Constitutional law isn’t top of mind for many Canadians. But curtailing climate change in order to put the brakes on another public health crisis is.  

That’s why this week’s Supreme Court of Canada review of the federal carbon tax is an important one to watch. At the heart of the top court’s hearing is the question: is our country ready and able to work together to fight the climate crisis? 

Wildfire smoke streaming over the border is just the latest example of why stronger, faster, co-ordinated action by all levels of government is needed. If the haze outside our windows right now is unnerving, it’s not hard to understand why young people — who will face worsening impacts, along with their children and future generations — are especially impatient.

Standing in the way are Alberta, Saskatchewan and Ontario. They’re challenging minimum national standards that require all provinces to curb carbon pollution, including by putting a price on it. These provinces argue they’re already taking action and that the federal government is overstepping the division of power between the two levels of government. In their view, a national carbon tax is unnecessary and unconstitutional.

The thing is, national standards ensure each province is doing its fair share because a carbon tax works best when it’s universally adopted. In recent years, Saskatchewan refused to sign on to the Pan-Canadian Framework on Clean Growth and Climate Change, Ontario cancelled its cap-and-trade regulation and Alberta revoked then replaced its carbon price. Courts in Ontario and Saskatchewan have already ruled in favour of the federal government’s constitutional authority to step in when provinces refuse to act, recognizing climate change as an urgent issue that affects everyone. 

Constitutional debates don’t usually generate a lot of engagement though. So opponents of a carbon tax invoke the myth that it hurts already cash-strapped Canadians. Continuing to use cheap, carbon-based energy will cost younger generations more than any tax they pay to fill up their tanks, and the currency will be their health and their dollars. A report prepared for the federal government in 2011 shows climate change could cost Canada and those who live here $43 billion per year by 2050 if the right kinds of actions aren’t taken. Meanwhile, an analysis by Canada’s own budget watchdog shows that most of the money middle- and low-earning people pay on a federal carbon tax is given back to them as rebates. 

Pricing pollution isn’t the real source of the financial pressures facing younger and many other people anyways. Skyrocketing costs for housing, child care and post-secondary education suck up way more of our budgets, especially because incomes for younger people have flatlined over the past four decades. In cities like Vancouver, Toronto, Ottawa and Halifax, nearly half of people under 30 spend at least a third of their income on rent, which is beyond Canada’s own threshold for affordability.

Momentum is building for a COVID-19 recovery that leaves people healthier than they were before the pandemic. Experts and elected officials agree that investing in clean, efficient energy use is our chance to create jobs, cut waste, fight inequality, make cities more livable and design an economy that puts people first. Taxing carbon pollution effectively is a key part of this strategy (and the one Canada has committed to doing as part of the Paris Agreement). 

The Supreme Court’s decision will determine whether Canada can take the kind of unified climate action that most people support and younger ones need. It will also show whether the principles our country was founded on are helping us or holding us back as we work to navigate modern problems like the climate crisis. Because if our Constitution doesn’t empower Canada to take shared action on one of the greatest threats we’ve ever faced, where does that leave us and the generations to come?

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

This article originally appeared on Climate Access.

Those who work on climate change were both chuffed and chagrined by its role in Canada’s federal election campaign, which peaked last week with the victory of Liberal leader Justin Trudeau and defeat of Conservative incumbent Stephen Harper.

“The environment” — a catch-all concept that often encompasses concern about climate change — consistently ranked close to economy and healthcare on voters' list of top priorities. Oilsands and climate change issues took up nearly a quarter of the first leaders debate, commanding more than twice the airtime they did in 2011. Several media outlets ran editorials calling on all parties to take a strong stance on reducing GHG emissions or put a price on carbon.

To quote professor and commentator George Hoberg, “energy and environmental issues have become central to Canadian electoral politics.”

Despite all of this, climate change didn’t have a significant impact on the election’s outcome. Fundamentally this was a campaign about values where action on global warming was bundled into a broader set of aspirations and ideas that Canadians said yes to on October 19th. 

The election of Canada’s new prime minister is an important case study in the powerful potential of values-based messaging. Where the Conservative campaign sought to preserve the status quo and motivate voters with threats of an unstable or unsafe future, the Liberal campaign (and to a different extent, the New Democrats) mobilized Canadians with a vision of change centred on honesty, inclusion and fairness.

Of course, the timing couldn’t have been better. Much has been said about why Canadians’ were ready to bid farewell to one of their longer-standing leaders — corruption, fiscal mismanagement, deepening degrees of intolerance and an overt contempt for basic democratic principles being among them. Under Harper’s rule, Canada became a global pariah on climate change (the dark twin to its role as international cheerleader for the oilsands); even members of the Conservative base were beginning to question his judgment. Voters traditionally divided by ideology found common ground in their disapproval of Harper’s approach to governing, particularly his divisive tenor.

