 Thank you so much, and deep thanks to the ATA for both inviting me to speak today and for continuing to support and open dialogue in the face of some pretty intense pressure. There were a number of people who didn't want me to speak today, it seems, and others who didn't even want me to come to Alberta. So thank you very much, and get comfy, Alberta, because I have a lot to say. I'd like to begin by acknowledging and respecting that we're gathered here today on Treaty 6 territory, and specifically on the traditional territory of the Enoch Treaty First Nations. So it's been a really long month for me. You know, it's given that old saying, don't shoot the messenger, really a lot of new meaning and importance. The debate over this speech has revealed a very deep underbelly of fear, I think, in Alberta, for good reason. Change is hard, and in the climate era there are no easy answers. Given the importance of oil and gas production in the Alberta's economy, the fluctuation of price, the destabilizing impact of new technologies like electric cars and renewable energy, the growing opposition to new fossil fuel projects and infrastructure that's happening at home and around the world, it's no wonder that people are angry and scared. But vilifying each other, pointing fingers, ignoring global trends, it's not going to help us make a plan. We need a plan to ensure a strong economy in a changing world, to ensure resiliency in the face of a changing climate. And when we're at our best, we face these issues with an open mind. We listen to each other, we seek to understand, to ridge the divide. Instead, what we've seen in the last month is our elected decision-makers whipping up hate, denial, defensiveness, and fear. But it's not just those who are responsible for the personal attacks, who are to blame. Because I think what's happened is faced with conflict over the trans-mountain pipeline, we've all retrenched. We've all moved backwards. And in the environmental community, we need to hold ourselves accountable too. We need to hold ourselves accountable to vilifying those who work in the oil industry, for not acknowledging that we have benefited and we all continue to benefit from oil. For not acknowledging how painful change is going to be, because it's not going to be easy. At the same time, many in government and industry need to be held accountable for trying to silence this debate, because we need it. We must have it. They need to be held accountable for playing on people's real fear about their livelihoods, their families, and for using that for political gain. That's not okay. We're better than this. Regardless of your opinion on the trans-mountain pipeline, on climate change, on the future of the energy industry, we're better than this. So I had to call a lot of things in the last month, an eco-terrorist, try explaining that one to your kids. An enemy of the state, a traitor, a liar, a extremist, a scumbag. And that was the nice stuff that I could repeat in public. A policy advisor to many different governments and corporations over the years and author and environmental advocate, but most importantly, a mom. And I'm worried every day about the safety of my children, of the world that this next generation is growing up in. The attacks on my character have been meant to drown out what I'm saying, to foment fear and anger in Alberta that paralyzes us from progress. That's not leadership. The hate is so thick that there can be no meaningful conversation about the future of energy policy, and that's why I'm so happy we're having this conversation today. I really enjoyed your speech, Chris, and I learned a lot. That's what we need to do. We're not going to agree on everything, but that's okay. That's how we learn. You know that as teachers. That's how we learn. We have these discussions. We face the issues. We learn. We move forward. We have dialogue. That's where we have to get to again. Years ago, embroiled in the forestry debates in the 90s and the kind of war of the woods as people talked about it, I learned an incredibly valuable lesson. I learned that if I want to really see progress and find solutions, I'd be talking to the people that know how to work in the forest. And you know, it sounds crazy, but now when I think about it, but so often when we get embroiled in debates or we feel passionately about something, we see positions and not really people. And I'll be honest to you, holding on to the idea that we actually have to really listen to each other, that we have to learn from each other is a hard thing to do when you're in the middle of a hard debate, like Trans Mountain. At 23, when I stood on the blockades of Vancouver Island and worked on forestry issues, I thought it was pretty simple. There were good guys and there were bad guys. And I knew what side of the fence I was on. But the fact is, of course, there are good people everywhere. And I learned a lot from the people across the blockades for me. And I got to know them. When I first started working on the issues, I just thought that if people knew what I knew, they would change their minds. And so I just started saying it. When they didn't listen, I was just saying it louder. And it, you know, it was