Climate change is accelerating the frequency of severe storms, floods, droughts and extreme heat events, to the point that the world is now living through climate change as opposed to watching it draw near.[1] Once-in-a-century heatwaves, storms, floods and fires now happen yearly, affecting every inhabited region across the globe. At this point at least 85 percent of the world’s population has been affected by climate change.[2]

Under the 2015 Paris climate accord, which the U.S. rejoined earlier this year, governments agreed to limit global temperature rises to 2 degrees Celsius above preindustrial levels, with an ambition of 1.5 degrees.

– Wall Street Journal[3]

Keeping the global average temperature rise to less than 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels is almost out of reach. And the clock is ticking to avoid the catastrophic effects of exceeding the Paris Agreement’s 2°C “average rise in global temperatures” target.[4] Although no major nation is on-track to actually deliver on its promises,[5] it has become distressingly clear that “less than a quarter of the world’s big public companies are doing their part to address the climate crisis” and sustainability.[6]   Many countries and companies are talking a good game, but they have been slow with concrete action and enforcement.[7]

The big question is whether the most recent extreme weather disasters we are witnessing across the world – including a scorching summer this year with its own unmistakeable reminders that climate change is intensifying and altering everyday life[8] – will have a bearing on what the most influential countries and companies will actually do to reduce their own emissions of planet-warming gases.

Climate change is everyone’s business and business needs to be a part of the solution. … Experts agree that the corporate sector has a vital role to play [… particularly in countries where] the political will from the government is falling behind the vision and readiness of some companies.

– Deutsche Welle (DW)[9]

Overview

The extreme weather events we are living through should reasonably dispel the illusion that any nation or corporation – rich, powerful or otherwise – can insulate themselves from climate change indefinitely. And with the mounting evidence all around us, conservative political and business entities and their special interest groups “should not have to be dragged kicking and screaming into admitting that there is a climate crisis and that it will require serious and sometimes uncomfortable commitments from nations” and organizations “across the world”.[10]

Unfortunately, despite the UN declaring access to a clean environment a human right,[11] this is not the case in the world we find ourselves today.

It is an environmental story, yes, but it’s also about health, the economy, jobs, energy, food, water, security, geopolitics, justice and equity. No sector will be spared its impact. Climate change will define every aspect of our lives and those of generations to come.

– CBC News[12]

Climate obstruction is complex, but a key piece of the problem is that certain special interests benefit from the status quo, in the short term at least: “Addressing climate change threatens business models rooted in a fossil fuel economy. It threatens ways of life, and that leads to vehement opposition. As a result, solving climate change” is not just an environmental and technological challenge, it is also a ‘big money’ ideological political challenge divorced from the interests, needs and aspirations of ordinary citizens and society at large.[13] Within this polarized and partisan environment the “science of climate change” – although apolitical by definition (as with all science) – has “become mired in a political battle royale”.[14]  And while conservative arguments against “climate hysteria” may provide temporary reassurance to their target audiences, they are not a substitute for multilateral cooperation and real policy solutions to address the problem. They perpetuate short-term, self-serving “wedge politics” about climate change that erodes our society, sustainability (i.e. meeting our current needs without compromising future generations), and the long-term prospects of all citizens.

For some it is tempting to ignore the issue or pass it on to the next generation. The “tasks ahead of us are daunting, and some of the consequences of our slow, inadequate climate measures” to date may well be “locked in”. But cynicism serves few of us, while leadership, vision, strategic planning, and implementation will serve many. 

Climate change affects everything from geopolitics to economies to migration. 

– The Economist[15]

Creating a sustainable world, however, takes structural changes at the level of states and businesses. While we focus on addressing the climate crisis, “individual behavioral changes” – while important in their own right  – should be seen as complementary to and setting the tone for implementing appropriate “national and subnational” strategy and “policy that retools how we govern ourselves and how we do business” for reducing carbon emissions nationally and worldwide.[16] This means holding politicians to account on key policies[17] and business and the financial industry to appropriate net-zero pledges and strategic alignment of their business plans and portfolios with an appropriate climate calculus.[18]

In 2019, I wrote about the climate crisis and the importance of business leadership in achieving a low-carbon and climate-resilient economy.[19] For companies – particularly large and multinational companies – business as usual no longer exists as corporations face unprecedented scrutiny (with its consequent reputational and financial risk) amid the crosshairs of the climate crisis, geopolitics, calls for heightened responsibility, and their role therein. And business leaders and organizations that indeed consider and appropriately and strategically reduce their impact on the environment and their communities – who “refuse to see the world as a zero-sum game” of maximizing shareholder value over the interests of all other stakeholders and the environment in which it operates – will thrive.[20]

The all-time high of 121 degrees set in British Columbia [Canada] on Tuesday has left weather and climate experts all over the world shocked, speechless and deeply concerned about the future of the planet. … But, as climate change increases the likelihood of exceptional temperatures like this, it’s only a matter of time before even more extreme records are set. … These records will fall as climate change accelerates! This is just a mild version of what we can expect in the future.

– Washington Post[21]

Leadership matters – in respect to communicating the nature of the opportunities and challenges and putting forward concrete strategic and tactical plans for the future. The strength, depth and speed to which economies appropriately and reasonably transition to cleaner energy sources and embrace climate mitigation and adaptation will reward businesses and politicians appropriately leading the transition.

Across the world, legitimate tools for accountability include (a) leadership and strategic planning and implementation, (b) climate diplomacy, (c) science and expertise, and (d) litigation.[22] Legal, regulatory, diplomatic, financial and moral pressure to appropriately and reasonably reduce carbon emissions is a good thing.

Climate change is real. It is caused by greenhouse gas emissions resulting from human activities, and it poses a grave threat to humanity’s future. The only way to address the threat of climate change is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

– Supreme Court of Canada, March 25, 2021[23]

Introduction

The role of the climate crisis in geopolitics has changed markedly in the last decade, shifting in importance – as nations feel the effects of climate change (i.e. physical risks,[24] transition risks,[25] liability ‘scarce resources / rights and responsibilities’ risks[26], including major risks to the stability of the financial system and its ability to sustain the economy[27]) and scramble to adapt – to become “a shaper of geopolitics as a whole”. While international interdependence and geopolitics (which for our purposes includes geo-economics) makes some kind of global cooperation and rules-based international system inevitable, the extent of such multilateral cooperation is dependent upon geopolitics and climate change diplomacy.[28]

There is a consensus among scientists and policy-makers around the globe that climate change – if not strategically and appropriately addressed with the support of a broad coalition – will act as a multiplier and even a trigger for threats to international peace and security.[29] Failure to address the climate crisis – particularly without a strategic plan to ensure reliable and affordable energy supply for our society in the transition from fossil fuels (i.e. gas and coal) to low-carbon energy and ultimately emission-free alternatives[30] –  will “make states and societies more vulnerable to opportunism and the temptation of extreme political answers” in the face of scarce resources. Moving the world from diplomatic and economic avenues to potentially military avenues and the “use of force”[31]:[32]

“Climate change is a ubiquitous threat multiplier that critically endangers global social, economic, and political security. Soaring temperatures have provoked political unrest around the world. In the Arctic, for example, melting sea ice has opened new shipping routes and offshore drilling that promise untapped economic opportunities, inciting territorial disputes between global hegemons. Over 3,000 miles away, nuclear powers India and Pakistan teeter on the brink of war over territorial claims on freshwater stores now flowing from the melting glaciers of Kashmir. Recognizing that these geopolitical consequences have considerable ramifications are necessary for alleviating the international policy deficit that currently exists. …

At face value, international environmental politics appear as a quintessential, zero-sum game between the powerful and powerless. Sure – in the short run, some counties will experience gains in expense of another’s loss. Overall, however, the ramifications of a warming world are indiscriminate to economic power and military strength. That being said, the ubiquity of this threat makes everyone powerless, and therefore challenges our fundamental understanding of international politics.”

As recently noted in Canada’s national newspaper, “it is almost certain that, in the coming few decades, the world will see a mass displacement of human beings almost unmatched in modern history. Depending on how high the seas rise, hundreds of millions of people who call a piece of coastland home might find it underwater. Huge swaths of the Middle East and Africa – already so sweltering that countries such as the United Arab Emirates are experimenting with electrically charged drones designed to shock clouds into producing rain – may soon become too hot for human habitation. Millions of people will be driven beyond the borders of their home countries by a crisis that has absolutely no concern for borders”:[33]

“There is, in international law, almost no mechanism for dealing with this kind of forced migration. And unless one is developed and implemented quickly, the defining crisis of the coming decades will play out the way so many prior refugee crises have played out before – first with indifference, then rejection, and finally bloodshed.”

[The U.S. administration] … issued a 40-page report warning that the climate crisis ‘poses serious and systemic risks to the US economy and financial system’ and setting out steps for action …. The White House report was issued as the crucial COP26 global climate talks are due to begin in Scotland … with world leaders attending and intending to spell out their plans to help the planet avoid catastrophic heating and the climate destabilization that is already under way.

– The Guardian[34]

Climate change – to which no nation, company or person is immune – is a catastrophic risk. The Global Risks Report 2021 lists “extreme weather” events and “failure to take action on climate issues” as the top global risks for the third consecutive year.[35] According to a landmark report from the United Nations on the state of climate science, “modern society’s continued dependence on fossil fuels is warming the world at a pace that is unprecedented in the past 2,000 years — and its effects are already apparent as record droughts, wildfires and floods devastate communities worldwide”:[36]

“Compiled by more than 200 scientists over the course of several years and approved by 195 governments during a virtual meeting last week, the report is the first in a trio assessing the state of climate change and efforts to mitigate it and adapt to it. The document — part of the IPCC’s sixth climate assessment since 1990 — arrives less than three months before the next major global climate summit in Glasgow, UK. There, governments will have the opportunity to make pledges to reverse course and decrease their emissions.”

The world is focused on climate change, sustainability, and ESG (environmental, social, governance) issues, from the board room to the court room. The big uncertainty is how fast economies can strategically and appropriately decarbonize as recognition grows that the repercussions of climate change is no longer some distant concern.

We are not tackling climate change fast enough to succeed. And we need to make the biggest economic transition of our lifetime in an orderly fashion so we create prosperity for Canadians rather than destroy industries and sectors that Canada relies upon. Business as usual won’t get us there.

– ‘Canada needs a new playbook on climate’, Globe and Mail[37]

Along with leadership, science and expertise, and diplomacy, the implementation of litigation before independent and impartial courts is a legitimate tool for accountability. The environment, corporate law, and director liability is a fast-emerging area – and climate change litigation is increasingly viewed as a tool to influence policy outcomes and corporate and government behaviour.[38] As noted by Mr. John Kerry (the first-ever United States Special Presidential Envoy for Climate), “lawyers across the profession have a vital role in fighting climate change and assisting those struggling with its effects” – to lay the legal pathways for success and appropriately expedite progress along that path. Within the legal profession there is now a conversation about climate change that encompasses legal ethics and societal values.[39]

Corporate fiduciary duties and corporate law have traditionally been insulated from environmental and climate concerns (with the costs of climate change “entirely externalized and foisted on” society and “the taxpayer”), but as the impacts of climate change escalate, this may no longer be true, particularly for the corporate carbon majors. Why? Because “those who profit from selling harmful products should bear their fair share of the costs of the harm caused by their products”.[40] And in this environment, companies and their Board and executive leadership teams are grappling with the heightened demand from society to do the right thing.

As corporations adopt net-zero goals – voluntarily or otherwise – there is a growing demand for authentic data and clear transparency to avoid corporate ‘greenwashing’ and ensure that progress towards decarbonization is genuine.[41]

Oil and gas companies are desperate to stop the wave of lawsuits seeking to hold them financially responsible for their role in climate change. Should these suits get to trial, their executives would have to testify about whether they knowingly misled the public about the climate threat posed by their products going back to the 1970s. … Expect them to increase pressure on Congress to block state and local access to the courts, while they continue to fight tooth and nail against any form of accountability to communities around the country.

– Ann Carlson, ‘Op-Ed: Why Big Oil fears being put on trial for climate change’, Los Angeles Times[42]

To effectively address the climate crisis requires “a never-before-seen level of global co-operation. The world has not been able to overcome domestic self-interest” – at a national or corporate level – but there has been progress.[43]

Legislation and the Courts and Climate Change Summits

More than 190 countries have signed the 2015 Paris climate accord, which aims to limit global temperature rises to below 2 degrees Celsius (2.0 °C), and ideally to 1.5 degrees Celsius (1.5 °C) compared with 1900 levels.[44] This is the first time that the world has set a hard target, and that target is indeed a hard one. 

In 2018 the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reported that to meet the Paris goal of holding the rise in warming as close as possible to 1.5 °C, greenhouse gas carbon emissions (CO₂)  must be reduced to net-zero by 2050.[45]

The biggest problem in U.S. energy policy is climate denialism from the right. But on the left, there is another potent danger: magical thinking. Too many believe we can lower emissions with no hard choices.

– Fareed Zakira[46]

The number of countries that have pledged to achieve net‐zero emissions has grown rapidly over the last year and now covers around 70% of global emissions of CO₂. This is a positive achievement, however, most pledges are not yet underpinned by near‐term policies and measures to actually deliver them in full and on time – and not all countries are starting at the same place or finishing at the same time (i.e. advanced economies are expected to reach net zero before emerging markets and developing economies, and assist these other countries in getting there).[47]  According to the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change “while the majority of nations represented increased their level of ambition over emissions targets, their combined impacts” fall “far short”, and this includes China which “emits as much as 28 percent of the world’s total greenhouse gases (nearly double the United States’ share”). The UN has stated that “decisions to accelerate and broaden climate action everywhere must be taken now” as “the window for action to safeguard our planet is closing fast”.[48]  

And this means that action on a global scale must be more than just pledges or promises, but actual steps underpinned by strong policies and measures to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050.[49] In this respect, it does in fact appear that the European Union is looking to take a leadership role to “spark an emission-reduction arms race”[50] – and their ambitious plan “to hit polluting imports with a special carbon levy is the measure most likely to attract attention from China, the US, Australia and other countries importing polluting products into the EU” because it puts “foreign imports on a level playing field with European companies” concerned about “losing market share to more lightly regulated rivals outside the EU”. In summary, the EU has set its sights on Europe becoming the world’s first climate neutral continent with net-zero emissions by 2050. Big picture, here is what the EU has been doing to date, and its main proposals going forward:[51]

• In 2019 the European parliament declared a “climate and environmental emergency”.
• In 2020 EU leaders pledged to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 55% by the end of this decade. And it is actually doing the hard part: turning promises into policies to curb dangerous global heating.
• In July 2021, the European Commission published a dozen legislative proposals to ensure its climate and energy laws fit the ambition of a 55% cut in emissions by 2030, compared with 1990 levels. From phasing out the internal combustion engine (effectively banning the sale of new petrol and diesel vehicles) to forest protection, no sector of the EU economy will go untouched.
• EU member states will face tougher greenhouse gas reduction targets and goals to increase renewable energy by 2030. The EU as a whole is aiming to get 40% of its energy from renewable sources by the end of the decade.
• Pollution will become more expensive for electricity generators and heavy industry, under the European emissions trading system (ETS). The ETS cap on emissions will be tightened. Free allowances will be phased out from 2030 onwards, slowly driving up the cost of pollution.
• Foreign companies importing steel, aluminium and other carbon-intensive products into the EU will have to buy allowances to sell their goods into the European single market. The “carbon border adjustment mechanism” is intended to protect EU companies from losing out to more lightly regulated competitors.
• A new emissions trading system would be set up by 2025 for fuel producers supplying buildings and road transport. To address the issue of higher energy bills, the EU executive is looking to create a €144.4bn (£123.2bn) fund to help people pay for energy efficiency upgrades to their homes and greener cars, with €72bn of that coming from the EU budget.
• The EU will overhaul its “outdated” energy taxation law, to phase out tax breaks for fossil fuels in EU aviation and shipping.

