![](/sites/default/files/styles/scale_width_lg_2x/public/img/2022/04/01/181204_-_ate_-_steven_guilbeault-6.jpg?itok=2Pleh_W- "\")
Support strong Canadian climate journalism for 2025
If perfect is the enemy of good, that’s especially true when it comes to climate policy in Canada. Just ask Steven Guilbeault, our environment minister.
He didn’t get into federal politics to defend the decision to approve a major new oil project, much less be the person who helped make it. But his current role, and the work it entails, is a perfect encapsulation of what an energy transition actually looks like in a place like Canada.
As he told Politico in a recent interview, “For some people, [energy] transition is a very black-and-white thing and the reality is that it's grey — and sometimes very murky grey.”
To those on his left and right flanks, there are no shades of grey here. Conservatives are using the war in Ukraine to push for yet another increase in Canada’s oil and gas production, along with new pipelines to carry it to tidewater.
David Knight Legg, former CEO of Invest Alberta and a key ally of Jason Kenney, described the federal government’s budget — which included both a major new tax credit for carbon capture and storage and investments in electric vehicle infrastructure and other pro-climate measures — as “schizophrenic.”
For the first (and probably last) time, this country’s leading environmentalists, including Guilbeault’s former colleagues at Équiterre, might agree with Knight Legg. To them, any support for the oil and gas industry is an intolerable failure to meet the moment, and the decision to approve a major new project like Bay du Nord is proof that for all of its fine words about climate change, the federal government doesn’t actually take it seriously.
But the recent budget is neither confused nor contradictory. Instead, it’s an example of the hard choices that have to be made in a country like Canada, where progress on climate change is more about evolution than revolution.
Yes, Canada could move to wind down oil and gas production more aggressively, but that would only create an opportunity for other producing nations — or OPEC, which has spent the last few years deliberately restricting its supply — to fill the resulting supply gap.
Global emissions would be largely unimpacted, and the royalties and corporate taxes that could be used for green energy investment would go somewhere else — somewhere that doesn’t have a price on carbon or a clear plan to cap and reduce its industrial emissions.
And yes, Canada could try to build new export pipelines to the East Coast and fill them with oil and gas, but that would make it impossible for us to hit our Paris Agreement targets. Those pipelines, if they were somehow able to overcome the local opposition that has defeated them time and time again, wouldn’t come into service until near the end of the decade — at which point, they could quickly become white elephants carrying stranded assets.
Instead, the government has struck a grand bargain of sorts, one Guilbeault emphasized with his decision to approve one new project while sending a letter warning Suncor the proposed expansion of its base mine isn’t up to snuff. Bay du Nord, which would produce as many as 200,000 barrels per day of oil, has per-barrel greenhouse gas emissions of just eight to nine kilograms. Suncor’s base mine, which would produce between 225,000 and 250,000 barrels per day over its 25-year lifespan, comes in above 30 kilograms per barrel.
The math here speaks for itself — and it’s math that clearly informs the government’s recent decisions. So, too, is the math around so-called “Scope 3” emissions, which are the ones that occur upon combustion and constitute the vast majority of a given barrel of oil’s greenhouse gas emissions. It’s tempting to think any additional barrel produced automatically means more emissions, but this ignores the reality of declines (the average oil well’s production declines every year, sometimes very rapidly) and the need to replace those in order to avoid a massive price spike.
It also overlooks the key role demand-side measures have to play, like the carbon tax, clean fuel standard and zero-emission vehicle mandate that are all part of the federal government’s plan.
The impact of that plan should not be underestimated. “If the Emissions Reduction Plan was the blueprint,” Clean Prosperity executive director Michael Bernstein said in a statement, “then this budget lays down the first few floors of the building.”
That’s more important than it might seem. After all, there’s a chance — one that seems to grow with every massive rally — that Pierre Poilievre, after becoming leader of the Conservative Party of Canada, could win the general election in 2025. You can be sure his first priority would be to do whatever it takes to restore and revitalize the fossil fuel economy in western Canada.
