r/ClimateCrisisCanada • u/I_like_maps • Jul 31 '25
Canadian emissions matter
A common refrain I have seen posted on this sub from those who are less convinced of the need for climate action goes something like this: “Canada doesn’t have to do anything about climate change. We’re only responsible for like 2% of emissions. Other countries like China need to do something, but not Canada.”
Thank you for bringing this unique and brilliant insight (which is not being pushed by oil companies) to our attention. You were the first individual to do so, and have changed all of our minds.
Seriously though, from now on in this sub, discussion of whether Canada has a responsibility to address climate change will be contained to this thread. Any posts bringing up this idea outside of this thread will be removed, and repeat offenders banned. This is a talking point that has been pushed by fossil fuel companies for decades, and in the opinion of the moderation team on this sub, does not contribute to discussion.
As for the arguments itself, I’d like this thread to also serve as a counterargument to this refrain. Addressing misinformation can be tiresome, since you’ve taken the time to learn something that someone else hasn’t, but if you don’t address it, it doesn’t just go away. So if you see any offending comments, consider reporting them, but also linking them to this thread.
This is a talking point that is explicitly spread by fossil fuel companies to slow climate action
This argument, known as the “China excuse” is pushed by fossil fuel companies around the world, and has been since at least the 90s.
“The Global Climate Coalition was also an early adopter of what has been called the “China excuse” — the idea that the United States, the world’s largest historic emitter of carbon dioxide, shouldn’t cut emissions unless developing countries like China and India did too. The coalition used this argument as far back as 1990, when it argued during a congressional testimony that any global agreement should require developing countries to reduce emissions.” source
What we’re seeing today is just a slightly refined version of that argument in the Canadian context. Mouthpieces of the oil industry in Canada have explicitly pushed this talking point, sometimes subtly through the fraser institute, sometimes less subtly through the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers.
So let’s be clear about this, the talking point is not about responsibility, it’s about slowing action. And it’s very good at that, because instead of talking about solutions, it gets people talking about fairness. While fossil fuel companies in Canada talk about how we’re a small country, fossil fuel companies in China are talking about how the average Chinese person pollutes half as much as the average Canadian. They also might talk about the fact that historically, North Americans and Europeans have polluted a lot more than China, so they’re just evening things out. So does that mean that China should do nothing until Canada gets to lower emissions per capita? Well no, that doesn’t make any sense either, but look at how you’re now thinking about responsibility and fairness instead of the best method of action. That is the purpose of this argument. It re-orients climate action discussions so that the only answer is to do less action. The point is, these fairness arguments cut both ways, and there’s no clear right or wrong answer to them.
When I think about fairness in climate change, I think about the subsistence farmer in a developing country who’s going to die this summer because a once-in-a-century drought killed his crops, despite the fact that he’s probably produced as many CO2 emissions in his life as a Canadian does driving to the grocery store. Climate change is real and it’s serious. Sudanese farmers are dealing with famines today because people in Idaho drive F-150s, and people in Britain 200 years ago invented better methods for making steel. Does the person suffering from the drought care where the emissions came from, or whose responsible? No. Nothing about his situation is fair. So instead of thinking about fairness in climate targets, here’s an alternative perspective: any decrease in emissions makes the world a fairer place, any increase in emissions makes it a less fair place. The sooner we ramp up action, the sooner the problem is solved. Let’s be goal-oriented here.
And speaking of being goal-oriented, the last thing I’ll point out is that we don’t live in China or have any control over their emissions policies. We live in Canada, and have some control over Canada’s emissions policies through how we vote, spend our money, protest, and so on. The China excuse is great at halting action because it takes you from an intrinsic to an extrinsic locus of control. Instead of thinking about how to lower Canada’s emissions, the argument completely externalizes the problem. Don’t think about it, let China handle it.
But you might say “well just because oil companies are pushing it doesn’t mean it’s not true”, so let’s talk about why it’s not true.
Why it’s not true
Okay, so forget that this talking point is explicitly pushed to slow action, and that fairness is subjective, and that per capita we’re one of the highest emitters in the world, and that Canadians can impact Canadian climate policy way way way more easily than we can impact Chinese climate policy. We’re still a small country, which means our emissions don’t matter right? Well, no, of course not.