pretty unbearable. But then something happened. I got to really know those people. I got to talking to them. I'll never forget one day which changed the way I think about these issues. The chief forester of one of Canada's largest logging companies just kind of lost it on me. And he said, what do you think, I get up every morning and think about how I can destroy forests? I became a forester because I love forests. And I said to him, okay, so do you think I get up in the morning saying, how could I destroy some more jobs? Like, I found out that I work in this industry. And so we just sat down. We had that kind of explosion and then we just sat down and talked. And the fact is there was a lot of common ground. Those conversations led to some of the first solutions, processes, and collaborations in Canada's history. They changed the way that forestry is done. They protected millions of hectares of forest. But don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that if we just nicer to each other, that we can work out these issues over lunch. Because these are hard. I think respectful and safe conflict is actually sometimes necessary to force debate. And the blockades and the forest led to those conversations with the logging companies. We wouldn't have had those conversations if it wasn't for those blockades and that controversy. And I think the conflict over Trans Mountain and over oil sands is forcing this conversation today. So with that experience in mind from the war on the woods and knowing that there are good people everywhere, that we can't find solutions unless we understand different perspectives and the barriers to change. I spent five years trying to understand what the leaders of some of the largest oil companies in Canada think about climate change. Whether it's possible to break the gridlock that we're experiencing, not only in Alberta but in Canada and around the world. To try and get out from under this terrible polarization. The fact is over a five year period I got to know and admire a lot of them. I realized of course that they and the people that work for them are smart good people in the oil and gas industry. So this speech is in part that story. I want to take an opportunity to reflect on what I learned and why we find ourselves once again in this terrible place of monthly. So in 2013 with Dave Collier, the former CEO of CAP and Shell Canada, we organized a dinnering gallery with five of North America's leading executive directors of environmental groups and five CEOs of the largest oil companies to talk about climate change. The dinner didn't really go as planned because concerned that the environmental leaders would think that I'd gone over to the dark side. By even organizing the dinner and talking to people from the oil industry, I started out with this really hard-mitting, fully referenced statistical presentation on climate change, on carbon budget, on oil sands. And looking back, I realize now that it's probably a little insulting to those CEOs. Steve Williams of Suncor lasted about four minutes. Yes, he said, I know. Can we move on? Let's not waste time. We know about climate change. The question is, what should we be doing about it? And I just kind of froze like a deer in the headlights. But the CEO of one of the largest oil companies in Canada just told me that he understood climate change, acknowledged the climate threat and carbon budget. What do I do now? And then Murray Edwards, the CEO of CNRL, kind of came to my rescue, like some big helpful giant. He said, so far I think what Steve's trying to say is that we're already addressing it. We understand the science. We're not denying it. I think we likely disagree on what needs to be done. And then we were off into a conversation, a respectful conversation where we started to talk about our differences about what needs to be done. And that's where we need to get to again in this debate. What needs to be done? How quickly and what's the plan? The conversation showed brief glimmers of breakthrough, some of which I want to talk about, and agreement, and brief glimmers of hope. And then we ended up being spit on the other side, facing attacks from both our closest colleagues and those on the so-called other side and in my case, death threats. So one of the moments that showed really some glimmers of hope, it's 2016. Imagine I just finished describing the algorithmic climate plan to one of my closest friends and oldest friends and environmental leaders, my old friend Mike Brub, who's the CEO of one of the largest environmental groups in the world, Sierra Club US. And he says to me, it's historic and it's insufficient. And he's right. In some ways, that's what climate policy is at this moment in history. The first climate plan on Alberta, a condo-wide price on carpet, a limited to emissions from the oil sands, methane regulations, phase-dote coal plants, escalator efficiency, renewables, it's historic. I mean a year before when I was walking through the legislator with a staffer from the ministry environment, I started talking about climate change. She said, can you not use that word that loud? People make fun of me. We couldn't even talk about climate change. So how far have we