These are not simple times for heads of government. Perpetually pulled between public service and self-interest, confronting a vortex of choice-distorting propaganda, navigating the maze of technological disruption and economic uncertainty are all a challenge for even the most gifted leaders. But the wicked problem of climate change comes with the clarity of science, which should make the solutions relatively straightforward. As former Green Party Leader Elizabeth May writes, only two things are missing.

Elizabeth May

In October of 2018, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) handed world leaders a golden ticket. It was a special report saying that holding to 1.5 was still possible but only with “large, immediate and unprecedented global efforts to mitigate greenhouse gases.” 

The mandate to the IPCC to answer the question of whether it was possible to hold to no more than a 1.5-degree C global average temperature rise, or even to stay below 2 degrees, was among the action items agreed by the climate negotiators gathered in Paris in 2015 at COP21. The UN scientific intelligence body on climate change was also asked to estimate the severity of impacts from global climate crisis at each level of increased warming. 

COP21 had also agreed to a treaty that promised to do just that – stay as far below 2 degrees as possible and preferably hold to 1.5 degrees. So, the 2018 IPCC special report was good news. Yes, it said, holding to 1.5 was still possible but only with “large, immediate and unprecedented global efforts to mitigate greenhouse gases.”

It was important politically because it handed leaders the catalyst they needed to muster and justify the political will to implement change.

Of course, the keyword there is “leaders”. As the young climate activist Greta Thunberg once wryly observed, armed with the information that urgent action was needed, governments “began to act,” but in the sense of acting as theatre — a political thespian tutorial of “blah, blah, blah.”

The IPCC special report on 1.5 contained other good news. It concluded that to avoid going beyond 1.5 degrees C was possible without any new technology being invented. It found no economic barrier, no lack of basic scientific information, no obstacles at all — except one thing. All that was lacking was the political will.   

On my motion, the release of the October 2018 report led to an emergency debate in Parliament. Within a few months, then-Minister of Environment and Climate Change Catherine McKenna moved her own motion that we were in a “climate emergency.” It passed on June 18, 2019. Two days later, her government re-committed to the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion (TMX).

In spring 2022, the IPCC released the last chapter in its regular (every seven years) review and report on the state of climate science. The Sixth Assessment Report from Working Group 3 substantially reduced the estimate of how much time remains to meet Paris goals and increased the urgency for needed action. Really no surprise, since most governments, even those who want to claim “climate leadership,” are still moving in the wrong direction. Globally, emissions increased since the October 2018 warning. In Canada, the only time our emissions declined at all was during 2020 and COVID shutting down much of our economy. Our emissions are predicted to bounce back and grow again in the next set of numbers for 2021.  

On April 4, 2022, the IPCC advised that the window on holding to 1.5 degrees or even 2, will close “before 2025” unless global emissions peak and begin to drop dramatically to roughly half by 2030. United Nations Secretary General Antonio Guterres said that, in light of this clear warning, expanding fossil fuels was “moral and economic madness.”

Two days later, our new Environment and Climate Change Minister Steven Guilbeault approved drilling off the coast of Newfoundland for crude oil to produce an additional billion barrels of oil. Clearly, the missing ingredient is still missing. What does “political will” look like? 

The term “political will” is a proxy term for “political leadership.” It definitely requires politicians capable of standing up to industry. It requires something like backbone, although other bodily parts are often referenced.

The stakes could not be higher. Within the lifetimes of our children, much of the earth could become uninhabitable and increasingly unstable as climate-driven famine, migration and chaos overwhelm governments. All four horsemen of Apocalypse are saddling up, and we still have politicians who preach the Gospel of Kicking it down the Road.

What would true political leadership look like?

In the 1980s, the government of Brian Mulroney faced down numerous industry groups in confronting the threat to the ozone layer, acid rain and toxic pollution. Political leadership from the federal government was matched by that of numerous provinces of differing political stripes. David Peterson in Ontario faced down mining company Inco’s demands that he fire Environment Minister Jim Bradley. If he had caved, we could not have solved Canada’s acid rain problem and if we had not been forceful in cutting Canada’s pollution in half, Mulroney could never have persuaded the US under Ronald Reagan to do the same.

On saving the ozone layer, our political leaders had to deal with Dupont executives who initially denied their products were harmful. Mulroney did not waver. Federal Environment officials went toe to toe with the GATT folks, then an embryonic World Trade Organization, to explain forcefully that the protection of the ozone layer was not to be undermined by trade rules. Vic Buxton, Canada’s lead negotiator for what became the Montreal Protocol on ozone depletion, was dispatched by the head of the United Nations Environment Programme, Mostafa Tolba, to deliver that message. Ten years later, our environment minister went to Kyoto with instructions to put trade ahead of climate. 

The Montreal Protocol was the last environment treaty with enforcement mechanisms. Any party violating the treaty could be subject to trade sanctions from every other nation on earth. It is, without a doubt, the strongest and most effective environment treaty ever negotiated. Not only has it worked to stop the destruction of the ozone layer, the ozone layer is now repairing itself.

To get that strong and effective treaty, Canada had strong and effective leadership. It ran from the Prime Minister’s Office to the Environment Department, to every empowered and informed member of the team.  

The September 1987 Montreal Protocol saved life on earth. That is not hyperbole. It is a fact. So, now that life on earth is again and increasingly threatened, our political class is running for cover. The oil sands must be protected at all costs. And the cost is our children’s future. 

We do not need to shut down all fossil fuels tomorrow, but we need to establish the date on which the oil sands stop producing. That date needs to be in 2030 at the latest. Conventional crude has a longer time horizon, but on reduced levels. The TMX pipeline is a threat to our children. Stopping construction is a no-brainer. Similar resources in a crown corporation must be re-directed to building resilience into our national priorities; adapting to the inevitable avalanche of increasingly dangerous climate events.

What would leadership look like?

Democracy must be protected. There is no climate solution in the absence of equity, climate justice and a citizenry that can trust and believe in their institutions.

Real leadership in the climate emergency starts with being honest with Canadians. Strategies based on having our cake and eating it, too — such as carbon capture and storage or new pipelines to make the money to fund the transition — are doomed to failure. 

Only clear and unequivocal leadership will save us. We need to cancel TMX, reverse the approval for drilling at Bay du Nord and ban fracking – immediately. We need to ensure workers in the fossil fuel sector get the just transition they were promised. And we need to seize the opportunity presented by the climate crisis to ensure greater fairness throughout our society.

There are storms ahead. Canadians are weary of politicians who promise sunny days and cannot deliver. We need leaders who inspire us to pull together and weather the storm.   

Contributing Writer Elizabeth May, the MP for Saanich Gulf Islands, has been a leader in the global movement on Climate Change since the 1980s.