Category: Analysis

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Taylor McKee, Assistant Professor, Sport Management, Brock University

Game Plan. Best Ever ‘88. Own the Podium. The messaging from the Canadian government’s Olympic high-performance sport initiatives over the past 50 years makes the stakes clear: winning is important.

Gone are the days of Canadian athletes being satisfied with simply making it to the Olympics. An expectation of excellence now pervades the Olympic program. Athletes are considered ambassadors of their countries and symbols of national pride.

This year in Italy, that expectation will be front and centre amid recent geopolitical tensions. It’s no wonder the new slogan is one that evokes unity and patriotism: “We Are All Team Canada.”

While there is little doubt that all Olympic athletes are expected to play and perform under pressure, Canada’s historical successes at the Winter Games have created heightened expectations. The country set a record for the most gold medals won by a host nation at a single Winter Olympics with 14 in Vancouver in 2010.

When I ask my undergraduate students which Canadian athletes they believe feel the most pressure to win gold at the Olympics, most say hockey, though that may be too simple an answer.

Curling hopefuls

It is certainly true that Canadians expect strong results from men’s and women’s hockey teams, and for good reason. Canada is the most successful ice hockey nation in Olympic history, with 23 medal wins.

Yet many Canadian hockey fans recognize the strength of other hockey nations. Canadians both love and loathe the Swedes, Finns, Slovaks, Czechs and Americans that play for their National Hockey League teams. A loss to those players and those teams is devastating, but explicable.

Curling presents a different story. Here, expectations are clear: gold medals. Casual Olympic viewers may not realize that Scots and Swiss make up the top-three men’s curling rinks in the world, and the Swiss women have won two of the last four World Championships.

That said, Canada’s teams are formidable. The men’s rink, led by Brad Jacobs, won gold in 2014 in Sochi, and the women’s rink, led by Rachel Homan, is currently ranked No. 1 in the world. Far from a golden fait accompli, Canada’s curlers are among the most heavily scrutinized athletes heading to Milan Cortina.

Speed skating hopefuls

Canada has realistic medal potential in both short-track and long-track speed skating. Laurent Dubreuil is a defending silver medallist in the 1000m and finished fourth in the 500m in Beijing 2022.

Ivanie Blondin and Isabelle Weidemann are members of the defending gold medallist Team Pursuit team and silver medallists in other distances. The Team Pursuit event is among the most exciting long-track events at the Olympics and certainly worth circling on the viewing calendar.

On short track, the location of some of the highest drama and most intense finishes at every Olympics, Canada has some serious medal potential with a full complement of 10 skaters headed to Milan.

The women’s team features four-time Olympic medallist Kim Boutin, who will compete at her third consecutive Olympic Winter Games. Boutin received medals in all three women’s individual events at PyeongChang 2018 and later added bronze in the 500m at Beijing 2022. Over the past decade, she has earned 17 medals at the ISU World Short Track Championships and two more world titles at the 2025 Championships, winning gold in the women’s 3000m relay and the mixed relay.

Freestyle skiing hopefuls

Many Canadians might assume speed skating has produced the most medals for Canada over the years. Speed skating accounts for 23 total events between short and long-track at this year’s Olympics, and Canada won their first speed skating medal in 1932.

However, despite it only being added as a full medal sport in 1992, Canada has won 30 total medals in a different sport, including the distinction of Canada’s first home gold medal won by Alexandre Bilodeau in 2010: freestyle skiing.

Equal parts agility and artistry, freestyle skiing is definitely one of Games’ most beguiling and exhilarating watches.

Comprised of eight separate disciplines, Canada has numerous medal threats, headlined by “greatest mogul skiier of all time” Mikaël Kingsbury, fresh off of a Jan. 10 victory in men’s moguls at Val St. Côme, marking a staggering 100 career World Cup victories for the skier.

And then, there’s hockey.

Ice hockey hopefuls

The centre of the women’s hockey is a binary system: two stars bound together, their combined gravity ordering the remaining planets, paling in size and importance to their suns.

