This editorial was written and published by the Globe & Mail on July 26, 2023.

Here are five words you almost never hear in the business of nuclear power: on time and on budget. The rare words can be said at the Darlington Nuclear Generating Station, near Toronto, which is undergoing a $12.8-billion refurbishment. The station’s four reactors started pumping out power in the early 1990s and generate about a fifth of the province’s electricity. During its construction, Darlington also pumped out billions of dollars in debt, some of it still on the province’s books decades later.

But these days, in a refurbishment to extend the station’s operations by 30 years, the typical capital cost overruns and long delays have been avoided, with about half the overhaul complete.

The result at Darlington is important, as the Doug Ford government makes a major commitment to a new generation of nuclear power.

Costs will be key as societies rapidly add a lot more electrical power from sources other than fossil fuels. Canada’s goal, like the United States, is to cut greenhouse gas emissions from electricity to zero by 2035, a milestone on the road to economywide net zero emissions. The goal is daunting: building power infrastructure on a scale and pace never seen before.

But the urgency this summer to slow the whipsaws of climate heating is obvious: the worst-ever wildfires in Canada; brutal heat in the U.S., Europe, China; off-the-chart ocean temperatures.

Amid the urgency to clean up power grids and add capacity to fuel sectors like transportation, Ontario is betting big on nuclear. The province in early July announced a large expansion at Bruce Power, where reactors are also being refurbished, and three more small modular reactors at Darlington, where work on the first small reactor has begun.

Staying on time and on budget during a complicated refurbishment at Darlington is an accomplishment. But the task ahead is more difficult. Nuclear projects reliably go way over budget and fall far behind schedule. The plan at Bruce is to almost double capacity. The smaller reactors, meanwhile, are new technology. The risks for both are high. And Ontario’s experience building the smaller reactors will be closely watched in Alberta and Saskatchewan, which both want to build the same but have zero nuclear experience.

Ontario this month also said it would look at renewable power, including wind, by 2026. That’s a positive, given Mr. Ford in 2018 tore up more than $200-million of wind and solar power contracts.

But Mr. Ford appears more interested in nuclear than renewables. That itself poses a risk. This space supports nuclear power but as we argued this month, governments must reach for “every available tool to decarbonize electricity.”

All sources of clean power are needed. The Canada Energy Regulator forecasts that while Ontario will likely need to double the amount of nuclear power, it will be wind that leads the way – producing upward of half of the province’s power in 2050. Nuclear would provide a third. The CER cited wind’s “low capital and operating costs.”

There’s a danger the choices become ideological. In Texas, where solar has surged in the state’s open power system, right-wing lawmakers are trying to favour fossil fuels. Alberta also has an open power system and a spree of private money has made the province Canada’s solar and wind capital. Yet the United Conservative Party government doesn’t even mention the words wind or solar in new mandate letters to its energy and utilities ministers.

Ontario’s renewed interest in renewables is still somewhat mixed. In a new report, the province cited the recent cost of solar at a lofty 50.2 cents per kilowatt hour. That figure reflects past investments when the technology was new. Current solar projects in Alberta are coming online at about 6.5 cents per kilowatt hour. Ontario’s aiming at about 12.5 cents for the new smaller nuclear reactors.

Low costs and high reliability need to underpin the power grid of the future, as they do today.

And part of that depends on not favouring one source of power over another.

Nuclear is an important part of the puzzle. But the clear cost risks must be recognized. The refurbishment at Darlington is good news and, with the need to add a lot more power to the grid, it shows it is possible to invest in nuclear without stumbling into the pitfalls of the past.

The federal government has considerable jurisdiction over environmental issues

This article was written by Anna Johnston and was published in the Toronto Star on July 25, 2023.

ANNA JOHNSTON IS A STAFF LAWYER AT WEST COAST ENVIRONMENTAL LAW ASSOCIATION. SHE HOLDS A MASTER OF LAWS FROM DALHOUSIE UNIVERSITY AND A BACHELOR OF LAWS FROM THE UNIVERSITY OF VICTORIA.

After meeting with Prime Minister Justin Trudeau at the Calgary Stampede, Alberta Premier Danielle Smith trotted out an old horse.

The readout she published following the meeting asserts Alberta’s exclusive jurisdiction over the energy and electricity industries and states that if Ottawa does not back off from its plans to cap industry pollution, Alberta will be forced to resort to “alternative policy options.”

Alternative policy options undoubtedly means unilaterally deciding under the Alberta Sovereignty within a United Canada Act that an oil and gas emissions cap does not apply to provincial entities.