In Canada, the Federal government released a 700 page National Issues Report on the challenges and issues in respect to climate change adaptation needs.[52] The problem with these type of reports that keep being produced by many governments is that, while factually accurate, there is a general failure to address the role of the applicable economic and political system in perpetuating the climate crisis and specific steps and policies required to move forward:[53]

“Climate change was a top issue for voters in the [September 2021] federal election. With a new minority mandate, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and his Liberal government will have crucial and imminent work to do, not only in terms of mitigating warming but adapting to it. The June heat wave proves the point. Built for a world we no longer live in, transit infrastructure melted, drawbridges malfunctioned, roads buckled, and power grids failed. …

Are we at a moment where there’s sufficient weight that there’s a real shift in people’s understanding about climate change? …

As the world warms, more extreme heat is coming. Will Canada [- will the world -] be ready?”

It is “not the grand declarations that are going to be the emphasis from this point on, it’s the hard choices that go with it”.[54]

[J]ust as the 1929 Wall St crash led to a complete overhaul of company transparency, companies should be under as much pressure now to deliver clear plans to tackle climate change.

– Peter Harrison, Group Chief Executive, Schroders Investment Management[55]

As the political courage to take action continues to gain momentum, there is a recognition that business does not exist in a vacuum. A growing number of business leaders are shifting away from Milton Friedman’s assertion that the sole purpose of business is to maximize shareholder returns – embracing the idea that business should serve all stakeholders to ensure corporate long-term sustainability and profitability. Why? Because business and society cannot thrive if our “communities are not healthy”, if our environment is fundamentally compromised, “and if our society is fractured”. A sustainable future requires business leadership that does not see the world as a “zero-sum game” – but rather chooses “and” instead of “or”.[56]

Despite decades of climate change denial, suppression, misinformation, and deflection by climate obstructionists and the fossil fuel industry (and other financially elite persons and groups invested in fossil fuels)[57], the “signs are unmistakable, the science is undeniable,” and the cost of inaction is mounting. This will be a decisive decade for tackling climate change,[58] and in this shortening window of opportunity, “individuals, communities, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), business entities, and subnational governments” across the world “have turned to the courts to seek relief through the enforcement of existing climate laws; integration of climate action into existing environmental, energy, and natural resources laws; clear definitions of fundamental climate rights and obligations; and compensation for climate harms. As these actions become more frequent in their occurrence, and more numerous overall, the body of legal precedent grows, forming an increasingly coherent field of law”.[59]

In 2020 the number of climate change court cases around the world reached “at least 1,550 cases filed in 38 countries”.[60]

As courts require evidentiary standards, in theory – outside of jurisdictions with politically appointed ideological judges (forged into partisan party instruments reflecting politics by other means, rather than alignment with a Court’s authentic purpose and the Society which it serves)[61] – courts with independent and impartial judges are a good place for climate science.[62] Unlike legislative bodies, “where bills based on science can be derailed just because a few people say they don’t ‘believe in’ climate change, the courts have evidentiary standards. If something’s real, it’s real. The facts accepted by 98 percent of scientists worldwide represent pretty convincing evidence”.[63]

Outside of the United States, climate litigation is more likely than not to lead to favourable outcomes … [U]se of the courts to address climate change faces many well-known hurdles, including … conservatism of many courts when confronted with contentious policy issues.

– Global Trends in climate change litigation: 2020 snapshot[64]

This growing tidal wave of climate cases is driving much needed change around the world.[65]  In a landmark decision for climate action in Canada, on March 25, 2021, the Supreme Court held that “climate change is real”, stating that “the undisputed existence of a threat to the future of humanity cannot be ignored”.[66] The Court noted that even the parties arguing against the Federal law agreed that “climate change is real” and that there is extensive evidence showing that carbon pricing is a critical element in addressing it.[67]

The Chief Justice of the Canadian Supreme Court, writing for the majority in respect to climate change and the challenged federal law, specifically held that the Federal government has the power to impose a carbon price[68] (also referred to colloquially as a carbon ‘tax’) – a national minimum price standard on greenhouse gas (CO2) emissions pollution to discourage activities that emit greenhouse gases – across the country as a “matter of national concern”.[69]

Canada’s carbon pricing is constitutional … The federal government intended the law to meet the country’s obligations under the 2015 Paris Agreement which seeks to limit the increase in the Earth’s surface temperatures to 1.5 C by 2050.

– The Globe and Mail[70]

As a logical next step, internationally, the EU was the first out of the gate as governments looked to reconcile their bold net-zero policy and targets at a national level with the need to be competitive (as it related to countries and companies not prepared to meet the requirements of the 2015 Paris Agreement). The goal is not protectionism, but rather the type of policy needed – where there is a concern that other countries and businesses will only respond to immediate economic self-interest – to ensure a level playing field across borders in respect to required environmental standards and international cooperation:[71]

“Governments … increasingly … are eyeing border carbon adjustments – pricing the carbon associated with imported goods – to level the playing field between their domestic emitters and those in places with laxer emissions rules. The goals: encouraging other countries to put their own price on carbon; and limiting companies’ incentive to move production out of carbon-pricing countries (known as carbon leakage). Insulating domestic industry from carbon competition lets countries increase the price on industrial emissions, which has thus far remained far below consumer prices in most jurisdictions and hindered progress to Net Zero.

… Under a plan unveiled last month [in the EU], first levies would occur in 2026 and would initially target five emissions-heavy sectors: iron and steel, aluminum, cement, fertilizers, and electricity. The plan, which remains subject to EU member-country approval, must first resolve how to treat myriad carbon regulations globally in order to withstand trade challenges.

Other jurisdictions are eyeing similar moves. G7 leaders agreed in June [2021] to tackle carbon leakage via trade measures. In the U.S., Democratic lawmakers have proposed including a tax on the imports of heavy emitters in an upcoming budget resolution, although ultimate political support is unclear. In Canada, Budget 2021 announced a consultation process on border carbon adjustments beginning this summer.

Proposals to price carbon at the border come as the U.S., China and some other countries are looking to green their supply chains and strengthen their relative positions in advanced technologies.”

And ‘border carbon adjustments’ (sometimes referred to as a tax or even a tariff), used to cut carbon emissions across the world, has the potential to advance the objectives of the Paris Agreement.  However, it also has the potential to rewrite the rules of global commerce and – while potentially reshaping industries to the benefit of society – if not used judiciously and wisely, may undermine world trade rules and trigger disputes. In either scenario, the effect on both the climate and on the international trading system will be significant.[72]

China’s commitments in reducing overall emissions [are] more crucial in light of economic and energy challenges. … China is the world’s largest emitter of greenhouse gasses (though the United States far outstrips it when it comes to emissions per capita), and so Beijing’s participation is vital to hitting the Paris Agreement’s goals of limiting warming to less than 2 C by the end of the century, already a long shot.

– Globe and Mail[73]

In Germany, the Federal Constitutional Court – Germany’s top Court – recently held that changes were required to “Germany’s climate law, saying it places too much of a burden on future generations to reduce carbon emissions”, such that the current generation “gets off relatively lightly”. The Court held that the German government had an obligation to leave the natural foundations of life “in such condition that future generations” are “not forced to engage in radical abstinence”. Experts have indicated that the Court’s ruling could have a profound impact on government policy, ensuring tougher targets will follow this year (i.e. bringing forward the German government’s planned phase-out of the use of coal)[74]:[75]

“The [German] court agreed the country’s landmark climate legislation, passed in 2019, put too much of a burden on future generations and didn’t take enough responsibility in the present. … Not long after the court ruling, Germany’s leaders … quickly emerged with a new draft law that increases the emissions cut target for the end of the decade dramatically — from 55 per cent below 1990 levels to 65 per cent. They also brought forward their net-zero target date by five years.

German Environment Minister Svenja Schulze said the new law takes on a ‘gigantic’ task. ‘For the first time, the most strenuous part of climate protection is not being postponed to the distant future. … The Constitutional Court ordered us to do this and the government reacted very quickly’. …

Courts [around the world] are increasingly are recognizing that there is a generational rights issue here, that these young people deserve at least to be heard.”

The German court decision was followed by a decision of a Hague District Court (a Dutch Court in the Netherlands) ordering a multi-national polluting corporation – the ninth biggest polluter in the world from 1988-2015 according to the Carbon Majors database – to comply with the Paris Climate agreement.  The Court ordered Royal Dutch Shell to cut its global carbon emissions by 45% by the end of 2030 compared with 2019 levels. The Dutch Court found that Royal Dutch Shell owed a duty of care, that its sustainability policy was insufficiently “concrete”, and that “the interest served with the reduction obligation outweighs the Shell group’s commercial interests”. The case is unique because it is the first time a Court has ordered a large polluting corporation – in the face of Shell’s defence that only governments are responsible for meeting the targets of the Paris Climate agreement – to comply with the Paris Climate agreement. The Court found that “since 2012 there has been broad international consensus about the need for non-state action, because states cannot tackle the climate issue on their own”. Shell is expected to appeal.  The decision could set a precedent around the world – for the global fossil fuel industry, Big Oil and large corporations – if upheld by the Netherland’s Court of Appeal and ultimately their Supreme Court[76]:[77]

“While many countries, including the Netherlands, have signed up to the Paris Agreement on climate change, companies such as Shell were not part of the deal and so far haven’t been bound by national pledges. That didn’t stop … the Dutch presiding judge, from stating that companies have a burden to shoulder too.

‘Companies have an independent responsibility, aside from what states do’, Judge Alwin said in her decision. ‘Even if states do nothing or only a little, companies have the responsibility to respect human rights.’

The landmark ruling came on the same day that Shell’s U.S. rivals faced pushback from environmentally conscious investors. A first-time activist shareholder with a tiny stake in Exxon Mobil Corp. scored a historic win in its proxy fight with the oil giant, gaining two seats on the company’s board. …

There are currently 1,800 lawsuits related to climate change being fought in courtrooms around the world, according to the climatecasechart.com database. The Shell verdict could have a powerful ripple effect, not least among its European peers … .”

In this political and legal environment, the “French oil major Total” recently “rebranded itself as TotalEnergies, the latest energy giant trying to reinvent itself as a green company as public concerns grow over climate change”.[78]  The International Energy Agency’s recent “Net Zero by 2050” report is a landmark document in this direction, outlining a detailed pathway, complete with tangible milestones, to meet emissions targets by 2050. If nothing else, “the report clearly shows how difficult the path forward will be if we want to achieve net zero. In Canada, the response to the report has been focused on its call for no new oil and gas fields and ending investments in new fossil fuel projects” as the world transitions to a low-carbon and climate-resilient economy. [79] 

India’s highest court has demanded that the government introduce urgent measures to tackle acute air pollution that has enveloped Delhi. For most of the last week the air quality index for the capital was over 450. Only readings below 50 are considered safe and anything above 300 is classified as hazardous.

– The Times[80]

There is hope for cautious optimism: “More and more governments across the world are progressively committing to net-zero emissions goals by around mid-century. Businesses are accelerating efforts to transition and align their operations with the goals of the Paris Agreement”. Citizens are increasingly “demanding a safe climate and are forcing positive change, helping demonstrate that climate change is at the forefront of a global environmental rights movement. And “judiciaries around the world are increasingly playing a critical role in addressing climate change”.[81]

The Canadian Supreme Court’s decision, referenced above, was released as the Canadian federal government “prepared to unveil a new and more aggressive emissions-reduction target in time for U.S. President Joe Biden’s climate change summit” earlier this year – marking America’s return to the international climate conversation – in April 2021. Canada presented a revamped climate plan to world leaders — which included a significant increase in the minimum carbon price — to reduce Canada’s carbon emissions to at least 40 to 45 per cent below 2005 levels by 2030. Canada had initially committed to a 30 per cent reduction under the Paris Agreement on its journey to net-zero by 2050.[82]

However, November 2021 is likely the most important UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) – Conference of the Parties (COP 26) – since the Paris Agreement was signed in 2015.[83] Success of this climate summit will particularly depend on wealthy, polluting countries (influenced by their corporate and economic elite) coming to agreement – and an agreement based on “what’s fair” has been far from simple when it comes to global climate change negotiations in an era of self-interest zero-sum gain,[84] and the influence of powerful nations such as China and India (two of the biggest greenhouse gas emitters on the planet) and other wealthy nations.[85]

Weaning the world off coal is considered vital to achieving global climate targets,[86] and in a surprise announcement during the course of the COP26 climate summit, a major international agreement was reached to accelerate the end of coal, the fossil fuel that is the single biggest source of the carbon emissions that cause climate change. Remarkably, five of the new countries to sign up to the commitment are among the heaviest users of the fossil fuel – South Korea (the 5th most coal-intensive economy), Indonesia (7th), Vietnam (9th), Poland (13th) and Ukraine (19th). Unfortunately, the agreement has been compromised by the lack of support from the world’s biggest and wealthiest emitters which together account for approximately 70% of the world’s coal consumption: China (54.3% of global coal consumption in 2020), India (11.6%), and the US (6.1%). Australia, which is one of the world’s biggest coal exporters – “and something of” an outlier “at COP26 for its general refusal to set ambitious climate goals” – was also notable in its absence.[87] And in an exhibit of raw power at the conclusion of the COP26 climate summit:[88]

“In a room behind the plenary hall at COP26 in Glasgow, the four biggest greenhouse gas emitters on the planet sat in a circle on Saturday evening and brokered a last minute deal to weaken a global pact to phase out coal power.

