Dear climate movement friends,
As we return from another hot and smoke-filled summer of unnatural disasters, let us admit that we are in our own form of denial. This piece may upset some friends and colleagues, including people I greatly admire. But perhaps it is time to concede that, in the face of an escalating catastrophe, we are stuck in a rinse-and-repeat cycle that is simply not working.
The chart above shows Canada’s greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions going back to the start of the century, with a little hat tip to Greta Thunberg’s apt description of climate promises to date as so much “blah, blah, blah.”
Let this chart sink in. There are little ups and downs.
Below the surface there are modest wins in some sectors and provinces, offset by continued escalating emissions from the oil and gas sector. But overall, it is basically a flat line; our GHG emissions plateaued at a historic high.
Emissions in 2022 (the last year for which we have data) were down a mere five per cent from when the Liberals won federal government in 2015. We have failed to truly bend the curve at the pitch and pace that science and justice demands.
To keep on with our current approach and expect a different result epitomizes Einstein’s definition of insanity. In short, we are not on a path to stave off a horrific future for our kids and future generations – the people and places we love. We have run out the clock with distracting debates about incremental changes. And where it matters most – actual GHG reductions – we have accomplished precious little.
Now here we are, staring down this harrowing gap between what the science says we must urgently do and what our politics seems willing or capable of entertaining. And more foreboding still, facing the likely prospect of a majority Conservative government that, if elected, will throw out virtually the entire package of climate policies enacted to date. Somehow, we have to kick-start something new.
For years, the climate movement has heeded the counsel of friendly political leaders (federal and provincial) who warned that if we push too fast, we risk a populist right-wing backlash. And so we have accepted incremental policies that seek to “bring people along” and avoid confrontation.
Yet how has that worked out? We are left with the worst of all outcomes – with milquetoast climate policies and a right-wing populist backlash nonetheless, such that even the modest advances of the last decade are at imminent risk of being tossed out the window.
We urgently need to shift gears or we are done.
Rinse and repeat
In private, I hear most of my climate movement colleagues sharing a similar critique to what I outline above. But then we nevertheless default to the familiar script we know:
The government issues a consultation paper or holds hearings on some topic, and we dutifully spend time and resources making submissions that may or may not result in some modest revision.
The government tables draft legislation, we spend months mobilizing our members to lobby for improvements to the bill, we extract a few amendments… and claim the win. It’s deep in the weeds, and it’s all on their agenda and timeline.
We have spent huge resources winning legislation – the Sustainable Jobs Act, the Climate Accountability Act – that, while positive, are ultimately of little climate or political consequence, and unknown to the public. But when we applaud incremental progress, we are slowing down the change we need. When we devote our resources to securing modest reforms to inadequate measures, those resources are diverted from the bigger tasks at hand.
We have a federal government that is in the process of regulating changes to the building code, zero-emission vehicle sales, oil and gas emissions, and the electricity system, but the implementation timelines are anathema to the emergency we face and so far into the future as to render them politically imaginary.
And we have long ago lost the public to esoteric and technical climate policy debates that are, for ordinary people, impenetrable.
Meanwhile, the federal Liberals, NDP and Greens all appear to be sleepwalking us to a Conservative majority.
A challenging context
I don’t wish to demoralize. I know all too well the very difficult context in which we operate, and how hard so many of you are working. We are all wrestling with climate grief, yet feel the public to be suffering from climate fatigue. This September marks the fifth anniversary of the historic 2019 youth-led climate strikes, and we are all struggling to recapture the energy and enthusiasm that peaked at that time, especially after COVID took so much wind out of our sails.
Nor do I mean to be too critical. Our movement is a big mix of organizations, large and small, employing a wide range of strategies against an array of targets. I recognize and appreciate that many groups, especially smaller ones, are focused rightly on grassroots organizing.
Climate mobilizing suffers from a paradox of time. The curse of the climate crisis is that it moves in slow motion (except, of course, when it expresses itself in violent extreme weather events, but never everywhere at once), inviting political leaders to kick the can down the road to a future mandate, and the public to prioritize more immediate challenges – housing, affordability, war, the many oppressions of now. Yet the solutions to the climate crisis require transformative solutions in the immediate term, and every year in which we fail to ramp down emissions comes at great cost.
