Frequently Asked

The Partners for Climate Protection (PCP) joining resolution includes a “Supporting Rationale” that claims:

• Climate change is increasing extreme weather events (fires, floods, droughts, rising seas).

• The Paris Agreement requires local action to prevent severe climate impacts.

• Municipalities influence 50% of Canada’s emissions, so net-zero policies are presented as essential.

• Climate investments will also deliver co-benefits such as resilience, public health, and lower costs.

Because this rationale is built directly on contested climate claims, councils are effectively being asked to adopt sweeping net-zero commitments on the basis that:

1. Human emissions are the primary driver of recent warming.

2. Extreme weather is increasing because of climate change.

3. Municipalities are a critical lever for national and global climate goals.

KICLEI addresses these claims not to deny climate change, but to:

• Clarify what is settled science versus what remains debated or overstated.

• Highlight Canada’s unique carbon sink reality and small share of global CO₂.

• Show that many PCP-aligned climate policies are disproportionate to the actual risk and may divert resources from more effective adaptation.

In the following subsections, we respond to the resolution’s supporting rationale with evidence-based analysis:

• Voluntary nature of Agenda 21 & PCP — there is no binding municipal obligation.

• Canada’s carbon sink context — large natural sequestration offsets emissions.

• The logarithmic effect of CO₂ — diminishing warming potential.

• Historical climate variability — warming and cooling are not new.

• Consensus science debates — 0.3% vs 97% methodologies explained.

• Extreme weather trends — deaths down, costs up due to exposure, not hazard frequency.

• CO₂ as “pollutant vs. plant food” — reframing the role of carbon dioxide.

Together, these points demonstrate why local governments should carefully reconsider whether the PCP rationale truly justifies long-term, costly net-zero programs.

Climate Science & Extreme Weather: Responding to the PCP Rationale

The PCP resolution’s “Supporting Rationale” rests on several key claims: that climate change is increasing extreme weather, that municipalities are responsible for half of Canada’s emissions, and that local net-zero policies are essential to meeting Canada’s Paris targets. Below, we address each of these points in turn, with evidence that challenges their use as blanket justification for costly municipal climate programs.

1. Extreme Weather Trends

   • Disaster costs have risen largely due to population growth, urban expansion, and asset concentration in vulnerable areas—not because hazards themselves are increasing in frequency or intensity.

   • Mortality from disasters has declined worldwide thanks to better infrastructure, forecasting, and preparedness.

   • The IPCC itself acknowledges regional complexity: some areas see heavier rainfall, while others show no long-term increase in hurricane or tornado frequency.

2. Scientific Consensus: 0.3% vs. 97%

   • Cook et al. (2013) arrived at 97% by including any paper that mentioned human influence, even indirectly.

   • Legates et al. (2013) found that only 0.3% of papers explicitly said humans are the primary cause of recent warming.

   • The difference shows a methodological artifact: consensus is often overstated when broad definitions are used.

3. CO₂’s Role in Warming

   • CO₂ is a greenhouse gas, but its effect is logarithmic: each doubling has a diminishing impact on warming.

   • Human emissions account for ~4% of total CO₂ entering the atmosphere annually; Canada accounts for ~1.6% of that.

   • This means Canada’s share of global atmospheric CO₂ is statistically negligible—yet PCP treats municipal reductions as globally decisive.

4. Canada’s Carbon Sink Reality

   • Canada’s forests, wetlands, and agricultural soils absorb vast amounts of CO₂ annually, making many regions net carbon sinks.

   • Programs like PCP do not count these pre-existing sinks when setting net-zero targets—one of KICLEI’s key discoveries.

   • Councils should request carbon stock data from GIS departments and compare annual sequestration to emissions before committing to mitigation.

5. Historical Climate Variability

   • Climate has shifted naturally for millennia (e.g., Medieval Warm Period, Little Ice Age).

   • Local adaptation to natural variability—like flood management, infrastructure resilience, and rotational grazing—may offer more benefits than costly global mitigation frameworks.

6. Voluntary Nature of Agenda 21 & PCP

   • Neither Agenda 21 nor the Paris Agreement binds municipalities to emission targets.

   • PCP is a voluntary framework; municipalities can join or withdraw by council resolution.

   • Councils should weigh costs against benefits and not assume participation is mandatory.

Summary:
The PCP rationale overstates the role of local governments in preventing global climate change. Extreme weather trends are more socio-economic than climatic, Canada’s net emissions are small in the global context, and existing natural sinks already offset much of what we emit. Municipalities should prioritize adaptation and evidence-based stewardship rather than adopting costly, top-down mitigation programs designed without regional context.

This claim is widely repeated in media and policy circles, but the data tells a more complex story.

What the Data Shows

• The IPCC itself has stated that there is low confidence in any global increase in frequency or intensity of most extreme weather events (hurricanes, tornadoes, floods) over the past century.

• Some regional trends exist (for example, heavier rainfall in certain areas), but globally the evidence of increased disasters linked directly to CO₂ is weak.

