Just because a decision is necessary does not necessarily mean that it is easy to make. Talk to those who decide to quit smoking.
Posted at 5:00 a.m.
Or Steven Guilbeault.
The Minister of the Environment must decide whether the Bay du Nord project, off the coast of Newfoundland, will go ahead. Up to a billion barrels of oil currently buried under the sea could be extracted there within 30 years.
If science still means anything, if Canada is serious about its climate commitments, the choice is clear. The Minister of the Environment, with his background as an environmentalist, probably knows this better than anyone.
This project must be refused.
Mr. Guilbeault, however, seems to hesitate. The decision was to be made before Christmas. But he asked for 90 days of grace. That brings us to March 6, in less than a month.
Our colleague Joël-Denis Bellavance rightly pointed out that this is an important credibility test for the new Minister of the Environment.1. One might add that this is the case for the entire Trudeau government.
Many Canadians are still wondering if this government is the one that will respond to the climate emergency with the vigor that this immense issue demands. Certainly, Justin Trudeau sends the right messages. And, in an oil country, he had the audacity to put a price on carbon from coast to coast.
But environmentalists have never forgiven him for buying a pipeline. More fundamental: since his election, GHG emissions have increased in the country.
Bay du Nord’s decision could be decisive for the environmental legacy of this government.
In an ideal world, we wouldn’t have to have these discussions. Instead of buying SUVs in record numbers, we would have reduced our oil consumption. The companies would have taken note of this and would not launch new projects.
Some point out that the oil off Newfoundland is cleaner than that in the oil sands of western Canada. And that as long as you continue to consume it, you might as well turn to this one. It’s true.
The problem with these arguments is that they amount to an admission of failure. They amount to saying that we do not believe our own words when we say that Canada will become carbon neutral in 2050 (a Liberal commitment). And that it is therefore necessary to further increase the supply of oil for several decades.
Science also tells us one thing: if we want to have a chance of limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius, the majority of the oil reserves that are still in the ground must stay there.2.
Canada signed the Paris agreement, which is aimed at exactly that objective. Steven Guilbeault himself has also just committed to capping and then reducing emissions from the oil sector. If he approves of Bay du Nord, he will have to explain to us how the path to reduction can go through an increase.
It is true, the minister has in hand a report from the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada which gives the green light to Bay du Nord. It mentions that the project’s emissions would not be huge – about 2.4% of Newfoundland’s emissions and 0.04% of Canada’s.
However, the International Energy Agency, which is reputed to be close to the oil industry, is clear: no investment should be made in new fossil fuel projects if we want to achieve carbon neutrality by 2050. The Agency he federal evaluation took up this argument to reject the LNG Quebec megaproject this week. It is hard to see why this does not also apply to Bay du Nord.
Yes, a refusal would have economic repercussions. Newfoundland is in debt – but largely, precisely, because its economy is too oil-based. To persist in the same way would only shovel the problem forward.
There are also the political repercussions, with the Liberals holding six of the seven seats in the province. But climate change has nothing to do with these considerations.
No one said choosing the environment was easy. We will soon see if, for the Trudeau government, courageous acts follow fine words.