As the U.S. pulls away, we have to step up

On Tuesday, a report on American failure to protect right whales, an endangered species in the North Atlantic, was issued by the Commission on Environmental Co-operation.

On Wednesday, the U.S. withdrew from that organization.

The timing was a coincidence. The intent was not. Right whales are not killer whales, after all. They didn’t kill the CEC. No, what killed the CEC wasn’t the drift of right whales into the path of commercial shipping that kills them, but the continued drift of the U.S. away from a treaty-driven, rules-based international order into one of America-first national dominance.

That same day, U.S. President Donald Trump’s administration announced its formal withdrawal from 65 other international organizations, treaties, and conventions that they deemed “contrary to the interests of the United States.” Almost half of these are part of the United Nations network. Almost a third are involved in climate change and environmental sustainability initiatives. Many others focus on international law and development. All, apparently, work against the interests of America.

The CEC touches close to home. Its headquarters is in Montreal. It was a Canadian effort that led to its creation.

The CEC emerged in the first renegotiation of the North American Free Trade Agreement by then-U.S. president Bill Clinton and Liberal prime minister Jean Chretien. It was part of a new, parallel agreement called the North American Agreement on Environmental Co-operation with the CEC as the intergovernmental centrepiece. Until now, it has been part of the Canada/United States/Mexico Agreement or CUSMA, about to be renegotiated under threat from Trump.

Does this signal the end of CUSMA? Unlikely by itself. But it is a signal that the U.S. feels no compunction about upending signed international agreements and withdrawing from multilateral organizations, whatever its allies desire. Why would CUSMA be any different?

From a climate-change perspective, Trump’s decisions are both confirming and disturbing. He thinks climate change is a “hoax” and renewable energy a “scam.” No surprise then to go a step further and withdraw from the United Nations Framework Agreement on Climate Change as well as the International Panel on Climate Change, as he just did. These, however, have been the foundation of global climate action for decades. It means U.S. commitment and support to collaborative climate effort from science to action is no more.

This is the latest act in an ongoing tragedy of the commons. Acting solely in national self-interest hurts the common interest. In this case, the environment. Right whales swim in our shared oceans, so they pay no attention to national boundaries. Carbon emissions rise in our shared atmosphere, also paying zero attention to lines on a map. Collective action is the only way to find some modicum of hope to save whales and mitigate the threat of climate change.

Which brings us to Canada’s role. Prime Minister Mark Carney has already signalled a shift in emphasis on climate action from his predecessor. For him, it is all about the economics of climate action. Budget 2025 has a section dedicated to “Climate Competitiveness” that “result in the greatest emissions reductions and competitiveness benefits at the lowest cost for Canadians.” The budget puts it plainly: “It is based on driving investment, not on prohibitions, and on results, not objectives.” The real goal must be “to build an affordable net zero future.” Affordable is the key word.

This is the right emphasis at the right time for Canada. It’s the same advice the now-defunct National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy gave 15 years ago in its reports. “We need to position ourselves to compete and prosper in an increasingly carbon-constrained global economy. This is not just about coping with climate change but prospering through it.”

I know, because I ran it. For speaking climate truth to Conservative power, the Round Table was shut down. Climate change, however, didn’t go away. It didn’t then and it won’t now, even as Trump shuts down America’s involvement in climate action.

Canada must continue its own efforts. But focusing all that effort on meeting an environmental target for the world that will not be met, without addressing the economic realities of doing so for Canada is insensible. We cannot make up the world’s emissions gaps by ourselves, whether it’s the U.S. or China or Europe.

The smart approach for Canada is to get smart about Canadian climate action. Yes, that means exploiting our natural resources for our common wealth to help pay for addressing the common tragedy of growing climate change, such as investing in clean energy.

The logo of the CEC is the monarch butterfly. It was chosen because of its unique North American migratory pattern. It’s winter now, so they are nesting in Mexico. Come March or April they fly north over the U.S. to Canada. Come fall, they make the return journey.

Climate change is making that journey more hazardous and less certain. The same can be said for our own journey. Coping with climate change, we can. Prospering through it, we must.

And yes, that means Canada working with international partners —with or without the U.S. — to keep climate ambition alive.

David McLaughlin is a former clerk of the executive council and cabinet secretary in the Manitoba government.