By: Maya Barillas Mohan, Staff Writer
The Climate Clock is a live tool that counts down time until the carbon budget is depleted. The carbon budget allots a specific amount of carbon emissions before global warming exceeds 1.5℃ above pre-industrial levels. Once the world exceeds this average temperature, impacts like extreme weather will extend to “breakdowns of major ocean circulation systems,” among plenty other incredibly destructive and unavoidable harms to nature and, by extension, humanity. Unfortunately, governmental policies prioritize warfare over the dire environmental situation.
Human activities need to be wrangled into a net-zero figure. This would mean the amount of carbon taken out of the atmosphere balances the carbon sent in. Policies to support this need to range from the individualized level to the level of industry and government. To achieve this 1.5℃ figure, emissions must have stopped rising in 2025 and begun to decline, per the 2015 Paris Agreement. The Agreement also requires a 43% decrease in emissions by 2030. Given a current and incendiary increase of military endeavours, the Canadian government’s tendency for political violence, as exemplified by the recent pledge to National Atlantic Treaty Organization’s Defence Investment, are antagonistic to the dire need for timely climate action.
With the current calculations, the Climate Clock will hit 0 in July 2029, right before the end of this decade. Instead of reshaping policy to strictly comply with the necessary emissions decrease, the Canada Strong 2025 Budget shifts priority from policies that support climate efforts to armed forces spending. Rebuilding, rearming, and reinvesting in the Canadian Armed Forces will cost around $56,622 million while pro-climate legislation is getting cut. The greener homes grant is now closed to applicants, meaning refitting homes with higher efficiency gas pumps and windows must be done out-of-pocket. This is money most households cannot spare, despite a valuable 2–3 tonnes of a yearly greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction per household. The transport sector’s emissions produce around a quarter (23% in 2023) of GHG in Canada, but transit funding has been reallocated in the federal budget to suppress efforts to transition travel from car to public transportation. The carbon cap policy is extinguished under Prime Minister Mark Carney too, swapped for a rate of up to $170/tonne by 2030. Carbon taxes are also ineffective because they are insufficient incentives to industry polluters and price individuals out of their lifestyles.
Climate change is a multifaceted, global issue that requires a plural approach. Eliminating policies intended to reduce GHG emissions is counterproductive to the rapidly encroaching Climate Clock deadline. Canada’s inflated military enterprises seek to defend every square inch of sovereign territory through infrastructure and equipment.
Other than the absurdity of “defending” unceded land, what territory is there to defend when the Climate Clock is close to running out?
This anxiety is inescapable, as defence upgrades pump out vehicles and aircrafts. Dependence on fossil fuels is exacerbated through Canada’s extensive catalogue of fighter jets, which are famously fuel intensive. Also, the Munitions Supply program is receiving $16 million to integrate northern Ontario into the national defence supply chain — Carney recognizes an increasingly volatile global system as an opportunity to invest heavily in national security.
I find defence spending contrary to the collaborative ethos of climate change agreements, let alone problematic for environmental reasons. The purpose of weapons and equipment is to cause destruction by design. Explosives leave chemical residue in their wake, impacting sea life and drinking water. Offroad vehicles ruin permafrost, and retired naval vessels pollute oceans.
Defence spending is advertised to be sparked from a desire for safety. I think this feeling of security can instead be found in forming alliances with other countries — using the logic of the Paris Agreement, a common goal can be achieved through collaboration.
Funding military violence means depriving our earth and global community of a chance to heal; is Canada really stronger for it?
