Lately, there has been a lot of talk about how the Trudeau government is falling short of their promises for strong action to combat climate change and protect the environment.
Maybe it’s because they approved the Pacific North-West liquefied natural gas project (PNW LNG), or because their emission reduction targets are the same as what the Harper administration agreed to (30 per cent below 2005 levels by 2030). Either way, it seems disappointing coming from the government that changed the name of Environment Canada to Environment and Climate Change Canada.
Canada has somewhat of a sordid history when it comes to setting and meeting meaningful emission reduction targets. And with such an inspiring new Liberal government, to see no change made to our somewhat lack-lustre goal for reducing atmospheric emissions is disheartening for some, to say the least.
Coming from an environmental science background you would probably expect me to agree, but it isn’t quite as simple as that.
When comparing our current government to the former it’s important to consider the ability to reach those emission reduction targets. Currently, we are about two per cent below 2005 emission levels, but for the last five years our emissions have been increasing. To reduce emissions, the current Liberal government is working to impose a minimum national carbon price for provinces that fail to adopt their own pricing system, i.e. a carbon tax or cap-and-trade system. In contrast, the former government purchased international credits (invested in green projects in other countries) to balance out Canada’s rising emissions.
There’s a reason why our governments, elected for four year terms, never seem to set or reach strict emission reduction targets that are 14 years or more away. The fact is that lowering emissions means slowing growth in many industries that are very important for the Canadian economy. And no government can get elected, and certainly not re-elected, on a platform of earning less money and creating fewer jobs. Ultimately, our government runs on the currency of votes, and therefore public opinion, and until public opinion of carbon taxing and sustainable growth becomes more positive, drastic emission reduction targets cannot be met.
Although I was just as disappointed as any other environmentalist would be at the approval of the PNW LNG, the fact remains that we are an oil producing country who needs to stay competitive in that market. As an environmental scientist, I am more upset at the decreases in quantity and quality of environmental assessments and regulations, overseen by the Harper administration, that led to this and many other projects being allowed to proceed. The truth of the matter is that the economy still takes precedence over the environment.
However, as someone who hopes to make a living off of analyzing and mitigating our environmental impacts, I can honestly say my future looks brighter under a Trudeau administration than the one that came before it.