But this year’s budget, and the incentives it offers for carbon capture and storage, force Canada’s oil industry to push more of its chips into the middle on decarbonization. In order to take full advantage of the credit, companies will have to make major investments in carbon capture projects quickly, since it gets cut in half by 2031.
By the time fossil fuel producers have sunk that capital into emissions-reducing technology, they’re not going to want to go backwards, no matter how much a new or different prime minister might want them to. That’s especially true if the rest of the world continues to move more decisively towards net-zero in their own economies.
By tying their hands with their own stated ambitions, which include reaching net-zero emissions by 2050, the federal budget locks Canada’s biggest oil companies onto a path they won’t easily be able to deviate from.
The idea of public money flowing to companies that are as profitable as they’ve been recently is surely unsatisfying to most environmentalists in this country, including Guilbeault. But if we’re actually going to get there, the road to net-zero is going to be paved with hard choices, not easy answers.
![](/sites/default/files/styles/article_card_keep_reading_sm_2x/public/img/2022/04/01/181204_-_ate_-_steven_guilbeault-6.jpg.jpeg?itok=HFqjf4Cv "\")
Comments
Another Monday, another column from The Observer's apologist-in-chief for the Liberal Party. Sigh.
It's like reading Edmonton Journal columnist David Staples' revisionist columns defending Jason Kenney and the UCP atrocious record day after day.
Hard to miss the irony of the headlines juxtaposed on The Observer's homepage today:
1) "Steven Guilbeault leads Canada through the hard choices on the road to net-zero"
2) "Canada is a rogue super-emitter"
Hard choices or wrong choices?
Fawcett: "He didn’t get into federal politics to defend the decision to approve a major new oil project, much less be the person who helped make it."
What role, if any, did Environment Minister Guilbeault play in these discussions? What power does Canada's Environment Minister have to say no to climate-disaster projects? If he opposed the Bay du Nord Project project, evidently his input was rejected. Is the Environment Minister a mere cypher? Are all decisions affecting climate made over his head? Is Guilbeault merely lending his green cred to provide political cover for the Liberals' fossil-fuel expansion agenda?
What does Guilbeault hope to accomplish? He has nothing to gain, and his integrity and reputation to lose. Why not resign?
Guilbeault: “For some people, [energy] transition is a very black-and-white thing and the reality is that it's grey — and sometimes very murky grey.”
Either you respond to the climate emergency or you don't.
Either you reduce emissions or you don't.
Either you meet your targets or you don't.
Transitions start by moving in the direction you wish to travel. Doubling down on fossil fuels takes us in the wrong direction.
When you're in a hole, stop digging.
"Conservatives are using the war in Ukraine to push for yet another increase in Canada’s oil and gas production, along with new pipelines to carry it to tidewater."
Isn't that the same agenda Trudeau's Liberals are delivering on? Oilsands expansion enabled by new export pipelines like TMX. What's the difference?
Fawcett: "Yes, Canada could move to wind down oil and gas production more aggressively, but that would only create an opportunity for other producing nations — or OPEC, which has spent the last few years deliberately restricting its supply — to fill the resulting supply gap."
The same argument the Conservatives make. The same arguments Canada's asbestos industry used for years.
"If we don't sell it, someone else will." Otherwise known as the drug dealer's defence.
"Why should we stop selling crack? Someone else will just take our place." This argument does not hold up in court.
The big lie.
Canada does not need fossil-fuel dollars to fund the transition. Like selling cigarettes to cure lung cancer.
In 2019 Canada's energy sector directly contributed 7.2% to GDP. Including oil & gas, nuclear, hydro, coal, and renewables. Petroleum accounted for 5.3%. Crude oil 2.8%. AB's oilsands sector is a fraction of that.
Subtract (astronomical) externalized environmental, climate change, and health costs and subsidies.
Wealth that degrades our life-support systems is illusory. The costs of climate change and fossil-fuel pollution are prohibitive.
If Ottawa has billions of public dollars for pipelines, it has billions of dollars for renewables. Put a realistic price on carbon. Use carbon revenues to build our sustainable future. End fossil fuel subsidies — or divert them to renewables and public transit.
