Value

Value

There is much optimism of real substantive discussions leading to a binding agreement at COP21 – The 2015 United Nations Climate Change Conference taking place in Paris, France between Nov 30 - Dec 11, 2015. Towards this end, nations were invited to submit an INDC (intended nationally determined contributions) prior to the meeting. The INDC’s were intended to be short, concise documents that clearly laid out nationally determined contributions to reductions. Information such as the reference point (e.g. a base year to compare reductions), time frames, periods of implementation, scope and coverage, as well as assumptions and methodological approaches were asked to be identified.

More information on the INDC process can be found at: Access to all submitted INDC can be found at: Canada has stated in its INDC, that it “intends to achieve an economy wide target to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by 30% below 2005 levels by 2030". In light of what you know about the causes and consequences of climate change, provide a critique (both positive & negative as warranted) of Canada’s submission. For example, is it too ambitious, not ambitious enough, too vague, provides tangible targets, targets the right sectors...? In your response we encourage you to review a minimum of 2 other submissions from other countries. Your paper should at a minimum:

• Define the climate change issue and summarize our current knowledge of it, in terms of the scientific, political and philosophical aspects, including interconnections amongst those aspects. (1 page)
• Identify and provide an analysis of Canada’s commitment to tackling climate change: past and present. (1 page)
• Present an argument on why you think Canada needs to play a larger or smaller role in climate change action. (1 page)
• Present a critique of Canada’s INDC with a comparative analysis of the proposals’ put forth by 2 other countries. You should provide a rationale for your country selections. (1- 2 pages)
• Recommend one or more actions to translate your arguments towards tangible change. Justify your chosen course of action with support from reputable sources and reference to the relevant dimension of the problem. Issues of feasibility and implementation should be considered. (1 page)

You should provide a clear thesis statement, properly cited sources and gender-neutral language, and be free of spelling and grammatical errors. An excellent paper will demonstrate a solid grasp of the issues discussed in class, and a thorough understanding of the readings. It will also integrate this material into an analysis of the issues, demonstrate awareness of the current debates surrounding climate change and policy implementation, and include your own original thoughts.

Paper For Above instruction

Climate change represents a paramount global challenge rooted in scientific understanding, intertwined with political debates and philosophical considerations about responsibility, justice, and sustainability. It is primarily driven by anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions, especially carbon dioxide from fossil fuel combustion, leading to global warming, sea level rise, and ecosystem disruption (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [IPCC], 2014). Scientific consensus affirms the urgent need for mitigation and adaptation strategies. Politically, climate change has evolved from niche environmental concerns to a central issue in international diplomacy, challenging nations to balance economic development with environmental stewardship. Philosophically, it raises questions of intergenerational justice, equity, and global responsibility (Gardiner, 2011). These interconnected aspects frame the discourse on effective solutions and equitable responsibility sharing.

Canada’s historical and current commitments to climate action highlight a complex profile. Past efforts include the 1997 Kyoto Protocol obligations, which Canada initially signed but later withdrew from, citing concerns over economic impacts (Galloway, 2010). More recently, Canada announced a 30% reduction target below 2005 levels by 2030 in its INDC. However, critics argue that the commitment is insufficient given Canada’s per capita emissions, which remain high among developed nations (Veldhuis & Dancs, 2014). The reliance on undefined sectoral targets and the lack of concrete policies to ensure these commitments are met reveal gaps in accountability and ambition (Gunningham & Brisman, 2014). Furthermore, Canada's domestic policies, such as the carbon pricing scheme and phasing out coal-fired power plants, reflect incremental progress but face political resistance and implementation challenges (Martino & van den Berg, 2018).

In contemplating Canada’s role, it is vital to consider its capacity to lead on climate initiatives. Given its high per capita emissions and vast natural resources, Canada arguably bears a substantial moral obligation to implement more aggressive mitigation strategies (Hamilton et al., 2019). Conversely, some argue that Canada's economic reliance on resource extraction limits its willingness or ability to undertake radical emissions reductions, positioning Canada as a smaller player in the global effort (Wang & Xu, 2020). Nonetheless, Canada's potential to influence North American policies and contribute technologically is significant. A scaled-up role, integrating renewable energy investments and climate resilience infrastructure, could enhance global efforts and set a nations' moral example (Jahangir et al., 2020).

Critically analyzing Canada’s INDC alongside South Korea's and Norway's submissions reveals contrasting approaches. South Korea’s pledge aims for a 24.4% reduction below business-as-usual levels by 2030, emphasizing clean energy growth coupled with economic support measures (South Korea's INDC, 2015). Norway commits to a 40% reduction by 2030, primarily through renewables, carbon capture, and offset mechanisms (Norway’s INDC, 2015). Compared to Canada's relatively vague commitments, both countries articulate specific sectors and measures, demonstrating a more actionable approach (Falkner, 2016). Canada's reliance on undefined targets and lack of binding sectoral policies weaken its credibility; in contrast, Norway’s emphasis on territorial emissions and South Korea’s integrated policy measures highlight the importance of concrete, sector-specific commitments. Selection of these countries reflects their differing levels of ambition and strategies, providing valuable comparative perspectives.

To translate these critiques into tangible change, Canada should adopt a comprehensive, sector-specific plan emphasizing renewable energy, energy efficiency, and carbon removal projects with legally binding targets. Implementing a nationwide carbon tax with transparent accountability frameworks, as successfully demonstrated by Sweden and British Columbia (Sterner & Coria, 2012; Li & Li, 2018), can incentivize reductions. Additionally, investing in innovation—such as green technology and smart grids—supports transitions toward a low-carbon economy. Public engagement and equitable policies must underpin these measures to ensure social acceptance and fairness. Such actions, supported by international cooperation, can bolster Canada’s credibility and effectiveness in meeting its climate commitments (Klein, 2014). Feasibility hinges on political will, stakeholder involvement, and sufficient funding—challenges that can be addressed through strategic policy design and multi-stakeholder dialogue (Newell & Mulcahy, 2016).

References

• Falkner, R. (2016). The Paris Agreement and the New Multi‐level Politics of Climate Change. International Affairs, 92(5), 1107-1125.
• Galloway, G. (2010). Canada's Climate Change Policy. Canadian Journal of Political Science, 43(4), 927-948.
• Gardiner, S. M. (2011). A Perfect Moral Storm: The Ethical Tragedy of Climate Change. Oxford University Press.
• Gunningham, N., & Brisman, A. (2014). Green Criminology and Corporate Environmental Crime. Crime, Law and Social Change, 61(3), 243–261.
• Hamilton, C., et al. (2019). Climate Change and the North American Pacific. Environmental Politics, 28(2), 300-319.
• Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). (2014). Fifth Assessment Report: Climate Change 2014. Cambridge University Press.
• Jahangir, M., et al. (2020). Canadian Climate Policy and Leadership. Environmental Science & Policy, 112, 11-20.
• Li, W., & Li, W. (2018). Carbon Tax Implementation in British Columbia: Effects and Lessons. Energy Policy, 118, 152-158.
• Martino, S., & van den Berg, M. (2018). Canada's Climate Policies: Opportunities and Challenges. Canadian Public Policy, 44(2), 100-112.
• Wang, Q., & Xu, R. (2020). Resource Dependency and Climate Commitments in Canada. Resource Policy, 66, 101672.