Special Report: Climate Change

After 30 Wasted Years, the Climate Emergency Demands Drastic Action

We have known about the climate emergency for the past 30 years and did nothing, cowed by a fossil fuel industry more interested in profit than human survival. Now it's too late to play nice if we want a future for humanity.

By Ryan McGreal
Published April 24, 2019

An article in the New York Times reads:

In the quickening international debate over global warming, the spotlight has played mostly on the question of how and whether to control the growing emissions of carbon dioxide and other gases that trap heat in the atmosphere.

Now another concern is starting to come to the fore as well. No matter what action is taken, some scientists say, there are already enough of these "greenhouse" gases in the atmosphere to cause a major warming, and more are certain to accumulate before the buildup can be halted.

The article was published on November 14, 1989, 30 years ago, yet here we are, still rehashing the same debate to this day.

We have known about the "greenhouse effect" - in which components of earth's atmosphere trap more heat than the planet would retain in their absence - since French mathematician Jean-Baptiste Joseph Fourier discovered it in 1824.

We have known that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas since Swedish chemist Svante Arrhenius predicted global warming due to industrial CO2 emissions back in 1896.

We have known about "global warming" as such since American geophysicist Wallace Broecker coined the term in the title to his 1975 paper warning that the temporary cooling trend of the previous few decades would soon be outstripped by the cumulative addition of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere.

30 Years of Climate Science

Global warming entered the broad public consciousness in 1988 when American NASA scientist James Hansen testified to the United States Congress on his research, which predicted a steady temperature increase over the next three decades as a result of global warming.

When you adjust for the elimination of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) under the Montreal Protocol after 1990, Hanson's predictions almost exactly match the observed increase in temperature since then:

Chart: Hanson 1988 Projections vs Observations
Chart: Hanson 1988 Projections vs Observations

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was founded in 1988 and produced its first assessment report in 1990. That year, Canada emitted 603 megatonnes of CO2-equivalent greenhouse gases.

Instead of taking action, Canada continued to increase its annual emissions year after year, peaking at 745 megatonnes in 2007 and declining modestly to 704 tonnes in 2016 (the last year for which Environment Canada provides annual data).

First Global Climate Treaty

2016 was the year the world's nations ratified the Paris Agreement, the first international convention that actually commits signatories to reduce their emissions.

The main goal of the Paris Agreement is to hold global warming to 2° Celsius, which climate scientists generally agree will come with a horrific increase in droughts, flooding, wildfires, intense storms, famines and major climate refugee crises. Under the Paris Agreement, Canada has pledged to cut its annual emissions to 517 megatons by 2030.

But a devastating report from the IPCC released last October concluded that if we manage to hold warming to 1.5° Celsius instead, the global devastation will be considerably less severe. For Canada to meet its obligation to hold warming to 1.5° Celsius, we would have to reduce our annual emissions to 382 megatonnes by 2030.

Assuming a start date of 2016, we will need to reduce our annual emissions by an average of 13 megatonnes a year, or roughly a 2 percent annual reduction (with the percent reduction increasing as the base shrinks), every year until 2030 to meet the 2° Celsius target. But again, that achievement would still be a global hellscape.

To meet the more ambitious but also more survivable 1.5° Celsius target, we will need to reduce our emissions by 23 megatonnes a year, or roughly a 3.5 percent annual reduction initially, every year until 2030.

Earlier Start, Less Pain

Now if we had started working on this back in 1990 when we first knew we needed to do something, we would only have had to reduce our annual emissions by less than half a percent a year to meet the 2°C target - or 1.2 percent a year to meet the 1.5°C target.

Chart: Canada Annual GHG emissions, 1990-2016 and projected to 2030
Chart: Canada Annual GHG emissions, 1990-2016 and projected to 2030

We have known for 30 years that we needed to cut greenhouse gas emissions and did essentially nothing. Because we failed to act before, we now need to take drastic and sustained action on a national scale to forestall global catastrophe.

As sixteen-year-old climate activist Greta Thunberg so poignantly put it in a recent speech to British MPs:

You don’t listen to the science because you are only interested in solutions that will enable you to carry on like before. Like now. And those answers don’t exist any more. Because you did not act in time.

So now we need to throw every policy tool we have at this existential crisis.

Price on Carbon

At an absolute bare minimum, we need to have a price on carbon, the conservative, market-based approach to emission reduction. Apologies to Alberta Premier-elect Jason Kenney and his Big Blue Truck, but when our grandchildren are picking over the ruins of an uninhabitable planet, they will not be comforted by your emotional attachment to a campaign vehicle.

