In his twilight years, George Carlin, the acerbic post-hippie comedian whose vinyl classic Class Clown and its “Seven Words You Can Never Say on Television” pretty much defined my adolescence, took a dim view of humanity. “Think of how stupid the average person is,” he’d prod an audience, “and realize half of them are stupider than that.”
The latter referenced America’s post-Reagan conservatives, perpetually conned via various means of blame-laying, fear-mongering and simplistic sloganeering into voting against their own best interests. It was always good for a few laughs—albeit some nervous—as it would be today. That’s because absolutely nothing has changed. In fact, it has only gotten orders of magnitude worse.
So much so, according to an opinion piece in the Oct. 14 Toronto Star, that “A fringe party packed with conspiracy theorists could soon be leading one of Canada’s largest provinces.” Whoa! Actually, Double whoa! because that’s us. (Never mind the headline should have read “another one…” given the precedent-setting RWNJs leading Alberta and Saskatchewan.)
Sadly, it’s no exaggeration. One needn’t dig far to find BC Conservative Leader John Rustad claiming climate policies are a plot to “reduce the human population,” and the United Nations expects children to eat bugs. Given how conspiracy theories on everything from public health to elections have suddenly normalized lying in politics, such utterances clearly threaten democracy. Rightfully so, these would be naught but liability for a politician from any other party; with today’s conservatives, however, not so much.
In fact, the conservative candidate in this riding, perhaps uncomfortable with such mutterings, expended considerable energy trying to blunt what is clearly a matter of public record from his leader. He knows.
Make no mistake: while it may have consumed some of the cake-left-out-in-the-rain known as BC United (née the conservative-lite coalition deviously labelled “BC Liberals”), the BC Conservative Party is no centre-right alternative. By matching the MAGA-like rhetoric of the federal CPC’s focus on affordability, crime and (misplaced) government culpability for multiple global crises, it is absolutely a far-right party populated by numerous questionable candidates (did they throw out that Islamophobic guy yet?) with 1950s dreams of lumberjacks and coal miners, punch-clocks and lunch pails, a fantasy world of delusion that will see climate emissions soar and key ecological resources like old growth vaporize.
And there’s no delusion the Cons will embrace greater than the scam of LNG. Hell, even part of the progressive vote (yes, you Dippers) has fallen for the fallacious “bridge fuel” narrative. I say fallacious because, though we’ve known for a decade (the information was lied about—er, suppressed—by both industry and governments), a major study released last week conclusively demonstrates how exported LNG produces far worse emissions than—wait for it—demon coal. The research challenges what we’ve been told ad nauseum—that shipping LNG to eager, climate-conscious global clients is, for environment-minded British Columbians, a conscience-cleansing alternative to allowing those buyers to burn what Charlie Brown finds in his Christmas stocking every year.
Though I won’t get into the weeds (but you can by following this link), here’s the gist: LNG comes largely from shale gas, whose production (via fracking), liquefaction and transportation is, at each stage, energy-intensive (like, megatons of emissions)—as well as an emitter of megatons of methane. Consequently, CO2 from end-use combustion contributes a mere 34 per cent of the total LNG greenhouse gas footprint; upstream/midstream methane emissions are indeed the largest contributor at 38 per cent. “The idea that coal is worse for the climate is mistaken—LNG has a larger greenhouse gas footprint than any other fuel,” said author Robert Howarth, an environmental scientist at Cornell University. “To think we should be shipping around this gas as a climate solution is just plain wrong. It’s greenwashing from oil and gas companies.”
But don’t let facts get in the way of a good story—the NDP isn’t, and you can bet the Cons won’t either. In fact, if they follow Trump’s blueprint from 2016, as I’ll bet a case of Surveyor IPA on, they’ll double-down in the same way that instantly made the U.S. the world’s largest exporter of methane—er, LNG.
They will also doubtless turn their backs on those making the case for sane, readily adaptable energy plans. Ahead of the election, for instance, the hardworking Pembina Institute launched A Clean, Resilient Future: Recommendations for Advancing British Columbia’s Net-Zero Energy Economy, roadmap for doing so. “With a coherent energy plan that recognizes that climate policy is economic policy, B.C.’s next government will be able to fulfil the rich promise of the low-carbon future,” said Pembina director Chris Severson-Baker.
The report’s authors, Jessica McIlroy and Betsy Agar, also argue that despite showing climate leadership, B.C. cannot afford to become complacent. “B.C. is not competing against its fellow provinces for climate change accolades,” said McIlroy, “it is competing in a global marketplace for a share of the investment in a net-zero economy.”
For a government that will listen, the report has recommendations in eight major policy areas: create an energy plan aligned with B.C.’s climate-plan resources; support zero-emissions transportation; promote climate-resilient buildings; address embodied carbon (e.g., concrete); grow clean electricity; reduce oil and gas emissions; support clean energy in remote and Indigenous communities; prepare industry and workers for a clean economy.
Certainly, there’s movement afoot elsewhere that makes fallback to an LNG economy look bad for the province’s future. Last month, the city of Philadelphia, located in a state dominated by fracking, joined a growing chorus of municipal and sub-national governments calling for a Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty (c’mon Whistler!). An ambitious idea by B.C.-based Stand.earth founder, Tzeporah Berman, the treaty has blossomed into a global phenomenon of 14 countries, 100 sub-national governments, and nearly a million individuals.
So, there’s hope and action out there for those who maybe aren’t as stupid as Carlin posited, and who won’t be conned by proponents of the LNG fantasy. The question for voters is, will you be one of them?
Leslie Anthony is a science/environment writer and author who holds a doctorate in reversing political spin.
