challenge is to keep his eye on the real goal: protecting our children from an unliveable world. Time to ratchet up.

Originally published in the Hill Times.

The post After a lost decade, it’s time to ratchet up our target appeared first on Elizabeth May.