The Fort Worth Press - Economist Testifies Canada Has Limited Power to Alter Global Climate

Professor David Anthoff, an environmental economist and professor at the University of California, Berkeley, testified Monday at Canada’s first youth-led climate trial that the federal government possesses limited ability to alter the climate inside its borders because the phenomenon is largely determined by the choices of other countries.

Anthoff was called as the first witness by the federal government in the Federal Court trial in Vancouver. He told the court that Canada contributes approximately 1.4 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions. While acknowledging that Canada can impact both the global and domestic climate by changing its own emissions, he described this influence as "relatively small compared to the overall size of the problem."

"Most of the climate change that Canada will experience, whether that is large or not, will be determined by the choices of other countries outside of Canada," Anthoff said.

The case was initiated by 15 young people who argue that federal legislation violates their constitutional rights by continuing the trajectory of greenhouse gas emissions. The plaintiffs contend that the government is constitutionally required to stop making the climate crisis worse, a point emphasized during opening statements by plaintiff lawyer Catherine Boies Parker.

Anthoff clarified that his testimony was not an argument that Canadian action is futile or without consequence. Instead, he suggested that Canada would achieve better outcomes by leading a foreign policy initiative among countries willing to coordinate efforts. "Then something like that might be a much bigger lever than just the domestic greenhouse gases within Canada just because the vast majority of this problem is caused by emissions outside of Canada’s border," he told the court.

The economist distinguished between two types of climate responses: mitigation and adaptation. He testified that mitigation policies, which aim to slow down or solve the root cause of climate change by reducing emissions, require international coordination. "Mitigation outcomes are by definition a function of the choices of every country, and so effective mitigation policies will require some level of co-ordination or joint action to happen," he said.

In contrast, Anthoff stated that adaptation policies—actions taken by people or states in response to climate change impacts—do not necessarily require coordination. He noted that a single province could potentially address some of these problems independently.

During cross-examination, Anthoff agreed that delaying mitigation efforts would lead to more climate change and more harmful impacts. He acknowledged that while the ability to adapt might reduce the level of mitigation needed and lessen damage, "you will not find any study that would suggest we can adapt our way out of this problem."

When asked if reducing climate change would benefit younger generations who will live through the second half of the century when impacts are projected to worsen, Anthoff responded that it was likely true for most people. He added that while different population groups are impacted in different ways, "overall, if we add all of these effects together, it will be harmful."

BJ Wray, counsel for Canada’s Department of Justice, argued in opening statements that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms was "never intended to solve existential crises." Wray stated that providing plaintiffs with a safe climate system is not something the country can achieve on its own.

The trial, which began approximately seven years after the case was first filed in 2019, heard testimony from youth representing seven provinces and two territories regarding specific harms connected directly to government conduct. The proceedings are expected to continue into late November, with closing arguments scheduled for February.

K.Ibarra--TFWP