There is no doubt about it: environmental issues are generally only understandable to our rulers through a translation into the polite language of the market economy, which seems to be able to measure value only if it is pecuniary and see progress only where there is economic growth. The narrowness of this point of view is not without consequences: one would believe, putting on the glasses of our dear economic heads, that nature does not produce any wealth or that nature has little to do with the economy. Indeed, these iron laws announced to us by these prophets in costume are unequivocal: outside the market, there is no salvation! Outside the market, no wealth!
Posted at 11:00 a.m.
We can see some reversal with the 2030 Emissions Reduction Plan, which unhesitatingly associates the environmental issue with the economic issue. Now, it is one thing to admit that without nature, there is no society or economy, but it is quite another to see in nature a simple means of accumulating dollar after dollar. And it is this last horizon that the latest Canadian plan to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions seems to set, and one can reasonably wonder whether such a perspective is not somewhat restricted.
According to this plan, the progress of the ecological question is currently carried by a series of leaders, some innovative companies are following the right path on their own. That is ! But what was my surprise to find that there were, among these leaders, the largest oil companies in the country! And this is where the advantage of seeing civil society as just an aggregate of leaders appears more clearly: all that is needed for the government is to give them the means to carry out the ecological transition! The goal is then only to find the “most flexible and profitable way possible” to reduce our GHG emissions.
In the purest spirit of laissez-faire, the state shows itself as a very permissive father, like the naïve parent who sees in his turbulent child a virtuous cherub: this plan designates the oil companies as reliable partners in the inevitable and essential ecological transition.
All of this justifies deciding with them, therefore without great constraint, the ceilings of their own GHG emissions. We can predict from the outset that these will be insufficient to achieve our environmental objectives.
But this plan also serves to flirt with each other and underline the so-called success of the ecological measures introduced over the past decades, even if the latest report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC ) could not be clearer: we are currently failing to achieve the ecological objectives that we have set ourselves, and if we do not introduce more drastic measures, the consequences of climate change will be irreversible. Thus, even though the plan admits that Canada’s GHG emissions have increased over the past 20 years, there is an intellectual pirouette to present Canada’s green transition as a success due to the fact that the economy has grew even faster!
A simple reading of this plan makes it clear that Canada is nowhere near truly decarbonizing its economy. The release of hydrocarbons is not even considered, do you think! On the contrary, this plan reaffirms Canada’s desire to be a world power in the production of oil. The ecological crisis is the very opportunity to strengthen our position. A brilliant marketing move, the current ecological crisis will allow Canada to differentiate itself from other oil-producing countries by proposing the offer of a new product that even the greatest feathers of science fiction have never considered: oil green ! The boat is sinking, and we are one of the simpletons who seek at all costs to become its captain! Rather than having the objective of decoupling the Canadian economy from what is nevertheless the industry that contributes the most to climate change and rather than having ambitious objectives for reducing our general consumption of fossil fuels, this plan only aims to reduce the quantity of GHG emissions generated during the actual extraction of oil, which will then make oil more “green” than that of our neighbours.
So, we can only ask ourselves: what is the real end of the Emissions Reduction Plan for 2030? What is the real objective of this ecological transition approach?
It seems here that the Canadian government has reversed the end and the means of the ecological transition: rather than seeing in our good economy the means to achieve ambitious environmental objectives, Ottawa has quite simply realized that maintaining our current economic level would be impossible without ecological transition. Make no mistake: it is of prime importance for a country to have a prosperous economy and it is essential that all the jobs lost to the profit of the transition are compensated. Nothing, however, excuses the willful blindness as to the nature of the end in itself of the ecological transition nor the ridiculous bowing done to the most polluting sectors of our economy.
Let’s stop confusing economic value with wealth. Who wants the end also wants the means. Empty proclamations dripping with good feelings will not do the well-being of the Canadians of tomorrow. The lack of effective means to carry out the necessities of the time is irrefutable proof that our rulers, who are being prompted with answers by the oil pontiffs, must review their copy.