U.S. climate envoy John Kerry, his Chinese counterpart Xie Zhenhua, EU Green Deal chief Frans Timmermans and Indian Environment Minister Bhupender Yadav sat on chairs facing one another, with Alok Sharma, the U.K. minister in charge of the U.N. climate talks.

At issue was a last minute demand from China and India: Water down language in the Glasgow Climate Pact that called for a ‘phase out’ of coal power. Instead, Beijing wanted the wording to be ‘phase down’….

The atmosphere was tense. The Chinese were willing to put the whole conference … on the line. ‘We will break the whole thing down,’ said one Chinese delegate, according to the EU official.

Either way, the Glasgow deal would be historic in becoming the first ever U.N. climate agreement to even mention the fuel most responsible warming the planet. But the difference between the eradication of coal and its limitation was fateful for the vulnerable countries watching the great powers leaving and entering the room. …

[U]ltimately India and China … emerged from the room with most of what they wanted. The mood of the meeting, which had been jubilant earlier at the prospect of closing out years of brutal negotiations on the rules governing the 2015 Paris Agreement, plunged. [S]ome … expressed their shock at the display of raw power that had left them sidelined. … But after two weeks of discussions and hundreds of other points of decision potentially to be reopened if they fought back, the world collectively swallowed the message from the four powers. … [The UK minister in charge of the U.N. climate talks] told reporters: ‘Of course I wish that we had managed to preserve the language on coal that was originally agreed. Nevertheless, we do have language on coal, on phase down, and I don’t think anyone at the start of this process would have necessarily expected that that would have been retained’.

[U.S. climate envoy John] Kerry said later: ‘Did I appreciate we had to adjust one thing tonight in a very unusual way? No. But if we hadn’t done that we wouldn’t have a deal. I’ll take phase it down and take the fight into next year’.”

The ultimate agreement (referenced as the Glasgow Climate Pact) – while only receiving lukewarm backing from delegates of poorer countries – at least builds on the 2015 Paris climate treaty by listing a series of decisions and resolutions that all countries have agreed to adopt. They include a commitment to accelerating national action plans to limit global warming,[89] and “for the first time countries agreed to take action on fossil fuels. Yes, it could have gone further” – a ‘phase out’ instead of ‘phase down’ coal resolution – “but let’s not forget that never before has there been a single word uttered on fossil fuels in any COP agreement. So the agreed text is significant”.[90]

It’s meek, it’s weak and the 1.5C goal is only just alive, but a signal has been sent that the era of coal is ending. And that matters.

– Jennifer Morgan, International Executive Director, Greenpeace[91]

China’s President Xi Jinping was widely criticized for failing to attend the COP26 summit at all, given that China is responsible for nearly 30% of the world’s carbon emissions — more than any other country.[92]

The international process is ruled by consensus, which means that the pace is set by the least willing country and corporation if sufficiently powerful and/or influential.[93] That means the task going forward is to bring about appropriate action from willing countries, companies and leaders exercising legitimate tools for accountability – legal, regulatory, diplomatic, financial and moral suasion, including but not limited to carbon border adjustment mechanisms touted by the EU – to appropriately and reasonably reduce global carbon emissions.

In this vein, during the COP26 summit both China and India subsequently advised and confirmed – keeping in mind their internal concerns in respect to social stability and strategic need to ensure reliable and affordable energy supply for their societies in the transition from fossil fuels to low-carbon energy and ultimately emission-free alternatives – their long-term support for carbon neutrality and net-zero commitment. This included China’s pledge to end overseas coal financing and building of coal-fired power plants in developing countries (focusing instead on helping these countries build green energy production).[94] This may be one of the most significant developments on the climate front this year as it may well mark the end of international public financing for coal plants.[95]

[A]s the Russian delegation, minus its leader, heads into next week’s COP26 negotiations over updated carbon emission reduction targets, it could well turn out that Russia’s priority is less about combatting climate change than it is about changing the narrative over how fast, and by how much, nations should reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. Not only is Russia is the 4^th biggest emitter of the greenhouse gases … its economy is heavily reliant on the exploitation of the hydrocarbons, like oil, gas and coal, that produce those emissions.

– Time[96]

Will Business be part of the Solution?

Climate change has been described as “the greatest market failure that the world has seen” as business and the fossil fuel industry inflicted catastrophic environmental damage for immense corporate profits and shareholder value, without accountability or financial responsibility.[97]  And today, too many corporate ‘net zero’ climate plans are being used to ‘greenwash’ pollution and continue this business-as-usual agenda.[98]

To appropriately reach the Paris Agreement’s required targets, there needs to be a change to the entire system, not just the energy sector but across business and the economy.

Climate change is the not the only ecological threat. … Natural resources are the single most important input to the global economy. Whether it is raw materials, water, flood protection, biodiversity or pollination, nature provides most of the capital businesses need for the production of goods and services. … There is … an increasing awareness that biodiversity loss contributes to climate change and is an investment risk.

– What is ‘natural capital’ and why should investors care?[99]

With decades of climate change denial, suppression, deflection, and – ultimately – climate policy failure both domestically and abroad, can we break the cycle? The answer is yes, but climate change cannot be solved by governments alone and certainly not without business leadership and accountability – and that means a large scale global transformation of business, finance, and economics. Net zero must be a direct and accountable goal with strategic and tactical plans to achieve it, rather than an aspirational future target that business and political leaders simply aspire to:[100]

“There is no avoiding the bad – more climate impacts like floods and wildfires are already built into the system. But we can prevent the ugly if we’re willing to intervene more effectively to realign the financial system now.

The UN-convened Net-Zero Asset-Owner Alliance, which consists of investors with $6.6 trillion in assets under management (AUM) are urging investors, companies, and governments to act definitively to limit temperature increase by adopting transformational measures that will rapidly reduce carbon emissions. This includes actions such as setting interim carbon targets of 2025, improving climate risk reporting, the development of new models and approaches in business operations.

This is part of the growing transparency agenda, which aims to build trust and understanding through accountability for governments and corporations. Transparency is the basic requirement for understanding impact in terms of actual GHG emissions, climate actions and investment. Only when we have that information can we be sure that we are putting our efforts in the right places in the right ways. It is also critical in building trust in a negotiation environment that can be very contentious.”

And why shouldn’t business leadership jump into the fray. Climate change is one of the most serious risks – financial, operational, and reputational – facing businesses around the world. In fact, business is overexposed, to the point that C-suite executive leadership teams and their Boards will need to consider and respond to this broader societal challenge. Why? There are “four broad answers” in light of the fact that the climate crisis will continue to worsen with profound consequences across Western society and the globe:[101]

• Companies are subject to the immediate and ongoing impact of climate change on their operations;
• Technological change associated with climate change will create opportunities as well as costs. Opportunities that one’s competitors may be the first to exploit;
• Business can expect ever more intense regulation, driven both by governments and by the demands of customers and consumers; and
• The growing reputational, financial, and litigation risk over climate change.

In short, the climate crisis is about to upend the corporate world through weather-related disasters, regulation, and lawsuits.

[C]reating shared value—pursuing financial success in a way that also yields societal benefits—has become an imperative for corporations, for two reasons. The legitimacy of business has been sharply called into question, with companies seen as prospering at the expense of the broader community. At the same time, many of the world’s problems, from income inequality to climate change, are so far-reaching that solutions require the expertise and scalable business models of the private sector.

– Harvard Business Review[102]

Leading companies recognize climate change as both a risk and an opportunity – “businesses that do not adapt will be at risk, while those that embrace change will see greater opportunities”.[103] Top of the agenda must be ensuring boards are climate competent, given just 7% have this expertise. The risks are obvious. Without serious, deliverable net-zero plans, guided by real insights and knowhow, no company is safe from the flight of capital that is now chasing cleaner, longer-term investments. It’s impossible to imagine an audit committee, for example, being run with comparable financial or accounting illiteracy. So why are so many board directors asleep at the wheel when it comes to climate knowledge? The UK government’s proposal for an annual corporate ‘Resilience Statement’ to include the risks posed by climate change is a step in the right direction. By 2023, UK corporations listed on the London Stock Exchange will be required to “set out detailed public plans for how they will move to a low-carbon future – in line with the UK’s 2050 net-zero target”. To avoid ‘greenwashing’, “an expert panel will set the standards the plans need to meet”.[104]

Not surprisingly, to ensure breakthroughs by 2030 and net-zero by 2050 will require higher climate competence of Boards and their executive leadership teams. Every strategic and financial decision will need to take climate change into account “and financial flows must be consistent with low greenhouse gas emissions and climate-resilient development”.[105] Time is running out for business leaders that do not have a ‘net-zero’ strategy. As noted by a recent McKinsey analysis:[106]

“If your company doesn’t have a plan for competing and winning in a net-zero economy, it’s time to make one. From a business perspective, the transition to a net-zero economy has passed an inflection point. Large public companies now face pressure to eliminate carbon emissions from their supply chains, operations, and products and services, or for capital providers from their financed emissions. And this pressure will intensify and spread, to smaller public companies and to private companies. There will be no place to hide. …

[D]ecision makers are embracing the need for climate action. Over half of global GDP is now generated in countries that have net-zero mandates. Low-carbon innovation has accelerated as capital has poured into deployment, causing green technology costs to plunge. Investors want to know whether their portfolio companies are getting ahead of these forces. BlackRock CEO Larry Fink, for example, wrote this year that his firm will ask the companies to which it allocates capital to ‘disclose a plan for how their business model will be compatible with a net-zero economy’.

The net-zero transition will have far-reaching implications, which many executives have yet to appreciate. It is sometimes thought that the cost of carbon will be shared among companies and passed on to consumers. That is wrong. Costs will be unevenly distributed: Companies with carbon-intensive product portfolios and operations, large policy exposures, and low levels of technological sophistication will pay the most. That reality will alter the basis of competition in every industry and steepen every commodity cost curve. The distance between low-carbon leaders and high-carbon laggards will widen. Companies in the latter group may not have a viable business.

Competitive shifts, based on changes in technology and regulation, will lead to the largest reallocation of capital in history, transferring wealth across industries and borders. When it comes to assessing climate-related risks, capital markets are already ahead of the real economy. They are learning more about your company’s climate-risk exposure than you know, and they are deploying funds and adjusting the cost of capital accordingly (both equity and debt).”

Across most of the world “central banks and other supervisory authorities are now considering climate change as a risk to financial stability. This has led to the establishment of the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD) in 2015, and the Network for Greening the Financial System (NGFS) in 2017. Both are concerned with enhancing the quality of climate-related awareness, risk management and transparency”. The TCFD defines four key management disciplines through which companies are expected to address climate change: governance, strategy, risk management, metrics and targets. Enhanced disclosure in these areas will help investors and other stakeholders assess a company’s exposure to climate-related risks, and the quality of its response to them.[107]

The traditional role of boards in fulfilling their fiduciary duties is familiar territory: strategy setting, shareholder engagement, risk management, executive compensation and succession planning. Perfectly understandable preoccupations when only maximising shareholder returns was de rigueur. But the expectations of business have fundamentally shifted, as regulators, investors, employees and consumers now all want to see companies have a purpose beyond profits[108] – with Board’s responsible for ensuring that management takes decisions in the best interest of the company and its stakeholders (i.e. not for itself or for shareholders seeking short-term financial benefit that will damage the long-term prospects of the company).[109] McKinsey’s analysis, big picture, notes:[110]

• Management and Boards will need to take a crash course in climate science and economics. Executives in most industries are just beginning to comprehend the net-zero transition and its possible effects on their organizations. They will need to close the awareness gap quickly.
• Management should plan early and often: Build an agenda for reaching net-zero emissions into the business’s strategy and update it frequently to keep up with fast-changing conditions. Executives must not treat climate action as an afterthought or a CSR project, but as the material business issue and risk that it is. 
• A climate-optimized business strategy will combine elements of both defense and offense, but more offense than defense. Defense involves moves like retiring and repurposing assets with high carbon intensity to shift a company from brown to green, while building resilience against physical climate hazards. Offense means building new low-carbon businesses, pursuing M&A opportunities, and scaling up the use of nature-based climate solutions.
• Climate action should be carried out strategically and at speed. The magnitude of what needs to be done requires urgent efforts to reduce emissions and to reposition tomorrow’s winning companies, sectors and countries.

The fight against climate change has to be a joint endeavour between nations, civil society and business. … The climate-related shift could be as transformational as the advent of the internet. Businesses that do not adapt will be at risk, while those that embrace change will see greater opportunities.

– Financial Times[111]

Leading organizations have strategically embraced the idea of corporate purpose and societal responsibility,[112] with many CEO’s acknowledging “spending 50% of their time on ‘purpose’ and ESG” which “have moved to the very heart of the corporate agenda”.[113] Climate change may well be the defining challenge for business today – and because the societal and economic stakes are so high, business leaders must play an important role in the process.[114]

However, identifying and promoting an organization’s purpose, enhancing management and disclosures, and establishing risk assessments and targets will not by themselves suffice. More crucial are the actual actions companies undertake to reduce emissions and mitigate risks.[115]

Given the potential for climate change to drive transformation across entire economic sectors, the fact that it often dominates the environmental, social and governance (ESG) conversation is hardly surprising.

– Torys LLP[116]

Increasingly more “organizations are forming dedicated sustainability and environmental, social, and governance (ESG) teams while simultaneously embedding policies focused on climate change risk”.[117] In this respect, leading organizations are making corporate purpose a core part of their strategy and identity.[118] Not necessarily because it is ‘politically correct’, but because it may now be the only path forward to long-term competitive advantage and sustainable value creation for the organization.[119] A growing number of corporations and their leadership teams are voicing support for national and global climate policies, taking steps to strengthen their resilience to climate impacts, reduce their greenhouse gas carbon emissions, produce innovative low-carbon technologies, and support policies enabling a smooth transition to a low-carbon economy:[120]

“Four decades after sustainability first emerged as a concept, we are witnessing a critical ‘net zero moment’. First gradually, and now suddenly, companies are making ‘net zero’ pledges to reduce carbon emissions in line with the Paris Agreement. This represents a substantial and welcome upgrade of ambition regarding climate change, but poses the obvious challenge.”

In this new political era successful corporate strategies will require corporate leaders who can lead, reach out and build trust – “a critical factor of companies’ license to operate”.[121] As a geopolitical corporate strategy, corporate leadership within each organization will have to make a decision – maintain their corporate status quo or “be part of the public debate” and solution.[122] As noted by Blackrock CEO Larry Fink:[123]

“Society is demanding that companies, both public and private, serve a social purpose. To prosper over time, every company must not only deliver financial performance, but also show how it makes a positive contribution to society”.

