The @globeandmail just published an editorial responding to the government's sectoral emissions cap proposal and claiming that reducing oil and gas production in Canada is not an option. It may seem that they're admonishing the liberals here, but it's actually more subtle. 1/
The Liberal government's emissions cap proposal is already deliberately being designed to avoid cutting oil and gas production. Hell, Guilbeault just made a statement about "flexibility" for oil companies and his colleague Jonathan Wilkinson is full steam ahead on new projects 2/
What's happening in this Globe editorial is a deliberate political intervention designed to preclude any discussion of drawing down Cdn oil and gas production. They are relegating a reduction in fossil fuels to the naive and "radical" world of young climate activists 3/
deliberately clearing space so that the so-called "realists" can discuss what's actually achievable. The same strategy was deployed in earnest during the last election in response to increased calls for canceling #TMX. 4/
Somehow, if you think Canada needs to start cutting oil and gas production as soon as possible, you're accused of fantasizing about "butterflies and rainbows" and told your policy goals are unrealistic. 5/
Of course, what's actually unrealistic is dramatically ramping up oil and gas production in 2022 and planning to continue to produce and export fossil fuels through the end of the century. But you're not allowed to say that in Canada and be taken seriously! 6/
As the @UNEP put it, production "must start declining immediately and steeply." Countries like Canada's "plan to produce more than twice the amount of fossil fuels in 2030 than would be consistent with limiting warming to 1.5C." Who's really being unrealistic? 7/
Canada's oil industry and its spokespeople would tell you that yes, oil production must decline eventually, but Canada should be one of the last ones to keep producing it. Insert vague claims about human rights and environmental regulations here. 8/
The core problem with this argument is that Canada is in a uniquely bad position to make it: we have some of the *worst* oil and gas in the entire world from a cost and emissions intensity perspective. 9/
A paper published last year in Nature found that allocating the remaining global carbon budget by cost and emissions intensity meant that as much as 98% of Canada's oil resources and 89% of its gas resources were "unextractable" - must be left in the ground. 10/
And of course, the UN has repeatedly cited Canada for human rights violations on #Wetsuweten territory - claims that we have "more ethical" oil than other countries are absurd. 11/
The oil and gas industry has controlled Canadian discourse for too long: we owe it to the rest of the world to put supply back on the table. We can't let publications like the @globeandmail preclude us from discussing the single most important climate policy 12/
#CoastalGasLink wouldn’t be a project without plans for a massive expansion of fracked gas production in BC’s “sacrifice zone.” #TMX wouldn’t be needed without an intent to massively expand the tar sands. The science is clear: none of these upstream projects can happen. 13/
Canada is a climate pariah masquerading as a leader. We can’t allow the Globe, the Liberal government, or the oil and gas industry to control the boundaries of Canada’s climate discourse. 14/
More about the @globeandmail editorial and the urgent need to put supply back on the table in Canada in my latest for @CDN_Dimension canadiandimension.com/articles/view/…
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