This year marks a new era, as professional women’s players will compete for the first time at the Olympics, following the establishment of the Professional Women’s Hockey League.

Since 1990, only one team other than Canada and the U.S. — Finland in 2019 — has reached the Ice Hockey World Championships gold medal game. Canada won bronze that year.

Gold medallists in five of seven previous Olympics, the Canadian women’s team enters as a slight underdog this year, with Team USA defending their World Champion title.

Given the storied history of these two teams and the heightened tension currently between the two nations, their matchup will assuredly be among the most exciting 60 minutes played this year.

On the men’s side, a long, protracted wait is over: NHL players return to the Olympics. Canadian captain Sidney Crosby will be aiming for his third Olympic gold.

Alongside the return of pro talent comes a familiar source of tension for Canadian hockey fans: consternation around goaltending.

Canada remains one of the tournament’s favourites, shimmering with a galaxy of superstars on forward and defence, yet persistent concerns over net-minding continue to fuel doubt among some fans.

No shortage of Olympic hopefuls

There are many more medal hopefuls for Team Canada heading into Milan Cortina, from alpine skiiers and ski cross athletes to snowboarding, figure skating and freestyle skiing.

But simply taking in the Games when possible can be a rewarding experience in and of itself.

While cynicism and skepticism towards the International Olympic Committee and Olympic movement are certainly warranted, the Winter Olympics will provide the opportunity for Canadian athletes to achieve global sporting excellence.

While we know that pressure creates diamonds, these athletes may soon prove that it can produce gold, too.

Taylor McKee receives funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada

– ref. Here are Canada’s 2026 Winter Olympic medal hopefuls, from hockey to freestyle skiing – https://theconversation.com/here-are-canadas-2026-winter-olympic-medal-hopefuls-from-hockey-to-freestyle-skiing-274407

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Marshia Akbar, Research Lead on Labour Migration at the CERC Migration and Integration Program, TMU, Toronto Metropolitan University

American tariffs have reshaped Canada’s manufacturing sector, but labour-market impacts have not been evenly shared across workers.

The United States imposed tariffs on Canadian steel, aluminum, automobiles and auto parts as part of a broader protectionist push under Donald Trump’s administration. Canada’s government responded with its own counter-tariffs and trade measures, but disruptions to the industry were already underway by that point.

Manufacturing is a major source of employment for both immigrant and Canadian-born workers. It includes everything from automotive and aerospace parts to food processing and steel products, and it contributes roughly 10 per cent of Canada’s GDP.

Manufacturing is particularly vulnerable to U.S. tariffs because of its deep integration with cross-border supply chains. More than 60 per cent of Canada’s manufacturing sector has substantial trade exposure to the U.S., making it the primary channel through which tariffs affect the Canadian economy.

As firms adjusted to rising costs and trade uncertainty, immigrant and Canadian-born workers experienced different forms of employment risk at different points in 2025.

A sector under strain

A recent report shows that between January and September 2025, Canada’s manufacturing sector experienced lower production, fewer jobs and higher prices.

After momentum earlier in the year, manufacturing jobs fell sharply in the spring, with the largest consecutive job losses occurring in April, when 30,600 jobs were lost, and May, when a further 12,200 jobs disappeared. Overall, employment fell by nearly 43,000 workers between March and May.

This was followed by persistent instability rather than sustained recovery later in the year. Employment rebounded in September, with 27,800 jobs gained, and rose again in October, but these gains were partially reversed in November, when 9,300 jobs were lost.

Firms responded to the tariff shocks through delayed and incremental employment cuts, but these sector-wide adjustments were experienced differently by immigrant and Canadian-born workers.

Immigrant workers are more vulnerable

Not all workers felt the shocks from the labour market equally. Immigrant workers were disproportionately affected by tariff-related employment adjustments and are particularly vulnerable when manufacturing employment becomes unstable.

Manufacturing is a critical source of employment for immigrants, particularly in large metropolitan regions and along industrial corridors.