The readout came during the hottest week ever recorded, which followed the hottest June ever recorded. It’s only mid-July, and this summer Canadians across the country have fled devastating wildfires, seen communities choked by smoke, and been issued dire heat warnings. Scientific consensus says it is only going to get worse, and we need to act now if we are to avoid the most catastrophic effects of climate change.

Not only does Smith’s statement ignore climate science at the expense of Albertans’ (and all Canadians’) health, it also ignores constitutional reality.

The federal government has considerable jurisdiction over the environment, including climate. Time and again courts have confirmed that Parliament has authority over things like pollution that crosses borders (as emissions do), interprovincial projects (like pipelines that transport oil to tidewater), and toxins that it regulates through its criminal law power (including greenhouse gases).

Parliament has jurisdiction over an emissions cap through its criminal law power, and the Canadian Environmental Protection Act sets out a legal framework for making cap-and-trade regulations.

If Canada chooses not to wield its constitutional powers, or to apply a light touch, it does so for political, not jurisdictional, reasons. One of Parliament’s jobs is to help maintain national unity, which may include placating premiers who have made their opposition to the federal government well known.

But national unity does not only mean soothing political tempers. The Fathers of Confederation gave Parliament authority over matters affecting Canada as a whole, and matters requiring consistency among the provinces. Sometimes unity means exercising that authority for the good of the country.

The Supreme Court of Canada recognized the need for national unity in reducing emissions when it upheld the federal carbon tax under Parliament’s “peace, order, and good governance” power. As a majority of judges held, if one or more provinces fail to do their part in cutting emissions, it could mean a national failure to adequately address climate change, with “grave extraprovincial consequences.”

The Paris Agreement commits all countries to ambitious climate action as rapidly as possible. Canada has set a target of a 40-45 per cent reduction below 2005 levels by 2030 (which experts say is less than Canada’s fair share of global effort). According to the Emissions Reductions Plan, the oil and gas sector cut its emissions by 31 per cent in order for Canada to reach that target.

The oil and gas industry emits more than any sector in Canada, and its emissions have doubled since 1990, despite promises to reduce them voluntarily. Alberta, too, has the highest emissions of any province, which increased by 55 per cent from 1990 to 2021.

At the COP26 climate summit in November 2021, Prime Minister Trudeau committed to “cap oil and gas sector emissions today and ensure they decrease tomorrow at a pace and scale needed to reach net-zero by 2050.” Nineteen months later, no such cap exists, despite urging by climate experts that a cap is the only viable way to ensure that oil and gas emissions decline as needed for Canada to do its part in the global effort to save the planet.

It is time for premiers to stop brandishing the jurisdictional red herring and start taking climate action. It is also time for the federal government to realize that in this case, national unity demands a stringent emissions cap. As this summer is proving to Canadians, we cannot afford further delay.

Sometimes unity means exercising that authority for the good of the country

Some argue gaps in government’s plan could allow public money to support production

This article was written by Alex Ballingall and was published in the Toronto Star on July 25, 2023.

The federal government plans to keep exploration and development tax breaks available for fossil fuel companies, a decision the Liberals’ parliamentary partners in the NDP view as a major hole in a new vision to reduce financial supports for the lucrative industry whose products created the climate crisis.

On Monday, Environment Minister Steven Guilbeault unveiled the government’s long-anticipated method for deciding which types of “inefficient” fossil fuel subsidies it will ditch as promised by the end of 2023.

At a news conference in Montreal, Guilbeault said the government is looking at 129 potential subsidies and has identified several for elimination. He declined to say how much money those subsidies are worth, though one government source told the Star a “preliminary” analysis suggests the new framework could reduce public support for the fossil fuels sector by about $1 billion.

Yet some environmentalists and the opposition NDP raised questions about the plan, including its continued public supports for fossil fuel companies under a range of conditions. Alongside exceptions that include money that helps the industry reduce its greenhouse gas emissions, government officials confirmed Monday that the policy doesn’t target subsidies that apply generally to all sectors, like tax breaks for natural resource exploration and development.

Asked how these measures could remain accessible to the fossil fuel sector under the plan, Guilbeault said the government intends to eliminate subsidies targeted directly at the fossil fuel sector that give it an “economic advantage” to produce more oil, gas or coal. The goal is to stop public money from financing that production, he said.

“This is a fundamental shift from what we’ve done in this country for decades,” said Guilbeault, who described Canada as the first G20 country to develop a framework to eliminate fossil fuel subsidies.