When you're in a hole, stop digging.
Fawcett: "Those pipelines … wouldn’t come into service until near the end of the decade — at which point, they could quickly become white elephants carrying stranded assets."
Same argument applies to the Trans Mtn pipeline expansion ($21 billion in costs and counting) and Bay du Nord. Thanks, Max.
Fawcett: "It also overlooks the key role demand-side measures have to play, like the carbon tax, clean fuel standard and zero-emission vehicle mandate that are all part of the federal government’s plan."
None of which applies to Canada's oil exports to the U.S. and Asia.
Fawcett: "You can be sure [Pierre Poilievre's] first priority would be to do whatever it takes to restore and revitalize the fossil fuel economy in western Canada."
Unlike the Liberals, who merely buy oilsands export pipelines, approve offshore oil projects, greenlight LNG projects, shovel billions of tax dollars into hugely profitable companies to pay for oil well clean-up and white elephants like carbon capture and SMRs — all to give our sunset O&G industry an extended lease on life and divert public dollars into largely foreign shareholders' pockets…
You were saying?
"Like selling cigarettes to cure lung cancer." Taxing tobacco actually reduced smoking, which reduced lung cancer incidence. By analogy, taxing carbon will reduce oil use, which will reduce CO2 emissions; so that's one win in the budget.
These comments and extended replies tend to reinforce the observation that [many] climate critics can only see black or white. Just because it is not exactly what you want does not make it ineffective or 'wrong'. Sorry about this, but the sausage of political policy is made up of bits of black and white - overall coming out grey. My impression is that Guilbeault is trying hard to get more white bits into the sausage. Comments like "When you are in hole, stop digging" are not helpful, just polarizing.
Alan Ball wrote: "taxing carbon will reduce oil use"
1) Canada exports four fifths of its oil production. Canada's carbon price does not apply in the USA or Asia.
Building fossil-fuel infrastructure that takes decades to recoup its costs locks us in to a fossil-fuel future. Boosting fossil-fuel supply makes mispriced fossil fuels less expensive to consume and displaces renewables.
2) Canada's federal and provincial govts shield large emitters from significant carbon costs so they can remain competitive in global markets.
The federal Output-Based Pricing System (OBPS) for large industrial emitters does not apply to large emitters in Alberta. The province has its own far less rigorous industrial pricing regime (TIER) that supposedly meets the federal standard.
Under Alberta's Technology Innovation and Emissions Reduction Regulation (TIER), large industrial emitters pay a small fraction of federal rates. TIER dollars are effectively recycled back to industry to fund carbon capture technology and research. (Projects industry should pay for in the first place.)
Worse, for the last three years, the AB govt reduced the payments due from the most-carbon intensive oilsands emitters. The AB Govt reduces payments from the worst offenders.
The AB govt also increased the facilities' allowable emissions. Circumventing its own emissions reduction program while boosting profits for industry [CNRL shareholders].
"Top-emitting Alberta oilsands site got government relief from pollution payments, Reuters reports" (CBC, Dec 08, 2021)
"Alberta lowered CNRL's costs for Peace River site to comply with provincial emissions requirements: Reuters"
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/top-emitting-canada-oilsands-sit…
Subsidizing carbon capture, clean-up and reclamation, and buying pipelines — eventually costing taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars — undermines carbon pricing. Carbon pricing is supposed to make fossil fuel production more expensive and less profitable. All these fossil-fuel subsidies make fossil fuel production less expensive and more profitable.
As The Observer's estimable climate columnist Barry Saxifrage puts it: "One step forward, three steps back."
https://www.nationalobserver.com/2022/04/05/analysis/canadas-top-10-emi…
Alan Ball wrote: "These comments and extended replies tend to reinforce the observation that [many] climate critics can only see black or white. Just because it is not exactly what you want does not make it ineffective or 'wrong'."
The Liberal's energy/climate policy can be judged on objective, quantifiable criteria.
Some issues are black and white. Hitting climate targets, for example. Either you succeed or you fail.