In March 2025, immigrants accounted for 30 per cent of employment in Canada’s manufacturing sector, compared with 70 per cent of Canadian-born workers. By December 2025, however, the immigrant share had declined to 28 per cent, while the share of Canadian-born workers increased to 72 per cent.

---

Read more:
Canadian immigrants are overqualified and underemployed — reforms must address this

---

This disparity was compounded by a structural educational mismatch. While 80 per cent of workers in the sector don’t have a university degree, immigrant workers were more than twice as likely as Canadian-born workers to be university educated.

Nevertheless, these higher education levels often do not translate into higher-paid roles within manufacturing.

Lower wages amplify employment risk

Wage data shows that many immigrant manufacturing workers are concentrated in lower-paid or more labour-intensive jobs that are particularly vulnerable during an economic downturn.

Throughout 2025, immigrant workers earned roughly $2.50 to $3 less per hour than Canadian-born workers. This gap did not narrow even when wages recovered later in the year.

Average hourly wages for all workers increased from $34.43 in March to $35.29 in December. Yet the wage gap for immigrant workers widened slightly — from $2.52 to $2.56.

Lower pay combined with higher educational attainment points to persistent credential under-utilization, meaning workers possess skills or qualifications that are not fully used or rewarded in their jobs. This under-utilization increases immigrant workers’ exposure to employment instability when trade disruptions occur.

How job loss patterns shifted

Job loss also unfolded differently over time. In the first half of 2025, unemployed former workers who were immigrants were more likely to report layoffs — temporary or permanent — as the cause of their joblessness.

That share remained consistently high — at 66 per cent in June — before gradually declining later in the year. By December, 51 per cent of immigrant former workers reported job loss as the reason for unemployment.

In contrast, job loss became increasingly concentrated among Canadian-born workers in the second half of the year. In March, only 53 per cent reported job loss as the reason for unemployment. This share rose steadily throughout the rest of the year, reaching 71 per cent by December.

These trends indicate that firms initially relied more heavily on reductions in immigrant labour, and later expanded layoffs to include Canadian-born workers as tariff pressures persisted.

Differential adjustment strategies

U.S. tariffs reshaped Canadian manufacturing not through a single employment shock, but through different labour-adjustment strategies over time.

Highly educated immigrant workers, many of whom were concentrated in lower-paid roles, were more exposed to early layoffs, wage penalties and unstable employment. As tariff pressures deepened, job loss became more concentrated among Canadian-born workers as longer-term restructuring took place.

These patterns matter for policy. If manufacturing is to remain a viable pillar of the Canadian economy in an era of trade disruption, policy responses must recognize these unequal adjustment patterns and address the underlying vulnerabilities that leave some workers more exposed than others.

This could include targeted income supports and rapid-response training for displaced workers, and tailored settlement and employment services for immigrant workers who, as a group, are concentrated in lower-wage and more unstable jobs.

In addition, better co-ordination between trade, industrial, and immigration policies could help ensure that adjustment costs are not disproportionately borne by already vulnerable workers.

Marshia Akbar receives funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC).

Devaanshi Khanzode does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Tariffs are reshaping Canadian manufacturing, but not all workers are being impacted the same way – https://theconversation.com/tariffs-are-reshaping-canadian-manufacturing-but-not-all-workers-are-being-impacted-the-same-way-274269

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By James Horncastle, Assistant Professor and Edward and Emily McWhinney Professor in International Relations, Simon Fraser University

As the Donald Trump administration in the United States continues to threaten Canadian sovereignty — including a recent suggestion that Alberta could secede from Canada and join the U.S. — Canadians, like many others in the world, finds themselves in a period of extreme uncertainty.

Trump’s continued violations of the rules-based international order means Canada can no longer rely on its partners to the same extent as it has in the past.

The world must, as Prime Minister Mark Carney recently noted, accept the current climate as it is, rather than looking to the past.