We also need to stop subsidizing fossil fuel production. Our house is on fire - let's at least agree to stop pouring gasoline on it. Canada spends some $3.3 billion a year subsidizing our coal, gas and oil companies, plus the surprise snap purchase of the Trans Mountain oil pipeline for $4.5 billion from Kinder Morgan.

Canada's annual fossil fuel subsidies amount to a negative $19/tonne carbon tax, almost exactly negating the $20/tonne federal carbon tax that took effect this month in provinces that don't have their own carbon pricing plans.

So we have a carbon tax that is too low to significantly shift consumer choices, and in any case is offset by an equivalent subsidy to the companies extracting fossil fuels in the first place. This is Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's "grand bargain" on climate: sucking and blowing in equal measure and getting nowhere.

This is what happens when you take your climate action marching orders from the fossil fuel industry - an industry, incidentally, that appears to be significantly under-reporting the actual GHG emissions from the Alberta oilsands operations.

Here is a politically incorrect truth: most of the bitumen in the Oilsands will need to stay in the ground. All the economic sense in the world evaporates when the planet is no longer capable of supporting human life.

This is not as crazy as it sounds. In fact, it would be crazy not to leave the oil in the ground but our politics are so jumbled up by corporate interests that we have a hard time thinking straight about the real bottom line.

Massive Public Investment

But merely putting a price on carbon and eliminating fossil fuel subsidies is not nearly enough. We need a massive, wholesale, active retooling of the Canadian economy if we want any real hope of getting our emissions under control. Instead of spending billions of dollars helping oil companies destroy the future, we should be spending that money transitioning as quickly as humanly possible to a low-carbon economy.

That means we need to rethink the buildings we live and work in, the ways we travel from place to place, how we produce and transmit energy, and what we are doing to capture and sequester a lot more of the greenhouse gases we have already dumped into the atmosphere.

And we need to direct those investments in such a way that we do not discard the workers who have invested in and currently depend on the carbon-intensive jobs our fossil-based economy made available to them over the past several decades.

In the United States, progressives are pushing a "Green New Deal" that would reflect the original New Deal under US President Franklin D. Roosevelt, who undertook a massive public investment program in the 1930s to dig that country out of the Great Depression.

Canada has a different history than the US and we should be careful to find a distinctly Canadian approach to the challenge, but we can certainly use the inspiration to think bigger than we have been.

Big Parties Out to Lunch

The need for a big, comprehensive climate strategy is something most Canadians already seem to understand, even if our political leaders are collectively incapable of thinking in realistic terms about the scale of the challenge.

The federal Liberal Party's climate plan is woefully inadequate, yet the federal Conservative Party manages to set the bar even lower by opposing even the meagre policy measures the Liberals have put in place.

We simply cannot afford a federal politics in which the two biggest parties are out to lunch on the single most defining global crisis of the 21st century. We are scheduled to have a federal election this October, but the climate emergency barely registers aside from serving as an anti-tax punching bag from a delusional right wing.

Somehow or other, we're going to have to figure out how to change that over the next six months, or else it really will be too late to save the future from our short-sightedness.

Ryan McGreal, the editor of Raise the Hammer, lives in Hamilton with his family and works as a programmer, writer and consultant. Ryan volunteers with Hamilton Light Rail, a citizen group dedicated to bringing light rail transit to Hamilton. Ryan writes a city affairs column in Hamilton Magazine, and several of his articles have been published in the Hamilton Spectator. He also maintains a personal website, has been known to share passing thoughts on Twitter and Facebook, and posts the occasional cat photo on Instagram.


View Comments: Nested | Flat

Read Comments

[ - ]

By Crispy (registered) | Posted April 24, 2019 at 13:34:44

What's the optimal level atmospheric of C02?

Permalink | Context

By Ryan (registered) - website | Posted April 24, 2019 at 14:19:34 in reply to Comment 126402

Can we agree that it's lower than 410 parts per million?

Permalink | Context

By Crispy (registered) | Posted April 24, 2019 at 14:40:32 in reply to Comment 126404

I'm not going to agree to something that I don't know the definitive answer to.

Permalink | Context

By Ryan (registered) - website | Posted April 24, 2019 at 16:02:45 in reply to Comment 126405

The scientific community is generally in agreement that we need to get atmospheric CO2 below 350 ppm to avoid catastrophic warming. Unless you know something the world's most respected climate scientists don't know, I'm going to go with their expert conclusion.

Permalink | Context

By NortheastWind (registered) | Posted April 25, 2019 at 12:42:13 in reply to Comment 126406

Those in the "scientific community" are required to publish a paper in order to get government funding to further study something. It's a known fact that when it comes to global warming, if someone publishes a paper that says CO2 is not the reason for increased temperatures, they wouldn't get government funding for further study. Hence the reason the "scientific community is generally in agreement". They don't want to cut off their bread and butter.

