Welcome to Zero.

I am Akshatrati.

This week Canada's climate compromise.

Throughout the year, we've had many guests on the podcast talk about the unraveling of climate policies in the US, but when it came to the northern neighbor, Canada, there was more hope.

In April, Canadians elected Marc Corney as the Prime Minister, who had resigned as the United Nations Special Envoy on Climate Action and Finance to take up the political role.

He is someone who people say knows the climate challenge better than any world leader in power.

But now things are starting to look dire in Canada too.

At the end of November, Karnee signed a memorandum of understanding with the province of Alberta, the largest oil producing province in the country, that has angered many climate advocates.

The deal promises federal support for a new pipeline from Alberta to British Columbia onto Canada's west coast.

It opens the door to lifting a tanker ban and exempts Alberta from clean power regulations in exchange for maybe some stricter industrial carbon pricing.

It also extends tax credits for using carbon capture to extract more oil.

The MoU essentially offers to undo a host of climate regulations that have been put in place over the last decade, and as a result, Stephen Gibo, who served as Trudeau's Environment Minister and was key to putting many of these policies in place, has resigned from Carney's cabinet, where he was serving as Minister of Canadian Identity and Culture.

I think that on climate change we're going in the wrong direction, and I'm hoping that me leaving cabinet will force some discussion as to how we've been doing that since the beginning of the year.

Gibo came to politics after a lifetime of environmental activism.

He served as an Environment minister from twenty twenty one to twenty twenty five, and of course he had to make many compromises, but clearly the Alberta deal was one step too far.

I wanted to get him on the pod and ask him, is this the end of Canada's climate strategy?

Welcome to the show, Steven, Thank you exce.

Now there's a lot we have to talk about on Canada's climate policies, but I want to start with an understanding of how you came to do what you do because you've spent almost all of your life fighting for the environment, as early as five years of age, I understand, and more recently, in two thousand and one you climbed the Centare in Toronto as part of a Greenpeace protest.

Idealism powers the climate movement, but your efforts go much further than most climate activists that I know.

And yet in twenty nineteen, for some reason, you chose to enter politics, and it's a place where idealism dies and compromises are necessary.

Why did you think that was a good idea.

I don't know that I would say that idealism dies in politics, but it's certainly they're challenged.

After twenty five years give or taken the environmental movement, I felt it was time for me to try and continue my activism, but in a different form.

I mean, I had been so disappointed by many of my leaders in Canada that I figured, you know, if I went in politics, and if if I ever made it to the cabinet, there's no way I could be worse than what I had seen.

My assessment was that there's only one way, and it was up.

So that was more or less what prompted my decision.

And then you end up up serving as Environment Minister under former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau from twenty twenty one to twenty twenty five earlier this year, and so you had to make many compromises then, including when you approved an offshore oil extraction project under Trudeau.

Now, the Canadian economy today is under assault from the US, its biggest trading partner, and Prime Minister mcconnie has come under increasing criticism for the compromises he seems to be making on climate policy in order to prioritize stabilizing the Canadian economy.

So in your resignation letter you recognize that the job of a prime minister is a tough balancing act.

But finally you ran out of row what tipped the scales for you?

So you're right.

I resigned last week.

As a cabinet minister.

In the British parliamentary system like ours, when you're a member of a cabinet, you have to support all of the decisions, all of the positions of the government.

They can be there's cabinet solidarity, they can be no dissension publicly.

Obviously we're inside the cabinet room, people have different points of view and that's where that's where dissension or disagreement can be expressed.

But outside of the cabinet room, everyone has to be in solidarity with decisions that are made.

The Prime Minister signed a memorandum of understanding with the Premier of Alberta, our largest oil producer in Canada, and I felt that the MoU was about many things.

So we have a federal pricing system that allows our provinces some national government to have their own pricing mechanisms.

