Petronas LNG decision a watershed moment
It’s time for PM to side with science and reject fossil fuels,
John Rustad, B.C.’s minister of aboriginal relations and reconciliation, recently belittled all opposition to the Petronas Pacific North-West LNG proposal at the mouth of the Skeena River as “professional protesters.”
Was he referring to 135 Canadian and international fish experts and aquatic scientists who called on the federal government to reject the project because of the risks it poses to a billion juvenile salmon and Canada’s secondlargest salmon run?
Perhaps the minister had the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency in mind? The agency has described the liquefied fracked gas project’s greenhouse gas emissions as “high in magnitude, continuous, irreversible and global in extent.”
Or maybe he was referring to the 11,000 British Columbians who, in the space of nine short days, emailed Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, imploring him to reject the project as a threat to salmon, our climate and our economy?
If built, the Petronas plant would be one of the largest greenhouse gas emitters in Canada, releasing the equivalent of 5.3 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide over 20 years from fracking, transporting, liquefying and burning methane. Studies have shown the emissions from extracting and burning fracked gas, whether here or in Asia, are as bad or worse than those from coal.
The Petronas plant alone would make it impossible for B.C. to meet its greenhouse gas reduction targets for 2050.
It would also undermine Canada’s international climate change commitments, and continue the destabilization of the very climate on which our continued health, security and prosperity depend.
As Premier Christy Clark recently pointed out, climate change is the underlying cause behind this spring’s heat wave, wildfires and home evacuations. The province’s LNG agenda will only add fuel to the fire.
There’s the old saying: insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. That is our provincial government’s approach: the insanity of talking climate leadership while continuing to promote an outdated fossil fuel economy. To defend our communities and our children from the harsh droughts, wildfires and food insecurity predicted by climate scientists, we need leadership that supports and grows the clean energy solutions already being successfully implemented in other jurisdictions.
There is more and more evidence that we can transition away from fossil fuels in as little as 10 years: solar and wind are outperforming fossil fuels in the energy market, and clean energy and technology create seven to eight times as many jobs as fossil fuels for the same investment. Not only can we dare to dream of a future with a livable climate, prosperous economy, and good meaningful jobs — we can make it reality.
Trudeau is facing his watershed moment: whether or not to approve the Petronas proposal. It is his first big climate test. If he is truly committed to limiting global warming to 1.5 to 2 degrees he cannot approve this project. It’s that simple.
Will Trudeau stand with science and reject the Petronas proposal? Or will he trample over serious First Nations objections and opposition, and send liquefied fracked gas tankers through the Great Bear Rainforest? Trudeau’s government was elected on promises to defend our environment. The stakes are too high to waver at this crucial time.
It’s time to say no to Petronas, and yes to wild salmon, healthy rivers and marine ecosystems. It’s time to say no to increased wildfires and drought, and yes to green jobs and a livable climate for future generations.
Characterizing genuine concern about our future by scientists and everyday British Columbians as “professional protest,” as Rustad has done, perpetuates a divisive politics that hinders effective climate action. Our climate doesn’t distinguish between “us” and “them.”
We are in this boat together; if we don’t come together to tackle this crisis, we will all be caught up in the whirlwind.