Permalink | Context

By Ryan (registered) - website | Posted April 25, 2019 at 13:18:34 in reply to Comment 126412

That's not how science works. There's this thing called "peer review" in which scientists review papers submitted by other scientists to make sure the science is correct. It's not a perfect system but it's the best thing humans have ever come up with to systematically weed out bad ideas. This is aided by the competitive, antagonistic scientific culture in which the best way to get recognition and respect is to disprove a prevailing theory. If there was an empirical case against the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis, scientists would be falling over themselves to make it.

There have been a very small number of papers published that have argued against the consensus that humans releasing huge quantities of known greenhouse gases into the atmosphere are causing a greenhouse effect. A recent meta-analysis of those papers found that they all shared a common set of glaring methodological errors that invalidated their results.

If you're actually concerned about the influence of money in the climate debate, look at the billions of dollars that oil companies have poured into sowing fear, uncertainty and doubt about the science. The oil companies' own internal research warned about global warming back in the 1970s, but they decided to suppress their own research and spend money funding lobbying and astroturf groups and anti-climate politicians and political parties that have helped prevent meaningful action from taking place.

Comment edited by administrator Ryan on 2019-04-25 13:18:59

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By PGFontana (registered) | Posted April 25, 2019 at 02:24:24

Funny stuff. And great analogies too. We should all take our cue from the guy whose hair has been on fire.....for 30 years. It's time for drastic action. No more playing nice. And what changes will Ryan be making in order to set an example? Sounds like he is prepared to write a cheque. Perhaps more will be revealed. At least he knows what you and I need to do.....as we are told. So very typical.

Permalink | Context

By Ryan (registered) - website | Posted April 25, 2019 at 04:25:08 in reply to Comment 126407

Scientists in 1988: the global temperature is going to increase over the next 30 years, leading to more droughts, heat waves, wildfires, floods, severe storms and climate refugees.

Over the next 30 years, the global temperature increases exactly as predicted, leading to more droughts, heat waves, wildfires, floods, severe storms and climate refugees.

Denialist Trolls: Look at these ridiculous scientists trying to alarm us!


I got nothing

Permalink | Context

By PGFontana (registered) | Posted April 27, 2019 at 10:02:37 in reply to Comment 126408

30 years ago "scientists" referred to the phenomena as "global warming" until one of their peers woke up and realized that was going to be problematic. So now we have climate change. Tomorrow perhaps the goal posts will be required to be moved again. Climate Bad?

The correlation between Co2 and global temps have been wildly misrepresented.

From 2000-2018, global temperatures demonstrated no significant increase, this despite a sharp increase in Co2 emissions from human source. When carbon concentrations increase exponentially-and temperatures do not follow the pattern-a stooge could conclude that Co2 can not be the primary catalyst of global temperatures. Well, some stooges. Why did the earths surface temperature stop rising while Co2 levels continue to increase? Hmmmm

No one is disputing your camp has credibility issues. Suggesting we get government to fix the climate is farcical and does nothing to inspire anyone to change. Just write a cheque? All will be well? Sure thing.

Perhaps the cause needs a new champion?

Permalink | Context

By Ryan (registered) - website | Posted April 27, 2019 at 12:39:56 in reply to Comment 126424

Nope, sorry, but everything you have written here is wrong.

First, you are wrong about "global warming" vs "climate change". The two terms have both been in use for decades and have distinct meanings. Global warming is the increase in average global temperatures due to increased greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, and climate change is what happens to the climate as average temperatures increase.

Next, you are wrong about the correlation between GHG concentration in the atmosphere and average temperatures. They are, in fact, closely correlated, as established through a wide array of different lines of investigation across a swath of scientific research disciplines.

Next, you are wrong about average temperatures from 2000-2018, which have, in fact, been increasing steadily exactly according to the prediction models of climate scientists. The past five years - 2013-2018 - are the five hottest years ever recorded.

Perhaps the anonymous science denying troll needs to get a new hobby.

Permalink | Context

By PGFontana (registered) | Posted April 27, 2019 at 16:18:37 in reply to Comment 126425

according to your friends at NASA,...."collectively, the past 5 years are the warmest on record. Globally, 2018's temperatures rank behind those of 2016, 2017 and 2015." What?

Temperatures fell? Globally? According to your experts? So much for trends.