---

Read more:
Mark Carney’s Davos speech marks a major departure from Canada’s usual approach to the U.S.

---

To do so, Canada must develop a defence policy that can meet the country’s needs. The Canadian government’s recent budget envisions a significant increase in defence spending over the next several years. The problem Canada faces, however, is one that all middle powers face: an inability to compete with great powers in a conventional war.

The Canadian government must therefore pursue non-conventional means to overcome conventional weakness. Simultaneously, the country must be cognizant of the implications of alternative defence policies. The former Yugoslavia provides a harrowing example.

---

Read more:
How could Canada deter an invasion? Nukes and mandatory military service

---

How to ward off an invasion

The turmoil created by the mercurial American president has caused Canada to examine how it could resist a U.S. invasion in a series of war games. Inevitably, Canada was unable to defeat the U.S. in these exercises, and was forced to rely on unconventional warfare.

---

Read more:
Amid U.S. threats, Canada’s national security plans must include training in non-violent resistance

---

One way Canada is considering addressing this issue is by creating a civilian defence force and incorporating “total national defence” principles. This development is not completely new; Canada has been considering it for some time.

---

Read more:
Why annexing Canada would destroy the United States

---

Total national defence in theory

Total national defence is not a new concept. After the Second World War, it became clear to many medium-sized countries that they could not compete with the great powers in a conventional war.

In the 1950s, Yugoslavia spent 22 per cent of its GDP on defence, yet still recognized it was unlikely to defeat a great power in a conventional war. Yugoslavia, and other countries, needed an alternative. Enter total national defence.

The concept of total national defence seeks to mobilize all aspects of society for the war effort. Given the uniqueness of each country, no country’s total national defence system looks the same as the other. What’s important for Canada’s examination, however, is the command-and-control elements of the system.

The biggest vulnerability is the enemy eliminating their command-and-control functions early in the conflict. The U.S., as seen in Iraq in 1991, excels at these types of operations. Russia, while not as effective, attempted to do the same against Ukraine in the early phases of its full-fledged invasion.

For a smaller country to survive such an attack, it needs to ensure that resistance can continue regardless if centralized command is compromised.

Under the theory of total national defence, countries decentralize command and control functions to prevent them being eliminated.

The extent to which countries do so varies. Individual units may operate at the local level without centralized guidance to maintain the struggle against an opponent. In short, even if an opponent succeeds in eliminating the central command of a state, its army and people can continue the struggle.

Canada’s chosen example: Finland

Canada, as it considers implementing such a policy, has looked to Finland for inspiration. Prior to joining NATO, Finland was a relatively small country that could not rely upon allies for defence.

What Canadian officials found in Finland impressed them. Finnish officials have long relied upon extensive joint-use facilities, such as bunkers. It also uses conscription to maintain a strong deterrent.

But Canada and Finland are fundamentally different countries. The persistent threat of Russian invasion has, over time, normalized policies like conscription among the Finnish. Furthermore, and most critically, Finland is, unlike Canada, a unitary state and not a federation.

Canada’s worst-case scenario: Yugoslavia

Much like the former Yugoslavia, Canada is a federation. It has stark regional differences, both in terms of culture and economics.

The divisions in Canada aren’t as entrenched as those in Yugoslavia in the 1980s. Nevertheless, as CSIS recently warned Parliament, the divides are real and outside forces could magnify and exploit them.

U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent’s recent encouragement of Albertan separatism, and Albertan separatist meetings with Trump officials, are examples of how foreign entities can magnify these divides.

Yugoslavia’s embrace of total national defence relied on the unity of the people to overcome the weaknesses of a decentralized command structure. Without it, not only would the effectiveness of such a defence have been compromised but, more worryingly, separatist forces could have used such decentralized forces for their own purposes.

In fact, separatists did so , using these decentralized defence forces for their own purposes against Yugoslavia. That helped fuel the former country’s conflicts and ultimate dissolution in the 1990s.

