Introduction
As climate change and environmental degradation accelerate, so does the amount of economic and social disruption they cause. Not only must our global infrastructure respond to shifting conditions and decreasing resources, we as human beings are faced with an unprecedented existential threat. Climate change is the defining political issue of the century, and our reaction to it may very well determine the fate of humanity and the fate of our planet.
The 2019 Canadian Federal Election provides an excellent case study as to how climate change will shape political discourse in the coming decades, and the conflicts that will arise. In particular, the cry for Western separatism (Wexit) illustrates how intense internal tensions may become. Though I doubt Wexit will occur (it would be much more likely if Alberta and Saskatchewan weren’t landlocked), I predict that there will be successful separatist movements in the coming decades that can be directly tied to climate change.
I will first review in-depth how climate change shaped the 2019 Federal Election, and then I will provide a personal reflection on the struggle moving forward.
Climate Change and the 2019 Canadian Federal Election
There were many factors at play in the 2019 Canadian Federal Election. Though there were numerous interesting twists and turns, such as the resurrection of the Bloc Québécois [1], my primary take-away has been the split between the East and the West. The Liberal Party retained power because of its sway in Ontario, while the Conservative Party swept the mid-west on a waive of anti-Liberal resentment.
Climate policy played a crucial role in shaping this dynamic. The Liberals tried to thread the political needle on climate change, on the one hand implementing a carbon tax, while on the other supporting the trans-mountain pipeline. If pipeline construction had gone forward smoothly, this might have garnered the Liberals some grudging respect in the mid-west [2]. Instead, the Liberals were forced to buy the pipeline from Kinder Morgan due to delays caused by court challenges, failing to satisfy the mid-west while undermining the good-will that the carbon-tax engendered in environmentalists. Despite this undermining of good will, many leftists still voted strategically for the Liberals to prevent a conservative government, which partially explain how the Liberals secured a minority government despite Trudeau having an approval rating of less than 35% (link). The Conservatives, notably, had hardly any climate plan to speak of.
It is only days after the election, and the sense of anger and alienation from western Canada is palpable. Hours after the election, the VoteWexit (West Exit) Facebook group shot up from 4000 members to 114,000 (link). The Premier of Saskatchewan, Scott Moe, put out a statement, directed at Trudeau, calling for an end to the federal carbon tax, a negotiation of a new equalization formula [3], and to commit to building further pipelines (link). The map of the election results starkly visualizes the political divide.
The West is feeling the financial squeeze on both ends. On the one side, the region is still recovering from a recession and the drop in the price of oil, and policies such as the carbon tax slow its recovery. On the other side, Alberta and Saskatchewan, as the two provinces with the highest GDP per capita in Canada (link), pay out equalization payments to the rest of the country while receiving nothing in return [4]. Because the majority of Canada’s population is based on Ontario and Quebec, this leads to Westerners feeling that they are a minority that is being financially exploited by the eastern part of the country.
This traps the Liberal Party in a political vise. On the one hand, they want a strong western economy, they want to cultivate political support in the west, and they do not want multiple provinces considering separatism. On the other hand, there is an increasing appetite from the Canadian public for strong environmental action, as demonstrated by the hundreds of thousands who marched in the climate marches in September (link).
I think that the dynamics explored above exemplify the challenges of changing our society to address global warming and environmental collapse. Global warming is now primarily a social problem. How do we re-balance our political and economic life? How ought we persuade those whose livelihoods depend on the old systems, and how ought they be compensated? And how do we implement these changes quickly enough to have a meaningful impact?
Personal Reflection
Greta Thunberg’s speech to the United Nations spoke to me (link). My disposition towards climate change is perhaps more of dread then her righteous anger. My academic studies and my experience in government have led me to the conclusion that world leaders have only nominal control over many facets of society. And yet, the impulse to rage is certainly there within me, for how utterly previous generations absconded on their responsibilities towards us, though it is muted by the conviction that they are quite ordinary, rather than extraordinary, in their negligence.
What should be done, then, regarding the energy industry in Western Canada?
It must first be acknowledged that our emissions represent a very small portion of global emissions (approximately 1.5%, link). Decreasing our CO2 output is more a matter of symbolism and global leadership than of dramatically impact global warming. However, global leadership on climate change is sorely needed, so that does not exonerate us of our responsibility.
I also do not consider Western Canada or western Canadians (of which I am one) to be more morally responsible than other Canadians. All of Canada has benefited from the oil industry. However, my sympathy towards western Canada is mixed. First, it seems in many respects like western anger is more a lashing out in the face of declining prosperity. Consider how Alberta interrupted 44 unbroken years of Conservative governance to elect a provincial NDP government in 2015. Second, though the West has certainly faced economic decline, BC, Alberta, and Saskatchewan remain three of the wealthiest provinces in Canada. Third, during a long period of economic prosperity, western provinces could have invested significantly more in developing more diverse and resilient economies.
My sympathy notwithstanding, I think that the way forward must involve significant support to western Canada to transition away from a primarily oil-based economy. The oil industry has long supported Canada, now it is time for Canada to support the West. This may involve supporting the oil industry in the very short term, but I would only find this acceptable if it is accompanied by a clear economic transition plan for the region. I think the need to support the energy industry, and energy industry workers, is a theme that is going to play out again and again across the planet. Opponents to climate policy will likely yield much more easily if accepting the problem does not entail losing their livelihood.
[1] The Bloc Québécois is the Quebec separatist party. The Bloc lost almost all of its seats in the 2011 and 2015 elections, but reclaimed a decent portion of Quebec in 2019.
[2] For those unfamiliar with Canadian industry, most of Canada’s oil is produced in western Canada in Alberta and Saskatchewan. This has produced a great deal of wealth in the region.
[3] Canada redistributes wealth between provinces based on the “Equalization Formula”. The idea behind this practice is that “by compensating poorer provinces for their relatively weak tax bases or resource endowments, Equalization helps to ensure that Canadians residing in provinces have access to a reasonably similar level of provincial government services at reasonably similar levels of taxation” (link).
[4] It is worth noting that BC also does not receive equalization payments. However, the sense of alienation is weaker in BC, possibly because its economy is not energy-based in the same way as the prairie provinces.
Comments