In his book The New Abolition, Chris Hayes draws a provocative parallel between the modern transition from fossil fuels and and the historical abolition of slavery in America. The challenge is truly staggering: in 1860, 400,000 Southern slaveholders faced the total loss of their “property” and economic base. Fast forward to 2014, and the fossil fuel sector sat upon at least $10 trillion in wealth. Hayes argues that it is nearly impossible to find a precedent for such a massive economic upheaval other than abolition. It took a bloody civil war for the United States to free its slaves, but the British abolitionists accomplished this through legislative action rather than armed conflict. 

In both cases, abolition came with a significant cost. In America this was approximately 750,000 lives and decades of economic ruin in the South.  No lives were lost when Parliament emancipated slaves throughout the British Empire on August 28, 1833, but slave owners were awarded £20 million (roughly £3.09 billion today) for the loss of their so-called ‘property.

There is also a cost for not addressing climate change and some researches suggest the global cost of damages from extreme weather events could reach $38 trillion a year by 2050.

Rising temperatures

Which abolitionist model is more appropriate to Canada in 2026, as we consider how to address climate change? 

Our planet has been teetering ‘on the threshold’ of 1.5°C above preindustrial global temperature levels since 2023. British Columbia is already experiencing extreme weather events, such as droughts, flooding, and an increase in the size and frequency of wildfires. A recent study suggests we will reach 3.0°C by 2050 and 4.0°C by the end of the century. Such a shift would render the tropics nearly uninhabitable due to lethal heatwaves, cause global yields of staples like corn, wheat, and rice to plummet, and lead to the mass extinction of numerous wildlife species.

Assuming these abolitionist models actually apply to our current situation, the first question should probably be how long did it take to free the slaves? 

The Abolitionist model in America

The abolitionist movement in America can be traced back to 1688, when Francis Daniel Pastorius and three other Quakers living in Germantown, Pennsylvania, presented a petition against slavery to their Society’s Monthly Meeting. A total of 175 years passed before Abraham Lincoln proclaimed the Emancipation Proclamation. 

Before the American Revolution was over,  two of the nation’s original thirteen colonies, Pennsylvania and Massachusetts, embraced the doctrine that ‘all men are created equal’ and banned slavery. The newly formed United States was soon divided into slave-owning states and states where slavery was prohibited. The Democratic Party of this era embraced the doctrine of states’ rights and many in its Southern arm believed slavery was a “positive good” rather than a “necessary evil.” Conversely, some Northern Democrats were abolitionists..

One of the central tenets of the Republican Party, founded in 1854, was that slavery could not spread to any new territories. When the Republican candidate, Abraham Lincoln, was elected President in 1861, eleven slave owning states attempted to secede from the union and form a confederation of their own. 

While the slavery issue brought about the resulting war, many of those who fought to preserve the Union would have been appalled at the thought they were fighting to free slaves. That is why Lincoln waited until victory was assured, in 1863, before declaring the Emancipation Proclamation. Similarly, many Confederates who fought for their beloved states did not own slaves themselves.

Abolitionist Model in the British Empire

The road to abolition was faster in the British Empire and notably less disruptive. It can be traced back to 1675 when another Quaker, William Edmundson, condemned slavery. However 158 years passed before Parliament banned slavery throughout the Empire. The abolitionist movement was largely confined to Quaker circles until 1787, when they joined forces with Anglican reformers like William Wilberforce in 1787. 

Two years later, Wilberforce introduced 12 resolutions against slavery to Parliament. They were defeated, but many newspapers considered Wilberforce’s speeches to be among the most eloquent ever spoken in the House of Commons. Hundreds of thousands of British subjects were soon signing petitions calling for the abolition of slavery. 

Unlike the struggle in America, there was no division between ‘slave owning’ and ‘free’ English counties. While many merchants, aristocrats and even some Anglican missionaries grew wealthy from the slave trade, for the general population it was primarily a way to obtain cheaper goods. 

The pro-slavery faction in Parliament was a special interest group known as the West India Interest. These were predominantly Tories (Conservatives) who generally represented the landed gentry, the monarchy, and the preservation of the established order. Many Tories and even some ‘Whigs’ directly or indirectly profited from the trade. 

The abolitionists were a group of independent MPs called ‘The Saints’ because of their connection to Evangelical Christianity. While many were more closely aligned with the Tories on other matters, they worked with the more progressive Whigs to fight slavery.   

By the time the slave trade was finally abolished, in 1807, public sentiment was so strong that the vote carried 283 to 16. However this bill did not change the legal of status of people who were already enslaved, and slavery was not abolished throughout the Empire until 1833. Wilberforce died three days later, which means the British abolitionist movements most effective years occurred within his lifetime. 