“We’re eliminating subsidies to produce fossil fuels in Canada, whether it’s oil, gas or coal, unless those subsidies are aimed at decarbonizing the emissions of this sector,” he said.

The plan was first promised back in 2009 as part of a joint commitment with G20 countries to phase out fossil fuel subsidies in the “medium term.” It is also part of the government’s supply and confidence agreement with the opposition New Democrats, and the two parties held talks on the framework to eliminate some fossil fuel subsidies for the past several months.

One senior NDP official close to those negotiations expressed frustration that the Liberals weren’t willing to go further. The source noted that the plan allows for tax breaks to continue for measures that don’t “solely” support the fossil fuel sector, including tax breaks for exploration and development of natural resources.

“To us, it doesn’t meet the bar, considering we are in a climate emergency,” said the source, who agreed to speak on condition they aren’t named.

In an emailed statement, Lisa Baiton, the president of the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, said the industry is “generally aligned” with the framework released Monday and that it is “pleased to see the recognition” that the government will continue helping it reduce emissions through technology.

“As long as the world needs oil and natural gas, it should be loweremission, Canadian energy,” Baiton said.

Environmentalists also generally welcomed the framework, though some raised concerns that it doesn’t go far enough.

Laura Cameron, a policy adviser with the International Institute for Sustainable Development, called the new framework a “significant step forward,” but said there are still “gaps” that would allow public money to support oil and gas production. Julia Levin, associate director at the group Environmental Defence, said the framework is an “important milestone” that could ensure government spending is aligned with Canada’s goals to significantly reduce national emissions, even though there are still “problematic loopholes.” And Greenpeace’s Keith Stewart said in a statement that all government subsidies for the sector should be eliminated “in an era of both record-breaking climate disasters and oil industry profits.”

Those profits include billions of dollars in tax breaks the government expects to give fossil fuel companies that spend money to develop technology that prevents greenhouse gas emissions from oil and gas development from going into the atmosphere and contributing to global warming. The Trudeau Liberals also bought the Trans Mountain oil pipeline system in 2018, and are overseeing public financing of the expected $30.9 billion cost of its expansion.

The framework announced Monday would not eliminate either of those supports. Instead, it would target measures that “disproportionately” benefit the fossil fuel sector, or only support the industries’ activities. It also targets measures that support the consumption of fossil fuels.

The government says it is already eliminating or has scrapped nine fossil fuel subsidies, including ending some tax breaks and the ongoing phase-out of tax deductions through “flow-through shares” for oil and gas companies.

But there are a number of exceptions that will allow government supports to continue if certain conditions are met. That includes if financial supports enable “significant” emissions reductions, support clean or renewable energy, or provide “essential energy service to a remote community.”

Other exceptions include supports for “short-term” emergencies, Indigenous participation in fossil fuel activities or for the “abated” production of oil and gas — meaning projects that use technology to prevent emissions from staying in the air. The framework also says subsidies can continue for oil and gas production that includes a “credible” plan to become carbonneutral by 2030.

On Monday, the government also said it would create a plan by the fall of 2024 to eliminate other public financing of Canada’s fossil fuel sector. In 2021, the Liberals promised the government would eliminate financing of the sector through Crown corporations like Export Development Canada, which has given billions of dollars in loans and credit guarantees to the industry, including for controversial projects like the Trans Mountain expansion project and Coastal GasLink pipeline in northern British Columbia.

Asked about this financing Monday, Guilbeault said Crown corporations are already decreasing how much money they provide to the fossil fuel sector.

“That’s what the transition looks like: you phase out one thing that you don’t want, and you phase in something that you really want. That’s exactly what we’re doing,” he said.

According to Environmental Defence, which has tracked fossil fuel companies’ profits, major oil and gas firms with operations in Canada posted almost $40 billion in profit in 2022 — more than double their results from the previous year.

This article was written by Bob Weber and was published in the Toronto Star on July 23, 2023.

As firefighters and other first responders battle an unprecedented summer of fires, floods, tornadoes and heat waves around the country, a group of Canadian scientists are asking why they’re happening in the first place.

“May and June were record hot months in Canada and we’ve got the record wildfire season as well,” said Nathan Gillett of Environment and Climate Change Canada. “Yes, it has been busy.”

Gillett heads the Rapid Extreme Event Attribution Project, a new federal program that uses the growing field of attribution science to promptly establish to what extent — if any — a specific flood in British Columbia or wildfire in Quebec is due to climate change.

