Hamilton 350

The catastrophic fires in Los Angeles are a stark warning to Hamiltonians that climate change is real and getting rapidly worse. Climate breakdown drove the annual global temperature above the internationally agreed 1.5C target for the first time last year, supercharging extreme weather and causing “misery to millions of people”. It can devastate even wealthy cities, not just the global south. 

It’s a lesson we should have learned with the destruction of Fort McMurray in Alberta forcing the evacuation of its more than 80,000 residents. It should have also been obvious last summer when Jasper went up in flames in a few hours. 

And while we’ve so far avoided catastrophic fires here in Hamilton, we’ve tasted the smoke more than once and suffered some of the toxic air that cuts our lifespan. The 2023 wildfires across the country burned far more than any previous year, six times the average. But last year actually torched the second largest amount of forest without much media attention.

Los Angeles is a stark example that most of our homes, especially the newer ones, are a bonfire waiting to happen. Canadian journalist John Valliant, the acclaimed author of Fire Weather, a detailed account of the Fort McMurray fire, warned this week that “if you start looking around at your home, you’ll realize that petroleum and its products are everywhere. And these are really, really flammable.” He points to “vinyl siding and Formica counters and polyurethane stuffing and the rubber tires and the gas tanks in the garage”. These and other materials resulted in nothing left but the foundations in five minutes.

The extreme weather that has driven the Los Angeles fires has been felt repeatedly in southern Ontario, especially with regards to flooding. Last year, the Toronto area and parts of Burlington were inundated several times. The costs were added up at the end of December by insurance officials: “Extreme weather hit Canada hard in 2024, setting a record of $8.1 billion in insurable claims, coupled with an additional $24 billion in uninsurable damage incurred by governments, businesses and individuals.” 

They went on to explain that “just over 10 years ago, insurable losses in Canada hovered around $700 million a year, less than 1/10th of this year’s claims. These more recent effects are the tail end of a longer-term trend – 40 years ago, Canada experienced 20 natural disasters a decade, which have now grown to 138.”

Climate leader Bill McKibben warns that the California fires, like the hurricanes in Florida last fall, put enormous strains on the property insurance system we all depend on. “The great casualty in the month’s ahead may be the insurance system of the world’s fifth biggest economy, which is going to buckle under the strain of these losses,” he predicted. We all will pay.

And there’s more to come. “These fires are an especially acute example of something climate scientists have been warning about for decades: compound climate disasters that, when they occur simultaneously, produce much more damage than they would individually,” says prominent American meteorologist Eric Holthaus.

Vaillant points to “a real moral cowardice” from governments, media and the corporate elite who have failed to deal with “the buildup of heat-trapping carbon dioxide and methane” from the burning of oil, coal and natural gas. “This kind of blind — frankly, suicidal — loyalty to the status quo of keeping fossil fuels preeminent in our energy system is creating an increasingly difficult situation and unlivable situation.” 

In it’s article “Here are some fantastically uplifting stories from 2024“, The Hamilton Spectator highlighted the activities of “the Dundas Four”, Hamilton 350’s elders who were arrested at the RBC branch in Dundas in March this year.

Here’s an extract from the article:

Aged agitators take on banks and big oil

A group of seniors, canes in hand, left court in November after pleading guilty to trespassing; each fined $250 for an act of civil disobedience. The climate activists — calling themselves the Dundas Four — were arrested protesting RBC’s investment in oil companies inside the King and Sydenham branch in March. The manager asked them to leave. They politely refused.

The Dundas Four — three of them pictured here — pleaded guilty to trespassing during a climate change protest. 

Developers are clearly worried that Hamilton’s firm urban boundary is going to affect their projected profit windfalls. See the story Developers want Hamilton mayor to help fast-track urban-expansion project in The Hamilton Spectator, 20 December 2024.

As “Nancy”, one of the commenters in the article, puts it:

“Land speculators who are attempting to force the expansion of Hamilton’s Urban boundary onto Prime farmland would profit enormously from expansion if their land holdings get converted from rural to urban zoning thru an MZO. Hamilton taxpayers and would be home buyers would be the losers.

“Hamilton currently has a 3.8 billion dollar gap in infrastructure spending. Our roads, bridges, water mains, sewers, rec centers are all crumbling because we do not have the money or tax base to pay for our already sprawling infrastructure.