gotten? This is absolutely incredible, but it's not in line with keeping the world below two degrees. It's historic and insufficient at the same time. So the dinners of the CEO's led to working groups over the period of four years that struggled to try and find common ground on climate policies. We really looked at how do we do our fair share on climate change? How do we ensure a strong economy? And I think both groups wanted that, more people than we know want that. Many of us were then appointed by the government to the oil sands advisory working group, and for a while we were real people, almost friends. In breaks we talked about our kids, our vacation plans, we shared stories of difficult conversations with colleagues, and many of those stories were the same. Many of my colleagues were angry with me. Many of the US CEO colleagues and industry leaders were angry with them for supporting the carbon tax and the emissions limit. The oil sands working group was successful. We reached consensus on a number of recommendations on how to apply the carbon tax regulations on the emissions limit, how we implement the climate plan, and it seems a lifetime from where we are today. But the fact is those conversations broke down, and they broke down because I think it's very difficult for us to reconcile short-term politics with the long-term planning. I think it's what's the bottom line is that we haven't really done the math. If we had actually topped, and if the climate plan actually dressed, a reduction in emissions from the oil sands overall and when that happens, we'd be in a different place today. If it actually met our climate aspirations at a national level, we'd be in a different place today. There were ups and downs in our work today, in our work together, but really it broke down entirely when the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, of which these five companies were a part of, they had said they support the carbon tax because it helps to stimulate innovation, because it helps to ensure that our oil industry is cleaner and leading on these difficult issues. And then the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers last year puts out a report attacking the carbon tax, attacking the climate plan, and none of them say a thing, even though they're standing on this stage. The carbon tax has again become a political football, an easy target for conservatives to fear among ground price increases, and it seems that the oil industry has decided to play both sides of the fence. The fact is, I truly admire the spirit of innovation in Alberta and many of the executives I have the pleasure to get to know, but I remain convinced that they're ignoring the timeframe that we have to make the changes that we need to make, not just for our safety, but also for a resilient economy and to ensure jobs in the future. The final nail in the coffin for our conversations came in the form of the Trans Mountain Kingdom Morgan Pipeline, our disagreement over whether we need more pipeline capacity, whether the project is economically and environmentally responsible and how to address the opposition from First Nations peoples, giving both our government's commitment to truth and reconciliation, and both governments, the federal and the provincial commitment to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People. And now it's led to this angry, angry debate that really ignores what we're truly facing. I think we can't have a real debate unless we actually look at where are we today and how do we ensure that we have a strong economy. No one is saying shut down the oil and gas industry overnight. No one is saying buy more from other countries. What we're saying is right now it's big enough and we're at a moment in history where we need to look at how we're cleaning it up and we're at a moment in history where we need to look at how to diversify our economy to make sure that we have resilient and safe jobs in the future. So what's the global context? What are the trends and what do we need to know? What do we need to know? All of this, what's happening on climate change, became very clear to me. The first time I went to the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Bali, I happened to be sitting on the plane beside the chief negotiator from Liberia. It just was a coincidence and he started asking me what's happening in your country and what's going on around climate change. I told him about the debates we have in Alberta, around the oil sands, around new projects, around pipelines. I told him about the debates in Ontario over wind farms and he turned to me and he said that's so nice. That's so nice that you still have time for these debates because in my country people are dying every day as a result of climate change, as a result of water and food scarcity. That was a long time ago, it was 2005. He sounded more like a mourner than a negotiator and it was at that moment that I realized that climate change is not just an environmental issue, it's an economic issue, it's a human rights issue. We know now that climate change is the greatest threat humanity has ever faced, that more people lose their homes today as a result of climate change than war. It's no