Support strong Canadian climate journalism for 2025
A proposal to stop labelling carbon dioxide as a pollutant and instead celebrate it as a "foundational nutrient for all life on Earth” will be up for debate at the United Conservative Party’s annual general meeting in November.
The resolution, which includes abandoning Alberta’s net-zero targets, flies in the face of the scientific consensus that carbon dioxide emissions created by humans burning fossil fuels is one of the primary drivers of global warming. The increased temperatures, in turn, cause more frequent and extreme weather like wildfires, floods, heat waves, storms and droughts. A study published in Nature found the deadly 2021 heat dome in BC that killed more than 619 people was amplified by climate change and other events like the fires that tore through Jasper this summer are made more likely and exacerbated by climate change.
The policy resolution put forward by the Athabasca-Barrhead-Westlock and Red Deer South constituency associations says the carbon cycle is a biological necessity and “The earth needs more CO2 to support life and to increase plant yields, both of which will contribute to the Health and Prosperity of all Albertans.”
One thing is clear: “there weren't any scientists present when it was written,” Stephen Legault, senior manager of Alberta energy transition at Environmental Defence, told Canada’s National Observer in a phone interview.
There is no acknowledgement that CO2 (from extracting and burning coal, oil and gas, forest fires and natural processes like volcanic eruptions) is one of the planet-warming greenhouse gasses driving the climate crisis. The word “climate” does not appear anywhere in the 38-page document of resolutions.
Policy resolutions are not legally binding, and whether or not members will vote in favour of the resolution remains to be seen.
That doesn’t mean it won’t be a spectacle to see the resolution come forward. More than 5,400 members are registered to attend the 2024 AGM in Red Deer to debate policy resolutions and vote in Party Leader Danielle Smith’s leadership review.
“If I had to put money on it, I would bet that it's going to pass,” Lisa Young, a political science professor at the University of Calgary, told Canada’s National Observer in a phone interview.
There’s already been a vetting process to weed out some resolutions, but this one made it through, which suggests “someone in the party thinks that this is worth debating,” Young said.
“I think this reminds us that the base of the UCP is host to a pretty substantial group of people who do not believe that climate change is real, or they don't believe that it is driven by human activity, and they think that any actions taken to transition away from fossil fuels are unnecessary.”
The ruling UCP government has a self-described “aspiration” to reach net-zero emissions by 2050 but its plan lacks details and short-term targets. The policy resolution would acknowledge that the UCP wants Alberta to abandon those aspirations.
“Whether it gets passed or not, it's irrelevant,” Legault said. “[Climate denial] shows in their policies and how they treat what is arguably one of the most important issues of our time.”
While Smith does not deny climate change, the province is considering a second set of limitations on renewable energy development and opposes all federal climate policies from the carbon price to far less controversial methane reduction targets.
Legault said the resolution is “already de facto policy,” pointing to Smith’s decision to launch a $7-million ad campaign against the federal government’s forthcoming regulations to rein in oil and gas sector emissions. Last year, Alberta spent $8-million on a similar ad campaign aimed at forthcoming federal regulations to decarbonize Canada’s electricity grid by 2035.
In the aftermath of the Jasper wildfire this summer, Smith would not acknowledge the connection between climate change and the devastating and extreme nature of the fires.
“From a policy perspective, a resolution like this doesn't make any difference whatsoever, but it reveals a fundamental bias against science that underpins this government,” he said.
“I think it helps people understand that this is a group of decision makers who are not grounded in reality, but who are instead happy to pander to the very extremes that exist in our society.”
The resolution states that “CO2 is presently at around 420 ppm, near the lowest level in over 1,000 years.”
This statement is false. The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide amounts were this high was roughly 3 million years ago, according to NOAA.
The rejection of science illustrated in this policy resolution and others related to COVID-19 vaccines is reflective of attitudes within the UCP base “to a considerable extent,” Young said.
“Will we see the Government of Alberta adopt this as policy? No,” Young said. “Does this kind of thinking inform some of the policies that we do see them pursue? I think to a certain extent, they do.”
Natasha Bulowski / Local Journalism Initiative / Canada’s National Observer
Comments
Are there statistics on the level of education attained by UCP members?
Could someone simply average the education level of members of parliament from the two main parties in Alberta?