Meanwhile, the oil and gas industry has been brutally effective at slowing progress, keeping us in defense mode and re-prosecuting fights that should be a distant memory.
And when I say we have been too stuck in esoteric policy discussion, I’m looking in the mirror; heck, I spent 22 years leading a public policy shop, so I’m as guilty as anyone of losing people in the arcane weeds.
A fateful year ahead: we need a new script
But take heart! It is far too early to throw in the towel or to let defeatism take root. The next federal election is just over a year away. So much depends on our ability to shift the terrain over the next 12 months. But as the saying goes, that is a lifetime in politics. A Conservative majority can absolutely still be avoided. The new U.S. election dynamic offers a hopeful reminder of how quickly the political terrain and movement energy can shift, when we bring about the necessary changes.
So, what’s the alternative to the default we know? We all struggle with this, of course. But a few thoughts:
First, as a movement, we need to move off the wonky policy debates and discussions – we are putting people to sleep with this gibberish! – and captivate the public with exciting and provocative ideas. I outlined a number of options – including a Youth Climate Corps, the fossil fuel ad ban, massive climate infrastructure investments, and a windfall profits tax on oil and gas companies – in my recent column here.
Second, we need to stop proposing incremental solutions, as the public is rightly dubious that these measures are up to the task, and thus these modest proposals undermine our credibility. Incrementalism is no match for the crises we face. That’s not just true for climate, but for all the other elements of the polycrisis upon which the populist right feeds – the housing crisis, the poison drug epidemic, inequality. When we respond to these crises with half measures, we can never get ahead of the curve.
Third, relatedly, we need to excite people with big ideas that are congruent with the crisis, and that simultaneously speak to people’s deep economic and employment anxieties and the cost of living crisis.
- We need billions of dollars more spent on transformative climate infrastructure that will employ tens of thousands of people.
- Rather than trying to incentivize heat pumps with inadequate rebates, let’s just make them free! (As PEI does for households with incomes under $100,000.)
- Let’s talk about free public transit, and huge subsidies for e-bikes, to liberate people from punishing transportation expenses.
- And let’s propose paying for a chunk of all that with wealth and windfall profits taxes (a recent Abacus survey found increasing taxes on the richest 1% to be a massive vote-winner), and suing the corporations that got us into this mess (as California is doing).
These represent transformative policies that tackle multiple crises at once and bolster solidarity.
Fourth, recognize that the public is looking for meaning. So many people, especially the young men upon whom the populist right preys, are waiting to be invited to join in a grand and purposeful project. So many are left cold and isolated by the hyper-consumerism and individualism that neoliberalism has to offer. But we – especially our more established and professionalized NGOs – are failing to ask these folks to do something big and audacious with us.
Fifth, we need to be more aggressive in our fight with the fossil fuel companies and their financial institution enablers (something that, thankfully, the climate movement has started to do with more vigor). And we should challenge (peacefully, of course) the media outlets and pundits that run interference for the oil and gas industry, who currently do so without consequence.
Sixth, vitally at this juncture, many environmental NGOs need to shake off their distaste for the messy world of politics and dive in. Too much is at stake. We need to collectively roll up our sleeves and develop a strategy to avoid progressive vote-splitting (as thankfully occurred in the recent French elections, when they too faced the prospect of a hard-right electoral victory). Many NGOs (particularly in Canada) have historically been very reluctant to engage politically in this way, especially those that feel constrained by their charitable status. But let’s be clear – a Poilievre government is coming after your charitable status. Many more of us are going to have to throw caution to the wind.
We have to reveal to Canadians who the Poilievre Conservatives truly are, and what a Conservative majority government will mean for the things we hold dear – there is no appeasement to be had with them. We need to devote more organizational resources to on-the-ground organizing – deep canvassing and sectoral organizing, as more environmental groups are thankfully doing – particularly with communities that haven’t historically seen themselves as part of the environmental movement (finding common cause with the massive climate upheavals facing so many around the world). And we need to urgently recruit and cajole climate justice champions to run for office – people who will excite the electorate, especially younger voters, with a progressive populist message.
