Is COVID-19 more important than the climate emergency?

COVID-19 could possibly kill between 1% and 5% of those diagnosed if unstopped, but climate change will certainly kill 100% of humanity if unstopped.

Why then did all federal parties pass an emergency motion on March 13, which says, among other things, that C-4, the bill to implement the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement on trade (CUSMA), or NAFTA 2.0, was deemed to be passed at third reading -- when that agreement doesn’t even mention the climate crisis -- a crisis which literally threatens our continued existence?

Sources:

News of motion passed: https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/parliament-suspended-1.5496469

New NAFTA is Failing on the Climate Emergency: https://behindthenumbers.ca/2020/02/19/whats-next-for-the-new-nafta-and-what-if-anything-can-canadians-do-about-it-now/

Comments

  1. Lyn Adamson15 March 2020 at 13:39

    Thank you, your concerns are very valid. We need to start relating this crisis to the climate crisis, which is even much more threatening to our future. No vaccine will fix the climate crisis - we have to do the heavy lifting ourselves. And to not have it recognized in our trade deal with the US is a really gross emission.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Choosing Nuclear Power is Needlessly Putting More Tools of Death Into Our Future

Choosing Nuclear Power is Needlessly Putting More Tools of Death Into Our Future: Two existential crises and the obvious alternative “Atomic Accomplice: How Canada deals in deadly deceit” a book written by Paul McKay in 2009 has a foreword by David Suzuki. One chapter is called, “Plutonim, the immortal outlaw.” (p 129) The word “immortal” refers to the fact that plutonium remains lethal for 250,000 years. McKay writes, “As a matter of physics, plutonium is created in every nuclear reactor of every make, model, size, purpose, or country of origin or operation…It takes a mere 8 kilograms to make a Nagasaki-scale bomb….” He continues, “Each year the odds grow worse that some of this accumulating, effectively immortal plutonium will be diverted by pariah states, or sold covertly for cash, or stolen for a bomb or nuclear blackmail. In 2009, the International Atomic Energy Agency disclosed that its data base includes 1,646 reports of trafficking, theft or loss of nuclear materials
Read more

The Cost Of Living And The Cost Of Staying Alive: Climate Action Is All About Climate Justice

Image
  On August 16, 2023 Yellowknife faced the likelihood of evacuation from wildfires.   On the same day Pierre Poilievre was in PEI making a speech against the carbon tax which he has done for quite some time.   Yet only 11 months earlier 95% of PEI was without power from hurricane Fiona. As of Aug 9 Poilievre is gaining popularity in the polls (ahead of the governing Liberals by 10%).   His strategy is to appeal to people’s concern about the rising cost of living. But what about the cost of staying alive in the face of climate catastrophe?  Poilievre’s strategy is to make people think that they shouldn’t be the ones bearing “the burden” of doing climate action…despite the fact that the carbon tax offers rebates to most Canadians. (See 19:48 at this link )   Because of this situation, climate action is all about climate justice. If that is true then which party is most likely to deliver? Many times the Liberals have refused the federal NDP request for a wealth tax. But the federal NDP
Read more

Guilbeault Will Not Promise No Increase In Canada’s Oil And Gas Exports

On June 9, 2023 Guilbeault indicated that he will not promise to “limit Canada’s oil exports by requiring that they not exceed Canada's current percentage of total world exports.” This came in the form of his response to a petition presented to the House of Commons by Robert Oliphant (who is also a Liberal). See link.   Part of the petition states, “Increasing Canadian oil export would negate some or all the gains made from domestic reductions and contribute to an increase in climate change damage to many parts of the country.” This part of the petition implies and recognizes that further "downstream emissions" are created when the exported/sold product, oil, is used/burned. Yet, in response to that petition, Guilbeault appears to be ignoring the subject of downstream emissions when he states, Quote: “[Our] objective is to limit the emissions from the production of oil and natural gas as the cap becomes more stringent over time, irrespective of whether the production is f
Read more