Some do pricing, some do cap and trade, and they can do that as long as they meet a federal benchmark, a federal standard for pricing, and that goes up by fifteen dollars every year, worth ninety five dollars now will be one hundred and seventy dollars a ton of coto equivalent admitted by by twenty thirty.

Alberta's been out of compliance now for some months.

They have weakened their their system and part of the agreement was that they would they would beef up their system.

We would work the federal government would work with the province to help a to help me a project A large project called the Pathways Project, which is which is an association of a number of oil sands producers that want to put together this probably the world's largest carbon captured storage project.

And the third thing that the MoU, the main elements of the MoU, was that the federal government was going to start a discussion with Alberta to build a new oil pipeline.

The agreement is a bit vague, but most likely to the to our west coast.

I was willing to as a Cabinet minister, I was willing to stay around the table and have those conversations, even on the pipeline, because frankly, I don't believe that a pipeline is going to be built, largely for economical reasons.

There's no proponent for a pipeline to the South Keystone.

There's no proponent for a pipeline have been talked about going to Manitoba in Central Canada, and no proponent for a western pipeline either.

There is strong resistance from the province west of Alberta, British Columbia and indigenous nations, especially coastal First nations around there are some of them I know really well because I worked on a very large conservation projects, with many of those nations an ocean conservation project.

So I was willing to have those conversations.

But then as part of the memorandum of understanding, the federal government was willing to concede a number of federal climate policies in order to please Alberta.

So when I was in Environment Minister, I tabled draft regulations to put a cap on the emissions of oil and gas in the oil and gas sector in Canada.

Your listeners have to understand that fighting climate change is complicated.

I have never had a conversation with a minister of the environment somewhere who stole me.

It was easy.

Of course, it is particularly difficult in Canada because we're a federation and the federal government doesn't control the use of natural resources.

This is solely, as per our constitution, solely in the hands of our provinces.

So when I was Environment Minister, I could not tell a province you have to stop using or reduced the exploitation of any natural resources.

So what I did is I put in place measures that would tackle pollution.

Because there was a big case that went all the way to Supreme Court on carbon pricing, we were challenged by many provinces when we introduced our federal pricing mechanism and the Supreme Court said the federal government can't do that.

So based on that, we figured that if we did I write our regulations correctly and we went after the pollution every time, we would probably okay.

We'd be okay to in terms of being challenged in front of the courts, because everything I did as a environment minister was challenged.

The clean few regulations were challenged, a co electricity regulations were challenged, a plastic ban was challenged, carbon pricing was challenged.

Everything was challenged by one or many of our provinces, depending on the initiative.

So the oil and gas emissions cap, the aim was that regardless of what happens to production in Canada to oil and gas production, emissions will have to go down over time.

That was being compromised.

In this memorandum of understanding.

They were saying, we'll get rid of that.

The clean Electricity regulation, which is a key, probably one of the most important thing I did as an environment minister to ensure that we decarbonize our grid.

Canada's grid is already pretty clean, about eighty two percent, none emitting and it has been like a success.

Like over the last twenty years, emissions have gone down fifty percent in the electricity sector in Canada, largely because we're moving out of coal.

It is still being used in some parts of Canada though, but the projections was that a number of provinces we're going to make a big play for natural gas and that the emissions from that sector we're going to start rising again.

And if you want to decarbonize your economy, your society, and you have more and more electric transportation, more industries going to electricity, buildings using electricity instead of natural gas, then the core of that strategy has to be your grid, your electricity production.

That was also being compromised in this MoU And there is nothing in that that shows us how we can continue moving forward on fighting climate change in Canada.

Like what is being announced or what has been announced, there's no way Canada can meet it's twenty thirty even it's twenty thirty five climate change objectives, and frankly, I doubt that we could even be carbon neutral by twenty fifty with what was announced.

So for me, you know, as a cabinet minister, you have this responsibility of being a solid air of the decisions that were made.

But I felt that I also had the responsibility to tell the Prime Minister what I felt was right or wrong, and I felt that this was wrong.