Finally, I think it’s time more of us consider undertaking peaceful civil disobedience. There are thousands of people, including our own supporters, who feel the disconnect between the crisis we face and the solutions on offer. I think many are ready to be asked to do something big, like we saw in the U.S. with the Keystone XL fight, and at Standing Rock, and which we’ve seen in Canada historically but at a smaller scale. Earlier this year, our U.S. allies planned to do this again in Washington D.C., and it seems the very threat of that action pushed the Biden administration to announce a freeze on new LNG approvals. This strategy won’t work, however, if it is merely one or two groups issuing the invitation; it has to be a collective movement call, with some clear and compelling strategic targets.
But one way or another, we need to take this up a notch. We’ve been telling people it’s an emergency, after all. So now, we need to act accordingly, like our lives and those we love depend on it – because they do.
Comments
Well, a very optimistic article, but I don't see the same outlook.
Justin Trudeau has indicated he won't step down, which dooms the Liberal Party of winning the next election. This means that Pierre "Snake Oil Salesman" Poilievre will bring oil & gas politics to the entire country, dismantling anything that stands in the industry way to boost production and build more pipelines. What little has been achieved with climate change and the environment will be reversed. Just remember, that the oil & gas industry are in the back pockets of the Conservative Party.
Even with the Liberal Party, Justin Trudeau talks-the-talk on climate change, but rarely is there any real substance behind their policies or any real action. Since 2015, there has not been any reduction greenhouse gases, they continue to subsidize the oil & gas industry, than eliminate them. The Liberals have continued to invest in pipelines. So the Liberals on one side of their mouth talk climate change and make grand commitments at COPS, etc., but on the other side, continue supporting an industry making record profits and have done nothing to curtail greenhouse gases. The oil & gas industry has spend more time increasing emissions, gaslighting and greenwashing Canadians. Zero has been achieved by the Liberals other than alienate their supporters by a leader who refuses to acknowledge his past expiry date.
Then, let's take the typical centre to far-right leaning Canadian. They may support dealing with climate change or taking action to mitigate it, but don't expect they are willing to pay a little more or do anything that impacts their life style. People are too selfish and want their cake and eat it too, so don't expect any willingness to sacrifice anything to help the cause. Canadians are struggling to make ends meet in our current economic climate, that last thing they will want is more sacrifice to deal with climate change.
Have I given up on what is needs to be done for climate change, no, but, I am not as optimistic that Canadians or our government will be willing to do what it takes to achieve the goals committed by the Liberal government as climate conferences. Once Pee Pee is PM, you can expect ZERO effort on anything related to climate change, Canada will be climate change dead in the water, until Pee Pee is kicked to the curb.
Excellent points. Unfortunately, none of the parties (even the Greens) are willing to advocate for the radical changes required. All of them stand for the status quo with some tinkering around the edges. God forbid that citizens should ever be asked to make any real sacrifices!
Politics, Economics, Media ... have come to the conclusion that life (and how to sustain it) simply doesn't matter. It was nice while it lasted but it cost too much.
Great article, it is about time we think big and bring people along. Focusing on what is possible, instead of what is coming is probably a good strategy. But i also wonder if perhaps populist right wing governments will eventually find themselves in a pickle. Already you are seeing announcements from the European union that will slap tariffs on certain goods that are high carbon emitting products. As things get worse (and they will), I can see more governments doing this in order to bring other governments along.
Especially Canada, if Harris is elected President. Good ol PP may find himself having to meet climate standards that he detests.
Excellent points
Like it or not, Canada is deeply dependent on an interconnected global economy. When our trading partners start putting a price on the carbon content of our exports, our leadership, right, left and centre, are helpless to prevent the consequences from materializing.
Given the current weakness of the leaders who we rely on to enact progressive policies, why do we feel it necessary to put so much faith in party identification in the first place? In too many instances it devolves into tribalism, which in turn erodes any inspiration for those among us able to lead from a cooperative standpoint, and when they do their egos too often get in the way in a distorted majoritarian electoral system.