“The way out of this mess is to build middle density housing in existing neighbourhoods all across the city, which is what will be achieved through recent city-wide zoning changes. Adding more tax paying residents to existing neighbourhoods not only boosts the tax base but promotes renewal of existing, aging infrastructure without the need to build more roads, sewers Etc and add to that 3.8 billion dollar deficit.”

Remember also that this kind of development is precisely what the Ford Conservatives had in mind when they rammed Bill 165 (the absurdly named “Keeping Energy Costs Down” Act) through against the recommendation of the OEB. Rather than seizing the opportunity to look to the future and supply new subdivisions with cleaner, cheaper energy through heat pumps, Enbridge would be subsidized to install soon-to-be obsolete fossil gas pipelines at the expense of all Enbridge customers, with developers providing gas furnaces in new builds.

From time to time, one comes across an article that, while not necessarily offering new information, sums up what we already know in a powerful and concise manner.

In one such piece in The Guardian on December 20, The facts about a planet facing climate disaster are clear, former UK prime minister Jeremy Corbyn states that Labour [insert your particular government here] seems gripped by a form of denialism and that the danger is real and incremental change won’t avert it.

The article is worth a read.

In an article in the Toronto Star on December 6, former federal minister of environment and climate change, Catherine McKenna claimed that “as environment minister, I believed the oil sands sector would help us save the planet”.

While most of us in the climate movement may be shaking our heads in wonder at such a statement, she does go on to admit that “I was wrong” and to publish an important statement on oil and gas industry’s greenwashing and short-sighted, self-interested greed. 

For those people not able to access the original article, we’re publishing the full text below.

As environment minister, I believed the oil sands sector would help us save the planet. I was wrong.

Catherine McKenna, CEO of Climate and Nature Solutions and chair of the United Nations expert group on net-zero.
Special to the Toronto Star, 6 December 2024

In May 2016, I was leading intense negotiations between the federal government and the provinces and territories to secure Canada’s first national climate plan. Suddenly, the news was everywhere: wildfires were raging out of control in Alberta, and headed straight for Fort McMurray — the heart of Canada’s oil sands production. The news was devastating: flames jumping rivers, homes and businesses incinerated, and more than 80,000 residents forced to evacuate. Firefighters and other emergency responders did everything they could but were soon outmatched. Fort McMurray would be engulfed — at once causing immense hardship and also showing Canadians the visceral and unpredictable danger of our dependency on fossil fuels.

In that moment, it felt like an unlikely consensus had emerged. The federal government, most provinces and even oil sands companies had seemingly come to understand that Canada had for too long been a laggard on climate and that for both environmental and economic reasons we needed to make meaningful promises on reducing our greenhouse gas emissions and to actually meet them.

In 2015, at COP 21 in Paris, I could already see the world changing as Rachel Notley’s government put forward Alberta’s first credible climate plan. Standing with environmentalists and First Nations leaders, as well as oil sands companies, Premier Notley announced a provincial cap on oil sands emissions, a tax on carbon, a phase out of coal-fired power, and a methane-reduction strategy. She was clear that these measures were key to Alberta’s doing its part to tackle climate change while creating the incentive for the oil sands to innovate and be more competitive globally.

Amazingly, the chairman of Canadian Natural Resources Limited, Murray Edwards, spoke enthusiastically on behalf of the oil sands industry at the press conference: “(w)e applaud Premier Notley for giving us … the position of leadership on climate policy.”

Over the next four years, I worked very hard to collaborate with the oil sands sector. I really believed that the environment and the economy could go hand-in-hand and include a vibrant oil and gas sector. I was convinced that we could reduce emissions from the oil sands as part of an ambitious climate plan, finally showing to the world that Canada was committed to meeting our targets and doing our part to tackle the climate crisis.

It turns out the consensus was a mirage. Or, more accurately, a sham. Maybe it shouldn’t have surprised me that our industry partners were working against us from the inside. After all, oil is their business, their bottom line. It was only after I left politics that I came to understand the truth: The oil sands sector and the politicians they sponsor aren’t just greenwashing a product. They are working to brainwash Canadians into buying a version of reality that no longer exists. One where oil will forever be the hero of the Canadian economy rather than an impediment to Canada’s future prosperity in a low carbon, climate-safe world.

***

Perhaps this sham was never clearer to me than on a Saturday morning in the fall of 2022. I was doing what I always do on weekends, reading the newspaper and enjoying a cup of coffee. But what I saw that morning nearly made me spit out my drink: a full-page advertisement from the Pathways Alliance, a coalition of the country’s six largest oil sands producers.