Disasters vs. Hazards

• A hazard (storm, flood, wildfire) only becomes a disaster when it impacts human settlements or infrastructure.

• Reported “disaster losses” have increased largely because:

  • More people are living in high-risk areas (coastlines, floodplains, wildfire zones).

  • Infrastructure and assets are more valuable today, so damages cost more.

  • Global reporting systems now record more events than in decades past.

Insurance Costs & Market Exits

• Rising insurance premiums in some regions are often presented as proof of worsening weather.

• In reality, insurers price based on exposure (population + assets at risk), not just hazard intensity. More expensive homes in risky areas = higher payouts.

Long-Term Death Trends

• Historical data shows that deaths from natural disasters have plummeted over the last century, thanks to better infrastructure, early warning systems, and emergency response.

• Even if certain hazards become more intense, societies are far less vulnerable than before.

Why This Matters for Local Policy
Canadian municipalities are being asked to adopt costly PCP-aligned mitigation projects on the basis that disasters are worsening. But:

• The evidence does not show a global spike in disasters caused by CO₂.

• Local resilience (adaptation measures like flood prevention, fire breaks, and strong infrastructure) delivers direct, measurable benefits.

• Spending millions on mitigation to “prevent” disasters has no guarantee of success, while adaptation directly protects communities.

Are Natural Disasters Increasing Because of Climate Change? (Part 2)

Hazards vs. Disasters

• A hazard is a natural event (e.g., hurricane, wildfire, flood).

• A disaster occurs when that hazard intersects with people, property, or infrastructure. More people and higher-value assets in risky areas make disasters costlier — even if the hazard itself hasn’t become more frequent or severe.

What the Data Shows

• Deaths are down: Over the past century, deaths from natural disasters have plummeted thanks to better infrastructure, emergency response, and forecasting.

• Costs appear up: Economic losses have risen, but this is largely because we build more expensive infrastructure in vulnerable areas (coastal cities, floodplains, forests).

• Mixed evidence on frequency and intensity: Some events, like heavy rainfall, show regional increases. Others, like tornadoes and major hurricanes at landfall, do not show a consistent global upward trend.

Why Insurance Premiums Are Rising

• Insurers leaving high-risk markets doesn’t automatically prove climate disasters are increasing. Often, it reflects greater exposure (more people and assets in harm’s way) rather than worsening hazards.

Peer-Reviewed Perspectives

• Roger Pielke Jr., Bjorn Lomborg, and other researchers argue that normalized data (adjusted for GDP, inflation, population) shows no clear global trend in rising disaster frequency or intensity.

• The IPCC itself acknowledges complexity — with regional variation rather than a universal surge in extreme weather.

Local Implications

• Municipalities are often told climate change is driving a wave of disasters, justifying costly net-zero policies.

• In reality, many risks can be mitigated more effectively through local adaptation:

  • Limiting development in floodplains

  • Building stronger infrastructure

  • Improving forest management and fire breaks

  • Strengthening emergency response systems

KICLEI’s Position

• Disasters are real and preparedness is essential — but attributing every loss to CO₂ oversimplifies the issue.

• Local resilience measures deliver far more benefit to Canadian communities than trying to “solve” global CO₂ levels through municipal net-zero spending.

CO₂ vs. Actual Pollutants

• Real pollutants include sulfur dioxide (SO₂), nitrogen oxides (NOₓ), particulate matter (PM2.5/PM10), and ground-level ozone (O₃). These directly harm human health, cause smog, or damage ecosystems even at small concentrations.

• Carbon dioxide (CO₂) is a colorless, odorless gas essential to life on Earth. It is the raw material for photosynthesis and therefore the foundation of the food chain.

CO₂’s Role in Climate

• CO₂ is a greenhouse gas, meaning it contributes to trapping heat in the atmosphere.

• Its warming effect is logarithmic — each additional molecule has a smaller impact than the last. This means that while CO₂ influences climate, the incremental effect diminishes at higher concentrations.

CO₂ as Plant Food

• Higher CO₂ concentrations enhance plant growth, water efficiency, and crop yields (known as the CO₂ fertilization effect).

• Satellite data shows a “global greening” effect over the last several decades, partly due to rising CO₂.

• Some studies note that nutrient uptake can lag under elevated CO₂, but healthy soils and regenerative practices can offset this.

Why This Matters for Net Zero

• Labelling CO₂ as a pollutant frames it as inherently harmful, ignoring its biological role and benefits to agriculture.

• Net-zero frameworks often dismiss or undervalue land-based carbon sequestration methods (like rotational grazing, regenerative agriculture, and wetland restoration), even though these approaches are cost-effective and enhance CO₂’s positive role in ecosystems.

KICLEI’s Key Discovery
Most net-zero programs, including PCP, do not account for pre-existing carbon sinks such as forests, soils, and wetlands that already absorb massive amounts of CO₂ annually. Councils are therefore being asked to cut emissions without considering the natural balance already present in their regions.

Policy Implication
Rather than treating CO₂ as a pollutant to be eliminated at any cost, municipalities should:

• Recognize the role of natural ecosystems as carbon sinks.