Learning from the past

But just because Yugoslavia’s embrace of total national defence and a civilian defence force helped facilitate the breakup of the country doesn’t mean that will happen to Canada. Too often, people assume that history is repetitive.

Instead, the past is an inventory of ideas. Yugoslavia’s embrace of total national defence failed, but Canada can learn lessons about what worked and what will not in a federation, and in doing so improve its own capabilities.

Canada is wise to pursue non-conventional defence strategies. The country, and its defence planners, however, must ensure they’re drawing from the right examples.

James Horncastle does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Canada should be wary of embracing ‘total national defence’ to ward off an American invasion – https://theconversation.com/canada-should-be-wary-of-embracing-total-national-defence-to-ward-off-an-american-invasion-274295

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Sarah Elaine Eaton, Professor and Research Chair, Werklund School of Education, University of Calgary

Generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) is now a reality in higher education, with students and professors integrating chatbots into teaching, learning and assessment. But this isn’t just a technical shift; it’s reshaping how students and educators learn and evaluate knowledge.

Our recent qualitative study with 28 educators across Canadian universities and colleges — from librarians to engineering professors — suggests that we have entered a watershed moment in education.

We must grapple with the question: What exactly should be assessed when human cognition can be augmented or simulated by an algorithm?

Research about AI and academic integrity

In our review of 15 years of research that engages how AI affects cheating in education, we found that AI is a double-edged sword for schools.

On one hand, AI tools like online translators and text generators have become so advanced that they can write just like humans. This makes it difficult for teachers to detect cheating. Additionally, these tools can sometimes present fake news as facts or repeat unfair social biases, such as racism and sexism, found in the data used to train them.

---

Read more:
I used AI chatbots as a source of news for a month, and they were unreliable and erroneous

---

On the other hand, the studies we reviewed showed AI can be a legitimate assistant that can make learning more inclusive. For instance, AI can provide support for students with disabilities or help those who are learning an additional language.

Because it’s nearly impossible to block every AI tool, schools should not just focus on catching cheaters. Instead, schools and post-secondary institutions can update their policies and provide better training for both students and teachers. This helps everyone learn how to use technology responsibly while maintaining a high standard of academic integrity.

Participants in our study positioned themselves not as enforcers, but as stewards of learning with integrity.

Their focus was on distinguishing between assistance that supports learning and assistance that substitutes for it. They identified three skill areas where assessment boundaries currently fall: prompting, critical thinking and writing.

Prompting: A legitimate and assessable skill

Participants widely viewed prompting — the ability to formulate clear and purposeful instructions for a chatbot — as a skill they could assess. Effective prompting requires students to break down tasks, understand concepts and communicate precisely.

Several noted that unclear prompts often produce poor outputs, forcing students to reflect on what they are really asking.

Prompting was considered ethical only when used transparently, drawing on one’s own foundational knowledge. Without these conditions, educators feared prompting may drift into over-reliance or uncritical use of AI.

Critical thinking

Educators saw strong potential for AI to support assessing critical thinking. Because chatbots can generate text that sounds plausible but may contain errors, omissions or fabrications, students must evaluate accuracy, coherence and credibility. Participants reported using AI-generated summaries or arguments as prompts for critique, asking students to identify weaknesses or misleading claims.

These activities align with a broader need to prepare students for work in a future where assessing algorithmic information will be a routine task. Several educators argued it would be unethical not to teach students how to interrogate AI-generated content.

Writing: Where boundaries tighten

Writing was the most contested domain. Educators distinguished sharply between brainstorming, editing and composition:

• Brainstorming with AI was acceptable when used as a starting point, as long as students expressed their own ideas and did not substitute AI suggestions for their own thinking.

• Editing with AI (for example, grammar correction) was considered acceptable only after students had produced original text and could evaluate whether AI-generated revisions were appropriate. Although some see AI as a legitimate support for linguistic diversity, as well as helping to level the field for those with disabilities or those who speak English as an additional language, others fear a future of language standardization where the unique, authentic voice of the student is smoothed over by an algorithm.