Either you limit global warming to 1.5 C or you fail.
Either you end fossil-fuel subsidies or you don't.
Either you reduce fossil-fuel production or you don't.
Liberal climate policy is ineffective because it (deliberately) fails to achieve its stated purpose.
Either stunt jumper Evel Knievel makes it across the canyon or he doesn't. Half-way is a fail.
Whether we go over the cliff at 100 kmh or 50 kmh, the result is the same.
As Bill McKibben observes, winning slowly is the same as losing.
"Bill McKibben: Winning Slowly Is the Same as Losing" (Rolling Stone, Dec 1, 2017)
• https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/bill-mckibben-winni…
The IEA's "Net Zero by 2050" Roadmap advises "no investment in new fossil fuel supply projects" after 2021. "No new oil and natural gas fields are needed in the net zero pathway, and supplies become increasingly concentrated in a small number of low-cost producers."
"The International Energy Agency has argued that the world does not need to approve any new fossil fuel projects after 2021, and that it should not if it wants to reach to achieve net zero emissions by 2050."
https://www.cnn.com/2022/04/04/world/un-ipcc-climate-report-mitigation-…
"The IPCC report lays out in stark terms how central cutting fossil fuel use must be to protecting the climate. By 2050, global use of coal, oil, and gas in 2050 would need to be 95%, 60%, and 45% lower than in 2019.
"Global GHG emissions would need to peak by 2025 and fall by 43% by 2030, and by 84% by 2050, to achieve the 1.5°C goal, with wealthier countries making swift, substantial cuts.
"But the IPCC now says that the world must halt all new investments in coal, oil, and gas, and even abandon some existing and already planned fossil fuel infrastructure, to keep global warming in check.
"Projected cumulative future CO2 emissions over the lifetime of existing and currently planned fossil fuel infrastructure without additional abatement exceed the total cumulative net CO2 emissions in pathways that limit warming to 1.5°C with no or limited overshoot."
"The New IPCC Report Was Delayed As Scientists Debated Reliance On Carbon Capture" (Time, April 4, 2022)
https://time.com/6164252/ipcc-carbon-capture-climate-mitigation/
Black and white, wouldn't you say?
The Liberals' "plan" to fail defies the IEA and every IPCC report.
Do the IEA and IPCC approve climate plans premised on fossil fuel expansion?
What does Guilbeault know that the IEA and IPCC do not?
Arguments for carbon capture and storage (CCS) have been wholly discredited elsewhere on The Observer's website.
Why is Mr. Fawcett repeating them here? Does he not read The Observer?
*
"Lessons from Australia show CCUS is about capturing public opinion and public finances, not carbon" (National Observer, April 6th 2022)
https://www.nationalobserver.com/2022/04/06/opinion/lessons-australia-s…
"New climate plan's reliance on carbon capture called 'not at all realistic'" (National Observer, April 6th 2022)
https://www.nationalobserver.com/2022/03/31/news/new-climate-plans-reli…
I now read Max's columns as a test to see if I can catch the inconsistencies and assumptions that Geoffrey does - and then to read his unpacking. It's extremely valuable. But the unpacking should be required reading so that readers aren't left thinking, for example, that the Liberals are doing their best - an extremely dangerous fallacy.
Delay, Delay, Delay.
Blah, Blah, Blah.
If the Trudeau government was serious about the environment, they'd be funding solar and wind. They should have as many Renewables on line, and saving Canadians money and our environment, before the next election. We could be amongst the world leaders in clean energy. Instead, Max, and his carbon cohorts, will have us putting off real change until the Saudi's run out of oil.
The government is funding solar - you can get a $5000 rebate for installing solar panels; a 20% subsidy for a reasonable sized domestic installation.
