{"id":195824,"date":"2018-10-26T10:31:46","date_gmt":"2018-10-26T14:31:46","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/irpp-policy-options.local\/issues\/the-problem-with-canadas-gradual-climate-policy\/"},"modified":"2025-04-14T04:40:30","modified_gmt":"2025-04-14T08:40:30","slug":"the-problem-with-canadas-gradual-climate-policy","status":"publish","type":"issues","link":"https:\/\/potestlaunch.irpp.org\/fr\/2018\/10\/the-problem-with-canadas-gradual-climate-policy\/","title":{"rendered":"The problem with Canada\u2019s gradual climate policy"},"content":{"rendered":"

The latest report<\/a> of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change \u00a0(IPCC) erases any doubts about the inadequacy of incremental action on climate.<\/p>\n

In that context, Canada\u2019s gradual approach to climate policy has been exposed as a feckless failure. Rapid, unprecedented and systemic changes in how governments, industries and societies function are required to limit global warming to 1.5\u00baC above preindustrial levels. Failure to do so could prove catastrophic.<\/p>\n

Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions caused by human activity have already warmed the planet by as much as 1.2\u00baC above the preindustrial norm. Warming of 1.5\u00baC will produce more severe heat waves and more extreme storms and flooding \u2013 which is saying something given the extreme weather we\u2019re already witnessing<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Warming above<\/em> 1.5\u00baC is truly alarming. Ten million people will be exposed to permanent inundation, and hundreds of millions more will be susceptible to climate-related poverty. Malaria and dengue fever will increase, while maize, rice and wheat crop yields will decline. At 2\u00baC of warming, the consequences are graver. Approximately 18 percent of insects, 16 percent of plants, and 8 percent of vertebrates will lose their habitats. The global annual catch from marine fisheries will decline by 3 million tonnes. Nearly all (99 percent) of coral reefs will die off. The cri de coeur of the climate-threatened Alliance of Small Island States \u2013\u201c1.5 to Stay Alive<\/a>\u201d\u2013 is now a global scientific truism.<\/p>\n

What does this mean for Canada\u2019s two most important climate policies: its highly controversial proposals for a national carbon price<\/a> and a new environmental assessment process<\/a> for natural resources projects? Neither, it turns out, is capable of contributing to the rapid, unprecedented and systemic changes urged by the IPCC.<\/p>\n

Canada buries its head in the (oil) sands<\/strong><\/p>\n

Asked whether Canada will increase the ambitions of its climate policies in light of the IPCC\u2019s report, Minister of Environment and Climate Change Catherine McKenna said that Canada must first meet the commitments<\/a> it has already made under the Paris Agreement, including its unambitious Harper-era target<\/a> of reducing GHG emissions from 2005 levels by 30 percent by 2030.<\/p>\n

But Canada isn\u2019t even remotely on track to meet its 2030 target (neither is any other major industrial country<\/a>). Nor does Canada have a plan to meet its target. An audit<\/a> of Canada\u2019s climate policies by the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development concluded that meeting the 2030 target \u201cwill require substantial effort and actions beyond those currently planned or in place.\u201d<\/p>\n

Meanwhile, the federal government has purchased the Trans Mountain Pipeline Expansion Project, which will facilitate further oil sands development and increase GHG emissions<\/a>. It also supports British Columbia\u2019s approval of LNG Canada, a liquefied natural gas pipeline and marine terminal megaproject that will completely undermine<\/a> the province\u2019s own climate plan.<\/p>\n

Instead of beginning \u2013 \u00a0much less accelerating \u2013 \u00a0the transition toward decarbonization, Canada is prolonging the world\u2019s unsustainable addiction to fossil fuels. The current rate of extracting and burning fossil fuels risks global warming of 4\u00baC. The IPCC report states that to prevent this calamity, the world must reduce global GHG emissions by 45 percent from 2010 levels by 2030, and achieve net-zero emissions by 2050<\/a>. \u201cThe next few years,\u201d says Debra Roberts<\/a>, cochair of the IPCC\u2019s working group on climate impacts, adaptation and vulnerabilities, \u201care probably the most important in our history.\u201d<\/p>\n

The price is wrong<\/strong><\/p>\n

The IPCC estimates that limiting warming to 1.5\u00baC requires far higher carbon prices than are presently in place. It predicts that by 2030, the global average price will need to range between US$135 and US$5,500 per tonne.<\/p>\n

