Climate is still changing while Canada courts the UN

CHEALSEA, QUE.—The headline was so shocking, it looked at first like fake news. Temperatures reached 30 C inside the Arctic Circle last week, in a place called Nizhnyaya Pesha in Siberia. Sadly, the story is too true, a dramatic marker in an abnormally warm winter in northern Russia and the continuation of a long-standing trend towards a warming Arctic. Another warning to the world. Alas, the world is pre-occupied of late. Covid-19, anti-racism protests, and economic uncertainty are consuming all available news space. But ice caps are still melting, water levels are rising, glaciers are crashing into the sea in Greenland and Antartica, and permafrost is threatened. This catastrophe is unfolding in slow motion far from where most people live, but it is still happening. By contrast, Canada’s North was somewhat colder than usual this spring, along with the eastern seaboard in North America, Scandinavia, Australia and parts of Southern Asia—a brief reprieve from the inevitable. Elsewhere, the European Union reported the warmest May on record and, in the 12 months prior to May, global temperatures were 1.3 C above pre-industrial levels. That is dangerously close to the 1.5 C threshold agreed to by 200 countries in the 2015 Paris agreement, if the world is to be spared the worst. Meanwhile, the United Nations World Meteorlogical Organization reports the past five years have been the hottest on record. By now, this is not breaking news, as governments and scientists have been issuing mounting alarms. Yet, just when climate activism appeared unstoppable, it stops. Or, at best, is cast into shadow by other, more immediate problems. The 17-year-old Swedish climate activist Greta Thunberg tried to bring the issue back into focus last week with a pointed letter to leaders of three dozen small island nations concerning the race for two temporary seats on the United Nations Security Council. Norway, Ireland and Canada are competing for an opportunity to sit on the august body for two years and have been energetically working their diplomatic contacts. The all-important vote by the general assembly is scheduled for this week. Thunberg and her co-authors—other youth activists and 22 climate scientists—want the small nations threatened by rising water levels (a 20 per cent voting block) to demand specific and urgent climate action from both Norway and Canada. (Ireland, never a fossil fuel power, last year committed to ending fossil fuel exploration and is considered a favourite candidate among European nations.) Thunberg and company have a big ask: they want Canada to make a temporary ban on Arctic oil exploration permanent and to cancel the Trans Mountain and Keystone pipelines to start. They point out, as others have, that Canada is far from achieving its emissions reductions goals—30 per cent below 2005 levels by 2030—and that the Trudeau government’s approach to climate has been inherently contradictory. On one hand, a beginner carbon tax; on the other, major public expenditures on a pipeline and hefty ongoing subsidies to oil and gas, the second largest in the G20. While global emissions are expected to decline by eight to 17 per cent as a result of the pandemic and attendant shutdown of world economies, that modest success is hardly sustainable given how many people it has thrown out of work. Despite the decline in car traffic, electricity generation, transportation of goods and services and manufacturing continue to produce emissions. Meanwhile, fossil fuel pollution is expected to rebound as the pandemic passes, as it did after the 2008 financial crisis. Some governments will be hesitant to “interfere” with the economic recovery in the name of increased carbon taxes and stricter controls on emissions. And talk of a “green recovery”, while heartening, envisions a dramatic move towards alternative energy sources by familiar means—massive upscaling of electric vehicles, more solar and wind-powered electricity, building retrofits. These are worthy and venerable ideas, but they are not new and progress so far has been glacial given the urgency of the problem. At least, during the pandemic, Canadian help for oil and gas (and other large enterprises) comes with strings attached. To be eligible for federal assistance, large companies must present a plausible and transparent plan for reducing emissions. And much-needed assistance for unemployed oil workers comes in the form of federal funding for an ambitious clean-up of thousands of abandoned oil wells, mostly in Alberta and British Columbia. That job should be the responsibility of the polluters, of course, but years of lax provincial regulation didn’t help, and the pre-pandemic slump in world oil prices has driven many fossil fuel-related companies into bankruptcy. For all that, despite its reputation as a progressive Nordic nation where everyone drives electric vehicles, Norway’s climate record is somewhat mixed. Just last week, Norway’s government gave generous tax breaks to that country’s oil sector to open new explorations, including in the Barents Sea. In the end, more traditional UN concerns may be more influential when it comes to the final vote than action on climate change—and there, too, Canada faces significant challenges from both Norway (population 5.4 million) and Ireland (population 4.9 million). While Canada, which originated peacekeeping in the Pearson era, has only a token presence now, tiny Ireland has reliably provided troops since 1958. Ireland currently has 475 personnel involved in peace-keeping, compared to 65 for Norway and 35 for Canada. When it comes to foreign aid, too, Canada contributes a measly 0.26 of its GDP, compared with 0.4 per cent from Norway, making it the world’s most generous donor on a per capita basis. Norway has pledged US $1-billion for vaccine development, while Canada (population 37.6 million) is putting up $850-million in Canadian dollars. Both Canada and Norway are promising to emphasize the issue of climate change as a threat to peace and security at the world body, with Canada promoting the establishment of a special representative on climate security. As necessary as the UN is, it is not known for decisive action, and another bureaucrat offering regular scoldings will probably not accomplish much. On the other hand, the UN is a good venue for platitudinous speeches, a minor specialty of our current prime minister. Oddly, Trudeau has never explained clearly why his government is spending $2-million, why he travelled to Africa to woo the support of despots and democrats alike, why he has invested so much personal effort in the quest for a Security Council seat—other than to best Stephen Harper’s unsuccessful attempt in 2010. But there has to be more to it than that. If Canada doesn’t succeed, for whatever reason, it will hardly be a major setback, either politically or practically. It may, in fact, encourage the prime minister to turn his restless attention to unfinished business at home, starting with significant green investments and renewed attention to curbing our own emissions and phasing out oil production. The Arctic can’t wait and neither can the world. Susan Riley is a veteran political columnist and a regular contributor to the Hill Times. The Hill Times