I mean, fundamentally, I decided to leave not because of the discussion on the pipeline, but I decided to leave cabinet because I think that on climate change we're going in the wrong direction.

And I'm hoping that me leaving cabinet will force a some discussion as to how we've been doing that since the beginning of the year.

And some of that is starting to happen.

And I want to come to our resignations that have happened since yours.

But before we do, let's go back to the policies.

Defenders of Kannie's MoU with Alberta say that the Prime Minister is being pragmatic.

That you know, Alberta was simply defying many of the government's own regulations.

It had frozen its carbon price, as you noted, it had refused to implement the clean electricity rules, It had vowed to block the methane regulations, or the oil and gas gap that again you had championed, and so Kannie was just trying to manage to get Alberta committed to say a minimum carbon price.

Even if it's not one hundred and seventy dollars, at least it goes up from where it is.

So why, in your view, would it have been better to maintain the federal environment regulations at the level that you had, even as a province was simply defying it.

Well, they were defying it because we let them do it.

Carbon pricing is was put in place as platters as part of federal law, federal criminal law, so we we had all the powers if we wanted to impose the price, the federal price.

In fact, we what we could have done as a federal government and say, okay, Alberta, your system is no longer equivalent to the federal minimum standard that is going up.

Therefore the federal system will be imposed in the province.

That's what is supposed to happen if a province is out of compliance with with with the federal system and doesn't want to course correct because they can be out of compliance, and then we can say we can tell them listen, you have to you know, you have to fix the fix it.

And and and I have done that when I was when I was the environment minister with Alberta negotiated what's its catchel, what's the sketch one?

So we've done it before, but I think this time I don't know.

We we didn't even try.

We the Clean Electricity Regulation again, is is a regulation that was instituted under federal criminal law, the Canadian Environmental Protection Act.

So at the end of the day, if a province doesn't want to implement it, they don't have a choice.

It's federal law.

Would we allow a province to just ignore elements of the federal criminal Code?

Of course not, So why would we do it for environmental laws?

Well, there is this fear that Alberta also has a secessionist movement and that it would want to separate out from the federal Canadian structure as a result, and that Makani was making a compromise to maybe not force the rules down their throat, as would have been the right of a federal government to do, but to make these compromises so that it could keep the sovereignty of the country together.

Is that not an argument you buy?

I mean, I certainly recognized that the Prime Minister is concerned with this, we can call it a nascent separatist movement in Alberta, although it's been there for some times.

You know, different polls tells us that it's about eighteen percent of the population in the province who also think that Canada should be become the fifty first state of the United States.

It is not the view of the vast majority of Albertan's.

Now, I recognize and I agree with the Prime Minister that we should make some efforts to ensure that all Canadians feel they have a place in the federation.

Is the pipeline is sacrificing our environmental laws that will harm Canadians from coast to coast to coast in terms of I mean, if Canada doesn't do its fair share, will have more climate change, more air pollution in our cities, more issues with water quality, and frankly, by going so far to please the Alberta government on this MoU he is fueling another separatist movement in my home province of Quebec.

And it's not in Quebec.

It's not an ascent movement.

It's a you know, it's an organized political party that has won elections, that has done too referendum to separate from Canada, and the leading part in the polls, the party that has been leading for thirty consecutive months in that province is a separatist party.

By going out of our way to make concessions to Alberta to be very ambiguous about whether or not, for example, the province of British Columbia would have a say in whether or not a pipeline could go through its territory, then it's it's fueling the separatist movement in Quebec, saying you see, they would be willing to do that to us, They would be willing to get a pipeline through Quebec without our permission.

Of course, let's find ways to make sure all burdens feel that they were included, but not at the expense of fueling another much more robust, much more organized separatist movement in Quebec.

Now, if it comes to the oil pipeline, you are among very few people who's been able to talk to McCarney about climate, about environment.

Now, he himself was formerly the Special on Climate Action and Finance for the United Nations.

