Letter: A look at the major federal parties’ positions on climate change

By Letter to the Editor on September 16, 2021.

Dear editor,

The world is leaving fossil fuels behind. This is not merely my opinion. It is fact.

For example, some investment funds, insurance companies, pension funds and countries are refusing to invest in fossil fuel businesses. Norway’s national savings fund, currently worth over $1 trillion and owning 3% of all publicly traded stocks in the world, does not invest in fossil fuels. All major car makers are shifting, fairly rapidly, to electric vehicles. This is reality. It is happening because, generally, the world understands that human-caused climate change is a major threat to our environment, and must be reversed. You don’t have to like this, nor agree with it. You just have to understand it if you want to make decisions most beneficial to your life, and to our environment.

Also, per capita, Canadians are among the greatest emitters of greenhouse gases on Earth. We’ve been playing the game too long with the deck stacked in our favour. We owe our environment proper care.

In light of the above, let’s compare the federal parties’ objectives in limiting greenhouse gas emissions. The Conservatives plan to reduce emissions by 30% of 2005 levels by 2030. In the same time period, the Liberals plan to reduce emissions by 40 to 45%, the New Democrats plan to reduce emissions by 50%, and the Greens’ planned reduction is 60%.

On this issue Conservatives are not believable. Behind their current campaign promise on emissions reductions is a party deeply divided. This past March, 54% of delegates at their convention voted against a motion to recognize that climate change is real. They also officially refused to act against climate change. They made Mr. O’Toole look foolish. They will do so again. Mr. O’Toole might be genuine in his promise on greenhouse gas emissions, but a majority of his supporters have a fossilized ideology on fossil fuels. That is why the Conservatives offer action which, compared to the magnitude of the problem, is minimal, half-hearted and designed to appear to be more substantial than they truly want it to be. The 54% of Conservative deniers will not magically disappear after the election, nor will their denial subside.

Gregory R. Côté

Irvine

9
-8