In Canada, there is growing opposition to the federal government\u2019s plan to begin pricing carbon emissions nationally at a meagre $20 per tonne (subject to watered-down exemptions for trade-exposed heavy emitters) in January 2019, with the price rising to $50 by 2022. Detractors include Saskatchewan, Ontario and possibly New Brunswick. Alberta has withdrawn from the federal plan and cancelled its own plans for scheduled increases above $30. Meanwhile the leader of the province\u2019s United Conservative Party, Jason Kenney, has signalled that if elected in 2019 he will get rid of carbon pricing altogether. Manitoba, which had proposed a flat price of $25 per tonne, has rescinded its plan and indicated that it will join Saskatchewan and Ontario in challenging the constitutional validity of the national price.<\/p>\n

These detractors claim<\/a> that pricing carbon will raise consumer prices and put jobs at risk \u2013 and all for nothing, they say, because pricing carbon does not lower emissions. They say the carbon tax\u00a0 \u201cdoes nothing for the environment.<\/a>\u201d In a revealing interview<\/a>, federal Conservative Leader Andrew Scheer was asked how he would refute the argument of economist Paul Romer (who recently shared the Nobel Prize in Economics) that pricing carbon is the<\/em> solution to climate change. Scheer responded that the \u201cempirical evidence\u201d shows that where a carbon price has been implemented, it hasn\u2019t had the desired effect.<\/p>\n

The detractors are right: Carbon pricing hasn\u2019t reduced emissions fast enough to meet the Paris Agreement targets. But the detractors are also being disingenuous. Carbon pricing isn\u2019t working because the prices imposed around the world remain far too low to alter the incentives around supply and demand. The only reasonable conclusion to draw from this evidence is that carbon prices must be raised, not scrapped altogether.<\/p>\n

But Canada\u2019s carbon price defenders play right into the detractors\u2019 hands by refusing to argue for a higher, more effective price. Canada\u2019s Ecofiscal Commission, for example, observes<\/a> that we now have the benefit of \u201c45 working examples of carbon pricing around the world\u201d and that we know carbon pricing \u201creduces emissions over time.\u201d<\/p>\n

That\u2019s true as far as it goes, but it doesn\u2019t go nearly far enough, fast enough<\/em>. The IPCC\u2019s report is so startling because it makes clearer than ever before that we\u2019re rapidly running out of time to prevent catastrophic climate change. William Nordhaus (who shared the recent Nobel Prize in Economics for his work on carbon pricing) argues<\/a> that the world\u2019s climate policies, including carbon prices, \u201care lagging very, very far \u2013 miles, miles, miles \u2013 behind the science and what needs to be done.\u201d<\/p>\n

Yet the Globe and Mail<\/em>\u2019s editorial response<\/a> to the IPCC\u2019s report also struck a gradualist tone. The Globe<\/em> called the proposal of \u201csome environmentalists\u201d to raise the price immediately \u201ctoo politically risky.\u201d The current plan, it says, \u201cis a good start.\u201d But the government\u2019s own emissions data plainly say otherwise. Not only does this rhetoric undermine the urgency of the IPCC\u2019s warning, it also bolsters the detractors\u2019 argument that the current plan \u201cwill do nothing for the environment.\u201d<\/p>\n

Response to the UN sustainable development agenda<\/strong><\/p>\n

The IPCC urges us to pursue the UN\u2019s 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development<\/a> to ensure that climate mitigation doesn\u2019t exacerbate inequality and poverty. Here, again, Canada is moving far too slowly.<\/p>\n

In her spring 2018 audit<\/a>, the Environment and Sustainable Development Commissioner found that the federal government hasn\u2019t conducted meaningful national consultation on the 2030 Agenda. Nor has it created a system to measure, monitor and report on progress. In short, we have no plan.<\/p>\n

Historically, Canada has attempted to balance the competing interests of economic development, environmental protection, and social and cultural concerns (not the least of which are the rights and interests of Indigenous peoples) through its environmental assessment framework. A few notable exceptions<\/a> aside, our assessment processes have overwhelmingly prioritized economic development over all other considerations.<\/p>\n

To remedy this deficiency, the federal government tabled Bill C-69<\/a>, which includes a new Impact Assessment Act<\/em> to replace the Harper-era Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012<\/em>.<\/p>\n

But Bill C-69 has proven just as controversial as carbon pricing. Suits and Boots<\/a>, a self-described \u201cgrassroots organization\u201d created to defend Canada\u2019s (nonrenewable) resources sector, launched a campaign called Kill Bill C-69<\/a>. The campaign\u2019s reasons for opposing the bill are as outlandish as the popular movie<\/a> that its name recalls. Its most fanciful claim is that Bill C-69 transforms Canada\u2019s voluntary climate commitments into legally binding obligations, whereas the bill requires only consideration of those commitments. As Minister McKenna has acknowledged<\/a>, the government would still have approved Trans Mountain under Bill C-69, thus confirming that our climate commitments don\u2019t require compliance<\/a>; mere consideration will suffice.<\/p>\n