Do you think that someone with his climate credentials really wants to build an oil pipeline.

Do I believe that McCartney is still Prime Minister Carney is still concerned by climate change.

Yes, I am coming to the conclusion that, and it's one of the reasons I resigned from cabinet that our vision of how we go about doing that is very different, I think, and I've tried as an environment minister, and even before I was an Environment Minister, I was still working on that with the True Do Government, to build in architecture of a plan that had many components at carbon pricing, it had regulation, it had massive investment by the government starting in Budget twenty twenty two, and like one hundred and sixty billion dollars of investment for electrification, for clean technology, more entertise in between provinces in Canada, so that those provinces that rely heavily on renewable energy could could sell more of it to neighboring provinces that are more dependent on fossil fuels.

And there is this perception, I think by by Prime Minister Carney and some members of the cabinet that the previous action of the government of the the action of the previous government True Do government on climate change was all regulation and that's simply wrong.

And their view is that the market is going to do it, and we'll, you know, we'll let the market and the financial sector invest massively in those technologies.

And of course we need that to achieve our targets to get the net zero, but we also need regulations like we won't get there and right now.

When I was a environment minister, for the first time in our history, our emissions went down while the economy was growing.

That had never happened before.

And there was sometimate estimates that were done by an independent organization called the Canadian Climate Institute that said that with the plan that we had in place, we had eighty five to ninety percent of being able to achieve our twenty thirty targets, which have been a first in our history.

We've never been able to achieve any climate targets in Canada.

And now we're sacrificing major elements of that plan to put in place a strategy that might work fifteen twenty years from now, but we have no guarantees and frankly, we have no data, we have no plan to be able to say that that plan will get us to carbon neutrality.

Let me give you an example.

The oil sands sector is the largest emitting sector in Canada.

It's very carbon intensive to produce this type of oil.

It's one of the most carbon intensive barrel of oil in the world.

There's been a discussion about this massive carbon capturing storage project, and some see this, including some X Cabinet colleagues of mine, see this as a silver bullet.

We'll start producing decarbonized oil.

Hold on a second, like this technology will allow emissions to go down by about twelve percent, So we'll have If we compare the barrel of oil produced in Alberta compared to a barrel of oil produced on our East coast offshore, it's ten times the emissions.

In terms of production oil sands, it's ten times more emitting than a barrel of oil produced on our east coast.

So we won't have a decarbonized oil sand barrel.

We'll have a barrel of oil sand that is twelve percent less emitting, but it's not fifty percent and it's not zero.

And we're saying we're willing to add a pipeline that would increase production by a million barrels.

On top of that, there's the math doesn't add up, there's no way we can get to carbon neutrality if our largest sector continues to be a net emitter year after year, Like there's you.

You can't compress the emissions enough in the other sectors to get there.

At least I don't see it.

I'll come back to the pipeline.

But just going back to how you think that the Prime minister you believe is still worried about climate change, and if that is true and he understands the science, then he should understand the urgency.

And what you are saying is that the regulations would have started to make a difference towards meeting climate goals, even if they weren't all the way to the one hundred percent, but eighty five ninety percent, and that would have been done on a deadline, which is twenty thirty twenty thirty five clear markers.

But that's not going to happen under this new regime.

So then how does he really understand climate change?

Because with that understanding needs to come the urgency that doesn't seem to be there.

I think one of the answer to that question is something you were mentioned earlier in the discussion, and that's obviously what's happening south of the border, and the fact that our economy is under attack by the US government.

They were going after our auto sector.

They do not want cars to be built in Canada anymore.

They're going after our steel sector, and we're seeing massive layoffs in those sectors.

The Canadian economy so far is still being has been able to withstand shocks.

We've created more jobs in the first part of the year than we've lost.

The economy still growing fastest growth in the last quarter of the G seven.

But it is anticipated that some sectors and the overall Canaan economy could suffer massively if that continues.