The ad boldly claimed that these companies were making “clear strides to net-zero” and would “help our country achieve a sustainable future.” Soon, I started seeing a version of this ad everywhere: on my Air Canada flight, on bus shelters, on YouTube, and even during the Super Bowl. Whenever I googled “net zero”, the Pathways Alliance popped up.

Let’s be clear about the facts. Unlike other sectors in Canada which are reducing their emissions as part of a national effort to decarbonize our economy and become more competitive, emissions from oil and gas are only increasing. This is a massive problem. Oil and gas is by far Canada’s most polluting sector, at 30 per cent of our overall emissions while making up only one twentieth of our GDP. Emissions from the oil sands specifically rose by a whopping 142 per cent since 2005. There is no chance that Canada can live up to our international obligations under the Paris Agreement — the world’s best chance of avoiding catastrophic climate change — without the oil sands finally delivering significant emissions reductions like everyone else.

The irony of this ad campaign was not lost on me. After leaving politics, I was asked by the United Nations Secretary-General to chair an international expert group to combat greenwashing — companies promoting false solutions to the climate crisis that distract from and delay action. As the Secretary-General stated, “We cannot afford slow movers, fake movers, or any form of greenwashing.” Our report, Integrity Matters, presented at COP 27 in Egypt, established clear global standards for net zero pledges and drew a red line around greenwashing.

And yet, here I was, staring at the Pathways Alliance’s blatant greenwashing campaign.

You would have thought that when the oil sands industry made historic profits over the past few years they would have reinvested that windfall in clean energy solutions. After all, their product is not only carbon-intensive, but also expensive to produce. You’d think they’d have seen the need to clean up their act to compete in a low-carbon future. But you would be wrong. Sure, oil sands companies invested a small fraction of their money in clean technology — enough to say they had — but mostly they chose business as usual, returning the vast majority of their historic profits to shareholders largely outside of Canada, rewarding their CEOs with bonuses of $10 million dollars or more, and ramping up production while increasing their emissions.

Worse still, they continue to demand that governments cough up even more taxpayer-funded subsidies to “clean up” their pollution.

Oil sands companies are taking us for fools.

Only now and much too late are they starting to be held to account for their greenwashing. Greenpeace and other environmental groups have called out the Pathways Alliance to the Competition Bureau, which is investigating their misleading claims.

This June the federal government passed new anti-greenwashing rules, which resulted in the Pathways Alliance and oil sands companies preemptively removing their climate claims from their websites and social media. It seems they couldn’t handle the new truth in advertising rules.

***

I understand how persuasive these companies can be. As environment minister, I bought into the idea that tighter regulations and technological advances like carbon capture and storage (CCS) would allow us to continue developing the oil sands while being serious about climate action. I also believed that working with Alberta to help diversify their economy would require compromise.

Yes, I found the government’s decision to buy the Trans Mountain pipeline a bitter pill to swallow. But I rationalized it by telling myself that it was in the national interest and was the price of bringing Albertans onside with Canada’s climate plan.

Over time I started to have serious doubts, about both the pipeline and our conciliatory approach to the oil sands sector more broadly. They started when I learned that Conservative politicians and oil sands companies were spreading rumours that we bought the pipeline in order to kill it. Give me a break. (Today I wish we hadn’t bought it at all. As I watched the $4.5 billion purchase price balloon to the $34 billion spent to date, as I came to realize that not only will taxpayer dollars probably never be recouped, but also that Canadians will likely be left with a very expensive stranded asset, I came to regret not pushing back harder.)

It’s also come to light recently that the epic fight led by the Conservatives to kill carbon pricing that I found myself embroiled in, especially online, was supported and significantly underwritten by oil and gas companies. The campaign to discredit carbon pricing by falsely claiming it raised the cost of living — when, in fact, it benefits most Canadians — was amplified by rage-farming outlets, bots and social media algorithms.

It became increasingly obvious to me that the oil sands sector, along with their cheerleaders in the Alberta government and the federal Conservative Party, have no intention of making the fundamental changes required to align with the global shift toward a low-carbon economy.

Unlike Progressive Conservatives like Brian Mulroney, and even recent conservative leader Erin O’Toole, who understood the need for an economically sound strategy to protect the environment for future generations, today’s Conservative politicians are at war with the very idea of meaningful climate action. Their opposition isn’t scientific or even economic: it is pure ideology.

