SoVote

Decentralized Democracy

House Hansard - 100

44th Parl. 1st Sess.
September 22, 2022 10:00AM
  • Sep/22/22 7:16:28 p.m.
  • Watch
Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise in Adjournment Proceedings this evening to pursue a question I asked on World Oceans Day. World Oceans Day, June 8, is observed every single year within what is the United Nations' and Canada's Environment Week. I asked about the impact of the climate crisis on our oceans and whether the government was prepared to take it seriously. Every single second, and I need to repeat that because when we ask questions in 30 seconds in question period it goes rather quickly, every single second of every single minute of every single hour of every single day, every second, the equivalent of seven Hiroshima nuclear bombs' worth of heating is absorbed by our oceans due to our burning of fossil fuels and the destruction of forests, the problem that gets referred to as the climate crisis. I put forward that we are seeing changes in our ocean currents that are massively dangerous. We are seeing ocean levels rising; the acidity levels are rising in our ocean water, and the oxygen levels in many of our oceans are dropping. One particular example is the Gulf of St. Lawrence. There are members in this place who have connections to Atlantic Canada. I am a member from British Columbia, but my family is still on Cape Breton Island. The Gulf of St. Lawrence is Canada's most productive marine ecosystem. It provides billions of dollars of wealth to the Atlantic region. We still have a fishery, despite the collapse of the North Atlantic cod. There is a fishery in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, but the Gulf of St. Lawrence is experiencing rapid deoxygenation and acidification. Why? It is because the Gulf Stream is stalling and the Labrador Current is stalling. What happens is that whereas the Gulf of St. Lawrence used to be refreshed with the colder water from the Labrador Current, which was full of oxygen, the Gulf of St. Lawrence is now being recharged by a stalling, warmer, deoxygenated Gulf Stream. All of this, of course, points to the fact that the climate crisis is not a manageable issue, like putting some kind of a filter at the end of a tailpipe and keeping on polluting. That is the approach the government has taken. Its so-called solution of net zero by 2050 is nothing but propaganda. As I pointed out to the parliamentary secretary in that debate, net zero by 2050 is not a goal; it is an epitaph. It is true that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the most eminent scientific and most rigorous process ever invented for any issue, has made it clear that, yes, by 2050 we must be at net zero and we must meet the commitments to hold to as far below 2°C as possible and, if possible, hold to 1.5°C. However, net zero by 2050 is a lie and propaganda, if that is all that is mentioned and it is not mentioned that in order to have it make any difference, the curve of that line starts with a rapid drop. In other words, we must ensure that before 2025, global emissions stop rising and start decreasing. We also must ensure that by 2030, that curve is dropped so fast that it is about half of what it was in 2010, and then it levels out. I am afraid the human brain rather translates net zero by 2050 as if we have lots of time, but the line does not go gradually. The line must go down sharply, which means that when the government approves Bay du Nord and insists on completing Trans Mountain, it is foreclosing on any hope of holding to a livable world.
627 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border