“The idea is to be able to make rapid extreme event attribution days or weeks after the extreme events occur,” he said.

Twenty years ago, if you’d asked a scientist if climate change was linked to days of rain or months of desiccating drought, you’d probably get an answer along the lines of “We can’t say for sure but this event is consistent with the modelling.”

But in 2003, a paper was published suggesting science could do better. Myles Allen of Oxford University borrowed a concept from epidemiology. “You can say that smoking increases your risk of lung cancer by a certain amount,” Gillett said. “In the same way, you can say human-induced climate change increased the risk of a certain event by a certain amount.”

Since then, hundreds of attribution papers have been peer-reviewed and published. As well as Canada, governments including the United Kingdom, Australia, the Netherlands, South Korea, Japan and the United States are using attribution science.

Attribution science works by comparing climate models. One set of models will use data drawn from actual records while another, otherwise identical, set will be constructed with the influence of greenhouse gases removed.

Simulations will be run using those two sets and the difference in the results reveals the impact of climate change. It allows scientists to say to what extent the presence of greenhouse gases increased the likelihood of the event in question. “It’s probabilistic,” Gillett said. The process is now established enough, with peer-reviewed protocols and standards, that the calculations can be done quickly.

“Once you’ve got the method in place and it’s validated, you really just have to get the observations from that event and you can provide a result,” said Gillett.

Some events are easier to study than others. Gillett said his group hopes to be able to come to conclusions on heat waves in about a week, but wildfires, which involve more variables, will take longer.

Speed matters, said Clair Barnes, a researcher with the World Weather Attribution group in the U.K., which has studied the role of climate change since 2015 in more than 50 events around the world — including the finding that the heat wave preceding the fire that levelled Lytton, B.C., was made 150 times more likely by climate change. “Our aim is to look at high-impact events that are in the news,” she said.

“There was an appetite in the public and the media for more information about what’s really happening now.”

Attribution science does have its limitations. It can only work where there’s enough historical weather data to build an accurate climate model. That leaves out much of the global south, where some of the worst human impacts are occurring. As well, extremely local events are often beyond its resolving power.

The idea is to be able to make rapid extreme event attribution days or weeks after the extreme events occur. NATHAN GILLETT ENVIRONMENTAND CLIMATE CHANGE CANADA

Homeowners can take one simple step to help go green

This article was written by Howard Akler and was published in the Toronto Star on July 22, 2023.

By the first week of June, Canada lost four million hectares to wildfires. In the first week of July, the world recorded its four hottest days ever. The existential threat of climate change has forced many to reconsider all manners of consumption. Some are trying to eat more plant-based foods. Others taking fewer car trips. In real estate, where much talk is of the market heating up or cooling down, those words might be more importantly applied to the homes themselves.

“A lot of people don’t realize how much this contributes to our overall carbon footprint,” says How-Sen Chong, of the non-profit Toronto Environmental Alliance (TEA). “Heating and cooling from the building sector makes up more than 60 per cent of greenhouse gas emissions in Toronto.”

Many households looking to reduce their carbon footprint often start with small energy-efficient solutions, such as upgrading attic insulation and resealing windows and doors. But, in truth, nothing can decarbonize a house as much as swapping out a gas furnace for an electric alternative.

“We tell our clients that the first thing to do is get off natural gas, and, after that, financially-speaking, go as big as you comfortably can,” says Melodie Coneybeare, senior architect at Solares Architecture, a business that specializes in sustainable homes.

Air-source heat pumps are becoming more appealing for many homeowners, with over 700,000 units in use across the country, according to Natural Resources Canada (NRC). An air-source heat pump absorbs ambient heat in the outside air and pushes it back inside to warm up the house. NRC studies show there is enough heat in -18C air to provide 85 per cent of warmth needed to maintain indoor temperature at a cosy 21C. Heat pumps also act as an air-conditioner, drawing warm air out of the house in the summer months. And, because it simply moves heat, rather than generating it, the heat pump is incredibly efficient, cutting energy use in half. Costs vary depending on brand and size, but it can add up to to anywhere between $15,000 to $25,000 for purchase and installation. Those on more constrained budgets tend to opt for a hybrid version, which relies on a gas furnace only when the mercury is consistently below -5oC. This system, at about $3,000, can still reduce overall gas consumption 40 per cent.

All the numbers can make for messy calculations. Upfront capital costs, partially offset by government grants, need to be checked against long-term operational savings, which, in turn, are influenced by the volatile cost of gas and the steady rise of carbon pricing.