Neither the British or American abolitionist solutions were perfect. Slave owners were compensated in the Empire, but not the people they had oppressed. Neither were compensated in the South, where economic recovery did not gain traction until after World War I. Racial discrimination has persisted in both England and the United States.

Canada’s Battle With Extreme Climate

How closely does Canada’s struggle to address climate change resemble either of these abolitionist movements?

The closest parallels to the slave states of the Old South come from Alberta. Instead of ‘King Cotton,’ Alberta’s prosperity is currently tied to the oil sands. The Western alienation so often expressed by Albertans is reminiscent of the “Southern grievances” against Northern industrialists and a federal government that was perceived as biased against their way of life. The battle is over Section 92A of the Constitution which gives provinces control over their natural resources, is similar to the South’s pre-Civil War struggle for states rights. It remains to be seen if the Albertan secessionist movement will gain any significant traction in the province’s upcoming referendum.

Like the old slave trade, the fossil fuel sector is one of Canada’s key industries. Crude oil was the nation’s #1 export in 2025, and was valued at more than twice that of every other commodity. Our currency has been so closely tied to the price of oil that it is sometimes referred to as a ‘petrocurrency.’

While some Liberal and Conservative MPs have freely disclosed past connections to, or current investments in, the fossil fuel sector, it is unquestionably championed by the Conservatives. Thus it should not come as a surprise to find that 14 of the 15 top fossil fuel executives who Greenpeace recently identified as former government staffers, or appointees, served Stephen Harper’s government (2006-2015). The exception was a Liberal. 

Surprisingly, the first significant steps to address the climate crisis were taken by a Conservative Prime Minister: Brian Mulroney. His government hosted the Montreal Protocol in 1987 and drafted Canada’s Green Plan in 1990. Elizabeth May, who would later become leader of the Green Party, was a policy advisor to the Ministry of the Environment. However, this early momentum stalled when the Liberals returned to power in 1993, relegating climate issues to the background for fifteen years. 

In the 2008 election, Stéphane Dion’s Liberals called for a Green shift inthe economy. The electorate preferred incumbent Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s fiscal management. This led to Canada’s subsequent withdrawal from the Kyoto Protocol to reduce Greenhouse gas emissions and prompted the mass demonstrations which continued into the Trudeau years.  

Many environmentalists were hopeful when Justin Trudeau was elected in 2015. The cornerstone of his climate plan was carbon pricing. Trudeau introduced an EV mandate and proposed a cap on gas and oil emissions, but he also expanded the Trans Mountain Pipeline and supported LNG. In the end, Trudeau alienated both environmentalists and fossil-fuel-dependent provinces like Alberta.

Entering 2026, Prime Minister Mark Carney faces a nation at a crossroads. He inherited a Canada fractured by separatist movements and under economic pressure from the United States. Consequently, his administration has prioritized national unity and international economic resilience. While critics raise questions regarding his Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with Alberta and the yet-to-be-unveiled electrical strategy, his government has committed to a stated goal of net-zero emissions by 2050. 

How does the Canadian situation compare to past abolitionist movements? There are some resemblances to the situation in America, but there is little indication that the Albertan situation will lead to a Civil War. The British example seems far more appropriate. That was a largely publicity ‘war’ waged for public support. The final victory was won in parliament, where ‘the Saints’ joined forces with the Whig government of the day to pass anti-slavery legislation. 

Britain’s old Whig party has passed into history. In 1859, they joined with the Radicals and Peelites to form the Liberal Party.

The Canadian Liberal Party was heavily influenced by the ‘Gladstonian Liberalism’ that defined the British party after the 1859 coalition. Both parties championed the rights of the individual against the overreach of the state or the monarchy. Following the British lead, Canadian Liberals were historically the party of continental free trade and the removal of tariffs. Both movements sought to reform government institutions to be more representative and less dominated by entrenched aristocratic or colonial elites.

Britain’s abolitionists were able to abolish slavery through a combination of public outcry and legislation, is this a viable model for Canada as it strives to address climate change? Or should we look elsewhere?

Links of Interest:

• The New Abolition – The Nation
• William Wilberforce: The Real Abolitionist? – BBC
• Climate Change Will Cost Global Economy $38 Trillion Every Year Within 25 Years, Scientists Warn – Forbes

Top image credit: Poor Things – from the American Anti-Slavery Almanac of 1840, from the Library of Congress via Wikipedia (Wikipedia)

Sign-up for Cortes Currents email-out:

To receive an emailed catalogue of articles on Cortes Currents, send a (blank) email to subscribe to your desired frequency:

• Daily, (articles posted during the last 24 hours) – cortescurrents-daily+subscribe@cortes.groups.io
• Weekly Digest cortescurrents – cortescurrents-weekly+subscribe@cortes.groups.io