While defenders of Bill C-69<\/a> have easily refuted \u00a0these <\/a>claims<\/a>, they too play right into the detractors\u2019 hands. By debating the nature and scope of environmental assessment on these detractors\u2019 dubious terms, the bill\u2019s defenders have missed a critically important opportunity to argue for the kind of environmental assessment urgently required to accelerate the transition to a decarbonized and sustainable society.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe bill now before the Senate,\u201d the defenders argue<\/a>, \u201crepresents incremental \u2013 not radical \u2013 changes to the regime that now exists.\u201d The trouble with this defence, besides its being tepid, is that it\u2019s entirely true! The trouble with Bill C-69 isn\u2019t that it goes too far, but rather that it doesn\u2019t go nearly far enough<\/a>. To chart a pathway toward meeting our commitments to climate change mitigation, sustainable development and reconciliation with Indigenous peoples, we don\u2019t need an environmental assessment framework that \u00a0merely considers<\/a> these imperatives, but rather one that\u2019s based on<\/em><\/a> these imperatives. The time for gradual, incremental changes to our environmental laws and policies has now passed.<\/p>\n

Renewable policy options<\/strong><\/p>\n

Undertaking rapid, unprecedented, and systemic changes to limit global warming to 1.5\u00baC and to prevent catastrophic climate change is a daunting task, but we don\u2019t have to start from scratch. In fact, it\u2019s already happening. Last year, the world built a record<\/a> 98 gigawatts of new solar energy capacity, more than the net additions of coal, gas and nuclear. Technologies including offshore wind energy and electric cars are reaching competitive market prices in a world still drowning in fossil fuel subsidies. We\u2019re decarbonizing faster than ever.<\/p>\n

But GHG emissions are also rising. Fast as we\u2019re progressing toward renewable energy production, we\u2019re regressing even faster as we double down on oil, gas and coal, whose lobbyists shamelessly fight to sustain an unsustainable status quo. Hence their opposition to an effective price on carbon and a sustainability-based environmental assessment framework.<\/p>\n

Contrary to these lobbyists\u2019 arguments for regulations tailored to the special interests<\/a> of heavy GHG emitters, there are viable, made-in-Canada pathways toward climate action that should be discussed and developed. For starters, the federal government could significantly increase its proposed carbon price to accelerate the necessary and inevitable phase-out of the oil sands. Why start with a price as low as $20 when British Columbia\u2019s is already at $35?<\/p>\n

Instead of spending billions on an oil sands pipeline expansion and LNG megaproject, Canada should redouble its investments in renewable energy generation and transmission infrastructure<\/a>, such as power lines capable of transmitting our vast stores of hydroelectric and wind energy throughout Canada and to markets south of the border. We should increase support for more offshore wind, concentrated photovoltaic solar and large-scale geothermal projects. We should also subsidize and scale up programs<\/a> to retrain and transition oil sands workers to the renewable energy sector. Investing in renewable energy is not the \u201criskier<\/a>\u201d policy option, it\u2019s the responsible one.<\/p>\n

Canada could help pay for these projects by finally fulfilling its 2009 promise<\/a> to eliminate fossil fuel subsidies, which amount to approximately $3 billion per year<\/a> (compared with the relatively paltry $200 million<\/a> the federal government has allocated to its renewable energy power program). To ensure that our renewable energy investments succeed, we should assess all energy projects on a net-contribution-to-sustainability<\/a> test. If projects don\u2019t contribute to our climate and sustainability commitments, they don\u2019t go ahead. Period.<\/p>\n

Finally, we need to begin a national dialogue on how to implement the transition toward decarbonization. Polling<\/a> suggests that most Canadians don\u2019t consider themselves particularly well informed about climate change. Since 2015, an interdisciplinary, coast-to-coast network of Canadian climate scholars, Sustainable Dialogues Canada<\/a>, has been actively imagining policy options for a world without carbon. It\u2019s time for the rest of Canada to join the discussion.<\/p>\n

Photo: Shutterstock, by chris kolaczan.<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

