is a Junior Fellow in the MacEachen Institute of Public Policy and Governance and a doctoral candidate with the Marine and Environmental Law Institute, Schulich School of Law at This article was originally published on聽, which features includes relevant and informed articles, written by researchers and academics in their areas of expertise and edited by experienced journalists.
The latter half of 2018 saw the release of a flurry of climate change reports, from the to the . The conclusions are the same: current global commitments under the Paris Agreement fall far short of the 1.5鈩� target, and a 2鈩� (or more) increase in temperature will trigger adverse consequences for humans and nature.
The EGR also reaffirmed Canada鈥檚 front seat in the laggards鈥� zone. It confirmed that Canada is neither on track to meet its Cancun pledge for 2020 to achieve a 17 per cent decrease in emissions, nor its unconditional commitment under the Paris Agreement to reduce its emissions by 30 per cent relative to 2005 levels by 2030.
Canada has generally taken a top-down approach in the design of its climate policy. This approach is not only detached from the political reality of the Canadian federal system, it also fails to capture the communicative demand of climate policy making.
But it is possible to reboot Canada鈥檚 climate policy by taking into account local peculiarities and making it more resilient to government turnover.
The state of play
One might contend that Canada鈥檚 current backwardness is not for want of trying.
In December 2016, shortly after Canada made its Paris commitments, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau corralled premiers to create the (PCF). The framework, which centres on carbon pricing, is designed to help Canada meet its commitment under the Paris Agreement. With the exception of Saskatchewan and Manitoba, the provinces and territories endorsed the PCF.
But within two years of signing the historic agreement, the newly elected governments in Ontario and New Brunswick also rejected the PCF, and the United Conservative Party in Alberta has indicated that it will renege, if elected in the province鈥檚 2019 general election.
The PCF is . and , for instance, argue that carbon tax would not significantly reduce emissions, will kill jobs and make it difficult to play to the comparative advantages of the provinces.
Two central sub-themes of these questions are , through which climate burdens can be allocated by identifying the peculiarities of provinces, and , which speaks to the electoral phobia of political office holders.
Burden sharing
At the First Ministers鈥� meeting in Vancouver in 2016, the idea of assigning specific climate obligations for each province and territory was considered to be too sensitive a subject. Rather, a did a nationwide sectoral scan of specific mitigation opportunities.
The caution was not without justification. The issue, in part, had National Climate Change Process (NCCP) negotiation, when the provinces and territories had failed to agree on a formula to allocate climate burden. But falling once is no reason not to walk again.
It is often assumed that Canada鈥檚 30 per cent emission reduction target simply translates into a 30 per cent emission reduction obligation for each province. This presumption and the commitments it induces, however, leads to an aggregate that is less than Canada鈥檚 national goal under the Paris Agreement. Yet the flaw can be addressed by a burden sharing approach.
Read more:
The 2016 Vancouver meeting was a missed opportunity to design a burden-sharing formula for Canada. Burden sharing is not just a tool for allocation, nor does it impose implementation pathways. Rather, it is an instrument of reassurance of the possible and the equitable distribution of costs.
This lesson is powerfully taught by the developed in 1997. The approach identified emissions-intensive sectors in each European Union member state, calculated the emission allowances for each sector considering particular circumstances and derived state-by-state targets by adding up the sectoral allowances.
This gave a clear picture to each state of how their obligations were reached, and their capacity to achieve such targets. It also made provisions for states that will incur the highest cost or those without the capacity to implement prescribed responsibilities.
like Portugal, Greece and Croatia, for example, with GDPs less than 75 per cent of the EU GDP average, were allowed to grow their electricity consumption by 1.9 per cent, compared to 0.9 per cent growth allowance for more developed EU states. Triptych even led to emissions-reduction targets that were higher than what the states had been prepared to accept.
To be clear, designing a Canadian burden-sharing formula will not be easy. It will be fought by some provinces, while others will embrace it. But, as the PCF has shown, any Canada-wide climate policy will be contentious. Taking the burden-sharing route is a worthwhile fight that will not only put Canada on a path to meeting immediate climate commitments, but can also help provinces forge an enduring cooperation based on the principles of equity and flexibility.
Direct engagement
The provinces protesting the PCF refer to its on their constituents. If the people are central to the opposition of provinces, one wonders if this is not a natural place to begin the design of a pan-Canadian climate policy. To what extent were residents of emissions-intensive provinces like Alberta and Saskatchewan directly engaged prior to creating the PCF?
We can learn from German thinker J眉rgen Habermas on the importance of for the legitimacy of policies. Regardless the 鈥渋nherent good鈥� of a policy, its effectiveness boils down to acceptance, and acceptance is a .
But the PCF 鈥� both in the lead up and the aftermath 鈥� falls short of this requirement, and the research proves it. For instance, a found that less than half of Canadians understand what carbon pricing is, despite this being at the core of the PCF. And most people in Qu茅bec and British Columbia don鈥檛 know that those two provinces have had a carbon tax for at least a decade.
Read more:
As important as market mechanisms might be, is central to fighting climate change, and this lies with individuals. It is, therefore, imperative that the climate change conversation in Canada leaves the realm of governmental institutions and centralized policies. The conversation must be strategically deregulated.
It is about time we agreed that there are real, even if at times misguided, concerns in carbon-intensive provinces. People fear that they will spend more, lose jobs and their provinces will become unviable. It is not enough to reach these people through their political representatives. Governments must develop a mechanism that allows them to directly engage with individuals. Nothing is more important.
Read the on The Conversation.
AV俱乐部 is a founding partner of The Conversation Canada, an online media outlet providing independent, high-quality explanatory journalism. Originally established in Australia in 2011, it has had more than 85 commissioning editors and 30,000-plus academics register as contributors. A full list of articles written by AV俱乐部 academics can be found on聽.