Blog

It wasn’t easy, and it was uncomfortably close. But late November, the gas industry’s effort to re-introduce fossil fuel heating in new homes and buildings in Vancouver was mercifully defeated. Turns out, mobilization – even against powerful vested interests – can still win the day. This piece details that mobilization, the industry efforts to roll-back climate progress, and draws lessons for future fights.

This piece is a little different – an appeal to fellow Canadian climate movement friends and colleagues. As we return from another hot and smoke-filled summer of unnatural disasters, let us admit that we are in our own form of denial. Perhaps it is time to concede that, in the face of an escalating catastrophe, we are stuck in a rinse-and-repeat cycle that is simply not working. We urgently need to shift gears or we are done. But take heart! It is far too early to throw in the towel or to let defeatism take root. The next federal election is just over a year away. So much depends on our ability to shift the terrain over the next 12 months. But as the saying goes, that is a lifetime in politics. A Conservative majority can absolutely still be avoided. So, what’s the alternative to the default we know? This piece offers a few thoughts.

Canada’s main residential suppliers of fossil gas remain unrelenting in their bloody-nailed determination to expand our reliance on their planet-burning, climate chaos-inducing product. In my home province of British Columbia, the residential gas supplier is FortisBC. This piece explores two recent examples of the private monopoly’s refusal to take no for an answer. The first is underway in Vancouver. In hundreds of talks across the country, I have told the story of the City of Vancouver’s decision to lead the country in prohibiting new buildings from using fossil fuels for heating. Dating from 2020, this bold policy stood out as an early beacon of genuine climate emergency action. But now, in a particularly cowardly manner, the city’s ABC majority has moved to reverse this policy, and Fortis’s fingerprints are all over it. Second, Fortis has introduced an outragous new rebate that seeks to make it uneconomic not to stay hooked up to gas.

For years, "progressive" governments (federal & provincial) have said we need to go slow on climate to avoid a right-wing backlash. How'd that work out for us? Today we have the worst of both worlds – milquetoast climate policy AND a right-wing backlash! Incrementalism is no match for the crises we face. As the government seeks a reset ahead of the fall 2025 election, it desperately needs to shake things up. The Liberals need to reinvigorate the terrain with exciting ideas that can, finally, change the dreadful script that has characterized the last two years. On the climate front it’s time to stop being so damn boring and invite the fight with the fossil fuel industry and its political servants.

The frequency of climate news and the language employed should align with the gravity of what we confront. Sometimes, the CBC is exactly the public broadcaster we need it to be in an emergency (witness year one of COVID coverage or wildfire reporting). In times like this, we’re reminded why having a media organization that can prioritize clear, factual and compassionate communication over profit is so important to a healthy democracy. And it makes political calls to “defund the CBC” ring especially hollow. But in the face of the most profound crisis we confront — the climate emergency — we have yet to see the CBC be that public broadcaster. This piece shares results from a CEU/SFU report – Quiet Alarm – into the CBC climate reporting, reminds readers of the CBC’s role in the Second World War, and lays out what it would look and sound like for the CBC to be a genuine climate emergency broadcaster.

This piece is mainly a thought experiment: what if Pierre Poilievre had been Canadian prime minister at the outset of the Second World War? Today, as another existential and civilizational threat barrels down upon us, what would Conservative leadership look and sound like? Poilievre’s Conservative Party is a far different beast than your grandparents’ Conservatives, and Poilievre is no Winston Churchill. Much ink has been spilled about Poilievre’s campaign to “axe the [carbon] tax.” But let there be no doubt: he’s not just gunning for carbon pricing. He’s going after the whole package – effectively every piece of climate policy won over the last 10 years. Poilievre is telling us who he is – a servant of the oil and gas industry.

The gas we burn in our homes and buildings is responsible for about 12% of British Columbia’s GHG emissions. Consequently, a key piece of climate emergency action is getting fossil gas – more commonly and misleadingly known as “natural” gas – out of buildings. The good news: British Columbians are ready to see our government take more decisive action to speed up progress on this file. Last November, a coalition of climate groups commissioned a province-wide poll of 1,000 British Columbians from Abacus Data on the subject of gas in buildings. The results are very heartening.

It seems NDP MP Charlie Angus has hit a nerve. Last week, heeding the call of the Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment (CAPE), Angus tabled a private member’s bill in the House of Commons to prohibit fossil fuel advertising. The reaction to Angus’s bill from Big Oil’s political and media defenders has been swift and hysterical - a sure sign of the bill’s merit. Angus’s proposed law is already doing a great service — sparking a needed conversation about the role of fossil fuel companies in perpetuating the climate crisis and questioning the social licence we have extended to these nefarious corporations for far too long.

One of the biggest climate stories in Canada in 2024 might well prove to be a project that, so far at least, few in the country have heard of — Ksi Lisims LNG. Like the earlier-approved LNG Canada project in nearby Kitimat, Ksi Lisims has the potential to be a major carbon bomb. The “net zero” claim of the project proponents ignores the greenhouse gases that would be emitted when the LNG produced by Ksi Lisims reaches its destination and is burned, known as Scope 3 emissions. Ksi Lisims aims to produce 12 megatonnes a year of liquified gas, and amount of LNG that, when burned, produces approximately 32 megatonnes of GHGs. That is equivalent to more than half of British Columbia’s total annual emissions.