longer about what's happening in the future, it's about what's happening now. It's changing policy and investment around the world and we have to talk about it. This year it was reported that we've experienced a dramatic increase in refugees over the last couple of years, 65 million people a year in large part because of climate change and we're not dealing with it well as a global community. UN representatives this year told the Security Council that water scarcity produced by climate change was driving a cycle of conflict in developing countries, that the dramatic increase in refugees is in part because of conflict and scarcity due to climate change. The most commonly estimated of total climate migrants is about 200 million by 2050, 200 million people. Simultaneously by 2050 the Food and Agriculture Organization estimates food production will plummet. In Europe many parts of Asia and Africa between 35 to 50 percent. Food costs globally are already increased and expecting to skyrocket and this year UN agencies told us that droughts and floods have reversed progress on global hunger and we're driving food shortages and malnutrition to 10-year highs. Not addressing these issues is no longer an option because if we're unsuccessful at changing the trajectory of climate change, the trajectory of emissions, emissions from oil and gas and coal then everything changes. Our daily life changes. So why is this happening? It's happening because global emissions have increased 70 percent since 1970 and they're literally trapped in our atmosphere creating a blanket around the earth. Since 1970 we're seeing a dramatic increase, a 50 percent increase in severity and frequency of violent storms. All that and the planet has only warmed one degree. If the average temperature stabilizes between 1.5 and 2 degrees then we can expect up to 2 billion people will face water shortages. Up to 30 percent of planet animal species will risk extinction. So I'm sure you've heard about the new report from the intergovernmental panel on climate change. President Trump famously said that question the report last week asking who drew it as if it was drawing new friends. The IPCC is asked by governments around the world to summarize the state of knowledge. This one wasn't drawn. It was written by 91 leading scientists from 40 countries who together examined more than 6,000 studies and it was reviewed and improved by 195 countries including our own including the United States. The report notes that we're already experiencing one degree of warming and catalogs the benefits to us if we can limit warming to 1.5 degrees and it lays out pathways to doing that. I urge you especially the teachers in the room to download the summary and read it use it. What's critical of this conversation is that we're recognizing that climate impacts are worse than expected. We're facing huge human health impacts, erratic weather, dangerous heat waves, rising seas and large-scale disruptions. Yet even with the commitments that the world made in Paris, even three years after Paris current policies will leave us to a three to four degree warming. Far worse scenarios than we have ever really even talked about as a society. Far worse than the IPCC talked about. How do I talk about climate change in Alberta? I hear the same refrains. It's not fair. We're only a small part of the problem. The problem is China and India, the US, not us. It's not fair that we're being targeted. If others continue to expand production of to oil, we might as well. We have a right. We have a right to compete in the global marketplace. Fair. Climate change is not fair. It's not fair that vulnerable countries are starting to report spiraling rates of refugees and starvation. It's not fair to the reported family, the families of the 300,000 people who have lost their lives due to climate impacts this year. It's not fair to the families who've been fleeing fires and floods in Alberta or British Columbia or in fact around the world. And it's not fair that there are 100 companies that we now know from the carbon majors report are responsible for 71% of historical commissions that get us to where we are today. 100 companies. It's not fair that 10% of the world's population, the world's richest, including Canadians, are responsible for 50% of emissions, yet the world's poorest bear the brunt of the impacts. And it's also not fair that some regions like Alberta have economies that are still so heavily dependent on fossil fuels that it makes building the new economy more difficult. You're right. It's not fair. But if there's one thing I think we could all agree with about Alberta, it's that Albertans are builders. Albertans are innovators. And that's what we're called to today. So this is what the international agreements are about. They're about trying to make a plan for what's fair, for each country to do its part. So I've heard repeatedly as we heard this morning that the world needs oil. We're going to use oil. Others are producing it. Why can't we? We will. We can produce it and we will. No one is saying shut it down overnight that it can or should be. But how much are we producing and for how long? Here's a crucial point that gets lost in the debate