The post-election dividing line on climate change

GIBSONS, B.C.—There is a consensus that climate change is now unequivocal, and that each and every Canadian political party will have a climate plan from now on. But from a climate activist's point of view, a dividing line still exists, despite the apparent political consensus that climate change is real and that all parties require a "plan." That dividing line is between those that believe it is possible to reduce emissions in incremental ways while continuing political and economic business as usual, and those that understand that climate change is an emergency, that fossil fuel production must quickly decline, and that we require deep transformative change that is currently not allowed within business and politics as usual. It would seem that the electorate, many members of Canada's climate intelligentsia, and policymakers at all levels want climate to be solvable within the very fortunate, wealthy, and secure socio-economy none of us want to lose, with fossil fuels continuing to be a major driver of our economy and our largest export earner. We know that GHG emissions must be reduced by 50 per cent (at least) by 2030 to have a good chance at remaining safely below a 2C rise in temperature. Is climate mitigation of a scale needed to meet this target possible without emergency action and transformative change? The newly-elected Trudeau government has promised to reduce emissions by 40 to 44 per cent by 2030. Canadian governments are good at making climate mitigation promises, but a new report from Natural Resources Canada and the Trottier Institute predict that with our present mitigation policies Canada will fall far short of this target—a mere 16 per cent reduction by 2030. I predicted at the start of the election campaign, after looking at the party's climate platforms, that neither the Liberals or Conservatives, if elected, would reduce emissions by more than two per cent per year, and that emissions may actually continue to increase under their watch. You can promise any target you want, but after three decades of denial and procrastination, with a now-super-difficult mitigation task and timeline, you need real action. Now. This year. This decade. And with government still tied up within the neoliberal golden straitjacket, real action that could reduce emissions enough isn't possible. As the Trottier report makes clear, to reduce GHG emissions even the inadequate 40 to 45 per cent, you would have to seriously change the oil and gas industries in Canada. So expect Canada to fail to meet our target this crucial next decade, with even a chance that our emissions will continue to rise. Effective climate mitigation is a life or death matter. Yes, the delayers are citing the latest IPCC report that effective mitigation is still possible and climate change won't spiral out of control, and that existential risk is a low probability, but a whole town burning down was a low probability too until an unprecedented heatdome drove temperatures to near 50C, and it took just one spark to turn Lytton into an inferno. But hey, it's not just Canada who is refusing to wake up to climate reality. As I have pointed out in many opeds, the Trudeau government has been a world leader in talking the talk but not walking the walk and getting away with it; this is what we should expect from other world governments. As a Chatham House report in September pointed out, the present nationally determined contributions (NDCs) are grossly insufficient: "If emissions follow the trajectory set by current NDCs, there is a less than five per cent chance of keeping temperatures well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels, and less than one per cent chance of reaching the 1.5°C target set by the 2015 Paris Agreement. Hundreds gathered on Parliament Hill to call the government to take action on climate change on May 3, 2019. The Hill Times photograph by Sam Garcia "Unless NDCs are dramatically increased, and policy and delivery mechanisms are revised accordingly, many of the climate change impacts described in this research paper are likely to be locked in by 2040, and become so severe they go beyond the limits of what nations can adapt to." Heading into a Glasgow COP that promises to be a failure, despite "code red" warnings; with the Biden administration's plan for a U.S. mitigation revival floundering before it even gets off the ground; with a winter of (fuel) discontent promising a severe backlash against needed energy transition policyl; I don't think I'm being a doomer in pointing out that we are near a cliff and still racing the wrong way. It is still possible to reduce emissions on a scale needed but not within business as usual. The control of governments by business interests, both in Canada and globally, doesn't allow for change, such as limiting fossil fuel production and use, that will negatively affect GDP or even quarterly earnings. There is sufficient carbon budget and time left to make the transition from fossil fuels, but the delayers of effective action are in charge and will do everything in their power to run out the clock rather than support the transformative change required. Plus the voting public everywhere has no appetite for the transformative. Our complex socio-economy requires certain stabilities: life can be precarious for many even without recessions or pandemics or the needed energy transitions, and electorates are fearful. What would it look like if we took climate change seriously? What if we accept that addressing the existential risk of climate change required transformational rather than incremental change? Carbon pricing, flex-regs, blue hydrogen, carbon capture and storage, electric cars and other components of our present "plans" are not going to deliver emission reduction on the scale and speed now required to avert potential catastrophe. At best, these incremental changes will give us a 10 to 20 per cent reduction by 2030, which is far short of the 50 per cent reduction required. We need real climate mitigation plans that keep fossil fuels in the ground unburned. A puny 16 per cent emission reduction by 2030 just wastes our last chance to stay climate safe. The activist/futurist Alex Steffen has warned that delay and the delayers are the real problem today, and that "doing the same things, the same old ways, means defeat. It guarantees defeat". In Canada, we'd have to agree that climate is an existential emergency and that mitigation requires an urgent, regulated wind-down of all fossil fuel production. We'd need to have an emergency coalition government to even consider this heretical action. This is the only path to climate safety still possible, but emergency government action isn't being debated in Parliament, by policymakers, or in the mainstream media. Applying Rawls' Veil of Ignorance, put yourself in the position of a Canadian descendant three, five, or more generations in the future—how would you judge the actions of Canadians today who continue to pollute and escalate the risk of climate catastrophe, without even considering our last hope at effective mitigation, because government regulating a managed decline of fossil production isn't allowed? How terminally myopic is this? Bill Henderson is a long-time climate activist based in Gibsons, B.C. The Hill Times