Best comment I have read this month. Thx. And all too true.
We are talking about mostly rural radical Christian Albertans. Rural folks seem to be much more Conservative than we more educated and urban folks. Listening to radio this morning there was a discussion with author
Bradley Onishi (Author) about his book
Preparing for War
The Extremist History of White Christian Nationalism--and What Comes Next
This is where Canada is going, take a listen, CBC The Current today October 18 2024
There was a study done in BC back in the 80s that compared the number of post secondary degrees between the ruling Social Credit Party (conservatives) and the opposition NDP. It was night and day. The Socreds were full of high school dropouts, some even in senior cabinet positions, whereas the majority NDP had more masters degrees than the population average. There were exceptions of course, but averaged, the Socreds lived up to their reputation as a bunch of semi literate used car salesmen with the odd housewife with inherited wealth thrown in.
The NDP also had more educated women on their benches, while one senior Socred minister had a fake university degree from a mail order source before the Internet made it even easier. I think he was the finance minister of that time who created a fake Budget Stabilization fund out of debt that was shuffled around on the ledger The NDP immediately named it the BS fund.
We Albertans ought be grateful that, of all the political jurisdictions that exist on the planet, ours has been blessed with a cadre of geniuses who know more than most of the world's climate scientists. Given that our cadre has achieved this while having little or nothing in the way of scientific credentials, it must be an act of the creator.
For a provincial party, the UCP is disgraceful, if not downright disgusting. However, given that Danielle Smith is an oil & gas planted premier, not surprising they fail to acknowledge anything related to climate change or fossil fuels contribution to the same.
The additional concern is the federal conservatives who also refuse to acknowledge climate change is real. It seems that Pierre "Snake oil Salesman" Poilievre will become the next PM if the biased polls are correct, I can see Pee Pee take the entire country backwards even further to appease one of their primary donors.
What is ironic, given the millions the oil & gas industry spend greasing politicians pockets, they could have used the same money to clean up their act and become good corporate citizens than the corrupt industry they are.
Good Grief!
Heh folks we Albertans have a Premier who promised she would find out who is responsible for the air plane Chemtrails which apparently are controlling us with chemicals. Next after CO2 we will see the UCP propose more coal mines in the South Saskatchewan River basin as selenium is not a poison but an essential mineral!
The carbon cycle is between plants and the atmosphere. Putting fossil carbon back into the air is not what we want!
UCP Policy Resolution #12: "CO2 is presently at around 420 ppm, near the lowest level in over 1000 years."
An obviously unscientific lie.
CO2 levels have remained constant around 280 ppm for millennia.
In the last few million years, CO2 concentrations have cycled between 180ppm and 280ppm in rhythm with the sequence of ice ages and warmer interglacial periods.
Ice core measurements show that for the past 800,000 years up until the 20th century, the atmospheric CO2 concentration stayed within 170—300 ppm.
After meandering between 180 and 300 ppm for hundreds of thousands of years, suddenly CO2 levels rocket upwards in the last 250 years.
From pre-industrial 280 ppm to 419 ppm today represents a 50% increase in CO2. Largely as a result of liquidating an ancient carbon sink and adding long-sequestered carbon to the carbon cycle.
Natural carbon sources and sinks have been in approximate balance since the end of the last glacial period. Fossil fuel combustion upsets this balance. It's the man-made CO2 that tips the scales.
The last time CO2 was this high, "there was no icecap on Antarctica and sea levels were 25-40m higher. … The elevated CO2 and sea levels were associated with temperatures about 3-6 C higher than today." (BBC)
The jig is up. Shell and Exxon scientists warned company officials about global warming due to fossil fuel combustion —decades ago. Oil companies anticipated climate change impacts in their engineering designs, while funding campaigns of denial for decades.
A pollutant is any introduced substance that causes harm to the ecosystem or organism: too much, too fast, in the wrong place, at the wrong time.
A pollutant is defined in terms of its effects. I.e., its effects upon ecosystems and living things.
Toxicity or damage depends on the dose. Many compounds (nutrients) are essential to life, but in excess are problematic. Over-fertilize your lawn, and watch what happens.
Nitrates and phosphates in agricultural run-off (fertilizer and farm waste) cause eutrophication, creating algal blooms and marine dead zones. In excess, they are pollutants.
