The challenge in Paris

One unfortunate effect of the focus on the two-degree benchmark is that it shapes the expectations of climate-change summits into a false binary: Either we humans act now to stop climate change, or we accept that we’ll have to live with the effects. The truth is more difficult — it requires doing both.

We do have to live with the effects of climate change. And we must also act, now and continuously, to reduce emissions. This leads us to a deeper question: How can humanity solve a collective-action problem of this magnitude? How does rhetoric become action?

The scope and mood of the Paris conference is different. The emphasis shifted from “who is on the hook?” to “what part should everyone play?”

We can see the potential for Canada to play a role beyond curbing our own emissions — although curbing our own emissions will certainly be a challenge.

Setting realistic and ambitious targets, and then meeting them, would be a legacy in which any government could take pride. But this is also a chance for Canada to influence global diplomacy, to get into the habit of nudging on climate policy, rather than being nudged.