in Alberta. The storm of controversy is not about having an oil industry. That would be a normal controversy. We see it around the world. The storm of controversy is happening because government and industry want to grow production instead of planning a peak and decline. At this moment in history, we should not be growing production and infrastructure. And that's a key point at the heart of the Trans Mountain debate. You don't build a 10 year pipeline, a $10 billion pipeline for five to 10 years. You build it for 40 or 50. If in 50 years the world is still producing so much oil that we need a Trans Mountain pipeline for that level of production from Alberta, big trouble. Because all of the studies, including the ones our governments have signed off on, show that that's not a habitable world. A four to six degree world is not a habitable world. Our oceans are so diversified, the storms are so intense. So I don't think it's too much to ask that we start planning for a habitable world. Doing that means using global market economic analysis of where oil demand is and should be in a safe climate. It's not just about Alberta. If we look across the country, look at my own province of BC, Allen G. Canada, not consistent with Paris compliance scenarios, not consistent with the safe climate. We need to marry our decision making over infrastructure with climate change. So here's the bottom line. We're now able to calculate the cumulative amount of carbon dioxide emissions that can be released into the atmosphere this century. That's what's called a carbon budget. So if we add up what's currently under construction or producing in oil, coal, and gas right now around the world, using the Rystand database, which is what the oil industry uses, if we add it up, we already have enough under construction or production to take us past two degrees, to take us past where 195 countries are committed, to take us past the point of climate safety. We already have enough. So that means any project, Trans Mountain, Allen G. Canada, Tech Frontier, any project, not just in Canada, but around the world, will take us past two degrees, will put more carbon into the world than we can safely burn. So that's why you see statements like this, that no more than one third of proven reserves of fossil fuels can be consumed. The vast majority of reserves are unburnable, from Mark Kearney, that radical governor of the Bank of Canada. In June, a study in nature, in the journal Nature and Climate Change warned that plummeting renewable energy costs and rapidly rising investment in low carbon technologies would turn trillions of dollars of fossil fuel projects into stranded assets, that it would trigger a global market economic crisis. So we need to start looking at what we're doing in Canada right now to ensure that we avoid that. These studies, here's the President, the former President, Barack Obama. We're going to prevent large-trap parts of this earth from becoming not only inhospitable, but in uninhabitable, in our lifetimes. We're going to have to keep some fossil fuels in the ground. The most immediate risk to Alberta's future prosperity is the notion that we've been hearing several times a day. The false storyline that the next oil boom is just around the corner, and if we just get another pipeline, everything would be fine. The painful but far more practical reality is that Alberta bitumen is a high-carbon, high-cost product that increasingly can't compete against U.S. shale. We can't do it on price, and we're going to be struggling to survive as the world transitions to clean energy. The Alberta gas industry is smart and technologically sophisticated, and over the last generation the province has confronted unimaginable challenges to greatest product to market. But the remaining fundamental problems are not a quick fix. Our carbon intensity has been an issue for a long time. This paper, this from the journal Science from a study on Stanford lists Canadian crude as the fourth most greenhouse gas intensive across 50 countries. That's broadly consistent with other studies by the U.S. Department of Energy that found oil sands bitumen produced three times more emissions per barrel than conventional oil. Here we have our trajectory. We hear a lot about how Alberta oil is getting cleaner per barrel, and there are a number of companies doing incredible work. There have been technological advances. But the fact is that we're not seeing it as an industry as a whole, and that's not any company's fault. That's not any individual's fault. If we look at these numbers, what we see is the amount of emissions per barrel for oil production in Canada has gone up over recent decades. The emissions intensity of oil sands specifically has decreased since 1990, but really in the early part primarily due to the use of natural gas and cogeneration and efficiency measures. Between now and 2030, the government of Canada forexies no improvement in GHG emissions per barrel in oil sands production. Since improvements in technology are going to be offset by declining reservoir quality, aging existing facilities, shifts from mining operations to in situ, the bottom line. There are some projects getting greener, but the industry