As such, this still leaves a few powerful tools on the table. One of them is strategic voting against right wing candidates in competitive ridings by voting for any candidate (as imperfect as they might be) that can defeat the Conservative ticket. This is heresy to rank and file Liberals, NDPers or Greens who would prefer the demonstrative "purity" of their vote over the cold, hard math of vote splitting that their ideals have elevated in the current system.
Another is personal responsibility. I have too many progressive friends who have loudly and visibly protested pipelines like TMX and port expansion and who loudly proclaim their progressive ideals, but then show their hypocrisy in pairs: owning two gasoline burning cars, booking two annual overseas vacations a year or attending far away conferences via jet plane when video conferencing is also a reliable option, maintaining two houses, installing a second gas burning fireplace, and so forth.
Given our state of affairs federally at this point, it seems reasonable to suggest strategic voting should be powerful enough to give federal parties pause, and to continue writing out our thoughtful opinions as progressives in all media. It also seems perfectly reasonable to see our best hope in a Canada permeated by weak leadership and strong corporate puppeteering is to see Kamala Harris elected across the border, to be penalized by carbon tariffs on Canadian fossil fuels in the EU, and to see our closest allies go progressive politically and hold Canada to account.
But as a septugenarian, I'll tell you to F.O. if you suggest I need to lay down in front of highway traffic, raid provincial legislatures during political leadership contests, to defeat the only federal party able to defeat the right wing soley to meet out punishment for their sins while ignoring the consequenses, or get arrested in an Extinction Rebellion protest designed to piss off the very voters progressives need to befriend.
Interesting article, most of which I agree with, however I believe it is missing the real problem. We need the general public to understand that if we don't address climate change and biodiversity loss (turn the good ship Canada in the right direction) in the next few years, not much else matters. We need the majority of Canadians to push, or at least not block, our governments (all, but mostly provincial) to do the right things. In order to accomplish this, mass education is required - A combination of 'wake up to our reality' and 'the solutions all exist'! IMO, all environmental groups at all levels need to be teaching and converting the masses that if we don't take transformative actions now - This amazingly beautiful planet will be lost (for thousands of years anyways). Without education, right wing populism will take us down a dark path full of pain and suffering...
The change we really is to
BE PREPARED !
No one is willing to reduce consumption and change our luxurious lifestyles. How many people do you know who
- have installed Solar & Small Wind on their homes?
- walk or cycle instead of driving?
- buy more Local and less Foreign food? (They say we import 80% of our food!)
We are all wondering what tricky technology “they” will produce to save us.
Governments don’t believe it, though they proclaim a Climate Crisis.
Besides, all of Canada depends on taxes from mining FossilFuels to provide our social safety net, good jobs and luxurious lives.
Climates Are changing worldwide.
Southern Ontario just had a comfy Cool August, while BC is burning in drought.
Scientists debate the causes, as science always does.
The best thing to come from the CO2-GHG theory is cleaner air, water & soil, as greater fuel efficiency is achieved.
Can we get politicians to
- stop building on FloodPlains?
- plant more trees & prevent levelling of forests by developpers?
- provide “free” public transit the way we have “free” sidewalks & roads?
The world wants what we have.
We can’t Stop or Reverse GHGasses.
Let’s BE PREPARED to prevent as much damage as possible from flooding, fires, drought, ice, etc.
Like I said... More education is required.
Is it really true that "all of Canada depends on taxes from mining FossilFuels to provide our social safety net, good jobs and luxurious lives." No, I beg to differ. At a federal level, we pay as much in subsidies and tax credits to O&G than are returned through taxes (I've asked CNO to do an article on this very subject - still waiting). There are plenty of reports/articles that state there are more jobs in a green transition than there are in keeping the fossil fuel industry alive.
Can the global WE stop and reverse GHGs - Yes, if the political will (which depends on public support, hence education) existed. I will not simply 'give up' on climate mitigation, choosing the loser's path of adaptation only, because it will not save us or the planet.
