Letter to a Liberal member of Parliament
Dear Mr. Sawatzky,
Both atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO₂) and temperature are increasing at an exponential rate, in lock-step. Atmospheric CO₂ levels during the Eocene have been estimated up to 840 parts per million (ppm); sea levels were close to 60 metres higher than today. CO₂ concentrations are over 425 ppm and still climbing. Pause a moment to consider what this will mean for all coastal cities.
What part of “keep the oil in the ground” that scientists have been shouting for decades do politicians not understand? What part of physics are politicians trying to deny?
I am opposed to allowing more oil tankers near our beautiful, fragile coast. I am vehemently opposed to marring our landscape with pipelines for transporting oil. Yes, $14 trillion dollars is a lot of money, but it will pale in comparison to the economic damage that exacerbating climate change will cause. Carbon capture and storage cannot offset our burn rate with any significance.
Earth has had a remarkably stable climate for tens of thousands of years; burning fossil fuels is destabilizing it.
I ask you to acknowledge that physics cannot be bargained with, show some foresight, protect our children's future, and care deeply about our planet's health. I ask that you tell our Prime Minister in no uncertain terms that selling fossil fuels is the wrong choice for the world and the wrong economic direction for Canada.
I don’t know how the Canadians work, but I can give you some tips if I were to address a European MEP on the same matter.
First, introduce yourself as someone that is represented by this person. It’s very important to contextualise the letter. Follow that with why you are writing it (in response to a particular statement for example).
Then, focus on the direct economic damage. The thing with climate change is that anyone with a position such as what you seem to describe as Sawatzky’s, will not listen to “there will be damage later”: either they already know this and don’t care, or they refuse to acknowledge it and won’t listen.
However you can go into immediate impact. “ Pause a moment to consider what this will mean for all coastal cities” is not useful- instead, dive into insurance premiums climbing on housing and disaster recovery on those coastal cities. Explain that people are moving out of those cities and it’s directly impacting them. Explain that these decisions are responsible for these changes and that you and your local community are holding this MP personally responsible because of (list some examples), and that his name is getting terrible reputation because your opinion is shared by (list a big local community or something)
In other words you want to:
Update - I fed this advice to an AI agent and asked it to source things a bit. Here's what it wrote.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ObHEdNviKnkgDaEK-Q_ezU-EuUMlz7p4bbmxK1ZAOEA/edit?usp=sharing
I didn't check said sources because I have to run, but with zero edits that already looks incredibly concrete and impactful and would not be ignored.
It also looks like, from the statements it dug up, that Sawatzky is actually decently pro-climate? This is why you need to kick off with "In response to your statement on ...".
A bit off topic but as a Canadian I feel compelled to note that the MOU causing all this panic is both non binding and explicitly says it will not proceed unless there is indigenous support and a private sector proponent. So while continued pressure on Liberals is key, I think this is a lot of premature panic.
Moreover, a large part of the impetus of this effort is Alberta's government. Pushing for proportional representation and supporting Alberta's NDP in getting rid of the UCP are really key.
Ultimately all engagement is good and I hope you get good traction with your letter. Just wanted to provide some context and thoughts for someone obviously very engaged.
I appreciate the context regarding the non-binding nature of the MOU, but I must push back on the idea of "premature panic."
Fwiw, I don't think the person responding to you was referring to your sentiments on climate change as "premature panic", but rather the more specific political circumstances surrounding this MOU (which I personally don't know remotely enough about to opine on whether they're right).
If this is actually a letter to a parliament member, it suffers from being too combative. It’s just human nature - you’re never going to convince someone by arguing with them. It’s fine as an open letter, mostly intended to be read by people who agree with you.
But IMO it’s more likely to make this person not want to push for a cessation of oil sales than vice versa in its current form.