(Version française disponible ici)

The climate debate is often regarded as a question requiring technological, economic or regulatory solutions. However, it is now facing a more fundamental tension, one that is especially political in nature. 

Current emission trajectories are not aligned with the goals set by states, while the necessary transformations to achieve these goals have sparked a growing public backlash.  

This tension redefines the very conditions of climate action. It boils down to one simple question: How to speed up the transition without undermining the social support upon which it relies? To find an answer, two uncomfortable truths must first be faced.

First truth: We are falling short in the battle against the climate crisis 

The Paris Agreement, signed in 2015, sets a clear objective: limit the temperature increase to 1.5 C above pre-industrial levels, or, failing that, to well below 2 C. 

However, global warming has been accelerating since 2015. Since the early 1970s, the global mean surface temperature has increased at an average rate of about 0.2 C per decade; but since 2015, it has accelerated to 0.35 C per decade. At this rate, the temperature will surpass the limit of 1.5 C by 2029. 

Current projections indicate that the temperature could reach or even exceed 3 C above pre-industrial levels by the end of the century, with the warming that would follow. A world with an increased temperature of 3 C or higher is not an acceptable legacy to leave for future generations. 

Approximately 70 countries have pledged to get to net-zero emissions by 2050 – within just 24 years. China, the largest emitter, has promised to reach the goal by 2060. Yet the plans to reduce greenhouse gas emissions announced by these governments, known as nationally determined contributions (NDC), fall short of these goals. 

Take the case of Canada, which has committed to reducing its greenhouse gas emissions by 40 to 45 per cent below 2005 levels by 2030, and by 45 to 50 per cent by 2035. In reality, the reduction has been only 8.5 per cent between 2005 and 2023. 

Since we know that the problem stems mainly from the combustion of hydrocarbons (oil, natural gas and coal), why not simply stop using them? The reality is far more complex. 

Abruptly........

© IRPP - Policy Options