In this vein, research from Deloitte’s “reveals that meaningful environmental sustainability initiatives can create long-term value for businesses on several fronts – boosting everything from financial performance to employee morale to recruitment. They can also help organizations meet customer expectations as calls for greater climate action permeate the marketplace”.[124] In addition, the business skillsets involving strategic planning and risk management and tactical implementation are important tools to assist in the goal of supporting a reliable and affordable energy supply for our society in the transition from fossil fuels (i.e. gas and coal) to low-carbon energy and ultimately emission-free alternatives.[125] Business leadership that is able to identify and contribute to smoothing out the bumps of potential energy shortages or price shocks to the vulnerable – that will inevitably undermine broad-based support during the transition – will be rewarded. Why is the important? Because renewable energy currently only supplies approximately 12% of the world energy market (almost 80% comes from oil, gas and coal, with additional energy from nuclear and biomass) – fossil fuels cannot be abandoned overnight without a strategic plan and appropriate timeline for society “to keep the lights on”.[126]

However, to avoid corporate greenwashing and the inevitable issues arising from self-interest and non-compliance during the transition to a low-carbon and climate-resilient economy,[127] business accountability must necessarily include diplomatic, financial and moral suasion; and most importantly: “clear, credible and predictable” government regulation of business – and where necessary – evidence based legal court decisions to enforce accountability.

Unfortunately, history is clear that without independent accountability and oversight “financial free markets will not reduce greenhouse gas emissions” on their own.[128]

Momentum has been building for some time around brand purpose – a reason to exist beyond making money. Now, given the latest research published today, we know that it’s no longer acceptable or smart to ignore sustainability in business. … Today, consumers around the world … expect businesses to play a positive role in society and feel that when it comes to driving positive change, brands bear as much responsibility as governments.

– World Economic Forum[129]

Conclusion

The climate crisis is a global existential problem that does not respect national borders.[130] The scope and magnitude of the changes to the environment present a clear danger to society and our way of life, and the world is not going “to be able to fight climate change” or transition to a low-carbon and climate-resilient economy without international cooperation and “massive changes in business and large industries”.[131]

At the end of the day, only collaborative leadership and policy-making will deliver the rapid and systemic changes our nations and world need. Now is the time for leaders across the spectrum to support elected officials – at all levels – to act on policy recommendations to limit global warming, which should at minimum include consideration of the following:[132]

• Securing global commitments to net zero emissions by 2050 and keep 1.5 degrees within reach, specifically by taking measures such as phasing out coal, switching to electric vehicles and stopping deforestation. This includes business significantly reducing the GHG emissions of their operations and supply chains to help keep global heating within 1.5°C;
• Adaptation to protect communities and natural habitats. This includes governments investing in communities most at risk from climate change;
• Ensuring fiscal recovery forecasts consider and address the probability of more frequent and costly natural disasters, and the implications of the global economic transformation, to stave off the worst effects of climate change;
• Mobilizing finance to make good on the promise to pool at least $100bn in climate finance per year. This would include financial institutions limiting the bankrolling of companies initiating fossil fuel exploration;
• Working together to actually implement and deliver on these goals. This includes all stakeholders to ensure accountability for urgent green recovery plans.
• Utilizing legitimate tools of accountability – diplomatic, financial, moral, legal and regulatory – to appropriately and reasonably reduce carbon emissions to net-zero.

If you are convinced that countries will only respond to immediate economic self-interest … one way to motivate the slowpokes is to put a tax on imports from countries that fail to cut their carbon output.

– CBC News[133]

The pathway to net‐zero emissions by 2050 will require an unprecedented level of international co‐operation between governments, and the support of business.

This is not only a matter of all countries and businesses participating in efforts to meet the net zero goal, but also leadership working together in an effective and mutually beneficial manner. Achieving net‐zero emissions will be extremely challenging, but the challenges are toughest and the solutions least easy to deliver in lower income countries, and technical and financial support will be essential to ensure the early stage deployment of key mitigation technologies and infrastructure in many of these countries. Without international co‐operation, carbon emissions will not fall to net zero by 2050.[134]

The key to passing climate policy “is stitching together a coalition that will support and sustain decarbonisation” against “climate obstructionists” (which includes the fossil fuel industry and the influence of “big-money” politics, their conservative think-tanks, trade associations, front groups, PR firms, political lobbyists, “captured” media, and the “pantheon of world leaders who have deep ties to the industries that are the biggest sources of planet-warming emissions, are hostile to protests, or use climate science denial to score political points”).[135]

The good news, however, is that although certain “conservative politicians seem oblivious” to the threat of climate change or appear “willing to put” big-money “politics ahead of people and the planet”[136] – particularly in polarized countries like the U.S. and Australia in which conservative political parties appear at times to be ideologically extreme and unmoved by conventional understanding of facts, evidence and science (or in the face of voters more attuned to the threats posed by the climate crisis, exhibit not a change of heart, but rather a shift in tone from outright denial to deflection) – “global-warming denial is becoming the fringe view it always deserved to be. It is not just” scientists and “environmentalists who want to move on climate change”, many government and corporate leaders and their Boards are now calling for and taking action as well.[137] A positive example is “the new greenhouse gas emissions target recently adopted by the United Kingdom” which was notable not only for its ambition but particularly “for the fact that the goal was adopted by a Conservative government”.[138]

Climate denial is complex, but a key piece of the issue is that many people benefit from the status quo, in the short term at least. Addressing climate change threatens business models rooted in a fossil fuel economy. It threatens ways of life, and that leads to vehement opposition. As a result, solving climate change is not just a technological challenge. In fact, much of the technology is already available. It’s a political challenge as well.

– Ben Soltoff, Yale Center for Business and the Environment[139]

The shift has been underway for the last couple of years that climate change is an existential challenge, driven by the trifecta of mounting scientific urgency, growing public concern, and investor pressure. Institutional investors and strategic business leaders are working with government policymakers and companies alike to do more to fight climate change, including phasing out thermal coal power and fossil fuel subsidies, setting a price for carbon emissions, and providing increased transparency and reporting in respect to corporate environmental, social and governance (“ESG”) data and risks (as that pushes industry to be its very best).[140]

The transition to a low-carbon and climate-resilient economy is not only a pathway to manage climate impacts – ‘playing offence’ to reduce carbon emissions and ‘playing defence’ to cope with an altered environment –  but is also as a pathway to prosperity and increased competitiveness.[141]  To do this, all stakeholders must up their game, both individually and collectively. It is not just about avoiding disaster but also grasping opportunities that “spur economic innovation, growth, and advance human vitality”.[142] In short, managing climate risk will be rewarded with better economic outcomes.[143]

In ten years there won’t be a large entity anywhere on the planet that does not have a handle on its climate risk. Consumers, shareholders and employees won’t stand for it. A good place to start is with the most obvious physical impact of climate change: that the weather is deteriorating.

– The Economist[144]

At this time in history business and environmental goals are becoming increasingly aligned,[145] and many of today’s innovative business leaders and their Boards are approaching the climate crisis in the same manner they would with any other threat or opportunity that may undermine their long-term business sustainability. This is good because climate change is a global problem requiring global cooperation and collective action, and – not surprisingly – this is a heavy “political lift”[146]  that cannot be accomplished by governments alone (particularly in light of a lack of political will in some countries). The ultimate solution will require the support of a broad coalition that specifically includes the leadership of business executives and their Boards. The net influence and impact of global business is tremendous, and the opportunity for global business to participate in changing the course we are on is enormous.[147]

This will be a decisive decade for tackling climate change[148] – “climate change knows no boundaries, respects no national borders and cannot be addressed by any one nation on its own”. Leaders across nations, businesses, academia, and civil society “must work together on the challenge before us”.[149]

The future of the environment and society rests on today’s leaders – government, business, NGO, academia, individuals etc., and we need to be doing much more. Now is the time to turn promises into action.[150] The cost of strategic action and implementation now will be substantially less than what society will be forced to pay later if matters are left to slide.

Eric Sigurdson

Endnotes:

---

[1] The IPCC delivers its starkest warning about the world’s climate, The Economist, August 8, 2021; Douglas Broom, This is the impact of extreme weather on lives and livelihoods, World Economic Forum, August 1, 2021. 

[2] Max Callaghan, Carl-Friedrich Schleussner, Shruti Nath, etal, Machine-learning-based evidence and attribution mapping of 100,000 climate impact studies, Nature Climate Change, October 11, 2021; Annabelle Timsit and Sarah Kaplan, At least 85 percent of the world’s population has been affected by human-induced climate change, new study shows, Washington Post, October 11, 2021.

[3] Sarah McFarlane, Shell Ordered by Dutch Court to Cut Carbon Emissions: Lawyers say the ruling, which Shell can appeal, could set a precedent in other Western jurisdictions, Wall Street Journal, May 26, 2021.

[4] Managing the impacts of climate change: risk management responses, 2^nd Edition, Zurich, September 24, 2019; Lucy Colback, The role of business in climate change, Financial Times, December 17, 2020; Laura Zizzo, It’s time for businesses to start planning for the climate transformation, but where to begin?, Globe and Mail, November 17, 2021.

[5] ‘Climate Commitments Not on Track to Meet Paris Agreement Goals’ as NDC Synthesis Report is Published, United Nations Climate Change, February 26, 2021; Fiona Harvey and Jennifer Rankin, Paris climate deal: world not on track to meet goal amid continuous emissions, The Guardian, December 4, 2019; Stephen Leahy, Most countries aren’t hitting 2030 climate goals, and everyone will pay the price, National Geographic, November 5, 2019. Also see, Dan Clark, Sam Joiner, and Steven Bernard, COP26: How every country’s emissions and climate pledges compare, Financial Times, October 26, 2021.

[6] Hanna Ziady, Companies are crucial to solving the climate crisis. 75% are falling short, CNN Business, April 21, 2021; Tess Riley, Just 100 companies responsible for 71% of global emissions, study says, The Guardian, July 10, 2017. Also see, Lucinda Shen, These 100 Companies Are Responsible for Most of the World’s Carbon Emissions, Fortune, July 10, 2017; Sam Meredith, Just 100 firms attributable for 71% of global emissions, report says, CNBC, July 10, 2017; Dr. Paul Griffin, The Carbon Majors Database: CDP Carbon Majors Report 2017, CDP Worldwide, July 2017; Abba Mikulska, Investor pressure is driving climate action at fossil fuel companies, Axios, July 31, 2019.

[7] Jeffrey Jones, EU’s sweeping climate plan serves notice to the world, Globe and Mail, July 14, 2021; Catherine Brahic, The fight against climate change requires action not just words: “Implementation’ will be the buzzword for the new year, Economist, November 8, 2021.

[8] See generally, Somini Sengupta, ‘No One is Safe’: Extreme Weather Batters the Wealthy World, New York Times, July 17, 2021; Sarah Kaplan and Brady Dennis, Amid summer of fire and floods, a moment of truth for climate action, Washington Post, July 24, 2021; Omar El Akkad, The climate refugees are coming. Countries and international law aren’t ready for them, Globe and Mail, July 31, 2021.

[9] Irene Banos Ruiz, The role of the business sector in tackling the climate crisis, DW, June 20, 2019. Also see, Ethan Rotberg, Businesses urged to take steps to respond to climate change, CPA Canada (cpacanada.ca), December 7, 2018.

[10] Editorial, Welcome, Republicans, to the real, warming world, Los Angeles Times, July 9, 2021.

[11] Emma Farge, UN declares access to a clean environment a human right, Reuters, October 8, 2021:

“The U.N. Human Rights Council on Friday recognised access to a clean and healthy environment as a fundamental right, formally adding its weight to the global fight against climate change and its devastating consequences.

The vote passed with overwhelming support, despite criticism in the lead-up from some countries, notably the United States and Britain. 

The resolution, first discussed in the 1990s, is not legally binding but has the potential to shape global standards. Lawyers involved in climate litigation say it could help them build arguments in cases involving the environment and human rights.”

[12] Brodie Fenlon, The planet is changing. So will our journalism, CBC News, October 18, 2021.

[13] Eric Sigurdson, Business Leadership and the Climate Crisis: Corporate Strategy, Purpose, and long-term sustainable value creation – a primer for ‘the century of living dangerously’, Sigurdson Post, September 30, 2019; Ben Soltoff, More than a Moonshot: Why Solving Climate Change is Harder than Putting a Man on the Moon, Yale Center for Business and the Environment, July 23, 2019; Editorial, Welcome, Republicans, to the real, warming world, Los Angeles Times, July 9, 2021.

[14] Yasmeen Serhan, The Far-Right View on Climate Politics: As the world reckons with the grim reality of the climate crisis, right-wing populists are adapting their message, Atlantic, August 10, 2021; Gerald Kutney, Dear Conservatives, Climate Change is the Real Threat, Not a Carbon Tax – Doug Ford and Andrew Scheer seem oblivious to this threat, or are willing to put politics ahead of people and the planet, Huffington Post, March 27, 2019. Also see, Coral Davenport and Eric Lipton, How GOP Leaders Came to View Climate Change as Fake Science, New York Times, June 3, 2017; Suzanne Goldenberg, Conservative groups spend up to $1bn a year to fight action on climate change, Guardian, December 20, 2013; Alexander Kaufman, Fossil Fuel Industries Outspend Clean Energy Advocates on Climate Lobbying By 10 To 1, Huffington Post, July 18, 2018.

[15] Our latest coverage of climate change: Counting down to COP26, The Economist, 2021.

[16] David Moscrop, Canada’s record-breaking temperatures are an alarm. We must act, Washington Post, July 1, 2021.

[17] Alex McKeen, Despairing about the UN report on climate change? Experts say you should do this instead, Toronto Star, August 10 2021.

[18] Jeffrey Jones, UN’s blockbuster climate report heightens urgency for businesses to take action, Globe and Mail, August 10, 2021.

[19] Eric Sigurdson, Business Leadership and the Climate Crisis: Corporate Strategy, Purpose, and long-term sustainable value creation – a primer for ‘the century of living dangerously’, Sigurdson Post, September 30, 2019.

[20] Hubert Joly, How to Lead in the Stakeholder Era: Focus on purpose and people. The profits will follow, Harvard Business Review, May 13, 2021; Oliver Milman, Republicans pledge allegiance to fossil fuels like it’s still the 1950s, The Guardian, June 7, 2021.

[21] Jason Samenow, ‘Hard to comprehend’: Experts react to record 121 degrees in Canada, Washington Post, June 30, 2021.

