I remember when estimating how much time was available to avert a global climate catastrophe was measured in decades.
In 1986, when I was senior policy adviser to the federal minister of the environment, government scientists told us the evidence was clear that greenhouse gas emissions threatened to set in motion dramatic destabilization of our planet's atmosphere.
In Toronto in 1988, Canada hosted the first international comprehensive scientific conference. It concluded, "Humanity is conducting an unintended, uncontrolled, globally pervasive experiment whose ultimate consequences could be second only to global nuclear war." The consensus statement called for emission reductions of 20 per cent below 1988 levels by 2005. This was considered a reasonable first step, as far more action and deeper cuts would be required.
As governments delayed, denied and missed the best opportunities to make these changes, we felt time shrink. We had one decade.
Then in 1997, governments agreed to a weaker target in Kyoto. Canada committed to reducing our emissions by 6 per cent below 1990 levels by 2012. This was also considered a reasonable first step. We measured the remaining time in which our actions could make a difference in years.
Then former president George W. Bush took the U.S. out of the Kyoto process, and, years later, Prime Minister Stephen Harper repudiated Canada's legally binding targets altogether. The scientific evidence became increasingly compelling and urgent, just as North American governments moved in the wrong direction.
Recently, Prince Charles has said we have only an estimated 100 months. Unless the world comes together and negotiates a meaningful agreement to rapidly reduce greenhouse gas emissions nine months from now – at the Copenhagen meeting of the United Nations climate conference in December – another 90 months won't help. We have hours to act to avert a slow-motion tsunami that could destroy civilization as we know it.
Earth has a long time. Humanity does not. We need to act urgently. We no longer have decades; we have hours. We mark that in Earth Hour on Saturday.
Can one hour change anything? Can shutting off our lights and powering down our computers for one hour make a difference? I know it can. The impact is in the empowerment of collective action.
Last year, my family in Toronto reported the pleasant surprise of how many neighbours had also lit candles for their dinner hour. In New Glasgow, N.S., where I live, the town supported Earth Hour. A tour by lantern celebrated the collective action. Streets in Ottawa, Edmonton and Victoria quieted down for an hour. Town after town, in Canada and globally all took one action.
During Earth Hour 2008, we created community. Not just a virtual community but a real sense of how many people behind curtains in homes for blocks around felt the same. That community needs to make a commitment this Earth Hour to deeper resolve and action. The countdown to reverse dangerous trends has begun.
By December we must ensure our government ceases obstructing progress, abandons a losing battle to defend the indefensible in our burgeoning greenhouse gases, and moves to meaningful and urgent action. We need to embrace renewable energy, reduce wasteful practices at home and work, and move to a low-carbon economy. With a new leader, the United States is moving to action. We could too.
Before Earth Hour 2010, one year from now, we must have turned the corner. Time is not on our side.
Elizabeth E. May, O.C., is leader of the Greens in Canada. She is the author of six books, the latest being Global Warming for Dummies (John Wiley and Sons).