Elizabeth May, Saanich—Gulf Islands
“The government needs to listen to climate science and cut emissions quickly. Key ocean currents like the Gulf Stream are slowing down and could collapse by mid-century. Waiting until 2050 to reach net-zero emissions is too slow to stop irreversible damage.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am returning to a question I asked on May 1. It relates to the science around the climate crisis. I am very concerned that we do not actually talk about the position we are in as humanity on a planet that is undergoing dramatic, irreversible changes due to our own conduct. Too often in this place, it is a throwaway line, or someone stands up and says, “Well, we could talk about climate change years ago, but that’s over now.” My question at the time was to say, “alarm bells are ringing of imminent global collapse of key climate systems, but the alarms are being drowned out by the cheering of Liberals and Conservatives for new and more climate-killing projects.” Key experts say that there is a 50-50 chance of the collapse of the massive and complex Atlantic Ocean current system with devastating catastrophic results. I asked: “When will the government stop shutting off the alarms and try to act before we pass the tipping points?” At that moment, I was referring to the publication of a recent scientific report at the time, back last spring. For any insomniacs watching CPAC, it could not have a worse name than the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation. Its acronym is, appropriately perhaps, AMOC, because we might be running amok. It is the the major current, which people will know intuitively or from their science classes as the Gulf Stream. The ocean currents are vast conveyor belts throughout the oceans of the world. All the sea water anywhere around the world will eventually make the full circuit, which takes many years, all around the planet. However, what is happening is that with the shifting of temperatures with the overheating of the oceans in some parts of the ocean and the cooler water entering the system as we have ice melting in the Arctic, the cooler water depresses the warmer water so that the Gulf Stream is being depressed and slowed down. I have been working on issues around climate science since I was a senior policy adviser to the federal minister of environment back in 1986, and so I had a lot of brilliant climate scientists explain things like this to me. I am not as good at explaining them after midnight, but it is critical that Canadians, particularly the cabinet of this country, understand the science, because we are running out of time. There are tipping points, such as if we lose the Gulf Stream, if it stalls, if it stops, and it is very clearly slowing down. We used to think, back in 1986, that this was very unlikely to ever happen, but the most recent reports to which I was referring in this question said we are now at a 50-50 chance that it could happen by mid-century. If that happens, the effects are catastrophic and enormous. This is directly related to the fiction that net zero by 2050 has anything to do with our Paris commitments. That is an invention for public relations purposes to avoid the fact that in order to avoid very significant tipping points that are irreversible, creating unstoppable changes, our emissions need to come down sharply. Last advice from the IPCC was, at the latest, before 2025. Here we are, it is 2026, and we are ignoring the alarm bells.”
Mr. Speaker, I am returning to a question I asked on May 1. It relates to the science around the climate crisis. I am very concerned that we do not actually talk about the position we are in as humanity on a planet that is undergoing dramatic, irreversible changes due to our own conduct. Too often in this place, it is a throwaway line, or someone stands up and says, “Well, we could talk about climate change years ago, but that’s over now.” My question at the time was to say, “alarm bells are ringing of imminent global collapse of key climate systems, but the alarms are being drowned out by the cheering of Liberals and Conservatives for new and more climate-killing projects.” Key experts say that there is a 50-50 chance of the collapse of the massive and complex Atlantic Ocean current system with devastating catastrophic results. I asked: “When will the government stop shutting off the alarms and try to act before we pass the tipping points?” At that moment, I was referring to the publication of a recent scientific report at the time, back last spring. For any insomniacs watching CPAC, it could not have a worse name than the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation. Its acronym is, appropriately perhaps, AMOC, because we might be running amok. It is the the major current, which people will know intuitively or from their science classes as the Gulf Stream. The ocean currents are vast conveyor belts throughout the oceans of the world. All the sea water anywhere around the world will eventually make the full circuit, which takes many years, all around the planet. However, what is happening is that with the shifting of temperatures with the overheating of the oceans in some parts of the ocean and the cooler water entering the system as we have ice melting in the Arctic, the cooler water depresses the warmer water so that the Gulf Stream is being depressed and slowed down. I have been working on issues around climate science since I was a senior policy adviser to the federal minister of environment back in 1986, and so I had a lot of brilliant climate scientists explain things like this to me. I am not as good at explaining them after midnight, but it is critical that Canadians, particularly the cabinet of this country, understand the science, because we are running out of time. There are tipping points, such as if we lose the Gulf Stream, if it stalls, if it stops, and it is very clearly slowing down. We used to think, back in 1986, that this was very unlikely to ever happen, but the most recent reports to which I was referring in this question said we are now at a 50-50 chance that it could happen by mid-century. If that happens, the effects are catastrophic and enormous. This is directly related to the fiction that net zero by 2050 has anything to do with our Paris commitments. That is an invention for public relations purposes to avoid the fact that in order to avoid very significant tipping points that are irreversible, creating unstoppable changes, our emissions need to come down sharply. Last advice from the IPCC was, at the latest, before 2025. Here we are, it is 2026, and we are ignoring the alarm bells.