[22] Eric Sigurdson, Business Leadership and the Climate Crisis: Corporate Strategy, Purpose, and long-term sustainable value creation – a primer for ‘the century of living dangerously’, Sigurdson Post, September 30, 2019.

[23] References re Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act, 2021 SCC 11, para. 9 (Chief Justice Richard Wagner).

[24] Physical risks: “Physical risks are those created by an increasingly uncertain physical environment. The list is extensive and includes, for example: sea level rises and resultant flooding, desertification, crop failures, disrupted monsoons, species displacement, and the emergence of new pathogens”. [General David Petraeus and Benedict McAleenan, Climate Change as a Growing Force in Geopolitics, Environmental Affairs, PolicyExchange.org.uk, Spring 2021].

[25] Transition risks: “Transition risk refers to those risks associated with preparation of societies and their economies for the challenge ahead, such as the shift from fossil fuels to renewables. We clearly must, as a species, move our economic model to an increasingly sustainable footing through increased reliance on new energy sources and adoption of new technologies. Transition risks highlight likely shifts away from the trade patterns and, in some cases, relationships that have shaped the 20th century. This will create an inevitable period of flux within which there will be much to gain in a variety of respects. Indeed, we … should not see climate change as pure risk: … see the opportunities to be exploited…”. [General David Petraeus and Benedict McAleenan, Climate Change as a Growing Force in Geopolitics, Environmental Affairs, PolicyExchange.org.uk, Spring 2021].

[26] Liability risks: “[T]he financial community increasingly considers the growing role of liability risks associated with climate-related developments. For financial analysts, this is primarily a question of ensuring adequate due diligence to understand the potential liabilities, how to mitigate of the risks identified, and thereby how to reduce the potential for costly developments and complex litigation. … We suggest modifying this category for the geopolitical context, in essence to be a question of rights and responsibilities. Scarce resources have always been a chief concern of economics and geopolitics, and they will be long after the transition to low-carbon energy production has advanced, meaning that this is not a ‘transitional’ question per se. That is why it deserves a separate category of risk. Yet environmental change does bring a new set of questions around scarcity and the liabilities associated with it.

• Water management is perhaps the most obvious. Clean water, free of pollutants and in adequate supply, is a basic requirement for life and functioning societies. But, in many cases, a river can course through multiple jurisdictions, making its wellbeing the concern of multiple states and multiple industries and livelihoods.
• Another challenge in this question of rights and responsibilities concerns our respective atmospheric emissions. Britain began the industrial revolution – and the pollution associated with it. The US then became the largest polluter in the last century. And now China holds the crown. Various developing countries hold the view that the developed world created the problem and should provide the lion’s share of solutions, as they experience their own challenges as they expand their industrial activities. Questions of responsibility and redress will be a central one during the UK’s presidency of COP26 later this year. Who, for example, is to tell others that they cannot develop as they wish? At what point will the first sanction be levied for polluting the world’s atmosphere? And how should geoengineering be introduced if the world proves unable to manage its climate through emissions controls alone? These are not simple questions, and they pose enormous questions and significant risks that will affect the balance of duties between nations.

Liability risks thus create a challenge that requires governance across borders – diplomatic, economic, and potentially military. Where governance fails in such contexts, the results may lead to an increase in ‘fait accompli strategies’ to achieve resource objectives and, in some cases, this could lead to the use of force.” [General David Petraeus and Benedict McAleenan, Climate Change as a Growing Force in Geopolitics, Environmental Affairs, PolicyExchange.org.uk, Spring 2021].

[27] Matt Egan, Climate change could ignite a financial crisis, IMF official says, CNN Business, June 3, 2021; Managing Climate Risk in the U.S. Financial System: Report of the Climate-Related Market Risk Subcommittee, Market Risk Advisory Committee of the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission, 2020.

[28] Shane Tomlinson, The Geopolitics of Climate Change, E3G.org, September 20, 2019; Benedict McAleenan (editor), The Geopolitics of Climate Change, Environmental Affairs, PolicyExchange.org.uk, Spring 2021; General David Petraeus and Benedict McAleenan, Climate Change as a Growing Force in Geopolitics, Environmental Affairs, PolicyExchange.org.uk, Spring 2021; Alexander Carius, Daria Ivleva, Benjamin Pohl, etal, Climate Diplomacy: Foreign Polity Responses to Climate Change, Climate Diplomacy (German Federal Foreign Office in partnership with Adelphi), 2017 edition; Scott Moore, The New Geopolitics of Climate Change, The Diplomat, December 1, 2020; Joshua Busby, Warming World: Why Climate Change Matters More Than Anything Else, Foreign Affairs, July-August 2018; Friedbert Pfluger, A new security challenge: The Geopolitical implications of climate change, Atlantic Council, February 10, 2020; Insights: How climate change is driving geopolitical risk, Willis Towers Watson, 2019;

[29] Alexander Carius, Daria Ivleva, Benjamin Pohl, etal, Climate Diplomacy: Foreign Polity Responses to Climate Change, Climate Diplomacy (German Federal Foreign Office in partnership with Adelphi), 2017 edition.

[30] See for example, Eric Reguly, Europe’s power crisis is an expensive reminder that renewable energy has its limits, Globe and Mail, September 17, 2021; Jeffrey Jones, Xi Jinping’s snub of COP26 conference raises concerns China may refuse new climate targets, Globe and Mail, October 15, 2021; Eric Reguly, This energy crisis has helped expose ESG’s shortcomings, and we’re all paying the price, Globe and Mail, October 22, 2021 (“We need scads more renewable energy if we are to meet the UN climate goals and take the edge off future energy price spikes. But at the same time, we have to be realistic about the length of the transition to the green economy. It will take decades. In the meantime, we cannot abandon all fossil fuels if we need to keep the lights on.”).

[31] General David Petraeus and Benedict McAleenan, Climate Change as a Growing Force in Geopolitics, Environmental Affairs, PolicyExchange.org.uk, Spring 2021. Also see, Benedict McAleenan (editor), The Geopolitics of Climate Change, Environmental Affairs, PolicyExchange.org.uk, Spring 2021.

[32] Ellie Stanton, Climate Change and Geopolitics, University of Colorado (Political Science), May 2, 2019. Also see, General David Petraeus and Benedict McAleenan, Climate Change as a Growing Force in Geopolitics, Environmental Affairs, PolicyExchange.org.uk, Spring 2021.

[33] Omar El Akkad, The climate refugees are coming. Countries and international law aren’t ready for them, Globe and Mail, July 31, 2021. Also see, Viviane Clement, Kanta Kumari Rigaud, Alex de Sherbinin, Alex, etal, Groundswell Part 2: Acting on Internal Climate Migration, World Bank, 2021; David Knowles, Climate Change could displace 216 million people by 2050: New Report, Yahoo News, September 13, 2021.

[34] Oliver Milman and Joanna Walters, Climate crisis poses ‘serious risks’ to US economy, Biden Administration warns, Guardian, October 15, 2021.

[35] The Global Risks Report 2021: Insight Report, 16^th Edition, World Economic Forum, 2021.

[36] Jeff Tollefson, IPCC climate report: Earth is warmer than it’s been in 125,000 years: Landmark assessment says that greenhouse gases are unequivocally driving extreme weather – but that nations can still prevent the worst impacts, Nature, August 9, 2021; Matt McGarth, Climate Change: IPCC report is ‘code red for humanity’, BBC News, August 9, 2021. See:

• IPCC full report: IPCC, 2021: Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Masson-Delmotte, V., P. Zhai, A. Pirani, S. L. Connors, C. Péan, S. Berger, N. Caud, Y. Chen, L. Goldfarb, M. I. Gomis, M. Huang, K. Leitzell, E. Lonnoy, J. B. R. Matthews, T. K. Maycock, T. Waterfield, O. Yelekçi, R. Yu and B. Zhou (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press. In Press.
• Summary for Policymakers: IPCC, 2021: Summary for Policymakers. In: Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [MassonDelmotte, V., P. Zhai, A. Pirani, S. L. Connors, C. Péan, S. Berger, N. Caud, Y. Chen, L. Goldfarb, M. I. Gomis, M. Huang, K. Leitzell, E. Lonnoy, J. B. R. Matthews, T. K. Maycock, T. Waterfield, O. Yelekçi, R. Yu and B. Zhou (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press. In Press.

[37] Dave McKay, Canada needs a new playbook on climate, Globe and Mail, October 20, 2021.

[38] Eric Sigurdson, Business Leadership and the Climate Crisis: Corporate Strategy, Purpose, and long-term sustainable value creation – a primer for ‘the century of living dangerously’, Sigurdson Post, September 30, 2019.

[39] Karen Sloan, ‘You are all climate lawyers now’, John Kerry tells ABA, Reuters, August 5, 2021. But also see, Isabella Kaminski, Fossil fuel companies paying top law firms millions to ‘dodge responsibility’, Guardian, October 9, 2021.

[40] Joana Setzer and Rebecca Byrnes, Global trends in climate change litigation: 2019 snapshot, Policy Report, Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment and Centre for Climate Change Economics and Policy, London School of Economics and Political Science, July 2019; Rebecca Leber, How a Revolution in Climate Science is Putting Big Oil Back on Trial, Mother Jones, September 16, 2019; Lisa Benjamin, Directors are in the crosshairs of corporate climate litigation, Conversation, July 8, 2019; Lisa Benjamin, The next wave of corporate lawsuits – climate change claims, Global News, July 14, 2019; Jack Guy, Climate change lawsuits spreading around the world, says report, CNN, July 4, 2019; Ann Carlson, Why Big Oil fears being put on trial for climate change, Los Angeles Times, August 12, 2019; Jane Gerster, Why a landmark opioid damage award is good news to climate change advocates, Global News, September 7, 2019. Also see: Katie Jennings, Dino Grandoni and Susanne Rust, How Exxon went from leader to skeptic on climate change research, Los Angeles Times, October 23, 2015; Amy Lieberman and Susanne Rust, Big Oil braced for global warming while it fought regulations, Los Angeles Times, December 31, 2015; Exxon: The Road Not Taken, Inside Climate News – Series of articles: Neela Banerjee, Lisa Song, and David Hasemyer, Exxon’s Own Research Confirmed Fossil Fuels’ Role in Global Warming Decades Ago, Inside Climate News, September 16, 2015; Lisa Song, Neela Banerjee, and David Hasemyer, Exxon Confirmed Global Warming Consensus in 1982 with In-House Climate Model’s – company chairman would later mock climate models as unreliable while he campaigned to stop global action to reduce fossil fuel emissions, Inside Climate News, September 22, 2015; Davie Hasemyer and John Cushman Jr, Exxon Sowed Doubt About Climate Science for Decades by Stressing Uncertainty, Inside Climate News, October 22, 2015; Neela Danerjee, More Exxon Documents Show How It Knew About Climate 35 Years Ago, Inside Climate News, December 1, 2015; Neela Banerjee, Exxon’s Oil Industry Peers Knew About Climate Dangers in the 1970s, Too, Inside Climate Change, December 22, 2015. Also see, Larissa Parker, Make a healthy climate a legal right that extends to future generations, Economist, September 17, 2019.

[40] Eric Sigurdson, Business Leadership and the Climate Crisis: Corporate Strategy, Purpose, and long-term sustainable value creation – a primer for ‘the century of living dangerously’, Sigurdson Post, September 30, 2019; Robert Eccles, Yes, Even U.S. Board of Directors (And Their Attorneys) Need To Worry About Climate Change, Forbes, October 24, 2021. Also see, David Dodwell, Donald Trump’s war on climate science, Brexit and Hong Kong’s housing disaster are what happens when governments disregard evidence, South China Morning Post, August 12, 2019.

[41] Catherine Brahic, The fight against climate change requires action not just words: “Implementation’ will be the buzzword for the new year, Economist, November 8, 2021.

[42] Ann Carlson, Why Big Oil fears being put on trial for climate change, Los Angeles Times, August 12, 2019. Also see: Katie Jennings, Dino Grandoni and Susanne Rust, How Exxon went from leader to skeptic on climate change research, Los Angeles Times, October 23, 2015; Amy Lieberman and Susanne Rust, Big Oil braced for global warming while it fought regulations, Los Angeles Times, December 31, 2015; Exxon: The Road Not Taken, Inside Climate News – Series of articles: Neela Banerjee, Lisa Song, and David Hasemyer, Exxon’s Own Research Confirmed Fossil Fuels’ Role in Global Warming Decades Ago, Inside Climate News, September 16, 2015; Lisa Song, Neela Banerjee, and David Hasemyer, Exxon Confirmed Global Warming Consensus in 1982 with In-House Climate Model’s – company chairman would later mock climate models as unreliable while he campaigned to stop global action to reduce fossil fuel emissions, Inside Climate News, September 22, 2015; Davie Hasemyer and John Cushman Jr, Exxon Sowed Doubt About Climate Science for Decades by Stressing Uncertainty, Inside Climate News, October 22, 2015; Neela Danerjee, More Exxon Documents Show How It Knew About Climate 35 Years Ago, Inside Climate News, December 1, 2015; Neela Banerjee, Exxon’s Oil Industry Peers Knew About Climate Dangers in the 1970s, Too, Inside Climate Change, December 22, 2015; Geoff Dembicki, Even with Trump in Office, the Climate Denial Movement is Quietly Falling Apart, Vice, August 13, 2019.

[43] Editorial Board, The world promised to try to hold climate heating to 1.5 C. That goal is nearly dead, Globe and Mail, November 16, 2021.

[44] Vicke Owen, Countdown to COP26 – how 2021 is a ‘make or break’ year in the fight against climate change, Schroders.com, April 27, 2021.

[45] Bill McKibben, The International Energy Agency Issues a Landmark Statement about Fossil Fuels, New Yorker, May 18, 2021.

[46] Fareed Zakaria, We could cut carbon emissions tomorrow – if we really wanted to, Washington Post, August 12, 2021.

[47] Net Zero by 2050: A Roadmap for the Global Energy Sector, International Energy Agency, 2021. Also see, Editorial Board, The Age of Oil is coming to an end. What does that mean for Canada?, Globe and Mail, May 22, 2021; Bill McKibben, The International Energy Agency Issues a Landmark Statement about Fossil Fuels, New Yorker, May 18, 2021.

[48] Vicke Owen, Countdown to COP26 – how 2021 is a ‘make or break’ year in the fight against climate change, Schroders.com, April 27, 2021; Jeffrey Jones, Xi Jinping’s snub of COP26 conference raises concerns China may refuse new climate targets, Globe and Mail, October 15, 2021; Don Pitts, Why it matters to the world if China delivers on its carbon targets, CBC, October 18, 2021. Also see, Report: China emissions exceed all developed nations combined, BBC News, May 7, 2021.