And obviously, as the Prime Minister, he's very worried about that, as he should be.

Now.

I think that's one of the reasons why he's making those decisions, because he feels that we have to remove barriers regulations from making sure that there are more and more investment in decarbonization, electrification, critical minerals.

And that's where I think we disagree.

I think we can still have and in fact, last year, in twenty twenty four, despite all those regulars that I had introduced myself and others, Canada was came third in the world for direct foreign investment after the US and Brazil.

So clearly it seemed that our regulatory framework was not preventing foreign investors to come to Canada, but I think the Prime Minister and some cabinet ministers see that as an impediment to more investment.

We'll be back with more of my conversation with Stephen Gibbo, former Climate Minister of Canada after the shortbreak, and while I have you, please take a moment to rate and review the show on Apple Podcasts and Spotify.

Thank you.

You've talked through some other real consequences of this kind of backtracking that's happening on climate policies.

But even before the Alberta MoU was signed, the Canadian Climate Institute said in September that no progress had been made on reducing emissions in twenty twenty four, a period when you were Environment minister.

You talked about the investment figures that came in that year and that looked good, but the emissions didn't fall.

And already even before the Alberta MoU, the country was not on track for twenty thirty or twenty thirty five commitments.

Is it time for the.

Canadian government not just you, but the Canadian government to admit publicly that it's not going to meet its Paris climate commitments.

The only chance we had of coming close to meeting our targets was if we continued full speed ahead with the implementation of the various measures, including investment.

Now, investment obviously takes some time before you see the results.

Investors have to decide to commit the money, then they project has to go through impact assessment, public consultation, then it has to be built.

So you know, it's a few years before before you see the benefit of that regulation has usually I mean depending, but it can have more immediate impact of in terms of emission reduction.

But since the end of the year twenty twenty four, like we've eliminated the consumer carbon pricing portion of our mechanism.

So we have industrial carbon pricing, which is the most important, Like this is what drives a mission reduction.

About three quarters of the overall emission reduction we get from pricing are from industrial pricing.

But the consumer facing portion of it was still non negligible in terms of emission reduction.

But it was also intended as as a way to help change behaviors by Canadians.

So we lost that when Prime Minister Carnie came in, and I understood it had become a very unpopular piece of public policy, largely because the Conservative Party of Canada for two years invested millions of dollars lying to Canadians about its impact.

Then we decided to pause our zero vehicle emission standard, so not eliminated, but pause it.

There was an interim target for the Canadian sector in twenty twenty six, then targets for twenty thirty and twenty thirty five, these measures being pause and now potentially others being removed.

And obviously if the MoU with Alberta doesn't come to a fruitful conclusion, then one could anticipate that we keep those regulations.

They're not compromise.

But the fact that we are no longer moving full steam ahead on climate change leads me to agree with you.

I think that the government should and I think we'll have data that shows this very very very soon, coming from the government itself saying that we can't meet our twenty thirty targets.

I don't think we have data yet for twenty thirty five, but we will probably have that soon as well.

And I think we need to.

I think we need to be honest with Canadians.

I think politicians would benefit from from being more honest overall.

And I think, you know, we shouldn't pretend with Canadians or you know, stop talking about twenty thirty or twenty thirty five and then shift our communications to net zero by twenty fifty because we don't want to talk about twenty thirty.

Let's be honest, let's let's be frank, and let's have an honest conversation with Canadians on that.

And do you think that's also going to be true for net zero by twenty fifty.

Then if you can't stay on track for thirty and maybe thirty five, then can you really get to twenty fifty net zero?

I mean, I'm I'm skeptical that we can right now, but I'm willing to be proven wrong if I can be shown some analysis and you know, modeling from the government and maybe others that show that there's a pathway to do that.

But like, if you can't meet your twenty thirty targets, and if you can't meet your twenty thirty five targets and your missions are continue to increase, like it's a pretty steep curve to get to carbon neutrality by twenty fifty like and maybe twenty five years away from now.

