Not long ago I asked my close friend, a tenured professor at one of the most respected centres of learning in North America, what he and his fellow academics felt about Canada as a country and how Americans might feel about Canada becoming the 51st State. I wanted his opinion, not only temporally but also from where the ‘rubber meets the road,’ as he had spent much time in several parts of Canada with me. Also, a large part of his duties with this American university was as a guest lecturer on the humanities. His travels saw him address many high level conferences throughout Europe, the United States, Canada, Asia, Australia, and Africa.

His answer was thoughtful:

“For me and most of my colleagues, Canada is a country the United States, and many other nations, aspire to be like. For the U.S., it’s like having a security blanket close to hand – content in the knowledge that yours is a sane and stabile country thriving in a generally troubled world – a country that is considered, and has proven, to be our closest friend and ally. I believe that becoming part of the States would be unhealthy to the relationship as those positive feelings of hope and trust that many of the American people have towards Canada would be abnegated.

“Your country is a world leader in championing democracy, human rights, peace keeping, the rule of law, and the drive to sustain its natural resources. It’s well known that Canada exhibits the courage to fight for and maintain all that is good and decent about this planet particularly in the area of protecting and saving the environment. To that end you ensure a bright future for generations to come.”

I thanked him for his comments and told him how much they reflected my own deep belief in Canada.

And then something radically different happened here. Our government became anti-sustainability and a seeming opponent of the environment as it went hell bent for oil excavating Alberta.

In a fund-raising letter for the Canadian Alliance party in 2002, Stephen Harper wrote, “We’re gearing up for the biggest struggle our party has faced since you entrusted me with the leadership. I’m talking about the ‘battle of Kyoto’ – our campaign to block the job-killing, economy-destroying Kyoto Accord.¹

The tar sands are the largest contributor and fastest growing source of Canada’s greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. “No matter the cost, the Harper government has been relentless in its push for rapid, unchecked development of Alberta’s tar sands,” says Blair Redlin, a British Columbia based researcher specialising in privatization and P3s (Public-Private Partnerships); water trade agreements; and energy and transportation. “The devastating environment, social, and economic effects of tar sands development for the climate, water, boreal forest, and First Nations communities have done nothing to dampen the enthusiasm of the Conservative government.” Canada’s commitment to the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) goal of ‘energy security’ for the U.S. is to increase production to five million barrels per day of tar sands oil by 2030. To live up to this, the government has been aggressive in removing all obstacles to tar sands expansion. In response to this, The Guardian UK reporter George Monbiot stated, “I am watching the astonishing spectacle of a beautiful, cultured nation turning itself into a corrupt petro-state. Canada is slipping down the development ladder, retreating from a complex, diverse economy towards dependence on a single primary resource, which happens to be the dirtiest commodity known to man.”

Experts claim that by 2020 the Alberta tar pits will be dumping more pollutants into the atmosphere than the entire country of Denmark.

Here’s a little background to further clarify how we got to this point:

In February 2007, Bill C-288 was passed by Parliament. It was meant to force the government to ensure that Canada meets its global climate change obligations under the Kyoto Protocol. After ratification of the Kyoto Protocol by the Canadian Parliament, the government was legally committed to reducing GHGs by six per cent below 1990 levels by 2012. But largely due to tar sands expansion, Canada was 24 percent above and ended up 29 percent above its ‘permitted’ levels by the time the Protocol expired at the end of 2012. In spite of the fact the legislation required the government to prepare a detailed action plan within 60 days the government ignored it, citing economic concerns. This refusal to act has sent a signal to the world that Canada doesn’t care about international treaty obligations, let alone climate change. “It is now clear that Canada will refuse to be sanctioned for abandoning its legal obligations,” continued Monbiot. “The Kyoto protocol can be enforced only through goodwill: countries must agree to accept punitive future obligations if they miss their current targets. But the future cut Canada has volunteered is smaller than that of any other rich nation. Never mind special measures; it won’t accept even an equal share.”

During the closing days of the United Nations (UN) climate talks in Barcelona, Canada was handed both the Fossil of the Day and the Fossil of the Week awards. They were given by the Climate Action Network International (CAN-I) – a global coalition of more than 450 leading non-governmental organizations (NGO) who monitor progress at UN talks. According to the group, Canada was cited for doing the most to block progress in climate negotiations. World leaders at the conference finally had to agree that the goal of signing a legally binding climate treaty during the upcoming Copenhagen talks was no longer attainable.

The prospect of keeping the global rise in temperature below two degrees Celsius looks highly unlikely the way things are going. And Canada, for its part, is not on track to meet its own commitment to reduce GHG emissions.

Last year marked another record year for emissions. A recent report from the UK found fossil fuel subsidies around the world added up to about $500 billion in 2011 – on the order of five times the amount spent on subsidising renewable energy.

I love this country and this planet and, knowing what I know about the shortcomings of the federal government in the environment arena, was not in the least surprised to read the less than flattering quotes levelled at my country by former Irish president, and head of Climate Justice Foundation, Mary Robinson.* At the annual UN climate conference entitled the 19th Conference of the Parties (COP 19) in Warsaw she had a blunt and rather inconvenient message for global leaders and fossil fuel-producing countries like Canada:

“If you’re serious about preventing the worst of climate change, you have to leave that bitumen, oil, and gas in the ground.”

Ms. Robinson also addressed the question of reducing oil and gas production in a country whose economic strategy is built around fossil fuel exports and made her feelings clear:

“Moving to a low-carbon economy would be very good for Canadians’ futures, and for everyone’s future. And as well as that, we don’t have a choice. We’re running out of time.

“How can Canadians not see that their grandchildren will share the world with nine billion other people (by 2050)? And I have no certainty at all that it will be a liveable world.

“It will be a world of catastrophes over and over again. The 200 million people who may be climate displaced – where are they going to go? There will be no country that will be immune to this. If [the planet] becomes too dangerous, it will be too dangerous for Canadians, for the children and grandchildren of those alive today.

“Canada is one of the countries that has benefitted from fossil fuel growth and has a responsibility to give leadership.

“Canada has been a country proud of its development record. It gives a lot of development aid. Well, all that development aid will be wiped out by terrible climate impacts.

“We’re not, I think, a stupid race. I know that political timescales can be very short. But I believe that in these next two years:
2014 – We have to change course
2015 – When we need sustainable development goals and a robust, fair climate agreement.

We can still do it. We need a forward-looking leadership, and that won’t come from Canadian politicians unless it comes from the Canadian people.”

On the subject of implementing a carbon tax to help level the field Harper’s attack was unequivocal: “This is crazy economics”, he declared. “It’s crazy environmental policy” that will “screw everybody.” The attack ads the party prepared on the subject were so venomous and inappropriate, their own ad agency refused to handle them.²

I am one of many Canadian people who are totally perplexed as to why we have to suffer this constant attack on our planet – by our own government and am very pleased that Canada’s provincial and territorial leaders have come together to build a national energy policy to put the brakes on emissions and climate change. I strongly urge the feds to take that leadership role they asked the electorate for and also do the right thing for the sake of my children and their children and so on.

*Mary Robinson served as the UN High Commissioner for human rights from 1997 to 2002, and argues that in the developing world, climate change impinges on the most fundamental human rights to food, water, and life itself.
 

¹ Sanger, T.,Graham Saul. “The Harper Government and Climate Change” The Harper Record (2008): 281
² Ibid: 295