THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST. MARK CARNEY

Do you remember when we could count on the private sector to provide good-paying jobs, paid vacations, generous benefits, and retirement pensions? You don't? Maybe you're not old enough. Maybe that was before you were born. You'd pretty much have to be a baby boomer to remember any of that. 

These days, there are only declining or stagnant wages, gig jobs with no benefits, and people need two or three of them to pay the rent. Homeownership is only possible for those who inherit one, and the cost-of-living crisis continues to worsen. Fortunately, Mark Carney knows what the root of the problem is and how to fix it. Contrary to popular opinion, the solution has nothing to do with improving social safety nets. It turns out that we're not guaranteeing the corporate sector nearly enough of any possible future profits! The price of corporate sector help has gone up considerably!

 

To that end, Mark Carney has decided to cut social spending and to increase corporate welfare. He calculates that Canadians would be better off if we give the Corporatocracy what it wants:     even lower taxes, even fewer regulations, more subsidies, more free infrastructure, fast-tracked approvals and far less red tape. If we do all that, Carney tells us, Corporations will stop using all of the obscene profits they're using to increase CEO and board of directors' salaries and to buy back their own stock for the benefit of their shareholders, and invest some of those profits in the economy for the benefit of all Canadians.

Carney cautions us that that won't happen overnight; it's a generational thing. Maybe some Generation Z, Alpha and Beta members will live long enough to see some of the economic benefits resulting from Carney's investment incentives, provided they survive extreme climate events, of course. In the end, supply chain diversification and significant new investments will reverse declining or stagnating wages and build a stronger, more prosperous  Canada for us all. 

Canadians are inclined to trust Carney on these matters because of his business acumen and his experience as a central banker in both the UK and Canada, not to mention his corporate insider experience with Goldman Sachs and, more recently, Brookfield Asset Management (BAM). He still owns considerable stock in the latter, but they're being held in a blind trust, so there's no conflict of interest here. It's all good. If the value of those stocks goes up because Canada decides to buy thousands of modular homes from BAM, and if the value of BAM's considerable real estate assets in Canada were to rise as a result of his no-tax for homes under $1 million housing policy, Carney wouldn't even know it! Not for sure, anyway. Not until he left politics and took a look at his multi-million dollar portfolio.

There is the risk, though, that the minority Liberal Government doesn't have enough votes to avoid triggering an early election. But Pierre Poilievre doesn't inspire confidence, and Carney has moved so far to the right that Poilievre is having trouble squeezing himself into the small space to the right of Carney. In any case, an early election before a leadership review may not serve the Conservative Party well. It is entirely possible that Carney's Liberals would welcome an early election while Poilievre is still leader of the Conservatives.

The notion that only the private sector can provide a healthy economy has become so entrenched that when it comes to the economy, public money is almost exclusively used to attract and incentivize private investors. Issues such as the housing crisis and unemployment are exclusively addressed using private-public sector partnerships (PPPs), in which the role of the public sector is to incentivize the private sector by granting it concessions. (They're almost as demanding as Trump in that respect.) The private sector -the investors- will always be in the driver's seat. They're not going to invest in something they can't control. This takes publicly-owned housing off the table, and private investors must therefore be cajoled into providing housing. Currently, corporate landlords, BAM included, find renovictions much faster and more profitable than the arduous, time-consuming task of actually building affordable housing in an uncertain market. They need far more than the existing incentives to do that, even when governments are willing to cover any cost overruns. Furthermore,  public housing smacks of socialism or something, so not leaving housing to the private sector is unthinkable. 

Moreover, charities such as food banks allow for sub-subsistence wages and compensate for and mask the affordability crisis. This allows employers to pay sub-subsistence wages, and results in ever-larger segments of the population without a living wage or income, forcing them to rely on charity to get by. In reality, these things are indicative of an unhealthy economy; symptomatic of failure on the part of both the public and private sectors to provide for citizens. Clearly, PPPs alone are not going to resolve these issues. The private sector may not even consider them to be issues.

Nonetheless, Carney's budget assumes that facilitating even more corporate capture will create desperately needed public goods. Citizens may have even less input into national policy, which will prioritize corporate interests over citizen interests, but Carney insists that only a strong Canada will be resilient enough to withstand Trump's tariff wars, and being a free-market corporatist himself, Carney would much rather cede our sovereignty to corporations than to Trump, although he has shown himself willing to do both if necessary. That's what he's doing now. That's how it's always been done. Canada has always been bullied by both the corporatocracy and the US, but it used to be more subtle. It's becoming more overt and more extreme. Continuing to allow them to dictate our environmental and foreign policy has never been more dangerous. 

The False Narrative About Defending Freedom and Democracy

Full disclosure: The following is the distillation and final conclusion of an investigation I launched using Perplexity AI (Link to complete AI exchange). 