But from an you know, from a societal point of view, twenty five years not a long time if you want to basically overall how your society uses or produces carbon, it's not a long it's not a long time.

And if and if we waste ten years because we continue increasing emissions, then it's not twenty five years we have to do that, it's fifteen years or ten years.

It becomes it becomes difficult to see how we can do that.

After you resigned, we've had at least one more big profile resignation.

Simon Donner, who's a climate scientist and the head of the net Zero advisory body that gives recommendations on climate policies to the government, has resigned and he said in his post on LinkedIn that I was not comfortable with the process becoming neglected or performative somebody else I spoke to put what's happening right now with the Albert m or you, but the year worth of backtracking on climate policies, as this is the end of Canada's climate strategy would you agree.

I think, as I said earlier, I hope that my resignation will will lead to a conversation within the government, with cabinet, the Prime Minister's office about how we've been approaching climate change so far.

And I think there is still a chance.

And I'm still a member of the Liberal Caucus.

I didn't I didn't leave the government.

I'm still an MP.

I have certainly I will certainly use my time as a as a member of Parliament who as a member of Parliament you have more freedom in terms of of what you can say.

You're not bound by cabinet solidarity.

And I know that there are many colleagues within the Liberal Party who want to see better climate policies implemented by by by the government.

So I think many of us will be working to ensure that we don't lose those essential key elements of our of our climate change strategy, while making sure that we continue making investments or private sect well the government and the private sector continues to make investment in decarbonization.

I wouldn't say that we've lost it, but I think it's at risk.

I think it is definitely at risk, and many of us, including people outside government will need to work hard to try and save we still can.

Why still remain part of the Liberal Party because there's a clear invitation you have from the Green Party leader, Elizabeth May saying come join the Green Party.

You can vote for the Liberal policies that you agree with, but then you can actually stand for the principles that you have fought for all your life.

I believe the first thing I should say is I have a great respect for the leader of the Green Party in Canada.

She's been a personal friend of mine for over thirty years.

So although we're not in the same party, we agree on many things and we work together in parliament quite often.

I think I have more influence by staying within the Liberal Party that I would if I was outside the party, And I think, as I said, there are many colleagues, and frankly, right now, the only thing we've lost is consumer carbon pricing.

Like from a factual point of view, there's a pause on the zero mission vehicle standard, but it's not gone.

The regulations are still there, the clean ac tristy regulations are still there, methane regulations are still there, the oil and gas emissions cap.

I presented the draft regulations, but I ran out of time to be able to finalize them, so you could say this one is a bit more compromised.

But the rest of the architecture of our climate plan is still intact as we speak, and what's putting it at risk is this, MoU would Alberta.

So is there a way that many of us within the party and people outside the party can work to ensure that whatever this agreement ends up being doesn't sacrifice our climate plan.

I'll that's what I will be working on in the coming months.

You said, coming into politic, you made that choice because you taught even as an activist, the leaders had been doing such a bad job of acting on climate that what could it be, How worse could it be if you got into politics it could only get better?

Would you consider leaving politics now?

Well, it has gone better, Like as I was saying earlier, for the first time in our history, our missions have come down.

While the economy was going up.

Before there were parallel curves like the emission.

If the economy was going up, our missions were going up.

And under the previous government, the sky was the limit in terms of our mission reduction.

So our missions have come down twenty twenty four, they've stayed either stable or maybe diminished a little bit, certainly not the rate of emission reduction that we need to see.

But I think what we've done in the last four or five years is to show that we can do that, that we can have of a thriving economy, jobs being created, good jobs, and that we can fight climate change at the same time.

We need to continue doing that, and that's what I want.

That's what I will do and try to show to the government, to the Prime Minister, to esteem the other cabinet members, and to the Canadian public.

And it is more difficult now.

I mean, climate change is not the priority.

Cost of living is the priority.

The threat from the United States is more of a priority.