• Focus on stewardship of forests, soils, and wetlands.

• Invest in adaptation and local resilience rather than costly mitigation projects that provide little additional benefit in the Canadian context.

How much does Canada contribute to global CO₂?
Canada accounts for about 1.5–1.6% of global CO₂ emissions. Human-made CO₂ is roughly 4% of the total 0.04% atmospheric CO₂, meaning Canada’s share of the atmosphere’s CO₂ is only about 0.0006%. This is an extremely small fraction globally.

Does Canada act as a carbon sink?
Yes. Canada’s vast forests, wetlands, and soils absorb more CO₂ than many regions emit. Studies (Kurz et al. 2008; Stinson et al. 2011) show Canadian forests sequester significant amounts of carbon, offsetting much of the country’s emissions.

Do net-zero programs account for these sinks?
No. One of KICLEI’s key discoveries is that programs like PCP do not recognize pre-existing carbon sinks in their calculations. Municipalities are forced to count emissions, but not the carbon absorbed annually by their ecosystems. This makes regions that are already net carbon neutral appear as if they are polluters, pushing them into costly “mitigation” programs that are unnecessary.

Why does this matter for councils?
If a municipality is already located in a net carbon sink region, its effective emissions are near zero. Yet PCP frameworks still require spending on emissions reduction technologies, building retrofits, and carbon reporting systems. This mismatch inflates costs without recognizing the natural sequestration that already exists.

Does CO₂ cause warming?
Yes. It is well established that CO₂ has a greenhouse effect. The question is not whether it warms, but how much.

Is CO₂’s warming effect unlimited?
No. CO₂’s influence on temperature is logarithmic, not linear. This means:

• The first increments of CO₂ cause the most warming.

• Each additional unit has less impact than the last.

• As concentrations increase, the incremental effect diminishes.

What does this mean for today’s policies?

• Pre-industrial CO₂ levels were about 280 ppm.

• Today, levels are around 420+ ppm.

• Much of the strongest warming effect has already occurred.

• Future increases in CO₂ will still have an effect, but a smaller, diminishing one.

Why is this important for Canada?
Since Canada’s share of global emissions is already tiny, and since additional CO₂ has diminishing warming potential, the cost of drastic net-zero policies may far outweigh the actual climate impact.

Has Earth’s climate always changed?
Yes. Long before industrial activity, Earth experienced significant natural climate variability. Examples include:

• Medieval Warm Period (approx. 950–1250 AD) – a time when Europe experienced milder temperatures.

• Little Ice Age (approx. 1300–1850 AD) – a colder period that impacted agriculture, settlements, and human survival.

What caused these changes?
These shifts were driven by natural factors such as solar activity, volcanic eruptions, and ocean circulation patterns—not modern industrial emissions.

Why does this matter for Canadian municipalities?

• It shows that climate change has always been part of Earth’s natural system.

• Local governments should plan for adaptation (flood control, resilient infrastructure, water management) rather than assume emissions reductions alone will control future conditions.

• Both warming and cooling phases bring challenges and benefits—for example, longer growing seasons in some regions, but also risks of flooding or drought in others.

What is the KICLEI position?

• Adaptation strategies should be prioritized over costly, net-zero mitigation programs.

• Councils should prepare for both possibilities—warming and cooling—given Earth’s history of fluctuating climate.

This question often comes down to how “consensus” is defined.

Cook et al. (2013): The 97% Claim

• Cook’s team reviewed 11,944 climate-related abstracts.

• They counted any mention of human contribution to warming — explicit or implicit — as part of the “consensus.”

• That included:

  • Papers saying humans caused some warming.

  • Papers discussing CO₂ as a factor.

  • Papers mentioning mitigation or impacts in ways that assumed human influence.

• By combining all of these, they arrived at the widely cited figure of 97% agreement.

Legates et al. (2013): The 0.3% Figure

• Legates re-analyzed the same dataset.

• They only counted papers that explicitly stated humans are the primary (>50%) driver of recent warming.

• Under this stricter definition, just 0.3% of papers met the criteria.

Why the Huge Difference?

• Cook used a broad definition: “humans influence climate in some way.”

• Legates used a narrow definition: “humans are the dominant cause.”

• Both are technically accurate — they just measure different things.

What Most Scientists Agree On

• CO₂ is a greenhouse gas and contributes to warming.

• Human activities (burning fossil fuels, land use changes) add CO₂ to the atmosphere.

• The debate is not about whether CO₂ has an effect, but whether human emissions are the main driver of recent warming compared to natural variability.

Why This Matters for Local Policy
When Canadian municipalities are asked to adopt costly “net zero” policies under PCP or similar frameworks, the justification is often framed around a supposed 97% consensus. But that number does not mean 97% of scientists say humans are the primary cause. Only a tiny fraction of published papers make that explicit claim.

For councils making financial and policy decisions, it is important to recognize this nuance: acknowledging that CO₂ has an influence is not the same as proving that human emissions dominate global climate trends.