And all while Co2 concentrations continued to increase exponentially (according to you?) The scientists predicted this? Science predicted an inverse relationship between global temperatures and Co2 concentrations? That sure seems odd. This could be why your team has a credibility issue.Your "science" appears to have more holes in it than the ozone layer.

Could you provide a link or citation to support your theory?

Permalink | Context

By Ryan (registered) - website | Posted April 30, 2019 at 13:04:22 in reply to Comment 126426

I can't quite tell whether you are deliberately engaging the evidence in bad faith or are so dogmatic that you are just temperamentally incapable of seeing reality.

Temperatures fell? Globally? According to your experts? So much for trends.

You don't seem to understand what the word "trend" means, and really the fact that I have to explain this to you suggests that you would be better off not commenting too much more on an issue that you either don't understand or refuse to understand.

A warming trend does not mean that each consecutive year must be hotter than the year previous. It means that when you look over a period of years, there is a persistent tendency for temperatures to increase, not to meander around a flat average.

There are lots of factors that contribute to the global temperature at a given moment in time, but while some factors are cyclic (like the El Niño / La Niña cycle), greenhouse gas concentration is increasing year over year in a more or less linear fashion (not "exponentially", another word whose meaning you don't seem to understand based on your use of it).

2018 was not hotter than 2017, but it was hotter than every single year between 1890 and 2014. And the only reason it wasn't hotter than 2015-2017 is that they were abnormally hot even by the general warming trend, due to a confluence of cyclical factors that compounded the greenhouse effect.

Here's a chart using NOAA data of the annual global temperature anomaly from 1880 to 2018:

NOAA Global Temp Anomaly

Notice how the annual number moves up and down from year to year but the overall trend is unambiguously, unquestionably upward?

So seriously: if you're trolling, just stop. the world doesn't have time for any more science-denying BS.

But if you honestly think you're contributing something useful, please consider the possibility that you don't actually understand the science well enough to say anything sensible about it and go do some honest research before you write any more comments that make you sound like an idiot.

Comment edited by administrator Ryan on 2019-04-30 13:48:15

Permalink | Context

By PGFontana (registered) | Posted May 07, 2019 at 09:42:35 in reply to Comment 126444

Nothing screams global warming louder than record cold temperatures. Why are you so selective with the "data" you provide in support of "your vision?" Huh? From NOAA......"U.S. had it's coldest April in more than 20 years"

Now if only you could provide some sort of link to demonstrate that Co2 emissions plummeted during the same period, we'd make you an honorary Scientist. With some credibility.

Permalink | Context

By Ryan (registered) - website | Posted May 07, 2019 at 11:14:15 in reply to Comment 126508

True! If America is the only place on earth. Otherwise...

NOAA Global Temperature, April 2018

Permalink | Context

By ergopepsi (registered) | Posted May 09, 2019 at 09:56:42 in reply to Comment 126509

Climate change deniers are not concerned with facts or even the climate for that matter. They are deniers because it is part of their identity. They are following the political right, 'anti-tree hugger' script. If they are ever to be convinced that climate change is real it will not be a climate change proponent that does the convincing. I'd suggest you save your keystrokes for battles you can win.

Permalink | Context

By Ryan (registered) - website | Posted May 09, 2019 at 10:56:18 in reply to Comment 126530

Their real objection is not to the science, but rather to the policy implications. They don't want to pay more to pollute, so they do everything they can to disparage the evidence, discredit the scientists, and stall/delay/obstruct any meaningful policy action.

Unfortunately, simply ignoring them is not an option because they continue to spread misinformation and confusion, which serves their goal of maintaining the status quo.

Comment edited by administrator Ryan on 2019-05-09 10:57:28

Permalink | Context

By PGFontana (registered) | Posted May 10, 2019 at 05:10:05 in reply to Comment 126531

You are getting warmer. As is often your case, there is a sliver of truth in your commentary.

I don't want to pay-anything-for policy action that belies credibility.Is the "Grand Design" meaningful policy? Why should anyone support stupidity?

"Well, we gotta do something, and quick, or we're doomed"

Alarmist drivel

According to you, the Liberals are inadequate, and the Cons are worse. The right is delusional. The left is loathsome.

Exactly what meaningful policy are you referencing?

If you continue flushing your cash down your toilet, your grandchildren are more likely to suffer from abject poverty than climate catastrophe.

Permalink | Context

By ergopepsi (registered) | Posted May 10, 2019 at 07:37:16 in reply to Comment 126533

You are going to pay either way. You will pay:

  • to run your A/C unit longer

  • to repair flood damage to your home

  • to replace your siding when frequent high winds peel it off

  • higher taxes when all levels of government are forced to repair flood damage and build mitigation infrastructure

  • for treatment when you get Lyme disease, Chagas disease coming soon! (you'll love that one) or malaria or whatever other disease that likes warmer temps

  • higher prices for food as it becomes harder to produce

So, keep your checkbook handy.

