We’ve Heard This Before: When Crises Become Reasons to Delay Climate Action

If you’re like me, then Prime Minster Mark Carney’s recent Forward Guidance video and following announcements around Canada’s climate action have probably left you feeling frustrated, annoyed, or maybe even confused. And if you don’t know what I’m talking about, essentially Carney told Canadians that emissions will be higher than previously projected over the next few years. He also stated that our previous climate plan was “not sustainable over the long term,” and then discussed how he would be focusing more on economic growth, energy security, and industrial competitiveness, all under the guise of ‘the world is unstable right now.’

But the problem with this shift in approach is that under the 2030 Emissions Reduction Plan, Canada has a legislated target to reduce emissions to 40-45% below 2005 levels by 2030. This means, not only are we not going to meet those goals, we’re going to further increase our emissions in this time. Given we already know our window to dodge the worst case climate scenario is narrowing, this isn’t great news.

So, now the question becomes not just what has changed, but whether the reasoning behind it is new. Have we heard this type of rationale before?

A pattern that repeats

If you look at modern history, you will notice that governments have repeatedly faced moments where long-term environmental goals were deprioritized in response to other pressures, such as war, economic crisis, and political instability. The details may change, but the structure is the same.

During the Second World War, industrial production and fossil fuel use exanded rapidly to support military mobilization, while environmental protection was largely set aside in favour of wartime needs.

In the 1970s, oil instability threatened energy security. Governments prioritized securing oil supplies and stabilizing prices, which reinforced fossil fuel systems. While environmental policy was in its early days at this time, this oil crisis laid the foundation for modern energy security policy.

The COVID-19 pandemic is another example. In the initial days of global lockdowns, emissions dropped temporarily. Despite the drop in emissions, many climate initiatives slowed or were scrapped as governments prioritized immediate public health and economic response.

And since then, Russia invaded Ukraine. Israel continues to commit genocide in Gaza, while also targeting the West Bank and Lebanon. Oh and the US has also decided to pick a fight with Iran, Venezuela, and well, pretty much everyone.

There is always something. Each crisis is different, but the pattern is not.

Climate change does not pause

The funny thing about climate change in times of political or economic instability is that it doesn’t care. Climate change is still happening regardless of what else is going on.

Greenhouse gases have accumulated in the atmosphere over decades. Every year that we delay taking action just adds to long-term warming. Don’t take my word for it either - it’s the central finding of the IPCC Sixth Assessment Report! Cumulative emissions determine future temperature rise, and delayed reductions increase both the risk and the cost.

This inaction and the increased risk and financial burden creates a structural problem with how climate policy is discussed. Political systems tend to respond quickly to immediate crisis. Climate systems do not.

Today’s instability and environmental harm

The current global context is once again shaped by overlapping crisis. The war in Ukraine continues. Violence in Gaza has destroyed large sections of civilian infrastructure, including water and sanitation systems. And regional tensions involving Lebanon and Iran add further instability.

These are humanitarian crises first and foremost. But they are also environmental crises.

The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) has documented extensive environmental damage in conflict zones. This environmental damage includes things like contaminated soil and water, destroyed wastewater systems, toxic debris, and other long-term ecosystem impacts. In its assessment of Gaza, the UNEP concluded that environmental damage will require significant remediation that will take years to complete.

Similar assessments in Ukraine have identified industrial contamination, oil spills, damage to agricultural land, and risk to freshwater systems.

Conflict, therefore, creates environmental damage, while also reshaping global political attention (and will). The result is often shifting away from climate action.

Canada is not separate from this pattern

So how does any of this related to what Carney is sharing? Well, Canada is part of the same global system, and its climate policy has long been shaped by competing pressures.

Federal climate plans - including carbon pricing and clean energy regulations - have often faced (very public) pushback. This is especially true of provinces where the fossil fuel industry is strong, such as Alberta. Oil and gas production play a crucial role in their economy.

At the same time we are trying to institute climate policy to move away from fossil fuels, Canada remains one of the world’s largest producers of oil and gas. The continued expansion of fossil fuel extraction and export infrastructure, which shape national emissions trajectories.

Once again, this creates structural tensions, where on the one hand, federal commitments require deep cuts to our emissions by the end of the decade. On the other hand, economic and political pressures continue to support fossil fuel production as a pillar of our energy and job security, as well as trade. While this is not unique to Canada, it does influence how climate policy unfolds in this country.

By understanding this tension, it helps to explain why climate targets are frequently reframed (or worse) when economic or geopolitical conditions shift. Whether its rising energy prices, an increase in global instability, or economic uncertainty grows, fossil fuel development is usually justified as the necessary stabilizer, rather than optional expansion.

The question is not priority - it’s capacity

There is a recurring framing in moments like the one we are currently facing: We cannot focus on climate change because something else is more urgent. But here’s the thing - governments are already managing multiple urgent priorities at once. Healthcare systems, defence budgets, infrastructure projects, emergency response - all of these continue no matter what is taking place at home or around the world.

The question is not whether crises matter. They do. The question is whether climate action is always the priority that gets deferred. If climate policy is always treated as secondary, it will always be secondary.

We’ve heard it all before

From war, to oil shocks, to financial crises, to pandemics, to geopolitical instability, climate action has repeatedly been placed in the category of “maybe next time.” But as mentioned above, the atmosphere doesn’t operate on political timelines. It doesn’t pause during recessions, nor does it reset during elections. And it certainly doesn’t wait for stability.

The pattern is not new. But it doesn’t need to continue.

So, if you’re fired up - write to your elected officials. Talk about it with friends and family. Join a community group. Make time to learn more about climate policy - or climate action more broadly. The solutions already exist. We just need the political will to put them into action.

Cover photo credit: Ed Hawkins, National Centre for Atmospheric Science, UoR