Longer-term trends on climate change are truly ominous

TORONTO—We don’t know what lies ahead. But the future could be nasty, difficult, and highly disruptive as the world experiences growing threats to the sustainability of human life on our planet. We don’t know exactly when the full costs will hit, but the world’s collective failure to effectively meet the challenge of climate change will have major consequences for people everywhere. Since the 2015 Paris summit on climate change, we have been told it was critical to limit the increase in the average global temperature to no more than two degrees Celsius above the level at the start of the industrial age—and ideally to hold the increase to no more than 1.5 degrees Celsius. A rise above 2 C, scientists warned, could plunge us into catastrophic change and even trigger a tipping point where the world would face sudden calamity. This is why much of the world has committed to net zero-emissions of greenhouse gases by 2050 even though few—including Canada—have taken the commitment seriously enough to help ensure success. Minister of Environment and Climate Change Steven Guilbeault addresses the fourth session of the UN Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee on plastics pollution at the Shaw Centre in Ottawa on April 23, 2024. The Hill Times photograph by Andrew Meade Despite this failing, political leaders have underlined these targets as an imperative. As Environment Minister Steven Guilbeault and Energy Minster Jonathan Wilkinson declared in a 2023 report—Powering Canada Forward: Building a Clean, Affordable, and Reliable Electricity System for Every Region of Canada—building a net-zero economy is “a scientific and moral imperative. Climate scientists are unequivocally telling us that we must drastically reduce our emissions by 2030 and achieve net zero by 2050 if we are to leave a habitable world to our children.” Yet, it now appears highly unlikely that the world will meet any of its three targets: holding the average global temperature increase to 1.5 C or 2 C, or achieving net-zero emissions by 2050. Instead, we could be headed towards an increase of about 2.9 C. It is not clear exactly what will follow, or whether we will cross our fingers and set new targets. But the longer-term trends are truly ominous. It now appears highly unlikely that the world will meet any of its three targets: holding the average global temperature increase to 1.5 C or 2 C, or achieving net-zero emissions by 2050, writes David Crane. Image courtesy Pixabay Canadians were warned last year that our own country—the world’s 10th largest emitter of greenhouse gases on a per capita basis (most of those worse than us are Middle Eastern or South Asian oil and gas states)—was failing to meet its own emission reduction targets. A report from the commissioner of the environment and sustainable development warned that while Canada has been making some progress—and committing serous resources—it is not on track to meet its 2030 emission reductions target, and warned that it was pessimistic about the country achieving net-zero emissions by 2050. “The stakes for failing to mitigate climate change grow even higher, and the window of opportunity to reduce emissions and meet the 2030 and 2050 targets us rapidly closing,” the report said, outlining a list of failures by government to effectively implement many of its proposed policies. But while it is unlikely that our climate targets to 2050 will be met, despite the grave consequences, this is something the governments and environmental groups cannot concede—they must hold up the hope that we can still succeed. Otherwise, people may “despair and give up," as one writer has put it. Moreover, if it is critical to keep pushing. A recent article in The Guardian by David King, the former chief science adviser to the British government and a highly respected scientist, has warned that “over the past year, land and ocean temperatures have soared,” and global average temperatures have breached the 1.5 C level, “indicating that climate transition has been unleashed. From record-breaking wildfires across continents to catastrophic floods threatening to submerge major cities, extreme climate events have been the new norm, causing massive loss of life and economic damage worldwide.” King, who now chairs the global Climate Crisis Advisory Council, a group of climate experts from 10 countries whose goal is to help identify ways that scientific findings can lead to effective climate policies, is in many ways highly pessimistic. “On our current path, civilization as we know it will disappear. If we meet current commitments only—net zero by 2050— perhaps some form of humanity will survive, managing the challenges of continued extreme weather events, ice loss, and sea-level and temperature rises.” Yet better possibilities remain. There is still the opportunity to do better than we have been doing so far, King maintains. “A thriving future is still on the table,” but to succeed we must “embark on a radical journey,” he argues, that includes reducing emissions, removing excess greenhouse gases already in the atmosphere, repairing ecosystems, and strengthening the capacity for local and global resilience against climate impacts that will be inevitable. Failing to act carries a high price—and an increasingly higher price. But this requires a level of leadership we have not seen so far, either here or in many other countries. Seriously addressing climate change will be hugely disruptive, enormously costly, and organizationally hugely challenging. It calls for as “blood, sweat and tears” leadership where the price of failing to act could be devastating, but where the main beneficiaries will be future generations. Although it’s obvious Canada alone will not affect the big picture on climate change, we clearly have an obligation to do our share for the future of humankind. And as we approach the next federal election, climate change will—or should be—one of the defining issues. While the Liberal record is one of big promises but mediocre delivery, the Conservative opposition—based on what it has said so far—would seem to be proposing doing much less, while aggressively advancing the interests of the fossil fuel industry. What we do know is that by failing to act with a heightened sense of urgency, life on this planet will become much more difficult. But we also know that by acting more urgently now, we would have a better future despite some unavoidable challenges. There is a choice. David Crane can be reached at crane@interlog.com. The Hill Times