Our planet is changing. So is our journalism. Keep up with the latest news on our Climate and Environment page.
Sign up here to get this newsletter in your inbox every Thursday.
This week:
- Has the world ‘surrendered’ to climate change? These authors think so
- The big emissions of small private jets
- Solar advocates see ‘untapped potential’ in parking lots
Has the world ‘surrendered’ to climate change? These authors think so
This year’s UN climate summit, COP29, opens in Baku, Azerbaijan, on Monday. Since the signing of the Paris Agreement in 2015, most climate discussions have centred on the need to keep global warming below 2 C, and ideally below 1.5 C. But Swedish academics Andreas Malm and Wim Carton think many of our leaders have resigned themselves in the last decade to reaching neither of those goals.
In their provocative new book, Overshoot: How the World Surrendered to Climate Breakdown, they examine how politicians, business leaders and, yes, even some climate scientists have downplayed the imperative to make deep emissions cuts. Malm and Carton call it an “overshoot philosophy”: a belief that it’s impossible to meet our emissions targets, but that we’ll be able to cool the planet at a later point, using some as-yet unproven technology.
Malm and Carton spoke to CBC’s Andre Mayer via Zoom from Paris and Mӓlmo, Sweden, respectively.
Q: The subtitle of the book is ‘How the World Surrendered to Climate Breakdown.’ When do you think the surrender began?
Wim Carton: We’ve never really tried to mitigate climate change. So in that sense, we started by surrendering. But I mean, if we take the overshoot notion as kind of the organizing principle here … this idea that, you know, we can somehow reach these [carbon reduction] targets by going past them and then returning, by lowering temperatures, by sucking CO2 out of the atmosphere, then I guess the surrender began around 2007, thereabouts.
Andreas Malm: You can potentially, if you want to be chronologically specific, focus on the period between 2018 and 2022. Because it was in 2018 that the special report on 1.5 degrees was published by the [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change]. And that was a moment in time when it was almost universally recognized that we need to cap the warming at 1.5. This was also the moment in time when the climate movement began to surge in the Global North, and [the emergence of] Extinction Rebellion…. This surge continued until the outbreak of the pandemic in early 2020, and then it completely came to an end.
In these years, you had the International Energy Agency pronouncing very clearly that if we want to stay at or below 1.5, we cannot have any new fossil fuel installations.
Then what happened in 2021 and 2022 was a complete contradiction of this, in that you had this wave, this new cycle of profits from fossil fuels and reinvestment in them.
Q: The period you’re referring to was after most of the restrictions of the COVID-19 pandemic had been lifted. In the early part of the pandemic, when people were being urged to stay at home, global emissions dropped precipitously. Some climate reporters thought this could be a dress rehearsal for driving emissions down permanently. This was naive, wasn’t it?
Andreas Malm: This was a widely shared feeling. And I was, I think, prone to having this feeling as well, that this could be like a moment of rupture. All the flights coming to a standstill and nature returning into cities and the skies being clear … yeah, it was a moment when people could perceive a different way of life.
But all of that just, you know, ended in absolutely nothing. An obvious explanation for that is that none of these emissions cuts happened because governments wanted to act on climate. They only happened as an accidental byproduct of trying to contain the spread of the virus.
Q: In the book, you argue that “local resistance” is perhaps the most productive way to reduce oil dependency. Could you elaborate?
Wim Carton: We give this example of Colombia, of Ecuador — places where there are social movements. And obviously this is in many cases people who have been directly affected by the other effects of the fossil fuel industry, right? Not just climate change, but also its direct environmental effects, and [they] push back on the basis of that. I think you need that kind of … ground-anchored movement to be able to push back. We think that ultimately any change will have to happen through the state, but the only way we can capture the state or that you can change the direction of the state is through these mass movements of resistance, so yeah, that’s the only pathway that I think seems feasible.
—Andre Mayer
Old issues of What on Earth? are here. The CBC News climate page is here.
Check out our podcast and radio show. In our newest episode: The language of COP29 is brain-melting. But these soul-unstirring terms are key to solving climate change. We decode what’s really at stake as leaders gather for the UN climate talks this month in Azerbaijan. Then, we hear how corruption can derail international climate action – and what solutions could help.
What On Earth27:58The unsexiest words that could help save the planet
What On Earth drops new podcast episodes every Wednesday and Saturday. You can find them on your favourite podcast app, or on demand at CBC Listen. The radio show airs Sundays at 11 a.m., 11:30 a.m. in Newfoundland and Labrador.
Have a compelling personal story about climate change you want to share with CBC News? Pitch a First Person column here.
Reader feedback
Barbara Roper wrote: “After reading your story about gas powered leaf blowers and Sheldon Rideout’s Silent Gardener, I had to add another great emissions free yard care company to your list: cleanairyardcare.ca They’ve been in business in Victoria for 12 years and have been doing a fantastic job with battery powered tools, solar panels on their trucks for recharging and even electric bikes for staff to get to work. Emission free and quiet!! I sometimes don’t even hear them when they come to cut the grass. People need to know that there are good gas-free options out there.”
Susan Lindsay wrote: “On Vancouver Island, many of Port Alberni’s residents brought their pumpkins to Cathedral Grove Park. Various people took responsibility for lighting them each night. As a commuter to my job in Port Alberni, it was a joy driving home in the dark to see hundreds of pumpkins peeking out amongst the towering trees. The pumpkins were left to decompose (sans candles) or to provide food for woodland creatures.”