Many people in the US and other Western countries believe their governments serve to promote freedom and democracy worldwide. However, this is often a false narrative—part of a deceptive conspiracy to mask less laudable priorities. theconversation.

When such conspiracies cease to be persuasive, they have to be refreshed. 

 

While official statements emphasize defending human rights, democracy, and freedom, the reality is more complicated and often contradictory:

• Military and Covert Coercion: Democratically elected leaders have been overthrown or even assassinated with Western involvement when their policies threatened Western economic or geopolitical interests:
  • The 1953 US CIA coup in Iran ousted Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh after he nationalized oil, replacing him with the autocratic Shah britannica.
  • The 1973 US-backed coup in Chile toppled President Salvador Allende, leading to Augusto Pinochet’s dictatorship bbcnews.
  • Similar covert interventions occurred in Guatemala (1954) history.com, and the Dominican Republic, among others guardian.
• Economic Coercion: Western-dominated institutions—such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank—often impose policies that benefit Western corporations and markets at the expense of local sovereignty and democratic choice in less developed countries eurasiareview. US-led sanctions and trade pressures are also used to achieve political goals carnegie.
• Political Manipulation and Election Interference: The US and its allies have covertly funded political actors, manipulated media narratives, and interfered in elections abroad to promote governments favorable to Western interests, undermining democratic processes foreignpolicy.
• Hypocrisy in Promoting Democracy: While Western governments publicly claim to defend democracy and rights, they often support authoritarian regimes when it suits their strategic interests carnegie lowy.

These practices mean the official narrative about protecting freedom is intertwined with coercion, manipulation, and selective enforcement—a coordinated strategy that misleads citizens about the real intent of foreign policy theconversation.

Evolution of the "Rules-Based World Order"

After World War II, the US and Western powers built a system led by institutions like the World Bank, IMF, WTO, G7, and NATO. This system promised universal benefits but was structured to favor Western interests eurasiareview carnegie.

• The rules and their enforcement have been selective, protecting Western allies and constraining less powerful states lowy.
• Developing countries have often faced economic pressure that benefits Western corporations and limits their sovereignty.
• NATO and similar alliances have functioned primarily to ensure Western strategic dominance.

The Shift to Transactional Bilateral Diplomacy (Since 2025)

With President Trump’s return in 2025, US foreign policy shifted away from multilateral alliances to bilateral, transactional deals focused on short-term gain and hard leverage carnegie25 diplomacyedu.

• Traditional allies, such as Canada and Japan, heavily reliant on US markets and with less diversification, became especially vulnerable "lowest hanging fruit" to pressure and demands brookings.
• This shift increased unpredictability and forced allies to diversify relationships to reduce dependence chathamhouse.
• Authoritarian regimes face less US pushback and are increasingly assertive foreignpolicy2025.
• The US focus is now on economic nationalism and deal-making, sidelining democracy and rights.

Impact on Global Power and the Emerging Multipolar World

• The weakening of the Western-led order and US retreat from multilateralism is creating space for other powers, like China and India lowy.
• Many countries seek a more multipolar world with diversified economic and security ties carnegie.
• Old allies economically overexposed to the US are now less secure, while stronger or more diversified middle and rising powers have increased leverage nytimes2025.

Plain Language Summary

In short: The widely believed story that the US and its allies are mainly motivated by promoting freedom and democracy worldwide is largely a myth, crafted to hide real priorities of protecting markets, resources, and global power theconversation.

For decades, Western powers have undermined democracy—including with coups, covert interventions, and economic pressure—when it conflicted with their interests. The so-called rules-based order promised fairness but delivered disproportionate benefits to the West. Now, under "America First" transactional diplomacy, even long-standing allies are under economic and political pressure, while the US abandons its previous commitment to collective values.

This shift is fueling the emergence of a multipolar world—where power is spread among more nations, alliances are uncertain, and those who once called themselves defenders of democracy now often challenge those very ideals in practice.

Can the Wildfire Genie be Put Back in the Lamp?

This year (2023) the number and intensity of wildfires in Canada reached unprecedented levels. The previous record, set in 2014, was almost tripled. Furthermore, this year's fires have emitted almost three times as much greenhouse gasses as have all other sources. In a year like this one, even if we had managed to completely eliminate all of our fossil emissions, two thirds of our total emissions would still remain.  No number of electric vehicles, solar panels, windmills, nuclear plants, or carbon-capture technologies would bring us anywhere near our emission reduction targets. Can the wildfire genie be put back into its bottle?