[49] Jeffrey Jones, Canada will need to overhaul its economy to achieve net zero carbon emissions. But cultural change might prove even harder, Globe and Mail, May 18, 2021. Also see, Eric Sigurdson, Business Leadership and the Climate Crisis: Corporate Strategy, Purpose, and long-term sustainable value creation – a primer for ‘the century of living dangerously’, Sigurdson Post, September 30, 2019.

[50] Jeffrey Jones, EU’s sweeping climate plan serves notice to the world, Globe and Mail, July 14, 2021.

[51] Jennifer Rankin, What is the EU’s plan to tackle global heating – and will it work, Guardian, July 14, 2021; Steven Rosenhak, Rosalind Cooper, and Montana Licari, A Bold Step: The EU Accelerates Targets for Zero-Emission Vehicles, Fasken.com, July 27, 2021. Also see, Jennifer Rankin, EU’s green deal plans launched with ‘make-or-break decade’ warning, Guardian, July 14, 2021; Jeffrey Jones, EU’s sweeping climate plan serves notice to the world, Globe and Mail, July 14, 2021; Why the European Union is a less-than-jolly green giant: The EU is better placed than national governments to set green standards. This will hurt”, Economist, July 15, 2021.

[52] Fiona J. Warren and Nicole Lulham (editor), Canada in a Changing Climate: National Issues Report, Government of Canada, 2021.

[53] Kathryn Blaze Baum and Matthew McClearn, Extreme, deadly heat in Canada is going to come back, and worse. Will we be ready?, Globe and Mail, September 25, 2021.

[54] Jennifer Rankin, What is the EU’s plan to tackle global heating – and will it work?: EU member states will face tougher targets and goals to increase renewable energy, Guardian, July 14, 2021.

[55] Vicke Owen, Countdown to COP26 – how 2021 is a ‘make or break’ year in the fight against climate change, Schroders.com, April 27, 2021. Also see, Peter Harrison, Why climate change is creating a 1929 moment, Schroders.com, January 12, 2021.

[56] Hubert Joly, How to Lead in the Stakeholder Era: Focus on purpose and people. The profits will follow, Harvard Business Review, May 13, 2021.

[57] Patti Lynn and Geoffrey Supran, Will Congress expose Big Oil like it did Big Tobacco in the 90s?, Los Angeles Times, October 27, 2021; Timothy Gardner and Valerie Volcovici, Big Oil hearing to kick off U.S. probe into climate disinformation – lawmaker, Reuters, October 27, 2021.

[58] Matt McGrath, Biden: This will be ‘decisive decade’ for tackling climate change, BBC News, April 22, 2021.

[59] Global Climate Litigation Report: 2020 Status Review, United Nations Environment Programme and Sabin Center for Climate Change Law (Columbia University), 2020. Also see, Joana Setzer and Rebecca Byrnes, Global trends in climate change litigation: 2020 snapshot, Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment and Centre for Climate Change Economics and Policy, London School of Economics and Political Science, July 2020; Jaap Spier, ‘The Strongest Climate Ruling Yet’: The Dutch Supreme Court’s Urgenda Judgment, Netherlands International Law Review, Vol. 67, 2020; Thomas Escritt, Germany must tighten climate law to protect young people’s future, court rules, Reuters, April 29, 2021.

[60] Global Climate Litigation Report: 2020 Status Review, United Nations Environment Programme and Sabin Center for Climate Change Law (Columbia University), 2020. Also see, Joana Setzer and Rebecca Byrnes, Global trends in climate change litigation: 2020 snapshot, Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment and Centre for Climate Change Economics and Policy, London School of Economics and Political Science, July 2020.

[61] Neal Devins and Lawrence Baum, Split Definitive: How Party Polarization Turned the Supreme Court into a Partisan Court, The Supreme Court Review, 2016; Ellen Knickmeyer, Barrett deflects senators’ questions on climate change, AP News, October 14, 2020 (“Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barett … framed acknowledgment of manmade climate change as a matter of policy, not science.”); Maggie Jo Buchanan, Trump’s Ideological Judges Have Led to Politicized Courts, Center for American Progress, October 23, 2020; Ed Kilgore, Justice Breyer Is Missing the Point on Court Packing, New York Magazine (Intelligencer), April 7, 2021 (“[T]he [U.S. Supreme] Court’s current 6-3 conservative majority, controlled by justices carefully vetted before confirmation to serve as loyal foot soldiers of the conservative movement …”); David Orentlicher, Politics and the Supreme Court: The Need for Ideological Balance, Scholarly Works, 2018; Chris Geidner, Why the Supreme Court may need court-packing to keep its integrity: The court expansion debate may test the legitimacy of the Supreme Court itself, MSNBC, April 12, 2021; Eric Sigurdson, The Decline of the Rule of Law: Experiencing the Unimaginable in Western Society – the impact of economic and social inequality in the 21^st century, Sigurdson Post, April 26, 2020; Eric Sigurdson, A Toxic Brew: The Politicization of the Rule of Law and Judicial Independence, Sigurdson Post, September 30, 2018; Adam Goldenberg, Why Canada’s Supreme Court appointments are nothing like America’s circus, Maclean’s, July 16, 2018:

“That is a problem for the U.S. Supreme Court’s legitimacy. When it becomes easy to predict which cases … will be decided along ‘party lines,’ or when candidates campaign on promises to appoint judges who will vote a certain way when particular political wedge issues come before them, or when justices are seen as proxies for the partisan factions that put them in office, something has gone very wrong indeed. It becomes ever more difficult to maintain public confidence in an inherently counter-majoritarian institution when its members appear increasingly to be chosen for their commitment to a political party’s preferred policy outcomes. …

That American judicial nominations and confirmations look and feel like political campaigns should be no surprise. They are merely the final act of a long and deliberate process of talent cultivation that is ideologically polarized. …

None of this is to say that Canada, or other countries, enjoy anything close to consensus with respect to the legal and political controversies that have polarized the American electorate around U.S. Supreme Court. … When Stephen Harper was prime minister, he told the House of Commons that, in order to ‘crack down on crime and make our streets and communities safer,’ his government would ‘make sure that our selection of judges is in correspondence with those objectives’. …

The way the United States chooses its judges is, by the standards of any other democracy committed to the rule of law, utterly in[appropriate to protect the standards of independence and impartiality].”

[62] Dean Kuipers, Three Ways to Combat Climate Change Through the Courts, The Atlantic, October 30, 2018.

[63] Dean Kuipers, Three Ways to Combat Climate Change Through the Courts, The Atlantic, October 30, 2018.

[64] Joana Setzer and Rebecca Byrnes, Global trends in climate change litigation: 2020 snapshot, Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment and Centre for Climate Change Economics and Policy, London School of Economics and Political Science, July 2020. See generally: Neal Devins and Lawrence Baum, Split Definitive: How Party Polarization Turned the Supreme Court into a Partisan Court, The Supreme Court Review, 2016; Ellen Knickmeyer, Barrett deflects senators’ questions on climate change, AP News, October 14, 2020 (“Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barett … framed acknowledgment of manmade climate change as a matter of policy, not science.”); Maggie Jo Buchanan, Trump’s Ideological Judges Have Led to Politicized Courts, Center for American Progress, October 23, 2020; Ed Kilgore, Justice Breyer Is Missing the Point on Court Packing, New York Magazine (Intelligencer), April 7, 2021 (“[T]he [U.S. Supreme] Court’s current 6-3 conservative majority, controlled by justices carefully vetted before confirmation to serve as loyal foot soldiers of the conservative movement …”); David Orentlicher, Politics and the Supreme Court: The Need for Ideological Balance, Scholarly Works, 2018; Chris Geidner, Why the Supreme Court may need court-packing to keep its integrity: The court expansion debate may test the legitimacy of the Supreme Court itself, MSNBC, April 12, 2021; Eric Sigurdson, The Decline of the Rule of Law: Experiencing the Unimaginable in Western Society – the impact of economic and social inequality in the 21^st century, Sigurdson Post, April 26, 2020; Eric Sigurdson, A Toxic Brew: The Politicization of the Rule of Law and Judicial Independence, Sigurdson Post, September 30, 2018; Adam Goldenberg, Why Canada’s Supreme Court appointments are nothing like America’s circus, Maclean’s, July 16, 2018.

[65] Global Climate Litigation Report: 2020 Status Review, United Nations Environment Programme and Sabin Center for Climate Change Law (Columbia University), 2020. Also see, Joana Setzer and Rebecca Byrnes, Global trends in climate change litigation: 2020 snapshot, Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment and Centre for Climate Change Economics and Policy, London School of Economics and Political Science, July 2020; Jaap Spier, ‘The Strongest Climate Ruling Yet’: The Dutch Supreme Court’s Urgenda Judgment, Netherlands International Law Review, Vol. 67, 2020; Thomas Escritt, Germany must tighten climate law to protect young people’s future, court rules, Reuters, April 29, 2021.

[66] References re Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act, 2021 SCC 11, para. 167 (Chief Justice Richard Wagner).

[67] References re Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act, 2021 SCC 11, para. 9 (Chief Justice Richard Wagner). Also see, Mia Rabson, In split decision, Supreme Court says the federal carbon price is constitutional, Toronto Star, March 25, 2021.

[68] Note: How does the carbon price work: “The idea of a carbon price is to make it more expensive to pollute, therefore providing an incentive to find ways to produce fewer emissions, be it as an individual or a company. Canada returns 90 per cent of the revenues from the federal carbon price to individual families in the affected provinces through income tax rebates. The other 10 per cent goes to grants to smaller businesses, schools, hospitals and municipalities for reducing their carbon footprint. Most individuals will get a bigger rebate than they pay in carbon tax, but heavier emitters will not. Despite the rebate, intended to keep the carbon price from raising the overall cost of living, there is still an incentive to cut your emissions because if you burn less fuel you will still save more money. The less fuel you buy, the less you pay, and you still get the tax rebate regardless. Choosing public transit rather than driving a car to work, installing a better furnace or more energy efficient windows or buying a more efficient car, would all be things that would allow an individual to buy less gasoline, natural gas or home heating oil and, therefore, pay less carbon tax and produce fewer emissions”. See: Mia Rabson, Five things to know about carbon pricing and the Supreme Court ruling, Toronto Star, March 25, 2021.

[69] Alex Ballingall, The Supreme Court rules Canada’s carbon price is constitutional. It’s a big win for Justin Trudeau’s climate plan, Toronto Star, March 25, 2021; References re Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act, 2021 SCC 11, para.4, 16, and 296.

[70] Sean Fine, Ian Bailey, and Emma Graney, Canada’s carbon pricing is constitutional, Supreme Court rules, Globe and Mail, March 25, 2021.

[71] Cynthia Leach and Colin Guldimann, Border carbon taxes are moving from idea to reality. How exposed is Canada?, RBC Economics (thoughtleadership.rbc.com), August 9, 2021. Also see, Editorial Board, Don’t have a carbon tax? We don’t want your dirty exports, Globe and Mail, July 21, 2021.

[72] Also see, Yuka Hayashi and Jacob Schlesinger, Tariffs to Tackle Climate Change Gain Momentum. The Idea Could Reshape Industries, Wall Street Journal, November 2, 2021.

[73] James Griffiths, China’s commitments in reducing overall emissions more crucial in light of economic and energy challenges, Globe and Mail, October 27, 2021.

[74] Guy Chazan, Constitutional court strikes down German climate law: Ruling is setback for Angela Merkel and will force government to rewrite legislation by end of year, Financial Times, April 29, 2021; A court ruling triggers a big change in Germany’s climate policy: tougher targets will follow, The Economist, May 8, 2021.

[75] Evan Dyer, Young climate activists beat Germany’s government in court. Could it happen here?, CBC, May 23, 2021.

[76] Daniel Boffey, Court orders Royal Dutch Shell to cut carbon emissions by 45% by 2030: Oil giant told plans should be brought into line with Paris climate agreement, Guardian, May 26, 2021; Associated Press, Court orders Royal Dutch Shell to cut net emissions by 45%, CBC News, May 26, 2021; Diederik Baazil, Hugo Miller and Laura Hurst, Shell loses climate case that may set precedent for Big Oil, BNN Bloomberg, May 26, 2021; Sarah McFarlane, Shell Ordered by Dutch Court to Cut Carbon Emissions: Lawyers say the ruling, which Shell can appeal, could set a precedent in other Western jurisdictions, Wall Street Journal, May 26, 2021; Benoit Faucon, Sarah McFarlane, and Laura Kusisto, Businesses Brace for More Climate Cases After Ruling on Shell Emissions, Wall Street Journal, June 6, 2021.

[77] Diederik Baazil, Hugo Miller and Laura Hurst, Shell loses climate case that may set precedent for Big Oil, BNN Bloomberg, May 26, 2021

[78] Paul Takahashi, Total Latest Oil Company to Rebrand as World Shifts from Fossil Fuels, Houston Chronicle, June 5, 2021; Sarah White and Benjamin Mallet, French oil major rebrands as TotalEnergies, receives shareholder backing for climate plan, Globe and Mail, May 28, 2021.

[79] Net Zero by 2050: A Roadmap for the Global Energy Sector, International Energy Agency, 2021; Yrjo Koskinen, Opinion: Canada’s pathway to a net zero world includes carbon capture, foreign investment and new financing mechanisms, Calgary Herald, May 29, 2021.

[80] Amrit Dhillon, Indian court orders ministers to tackle dangerous smog in Delhi, The Sunday Times, November 15, 2021.

[81] Global Climate Litigation Report: 2020 Status Review, United Nations Environment Programme and Sabin Center for Climate Change Law (Columbia University), 2020. Also see, Joana Setzer and Rebecca Byrnes, Global trends in climate change litigation: 2020 snapshot, Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment and Centre for Climate Change Economics and Policy, London School of Economics and Political Science, July 2020; Jaap Spier, ‘The Strongest Climate Ruling Yet’: The Dutch Supreme Court’s Urgenda Judgment, Netherlands International Law Review, Vol. 67, 2020; Thomas Escritt, Germany must tighten climate law to protect young people’s future, court rules, Reuters, April 29, 2021.

[82] Alex Ballingall, The Supreme Court rules Canada’s carbon price is constitutional. It’s a big win for Justin Trudeau’s climate plan, Toronto Star, March 25, 2021; Merran Smith and Sarah Petrevan, Bold climate targets matter as Canada gears up for U.S. Summit, but real action matters more, CBC, April 19, 2021; Marieke Walsh and Emma Graney, Canada announces goal of cutting greenhouse gas emissions by up to 45 per cent by 2030, Globe and Mail, April 22, 2021; Alex Ballingall, Canada sets new target to slash greenhouse gas emissions by 2030, Toronto Star, April 22, 2021; Prime Minister Trudeau announces increased climate ambition, PM.gc.ca, April 22, 2021.