Do you have something to say about the article you just read? Be part of the\u00a0<\/em>Policy Options\u00a0discussion, and send in your own submission.\u00a0Here is a\u00a0<\/em>link<\/em><\/a>\u00a0on how to do it.\u00a0<\/em>|\u00a0Souhaitez-vous r\u00e9agir \u00e0 cet article ?\u00a0<\/em>Joignez-vous aux d\u00e9bats d\u2019<\/em>Options politiques\u00a0et soumettez-nous votre texte en suivant ces\u00a0<\/em>directives<\/em><\/a>.<\/em><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The latest report of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change \u00a0(IPCC) erases any doubts about the inadequacy of incremental action on climate. In that context, Canada\u2019s gradual approach to climate policy has been exposed as a feckless failure. Rapid, unprecedented and systemic changes in how governments, industries and societies function are required to limit […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"featured_media":195812,"template":"","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"content-type":"","ep_exclude_from_search":false},"categories":[9361,9372],"tags":[8638,8653,8408],"article-status":[],"irpp-category":[4327,4327,4261],"section":[],"irpp-tag":[],"class_list":{"0":"post-195824","1":"issues","2":"type-issues","3":"status-publish","4":"has-post-thumbnail","5":"hentry","6":"category-environnement","7":"category-recent-stories-fr","8":"tag-changements-climatiques","9":"tag-fossil-fuels-fr","10":"tag-energy-policy-fr","11":"irpp-category-energie","13":"irpp-category-environnement"},"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\nThe problem with Canada\u2019s gradual climate policy<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Canada\u2019s climate policy is a failure. Only rapid, systemic changes can limit global warming.\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/potestlaunch.irpp.org\/fr\/2018\/10\/the-problem-with-canadas-gradual-climate-policy\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"fr_FR\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"The problem with Canada\u2019s gradual climate policy\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Canada\u2019s climate policy is a failure. Only rapid, systemic changes can limit global warming.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/potestlaunch.irpp.org\/fr\/2018\/10\/the-problem-with-canadas-gradual-climate-policy\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Policy Options\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/IRPP.org\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2025-04-14T08:40:30+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/potestlaunch.irpp.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/04\/policy-options-og-image.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"1200\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"630\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:image\" content=\"https:\/\/potestlaunch.irpp.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/2\/2018\/10\/Twitter-Canada\u2019s-gradual-climate-policy.jpg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@irpp\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/potestlaunch.irpp.org\/fr\/2018\/10\/the-problem-with-canadas-gradual-climate-policy\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/potestlaunch.irpp.org\/fr\/2018\/10\/the-problem-with-canadas-gradual-climate-policy\/\",\"name\":\"The problem with Canada\u2019s gradual climate policy\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/potestlaunch.irpp.org\/fr\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/potestlaunch.irpp.org\/fr\/2018\/10\/the-problem-with-canadas-gradual-climate-policy\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/potestlaunch.irpp.org\/fr\/2018\/10\/the-problem-with-canadas-gradual-climate-policy\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/potestlaunch.irpp.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/04\/Canadas-gradual-climate-policy-2.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2018-10-26T14:31:46+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2025-04-14T08:40:30+00:00\",\"description\":\"Canada\u2019s climate policy is a failure. Only rapid, systemic changes can limit global warming.\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/potestlaunch.irpp.org\/fr\/2018\/10\/the-problem-with-canadas-gradual-climate-policy\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"fr-FR\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/potestlaunch.irpp.org\/fr\/2018\/10\/the-problem-with-canadas-gradual-climate-policy\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"fr-FR\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/potestlaunch.irpp.org\/fr\/2018\/10\/the-problem-with-canadas-gradual-climate-policy\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/potestlaunch.irpp.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/04\/Canadas-gradual-climate-policy-2.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/potestlaunch.irpp.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/04\/Canadas-gradual-climate-policy-2.jpg\",\"width\":2000,\"height\":700},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/potestlaunch.irpp.org\/fr\/2018\/10\/the-problem-with-canadas-gradual-climate-policy\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/potestlaunch.irpp.org\/fr\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"The problem with Canada\u2019s gradual climate policy\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/potestlaunch.irpp.org\/fr\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/potestlaunch.irpp.org\/fr\/\",\"name\":\"Policy Options\",\"description\":\"Institute for Research on Public Policy\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/potestlaunch.irpp.org\/fr\/#organization\"},\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/potestlaunch.irpp.org\/fr\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"fr-FR\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/potestlaunch.irpp.org\/fr\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Policy Options\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/potestlaunch.irpp.org\/fr\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"fr-FR\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/potestlaunch.irpp.org\/fr\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/potestlaunch.irpp.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/11\/PolicyOptions_Logo.png\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/potestlaunch.irpp.