CO2 is a greenhouse gas. The main driver of recent warming and the cause of ocean acidification (OA) that endangers marine life. Hence, a pollutant.
"If CO2 is natural, why is it considered a pollutant?" (The Weather Network)
Climate change is not the only issue with fossil fuels. Fossil fuel emissions are not limited to GHGs.
The big 5 major air pollutants cited as posing health risks are all associated with fossil fuels: ground-level ozone, particulates, nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide, and carbon monoxide. Other pollutants include volatile organic compounds (VOCs) like benzene, heavy metals (e.g., arsenic, mercury, and lead), nitrous oxides (another GHG), sulfur oxides (acid rain), polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), hydrogen sulphide (H2S).
Fossil fuels are responsible for a wide range of pollution issues: ocean acidification; deadly smog; pipeline, rail car, and oil rig explosions; oil spills; tanker collisions; refinery pollution; sour gas leaks; air pollution; water contamination; acid rain; toxic tailings lakes, etc..
Burning less fossil fuels saves two birds with one stone.
Judging from all the anti-federal bluster and chatter from the Alberta government you'd be expecting a referendum on Alberta separation any day now. I've always said, go ahead and see how far you get.
However, with increasingly crazy policies from the looney fringe like this one on CO2, one could actually want Alberta to leave the fold to live in their own tiny world without pestering the rest of the country.
If the vast majority of Albertans are sane enough to never willingly give up their Canadian citizenship, why do they keep electing idiots?
The comments are worth the price of the subscription!
A valid question Alex, and I propose an answer: Since we now know JUST how much emotion is involved in political choices, we have to remember how unique Alberta conservatism is in the country, easily winning governance for 40 years basically unchallenged, mainly because of punching above its weight wealth-wise due to oil and gas reserves. This has very much imbued it with a sense of superiority and power relative to all other provinces AND the country as a whole, very much including the federal government.
So conservatism has become not only the primary political identifier for the province, it's also a PERSONAL identifier that's on a par with religious affiliation.
And we all know how impossible it is to argue with someone's RELIGION. That's "sacrosanct." But I keep arguing of course that until we DO THAT, we're at the mercy of mass delusion.
Hi Natasha,
Back in the summer I was visiting Canmore and as I was coming out of a coffee shop there was an elderly gentleman walking towards me in the parking lot. He was tall, well dressed and definitely had CEO hair! He also had those chiselled features of someone who was once a powerful force in his youth. Then I noticed he was wearing an "I heart CO2" button. I was astounded, but my immediate reaction was to laugh as he passed. Not a mocking laugh, something in the audacity of this person struck me as genuinely funny.
I jumped in the car with three friends and we went on to discuss what kind of selfish and petulant person would proudly wear this button. The sentiment isn't far from the "I heart oil and gas" lawn signs, shirts and bumper stickers that littered Calgary a few years ago, but there's something more disturbing about it because the level of in your face denialism is being ratcheted up.
This guy looked successfully. He wasn't one of the semi-homeless, ditch-billies camping in their "cousin Eddy" RV's on the outskirts of Calgary. The UCP's motion on CO2 may have been suggested by someone that had failing grades in high school science, but for it to pass the vetting stage it would need the support of more wise and seasoned individuals within the party. It would only take one respected leader to speak out against the motion for it to lose support amongst the Take Back Alberta (TBA) rabble.
Now that it's in, I suspect the motion will likely pass. It's the kind of "screw you" statement that the UCP base gobble up with enthusiasm. I just find it sad that Alberta Conservatives have fallen so far from centre. What was once an admirable political organization has become weirdly similar to the MAGA Republican cult. I feel deeply concerned for my province and the people that I've grown to love. Self-obsessed and greedy individuals can be successful in business because there is the allure of wealth accumulation, but in politics Ignorance and greed are rarely accompanied by competence.
I don't love oil and gas and I certainly don't love CO2. I love my friends, family, community and fellow Albertans, many who are kind, friendly and wonderful people. The vast majority want energy diversification in the province and wouldn't even consider kneeling at the alter of fossil fuels and expressing devotion to a greenhouse gas. Why would any reasonable person do that?
See my comment....