Eric Doherty: Climate change is no longer an "environmental" issue in B.C.

Something subtle but important has shifted in the climate of B.C politics.

Early in the April 29 televised leaders' debate, B.C. NDP leader Adrian Dix addressed climate change, not as an environmental issue for the consideration of future generations, but as a present-day economic and social issue.

Dix talked about how people in interior communities are already losing jobs because of trees killed by the pine beetle, which is directly linked to rising temperatures. The fact that the fossil fuel industry is already devastating the interior forestry sector is starting to sink in.

In Vancouver, where I live, it is possible to think of rising carbon levels in the atmosphere as a future environmental issue, but in rural B.C., it is a different story.

Burning fossil fuels, such as oil and coal, has already made B.C. sea water so acidic that oysters cannot reproduce. Oyster farmers now have to raise oysters in tanks of treated water until they are old enough to survive the acidic ocean water. Again, this is an immediate economic issue which primarily impacts people in smaller B.C. communities.

The near-term prospect of sea water so acidic it won’t support commercial shellfish operations is already casting doubt on the wisdom of investing or starting a career in the shellfish industry. The economies of coastal communities are already being eaten away by the carbonic acid formed when carbon dioxide mixes with water.

Framing this as a "jobs versus environment" issue does not hold much water anymore; the biggest threat to livelihoods in B.C. now is the carbon pollution from burning fossil fuels. Pipelines, tankers, and plants to liquefy fracking gas are direct threats to forestry and fisheries jobs.

If we want fisheries and forestry, it is now essential to expand renewable energy sources to displace fossil fuels. Renewable energy such as wind power is now cost competitive with extreme fossil fuels such as tar sands oil, and blocking off the fossil fuel path is essential to opening the way to energy jobs that are compatible with forestry jobs.

Another part of the oil-dependant infrastructure of the past that needs to be blocked is freeway expansions, such as the multi-billion dollar replacement of the Massey Tunnel proposed by the provincial Liberal government. Instead, we need to be investing in the future, which includes electric public transit and trains. Numerous studies rate public transit as one of the best green jobs strategies. For example, the B.C. Treasury Board estimated that $1 million in transit expenditures creates an average of 21.4 new jobs, compared to 7.5 jobs in the automotive industry, and 4.5 jobs in the petroleum sector.

By shifting to efficient transportation powered by renewable electricity instead of tar sands oil we can model and promote the changes needed globally. Vancouver is the largest city in North America without a downtown freeway, and its influence is global in terms of urban development and transportation planning. What Vancouver does is seen and sometimes imitated in major countries including the U.S., India, and China.

B.C. is a crucial bottleneck in Big Oil and coal’s global push to expand fossil fuel extraction. The Enbridge and Kinder Morgan tar sands pipelines are the highest profile examples, but Chevron’s proposed Pacific Trail fracking gas pipeline to Kitimat is also of global significance.

Port Metro Vancouver also plans to greatly expand coal export facilities for low-grade U.S. coal and mostly higher-grade B.C. coal. Stopping these projects would bottle up a globally significant proportion of the fossil fuels that must remain in the ground to avoid catastrophic climate disruption.

People in B.C. have a greater opportunity to make a difference than almost any other group on Earth—and this means we have a greater responsibility to act.

By closing the door on the carbon intensive infrastructure of the past, we can protect existing jobs, including in the forestry and fisheries industries, and create new jobs that British Columbians can be proud of in their own communities. And we can make our communities healthier, more livable places while reducing the threat of climate disruption from burning oil, gas, and coal.

We are at a crucial crossroads, and it is very tempting to believe the tales of riches that companies like Chevron are telling. But the consequences of continuing down the fossil-fueled path are not "environmental" nor in the future.

The consequences of fossil fuel dependence are being felt by people in communities across B.C. today.

Adrian Dix has a good chance of becoming premier on May 14, partly because he has some credibility on climate as an economic issue rather than a classic environmental issue. The much harder part will be after the election, when the fossil fuel companies and their friends in Ottawa will be pushing hard for continuing on the old carbon intensive path. Big oil has a long history of squashing elected governments that stand in their way.

After May 14, a strong social movement will be needed to help shift B.C. onto the path to an energy future that won’t destroy forestry and fisheries.

If environmental groups are the only voices for climate action, B.C.’s rural economy will be cooked.

Comments (13) Add New Comment
Al Bore
Science never lied, you believers exaggerated the science.
“Help my planet could possibly be on fire maybe?”
After 28 years of research the scientists still refuse to say their CO2 crisis is as real as they like to say asteroid hits are; inevitable and eventual or WILL happen not just might and could and maybe and…..
28 years of “maybe” proves it won’t be a crisis.
31
57
Rating: -26
Martin Dunphy
Al Bore:
Twenty-eight years is a gnat's nanosecond in terms of how these things--both natural and human-caused, or both--unravel in geologic time.
But when it does become a crisis, it will be just that.
And all those people who died thinking "I won" because the full measure of quantifiable change had not become apparent in their lifetime.... well, they'll just be dead, that's all.
And their children and grandchildren will pay the price.
But they "won".
54
24
Rating: +30
cathy
It's very clear now-coal, oil and gas companies business plans = death of our Planet.

People have to get organized and stop them, the politicians won't.
50
24
Rating: +26
jan freed
"Unequivocal" is the word the IPCC uses about warming.

And most scientists' predictions of effects have been accurate, if a bit too conservative. All denier predictions have failed, except the ones predicting paychecks from the fossil ghouls.

