Navigate our helpful database of common environmental misinformation and skeptic talking points.
Find our curated list of FALSE CLAIMS currently being perpetuated by perpetuated by the critics, skeptics, fossil fuel advocates and others.
We can’t afford to take environmental action when faced with crises in the cost of living, health care and other issues.
The environment directly affects our cost of living, health and community well-being. Clean air, safe water, affordable energy and a healthy environment are all vital to our quality of life.
Climate change is already impacting Canadians’ health, leading to increased injuries, illnesses and even deaths. For example, extreme heat is a significant threat, worsening existing health issues and increasing the risk of heat-related illnesses. Additionally, milder winters allow more mosquitoes to survive, spreading diseases, while longer tick seasons raise the risk of Lyme disease.
Investing in a healthy environment supports better health outcomes, economic stability and quality of life for all New Brunswickers. The financial burden of environmental health impacts could cost Canada’s health-care system billions of dollars and reduce economic activity by tens of billions in the coming decades. By taking swift action to address climate change, we can prevent many of these problems and their costs.
Some say New Brunswick should lift its fracking ban to supply energy to Europe during their energy crisis. They argue it would boost the local economy, even though fracking poses environmental and health risks.
Fracking in New Brunswick wouldn’t do much to help Europe, as Europe is already moving away from fossil fuels. In 2023, Europe cut gas-powered electricity by 15 per cent and coal by 26 per cent. Meanwhile, 44 per cent of their energy came from renewable sources, with wind power contributing 18 per cent and, for the first time, overtaking gas plants in Europe.
We’ve already seen the damage fracking can cause. In Penobsquis, some 60 homes lost drinking water, and land started sinking after nearby fracking. Some properties were permanently damaged, and while a few people may have gained economically, others are left dealing with long-term environmental damage.
Fracking can release harmful gases and chemicals into the air. One dangerous chemical, methylene chloride, can cause memory loss, nausea and respiratory issues over time. High exposure can even be fatal.
Fracking can leak harmful chemicals into water sources. When wastewater isn’t disposed of properly, these chemicals can contaminate water at the drilling site and far away.
Electric school buses are too costly for school districts, and diesel buses are a better investment.
Electric school buses cost more upfront but save money over time. They have fewer moving parts, which means lower maintenance costs. Over 12 years, each electric bus can save up to $166,000 in fuel and $36,000 in maintenance. Plus, schools may earn clean fuel credits in some provinces.
Diesel buses expose children to harmful pollutants like fine particulate matter and nitrogen dioxide, which can cause respiratory problems and affect school performance. Electric buses don’t emit these pollutants, making the air cleaner and healthier for kids and communities.
Electric buses reduce greenhouse gas emissions and help fight climate change. Diesel buses release significant amounts of CO2 and other pollutants, while electric buses produce no tailpipe emissions, meaning they cut down on air pollution and lower the carbon footprint of school transportation.
In the long term, electric buses offer significant financial savings for schools by cutting fuel and maintenance costs, making them a smart investment for schools and the planet.
Hydrogen is a clean energy source that can be easily stored and transported, making it useful for a stable electric grid and energy security. Exporting green hydrogen to Europe is an effective way to reduce global emissions.
Most hydrogen production today comes from ‘grey’ sources, meaning it’s produced from natural gas or methane through a process that emits significant amounts of carbon dioxide. This grey hydrogen contributes to greenhouse gas emissions. Less than one per cent of hydrogen production worldwide uses cleaner methods.
Even ‘green’ hydrogen, which is produced using renewable energy, is an inefficient use of that energy. Converting renewable power to hydrogen is less efficient than using renewable energy directly, meaning it’s often better to power homes and businesses directly from renewables rather than converting it into hydrogen.
Hydrogen is highly flammable and prone to leaks. It burns more rapidly than natural gas, increasing the risk of explosions. When released into the atmosphere, hydrogen can create a greenhouse effect that is up to five times more potent than carbon dioxide.
The Port of Belledune has signed agreements to develop a hydrogen facility to produce and export ammonia fuel to Europe.
However, this plan won’t best use the region’s renewable energy potential. This energy could be used more effectively to directly power local homes, businesses and industries at a lower cost. Instead of focusing on hydrogen production, the Canadian East Coast could better use its renewable resources to provide affordable and reliable local electricity.
Small modular reactors (SMRs) are a promising solution that can play a crucial role in reducing carbon emissions and meeting future climate goals.
Generating energy from SMRs can be up to 10 times more expensive than using renewable sources like wind or solar. While the cost of renewable energy has fallen over the last decade, the cost of building nuclear reactors has increased, making SMRs more expensive to produce electricity than traditional nuclear reactors.