In this context, the fact that Trudeau wasn’t very scientific about how his climate plan would set him above other parties didn’t matter. Why would it, given most Canadians support emission reduction targets but can’t say what a good one looks like or how to achieve it. Election-time focus groups have been clear that Canadians rarely track the policy fine print; they’re lured in by a resonant vision. Trudeau’s generally progressive position on climate change was just one example of what made his party a desirable alternative. And for many — including those who supported strategic voting and ABC (Anything But Conservative) campaigns — what he presented was good enough.

At Climate Access, we regularly advise climate practitioners on using common values to articulate a vision of a better future, as well as the steps towards getting there. It’s a delicate approach that has the potential to come off idealistic or woo-woo if not executed thoughtfully. Certainly not for the risk-averse (neither was Trudeau’s comment about growing the economy “not from the top-down … but from the heart outwards”). But done well, values-based messaging that taps shared aspirations around fairness, equality and innovation, for example, lays the ground for the specific prescriptions or actions needed to achieve the vision. (Tools like Spitfire Strategies’ message box puts values at the start of every frame, and vision at the close.)

Values-focused campaigns can be stressful for people who work on policy. Many smart advocates grumbled over the fact that both the Liberals and NDP avoided getting specific on key aspects of their climate change strategies, including how they might price carbon and the future of oilsands development. “Instead, climate disruption was coded in symbols linked to the national social contract (between regions) and Canadian self-esteem that were much more suitable for the challenging parties,” Canadian pollster and activist John Willis told Climate Access.

This is partly why Trudeau focused on restoring the role (and independence) of science in decision making, as well as working more closely with the provinces and territories.

“The Liberal message about consulting the provinces and bringing the country together was probably the most effective message on climate (and wasn't really a message about climate policy per se, but rather a new style of collaborative governance),” communications specialist and instructor Andrew Frank told Climate Access.

Intelligent skeptics may be tempted to criticize these promises for focusing on process over outcomes. But then, commitments to restore Canada’s environmental laws and give First Nations and other stakeholders a meaningful seat at the table were also sought and received, and neither involve a scientific target.

The reality is the Trudeau-led Liberal campaign raised expectations — exponentially — about the kind of leadership, transparency and accountability Canadians can expect from their federal government going forward. And they made climate change a central indicator of their success on all of these fronts.

The opportunity for climate advocates now is to drive the details. Canadians need information on what smart climate policy looks like (i.e. a strong national action that will cut 1/3 of Canada’s carbon in the next 15 years, on the way to 100 per cent renewable energy by 2050), as well as ideas on how to measure our progress. Most people are still unclear on the connection between the oilsands and climate change (perhaps including the new prime minister, who has a mixed position on pipelines). Stories about Canada’s burgeoning renewable energy sector and job market need to be shared and promoted.

There is still lots of work to do, but it should be easier with Canadians agreeing that it’s time to do something.

Sutton Eaves is a communications strategist specializing in environmental issues. She is senior editor and strategist at Climate Access.

Image: Justin Trudeau via Flickr

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

As climate change is fingered as a culprit behind the early rash of forest fires across northern and western Canada, experts say the most prudent approach at this stage is to, whenever possible, let the fires burn.

It’s a grim situation. But those studying the issue say the human toll of wildfire needs to be balanced against the reality that vulnerable forests are going to burn either way — especially given the mounting pressures presented by climate change.

“The question becomes, if we’ve got areas where fire can burn, the most responsible thing to do ecologically, fiscally and for long-term health is to let those fires burn,” said Toddi Steelman, executive director of the School of Environment and Sustainability at the University of Saskatchewan.

“If we don’t let them burn, we have to pay that account down the line … the forest will burn eventually.”

Worst Forest Fire Season in B.C. History

It’s not an easy thing to say in the current context. Nearly 2.5 million hectares have burned in Canada already this fire season, which likely has several more weeks to go.

In what is being called the biggest exodus in Saskatchewan’s history, more than 13,000 people have been forced to flee their homes (a figure that’s tripled in just five days). Firefighters from as far away as Australia and New Zealand are being shuttled to western Canada to spell off exhausted local responders.

Like Saskatchewan, B.C. has already outspent its $63 million firefighting budget on the worst forest fire season in the province’s history.

When Boreal Burns, Less Flammable Trees Grow Back

Jill Johnstone has spent several years investigating the effects of wildfire on the boreal forests in Alaska, Yukon and the Northwest Territories. One of her discoveries is that in areas where forest fires burn severely and frequently — a growing phenomenon in a warmer, drier climate — the typical black spruce trees that characterize much of the boreal are replaced by leafy deciduous species such as aspen.