From the most current IPCC report: "It supersedes the Third Assessment Report (2001), and will in turn be superseded by the Fifth Assessment Report (expected in 2014).

The headline findings of the report were: "warming of the climate system is unequivocal", and "most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations."

"Very likely" means we are crazy to take chances with the only planet known to support life.
40
20
Rating: +20
Boo
My Goodness! Paul/Meme/David Nutzuki/ and now Al Bore. Still the same Cut'n Paste stuff? Even as a Poe you are starting to fail. The key is to at least make is less obvious you are: 1) A mindless troll; or 2) A well thought out Poe. I mean, come on, you've got to be in kindergarten to believe the stuff you've written.
31
29
Rating: +2
Stephen Rees
And as even the ever doubtful CBC now acknowledges this morning, we are sitting on a huge, non polluting, no carbon energy alternative. Everyone else on the "ring of fire" around the Pacific uses geothermal energy - except us. We keep wondering if it would be "viable". But seemingly fracking and LNG is accepted as "viable" despite the very clear environmental damage, and the huge new electricity requirement that goes with it.
37
31
Rating: +6
Steve_W
Wow! There's a lot of doom and gloom in this commentary. And not one link to peer reviewed literature to back up the claims.
22
35
Rating: -13
Jim Beame
How many climate change scientists does it take to change a light bulb?
None, but the do have full consensus that it WILL change.............maybe, probably....

I just wish the world science would end the debate and get on with it but they refuse to say that their crisis is as real as they can say asteroid hits are. A climate crisis is a comet hit of an emergency yet they have never said their CO2 climate change WILL be a real crisis, only could be as not one IPCC warning is without “maybes”. There are millions in the global scientific community and how can they just sit there with their Bunsen Burners and watch as the world burns and walks away from CO2 mitigation?
Occupywallstreet does not even mention CO2 in its list of demands because of the bank-funded and corporate run carbon trading stock markets ruled by corporations.
How close to unstoppable warming will science lead us until they say it "WILL" be a crisis? When it's too late?
26
15
Rating: +11
Bob Ages
Nutbars and trolls notwithstanding, this article articulates what is beginning to dawn on many people. Climate change is not about what "might" happen in the future but what is happening right now; and it is an environmental, economic and moral issue.
37
27
Rating: +10
Eric Doherty
You gotta wonder if the petro trolls do it for free, or if they are techno serfs working for big oil.

But you have to admit that the wacky climate deniers are somewhat effective in preventing public dialogue on effective action.

And I am waiting to hear someone deny that carbon dioxide becomes an acid when mixed with water.
31
19
Rating: +12
Janet Matheson
Why ignore the BC history of the pine bettle? That history goes back to th 1870's and had to with the weather. "Drought indices, as well as fall and spring temperatures, were reconstructed back at least 150 years using tree-ring-width data. Dating of fire scars in the Cariboo-Chilcotin Plateau of central British Columbia indicated that fires were much less frequent in the 20th century than they were in the 19th century. This may explain the more extensive outbreaks of the 1930s and 1940s and 1970s and 1980s in this region."
http://cfs.nrcan.gc.ca/publications/?id=31405
27
26
Rating: +1
British Columbians For Intentional Prosperity
Here is an example of some of the research done at British Columbians For Intentional Prosperity.
"In the olden days, loggers used to be confronted with the same problem we face today - they needed to get their lumber to the coast, but lumber pipelines had not yet been invented. So, our forefathers hit upon a brilliant idea, and just dumped their logs into a river. Following the law of gravity, the trees would float downstream to the coast, where they could be collected and sold. In those days, nobody worried about the environment, because everyone was getting rich from all the trees being cut down.

Today’s problem is the same, but different. We still need to get the oil to the coast, but unfortunately, most people do not work in the oil field. They see there’s a lot of money to be made, but, since they’re not the ones getting rich, they come up with all sorts of objections. The truth of the matter is, if they were getting paid, their objections would die off faster than a bunch of snow owls.

The solution to this is as simple as what our forefathers did. If we just dumped the oil in the headwaters of some river, it would naturally flow down to the coast, where it could be collected and sold. Based on the cost of the pipeline we’d no longer need, we could hand out fifteen hundred dollars to every man, woman and child throughout BC.

Bribing an entire province is not easy, but it can be done. Beside spreading intentional prosperity to everyone, we would also gain immense stature as having the world’s longest slip and slide. Spillage is no longer a problem, because the whole project is one big spill. The only real danger is if the river caught fire. In that case, we can just say hey, who doesn’t love deep fried fish."
26
25
Rating: +1
Bob Hansen
There are so many other options to dirty carbon that it's now a misappropriation of funds not to move away from oil and gas, and so avoid these fatal negative externalities against the environment, and our health in consequence. The north-east corner of BC alone can provide 5 Giga watts of wind power, and there's still geothermal, tidal and solar. We need a proper 'feed-in tariff' to get the green energy revolution going, like they did in Germany and other successful green energy environments.
We can move most energy production into the the hands of first nations people, since these efforts are undertaken on their land anyway. And, of course, we need a proper, realistic national energy strategy, that has contingency provisions and includes as much Canadian labour as possible.
The recent BC election campaigning has made it painfully clear that we are drifting without a rudder on an extremely important issue in Canada, and that's sustainable energy policy that does not create a 'Dutch disease' economic effect on the Canadian economy. We can do much better that we are at present, and it does not have to be the way it is now.
Bob
24
22
Rating: +2
Add new comment
To prevent automated spam submissions leave this field empty.