Why Canada is going green, but the rest of the world won’t | New York Times
By DAVID LAWRENCEWASHINGTON — For years, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has been touting his country as a global leader in green technologies.
But his rhetoric has been overshadowed by a country where the environment is at risk from mining, logging and oil spills.
The prime minister has made green projects like the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative, a $2.5 billion project to restore the lakes, a priority.
But with Canada set to sign a long-term agreement to buy more than $400 billion worth of liquefied natural gas, the country’s environmental legacy is being called into question.
The Great Lakes, a tributary of the St. Lawrence River, have become an iconic symbol of the country and its natural resources, as well as an economic driver.
It is also the subject of controversy, with the government trying to distance itself from the mining industry and opposition parties demanding that it cancel the deal.
Canada is also trying to clean up its reputation as a carbon-dumping power in the world.
The government has been forced to abandon plans to expand coal-fired power plants and has cut carbon emissions by more than a third.
But a series of scandals over mining and oil-related pollution have put the government in the spotlight, as it struggles to balance environmental and economic demands.
Environmentalists, environmental groups and environmentalists have been calling on Trudeau to cancel the agreement.
“The environment has been a huge concern to us all for decades,” said Sarah O’Connell, a campaigner with the Environmental Defence Fund, a green-minded group.
“The Great Lake Restoration Initiative was an investment that was made in a way that has not benefited us, that has had the opposite effect of our intention.
It’s the kind of environmental disaster that we have been campaigning against for a long time.”
In an interview with The Associated Press, Trudeau said that if the Great Lake were to be sold, he would buy a “fair share” of it.
“I would be the first to say, I don’t want a sale,” he said.
“We would have to be very careful because of the risks.”
Environmentalists have called on the government to cancel or revise the deal, which would involve selling the Great Laughers for a fraction of their value.
The Great Lakes have long been an environmental darling in Canada and the country has invested more than half a trillion dollars in natural resources over the past decade.
But environmental groups have complained that the sale is unfair, with little environmental benefit and a number of concerns.
The sale of the lake would have the opposite impact of our intentions, Trudeau’s spokesman said in a statement to The Associated Post.
The price is $1.25 per million British thermal units (Btu) for the first 2.5 million Btu, then $1 per million Bts for the remaining Btu.
The deal is expected to cost between $50 million and $75 million, with potential environmental benefits, according to the Environmental Defense Fund.
Trudeau said that the government is looking at several possible options including selling it to foreign investors.
“We are actively considering this,” the statement said.
“Our focus is on the environment.
That is where our priorities lie,” the spokesman said.
The environmental groups are asking the government not to sell the lake to a foreign buyer.
“If it’s going to be a sale, we need to know what the environmental benefits are going to amount to, not just what they look like,” said Kate Morgan, a program manager with the Great Plains Institute, an environmental group.
The price could be as high as $100 billion, Morgan said.
Truman has also promised to “keep our promises” on environmental policy and promised to hold a press conference soon to discuss the deal with the AP.
Environmental groups say the deal could damage the Great Bay region, home to salmon and steelhead, which has a large fish and trout population.
Trussons environmental record is also a source of contention.
A number of environmental groups, including the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, have called for a federal review of the agreement, arguing that the deal is a giveaway to oil and gas companies.
The agreement has drawn criticism from some environmentalists, who argue that it will put the Great Basin at risk of being polluted by drilling, logging or oil spills, which could damage fish stocks.
“There is a real concern that if we sell it to a company, that it’s actually going to bring our Great Lakes back to a place where they would be polluted with drilling and mining,” Morgan said, adding that the agreement also is a gift to the oil and mining industry.
The AP requested comments from the Trudeau government on the environmental concerns raised in the AP article.