Help us raise $150,000 by December 31
Canada’s first emission reduction target for 2035 has climate advocates and opposition parties condemning what they call a weak goal that falls far short of the country’s responsibility.
On Thursday, Environment and Climate Change Minister Steven Guilbeault announced Canada will aim to cut 45 to 50 per cent of emissions from 2005 levels by 2035. The new target is late — it was required to be set by Dec. 1 under the Canadian Net-Zero Emissions Accountability Act — and is expected to be formally submitted to the United Nations as Canada’s official commitment early next year.
The 2035 target is the smallest possible increase, given Canada’s current target is a 40 to 45 per cent reduction by 2030. Practically, that means if Canada were to meet its 2030 targets, it would have to do little else to hit its 2035 objective.
That’s concerning to climate advocates because climate scientists say to avoid crossing more dangerous temperature thresholds, steep emission reductions are required in the short term.
“Right now, our political class is succumbing to pressure from oil- and gas-backed disinformation campaigns and some of the key political lackeys of that industry, which include President [Donald] Trump,” Caroline Brouillette, executive director of Climate Action Network Canada, said. “As a result, we're seeing a quite consternating race to the bottom when it comes to climate action.”
The 45 to 50 per cent emission reduction target is a far cry from Canada’s fair share of global climate action efforts, according to an analysis published earlier this year by Climate Action Network Canada. The country’s fair share would be an 80 per cent reduction from 2005 levels by 2035 — a target the organization landed on by taking into account what science requires to meet the Paris Agreement’s goal of holding warming to 1.5 C above pre-industrial temperatures.
Canada’s Net Zero Advisory Body, tasked with providing recommendations to government, proposed a 50 to 55 per cent reduction target. In a report published in September, the advisory body said while a target in the 46 to 50 per cent range would be more feasible, it is too close to its existing target.
“This would risk putting Canada too far behind its net-zero goal and would likely represent insufficient ambition in contrast to Canada’s key international partners, including other G7 countries like the United States,” the report said.
Last month, the United Kingdom set a goal to slash 81 per cent of its emissions by 2035 compared to 1990 levels, a significant step up from its 2030 target to cut emissions by at least 68 per cent.
In an interview with Canada’s National Observer, Guilbeault said he understands why some environmental groups are unhappy with Canada’s new target, but he believes it would be irresponsible to set a more ambitious goal without a plan to achieve it. This 2035 goal, he says, is achievable based on preliminary analyses, but nonetheless, hitting the goal will require “pretty much everything going really well.”
That means provinces like Alberta and Saskatchewan working with the federal government to achieve emission reductions, and Trump not being too disruptive.
“The result of the presidential election in the U.S. is forcing us to look at potential difficulties down the road,” Guilbeault said. “And I think there will also be opportunities, but there will likely be some challenges, and it would be irresponsible, faced with that uncertainty, to not factor this into the target decision.”
Guilbeault added he believes Canada could hit the 50 per cent reduction by 2035, and if it appears emission reductions are on track, there’s nothing stopping Ottawa from increasing its ambition. But to stay on track means hitting the 2030 target too, which is getting increasingly difficult.
“I think there are still some pathways to [meet the 2030 goal], but all of those pathways include continuing to implement measures and keep them in place,” he said.
Keeping existing measures in place is itself a high bar to clear. Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre is continuing his attempts to topple the government over the consumer carbon price (and has not disclosed his position on industrial carbon pricing), and another court challenge is expected from Alberta over the proposed cap on oil and gas emissions.
Green Party Leader Elizabeth May said she sees the new target as backsliding, which is arguably a violation of the Paris Agreement that requires countries to set increasingly ambitious targets. By expressing emission-reduction targets as a range rather than a firm goal, Canada is giving itself permission to aim for the lower end of the range.
“This is a serious and egregious failure by Canada to meet the terms of the agreement that is the only hope we have of ensuring that globally we avoid runaway climate change,” she said.
The Green Party is calling on the federal government to reverse the decision and set a new target of 60 per cent reductions by 2035.
NDP environment critic Laurel Collins said in a statement that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and Guilbeault are letting the public down, and are trying to blame the provinces for their own cowardice.
“By setting emission reduction targets significantly below expert recommendations, the Liberals show they would rather cave to demands of CEOs and big polluters while hardworking Canadians pay the price,” she said. “We want a climate plan that matches the urgency of the crisis, creates good jobs and grows our economy, and puts real people first.”
Sabaa Khan, climate director with the David Suzuki Foundation, said in a statement that with a new emissions reduction target, it’s critical for federal and provincial governments to work together to counter the disinformation pushed by the fossil fuel sector.
“The fossil fuel industry’s pollution and political influence in Canada remain the biggest obstacles to meeting any climate target as industry continues to have a chokehold on climate policy,” she said.
“Canada’s new climate target is now our collective responsibility, and we need every political party and every province to do their part.”
— With files from Natasha Bulowski
Comments