[83] Net Zero by 2050: A Roadmap for the Global Energy Sector, International Energy Agency, 2021. Also see, Editorial Board, The Age of Oil is coming to an end. What does that mean for Canada?, Globe and Mail, May 22, 2021; Bill McKibben, The International Energy Agency Issues a Landmark Statement about Fossil Fuels, New Yorker, May 18, 2021; Adam Radwanski, COP26 is a circus with a purpose: Putting climate change in the spotlight so no country can ignore it, Globe and Mail, October 28, 2021; Associated Press, COP26 formally opens in Glasgow as leaders look to address climate change, CBC News, October 31, 2021.

[84] Lisa Johnson, How fights over what’s fair have stalled progress on climate change, CBC News, October 31, 2021.

[85] Karl Mathiesen, The last-minute coal demand that almost sunk Glasgow climate deal: At issue was late push from China and India, Politico, November 13, 2021. Also see, Robyn Vinter, Oil and coal-rich countries lobbying to weaken UN Climate report, leak shows, Guardian, October 21, 2021; Justin Rowlatt and Tom Gerken, COP26: Document leak reveals nations lobbying to change key climate report, BBC News, October 21, 2021.

[86] David Vetter, ‘The End of Coal’: COP26 Forges New Global Agreement To Retire Dirtiest Fossil Fuel, Forbes, November 3, 2021; Kate Abnett and Elizabeth Piper, China, India, other big coal users missing from COP26 phase-out deal, Reuters, November 4, 2021; Adam Radwanski, Biggest polluters missing from COP26 pledge to phase out coal, Globe and Mail, November 3, 2021; Fiona Harvey, Jillain Ambrose, and Patrick Greenfield, More than 40 countries agree to phase out coal-fired power, Guardian, November 3, 2021; Kate Abnett, Elizabeth Piper, and Simon Jessop (Reuters Staff), End of Coal? COP26 summit deal takes aim at dirtiest fossil fuel, CTV News, November 4, 2021.

[87] David Vetter, ‘The End of Coal’: COP26 Forges New Global Agreement To Retire Dirtiest Fossil Fuel, Forbes, November 3, 2021; Kate Abnett and Elizabeth Piper, China, India, other big coal users missing from COP26 phase-out deal, Reuters, November 4, 2021; Adam Radwanski, Biggest polluters missing from COP26 pledge to phase out coal, Globe and Mail, November 3, 2021; Fiona Harvey, Jillain Ambrose, and Patrick Greenfield, More than 40 countries agree to phase out coal-fired power, Guardian, November 3, 2021; Kate Abnett, Elizabeth Piper, and Simon Jessop (Reuters Staff), End of Coal? COP26 summit deal takes aim at dirtiest fossil fuel, CTV News, November 4, 2021.

[88] Karl Mathiesen, The last-minute coal demand that almost sunk Glasgow climate deal: At issue was late push from China and India, Politico, November 13, 2021.

[89] Paul Waldie, COP26 summit ends with agreement endorsed by almost 200 countries, but skepticism remains, Globe and Mail, November 13, 2021. Also see, Associated Press, Last-minute coal compromise in climate deal disappoints many at COP26, CBC News, November 13, 2021.

[90] James Shaw, Yes, COP26 could have gone further – but it still brought us closer to a 1.5C world, Guardian, November 20, 2021. Also see, Fiona Harvey, Damian Carrington, and Libby Brooks, COP26 ends in climate agreement despite India watering down coal resolution, Guardian, November 13, 2021.

[91] Paul Waldie, COP26 summit ends with agreement endorsed by almost 200 countries, but skepticism remains, Globe and Mail, November 13, 2021; Associated Press, Last-minute coal compromise in climate deal disappoints many at COP26, CBC News, November 13, 2021.

[92] Thomas Colson, COP26 is looking like a historic failure after the world’s biggest polluters snubbed the summit and even rich nations failed to deliver, Insider, November 3, 2021. Also see, Report: China emissions exceed all developed nations combined, BBC News, May 7, 2021.

[93] Zanny Minton Beddoes (Editor-In-Chief), Why COP26 will be both crucial and disappointing, The Economist, October 28, 2021.

[94] Thomas Colson, COP26 is looking like a historic failure after the world’s biggest polluters snubbed the summit and even rich nations failed to deliver, Insider, November 3, 2021; Juntaro Arai, U.S., Japan, China and India missing from COP26 coal pledge, Nikkei Asia, November 5, 2021; Eva Dou, A novel way to reduce emissions? China tries confiscating coal from households, Washington Post, November 3, 2021;

[95] David Stanway and Joe Brock, China’s overseas coal power retreat could wipe out $50 bln of investment, Reuters, September 22, 2021; Kate Abnett and Simon Jessop, U.S., Canada among 20 countries to commit to stop financing fossil fuels abroad, Reuters, November 4, 2021.

[96] Aryn Baker, Russia Says Climate Change is a Big Priority. But its Real Goal at COP26 Will be Slowing Down Progress, Time, October 25, 2021.

[97] Alison Benjamin, Stern: Climate change a ‘market failure’, Guardian, November 29, 2007; Felicia Jackson, It’s Time for A New Approach As IPCC Report Doubles Down on the Need for Rapid Climate Action, Forbes, August 9, 2021.

[98] Reuters Staff, Here’s what world leaders had to say about U.N.’s new climate change report, World Economic Forum, August 10, 2021 (citing Teresa Anerson, Climate Policy Coordinator at Actionaid International).

[99] Jo Marshall, Q&A: What is ‘natural capital’ and why should investors care?, Schroders, July 5, 2021.

[100] Felicia Jackson, , It’s Time for A New Approach As IPCC Report Doubles Down on the Need for Rapid Climate Action, Forbes, August 9, 2021.

[101] The Great Disrupter: Climate change is about to upend the corporate world, The Economist, September 17, 2020. Also see, Eric Sigurdson, Business Leadership and the Climate Crisis: Corporate Strategy, Purpose, and long-term sustainable value creation – a primer for ‘the century of living dangerously’, Sigurdson Post, September 30, 2019.

[102] Mark Kramer and Marc Pfitzer, The Ecosystem of Shared Value, Harvard Business Review, October 2016.

[103] Lucy Colback, The role of business in climate change: The global pursuit of net-zero carbon emissions is a huge undertaking, and only possible with the help of businesses, Financial Times, December 17, 2020.

[104] Robert Plummer and Beth Timmins, COP26: UK firms forced to show how they will hit net zero, BBC News, November 2, 2021.

[105] New Climate Action Pathway for Finance Sets out Roadmap for Markets & Real Economy, United Nations Climate Change (unfcc.int), July 27, 2021.

[106] Daniel Pacthod and Dickon Pinner, Time is running out for business leaders who don’t have a ‘net-zero’ strategy, Fortune, April 22, 2021.

[107] Dr. Michela Coppola, Thomas Krick, and Dr. Julian Blohmke, Feeling the heat? Companies are under pressure on climate change and need to do more, Deloitte Insights, December 12, 2019. Also see, Lucy Colback, The role of business in climate change, Financial Times, December 17, 2020 (“Disclosure is the first step but it is data that will allow companies and their investors to appreciate the risk posed by climate change.  … It gets organisations to think about risk management and governance, setting metrics and targets and establishing a strategy to deal with existential threats — and that’s new”.).

[108] Paul Polman (Barney Cotton, assistant editor, Business Leader Magazine), ‘A Major Shake-up of UK Corporate Boardrooms is Long Overdue’, Business Leader Magazine, April 14, 2021.

[109] Robert Eccles, Yes, Even U.S. Board of Directors (And Their Attorneys) Need To Worry About Climate Change, Forbes, October 24, 2021; Eric Sigurdson, Business Leadership and the Climate Crisis: Corporate Strategy, Purpose, and long-term sustainable value creation – a primer for ‘the century of living dangerously’, Sigurdson Post, September 30, 2019.

[110] Daniel Pacthod and Dickon Pinner, Time is running out for business leaders who don’t have a ‘net-zero’ strategy, Fortune, April 22, 2021.

[111] Lucy Colback, The role of business in climate change: The global pursuit of net-zero carbon emissions is a huge undertaking, and only possible with the help of businesses, Financial Times, December 17, 2020.

[112] See generally, Adam Winkler, Corporate Political Conscience: why big business is suddenly into liberal politics, The New Republic, April 30, 2018; Andrew Ross Sorkin, BlackRock’s Message: Contribute to Society, or Risk Losing our Support, New York Times, January 15, 2018. Also see, Laurence Fink (Chairman and CEO, BlackRock), Larry Fink’s Annual Letter to CEOS: A Sense of Purpose, BlackRock.com, January 2018.

[113] Bruce Simpson (Senior Partner, McKinsey & Company), Blog: Hot topics on Purpose and ESG – the new Social Contract, LinkedIn, December 3, 2020. 

[114] See generally, 2021 Climate Check: Business’ Views on Environmental Sustainability: Disruptive 2020 slows climate action, but executives determined to act, Deloitte, 2021.

[115] Dr. Michela Coppola, Thomas Krick, and Dr. Julian Blohmke, Feeling the heat? Companies are under pressure on climate change and need to do more, Deloitte Insights, December 12, 2019. Also see, Lucy Colback, The role of business in climate change, Financial Times, December 17, 2020 (“Disclosure is the first step but it is data that will allow companies and their investors to appreciate the risk posed by climate change.  … It gets organisations to think about risk management and governance, setting metrics and targets and establishing a strategy to deal with existential threats — and that’s new”.).

[116] Tyson Dyck and Henry Ren, ESG and climate change, Torys LLP (torys.com), March 23, 2021.

[117] Layla El-Wafi, The Mainstreaming of ESG in Business: The Role & Opportunities for In-house Counsel, ACC Docket, April 26, 2021.

[118] See generally, 2018 Deloitte Global Human Capital Trends – The rise of the social enterprise, Deloitte.com, 2018; 2018 Deloitte Global Human Capital Trends – The rise of the social enterprise, Deloitte.com, 2018; 2018 Human Capital Trends – Courage required: Apply here to build the Canadian social enterprise, Deloitte.com, 2018. (note: report draws on a survey of more than 11,000 HR and business leaders around the world).

[119] See generally, Josh Bersin, The Rise of the Social Enterprise: A New Paradigm for Business, LinkedIn, April 3, 2018; Rajendra Sisodia, David Wolfe, and Jagdish Sheth, Firms of Endearment: How World-Class Companies Profit from Passion and Purpose, Prentice Hall Publishing, 2007.

[120] Duncan Austin, From win-win to net zero: would the real sustainability please stand up?, Responsible Investor, May 20, 2021.

[121] See generally, Rob Peters, Standard of Trust Leadership: A Clear Business Case for Trust (Part 1), Medium.com, February 1, 2016.

[122] Mathew Dunckley, Telstra chairman John Mullen rips into critics, Future Fund chairman, The Sydney Morning Herald, October 26, 2016;

[123] Andrew Ross Sorkin, BlackRock’s Message: Contribute to Society, or Risk Losing our Support, New York Times, January 15, 2018.

[124] 2021 Climate Check: Business’ Views on Environmental Sustainability: Disruptive 2020 slows climate action, but executives determined to act, Deloitte, 2021.

[125] See for example, Eric Reguly, Europe’s power crisis is an expensive reminder that renewable energy has its limits, Globe and Mail, September 17, 2021; Jeffrey Jones, Xi Jinping’s snub of COP26 conference raises concerns China may refuse new climate targets, Globe and Mail, October 15, 2021; Eric Reguly, This energy crisis has helped expose ESG’s shortcomings, and we’re all paying the price, Globe and Mail, October 22, 2021 (“We need scads more renewable energy if we are to meet the UN climate goals and take the edge off future energy price spikes. But at the same time, we have to be realistic about the length of the transition to the green economy. It will take decades. In the meantime, we cannot abandon all fossil fuels if we need to keep the lights on.”).

[126] Eric Reguly, This energy crisis has helped expose ESG’s shortcomings, and we’re all paying the price, Globe and Mail, October 22, 2021. Also see, Eric Reguly, Europe’s power crisis is an expensive reminder that renewable energy has its limits, Globe and Mail, September 17, 2021.

[127] Eric Sigurdson, Business Leadership and the Climate Crisis: Corporate Strategy, Purpose, and long-term sustainable value creation – a primer for ‘the century of living dangerously’, Sigurdson Post, September 30, 2019.

[128] Fiona Harvey, Regulate business to tackle climate crisis, urges Mark Carney: former Bank chief says governments must act as free markets will not reduce emissions alone, Guardian, July 17, 2021; Eric Sigurdson, Business Leadership and the Climate Crisis: Corporate Strategy, Purpose, and long-term sustainable value creation – a primer for ‘the century of living dangerously’, Sigurdson Post, September 30, 2019. Also see generally, Action Is Urged to Avert Global Climate Shift, New York Times, December 11, 1985 (“A group of senators and scientists today called for national and international action to avert a predicted warming of the earth’s climate resulting from a buildup of carbon dioxide and other man-made gases in the atmosphere. They warned at a Senate hearing that such an effect, like that of a greenhouse, would produce radical climate changes and a subsequent rise in ocean levels that could have catastrophic results in the next century unless steps were taken now to deal with the problem. … [I]nternational cooperation and ‘amity’ would be necessary to cope with so huge a problem as a changing global climate.”).

[129] Cristianne Close, The global eco-wakening: how consumers are driving sustainability, World Economic Forum, May 18, 2021.

[130] Eric Sigurdson, Business Leadership and the Climate Crisis: Corporate Strategy, Purpose, and long-term sustainable value creation – a primer for ‘the century of living dangerously’, Sigurdson Post, September 30, 2019.

[131] Noah Millman, 4 inconvenient truths about climate change, The Week, September 7, 2019; Eric Sigurdson, Business Leadership and the Climate Crisis: Corporate Strategy, Purpose, and long-term sustainable value creation – a primer for ‘the century of living dangerously’, Sigurdson Post, September 30, 2019.

[132] See for example, Gayle Markovitz, How do Millennials and Generation Z see their future?, World Economic Forum, August 20, 2021; Tesa Arcilla, What would make the COP26 climate conference a success?: All eyes are on Glasgow as global climate conference nears, CBC News, October 15, 2021; Don Drummond and Rachel Samson, Canada has to transform its economy – or be left behind, Globe and Mail, October 29, 2021.