Thanks Susan. B.C. Parks, which manages the park containing the famous stand of old-growth known as Cathedral Grove, actually recommends not leaving pumpkins in the woods. Instead they ask people to dispose of the pumpkins in a secure compost bin. “Pumpkins are an attractant for bears and other wildlife. Although biodegradable, pumpkins will attract wildlife and this could lead to human-wildlife conflict, vehicle collisions with wildlife and habituation of wildlife in this high-visitor-use area of Cathedral Grove and the highway corridor,” they write. They add that it’s an offence under the Wildlife Act to feed dangerous wildlife such as bears.
Mary Ellen Scanlon of Hamilton wrote: “I just heard about a U.S.-based organization called Pumpkins for Pigs. Their platform facilitates donations of pumpkins (and other things) to local farmers. At the moment there is only one farm in Canada (Alberta) on their platform. It could catch on here.”
Thanks Mary Ellen. There actually are a number of farms and animal rescues across Canada that accept post-Halloween pumpkins for their animals, including some in Ontario., Nova Scotia and B.C.
Write us at whatonearth@cbc.ca. (And feel free to send photos too!)
The Big Picture: The big emissions of small private jets
The airline industry contributes roughly 2.5 per cent of all CO2 emissions. But what about private jets? A recent study published in the journal Nature Communications Earth & Environment looked at CO2 emissions emitted from these luxury planes and found that private jet-setters may produce nearly 500 times more CO2 than the average joe. They also looked at a few international events and charted the emissions generated by private jets to these locations. As illustrated above, even the 28th Conference of Parties (COP28) — the annual UN climate summit — wasn’t free from private jet users, though the study’s lead author, Stefan Gössling, told CBC News that COP “is no longer a purely political event. It’s a negotiation with business leaders [and] oil interests.”
.You can read the full story here
— Nicole Mortillaro
Hot and bothered: Provocative ideas from around the web
Solar advocates see ‘untapped potential’ in parking lots
Ontario recently announced it would be looking to the north for new energy projects, specifically mentioning incentives to “unlock” Crown lands for renewable energy involving wind, solar and biomass.
This comes as the Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO) says demand is increasing faster than previously anticipated and is set to grow by 75 per cent leading up to 2050.
Ontario’s plan to meet that demand relies heavily on electricity from nuclear and hydroelectric sources, but solar and wind are expected to play a role as well.
Currently, about one per cent of Ontario’s electricity supply comes from solar power, according to the IESO.
That could change in years to come as industrial, commercial and residential consumers participate in the grid via technologies like solar photovoltaic panels.
Atul Sharma, a renewable energy consultant for Algoma Energy Solutions in Sault Ste. Marie, said parking lots would be preferable to Crown land for solar energy projects.
“There’s a lot of space and no shade around,” he said. “We can also tilt the panels southwards with no obstacles.”
He added the angling of the panel to maximize sunlight tends to be a challenge when installing them on fixed residential roofs.
According to Sharma, panels on carports in parking lots also help provide shade for cars during heat waves and are sufficiently tilted to avoid snow accumulation.
He said one of the reasons this isn’t widespread practice is the initial cost of building a carport over a parking lot to install the panels.
“It’s a big initial investment,” he said. “First we have to build the structure, and that comes with a lot of labour costs. Then we have to cover the whole parking lot. But it is worth it because it would produce enough power to supply the shopping malls and the Walmarts.”
Sharma said there’s a loss of electricity when power is transferred from one place to another, and it would be more efficient to have solar panels closer to buildings, as opposed to out on Crown land.
José Etcheverry is an associate professor at York University and the director of the International Renewable Energy Academy. He was part of the team building one of Canada’s first solar photovoltaic parking lots using local materials and labour.
He says these local solar models would provide the power needed to electrify buses, cars, bicycles, scooters and wheelchairs.
“These could all charge locally in the parking lots that would be full of solar photovoltaics,” he said.
Etcheverry says solar is a cheap source of energy, and argues Ontario’s turn to nuclear energy and natural gas is a political decision, not a scientific one.
The Ontario Clean Air Alliance recently called on the Doug Ford government to put solar panels on Toronto’s parking lots.
It calculated the move could generate enough energy to phase out the electricity produced by natural gas at the Portlands Energy Centre in Toronto. It did not, however, calculate how much this would cost.
“This would be a voluntary program,” said Jack Gibbons, chair of the Ontario Clean Air Alliance. “We’re advocating for [Ontario] to pay parking lot owners who are willing to provide solar electricity to the grid.”
He added this would be “good for everyone in Ontario except for gas companies.… There’s a lot of untapped potential in parking lots.”
In France, a recently passed law requires all outdoor car parks with more than 80 spaces to install solar panels over at least half of the area covered during the next five years.
The French government estimates the measure could generate 11 gigawatts of power, or enough to supply up to eight million homes.
Businesses and municipalities are expected to pay for these projects through grants and loans. Failing to install solar panels would lead to fines between €20,000 and €40,000, or up to about $60,000 Cdn, depending on the size of the parking lot in question.
— Aya Dufour
Stay in touch!
Thanks for reading. Are there issues you’d like us to cover? Questions you want answered? Do you just want to share a kind word? We’d love to hear from you. Email us at whatonearth@cbc.ca.
Sign up here to get What on Earth? in your inbox every Thursday.
Editors: Emily Chung and Hannah Hoag | Logo design: Sködt McNalty