Limiting the increase in global temperature to 1.5 ° C requires not exceeding a certain cumulative greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. In other words, we only have a certain quantity of GHGs left to emit globally, i.e. 400 billion tonnes of CO.2 (Gt CO2) to have two out of three chances of not exceeding 1.5 ° C.
This carbon budget is small, because global emissions total 2400 Gt CO2 since 1850 (which corresponds to a current temperature rise of 1.1 ° C). But, as explained in a recent post published on the Carbon Brief site and reported in The duty, there are great disparities in the cumulative emissions of different nations. Rich countries, led by Canada, have historically emitted the most GHGs, especially when we look at these emissions per capita. These figures thus place a large part of the blame for global warming on developed countries, including Canada.
In this context, the historical vision of Mme Nathalie Lewis recently voiced in The Devoir sheds an important light and puts into perspective the historical responsibility of Canada, since the country was forged by France then England, and by their colonizing and extractivist vision. This would reduce Canada’s “moral” responsibility.
As Mme Lewis, it is also essential to understand that the climate emergency is a complex, global issue that will only be resolved with the coordinated contribution of all nations. Finally, as Mme Lewis, a large amount of GHG emissions emitted by Canada has been used to produce goods and services that have been imported by our trading partners. Part of the GHGs emitted on Canadian territory therefore partly fuel consumption abroad.
Canada’s responsibility must therefore be put into perspective in the light of these various criteria.
However, we must not lose sight of the fact that Canadian exports, whether raw materials or indirect GHG emissions, have also enabled the country to become richer. In addition, Canada is itself an importing country which consumes industrial products and therefore shares responsibility for “imported” emissions.
Rich countries must also take into account the reality of developing countries and act accordingly. Since the latter have historically emitted few GHGs, the remaining global carbon budget should be reserved for them as a priority so that they have the possibility of putting in place their mitigation and adaptation measures.
In other words, we have a responsibility to give developing countries a “carbon space” so that they have an acceptable future. This means that Canada will become carbon neutral much faster than the current targets. Even if its action is partially blocked, because it depends on the structures that underpin the international trade and geopolitical system, Canada has the capacity to lead major transformations in its socioeconomic and political system. It has the financial and technical means, it has the resources and the knowledge.
It is therefore not a question of making the rich countries feel guilty, which would be unproductive. Rather, it is about empowering them. Governments and populations in developed countries must take climate action to match their climate responsibility towards the less fortunate countries.