We speak less and less about environment and climate change. The subject disturbs. Even annoy. Only a punctual disaster takes us out of our torpor, but it does not last.
We mainly move away from the solutions, especially those that require an individual commitment.
The federal elections were partly won due to the promise to abolish the carbon tax, heresy for Mark Carney, an environmentalist less convinced that one might have believed, because victory in sight, he rose to the side of Pierre Hairyvre who had made “Axe the TaxThe central theme of his campaign.
However, in the opinion of all experts, tax carbon according to the principle of polluter pays remains the best way to reduce greenhouse gases. But Canadians prefer to pay petrol cheaper than fighting more than obvious warming of the planet. When we look at the increase in the cost of living, can we blame them?
Yes. Sorry for those who believe the opposite. The planet deserves better than an increase in shoulders and a full at $ 1.25 per liter.
Priorities question
The file of climate change is not like the others. We know it. All polls indicate that 90% of Canadians are concerned. But when the time comes to take the necessary gestures and put pressure on the decision -makers so that they act in a coherent way, we look elsewhere.
In addition to some activists who do the job for us. We are in need of priorities.
Take Danielle Smith, Prime Minister of Alberta and eternal dissatisfied despite the richness of her province.
It demands that the federal government abolish all programs to reduce greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) – which affects the entire Canada – so as not to harm its gas and oil economy.
It is opposed in particular to the capping of GHG emissions, an unconstitutional measure – the Constitution has a broad back – because of exclusively provincial jurisdiction according to its law, can, on the sovereignty of Alberta. She does not go to a dead hand: oil companies would no longer have the right to share the level of their emissions with Ottawa, or even with their shareholders and access to oil facilities would be prohibited for employees of the federal government.
Otherwise, she threatens, the province could take the key to the fields with its richness while continuing to pollute to which better. GHGs do not recognize the boundaries between the provinces that we know.
Danielle Smith has nothing to wax of the environment. No more than the Trump administration, which plans to abolish around thirty, leading programs for environmental protection and deregulate the energy sector.
To the devil the consequences.
Even laws that aim to reduce emissions from motor vehicles and thermal power plants may go to the chainsaw.
Trump simply does not believe in climate change – he wants to reopen the coal mines! – And Lee Zeldin, the administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency who does not deny climate change does not see the hand of man.
If nothing changes, nothing changes
Despite mountains of good intentions – everyone recycles their cans – people can no longer be told that they no longer want to hear about it.
They undergo the extreme heat in summer, the increasingly frequent floods, forest fires because it is like that; Because it is probably too late; Because problems come from other countries and we can do nothing about it; Because we have clean electricity; Because the sinistrosis no longer panics us; Because they have more urgent concerns on a daily basis; Because it is too complex (I accuse scientists not to sufficiently popularize the question); Because real problems will be carried by future generations and we are “presentists”; Because we are not ready to sacrifice our big vehicles, our gigantic houses, our trips in the south winter, our giant steaks on the BBQ, although their price will end up catching up.
The call for the portfolio is invigorating. This is why the carbon tax works.
Perhaps we look elsewhere because the walk to be climbing is too high for the little humans that we are, each with their concerns, their imperatives. His discomfort. Basically, we know.
I really believe that several readers have abandoned reading this chronicle, because too depressing, too guilty. Useless. Sorry, but it was necessary.
Cultivate hope
The center -right magazine The Economistmy favorite believes that there are adjoining solutions. Requiring carbonutrality in brief maturity, he writes, would require compressions that are too fast, too deep, physically and politically impossible to achieve.
Replacing petrol engine vehicles with too expensive electric vehicles, without a sprawling network of charging stations, by 2030 or even 2035 is impossible. Let’s forget that.
Instead of imposing deadlines, let’s think of guidelines. Let us propose pragmatic solutions, offer hope, says the publication.
A global economy based on fossil fuels cannot be changed in a snap of fingers and without political revolt. Let’s go to the possibilities. But let’s go there.
Meanwhile, politicians and other decision -makers cannot rely on hollow speeches.
Make a Google “Environment Quebec”. I promise you an immediate sleep. If the ministerial blah worked, we would be environmental champions.
We always come back to hydroelectricity, but it is not enough. Because our electricity costs so inexpensive, we waste it without counting. We have made gains, but energy efficiency requires even more efforts. Wash in cold water is good, but that’s not enough.
We have not seen anything yet: wait until the data centers, which propel infonuagic, artificial intelligence and cryptocurrencies, disembark with us in large numbers – there are already about 70 – precisely because we brad our electricity. I predict that we will be asked to make the choice of nuclear. Our tanks will no longer be enough.
The environment must be put back in everyday conversations. At least, it deserves better than our silence.