Comment edited by ergopepsi on 2019-05-10 07:38:05

Permalink | Context

By PGFontana (registered) | Posted May 08, 2019 at 06:54:53 in reply to Comment 126509

well lookey here, a couple of regional anomalies, some parts got hotter, and some parts experienced record cold.

The horror.

Interesting that the vast majority of this red paint signalling record warmth is located on our Oceans-exactly where you would expect it-since this is the mechanism our wondrous planet employs to rid us of excess Co2-just as it has for....well...ever. And with the realization that the Oceans have warmed less than 1C in the past century, most realize just how efficient and effective the mechanism performs.

Most. Not all. Some of us have the fever.

Permalink | Context

By PGFontana (registered) | Posted May 01, 2019 at 00:35:18 in reply to Comment 126444

I know son, your struggles with comprehension are well established, and while I ordinarily would have some empathy for anyone afflicted with such limited perspective, your true nature easily counters any such sentiment.

I took your advice, and researched the definition of "trend" ....."a general direction in which something is changing or developing" A general direction. Up.

Or down. (but not both!) One of these things is not like the other. One of these things is not the same. Hotter. Colder.

Suck. Blow. You see the difference, don't you?

You claimed GHG and average temperatures are "closely correlated" And I demonstrated your fallacy. One is rising steadily.....while the other is fluctuating. This is how you would demonstrate a close correlation? An epic failure.

You claimed temperatures "increased steadily, exactly according to the prediction models" Except, they didn't increase steadily, they fluctuated, a fact you now concede, albeit with obvious reticence. This is how you illustrate a trend? With misinformation? And when you are asked to provide an example.....any example....of any scientist.....anywhere.....ever.....employing the prediction models you reference, you respond with insult and accusation.

It all sounds rather hysterical, which of course, might account for the lack of progress you lament.

Permalink | Context

By Ryan (registered) - website | Posted May 01, 2019 at 05:03:35 in reply to Comment 126448

Well that settles it - you're definitely trolling. No more feedings from me, sorry.

Permalink | Context

By PGFontana (registered) | Posted May 01, 2019 at 07:38:41 in reply to Comment 126450

you are going to stop making ridiculous assertions which are easily debunked? I'll believe it when I see it.

Tilting at windmills is your strange addiction.

Permalink | Context

By Cultosaurus (registered) | Posted May 03, 2019 at 04:03:43 in reply to Comment 126452

I don't think you understand the word "debunked".

Permalink | Context

By PGFontana (registered) | Posted May 03, 2019 at 08:43:41 in reply to Comment 126467

"Cult"...."a misplaced or excessive admiration for a particular person"


Permalink | Context

By ergopepsi (registered) | Posted April 27, 2019 at 22:27:48 in reply to Comment 126426

Don't worry buddy, some of us will do our best to try to save the world for you. And if we are successful you're free to say "See I told ya, climate change was a hoax".

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Ryan (registered) - website | Posted April 25, 2019 at 14:23:22

Ironically, conservatives mostly accept the scientific consensus on issues where the proposed solutions don't contradict their ideology, but mostly reject the scientific consensus on issues where the proposed solutions do contradict their ideology, strongly suggesting that their real issue is not with the science but with the policy prescriptions. All of their denials, deflections and projections follow from their refusal to accept that they might be wrong to oppose the science-based policy.

Comment edited by administrator Ryan on 2019-04-25 14:25:56

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By ergopepsi (registered) | Posted April 26, 2019 at 19:16:39

Sometimes I think the earth really is simply too over populated. If 3 or 4 billion people died off, all of the pressures that created this problem would be released.

Interesting that MIT researchers, using computer modeling, predicted the fall of civilization by 2050 almost 50 years ago.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Crispy (registered) | Posted April 28, 2019 at 20:02:36

Another 1989 article from the New York times reads:

U.S. Data Since 1895 Fail To Show Warming Trend. After examining climate data extending back nearly 100 years, a team of Government scientists has concluded that there has been no significant change in average temperatures or rainfall in the United States over that entire period.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By PGFontana (registered) | Posted April 29, 2019 at 16:03:19

When Mr. Gore completed his term as Vice-President in 2001, he had an estimated net worth of just under $2M.

In 2018, he is worth just over $300M.

All this advocacy sure has proven to be lucrative.

Permalink | Context

View Comments: Nested | Flat

Post a Comment

You must be logged in to comment.

Events Calendar

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools