While the war is raging in Ukraine, we are concerned about the haste of the Canadian hydrocarbon industry and the federal government to want to take advantage of new European markets. If the announced projects go ahead, what will happen to the formal commitments of Canada and Quebec in the context of the climate crisis? What will remain of the democratic processes that have enabled the rigorous environmental assessment of various exploration and export projects for liquefied natural gas and oil in recent years?
It should be noted that the Bureau d’audiences publiques en environnement (BAPE) gave a well-documented negative opinion published in March 2021 concerning the GNL Québec (GNLQ) project: this “could constitute a brake on the energy transition in the targeted markets. by the project”. The long-term purchase of this natural gas of fossil origin “would have the effect of locking in the energy choices of client countries and, consequently, the GHG emissions associated with the combustion of the natural gas that would be delivered there”. Thus, “the transition of these countries to a low-carbon economy could be delayed”.
The context of war
Taking advantage of the context of the war in Ukraine, GNLQ and the Premier of Alberta suggest that we should question the decisions made after proven consultation processes and framed by provincial and federal laws. The hydrocarbons industry thus adopts measures that Naomi Klein, Canadian essayist, director and anti-globalizationist, associates with the strategy of shock (Tea Shock Doctrine).
Klein uses the term in a broader sense than we will here to analyze how “shock treatments” introduced supposedly to “help” an economy recover (for example, very rapid deregulation, privatization of services or cuts massive government spending) allow private interests to funnel billions of dollars.
The hydrocarbon industry is thus proposing to promote reversals in its favor, which will have considerable and very long-term implications on the very type of society that is Quebec, on the functioning of our political institutions, on the governance of resources natural resources and our climate footprint. In this context, should we fear that the Government of Quebec will be tempted to question Bill 21 aimed at putting an end to the exploration and production of hydrocarbons?
On the federal side, taking advantage of the crisis situation, Jonathan Wilkinson, Canadian Minister of Natural Resources, announced on March 24: “Canadian industry has the capacity to gradually increase its oil and gas exports by approximately 300,000 barrels per day (200,000 barrels of oil per day and 100,000 barrels of oil equivalent per day of natural gas) during 2022, to replace Russian oil and gas”. But Canada’s Carbon Neutral Accountability Act passed in June 2021, aimed at achieving zero carbon emissions by 2050 and meeting our commitments under the Paris Agreement, shouldn’t make us think about the impact of such an inconsistency of positions?
Admittedly, in the short term, some European economies find themselves in a situation of vulnerability due to their energy dependence on Russia. But how will energy security be achieved? The very recent supply of natural gas from the United States will only delay the adoption by the European Union of strategies that would reduce its carbon footprint. Shouldn’t the moment be seized, as Gérard Montpetit proposed this week, in the pages of Homework, to think about ways to get out of dependence on fossil fuels, in these crucial decades for the fight against climate change?
Who decides on the energy future of Quebec and Canada, with what objectives, for what societal choices?
What is at stake will mark the future of Quebec for decades. As Annie Chaloux noted in a recent article, “if we said yes today to the LNG Quebec project, it would not see the light of day before 2025. But at that time, the crisis in Ukraine will be over, while the climate crisis will be still there […] “.
What will happen to the credibility of our collective commitment on the international scene if we circumvent the democratic decision-making processes in our own country, if we flout this democracy for which the people of Ukraine are ready to pay so dearly to defend ?