1. The science is crystal clear about what needs to be done.
We need a 45% percent reduction in GHG emissions by 2030[1] and we also need to get to 75% renewable energy in total primary energy supply by 2050 if we are to avoid catastrophic climate change.
Funding another offshore oil project like Bay du Nord is not only bad for the climate. It will take us in the opposite direction away from the kind of renewable energy system we need for the future.
Fossil fuels make up 76% of Canada’s total energy system,[2] and the share of renewable energy has remained at 15% for more than three decades. In NL, it’s the same: 77% of our total energy consumption comes from gas, natural gas, and diesel.[3]
But as the International Energy Agency and the International Renewable Energy agency have both demonstrated, if the world is to remain within 1.5 degrees Celcius of warming, 75% or more of final energy supply must be provided by renewables by 2050 in advanced economies.[4] The only option for a climate-safe world today is transition our economies to renewable sources and technologies.
2. Climate change is real – and we can’t hide from it.
Just in the past two years alone, there have been unprecedented droughts, heat waves, fires, and floods across Canada.[5] Multiple hurricanes and storms have hit NL and up and down the Atlantic seaboard. The continued warming of oceans and rising acidification are putting ecosystems and our fisheries at stake. These trends have only accelerated over the past 5 decades, so much so that there are now more than 130 climate disasters every decade in Canada.[6]
And the science is telling us this is only going to get worse. We are currently on course for warming of more than 2.7 degrees Celsius.[7] This will have catastrophic consequences if we don’t act now to stop and reverse the damage that’s being done to our climate.
The world is experiencing the grave consequences that come from its dependence oil. Only immediate action to wind down global fossil fuel production and stop all new oil and gas fields will allow us to meet our Paris and Glasgow Climate Commitments.[8]
[1] International Energy Agency. 2020. World Energy Outlook 2020. Paris, FR: International Energy Agency.
[2] Canada Energy Regulator. 2017. Provincial and Territorial Energy Profiles – Canada. https://www.cer-rec.gc.ca/en/data-analysis/energy-markets/provincial-territorial-energy-profiles/provincial-territorial-energy-profiles-canada.html.
[3] Canada Energy Regulator. 2017. Provincial and Territorial Energy Profiles – Newfoundland and Labrador. https://www.cer-rec.gc.ca/en/data-analysis/energy-markets/provincial-territorial-energy-profiles/provincial-territorial-energy-profiles-newfoundland-labrador.html.
[4] International Energy Agency. 2021. Net Zero by 2050. Paris, FR: International Energy Agency.
[5] Canada Environment and Natural Resources. 2021. “Canada’s Top 10 Weather Stories of 2021.” https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/services/top-ten-weather-stories/2021.html.
[6] Council of Canadian Academies, 2022. Building a Resilient Canada. Ottawa. The Expert Panel on Disaster Resilience in a Changing Climate, Council of Canadian Academies.
[7] IPCC. 2022. “Summary for Policy Makers.” In Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Contribution of the Working Group II to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. New York: Cambridge University Press.
[8] Dan Calverley and Kevin Anderson. 2022. Phaseout Pathways for Fossil Fuel Production Within Paris-Compliant Carbon Budgets. Manchester: Tyndall Centre, University of Manchester.