average is not going in the right direction and not fast enough. The fact is that Canadian oil sands are some of the highest carbon in the North American market, and oil sands have some of the highest cost per barrel of production on the planet. International oil majors are already recognizing Canada's baked disadvantages, and they're moving on. You were here when it was playing out in real time, so I don't need to belabor it. But the fact is, Stad oil, ExxonMobil, Cone of the Philips, Total, Shell, JAPEX, all moving significant holdings in the US sands, there's been a lot of fear mongering that this has been about carbon tax. I have talked to those CEOs. I've talked to those companies. I urge you to do it directly as well. It's not about the carbon tax. That was very small in their bottom line compared to the larger issues of cost as a result of more refinery costs, heavy transportation costs, and the fact that they're already seeing the future trends. And so are the markets. The markets are changing. It's not just oil market majors, but also financial institutions. They're specifically moving away from oil sands, but increasingly we're hearing commitments on restricting insurance and investment in all new oil and gas projects. So three of the world's largest financial institutions, the World Bank, AXA Insurance and ING, have all committed to no longer finance or ensure new oil and gas projects and infrastructure because of the data that I've been showing you. In addition, 140 of the world's leading economists have called for an immediate end to investments in new fossil fuel production and infrastructure. I see several people trying to keep up really hard in the making notes, and I just want to tell you that I posted this speech this morning online with a lot of footnotes in case there was any concern about misinformation, so please access it. Earlier this week, Dutch Investment Group NN was quoted in their statement when they decided to move away from oil sands. If global warming is to be kept below two degrees in line with the Paris Agreement, we believe oil sands should not be developed. After evaluating the oil sands sector, we conclude exclusion sends an important signal. So aside from the critical imperative to constrain emissions from the oil and gas sector, there's an emerging economic threat to future growth. You've seen the news. You know how the world is changing. The world is changing very quickly, and yes, there are challenges to that, and right now we're in a period where we still see growth in fossil fuel consumption, but the question is for how long? This data comes from Shell's sky scenario, and I wanted to bring it up because I wanted to show generally that we know how systems transition. We've seen it before. And what they designed here in the energy system transition in their model is the same model that we see in history. They have the same structure. Innovation results in high cost and high risk in niche products, demand for old technology peaks, new technology gets cheaper, and then there's a period of really rapid change. Getting ready for that period of really rapid change is hard. Think fax machines. Think blockbuster to Netflix, horse and cart to combustion engine. We're talking about disruption, not linear change. The change we're witnessing in our lifetimes is in part because of the growing impact of climate change, but also because of technological advancements that have led to massive drops in renewable, in the price of renewable energy and large-scale adaptation. Wind in the United States. I don't have time to go into all of the stats here, but I would like to say that there is no question that the price of renewables is dropping so fast, so faster than anyone ever thought possible. And now we know that the cost of electricity from solar and wind has fallen to parity with that of fossil fuels in almost every area of the world. And by 2020, they will likely be cheaper than fossil fuels in almost every major area of the world. The United States, down to two cents per kilowatt hour for wind, solar down to 2.42 cents in Chile right now, and Abu Dhabi and still falling. People talk about that it well wind and solar, and the wind doesn't blow all the time, and the sun doesn't shine all the time, and they worry about intermittency. But the changes we've seen in battery storage is the same. They're plummeting. So in January, we saw for the first time a utility, a US utility, receiving bins at 3.6 per kilowatt hour for solar, 2.1 for wind, both of them paired with battery storage. Because battery storage has gone down so much. So what does this mean for oil? What does it mean for electric vehicles? The fact is that falling battery prices mean that electric vehicles will be cost-preparable with conventional cars by 2020. And yes, they're small right now. EV sales were in 2017 were 1 million, 85 million cars. But the fact is we need to look at the trends. In 2017, they made out 22% of the growth. And at current growth rates, they're likely to take all of the growth if by 2023. And the fact is, changes in linear, we are now about to experience peak oil demand. So what is peak oil demand? Peak fossil fuel demand will come when non-fossils