SMRs also produce more radioactive waste. Research shows they may generate up to 30 times more radioactive waste to produce electricity than large nuclear plants. Adding to the challenge, SMRs rely on a fuel Canada doesn’t produce. A Russian state-owned company is currently the only commercial fuel supplier, raising concerns about energy dependence.
New Brunswick’s plan to double its nuclear capacity with SMRs faces economic hurdles. SMRs are expensive to build and operate, and neither of the private companies proposing to build them here (ARC Clean Technology and Moltex Energy) has successfully constructed or licensed a commercial reactor.
With N.B. Power already dealing with ongoing issues at Point Lepreau, the cost and reliability of SMR energy is questionable. Similar nuclear projects in the U.S. failed due to high costs and insufficient customer demand.
Critics say that switching to a renewable energy grid is unrealistic due to concerns about reliability, storage limitations, transmission costs and how long it would take to transition from fossil fuels.
Transitioning to renewable energy is not only realistic, but it’s already happening in many parts of the world. Seven countries generate almost all their electricity from renewable sources. Renewables like solar and wind often perform as well as, or better, than traditional fossil fuel plants. By using multiple energy sources, we can minimize the risk of major outages that can happen when relying solely on large fossil fuel plants.
Renewable energy is also cheaper. The cost of electricity from renewables has dropped below fossil fuel prices. Canada could save up to $15 billion a year by moving to a carbon-neutral electricity grid, while the average household could save around $1,500 annually.
Fossil fuel prices are unpredictable and can change dramatically, making energy costs unstable. In Canada, this volatility makes energy prices one of the most unstable parts of inflation, outpacing changes in the prices of goods and services.
Fossil fuel systems can lead to energy shortages, particularly during extreme weather. For example, Alberta experienced grid alerts in 2023 when natural gas generators failed during a heatwave, and similar issues happened during cold snaps when natural gas froze.
Fossil fuel systems can lead to energy shortages, particularly during extreme weather. For example, Alberta experienced grid alerts in 2023 when natural gas generators failed during a heatwave, and similar issues happened during cold snaps when natural gas froze.
Canada’s carbon price is the main reason for rising inflation and the high cost of living.
The carbon price has a very small impact on inflation. Studies show that while it does raise fuel prices a little, other larger economic issues, like global supply chain issues, energy market prices, worker shortages and geopolitical tensions, have a much bigger effect on inflation. The Bank of Canada says the carbon tax is responsible for only 0.1-0.15 per cent of total inflation.
In New Brunswick, the money from the carbon levy is also returned to households through rebates, which means most families get back more than they pay.
Blaming the carbon price for inflation distracts from the real causes of rising costs, which slows down efforts to address inflation and climate change. Carbon pricing is an important part of Canada’s plan to cut emissions and fight climate change. While it isn’t the only way to combat accelerating climate change, it is one of the most effective and least expensive.
Some governments, including Canada’s, say that burning biomass (like wood) for industrial electricity is low-carbon because plants absorb CO2 while growing. They argue that burning biomass only releases the same amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) that plants absorb while growing, creating a low-carbon cycle.
Burning biomass for electricity creates CO2, just like burning coal or oil. While trees do absorb CO2, it can take decades for new trees to grow back and absorb the CO2 we release today. In the meantime, that extra carbon stays in the air, making climate change worse. Cutting down trees, making wood pellets and shipping them also creates more CO2.
The Drax power plant in the UK, the biggest industrial biomass plant in the world, burns millions of tonnes of wood every year, much of it from North American forests. Even though it’s called ‘renewable,’ burning biomass at Drax releases 15-20 per cent more CO2 than coal for the same amount of energy. It takes decades for forests to grow back and absorb that CO2. Drax adds about 13 million tonnes of CO2 to the atmosphere every year. Proposals from the New Brunswick government to convert the Belledune generating station from coal to a biomass reactor may result in the same problem.
It won’t make a difference if Canada reduces its greenhouse gas emissions while other countries continue polluting. Since climate change affects the whole planet, the efforts of one country won’t matter if others don’t act.
es, climate change is a global challenge, but some countries, like Canada, contribute more than others. Canada is the 12th largest emitter of greenhouse gases in the world. We also have one of the highest emissions per person — about three times more than the global average.
When Canada steps up, it can encourage other countries to do the same. Climate change is already hitting hard us hard at home — last year’s wildfires burned nearly seven times more land than normal, and this year, whole communities have been forced to flee because of fires.
When Canada steps up, it can encourage other countries to do the same. Climate change is already hitting hard us hard at home — last year’s wildfires burned nearly seven times more land than normal, and this year, whole communities have been forced to flee because of fires.