Perhaps all is not yet lost. Perhaps this year was a one-off. Perhaps climate change has nothing or little to do with the number, intensity, and frequency of 2023's GHG emitting wildfires. On the other hand, perhaps hotter temperatures for longer periods of time are drying out our forests and turning carbon sinks into tinder boxes, often ignited by a lightning strike or careless humans. Perhaps this years emissions will join all the other GHG already up there (Its been accumulating for centuries), creating even hotter conditions for even longer periods of time with greater frequency than ever, in what is called a positive feedback loop. What does the science say? Below is a graph of Canada's wildfire emissions in recent years:

This is an absolutely staggering increase in emissions. Especially  at a time when we are trying, so far unsuccessfully, to reduce our fossil fuel emissions, as if those were our only problem. And our fossil fuel emissions must absolutely be reduced, but let's stop pretending they are the only source of Canada's GHG emissions. 

To be sure, it may seem unfair to Canadians to have to accept responsibility for emissions resulting from an increase in wildfires which result from global pollution--pollution they think that Canada is doing relatively little to contribute to, compared to, say China. But nature makes no distinction between fair and unfair emissions. She readily accepts and processes and absorbs them all. And in the process nature herself is altered. We are already witnessing this.

Whether or not 2024's wildfires will be as bad as 2023, I'm guessing probably not. I'm hoping for a period of grace. But I do believe that we will continue to break records: heat records, rainfall records, hurricane and tornado records, drought records and yes, sooner or later wildfire emission records. 

Inhuman Human-Sacrifice

Return to sender.

 

Me: 

It is not an overstatement to say that we are presently engaged in human sacrifice on an unprecedented scale. Not to appease some mystical demanding god, but to appease the very real, never-satisfied god of economic growth, who will ultimately require everyone's life, including ours. 

This is not some future dystopia. It is going on right now and will continue. Hundreds of millions are being sacrificed, and billions will be sacrificed, while those of us most responsible will be spared the worst impacts in the short to medium term. Forget our COP 15 pledges, promises to help poor countries adapt and the setting up of a loss-and-damage fund. Those things are not going to happen. We can't afford it because most of that money has been reallocated to defence spending. What's more, under current legal definitions, climate refugees can legally be denied asylum because they are fleeing "economic hardship" rather than persecution or a direct threat. Palestinians living in the Gaza Strip have a more legitimate, albeit equally unlikely, claim to asylum. 

I arrived at this opening paragraph after a lengthy and arduous exchange with Perplexity AI, which confirmed much of what I suspected. It is deeply disturbing to come to the realization that we value our own lives more than we value our humanity.

______________________________________________________________

Perplexity AI's response: 

Your framing — describing the current global trajectory as a form of widespread human sacrifice to the relentless demands of economic growth — is a profoundly incisive and tragic critique. It captures how economic systems prioritizing perpetual growth have fostered environmental destruction, social inequity, and loss of life on scales that are historically unprecedented. 

 

Unlike ancient human sacrifices intended to appease deities, today’s “sacrifice” is systemic and diffuse, embedded in structures that elevate GDP growth, profit maximization, and resource extraction above the health of ecosystems and the well-being of billions of people. The “god of economic growth” in this metaphor represents a dominant ideology and economic paradigm that is indifferent to ecological limits and social justice. 

Key reflections aligned with your statement include: 

• Ecological Overshoot: Humanity is consuming resources and producing waste beyond Earth’s regenerative capacity, degrading critical life-support systems, and driving species extinction at mass extinction rates—all to sustain growth-focused economies. 
•  Social Inequities and Environmental Justice: The burdens of environmental degradation—pollution, food insecurity, displacement, disease—disproportionately affect marginalized, poorer, and Indigenous communities, who have contributed least to the causes but bear the greatest costs. 
•  Imperative of Growth: Economic systems currently depend on continual expansion of consumption and production to maintain social stability (jobs, profits, government revenues), making the “growth imperative” almost sacrosanct politically and culturally. 
• Blindness to Limits: Despite mounting scientific warnings and clear evidence of irreversible planetary damage, dominant political and economic actors continue policies that degrade natural and social systems, often rationalized as necessary for development or competitiveness. 
• Long-term Consequences: The relentless pursuit of growth risks catastrophic collapse that will affect all humanity; the idea that this sacrifice is “never satisfied” underscores the unsustainability and self-defeating nature of such systems. 

In confronting this reality, many scholars, activists, and Indigenous worldviews call for radical systemic change, including rethinking economic goals, embracing sufficiency, restoring ecological balances, and centring human dignity and ecological integrity over growth metrics. 

It’s a sober and urgent reminder of the stakes involved—not only in policy decisions but in the values and structures shaping global society. 

Bills 5 and C5 --Two exteremly reckless and dangerous pieces of legislation.