The perennial lower production emissions argument completely ignores the end combustion of the product, whether here in Canada or elsewhere, so it seems quite disingenuous. This argument takes its place in the pantheon of fossil fuel greenwashing along with natural gas which is comprised mostly of methane being the bridge to green energy; blue hydrogen being in any way green; the oil sands being ethical; Alberta's war room defending foreign owned fossil fuel corporations from make believe "foreign funded environmentalists"...the list of mendacity goes on, sweeping in the Bay du Nord decision. All of which suggests a worrisome willingness to in some utterly bizarre way to ignore the very real existential crisis that is climate change.
For context: National Observer columnist Max Fawcett (former editor of Alberta Oil Magazine and Liberal Party cheerleader) recently argued for the Trans Mountain Expansion project:
"Should the government kill the Trans Mountain pipeline project?"
https://www.nationalobserver.com/2022/02/21/opinion/should-government-k…
Fawcett's talking points could have come straight from CAPP (Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers).
If The Observer is committed to climate action, why does this media outlet give space to fossil-fuel cheerleaders and Liberal Party apologists arguing for climate failure?
U.N. Secretary-General Guterres: "It is a file of shame, cataloguing the empty pledges that put us firmly on track towards an unlivable world."
"Some government and business leaders are saying one thing – but doing another."
"Simply put, they are lying. And the results will be catastrophic."
"But high-emitting governments and corporations are not just turning a blind eye; they are adding fuel to the flames."
"Investing in new fossil fuels infrastructure is moral and economic madness."
When is this madness going to stop?
Time for The Observer to take responsibility for its editorial choices and content.
From the POLITICO article cited by Fawcett above:
"NDP MP Charlie Angus accused Guilbeault and the government of practicing doublespeak, making net-zero promises on the international stage while overseeing increases in oil production and approving a new fossil fuel project to come on stream.
"Yet the Liberals continue talking about capping emissions down the road to get a green economy, Angus told POLITICO. 'It doesn’t make sense, they are continuing with the old gameplan of supporting Big Oil.'
"Ottawa is playing a long game in scaling up its domestic oil and gas, hydrogen and critical minerals sectors for export. Canada is taking advantage of Russia and China’s diminished stock as trading partners, or as Trudeau put it, 'less friendly countries.'
"'There is going to be an increasing need for reliable, safe, sustainable sources of energy,' the prime minister told reporters in Edmonton Tuesday.
"… Émile Boisseau-Bouvier, a climate policy analyst with Équiterre, summarized the government’s recent climate actions with one word: Inconsistency.
"'They want Canada to become a leader in producing clean green oil,' Boisseau-Bouvier said. 'That simply cannot be because clean or green — or whatever you want to call it — oil simply simply doesn’t exist. Oil is oil.'
"'Unfortunately, we’re seeing that having one strong voice in environment is not enough because the environment still comes second to this government,' Boisseau-Bouvier said…
"'We judge people by their actions and their inactions,' Boisseau-Bouvier said. 'It was a real test for them, their first real big climate test, and they failed.'
"…The timing of the decision was stunning — two days after the IPCC’s latest climate report warned new fossil fuel projects risk becoming stranded assets, 'a blight on investment portfolios,' according to U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres.
"… Government plans to spend C$2.6 billion on a new CCUS investment tax credit has been derided by environmentalists as a cop-out measure that allows producers to continue reaping profits from record-high oil prices. Where’s the matching funding envelope to scale up renewables is a question that’s often asked.
"… The question was put to Trudeau in Edmonton on why the new CCUS tax measure teases a 50 percent credit for blue hydrogen from natural gas — and 30 percent for clean hydrogen generated from renewable sources. But he danced around the question with talking points."
https://www.politico.com/news/2022/04/13/steven-guilbeault-bay-du-nord-…
Contrary to the Prime Dancer's talking points, no fossil fuels are "safe" or "sustainable" — least of all from Canada's oilsands.
The IEA advocates CCS — but ONLY in sectors difficult to decarbonize like steel and cement. Not for the fossil fuel industry and power sector.
Give Geoffrey a column. Let Max natter away in the comments.
