People gather to protest the oil industry in Victoria. The B.C. city’s holier-than-thou attitude toward energy companies has to be contrasted with its enthusiasm for more CO2-spouting cruise-ship tourism.
Recently, an American campaign urging cities to demand money from oil companies because of the cost of climate change mitigation arrived in British Columbia. It had some early success, sort of.
Almost immediately, the mayor of the hydrocarbon-reliant Whistler resort lit up social media in all the wrong ways by putting his signature to a ransom letter directed at one of Canada’s most innovative energy companies, Calgary-based Canadian Natural Resources Ltd. He was just days into the job and had not yet learned the hazards of signing whatever the administrator puts on your desk. Enraged Albertans cancelled their Whistler plans and the mayor quickly back-pedaled.
The city of Victoria was drawn into the same campaign. As one Alberta critic said in response, the scenic capital’s holier-than-thou attitude toward energy companies has to be contrasted with its enthusiasm for more CO2-spouting cruise-ship tourism, an activity persistently trumpeted as a foundation of the city’s green economy.
Cities produce up to 80 per cent of global greenhouse gases, according to a study published in the journal Sustainability. Despite their postcard settings, Whistler and Victoria have all the attributes of major cities, with high-density housing and consumption-intensive lifestyles and access to airports.
Suppose we do pursue an immediate and wholesale rush into non-hydrocarbon energy. What does that look like? Numerous think tanks agree that trillions of dollars of investment are needed to meet Canada’s mid-century climate goals and reduce CO2 emissions by 80 per cent. Yet, what’s unfolding today in Canada is simply chaotic. MORE
County Sustainability Group 