It was only after I finished my time in government and was able to step back that I could see the balance we were trying to strike couldn’t hold. As painful — and criticized — as the compromises we struck were, I was convinced that in a diverse federation such as ours it was crucial to keep everyone in the tent. But compromise has to go both ways. And you can’t find productive compromise with ideologues hell-bent on trying to preserve the status quo while the world moves on.

***

The sham of cooperation has delivered great fortune to the oil sands and come at a great cost to the rest of us.

The urgency of the climate crisis has never been clearer and at the same time the world is undergoing a rapid transition to clean energy. Global CO2 emissions are set to hit a record high this year, with the bulk of the emissions from the burning of fossil fuels. The UN’s Emissions Gap Report shows that if we continue on our current path, global temperatures will rise by over 3°C or more by the end of the century, leading to catastrophic consequences.

This is a particular disaster for Canada, which is warming at nearly twice the global average. We are on track for temperature increases of 5 to 6°C — an unthinkable outcome. Imagine endless summers of boreal fires threatening communities and filling our air with smoke, torrential rainfalls that wash away buildings and cars, punishing heatwaves that kill our most vulnerable, huge chunks of our coastline falling into the sea, an ice-free Arctic.

We’ve already seen the devastating impacts of climate change: extreme drought in Alberta, catastrophic wildfires in British Columbia, historic flooding in Eastern Canada and deadly heat waves. In 2023 alone, Canada experienced over $3 billion in insured losses due to extreme weather events. These are not anomalies — they are the new normal. And they are happening because of our continued reliance on fossil fuels.

The good news is that the world is undergoing a massive trillion-dollar clean energy revolution which is quickly reducing our reliance on fossil fuels. The International Energy Agency (IEA) projects that global oil demand will peak by 2030 largely due to the exponential growth in electric vehicles, as well as the growth in renewable energy and government policies.

China, the world’s largest emitter, has likely already peaked its emissions and is leading the world in renewable energy investment. In fact, China is building the equivalent of a large solar farm every day, and half of all electric vehicles sold globally are now produced there.

Meanwhile, the United States, through the Inflation Reduction Act, is investing billions into clean energy solutions, leaving Canada lagging far behind.

The shift to a global “age of electricity” as the Executive Director of the International Energy Agency, Fatih Birol, calls it, is a huge opportunity for Canada with our vast natural resources in hydro, solar and wind. Canada also has an opportunity to leverage our manufacturing and technological expertise to meet the demand for clean, efficient technologies. Our vast reserves of critical minerals are essential to new electric vehicles, batteries and renewable energy infrastructure. And then there are the jobs: Clean Energy Canada estimates that by 2030, the clean energy transition could create up to 400,000 new jobs, far surpassing existing positions in the oil and gas sector.

But the energy transition also presents a huge risk to Canada’s economy if we don’t change. With an oversupply of oil driving prices down, the first barrels to go will be those that are the most costly to produce and the most polluting — the oil sands fall into that category. Oil sands defenders tell us that the proposed federal cap on oil and gas will bring nothing but economic ruin. But the opposite is true. Without taking serious action now to decarbonize and invest in the clean transition, it is likely that Canadians will be saddled with billions in stranded oil sands assets, a hugely expensive clean-up operation, lost jobs and devastated communities.

Of course, the Alberta government, federal Conservative politicians and big business lobbyists are already taking the second Trump presidency as proof that, yet again, this isn’t the right time to reduce emissions in the oil and gas sector. That is the exact wrong lesson to take. The fact that Trump is committed to doubling down on fossil fuels in the face of an accelerating climate crisis is all the more reason for Canada to work urgently with like-minded countries committed to climate action. Plus, the world has changed since the first Trump presidency: the global economic landscape has shifted drastically. It’s worth remembering that when Trump was elected the first time, he promised to revive coal in the US. But he couldn’t fight the economics of clean energy and his plan went nowhere. Canada’s long-term prosperity hinges on moving away from fossil fuels and shifting to clean energy, regardless of who occupies the White House.

There’s no getting around it: Canada is going to have to change. The market will insist on it. The question is whether we get dragged into the future saddled with stranded assets and unfunded liabilities or whether we lead, working together to make the transition as painless — and lucrative — as possible.