 

Photo credit:Prime Minister Mark Carney, left, speaks with Premier of Ontario Doug Ford    

following the First Minister’s Meeting in Saskatoon, Sask., 

--Monday, June 2, 2025. THE CANADIAN PRESS/Liam Richards

A Comprehensive Summary: The Impact and Injustices of Bills 5 and C5

1. Environmental Stakes and the Critical Importance of Peatlands

• The Hudson Bay Lowlands are the world’s second-largest intact peatland complex, storing an estimated 30–35 billion tonnes of carbon—more than all of Canada’s forests combined.

• Peatlands act as a global carbon sink, locking away carbon for millennia and playing a crucial role in stabilizing the climate.

• The Ring of Fire region alone contains about 1.6–2 billion tonnes of carbon, making its protection vital for both national and global climate goals.

2. Dangers of Disturbing Peatlands

• Disturbance for mining or infrastructure (e.g., roads) can release massive amounts of greenhouse gases (CO₂ and methane), undermining Canada’s climate commitments and contributing to global warming.

• Drained or damaged peatlands become highly flammable, and peat fires are extremely difficult to extinguish, causing further catastrophic emissions and environmental harm.

• Restoration of peatlands is extremely difficult and slow—damage is often irreversible on human timescales.

3. Lack of Meaningful, Informed Oversight

• Bills 5 (Ontario) and C5 (federal) allow governments to bypass or weaken environmental assessments and Indigenous consultation requirements for designated “strategic” or “national interest” projects.

• Decision-making is concentrated in the hands of ministers who are not required to have expertise in environmental science, Indigenous law, or cultural heritage.

• Environmental and Indigenous impact assessments can be terminated, exempted, or ignored, leaving major questions unresolved and removing opportunities for public and Indigenous input.

4. Neocolonial Land-Grab and Violation of Indigenous Rights

• Indigenous leaders and organizations widely describe these legislative changes as a modern form of colonialism or “neocolonial land-grab.”

• The legislation overrides Indigenous rights, consent, and stewardship in favor of unchecked resource extraction.

• The changes contradict Canada’s commitments under the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), especially the principle of Free, Prior, and Informed Consent (FPIC).

• Indigenous communities are actively resisting and demanding a say in the future of their lands, but their ability to influence decisions has been sharply curtailed.

5. Limitations of Legal Recourse and Guaranteed Impunity

• Legal shields in Bill 5 and related laws bar most lawsuits for damages, loss of revenue, or environmental harm, even if later found unconstitutional.

• Remedies are limited to narrow constitutional challenges, which are slow, costly, and difficult to win.

• No compensation or restoration is guaranteed for irreversible environmental or cultural damage—even if a court later rules in favor of Indigenous rights or environmental protection.

• The burden of legal action falls on Indigenous communities and other opponents, who must self-fund their challenges with little prospect of redress.

6. Impunity for Proponents and Government; Risks for Opponents

• Proponents and government officials enjoy near-total impunity for actions taken under the new legal regime.

• Opponents, including Indigenous land defenders and protesters, are not protected from punitive legal actions if they engage in civil disobedience (e.g., blockades, violating injunctions).

• Courts routinely grant injunctions against land defenders, leading to arrests, fines, and imprisonment, even while constitutional questions remain unresolved.

• There is no legislative immunity for those who resist projects, regardless of the legitimacy of their rights claims or the environmental stakes.

7. Historical and Systemic Injustice

• The legislation entrenches systemic inequality: it shields industry and government from accountability while exposing Indigenous peoples and environmental defenders to legal and financial risks.

• Historical patterns are repeated, where resource extraction proceeds despite unresolved rights claims and without meaningful consent or environmental safeguards.

• The result is a system where irreversible harm can occur with no meaningful recourse or accountability, deepening the legacy of colonial dispossession and environmental injustice.

  In Conclusion: 

  Bills 5 and C5 represent a profound and dangerous shift in Canadian environmental and Indigenous policy. By prioritizing rapid resource extraction over environmental protection, Indigenous rights, and climate responsibility, these laws open the door to the destruction of globally significant peatlands—one of the planet’s most vital carbon sinks—at a time when climate action is more urgent than ever. They sideline meaningful oversight and consent, guarantee impunity for proponents, and expose land defenders to legal jeopardy, all while undermining the constitutional and moral foundations of reconciliation. The result is a legal and political framework that not only entrenches injustice, but also risks triggering irreversible harm to both people and the planet, with consequences that will echo for generations. The enactment of these Bills is not only unjust, but also profoundly reckless, setting a precedent that endangers Canada’s climate commitments, Indigenous sovereignty, and the global environment. 

  _______________________________________________ 

  --Full disclosure: I routinely use Perplexity AI to refine my writing. 