take all the growth in demand. Not when we consume more of them, but when they take all the growth in demand. When that rate changes. So estimates vary, but some say that we can expect peak oil demand as early as 2022. This one is from Carbon Tracker using BP data. So why are these projections important? They're critical because we use oil demand projections to analyze the potential for success for projects like Trans Mountain Pipeline. For whether or not we want to do investment here, more in oil sands, or more in diversification and other industry. Where are we going to be putting our intellectual and financial capital in the future? So the overseas markets are changing significantly because a lot of countries have committed to ban fossil fuel cars. Here's China reducing their demand scenarios significantly. And the fact is, even on the Trans Mountain Pipeline, the business case, we're using old demand scenarios because that was proposed so many years ago. China has revised these just in the last year. The uptake of EVs is going to affect oil demand significantly. And now you have many countries in the world planning to ban or phase out the fossil fuel car. So we also hear a lot about the price differential in Trans Mountain. Now we're not losing so much money that we could get a higher price in Asia. I don't have time to go into it in depth. I urge you to take a look at the speech online where I had to have a lot of references there on that. But the fact is there are three elements to price differential. Quality, transport, supply and demand. Alberta can't do much about its quality and transport costs. Oil stands require a heavy refining process. And the fact is that we're a big country. So improving pipeline capacity might create a marginal improvement for Canadian producers, but it can't overcome the distance and the quality and refining industry trends. And the bottom line, if oil to Asia was a silver bullet for getting a better price, the oil in the existing Kinder Morgan pipeline would be heading to Asia. It's not. It's heading to California and the Gulf where refining capacity for heavy crude exists. We could build 10 pipelines and we wouldn't fix the price problem or ensure that we have a resilient economy. So we also hear that Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain project is consistent with our climate goals. Very quickly, I think it's important to look at where we're at as a country. Emissions from oil and gas are going up. Emissions from Alberta are going up. And the math doesn't add up. In 2016, oil stands emissions were 72 million tons and rising. And all the oil and gas was 123 million, 83 million tons. So Canada has committed. Canada has committed to go to 115 million tons by 2030. So we've also, we cannot do that. The math doesn't add up. Unless other sectors take so much more. So that would mean that just emissions from oil stands projects that are built and designed to to mint for decades would take up a far greater hunk of how many emissions the the economy is allowed to produce. And by 2050, they would take up almost all of it. So that would mean we would have to ban all cars. We would have to have only electric renewable energy and the whole rest of the economy and every other sector has to do more. One of the reasons I'm here today is to call for a plan. To a call for a plan that actually ensures that we look at the math and what we've committed to to do our fair share and create a plan not for tomorrow, not for this election cycle, but for now until 2050. So we know what kind of infrastructure we want to build in this country. A little bit on the trans-mountain pipeline because here's the thing, I don't like jail. No one likes jail. Civil disobedience is a last resort and in fact has been necessary throughout history at moments when our leaders fail us. When decisions are made that are not just, that are not towards the public good. The fact is the people I know who have stood on the blockades this year 250 people in construction hasn't even started. 250 people who have been arrested. Thousands and thousands who have protests. They're not foreign funded radicals. This is homegrown. These are Burnaby residents. These are doctors. These are teachers. These are scientists who are standing there because the process was corrupt. You don't make project decisions and infrastructure decisions as a deal between Ottawa and Alberta, especially before you've looked at the environmental consequences and finished consultation with First Nations. Our Prime Minister said out and out that this was a deal he made before his own ministerial panel completed the assessments. Many people were shut out of this process. The fact is we're better than this. Meet Susan Lambert, the former president of the BC Teachers Federation, who has been who has spent seven days in jail. Meet Reverend Laurel Dykstra, an agricultural diocese from the New West Minister. Meet Tim Gray, the founder of one of Canada's largest software companies who also works for Amazon. Meet Romali Kavanagh, a pipeline engineer who used to work for Transmountain. These are not foreign funded radicals. They're real people. They're real people who are standing up because this has become so much more than a pipeline. It's become about what economy we're going to build together in this country. It's about whether or not we're going to ensure our kids have a safe climate. It's about whether or not we're going to take advantage of the new marketplace and a new economy. It's about whether or not we really mean our commitment to reconciliation with Indigenous peoples. We hear a lot about how there's 150 nations. There's many nations who have supported the pipeline, and that's true, and that's their choice. 