It's hard to believe that Max Fawcett wrote this piece, but thank you to Geoffrey Pounder for so skillfully dissecting its specious arguments. Fawcett apparently buys the view that Guilbeault (and maybe McKenna before him) think that it is better for them to stay on the job and win whatever small victories they can. At one time that may have been a valid strategy, but we are now way past the point of waiting for infinitesimal, incremental change. Going along to get along is now self-delusional and self-defeating. The message must become loud and clear that the emperor has no clothes. Any other message just provides cover for business as usual.
The capture of Canada's governing institutions by the fossil fuel and financial industries seems almost complete. One hopeful trend in reaction to the climate denying actions of Canada, the US and some others, is the long-awaited movement of scientists into activism. One can only hope that they can mount some kind of civil disobedience campaign that actually works like a 2 by 4 applied to the government's head, since public shaming, petitions, letters and demonstrations no longer seem to affect the government's comfort level with public opinion, so long as they have their corporate supporters. Jim Emberger
Please, National Observer, turn off the Fawcett.
Perspective here: Geoffrey is indeed right about the sucking and blowing of the government but since that is our only option, one that has been improved by Steven Guilbeault's appointment and the agreement with the NDP, he simply smashes our small hope while maintaing that if we just "punish" the Liberals AND Trudeau sufficiently they may go away and come back changed, as in more activist or something! But keep in mind-- he has also maintained in this forum a few Fawcett articles back that in the disastrous event of a Conservative win, their outright denialism of climate science is NOT as dangerous as the current foot-dragging on the left! Which reveals more of the typical, disproportionately avid hatred of Trudeau and the Liberals than anything else.
Another hopeful sign, one clings, is in the Globe and Mail today, an article in the business section saying that Macron is offering France as the first "major" country to ACTUALLY swear off oil and gas! Sounds like the leadership we're all yearning for, but there are bound to be the usual caveats (like lots of nuclear) but still. a big deal. However, I can't find it online to share the link for some reason....
Once again, Ms. Pargeter's remarks are offside.
My rejection of the Liberals' plan to fail on climate is evidence-based.
The science (IPCC and IEA) does not support climate plans based on fossil-fuel expansion. Period.
Ms. Pargeter's hopes that the Liberals will change their minds if progressives keep voting for them are empty — wishful thinking at best.
If Ms Pargeter rejects my criticism of Liberal duplicity on climate, perhaps she would prefer Mr. Guterres' take, quoted above. Or Greta Thunberg's.
“You are failing us but young people are starting to understand your betrayal. The eyes of all future generations are upon you and if you choose to fail us, I say we will never forgive you.”
I have addressed the new climate denialism embraced by "progressive" parties several times in previous comments, most recently here:
https://www.nationalobserver.com/2022/04/06/news/feds-approve-offshore-…
Seth Klein: "The bad news is we face a new form of climate denialism — more nuanced and insidious, but just as dangerous.
"In the new form of denialism, the fossil fuel industry and our political leaders assure us that they understand and accept the scientific warnings about climate change — but they are in denial about what this scientific reality means for policy and/or continue to block progress in less visible ways.
"…Claiming that we can take effective action on climate change and ramp-up fossil fuel production at the same time is what CCPA senior economist Marc Lee refers to as 'all the above' policy-making.
"It’s what former Prime Minister Harper was doing when he claimed Canada could be a climate leader while at the same time increasing fossil fuel production, so long as industry reduced emissions per unit of oil, gas or coal produced (i.e. reducing so-called 'emissions intensity').
"It’s what Prime Minister Trudeau and Premier Notley are doing when they say we will have carbon pricing and various regulations, while at the same time supporting expanded oil sands production and new bitumen pipelines."
"The New Climate Denialism: Time for an Intervention" (The Narwhal, 2016)
https://thenarwhal.ca/new-climate-denialism-time-intervention/
Canadians are right to reject the Liberals' climate swindle. It is high time.
If I were duped, repeatedly, by the Liberals — I would a) direct my anger at the Liberals, not at climate activists; b) stop voting Liberal; c) look in the mirror.
My remarks are entirely relevant in the current political context.