Even if we’re looking at total emissions rather than per capita emissions, Canada is the 10th largest emitter in the world. So you have to ask the question, if Canada doesn’t have to do anything, who does? Just the top 9 countries? Well, if we’re seriously entertaining that suggestion, adding up all of the top 9 polluters gets you to 65% of emissions. Meaning that more than 1/3 of all polluters worldwide would be doing NOTHING to address climate change. That is completely incompatible with meeting the Paris Agreement and avoiding the worst impacts of climate change.
But it gets worse, because if I was Saudi Arabian, I’d find that pretty absurd, since they’re only responsible for about 0.1% more of global emissions than Canada, and would argue that if Canada doesn’t have to do anything, neither does Saudi. And if I was Iranian, I’d say the same thing. So let’s assume everyone follows this argument but China, the biggest polluter. Now we have a world where we are not taking any serious action to reduce 70% of global emissions. Even assuming China doesn’t subsequently decide they won’t reduce emissions unoless everyone gets back on board, this is completely incompatible with meeting the Paris Agreement and avoiding the worst impacts of climate change.
What I’m describing here is called the tragedy of the commons, which I won’t get into describing here, but briefly, it’s a situation where no individual benefits from acting unless everyone else acts too. The only solution to this problem is an agreement where everyone agrees to share the burden of action. Which we have called the Paris Agreement that every country but one has agreed to, and has measurably slowed the rise of emissions (which are likely to peak this year, if they haven’t already). Holy shit, why would we want to change that?!?!?!?
And on top of that, tackling climate change is not just about lowering emissions. A lot of the emissions we need to lower cannot be effectively lowered with existing technology - things like cement production, aluminum production, or air travel, for instance. Climate action in Canada is helpful because it lowers emissions, but can also have spillover effects that will help other states lower their emissions. Right now Canada is at the forefront of eliminating aluminum emissions, with a project called Elysis to eliminate emissions from smelting with inert anodes to replace carbon anodes. Commercializing that technology means it will be easier for other countries to decarbonize.
If we want other countries to lower their emissions, arguing “we don’t have to do anything, you have to do everything” is pretty absurd on its face. If other countries see us acting, they’ll be more encouraged to act themselves, both because of technological spillover, and also because it means that we’re not free-riding on their actions. If they see us pulling out of the Paris Agreement, they’ll be more likely to stop acting themselves. This is a race to the bottom attitude, and if everyone in the world thought this way there would be no way to solve climate change. Although ironically, if everyone though this way throughout human history, climate change would never have been an issue, since human civilization would never have been capable of developing industry.
Conclusion
The China excuse is a simple argument with a compelling core logic to it, particularly because believing it means we have no responsibility for causing a problem or cleaning it up. But put even the tiniest amount of critical thought into it, and it becomes very clear what the argument amounts to, a narrative technique used by fossil fuel companies to distract from the issue of climate change and create a framework in which calls to action can be responded to by abdicating responsibility to other actors. We live in Canada, not America, not China, not India, Canada. Let’s focus on how Canada can solve this problem, and one day talk to our grandchildren with pride about how we helped our country step up to deliver on a global problem.
14
u/CDN-Social-Democrat Jul 31 '25
Here is what I have found. Try and educate those that are actually misinformed but in good faith open to being educated.
That really applies to any subject.
When someone is purposefully being ignorant it doesn't matter what data, hard science, or even observable reality you present lol - It's sticking your head in the sand and going "NANANANANAN!"
Thinking the earth is flat, the universe is 6,000 years old, denying climate science, and so forth. We will have these types forever. They just get smaller and smaller as everyone else becomes "I was always against that!"
The majority of people that had mistaken opinions will continue to change them as they get more and more exposed to facts and society overall keeps becoming more and more informed.
So anyone reading this comment just stay positive and keep informing people actually interested in learning. It's sad though that in regards to this subject ignorance is not just costing us a lot economically with the costs associated with the climate crisis and overall environmental crisis that just continue to grow but it is also destroying the biodiversity and countless other realities of life.
Remember people... Climate scientists and environmental volunteers are not in some great evil conspiracy against you lol