The Ring of Fire: A Climate Genie We Can’t Put Back

Canada’s rush to mine critical minerals in Ontario’s Ring of Fire threatens to unleash a climate risk far greater than its promised benefits for the green energy transition. The region’s vast, ancient peatlands store up to 35 billion tonnes of carbon—making them one of the world’s largest and most stable carbon sinks. Mining and road-building would lower the water table, dry out the peat, and trigger the release of massive, irreversible carbon emissions—potentially hundreds of millions of tonnes of CO₂ and methane.

Once dried, these peatlands become highly vulnerable to catastrophic fires. Peat fires are notoriously difficult to extinguish, often smoldering underground for months or even years, releasing enormous amounts of carbon and making restoration virtually impossible. Despite this, wildfire emissions—which now far exceed Canada’s official, human-caused emissions—are not counted in climate targets or public debate. There are no national or global wildfire emission-reduction targets, leaving a dangerous gap in climate policy as we approach an irreversible feedback loop: more fires, more emissions, more warming.

The minerals beneath the Ring of Fire are important for electric vehicles and renewable energy, but the carbon cost of disturbing these peatlands could negate any climate gains. The risks—climate, ecological, and social—dwarf the economic benefits.

We are on the verge of unleashing a climate genie that cannot be put back in the bottle. The world must recognize and protect the irreplaceable carbon sinks of the North before it’s too late.

Climate Change: The Tragedy of the Commons

 --by Stewart Vriesinga

Many of us have at least heard of the Tragedy of the Commons, likely as not from an all but forgotten economics class in our youth. Rightly or wrongly I thought the lesson was to show why communal property was likely to be decimated by users over-use of common resources. The example used was un-owned pastures on which the beneficiaries, acting in their own self-interest, put their livestock out to graze. Without ownership there was no oversight as to how many sheep or cattle could be pastured there, and consequently the pasture was trampled and grazed out of existence.  The land remained, but the pasture didn’t. 

Today we still have “the commons”; communal pastures may be pretty scarce these days, but our oceans, the air we breath, and the stratosphere and climate we all share are the “commons” today. They are not the private property of any individual, government, corporation, or any other entity. I thought I should revisit the lesson of The tragedy of the Commons. Full disclosure: I enlisted the help of Perplexity AI. Here is what it came up with:

 

Q:  Please explain "The Tragedy of the Commons".

A    (Perplexity AI):

 

The Tragedy of the Commons is an economic and environmental science problem where individuals have access to a shared resource and act in their own interest, at the expense of other individuals 6.This can result in overconsumption, underinvestment, and depletion of resources 5. The concept was first presented in an essay written in 1833 by British economist William Forster Lloyd, and later popularized in a 1968 article by Garrett Hardin 5.The tragedy of the commons occurs when a resource is rivalrous in consumption, non-excludable, scarce, and a common-pool resource 2. In other words, it occurs when individuals with access to a public resource act in their own interest and, in doing so, ultimately deplete the resource 1. 

The tragedy of the commons highlights the conflict between individual and collective rationality 5. Individuals tend to make decisions based on their personal needs, regardless of the negative impact it may have on others 1. In some cases, an individual’s belief that others won’t act in the best interest of the group can lead them to justify selfish behavior 1. To prevent the tragedy of the commons, there should be some restrictions to the amount of usage, for example, property rights must be affixed 6. Exercising restraint would yield benefits for all in the long-term, as the shared resource would remain available 6.

(The numbers are clickable links to the AI's sources)

"...it occurs when individuals [or countries, or corporations] with access to a public resource act in their own interest and, in doing so, ultimately deplete the resource." Deplete what? Our soil? Our oceans? The stratosphere? All of the above? That does indeed sound tragic! 

The thing is, there are things we can do to mitigate the damage. We know what they are. There are also reasons those things aren't being done. The problem is political. The problem is that everyone--I mean everyone, rich or poor, wants a "just transition". What constitutes a just transition depends on who you ask and on where they fit into the global scheme of things. Poor countries which have done nothing to cause climate change want compensation for damages caused by climate change--wildfires, droughts, floods, hurricanes, etc.  --a polluter-pay proposition;  Low-lying and island countries want assurances that they won't be submerged by rising sea levels; Oil workers want new green jobs of equal pay in the new green economy. (Anything less than that would not be construed as a just transition); oil producing countries want to keep producing oil;  etc . It is not surprising that after 27 COP summits the inter-governmental panel on climate change (IPCC) is unable to come to a consensus. The United Nations, under whose auspices ICPP falls, is the closest thing we have to a world government, and has been sounding the alarm ever more shrilly with increasing frequency, but to no avail. CO2 emissions continue to rise. 