150 nations will be impacted by this project only 42 percent, over 100 nations have withheld consent. Though the point is not how many consent or don't. This is in a voting process. Regardless of numbers, Indigenous rights, which include the use of territories to hunt and fish, are human rights. You don't get to support the rights of just some humans. The fact is, this is not about a veto. It's about redefining national interest and project approval in the era of reconciliation so we listen, so we dialogue, and we make new choices. And then, of course, there's the court decision recently that agreed with that. There's the orcas, and the fact that they're dying out, and even the NEB, and Peter Morgan, who said that an increase, a seven-fold increase in tankers. That noise will be the end for them. This was a bad project that had a bad process. It's being sold as the holy grail to our future prosperity. It's simply not true, especially at a cost of taxpayers for 10 billion dollars. 10 billion dollars? A national housing strategy would cost four billion dollars. For 10 billion dollars, we could give clean drinking water to every first nation's community across the country, with gold play in the taps. So, the fact is, we are living the dipping point. We are re-envisioning industrial society in our lifetimes. This stuff is hard, but it's also exciting, and we need to be sure that Alberta and Canada are not left behind. So, how do we do that? We do that by taking advantage of these trends. We do that by having a real conversation about the challenges that are in front of us. We do that by spending as much time, as much money, if not more, of our intellectual capital and agriculture, on tourism, on many other industries to ensure that we lift them up and diversify our economy. We'll move to a low carbon economy by design or default. If it's by default, there will be more casualties, more disruption. Our job, as citizens, as teachers, as parents, as voters, is to encourage that change, to make sure our elected officials know its priority. Our moments in history when our politicians fail us, when the societal change that's required is too large, such a big shift that our laws have failed to keep up. Civil rights, women's rights. That's true today. On climate change and the reconciliation of Indigenous peoples, these are not issues of right or left. All parties, all governments, will have to be pushed and pulled to wean us about fossil fuels. Change isn't easy, and we need to face these conversations with respect. We need to open the door to more dialogue and not less. I want to end with a quick story, because I know these issues can be overwhelming, incredibly overwhelming, and I know sometimes it feels like that level of change is not possible in our lifetimes, but I'm not that old, and when I started working on environmental issues, we didn't have internet. I had a cell phone, it was the size of a brick, it required its own briefcase. I came home from the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Bali, where I was data-stated, and I couldn't figure out what to work on. I didn't know what to do. And I had this conversation with my grandmother that changed the way I think about these issues. She said, you know what, I don't want to hear anymore about how hard it is, how big it is, that you don't know if it can work. When your mother was growing up, when I was having my seven children, we didn't have a phone, we had a party line, we didn't have a car, no one owned a car, we just got an electricity, we didn't have computers or cell phones, we didn't even thought of them yet, let alone that raspberry you're always holding, she said to me, about my ever-present Blackberry at the time, but an apple comfort now too, Chris. I never would have thought, she said, that in my lifetime I'd been sitting here talking to my granddaughter about what the world was like, and it would be an entirely different world. The way we communicate is different, the way we move is different. By the time I was an adult and having children, one of whom is here. Thank you, Erin. I had never met anyone who'd been on a plane under the fact that the world will entirely change in your lifetime. So when I do this work every day, I'm holding on to the notion that one day I'm going to be sitting talking to my grandchildren about this crazy day in history, when we used to make catalogs from the last of the old growth forests, this crazy day in history when we clotted the earth to get at some of the last of the oil, a simply crazy time in history when we used to fill our cars with gas, and they will barely believe me, because the world will be such a different place. Thank you.