Many scientists and climate change activists make an effort to address the overwhelming feelings of frustration and depression that tend to manifest after reaching an understanding of the bad news that is climate change. They acknowledge that, even if these feelings cease to swell, the very real threat of our existence still remains. Thus it becomes very difficult to consistently advocate environmental action in a world where the known risks of global warming are still debated and political ideals are grossly prioritized.
Take, for example, the 2019 Canadian federal election. Much of the buzz for the past couple of weeks has been revolved around Trudeau wearing black and brown face. Yet it was recently reported that climate change is, for the first time ever, one of the top 3 pressing concerns for Canadians when it comes to choosing a suitable candidate, right after pharmacare and cost of living.
But this is not a political paper. This is simply an effort to provide an optimistic perspective on the urgency of climate action on a global scale. In other words, we are currently in a climate crisis that is quickly affecting every single species on earth, and us humans are the only ones capable of slowing it down. However, the average Canadian does not understand the complexity of climate change as such. This leads to the question of why anyone should care about fighting climate change if its meaning, let alone its solution, is so convoluted.
The point is that we have scientific evidence that tells us how severe the climate crisis is (hence the crisis label), and this intense level of severity provides us with only one tangible solution as individuals: direct action. Indeed, this is a vague answer that only leads to more irritating questions. You may be wondering, why should I feel obligated to take this direct action that you speak of, and probably more so, what the hell is this direct action that you speak of?
Well, my fellow Canadians. You have displayed a fair amount of concern for the future risks and current irreversible changes facing our planet due to climate change. It may be assumed then, that you trust the objective information transferred to you by scientists, and that you seriously consider any objective opinions presented thereafter in regard to what we can do to reduce those risks. It has already been expressed that this is not a piece for political persuasion. However, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) states that political engagement is, in the broadest sense, a crucial part of fighting the climate crisis. So it appears that on the premise of welcoming scientific authority, we don’t really have a choice but to get political!
And what great timing...
According to a recent special report presented by the IPCC, limiting global warming to 1.5°C compared to 2ºC by 2030 is projected to reduce serious risks pertaining to health, livelihoods, food security, water supply, human security, and economic growth. What this means then, is that every nation that is concerned about each of these things has a responsibility to follow a plan that aims to limit global warming to 1.5°C. Ideally, such a plan would prevent future generations from being forced to suffer through detrimental changes and therefore burdened with the task of cultivating more challenging means of adaptation that could have otherwise been simplified only decades prior.
The IPCC states that in order to limit global warming, we must remain within a total carbon budget. Simply put, each country needs a government that is committed to staying within this budget so that any significant progress can be made.
“In model pathways with no or limited overshoot of 1.5°C, global net anthropogenic CO2 emissions decline by about 45% from 2010 levels by 2030.”
How might we be able to ensure that the climate crisis is prioritized by our world leaders so that everything we care about in addition to our country’s wellbeing is protected?
Voting wisely almost seems too obvious of an answer, but alas, the following contemplations suggest that we must be reminded why this is so: If the global reputation of Canada is authentic, then would it not be apparent that Canadians will instinctively choose the party most dedicated to fulfilling these requests? Didn’t the climate strike last Friday prove that a dire need for a minority government has less to do with political bias, and much more to do with an increased awareness of scientific knowledge and concern?
To those who are weary of the chance of success with taking direct action so that this knowledge and concern can be turned into positive change: now is the time to be heard by politicians. Now is the time to seriously consider the connotations of Canadian parliament passing a resolution only a few months ago which outwardly expressed consensus on the fact that we are indeed in a climate emergency. If this is the attitude that our current government is portraying to the world while saying something different with their actions, then perhaps we should take advantage of the momentum put forward by the climate strike and evaluate which candidate is taking the actual meaning and implications of the strike with the utmost gravity.
What is important to consider on October 21st is which party is most committed to fulfilling the requirements needed to stop the most detrimental effects of global warming so that the inseparability of environment and economics can finally be realized.
This means choosing a party that doesn’t simply talk about a model pathway, but already has one established! (Preferably one that has been prepared for several years and revised accordingly as a stable part of their platform). Concepts of left vs. right, tree-huggers vs. business men, realists vs. idealists, etc., cannot advance the decline of global CO2 emissions - only direct action can do that. Fortunately, we are only 17 days away from being able to exercise our power as citizens capable of taking action and voting for a genuinely motivated party.
No matter how you identify in Canada, you are part of a species facing serious threats to its wellbeing on a number of different levels; economic growth will only be stunted along with the ill effects of climate disaster. If we elect a party that takes advantage of our lack of public exposure to scientific information instead of making it desirable and accessible to us, admiration for the country's progressive nature from the rest of the world will prove irrelevant.
It has taken us this long to overcome total climate change denial - let us not waste our time arguing over which candidate doesn’t deny it best. We must encourage each other to remain optimistic in the face of a crisis - to take direct action instead of taking its power for granted.
Comments