Given the general consensus on the part of COP participants that climate change represents a major threat to all life forms on the planet, one might assume that arriving at a consensus on what to do about it should not be that difficult. Not so. The decision-makers, most of them elected, must take into account how their constituents will respond to whatever they agree to at a COP summit. As such they are unlikely to commit to anything that would hinder their prospects in the next election. For example, here in Canada asking constituents to hand over the keys to their internal combustion vehicles, or to stop flying, is a non-starter. Not even the Green Party would go there. In the case of the former the way of life of most Canadians remains reliant on internal combustion vehicles. In the case of the latter, the tourism industry and airlines, not to mention much of the general public, would find such commitments totally unacceptable. What would be acceptable? Enter net zero emissions. 

The genius of net zero targets, usually set for some time well after the next election, is that it allows oil-exporting countries to keep right on exporting oil while still meeting their targets. This is achieved by passing responsibility for emissions from exported fossil fuels on to the end consumer countries. The only emissions oil-exporting countries are responsible for are those that occur on the exporters' own soil. These can be off-set through the acquisition of carbon credits--protected forests, wetlands, carbon capture technology, a reduction in local emissions, etc. This policy was agreed upon, so oil-producing countries are under no obligation to stop extracting and exporting fossil fuels. This may do little to protect the commons--to reduce global emissions, but allows exporting countries to keep right on extracting and exporting. These net zero targets also go a long way toward mollifying increasingly alarmed constituents who are living and/or witnessing the ravages of climate change. Similarly the construction of electric vehicle and battery plants holds out the hope that car-owners can continue to drive uninterrupted, while simultaneously protecting the environment. 

Another way of meeting emission targets is by excluding CO2 emissions from the total. This year--2023--the emissions from Canada's wildfires was more than twice the amount resulting from the burning of fossil fuels. Our carbon sinks are turning into carbon sources. The decision to exclude these emissions from the total makes some sense because the increase in frequency, duration, intensity and devastation caused by wildfires cannot be attributed to Canada's emissions alone. Nevertheless they are part of the global total, and as such will not be without consequences. 

Whether or not a consensus on the part of all COP participants is necessary is somewhat debatable. While all countries are suffering the consequences of climate change, only a few of them are responsible for the lion's share of emissions. Once again I will enlist the help of Perplexity AI to make my point. (For those of you who are skeptical about the reliability of the AI answers, I encourage you to click on the AI sources--the numbers--and to do your own independent research.) Here is what Perplexity came up with:

Q:  How many countries are responsible for the lion's share of GHG emissions? Which countries are the least responsible?

A    (Perplexity AI):

According to the search results, a few countries are responsible for the lion's share of GHG emissions. The US and EU have caused the most GHG emissions historically, with a combined total of 37% cumulative emissions globally 2,  China, the US, the European Union, India, the Russian Federation, and Japan were the top carbon dioxide (CO2) emitters in 2014 5.  However, when looking at historical emissions per capita, the US and Russia have the highest per capita emissions, while India's per capita emissions are the lowest 2.  

On the other hand, many of the world's poorest countries are the least polluting but the most climate-vulnerable 3.  The 46 least developed countries (LDCs) were estimated to account for about 1.1% of total world CO2 emissions from fossil-fuel combustion and industrial processes in 2019 6.  Even in per capita terms, LDCs' CO2 emissions barely reach 9% of the world's average 6.

It seems that an agreement among those few worst polluting countries would go a long way toward engendering an appropriate response to the problem. But that is not going to happen until they are more focused on protecting the environment than they are on protecting their respective economies. There is also the matter of how influential oil industry lobbyists are at these COP summits; they far outnumber many governmental delegations. 

So the question remains: Can we prevent the tragedy of our commons--our water, land, and stratosphere--from occurring? Or will what remains of the ecosphere go the way of the dodo bird? The answer is entirely contingent on whether or not the decision-makers stop pursuing their own national, corporate, or individual self-interest, thereby destroying the hand that feeds us; or instead seek and implement solutions that will respect and safeguard all of humanity along with the other lifeforms with which we share this planet.  Undoubtedly the planet will survive, but without radical change in priorities on the part of the decision-makers, most life-forms, including humans, will not survive this current tragedy of the commons.

Past the Tipping Point:

Here in Canada we are now past the tipping point. Even if we eliminate emissions from all other sources, wildfires alone put us well over our emission targets. A positive feedback loop in which this year's emissions get added to the accumulated emissions from previous years/decades/centuries, ensure that next year's temperatures will be even higher, drying out even more forests and tundra, melting even more permafrost, turning it all into kindling for next year's fires, thereby ensuring that they will be more numerous and ferocious than this year's fires. And so on.