While black spruce are described as being “born to burn” because of special adaptations, including cones that only release seeds after a blaze, fire moves less easily through broad-leaf forests.

“As the climate is warming, we’re having more frequent extreme fire weather that leads to big, active fire years. And the fires that burn under those conditions seem to trigger parts of the landscape to shift to this less flammable vegetation type,” Johnstone, an associate professor at the University of Saskatchewan, told DeSmog Canada.

“The idea is that maybe it won’t just be a runaway train where the more the climate warms, the more fire we get,” she said.

Adapting to Climate Risks: Large Fires ‘Catalysts for Change’

How to prevent an endless cycle of destructive climate change impacts is a burning question for anyone working on fire, drought and other problems associated with extreme heat. Johnstone describes her findings as both controversial and profoundly important for how we understand and choose to adapt to the growing risks.

The boreal forests, stretching from the Yukon border to the coast of Newfoundland and Labrador, are where the vast majority of wildfire burning takes place. Allowing more of these forests to burn naturally could fundamentally change the boreal ecosystem, from the types of plants that grow there to the animals that call it home.

In the immediate future, this is problematic for the communities and species that depend on the boreal as a source of food and shelter. (Hunters and trappers in northern Saskatchewan are already raising concerns about the effects of fire on their livelihoods.) But over time, a boreal forest dominated by deciduous trees could be less prone to fire and, according to separate research, play an important role in helping cool the planet.

“If large fires are actually a mechanism for resetting the landscape to be less flammable … we need to let large fires burn because they are catalysts of change,” Johnstone said.

Climate Change Driving Factor in Forest Fires

Fire agencies in the Northwest Territories and British Columbia explicitly name climate change as a factor driving heightened fire risks. On its website, even the federal ministry that oversees the development of the oilsands predicts the amount of area burned by forest fires in previous decades could double during this current one, thanks to climate change.

University of Alberta professor Mike Flannigan, a lead researcher on wildfire and climate change, points to temperature as the most important variable driving forest fire risk.

Warmer temperatures (like those predicted by climate models) exacerbate the three conditions needed for fire: dry fuel, an ignition agent like lightning and the hot, dry, windy weather that propels fire across a landscape.

“We need a 15 per cent increase in precipitation to compensate for every [extra] degree of warmth. And models don’t show this as likely to happen,” Flannigan told DeSmog Canada.

Flannigan expressed skepticism that the solution is as simple as allowing more fire-tolerant aspens to overtake the boreal forest. But he echoed Johnstone’s prescription to let the fires burn as naturally and freely as possible.

Which Fires Should Be Allowed to Burn?

In fact, several provinces and territories have taken this approach in recent years, following what Flannigan describes as a “monitor and manage” strategy of selectively intervening in fires that threaten people and developments, resources or species of value.

Fire officials in British Columbia have been taking a “modified response” approach to fires for over a decade, according to Lyle Gawalko, B.C.’s Manager of Fire Prevention. Their policy is to protect, in this order, human health and safety, communities and critical infrastructure, cultural values, watersheds, high value habitat and timber values. 

If a fire starts in an area that’s deemed safe or beneficial to burn and doesn’t threaten these values, officials will simply monitor it to make sure the situation doesn’t become dangerous.

Officials in Saskatchewan have created a policy that explicitly outlines where they will fight fires versus where they will observe and assess as a blaze progresses.

The problem comes in places like Alberta where there’s very little territory that doesn’t have a value on it, Flannigan said.

“It’s almost impossible to let a fire burn without it impacting an oil and gas development, community, or other operation. That’s the problem with co-existing development and fire; it’s hard to let fire take its natural course.”

Science Vs. Politics

Deciding which fires pose a risk is not a simple task for many reasons. Community members as well as local officials in northern Saskatchewan have criticized the government’s policy for leaving remote communities vulnerable.

These competing needs and the public’s fear of fire — and resulting desire to have it extinguished — make the question of how fires are fought not just technical but sociopolitical.

“If I’m a mayor of a small town, of course I’m going to be doing my job as mayor to lobby to get more resources on my fire. But they need to remember is that they may be one of many, many places that need those resources,” said Steelman of the University of Saskatchewan.

“The politics is different from what the science would suggest and that’s not unusual in these kinds of debates. And I think we can expect that into the future as well.”

Given that climate impacts are already influencing the strength and spread of wildfire in Canada, Johnstone highlights the urgent need for a different conversation about how to approach the problem and possible solutions.

“If we acknowledge that we can’t suppress every fire in the landscape and then take that one step further and come to terms with the idea that fire may actually be beneficial in terms of long-term landscape resilience, there needs to be a better dialogue with the public about what our plan is about how we’re going to fight fires.”

Photo: Boulder Creek Wildfire by B.C. Wildfire Service

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.