If you "stop voting Liberal," even as they take an important first step in uniting the left, our absolute best hope at this point in time, you're left with the shrinking Green party, the nutbar "People's" party, or the cons who are about to anoint Poilievere, an attack dog associated with "robocalls" and the "fair" elections act.
The Liberals serve Bay St, not Main St. Not remotely "left".
The Liberals, the provincial NDP, and the Conservatives all serve the same masters: Corporate Canada, the Big Banks, and Big Oil. The Liberals just happen to be more effective at delivering on the neoliberal agenda.
Does not matter what your policies are on health, labor, childcare, etc. Climate undergirds all aspects of life. Climate disaster threatens all of us, especially the most vulnerable. If you're not progressive on climate, you're not progressive.
"Our absolute best hope" — what is that exactly? What would cause the Liberals to undergo a conversion? We cannot pin our children's future on vague, undefined, empty hopes.
Trudeau's pact with Jagmeet Singh bought the NDP's virtual silence on energy and climate. Not a united resolve to respond to the climate emergency — but just the opposite.
Doing the same thing over and over again, expecting different results… If progressives continue to reward the Liberals with their vote, the Liberals have no reason to change. If the Liberals can count on the progressive vote, they will take continue to take progressive voters for granted.
Apologists for and supporters of Liberal/provincial NDP energy/climate policy are enabling disaster, economic as well as environmental. Progressives should not support any party or politicians who lead us over the climate cliff.
The only leverage voters have over political parties is their vote (and donations of time and money). If you want change, you have to vote for it.
The Greens are unable to gain traction. Terrified by the Conservative bogeyman, progressive voters run into the arms of Trudeau's Liberals. CAPP can set their Conservative hounds on the Liberals, while the Liberals give the O&G industry just about everything on its wishlist. The Liberals play the fear card every election to limit the NDP and Green vote. Big Oil couldn't ask for a better setup.
Yeah, but you're simply not being rational. All things being relative, which they ARE, the "Conservative bogeyman" is as clear and present a danger as climate change.
So trumpeting THAT at every turn is something that all of us can and should be doing.
You raise the alarm about possible Conservative arsonists in the neighbourhood. Meanwhile, your six-year-old Justin is playing with matches and a gas can in the basement.
The "clear danger" on climate is not confined to denialist Conservatives. The petro-progressive Liberals/NDP — denialists with a smile — deliver on Corporate Canada's agenda more effectively than the Conservatives ever could.
Trudeau and Notley moved the ball on the Trans Mountain pipeline down to the ten-yard line. Their signal achievement was to "push country-wide support for pipelines from 40 per cent to 70 per cent." Something Harper, Scheer, Kenney, and Poilievre could never dream of.
Unlike the Conservatives, the Liberals lead progressives astray, promoting the falsehood that we can expand fossil fuel production and still meet our emissions targets.
Unlike the Conservatives, the Liberals are in office. Winning three consecutive elections. That is the present danger.
To repeat from above:
Fawcett: "Conservatives are using the war in Ukraine to push for yet another increase in Canada’s oil and gas production, along with new pipelines to carry it to tidewater."
Isn't that the same agenda Trudeau's Liberals are delivering on? Oilsands expansion enabled by new export pipelines like TMX. What's the difference?
Fawcett: "You can be sure [Pierre Poilievre's] first priority would be to do whatever it takes to restore and revitalize the fossil fuel economy in western Canada."
Unlike the Liberals, who merely buy oilsands export pipelines, approve offshore oil projects, greenlight LNG projects, shovel billions of tax dollars into hugely profitable companies to pay for oil well clean-up and white elephants like carbon capture and SMRs — all to give our sunset O&G industry an extended lease on life and divert public dollars into largely foreign shareholders' pockets…
Tell you what. You keep voting Liberal, and I will continue to criticize Liberal (i.e., Corporate Canada's) climate policies. You can take the credit / responsibility for the Liberals' failure…
…and I will continue to criticize the Liberals' climate policies.
In your list of voting possibilities, you omitted three options: the NDP; staying home; and tearing up your ballot.
I asked you to define the "absolute best hope" you see in the Liberal/NDP pact. No answer.