***

The oil sands sector has been lying to us for years. They are not getting cleaner. They are not part of the solution. As I tell my kids all the time, life is about choices. Canada can choose to be on the right side of history. We can act with the urgency the climate crisis requires and the economic case makes clear. Or, we can double down on the oil sands, abandon the Paris Agreement, ignore the economic opportunities of clean energy, and leave our children a deadly and unsustainable future.

The Hamilton 350 steering committee is in solidarity with the Wet’suwet’en land defenders who are on the front
lines of climate and biodiversity action. They are in court after defending their own lands against Coastal Gas
Links (CGL) and the “Community Industry Response Group” of the RCMP.

We understand that CGL rammed its pipeline through Wet’suwet’en traditional territories that are under the
authority of the traditional Confederacy Chiefs. The only permission gained by CGL for putting this pipeline
through this territory has been granted by Wet’suwet’en band councils. Band councils were imposed on first
nations by the Federal Government in 1886 under the “Indian Act”.

The Chiefs and band council members operate under a colonial governance system and are only responsible for
reservation lands, having no authority over the rest of the traditional territory. Without the permission of the
traditional Confederacy Chiefs, GCL and the RCMP are trespassing.

The land defenders’ actions illustrate the important distinction between traditional Indigenous practice,
protecting and sustaining biodiversity, versus the profit motivated activities of colonizers and their
corporations.

The crimes committed during the strife between CGL and the Wet’suwet’enland defenders are attributable to CGL
and the RCMP. As we continue down the spiral of human-caused climate change, we need to learn lessons from our
Indigenous sisters and brothers. Rather than squeezing every bit of profit out of our lands as we degrade the
land water and atmosphere, we need to learn to think 7 generations into the future.

If you would like to help, please consider the following options:

  1. Amplify their message and testimony!

    Reshare and boost posts by @yintah_access on Instagram and Gidimt’en Checkpoint (X and Facebook). Make
    posts using the hashtags: #WetsuwetenLandWetsuwetenLaw #DroptheCharges #AllOutForWedzinKwah

    Throughout this week you can also follow and retweet live-tweets from @AbolishCirg! This will include
    testimony from Shaylynn Sampson and Sleydo’ so make sure to keep an eye out.

  2. Publish an organizational letter of support.

    If you are part of a group or organization, consider writing a public letter of support for the land
    defenders testifying next week and circulate widely on your social media and networks. Let your
    followers and supporters know that you stand with the land defenders.

  3. Donate to the Wet’suwet’en Legal Defence Fund

    Legal defence for trials like these is expensive and time consuming, so donating is one way you can make
    sure that the land defenders can continue their struggle for their land, and for our collective future.
    Every dollar counts, and if you can’t donate yourself, think about sharing this request with someone who
    can.

  4. Provide in-person support!

    If you live near Smithers, BC, you can attend the trial in-person or join a support rally outside the
    courthouse. Gidimt’en Checkpoint is inviting supporters to attend the trial in-person at the Smithers
    Courthouse (9-4 pm each day). On June 21, celebrated in so-called Canada as National Indigenous Day, we
    will celebrate the end of one more week of survival at the Main Street stage at 5pm with food and music!

Hamilton 350 is a not-for-profit climate defence organization with several subcommittees, including the
Climate Justice action group. This letter was initiated by that action group and has the support of the H350
Steering Committee.

To mark Earth Day weekend, 22 April 2024, a number of supporters gathered outside the offices of MPPs Neil Lumsden and Donna Skelley.

Four members of Hamilton 350’s Elders 4 Climate Sanity (E4CS) were arrested inside the RBC branch in Dundas at the Stop Destroying Earth rally on 22 March. They are due to appear in court in April.

It took six police officers in five patrol cars to accomplish the arrest.

For more details and interviews with the fab four, see the Hamilton Spectator article, No one is too young or too old to be a climate activist, by Susan Clairmont, 2 April 2024.

You can also check out more images from the rally and the arrest.

Hamilton City Council today unanimously endorsed a motion supporting the OEB’s rejection of Enbridge’s proposed gas pipeline subsidy.

Enbridge’s proposal would shift the cost of building of new gas pipelines onto its customers. Doug Ford has threatened to overrule the OEB’s rejection.

See the motion and a supporting email from Environmental Defence. In addition, Hamilton 350 and Environment Hamilton sent this letter to City Council.

Hailing Biden’s decision to halt LNG export licences, McKibben explains the sleight of hand used in arguments by the fossil fuel industry that “natural” gas is an appropriate bridge from coal to renewables.

Read the story in The Guardian