Using China’s heavy emissions as an argument for not taking greater climate action is dishonest
Peterborough Examiner – January 24, 2025 – by Drew Monkman
Writing in the National Observer this week, Max Fawcett reminded us of a prescient quote from Canadian sci-fi novelist William Gibson. “The future is already here. It’s just not very evenly distributed.” A sobering preview of our future is on display right now in Los Angeles. Raging wildfires have destroyed thousands of homes, killed at least 24 people and caused as much as $100 billion in damage. It’s abundantly clear that climate change played a significant role in the fires by creating conditions that increased their likelihood and severity.
More and more, fires are escaping forest environments and quickly jumping into suburban and sometimes even urban environments like Los Angeles. We also saw this in Fort McMurray in 2016, in Halifax in 2023 and in Jasper last summer.
But it’s not just fires. Science can now attribute a warming climate to the increase in catastrophic floods, heat waves, droughts, severe windstorms and hailstorms. Addressing climate change adaptation and mitigation should be one of our most urgent priorities. Tragically, the prevailing sense of urgency seems to be diminishing rather than intensifying.
Rising costs for Canadians
Most Canadians are concerned about the climate crisis and reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, but see the economy, cost of living and housing as more immediate problems – and this, despite the fact that global heating is making all of these other concerns worse.
Although there’s no point in trying to convince climate skeptics of the urgency to act – they won’t listen – insurance companies might be able to drive the point home. Data from Statistics Canada shows that between 2019 and 2023, the cost of home and mortgage insurance across Canada rose by nearly 28 per cent. Severe weather is one of several factors that explain this.
In 2021 and 2022, the insurable cost of damage from extreme weather events ballooned to about $2 billion. Last year, that cost jumped again to over $3 billion. Already, for many Canadians living in zones at high risk of flood and fire, the cost of insurance is too high to bear.
It is estimated that climate-change-related damages will reach between $78 and $101 billion annually in Canada (about $2,000 per person) by mid-century if adequate action is not taken. And, the cost of taking aggressive mitigation measures now to limit global heating to 2ºC is only one sixth of the cost of future climate damage if we do nothing.
Climate change is also contributing to food cost increases in Canada by affecting crop yields, increasing production costs, disrupting supply chains, and impacting the health of both crops and livestock. As climate change affects food production in other parts of the world, Canadians will also face higher costs, especially for tropical fruits, coffee, cocoa and spices.
To see what climate-related disasters are already costing us, I recommend a new online tool from the Canadian Climate Institute. It uses news stories to track the costs of disasters across Canada like flooding, wildfire, and drought. In one story linked to the tracking tool, the bill for a single afternoon of heavy rain in Toronto on July 16, 2024 could surpass C$1 billion. Go to https://climateinstitute.ca/map-climate-costs-tracker/#/
Dire health impacts
When it comes to our health, the impacts of global heating are even more frightening. New diseases are migrating into Canada. Lyme and West Nile are already here. Soaring summer temperatures are also a matter of huge concern. At least 66 people died of extreme heat in Montreal in 2018. In 2021, the heat dome over British Columbia resulted in the deaths of 619 people. Acute or long-term exposure to extreme high temperature is also associated with cognitive decline and with raised pregnancy risks including miscarriage.
It’s just a matter of time until extreme heat affects Peterborough. An average of 27 days over 30ºC is projected for the 2030s, compared to an average of ten days in the past.
If we are to protect our health, we need to shift away from fossil fuels. This would also play a critical role in decreasing the pollutants that contribute to asthma, heart disease, and cancer.
Shifting the blame to China
Given all we know about the impacts of global heating on our wallets and health, it’s almost incomprehensible that countries everywhere aren’t acting with the outmost urgency. The reasons are hugely complex, so I’m just going to look at one.
Suffice it to say that we excel at shifting blame. You often hear politicians – including some on Peterborough City Council – compare Canada’s GHGs (2% of the world’s total) to those of China (30%) as an excuse for not acting more aggressively. “What difference would it make, and why should the Canadian economy suffer?” they like to say. While it’s true that Canada is only responsible for about 2% of emissions, so are 25 other countries like Germany, France and the United Kingdom. Collectively, this adds up to 30% of emissions, too. This highlights the critical need for every country to act with urgency.
Think of it as littering
Per capita emissions are a more equitable way to compare countries with vastly different population sizes. While China emits the most GHGs, its per capita emissions (the average amount of GHGs emitted by an individual in a specific country) are much lower than those of Canada.
According to Wikipedia, the average Canadian in 2023 emitted about 19.39 metric tons of CO₂ annually which is higher than the per capita emissions in both the United States (17.61) and China (11.11). People might argue that Canada’s emissions are so high because of our climate. However, the much lower per capita emissions in Scandinavian countries puts the lie to that argument.
The analogy of littering is useful. As local climate activist Al Slavin explained to me recently, “Just like throwing garbage on the ground in a public park, we are throwing our CO2 waste into the shared public atmosphere. Every person littering adds to the mess and Canadians are among the worst CO2 litterers in the world. How can this be condoned?”
It’s hard to be positive
As we begin 2025, it’s extremely difficult to be hopeful about our climate future. Facts like those I’ve cited no longer seem to matter and experts are increasingly ignored. Politicians like Donald Trump, Pierre Poilievre, Danielle Smith and Doug Ford have succeeded in framing climate action in a political context. The debate about what to do has become tragically contentious. This has created a sense of “us vs. them” that discourages any kind of consensus on taking action.
In a foreshadowing of what’s to come, President Donald Trump marked the first day of his second term by withdrawing the United States from the Paris agreement and launching executive orders to expand fossil fuel production. And, with Pierre Poilievre likely to become Prime Minister later this year, there’s nothing to suggest that he will pursue aggressive climate action – almost certainly the opposite.
Climate Change Action Plan 2.0
At least here in Peterborough, there may be some good news on reducing emissions. The city has developed a new Climate Change Action Plan (CCAP), serving as a roadmap to achieve net-zero community emissions by 2050. The CCAP outlines strategies to reduce greenhouse gas pollution which are projected to save Peterborough residents nearly $1 billion in energy costs over the next 25 years.
The plan keeps track of both costs and savings. While residents may incur initial expenses for measures such as insulating homes, installing heat pumps, and purchasing electric vehicles, the long-term savings far outweigh these investments. On average, each person in Peterborough stands to save approximately $12,000 over the next 25 years in net savings. We should strongly encourage city council to adopt this plan and take decisive action to implement its recommendations.