[133] Don Pittis, The ‘tragedy of the commons’ and why it is helping to scorch our planet, CBC News, August 11, 2021.

[134] Net Zero by 2050: A Roadmap for the Global Energy Sector, International Energy Agency, 2021. Also see, Editorial Board, The Age of Oil is coming to an end. What does that mean for Canada?, Globe and Mail, May 22, 2021; Bill McKibben, The International Energy Agency Issues a Landmark Statement about Fossil Fuels, New Yorker, May 18, 2021.

[135] Robinson Meyer, The Weekly Planet: An Outdated Idea Is Still Shaping Climate Policy, The Atlantic, April 20, 2021; Phoebe Keane, How the oil industry made us doubt climate change, BBC News, September 20, 2020; Somini Sengupta, Climate Protesters and World Leaders: Same Planet, Different Worlds, New York Times, September 21, 2019; Ben Soltoff, More than a Moonshot: Why Solving Climate Change is Harder than Putting a Man on the Moon, Yale Center for Business and the Environment, July 23, 2019; Amy Westervelt, How the fossil fuel industry got the media to think climate change was debatable, Washington Post, January 10, 2019; Michael Mann, The New Climate War: The Fight to Take Back Our Planet, Public Affairs, 2021; Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway, Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Climate Change, Bloomsbury Publishing, 2011; Richard Schiffman, Climate Deniers Shift Tactics to ‘Inactivism’, Scientific American, January 12, 2021; Katie Brigham, The money funding climate change denial, CNBC, December 21, 2020; Jonathan Watts, Climatologist Michael Mann: ‘Good people fall victim to doomism. I do too sometimes, Guardian, February 27, 2021; Eric Sigurdson, Business Leadership and the Climate Crisis: Corporate Strategy, Purpose, and long-term sustainable value creation – a primer for ‘the century of living dangerously’, Sigurdson Post, September 30, 2019. Also see: Coral Davenport and Eric Lipton, How GOP Leaders Came to View Climate Change as Fake Science, New York Times, June 3, 2017; Dana Nuccitelli, The GOP and Big Oil can’t escape blame for climate change, Guardian, August 6, 2018; David Roberts, Why conservatives keep gaslighting the nation about climate change: Republican climate rhetoric shifts (again), but the goal remains the same, Vox, October 31, 2018 (“In recent years, leaders of the Republican Party have become aware that denying the existence of global warming makes them look like idiots. … So Republican climate-communication strategy has undergone something of an adjustment. Not a large adjustment, mind you. The GOP remains dead set against doing anything about climate change, against any policy that would threaten the profits of fossil fuel companies. That is the non-negotiable baseline. … This thinking leads directly to the ideal reactionary climate policy: all adaptation, no mitigation”); Suzanne Goldenberg, Conservative groups spend up to $1bn a year to fight action on climate change, Guardian, December 20, 2013; Alexander Kaufman, Fossil Fuel Industries Outspend Clean Energy Advocates on Climate Lobbying By 10 To 1, Huffington Post, July 18, 2018; Felicity Lawrence, David Pegg, and Rob Evans, How vested interests tried to turn the world against climate science: For decades fossil fuel majors tried to fight the consensus – just as big tobacco once disputed that smoking kills, Guardian, October 10, 2019; Mark Maslin, The five corrupt pillars of climate change denial, The Conversation, November 28, 2019; Riley Dunlap and Peter Jacques, Climate Change Denial Books and Conservative Think Tanks: Exploring the Connection, American Behavioral Scientist, Vol. 57, Issue 6, 2013; David Mickolas, Dismantling the Climate Denial Machine: Theory and Methods, Senior Thesis, Trinity College, Hartford, Connecticut, 2017; Wendy Cox and James Keller, Western Canada: The public inquiry into ‘anti-Alberta’ environmentalists, already over budget and behind schedule, is delayed third time, Globe and Mail, February 3, 2021; Globe Editorial: Jason Kenney’s war of words verges on farce, Editorial Board, January 25, 2021 (“… textbook climate denialism … the public inquiry was flawed from inception, as it sought to prove its established beliefs. … It is time to recalibrate. A new strategy, one rooted in reality, is overdue.”); Martin Olszynski, ‘Textbook Climate Denialism’: A Submission to the Public Inquiry into Anti-Alberta Energy Campaigns, University of Calgary, Faculty of Law, ABlawg.ca, January 14, 2021; Lesley Hughes and Will Steffen, Spot the difference: as world leaders rose to the occasion at the Biden climate summit, Morrison faltered, The Conversation, April 23, 2021; Maurice Tamman, Her prophecy of an Australian inferno was correct. Bad news for the coal-loving government, Reuters, April 26, 2021 (“Australia … where the government has downplayed human-caused climate change … politicization of science policy”); Bevan Shields, UN defends excluding Morrison from climate summit, Canberra livid with Johnson over snub, Sydney Morning Herald, December 11, 2020. See generally, Jesse Shapiro, Special Interests and the Media: Theory and an Application to Climate Change, Journal of Public Economics, Vol. 144, 2016; Anya Schiffrin (Editor), In the Service of Power: Media Capture and the Threat to Democracy, The National Endowment for Democracy, 2017; Anya Schiffrin, Government and corporations hinder journalists with ‘media capture’, Columbia Journalism Review, August 29, 2017; Jennifer Cobb, When the News is Bought: ‘Media Capture’ on the Rise, Internews, October 27, 2017. For example only, see: Joel Dryden, Conrad Black rails against climate policy, predicts Trump will defeat ‘cluck’ Democrats during keynote, CBC, January 18, 2020 (“Black is the author of Donald J. Trump: A president like no other and was pardoned in May 2019 by Trump after being convicted in 2007 of fraud and obstruction of justice”.); Jonathan Kay, How Climate Change Denial Set the Stage for Fake News, Walrus, June 19, 2020 (“But there always was an unwritten rule at the [National] Post that when it came to global warming, all bets were off. As with the Wall Street Journal and other conservative media, global-warming denialism turned the Post into a weird hybrid: a beefy entrée of genuine information, with a 1 percent garnish of fake news—a situation that persists to this day. … Go back and read the climate denial columns of Ezra Levant, Rex Murphy and Conrad Black over the last decade …”); Conrad Black, The climate of fear that gave way to unjustifiable environmental policies, National Post, May 8, 2021; Oliver Milman, Republicans pledge allegiance to fossil fuels like it’s still the 1950s, The Guardian, June 7, 2021; Terence Corcoran, A carbon dictatorship of plutocrats, Financial Post, July 14, 2021; Linda McQuaig, Humans aren’t as stupid as they seem – something else is blocking climate action: Rarely do politicians zero in on the corporate crowd that keeps real climate change off the agenda, Canadian Dimension, September 8, 2021; Robyn Vinter, Oil and coal-rich countries lobbying to weaken UN climate report, leak shows, Guardian, October 21, 2021 (“Days before Cop26, the international climate change negotiations taking place in Glasgow, the leaks show fossil fuel producers including Australia, Saudi Arabia, Iran and Japan are lobbying the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to remove recommendations that the world needs to phase out fossil fuels”).

[136] Gerald Kutney, Dear Conservatives, Climate Change is the Real Threat, Not a Carbon Tax – Doug Ford and Andrew Scheer seem oblivious to this threat, or are willing to put politics ahead of people and the planet, Huffington Post, March 27, 2019; Yasmeen Serhan, The Far-Right View on Climate Politics: As the world reckons with the grim reality of the climate crisis, right-wing populists are adapting their message, Atlantic, August 10, 2021. Also see, Coral Davenport and Eric Lipton, How GOP Leaders Came to View Climate Change as Fake Science, New York Times, June 3, 2017; Suzanne Goldenberg, Conservative groups spend up to $1bn a year to fight action on climate change, Guardian, December 20, 2013; Alexander Kaufman, Fossil Fuel Industries Outspend Clean Energy Advocates on Climate Lobbying By 10 To 1, Huffington Post, July 18, 2018; Yu Luo, Jiaying Zhoa, and Rebecca Todd, Climate explained: Why are climate skeptics often right-wing conservatives?, The Conversation, September 18, 2019. Also see, Thomas E. Mann and Norman J. Ornstein, Let’s just say it: The Republicans are the problem, Washington Post, April 27, 2012 (“The GOP has become an insurgent outlier in American politics. It is ideologically extreme; scornful of compromise; unmoved by conventional understanding of facts, evidence and science; and dismissive of the legitimacy of its political opposition”.); John Harwood, Dismissed in 2012, this diagnosis of GOP ills has now become undeniable, CNN, May 23, 2021 (“Their conclusions – that the GOP had become ‘ideologically extreme, scornful of compromise, unmoved by conventional understanding of facts, evidence and science, dismissive of the legitimacy of its political opposition’”.); Oliver Milman, Republicans pledge allegiance to fossil fuels like it’s still the 1950s, The Guardian, June 7, 2021.

[137] Editorial, Wake up, Republicans. Even corporations are calling for action on climate change, Washington Post, May 15, 2019; Aaron Wherry, A bipartisan consensus on climate change? The U.K. suggests it’s not a pipe dream, CBC, May 3, 2021.

[138] Aaron Wherry, A bipartisan consensus on climate change? The U.K. suggests it’s not a pipe dream, CBC, May 3, 2021. Also see, Editorial Board, Conservatives finally have a climate change plan. Too bad it makes no sense, Toronto Star, September 3, 2021.

[139] Ben Soltoff, More than a Moonshot: Why Solving Climate Change is Harder than Putting a Man on the Moon, Yale Center for Business and the Environment, July 23, 2019.

[140] Ken Silverstein, Institutional Investors Have More Power than Governments to Shape Climate Future, Forbes, July 26, 2019; Jeffrey Jones, Major banks, insurers team up with Carney, vowing to mobilize trillions of dollars toward net-zero goals, Globe and Mail, April 20, 2021; Matt Egan, Pledging to go green doesn’t just help corporate brands. It boosts stocks, CNN Business, April 22, 2021; Ross Kerber and Simon Jessop, Big business seeks unified, market-based approaches ahead of climate summit, Reuters, April 15, 2021; Amy Harder, Wall Street is starting to care about climate change, Axios, June 26, 2017; Charles Riley, Investors turn up the heat on companies over climate change, CNN, September 18, 2019. See, Eric Sigurdson, Business Leadership and the Climate Crisis: Corporate Strategy, Purpose, and long-term sustainable value creation – a primer for ‘the century of living dangerously’, Sigurdson Post, September 30, 2019; Amy Harder, Trump and Republicans are isolated on climate change, Axios, March 18, 2019.

[141] Eric Sigurdson, Business Leadership and the Climate Crisis: Corporate Strategy, Purpose, and long-term sustainable value creation – a primer for ‘the century of living dangerously’, Sigurdson Post, September 30, 2019.

[142] David Yager, Net zero by 2050: So easy to say, so hard to do, CBC, June 5, 2021 (“… lift economic growth …”); Managing the impacts of climate change: risk management responses, 2nd Edition, Zurich, September 24, 2019; Jack Kelly, Inside Biden’s Plan to Create Over 10 Million Well-Paying Jobs With His Clean Energy Initiative, Forbes, April 23, 2021 (“Climate change is more than a threat. It also presents one of the largest job creation opportunities in history”); Jens Burchardt, Philipp Gerbert, Stefan Schönberger, Patrick Herhold, and Christophe Brognaux, The Economic Case for Combating Climate Change, BCG, September 27, 2018; Climate-Smart Development: Adding up the benefits of actions that help build prosperity, end poverty and combat climate change, The World Bank and ClimateWorks Foundation, 2014; Helen Mountford, Amar Bhattacharya, Lord Nicholas Stern, etal, Unlocking the Inclusive Growth Story of the 21^st  Century: Accelerating Climate Action in Urgent Times, New Climate Economy, The Global Commission on the Economy and Climate, newclimateeconomy.report, 2018; Michael Gerrard and John Dernbach (editors), Legal Pathways to Deep Decarbonization in the United States: Summary & Key Recommendations, Environmental Law Institute, 2018; Adele Peters, Fighting climate change could boost the global economy by $26 trillion, Fast Company, September 5, 2018; Catherine Bosley, Fighting Climate Change Will Help Economic Growth, Study Finds, Bloomberg, August 19, 2019; Matthew Kahn, Kamiar Mohaddes, Ryan Ng, etal, Long-Term Macroeconomic Effects of Climate Change: A Cross-Country Analysis, NBER Working Paper No. 26167, National Bureau of Economic Research, August 2019; Joel Jaeger, Tackling Climate Change and Promoting Development: A ‘Win-Win’, Our World (ourworld.unu.edu), September 18, 2014; Michael Webber, How Oil-Loving, Frack-Happy Texas Could Lead the Low-Carbon Future: And get rich doing it, Texas Monthly, September 2019; Max Fawcett, The conversation Calgary needs to have: How does an oil city adjust to a new reality?, CBC News, September 12, 2019; Climate capitalists have serious money in climate-friendly investments, The Economist, September 21, 2019; Lauren Silva Laughlin, Green Investments Are in the Black, Wall Street Journal, September 27, 2019; Eli Boufis, Is There A Windfall in Climate Change for PE?, Forbes, July 31, 2019 (“… advocating for climate change can spur economic innovation, growth, and advance human vitality”); Net Zero by 2050: A Roadmap for the Global Energy Sector, International Energy Agency, 2021.

[143] Sonia Baxendale, Managing climate risk will be rewarded with better economic outcomes, Globe and Mail, August 22, 2021.

[144] The Great Disrupter: Climate change is about to upend the corporate world, The Economist, September 17, 2020.

[145] Business and the Fourth Wave of Environmentalism: Findings from Environmental Defense Fund’s 2018 Fourth Wave Adoption Benchmark Survey, Environmental Defense Fund, 2018.

[146] Noah Millman, 4 inconvenient truths about climate change, The Week, September 7, 2019.

[147] Stephen Badger, The future of the environment rests on today’s leaders, and we need to be doing much more – starting now, Business Insider, September 20, 2019; Eric Sigurdson, Business Leadership and the Climate Crisis: Corporate Strategy, Purpose, and long-term sustainable value creation – a primer for ‘the century of living dangerously’, Sigurdson Post, September 30, 2019.

[148] Matt McGrath, Biden: This will be ‘decisive decade’ for tackling climate change, BBC News, April 22, 2021.

[149] Nick Visser, Intelligence Director Says Climate Change Will Be ‘Center’ of U.S. Foreign Policy, Huffington Post, April 22, 2021. See, References re Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act, 2021 SCC 11, para. 12.

[150] Katherine Hayhoe, The choices we make on climate change – and whether we choose hope – will determine our future, Globe and Mail, November 19, 2021.