The Trudeau government’s recent decision to exempt home heating oil from the carbon tax will be remembered as one of the great boneheaded political moves of recent years. The carveout has thrown the federal government’s keystone climate policy of the past 10 years into turmoil. It now appears we are destined to spend the next federal election, quite likely next year’s BC election and possibly other forthcoming provincial elections re-prosecuting past climate fights. This is no way to win the battle of our lives. Tackling the climate crisis requires urgent forward momentum, not re-litigating the carbon tax debate. And the kicker is there are a multitude of other options to address the affordability crisis facing many.

Eager to see what Canadian public opinion makes of a climate corps, the Climate Emergency Unit (with which I work) commissioned a poll from Abacus Data. The results are now in, and they are very good news for all who wish to see a ramp-up in Canada’s climate transition. The headline finding: A majority of Canadians – across the country and political lines – support the idea of creating a Youth Climate Corps (YCC). The results are especially strong among those aged 18 to 35 (the cohort for whom the program is designed). The most heartening results came from a survey question that asked those 35 and under, “If a program like this existed, how likely are you to consider enrolling in a Youth Climate Corps for two years?” In short, hundreds of thousands of young people are ready to serve as we confront the climate emergency. Our governments should sign these folks up as quickly as possible.

Last month, the campaign for a Youth Climate Corps took a big leap forward when the Biden administration launched the American Climate Corps — a new jobs program that will see thousands of young people get training and employment in climate-related work, and a huge win for the youth-led Sunrise Moment in the US. Launching the American Climate Corps should be seen as a renewed attempt by Biden to make nice with the youth voting bloc upon whom his re-election may well hinge. Speaking of which: Memo to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau! The polls have you trailing badly among Gen Z and Millennial voters. Maybe it’s time to offer something exciting and hopeful to these folks. Sir, may I present the Youth Climate Corps.

Sometimes, in the eye of a storm, it can be hard to tell when the winds have shifted. Victories often don’t occur in a clear-cut timeline, nor can they always be pinpointed to a specific event. When we look back at this time, maybe — just maybe — the spring and summer of 2023 will be remembered as a pivot period. And this summer was also the first in which almost all Canadians experienced the emergency firsthand. Perhaps this collective experience — in which we all stared the crisis in the face and tasted the disruption to come — will signal a shift in the zeitgeist we’ve long awaited.

The federal government has tabled its long-awaited Sustainable Jobs Act (formerly to be known as Just Transition Act). In the face of the climate emergency and the imperative to give workers and communities confidence as we rapidly transition the economy, the bill is fundamentally incongruent with the task at hand, and ultimately of little consequence as drafted. Nothing about it communicates urgency.

Most young people know — the climate crisis is coming for them. One way or another, on their terms or not, it's going to enlist them. It won't ask their permission. Best to take pre-emptive action on one’s own terms. A Youth Climate Corps (YCC) would represent an invitation to Canada’s youth to mobilize to confront today’s gravest threat: the climate emergency. It could be a new flagship public program and, funded at sufficient scale, would send an electrifying signal. It would indicate our governments are indeed entering genuine emergency mode and would communicate to young people that they are being called to join in a grand societal transformation.

Emergency responses need to look and sound and feel like emergency responses. Emergencies require that leaders tell the truth about the severity of the crisis and what is required to combat it — frequently, consistently and coherently. Yet, nothing about the climate communications we currently hear and see comes close to approximating such an invitation. The current official communications (or lack thereof) is producing a form of cognitive dissonance — is this an emergency or not? That confusion needs to end. We need a new, well-resourced climate communications agency — a Climate Emergency Information Board.

As Premier Eby settles into his new role, some important changes appear to be afoot, reflected in both the language being used and the people being appointed to key roles. Last week, this was most apparent with the unveiling of Eby’s new cabinet and in the mandate letters given to new ministers. This piece digs into the choices and mandate letters of cabinet members Josie Osborne, Bowinn Ma, Niki Sharma and Brenda Bailey.

On November 21, 2002, I was invited to be a witness before the House of Commons Standing Committee on Science and Research, as part of their study of “International Moonshot Programs.” Here’s my testimony…

I had a rather unique, and sometimes stressful, vantage point on the BC NDP leadership contest. Both Dave Eby and Anjali Appadurai are my longtime friends. I’ve known Dave since his early days with Pivot Legal in the Downtown Eastside. Our families have spent holiday time together and have shared in celebrating major life events. I’ve known and worked with Anjali for over 10 years, and we are currently colleagues at the Climate Emergency Unit. I am very fond of them both and want to share a little about what I admire about each of them. And I here I offer some thoughts about what should happen going forward.

On Sept 21, I was invited to testify before the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance as part of the committee’s deliberations on fiscal federalism. In a rare opportunity, I had a full hour with the committee to share my idea for a new federal transfer and then had a spirited Q&A session with the parliamentarians. Here’s an edited version of what I shared.