The U.S. environmental movement - funded by US Foundations - is picking the low hanging fruit in its drive to preserve nature and to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions. Canada is in its cross hairs and has been for over forty years.
Over $500 million has been spent by U.S. foundations for "political action" in Canada in pursuit of convincing Canadians they should preserve nature and have now moved on to climate action.
The strategy is parkification - increase the size of all marine and land parks in Canada - ruling out economic development across vaste expanses of our territory. The plan has been expanded to include all fossil fuel sources (leave them in the ground)
- an end to all oil, gas and coal development in Canada and to the harvesting of trees in "protected" areas.
The target is at least fifty percent of the land and oceans to be set aside for "nature" across the globe. (This goal is not often stated but appears to be gaining ground in the moverment.) They employ a chunking strategy in moving to that goal. After one area is "parkified" they move on to the next "Anschluss" campaign. Green ideology includes propagation of the notion that poor is good - if it saves the planet.
This idea has found many adherents - particularly among the young who do not stop to consider how schools, universities, health systems and pensions are funded.
It follows that some jurisdictions both national, sub-national and sub-regionals will see more than fifty percent of lands and marine areas set aside to be returned to nature, to forstall greenhouse gas emissions and to create a carbon sinks.
Without North American carbon pricing and other common policy development, the U.S. environmental movement will, over time, turn Canada into a US National Park. This may sound like hyperbole, but the scale of the funding to block (via legal challenges, blockades, demonstrations, media buys, and roadshow environmental "Madrassas") all manner of economic development projects is without Canadian political precedent.
No political manipulation by external forces on this scale has ever occurred in Canadian history.
At one level one might say that we are all in this together - but are we really? When the scale and duration of the political manipulation by external forces overwhelms reasoned domestic debate and so little is actually
done in the US to deal with its domestic environmental issues, one begins to ask serious questions about who actually sets policy in Canada and when does a firmer approach about political interference in domestic affairs need to be taken.
Trudeau and Obama at their March 11, 2016 meeting announced their intent to reduce methane emissions in the oil and gas sector, cut hydrofluorocarbons, stabilize commercial airline emissions and align emission standards for heavy-duty vehicles.
They also committed to joint strategies in the Arctic that will see more of the Arctic protected (parkified). Canada and the U.S. re-affirmed national goals of protecting at least 17% of land areas and 10% of marine areas by 2020.
The devil is in the details and these commitments like payments to a blackmailer tend to grow over time.
Obama has moved unilaterally to shut down sources of North American carbon emissions (including the moving of Canadian oil sands oil to U.S. markets) in the face of Congressional opposition.
He does so in conjunction with the US environmental groups.
Canadian piplines are seeing continued obstruction by "Green" groups funded by US foundations.
The moot point is will the US actually follow through on the agreements given the strong opposition to climate action and nature preservation within the Republican party (that controls Congress) and the heavy costs that will be borne by those communities that well see their economic prospects reduced or eliminated.
Mexico will be formally invited to join the climate / nature preservation drive at the Canada - US - Mexico summit this June.
A continent-wide carbon-trading market would involve 70 different political jurisdictions in Mexico, the U.S. and Canada that would have to be regulated - this stands as a substantial barrier to the equitable sharing of climate and nature preservation costs.
There are climate adjustment risks: the potential systemic risk to the global financial system of the changes (massive loss of investments value), the risk of not moving quickly enough forcing higher cost adjustments later,
and - one not often spoken about - the risk of introducing the wrong changes at high cost with little climate change mitigation to show for it. (Jumping the gun on the wrong or immature technologies)
It follows therefore that Canadian policy makers need to act wisely in negotiating climate and nature preservation agreements.
Candidly though, I expect many political figures in Canada to, as it were, : "Give the farm away" and to take the short term political gains and to ignore the longer term economic and social losses.
As to the broader involvement of Mexico in these climate and nature preservation plans - that may be a bridge too far given Mainstreet U.S. attitudes toward Mexico and in fact to the NAFTA agreement itself. North American relations are at a critical juncture and the next several years may see abrupt and non-linear changes.