But for about eighteen to twenty percent of Canadians one in five Canadian for whom this is the number one priority, and we can't ignore those people.

Many of them have elected me three times in a rolic.

My writing is very progressive, but it is the case in many parts of the country as well.

And I think I'm the one who I'm part of those people who believe that we won the last election in part because progressives decided to not vote for other parties that they've traditionally voted for, and they trusted us with their vote because they were worried about Donald Trump.

And that's true of most probably, but many gave us their trust because of Mark Karney's pet degree on climate change and because they are concerned about that.

In twenty twenty two, I got a chance to interview Justin Trudeau, who was the Prime minister.

Then you were there in the audience.

You were listening to that interview.

My first question was, you've been prime minister for seven years then, and you came in to promise action on climate and if you look at the emissions curve, it hasn't bent.

It's flat, but it hasn't bent.

And I will admit he said, at the time we are starting to put things in place, we will see emissions reduction happen.

They haven't happened at the pace at which you would want or at which Canada needs to meet its climate goals.

But yes, they have fallen since, which is worth admitting.

As much as policies take time to show up as a result, it took a long time from twenty fifteen to actually see emissions reduction, but you did see emissions reductions now because of cost of living pressures and because of the US President allowing for a lot more climate denialism around the world through his speeches, including at the United Nations.

There is certainly in many parts of the world, not just in Canada, a decline in climate as a priority for many people.

Are you worried for Canada specifically that it will start to fall further as a result?

I think this is certainly something everyone who's preoccupied by climate change needs to be worried about.

I think we are seeing a rise in populism in many parts of the world, and climate change now is part of this culture war that we are seeing, So I think I think we collectively have to up our game.

We have to be able to communicate better to help people understand, and traditionally we have not.

It's true of governments, but even when I was in the NGO sector, I think we didn't do a very good job of communicating this issue in a way that would resonate with the public.

Even though sometimes it was very high in the priority, the level of understanding is still a mile long but an inch deep, So we have to do a better job on that.

But it is definitely a risk for Canada, as it is a risk for many other countries.

You said one thing that climate people need to get better at is to be able to communicate that This is not just to try and avoid a problem, it's also to try and help the economy, help people grow in the twenty first century.

What are the ways in which you have seen that message land effectively.

I think the good news is that there's a lot of people in North America and Europe and around the world working at helping governments, non government organizations, grassroots organizations improve their communications.

We know a lot more about the science of how to communicate about environmental issues about climate change.

When I started I was at colap One in nineteen ninety five, we had no idea how to communicate on this issue, and I think by default many of us thought that what we needed to do was to talk about natural catastrophe and scare people into action.

That didn't really work, and in many instances it had a counter effect to what we were trying to do.

But fortunately now we know much more about how to do that, and there is a lot of people doing great work at climate change communication around the world.

So I think it is happening.

Same time, we are faced with people with a lot of money, some of them coming from from the oil and gas sector, not solely, but but but quite a bit and coal sector.

Uh.

We're faced with opponents who have lots of means and who are who are spending a lot of money to try and convince people that it is a hoax, that you know, it's an invention, there's no problem.

Look, there's snow in Canada in the winter.

You know, what's this whole climate change thing about global warming?

So it's not I'm I'm I'm hopeful, but but it is going to be It is going to be a fight.

Thank you, Steven, Thank you very much.

Take care.

And thank you for listening to zero Now for the sound of the week.

That is the sound of an enormous struck the size of a building carrying oil sands to a processing facility in Alberta, Canada.

Canadian oil sands production is expected to reach a record three point five million barrels a day in twenty twenty five, five percent higher than twenty twenty four.

If you like this episode, please take a moment to rate and review the show on Apple Podcasts and Spotify.

This episode was produced by Oscar Boyd with help from Eleanor Harrison Dengate.

Our theme music is composed by Wonderly Special thanks to Somrsadi Moses Andem, Laura Milan and Shan chen i'm Akshatrati Black Soon