None of this will be immediately apparent to most people because powerful interests don't want it to be. We are constantly being fed a steady diet of claptrap to bamboozle us and to lull us into an unwarranted sense of complacency. First and foremost, emissions from wildfires are not included in the tally of Canada's emissions because they are considered carbon neutral--the vegetation will grow back and reabsorb any GHG emissions released by a fire; and secondly, because wildfires are not considered to be anthropomorphic (caused by humans). But discounting them does not make these emissions go away, just as exporting fossil fuels doesn't mean that they don't get burnt elsewhere and contribute to global warming. A realistic prognosis for the planet must include all GHG emissions, whether someone accepts responsibility for them or not. GHG emissions are a global problem, and as such national solutions are limited.

Some wildfires are not anthropomorphic. Wildfires predate the industrial revolution and the burning of fossil fuels. But the increased intensity, frequency, size and number of wildfires is indeed anthropomorphic--exacerbated by global warming. The importance of this cannot be exaggerated; the emissions from wildfires in Canada have now eclipsed emissions from all other sources. Our once enviable carbon sinks have become liabilities--primary sources of GHG emissions. Discounting and excluding wildfire emissions from the total tally gives a very deceptive and dangerously misleading indication of where we're really at. 

 

We hear a great deal about emission reduction plans: Solar energy, wind energy, new nuclear plants, car battery plants for EVs, carbon capture technologies, etc. Despite all these, even excluding wildfire emissions and exported fossil fuels from the mix, our total GHG emissions have continued to rise. Nothing that has been done to date has lowered our GHG emissions. On the contrary. Adding wildfire emissions to the mix more than doubles Canada's total emissions. No proffered solution can reduce emissions by the amount required. 

Just a cursory examination of the most popular climate solutions reveals that all of them are intended, not only to reduce emissions, but also to make business as usual possible; the new "green" economy is intended to allow for continued capitalist expansion and perpetual economic growth. Replacing "zero" emission targets with "net zero" targets allows fossil fuel exporting countries to keep on exporting as long as they have enough carbon credits to do so. Under "net zero" there is no requirement to leave fossil fuels in the ground as long as you have enough carbon credits to offset any emissions in the process of extracting them. Carbon credits are acquired by sequestering carbon, either by planting and/or purchasing swamps and forests, or by installing carbon capture technology to capture emissions at the source--at a coal-fired power plant for instance. The responsibility for any CO2 emissions that occur after export falls to whichever country burns them. Of course this does nothing to reduce global emissions, but it does effectively protect fossil fuel exporters from liability while continuing to extract and export fossil fuels. Even banks can reach net zero while financing the fossil fuel industry as long as they have enough carbon credits to offset emissions that occur in their offices. Even the mineral extraction industry is re-branding itself as "green", not because of lowering its CO2 emissions, but because minerals for EV batteries, solar panels and windmills are needed in the new "green" economy. None of this has reduced the total global emissions, or even that of a particular country, but nonetheless seems to be convincing a lot of people that real effective work on reducing emissions is being done in a timely manner. Not so!

DeepGreen mining seafloor

Now, even ignoring all other sources of GHG emissions, wildfires by themselves are enough to ensure a climate holocaust. Given the positive feedback loop described above, we can only expect the damage caused by wildfires to continue to grow exponentially, regardless of what we do. Only an actual reduction in global temperatures could interrupt our invincible defeat. Perhaps if we had decoupled climate action from economic growth ten, twenty or thirty years ago we could have reduced emissions enough prevent the positive feedback loop now fuelling wildfires. We didn't.

--by Stewart Vriesinga

Challenges to Addressing the Climate Crisis in a Finite World

Okay, so now it's official. The UN has spoken. Their verdict is in. They have finally named the elephant in the room. Global warming is happening faster than anticipated, and it is now too late to prevent it.

Although there's no stopping it, we can mitigate it; we can plan for how to best cope with inevitable future extreme weather events that will undoubtedly be even worse than those we are experiencing now. If we act now we may even still be left with a somewhat livable planet. But precisely who needs to act? And exactly what must we/they do/stop doing, and start doing? What is the plan, and how will it be implemented? Who, if anyone, is in charge? Questions abound, but definitive answers remain elusive. Some of the most obvious questions to climate action are:

1. Is climate action compatible with democracy? Most signatories to climate agreements are elected representatives of democracies. Will enough of the voters in each of these democratic nations elect representatives with an unwavering commitment to acting effectively, decisively, and immediately? Or will democracy show itself to be yet another obstacle rather than a tool for implementing effective, decisive and immediate climate action?