I do however agree that we need to stop building on floodplains, plant more trees and revolutionize transit/transportation in Canada. Again, we need the political will (public support/education) to accomplish this!
I'm 66 and have been watching this insanity with despair since Carl Sagan asked "Who speaks for Earth?" in the 70's. Look at the Keeling Curve and note the years when major climate policies occured along the timeline. The slope of the curve is unchanged in 46 years. Literally noting has been done to reduce atmospheric CO2 in 46 years. NOTHING!!!
Then Slave Lake. Then Fort Mac. Then Jasper...
My fight has been personal. I have not owned a car since 1984. They (all of them) are obscene and a sin. And I'm a radical Atheist. 40 yrs of making excuses about that without saying to friends and relatives "Because I am trying to avoid make the next century a living hell for you." gets unpleasant quickly.
Jasper broke me. I planned to travel for a few years in my retirement but if I truly believe what I believe then I cannot get on a plane in good conscious.
I've given up. All I can do is yell at clouds and nod in agreement when another can of soup hits another old master. Or another desparate youth glues themselves to a door. The hunger strike is a bit excessive but I understand.
Eventually you realize that the everyday people of earth have NO SAY in the quality of the atmosphere we live under. Oh and it's all self-inflicted.
I sometimes imagine Gaia looking at this and thinking: "Haven't they learned anything since the cyanobacteria days?"
LEAVE IT IN THE GROUND.
Michael Grant 315ppm
Well said Seth, thank you for calling out what needs to change within the environmental movement. All these groups have the best intentions but ultimately in terms of deliverables it's not been significant. More fossil fuel projects are getting approved, forest fires are increasing in size and this puts even more carbon into the atmosphere. We need a radical change in our approach to fight back against industry and get our elected officials to stop subsidizing the industries that are destroying the future. You've laid out some really attainable suggestions - looking forward to seeing action from all the players in the environmental movement.
The core message here is the looming, immediate disaster of a majority Conservative federal government.
It's time for the hard-core NDP voters to put aside their purity and vote Liberal. Perfection is the enemy of good enough. The NDP has no chance of governing. Singh has lost the script, engaging in Liberal-bashing (which just helps the Conservatives) instead of proposing real policy options. Splitting the progressive vote will just hand a majority to PP. With 60 - 65% of the popular vote the Liberals would have an unassailable majority.
The question then becomes: how do we push a majority Liberal government in the direction of real climate action? Or: how can we simultaneously push the Liberals into adopting a real climate election platform while at the same time convincing those NDP hold-outs that the risk of a Conservative majority it too great?
Finally: get out the vote! This is not a time for cynicism. The stakes are too great.
Because I'm fed up, frankly, with reading about incessant navel gazing and the unabated reasons for setting one's hair on fire (spoiler: it long ago turned to ash), and it will take me some time to read Seth's latest piece, I'll add a couple of observations.
1. Perhaps we should knock on Linda McQuaig's door and ask for a bulk discount on the remainders of her book, "The Cult of Impotence." Maybe she has a box in her attic.
2. Seth wrote: "But when we applaud incremental progress, we are slowing down the change we need."
Aside: Did you notice, towards the end of that much-maligned doc, Planet of the Humans, there was a video clip of an early (the first, maybe?) Earth Day? Do you recall that the list of sponsors on the backdrop included Caterpillar Inc? That, and the ongoing "blah blah blah" regarding Greenwash (of course, it is 99% Greenwash; if you think otherwise, get your head out of the/your sand/ass), leads to my following observation.
Seems to me Seth's comment, quoted above, may capture the entire history of the environmental "movement". It's a little like the inverse of the graph of the historical Hawaiian CO2 measurements: every year a little success -- celebrated in a self-congratulatory manner of choice; a holiday in Hawaii, perhaps -- which is, every year, exceeded by the downward trend. The "successes" are celebrated -- included in CNO -- while catastrophe is normalized. It mirrors, perhaps, parents demanding only the best marks for mediocre efforts made by their darling, spoiled children.