One Solares client surprised himself by going all-electric. When Nuno Ferreira was thinking about building a laneway house behind his parents’ Trinity Bellwoods home, his focus wasn’t on his carbon footprint. He and his wife, Joana Quiterio, simply wanted their two young children to grow up close to their grandparents. But, when they looked over the engineer’s report, which calculated a heat pump would result in a 70per-cent reduction in GHG emissions compared to a gas furnace, the choice of appliance factored in their decisions.

“Looking at heat pumps wasn’t our top priority, to be honest. But, the more we talked about it, the more it made sense.”

The family moved into their twostorey, 1,200-square-foot home in March 2021. They pay $300 more each year in utilities than if they relied on gas, but Ferreira says the extra cost is definitely worth it.

“Our kids have a home with clean air.”

Beyond appliances are larger holistic options, such as the net zero home, which produces as much energy as it consumes, can cost an additional $60,000 on top of the house’s base price.

And, of course, hanging over every choice is the capacity of Ontario’s power grid. The Independent Electricity Systems Operator (IESO) reports that demand will increase 1.7 per cent annually, meaning the province’s current supply can meet its needs until the mid-2030s. In the meantime, the Ford government, which cancelled 758 renewable energy projects in 2018, has been scrambling to get ready for the upcoming surge. Two months ago, the IESO announced the grid, among the cleanest in the world, will help bridge the gap by relying on a two-to-four-per-cent increase in gas use over the next few years.

Despite this, TEA’s Chong is encouraged by the commitment he’s seen from individuals and communities.

“I’ve been working on climate issues for 20 years, and, despite the heat domes and the wildfires and everything else, I can honestly say I’ve never been more optimistic.”

This article was written by the Canadian Press and was published in the Globe & Mail on July 25, 2023.

Ottawa is restricting the conditions under which it will allow subsidies to the fossil-fuel industry, but is leaving untouched – for now – the industry’s largest source of public financing.

On Monday, Environment Minister Steven Guilbeault released six rules that are now to shape how Canada supports the industry.

“What we’re eliminating are federal supports that are directed to the oil and gas sector, and gives the oil and gas sector an economic advantage,” Mr. Guilbeault said in Montreal.

Subsidies will be allowed if they support clean energy. Companies that reduce their greenhouse-gas emissions or have a credible plan to achieve net-zero by 2030 could also be supported.

Subsidies aiding Indigenous involvement in the industry will continue, as will those that support service to a remote community or form part of an emergency response.

The federal Liberals will also permit subsidies that align with Article 6 of the Paris Agreement, which allows countries to claim carbon credits for providing fuels capable of lowering the carbon footprint of another country.

Mr. Guilbeault said 129 tax and non-tax measures were examined as the guidelines were set up. He couldn’t provide a figure for how much financing would be affected, saying it’s impossible to predict how many applications the government would have had from industry.

A government official, speaking on background, said government programs that could be affected by the guidelines control about $1-billion in public money.

Monday’s announcement does not affect public money that flows through Crown corporations such as Export Development Canada – the source of the majority of government subsidies to the sector.

Julia Levin of Environmental Defence said her group calculated that about $19-billion in financing for fossil fuels flowed through Export Development Canada in 2022. That’s compared with about $2-billion that came from other sources.

Mr. Guilbeault promised rules restricting Crown investments in fossil-fuel development will come next year.

Still, Ms. Levin and other environmentalists praised Monday’s announcement.

“There’salottobepraisedandthereareproblematicbitsas well.”

She wanted to see more information on how the guidelines will be implemented and enforced across government departments.

Laura Cameron of the International Institute for Sustainable Development said, “We see this as a big moment to celebrate.”

However, she was concerned about the space left open for public finance of carbon capture and storage projects.

Ms. Cameron said such projects are too expensive and take too long to build to contribute much to the fight against climate change.

As well, she noted that carbon capture and storage only addressesoilandgasemissionsfromproduction– notthe80per cent of the carbon from a barrel of oil that’s released when it’s burned.

“Carbon capture and storage is not net zero,” she said.

As extreme temperatures challenge records across the globe, we chart a day in the life of a heatwave, from morning in Japan to evening in the United States

This article was written by Gavin Blair in Tokyo, Amy Hawkins in London, Hazem Balousha in Gaza, Lorenzo Tondo in Palermo and Gabrielle Canon in Oakland, and was published in The Guardian on July 20, 2023.