• Having chatbots draft arguments or prose was implicitly rejected. Participants treated the generative phase of writing as a uniquely human cognitive process that needs to be done by students, not machines.

Educators also cautioned that heavy reliance on AI could tempt students to bypass the “productive struggle” inherent in writing, a struggle that is central to developing original thought.

---

Read more:
What are the key purposes of human writing? How we name AI-generated text confuses things

---

Our research participants recognized that in a hybrid cognitive future, skills related to AI, together with critical thinking are essential skills for students to be ready for the workforce after graduation.

Living in the post-plagiarism era

The idea of co-writing with GenAI brings us into an post-plagiarism era where AI is integrated into into teaching, learning and communication in a way that challenges us to reconsider our assumptions about authorship and originality.

This does not mean that educators no longer care about plagiarism or academic integrity. Honesty will always be important. Rather, in a post-plagiarism context, we consider that humans and AI co-writing and co-creating does not automatically equate to plagiarism.

Today, AI is disrupting education and although we don’t yet have all the answers, it’s certain that AI is here to stay. Teaching students to co-create with AI is part of learning in a post-plagiarism world.

Design for a socially just future

Valid assessment in the age of AI requires clearly delineating which cognitive processes must remain human and which can be legitimately cognitively offloaded. To ensure higher education remains a space for ethical decision-making especially in terms of teaching, learning and assessment, we propose five design principles, based on our research:

1. Explicit expectations: The educator is responsible for making clear if and how GenAI can be used in a particular assignment. Students must know exactly when and how AI is a partner in their work. Ambiguity can lead to unintentional misconduct, as well as a breakdown in the student-educator relationship.

2. Process over product: By evaluating drafts, annotations and reflections, educators can assess the learning process, rather than just the output, or the product.

3. Design assessment tasks that require human judgment: Tasks requiring high-level evaluation, synthesis and critique of localized contexts are areas where human agency is still important.

4. Developing evaluative judgment: Educators must teach students to be critical consumers of GenAI, capable of identifying its limitations and biases.

5. Preserving student voice: Assessments should foreground how students know what they know, rather than what they know.

Preparing students for a hybrid cognitive future

Educators in this study sought ethical, practical ways to integrate GenAI into assessment. They argued that students must understand both the capabilities and the limitations of GenAI, particularly its tendency to generate errors, oversimplifications or misleading summaries.

In this sense, post-plagiarism is not about crisis, but about rethinking what it means to learn and demonstrate knowledge in a world where human cognition routinely interacts with digital systems.

Universities and colleges now face a choice. They can treat AI as a threat to be managed, or they can treat it as a catalyst for strengthening assessment, integrity and learning. The educators in our study favour the latter.

Sarah Elaine Eaton receives funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada and the University of Calgary.

Rahul Kumar has received funding from SSHRC in the past.

Robert Brennan receives funding from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC).

Beatriz Antonieta Moya Figueroa does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. ChatGPT is in classrooms. How should educators now assess student learning? – https://theconversation.com/chatgpt-is-in-classrooms-how-should-educators-now-assess-student-learning-270933

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Matthew Hoffmann, Professor of Political Science and Co-Director of Environmental Governance Lab, University of Toronto

At the recent World Economic Forum in Switzerland, Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney proclaimed “a rupture” in the global “rules-based order” and a turn to great power rivalry.

While its demise is not certain, even the current disruption to global order, largely due to the Donald Trump administration in the United States, promises profound impacts on the global response to climate change. The world is at risk of losing even the insufficient progress made in the last decade.

But it’s unclear what that effect will be. That uncertainty is both a cause for concern and a source of hope. The climate crisis is not slowing, and humanity must figure out how to navigate the disruption.

---

Read more:
Venezuela attack, Greenland threats and Gaza assault mark the collapse of international legal order

---

Unfortunately, much of what we know about how climate politics works has depended on a relatively stable rules-based order. That order, however problematic, provided institutions like the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Paris Agreement.