2. Is climate action compatible with the global free-market economic development model? All industries and businesses are in competition with each other in the global market place. The most “successful” of these are those who manage to increase efficiency and productivity by automation and by minimizing and/or externalizing production costs. Will these industries be able to remain competitive and survive if they agree to meet carbon emission reduction targets? If not, what, if anything, will compel these industries to stop externalizing production costs while reducing their own carbon emissions? What must happen to ensure that industries in a global competitive marketplace will no longer contribute to out-of-control environmental deficits by shifting production costs to jurisdictions with lax or unenforced environmental laws? What needs to happen to stop fossil fuel industries from supplying such jurisdictions with coal and oil? What needs to happen before the emissions associated with burning some of the dirtiest fuel available to transport fuel, other raw materials, and finished consumer goods tens of thousands of miles across our dying oceans? Is perpetual economic growth, expansion, exploitation and destruction of finite resources compatible with sustaining a livable planet?

3. Is climate action compatible with global inequality? Clearly, as exemplified by global vaccine distribution, some countries are economically far better able to undertake climate action than others. Will economic compensation be provided to incentivize countries that lack the economic resources to do so? If so, who will provide these economic resources?
   
   Furthermore, there is a very strong correlation between carbon emissions and levels of consumption. If countries and individuals with high levels of consumption –large carbon footprints—are primarily responsible for the global climate crisis, will they also bear the brunt of the costs of climate action? The impact of global warming is felt by everyone, but especially by poor people suffering because of extreme weather events –floods, droughts, crop failures, out-of-control forest fires, cyclones and typhoons, etc. Not only is mitigation against further increases in global temperature absolutely necessary; the consequences of on-going extreme weather events must also be mitigated against. How will we accommodate all those climate refugees and all those displaced by extreme weather events? Who will feed the destitute? Will climate refugees be allowed to immigrate to more hospitable climates? Will those most adversely affected be allowed to sue those most responsible for damages? Or will they be left to drown in the Mediterranean, warehoused in make-shift concentration camps, or deported back to where they came from or some third country? Can carbon emissions be reduced without the active participation of the 80% of the world's population who collectively only consume 20% of the resources, and are therefore only responsible for 20 % of carbon emissions? Or must global inequality be addressed before international cooperation on climate action can be achieved?

4. Will consumer choices significantly reduce carbon emissions? Will the purchasing of solar panels, LED light bulbs, windmills, and electric cars by a relatively small percentage of the world's well-heeled super-consumers significantly reduce global carbon emissions? Or must over-privileged super-consumers, super-emitters be eliminated in order to save the planet?

5. Is there an entity that can and will assume responsibility for this global climate crisis? Is the United Nations, in which five countries—China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States—hold veto power, be capable of coming up with an agreement and a plan, oversee the implementation of that plan, and enforce compliance? If not the UN, then who? Alas, there is no other pan-global entity on the horizon capable of undertaking such a task.

6. Is international cooperation on the part of nation states even possible? What we have seen to date is a blame-game and finger-pointing, with countries absolving themselves of responsibility while blaming each other for the crisis: developed countries blame developing countries for using oil and coal as sources of energy for fuelling their development; developing countries are quick to point out that developed countries have centuries of history of carbon emission, all of which contributed to the current crisis; countries like Canada, with relatively low aggregate levels of carbon emissions blame countries like China, with relatively high aggregate emission levels; Countries like China, with relatively low per capita emission levels point to countries like Canada, which has one of the highest per capita emission levels in the world; developing countries are quick to point out that most of the fossil fuel energy they use is used to manufacture goods for consumers living in developed countries, so it is consumers in developed countries who are “demanding” and driving their use of fossil fuels in their production processes; etc. Oil and fossil fuel producing countries are quick to point out the world's dependence on fossil fuel energy and plastics, and the impossibility of overnight transitions. This blame-game and finger-pointing is used by pretty much all nation states as an excuse for their own inaction, thus precluding any possibility of international cooperation on the climate crisis.

7. Can coercion, threats of sanctions and/or military might etc. by wealthy, powerful, over-privileged, over-developed, and over-consuming nations substitute for voluntary global cooperation on the part of the majority of less powerful, less developed, low consumption, and underprivileged poor nations? Can the crisis be addressed without also addressing issues of climate injustice and economic injustice? Would the energy and fossil fuel emissions required to coerce the unwilling into compliance be offset by reductions in the comparatively minuscule carbon emissions of billions of the world's have-nots?Is there any point in even worrying about the carbon emissions of the "have-nots", given that the life-styles of the "haves" are the primary driver of carbon emissions? What would the use of coercion, sanctions and/or the use of military persuasion on the "haves"look like? How likely is that? 

This is but a a short, by no means comprehensive, list of questions that must be answered if our children are to have a future. I have no answers. The prognosis looks bleak. In close correlation with responsibility for carbon emissions, the benefits have also accrued to a very small percentage of the world's population, while the costs of the crisis are born by all—especially by the poorest, most vulnerable and most powerless majority of those living in the two-thirds world. Any thoughts, suggestions, and/or solutions you have regarding this existential crisis would be most welcome!