This opinion was written by Marsha Lederman and was published in the Globe & Mail on July 22, 2023.

If record-setting wildfires and heat waves don’t convince climate-change deniers, what will?

If there is a climate-change skeptic in your life, you might be looking forward to your next get-together, so you can present all the evidence this horrible summer is providing. This has been the worst wildfire season on record in many places, including British Columbia and Alberta.

Unprecedented heat waves and wildfires across North America, Europe and Asia have killed people, destroyed homes, and often made living conditions unbearable.

Perhaps you’ll be too weighed down by a justified existential crisis to gloat over cocktails with your naysaying friend. If not, you can still tell them the scientists have spoken: Human-caused climate change is heating up the planet. Paired with the return of El Nino this year, the results have been disastrous.

The fire season started early in Canada, devastating Nova Scotia, of all places, and so many other areas across the country since. There were nearly 900 wildfires burning across Canada this week. The Canadian Armed Forces arrived in B.C., joining international firefighters, as officials declared 2023 the worst wildfire season on record in terms of area burned.

The B.C. Coroners Service issued a health alert after a nine year-old boy from the community of 100 Mile House died last week of a severe asthma attack. It was exacerbated by wildfire smoke, his family said. Two firefighters have died battling blazes in Canada this month in B.C. and the Northwest Territories.

As my colleague Jane Skrypnek reported this week, fires have incinerated close to 110,000 square kilometres of land – the equivalent of three Vancouver Islands. The resulting smoke has prompted about 2,500 air quality bulletins since April 1, said Environment Canada.

Smoke from Canada’s wildfires invaded the U.S. for the second time this fire season (get used to that term, “fire season”) – reaching as far south as Georgia and North Carolina this time. “Canadian wildfire smoke puts around 70 million U.S. residents under air quality alerts,” read one CNN headline this week. Phoenix set a new U.S. record on Wednesday for most consecutive days at 110 degrees Fahrenheit (43.3 Celsius) or higher – 19 straight days – and the dangerously hot conditions are continuing. In Texas, more than two-thirds of its 130,000 inmates are housed in sweltering, unairconditioned prisons amid triple digit temperatures. Inmates are dying as a result, according to family members and advocates. In Florida this week, the ocean water around Key Biscayne was so hot it felt “almost gooey” to swimmers.

This is very bad for the economy as well. According to Forbes, extreme heat could cost the U.S. economy US$100-billion annually – with impacts on not just health care, but also infrastructure and transportation.

In Europe, high temperatures and dry conditions have caused wildfires in Greece, where officials had to close the Acropolis for a time. There are heat warnings across Italy and Spain. In Basra, Iraq, government work was suspended on Thursday as temperatures hit 50 degrees. Record-setting temperatures above 50 have also been recorded this week in China.

Back home, the community of Lytton, B.C., is still talking about rebuilding more than two years after the town was razed by a wildfire amid a heat dome that ultimately killed more than 600 people in the province.

In so many places in the Northern Hemisphere this summer, high temperatures have made outdoor life impossible, from construction sites to playgrounds – where children should be able to go down the slide without the potential for sustaining thermal burns.

At no point should these stories become everyday. And yet in this summer of our discontent, we are hearing them every day. It is essential that we listen. This new normal is abnormal – and it is deadly.

And yet, we still have deniers, including people in positions of influence who would belittle those who are doing what they can to force change. “Environmental alarmism is the religion of children, a sandbox for narcissists,” Rex Murphy wrote of climate activists in the National Post this spring. I don’t think vandalizing artwork is a good idea either, but “environmental alarmism”? If you’re not alarmed, one has to wonder: are you awake?

We should be marching in the streets, as Arno Kopecky wrote this week in The Globe and Mail. “This summer, after 20 years of writing about climate change and seven years of being a father, the magnitude of events finally caught up to me,” wrote Mr. Kopecky, whose most recent book is The Environmentalist’s Dilemma: Promise and Peril in an Age of Climate Crisis. He is urging others to join him in September’s planned March to End Fossil Fuels.

It can feel futile – I get it. But despair alone is not an option. Accompany it with debate, protest, action. Invest and shop ethically (if you can), ride your bike to work (if it’s not too hot), eat more sustainably, argue with that climate-change denier at the family barbecue. The time to swelter in silence is over.

This article was written by John Woodside and was published in Canada’s National Observer on July 19, 2023.

This article was written by John Woodside and was published in Canada’s National Observer on July 20, 2023.