It also established trade rules for energy technology, co-operative agreements on public and private climate finance, and parameters for how civil society and states interact. It structured the opportunities and obstacles for acting on climate change.

Everyone who cares about climate action must now grapple with how climate politics can function in a new world of uncertainty. It won’t be easy.

But, to inject a slight note of hope, I’m not convinced that meeting the climate challenge is harder now. It’s difficult in a different way. Let’s be clear: the rules-based order was not producing effective global co-operation on climate change.

Limited successes of the rules-based order

The U.S. has consistently been an obstacle to global climate action. As Carney noted, under the the rules-based order “the strongest would exempt themselves when convenient.” Clearly the U.S. decided from very early on that a stable climate was not a public good it was willing to seriously support.

The U.S. failed to see benefits from climate action that outweighed the perception of costs and has consistently been influenced by status quo, fossil-capital economic interests.

That’s not to say there was no progress under the old rules-based system. At least five sources of progress are worth highlighting:

• A coalition of the ambitious, mostly anchored in Europe, consistently pushed for action. This coalition stayed in the Kyoto Protocol and took action domestically, moving forward on emissions reductions and globally significant technological innovation.

• The changing political economy of renewable energy has drastically decreased the costs of wind and solar power.

• The growth of municipal, sub-national and transnational efforts expanded the reach of climate action while also maintaining some momentum in countries, like the U.S., that were reluctant to move aggressively.

• Public support and concern over the climate has grown, in part because the increasing impacts of climate change have made it a tangible problem of the present, not future.

• There’s now a different global architecture for climate governance with the Paris Agreement — one based on collected national actions rather than global collective action. This new architecture was less vulnerable to the first U.S. withdrawal in 2016.

Possibilities for progress

These sources of past progress on climate action could survive the current disruption and play a role in increasing momentum in the global response to climate change. But uncertainties and questions are more plentiful than answers.

A coalition of the ambitious is clearly what Carney’s speech is seeking to catalyze among middle powers. He was not talking about climate change, but a commitment to climate action could and should be a cornerstone that a new order is built upon. This may even attract one of those competing great powers that he alluded to — China. Will China see climate leadership as a means to enhance its global position?

The political economy of renewable energy has momentum that is at least somewhat insulated from the current disruption. How insulated it remains depends on a number of uncertainties.

What will trade rules and practices look like moving forward? What happens within the fossil-fuel energy sector as the U.S. continues to engage in resource imperialism? How will resource competition and co-operation in the renewables sector (over critical minerals, for example) play out moving forward?

Can experimental efforts be a source of resistance and change within the U.S., especially among individual states? And can they play the same role that they did previously, catalyzing further innovation and public support?

Public support for climate action in this new era will likely vary wildly by country. How will growing dissatisfaction with the status quo play out as it intersects with increasingly severe climate impacts?

This could generate further support for right-wing populism. However, affordability and inequality concerns could also become the foundation for building support for climate action and a just transition.

Does the Paris Agreement survive this? It could become a backbone institution for the coalition of the ambitious. The U.S. is gone, again. Maybe other recalcitrant governments should be sidelined from multilateral climate efforts as well, and those willing to act can proceed.

If full global co-operation around climate change is no longer even a façade of the possible now, then the imperative to bring everyone along at each step in the process may evaporate.

None of the ways forward I’ve laid out here are easy. Even if the positive possibilities materialize, they do not guarantee decarbonization and a just transition that is fast and effective enough to matter; to head off the worst of climate change.

What is clear, though, is that like Carney, climate scholars and activists may need to let the fiction of the global rules-based order go. It was not working either in addressing climate change or enhancing justice. Perhaps its disruption is an opportunity to build better foundations for a just and effective global response to climate change.

Matthew Hoffmann receives funding from Social Science and Humanities Research Council and the Lawson Climate Institute.

– ref. Addressing climate change without the ‘rules-based order’ – https://theconversation.com/addressing-climate-change-without-the-rules-based-order-273745