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/11\/PolicyOptions_Logo.png\",\"width\":1200,\"height\":365,\"caption\":\"Policy Options\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/potestlaunch.irpp.org\/fr\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/IRPP.org\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/irpp\"]}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"The problem with Canada\u2019s gradual climate policy","description":"Canada\u2019s climate policy is a failure. Only rapid, systemic changes can limit global warming.","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/potestlaunch.irpp.org\/fr\/2018\/10\/the-problem-with-canadas-gradual-climate-policy\/","og_locale":"fr_FR","og_type":"article","og_title":"The problem with Canada\u2019s gradual climate policy","og_description":"Canada\u2019s climate policy is a failure. Only rapid, systemic changes can limit global warming.","og_url":"https:\/\/potestlaunch.irpp.org\/fr\/2018\/10\/the-problem-with-canadas-gradual-climate-policy\/","og_site_name":"Policy Options","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/IRPP.org","article_modified_time":"2025-04-14T08:40:30+00:00","og_image":[{"width":1200,"height":630,"url":"https:\/\/potestlaunch.irpp.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/04\/policy-options-og-image.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_image":"https:\/\/potestlaunch.irpp.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/2\/2018\/10\/Twitter-Canada\u2019s-gradual-climate-policy.jpg","twitter_site":"@irpp","twitter_misc":{"Est. reading time":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/potestlaunch.irpp.org\/fr\/2018\/10\/the-problem-with-canadas-gradual-climate-policy\/","url":"https:\/\/potestlaunch.irpp.org\/fr\/2018\/10\/the-problem-with-canadas-gradual-climate-policy\/","name":"The problem with Canada\u2019s gradual climate policy","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/potestlaunch.irpp.org\/fr\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/potestlaunch.irpp.org\/fr\/2018\/10\/the-problem-with-canadas-gradual-climate-policy\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/potestlaunch.irpp.org\/fr\/2018\/10\/the-problem-with-canadas-gradual-climate-policy\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/potestlaunch.irpp.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/04\/Canadas-gradual-climate-policy-2.jpg","datePublished":"2018-10-26T14:31:46+00:00","dateModified":"2025-04-14T08:40:30+00:00","description":"Canada\u2019s climate policy is a failure. Only rapid, systemic changes can limit global warming.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/potestlaunch.irpp.org\/fr\/2018\/10\/the-problem-with-canadas-gradual-climate-policy\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"fr-FR","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/potestlaunch.irpp.org\/fr\/2018\/10\/the-problem-with-canadas-gradual-climate-policy\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"fr-FR","@id":"https:\/\/potestlaunch.irpp.org\/fr\/2018\/10\/the-problem-with-canadas-gradual-climate-policy\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/potestlaunch.irpp.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/04\/Canadas-gradual-climate-policy-2.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/potestlaunch.irpp.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/04\/Canadas-gradual-climate-policy-2.jpg","width":2000,"height":700},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/potestlaunch.irpp.org\/fr\/2018\/10\/the-problem-with-canadas-gradual-climate-policy\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/potestlaunch.irpp.org\/fr\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"The problem with Canada\u2019s gradual climate policy"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/potestlaunch.irpp.org\/fr\/#website","url":"https:\/\/potestlaunch.irpp.org\/fr\/","name":"Policy Options","description":"Institute for Research on Public Policy","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/potestlaunch.irpp.org\/fr\/#organization"},"potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/potestlaunch.irpp.org\/fr\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"fr-FR"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/potestlaunch.irpp.org\/fr\/#organization","name":"Policy Options","url":"https:\/\/potestlaunch.irpp.org\/fr\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"fr-FR","@id":"https:\/\/potestlaunch.irpp.org\/fr\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/potestlaunch.irpp.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/11\/PolicyOptions_Logo.png","contentUrl":"https:\/\/potestlaunch.irpp.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/11\/PolicyOptions_Logo.png","width":1200,"height":365,"caption":"Policy Options"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/potestlaunch.irpp.org\/fr\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/IRPP.org","https:\/\/x.com\/irpp"]}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/potestlaunch.irpp.org\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/issues\/195824","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/potestlaunch.irpp.org\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/issues"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/potestlaunch.irpp.org\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/issues"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/potestlaunch.irpp.org\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/195812"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/potestlaunch.irpp.org\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=195824"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/potestlaunch.irpp.org\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=195824"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/potestlaunch.irpp.org\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=195824"},{"taxonomy":"article-status","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/potestlaunch.irpp.org\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/article-status?post=195824"},{"taxonomy":"irpp-category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/potestlaunch.irpp.org\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/irpp-category?post=195824"},{"taxonomy":"section","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/potestlaunch.irpp.org\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/section?post=195824"},{"taxonomy":"irpp-tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/potestlaunch.irpp.org\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/irpp-tag?post=195824"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}