3. Climate is not the only serious crisis which is an existential threat to the biosphere-as-we-know-it. I do wish commentators, including Seth, would stop implying that, if only we solve GHG concentrations, all will be well. And if one is concerned that "it's too much to take on at once", then I hope one disagrees with Seth's thesis expressed here, that we have to stop with climate incrementalism.
4. Where is the commentary and coverage, including in CNO, regarding the science of human behaviour? It is my belief that solutions, if they exist, will only be found in that domain. Does anyone believe that the biosphere-as-we-know-it will survive without humans, first, changing their views to prioritize the retention of the current biosphere iteration and, second, learning how to align their behaviour to their values, without the usual cognitive dissonance.
On the question of values, has anyone received benefit from having read Carney's book, Values? I was bored to death after one or two chapters and saw no reason to believe his early focus on the ancient origins of current economic thought would evolve into anything of contemporary utility. I'm actually hoping there is something there besides a re-framing of the cherished Capitalism such that it remains palatable and fashionable to the hoi polloi.
Ken - On Carney's book "Values", I was left with the impression that as much as anything else, he was trying to prove how much smarter he is than the rest of us... My other take-away from the book was that he seems to believe that Corporate leaders will suddenly become mature, responsible adults making companies more environmentally friendly because it's the right thing to do (No real mention to how shareholders values are all going to suddenly change). Oh, and he supports the carbon capture farce... So, I'm not exactly holding my breath that he's going to the country's saviour!
Here are some more thoughts, having read the entire article.
First, a question: Has anyone read any of Donald J. Savoie's books re this country of ours and have an opinion? I[m curious where to start.
An ongoing project of mine is to take chisel to tablet, and (ever so) slowly build out a policy platform for some party or other. (Perhaps, if it is sufficiently robust, it will serve as the missing thesis for a long-ago-begun master's degree! One can dream.).
A primary focus of the document is to establish a hierarchy of concerns aimed at not only discriminating between symptoms and root causes, but also interconnections. I'd suggest we want to focus on identifying the root causes and dispatch resources to those, being distracted by symptoms only when they are urgent fires which threaten the "primary directive".
Something that Seth didn't do explicitly in his article, which I think is vital, is to recognize that interconnections exist between different tentacles of the polycrisis (which he did mention) and they must be concurrently dealt with. I posit that, in fact, as the decomposition of the individual crises into their symptoms and root causes proceeds, there will be an apparent subset of root causes common to all.
Here's a list of a few things that suck the life out of us (it does me, at least) concerned individuals:
1. lack of action / spinning of wheels. "The Cult of Impotence."
2. Seeing the same fires pop-up over and over again. I call it relitigating; Seth called it something similar. This is the oft-used Whack-A-Mole metaphor.
If the above sounds wonkish, well, guilty as charged. In my defence, however, I cite my experience in a variety of "development" and "design" fields (where I have come to recognize a great many similarities in "design thinking" regardless of the product). I also cite the book, "How Big Things Get Done" (Bent Flyvbjerg, Dan Gardner, et al.). A primary take-away being "Think first, act second". Another way of stating that is, "if you don't know where you're going, any path will take you there".
(Another useful book for engaged citizens that includes a chapter on "deep canvassing" is, "The Persuaders" by Anand Giridharadas.)
Although we are far from seeing a fully cured, Christmas pudding south of the border, with regards to the fossil fuel industry we might consider any lessons learned from how Harris/Walz is treating Trump - basically ignore it and address the underlying problem. i.e. perhaps let investors know that they are on their own; they will not be bailed out as policy is set and they may wish to make decisions accordingly.
Lastly, I also believe that it is critical that the federal gov't rally the populace of the entire country; for too long, the feds have, in my opinion, abdicated their responsibilities as representatives of 40-ish million "Canadians" and instead seemingly bought into the idea that they are mere managers of a committee of 13 sub-national entities who actually are responsible for the people living in their jurisdictions.
Talk about getting you people engaged.
Extraction companies and primary industries largely own provincial governments and their policies. If we are to get out of here alive, it's time the feds recognize it's their job to engender in the population a belief that they are Canadians, first. Otherwise, how can we possibly unite to accomplish what is required? Otherwise, why do we continue this Canadian masquerade?