In part 1, I examined how climate change mirrors the Copernican Revolution. In Part 2, I will examine more in depth the actions, politics and developments that transpired that led to the adoption of the Heliocentric view; the Earth revolves around the Sun.

Maurice Finocchiaro’s Retrying Galileo: 1633–1992 offers an important lesson for anyone working to create social change. Galileo’s ideas were not rejected because of a lack of evidence. The scientific evidence supporting heliocentrism was overwhelming. It  took centuries for institutions, scholars and professionals to acknowledge and address their perceptions and accept the evidence. In his book, Finocchiaro shows that change is not a straight line from discovery to acceptance. Change passes through stages of debate, resistance, reinterpretation, and finally rehabilitation. The lesson is that facts matter, but facts are often not enough to bring about change. 

Climate change presents a similar challenge. The scientific evidence is clear, and public awareness continues to grow. Yet, many effective solutions remain underutilized. Food systems account for a significant share of global greenhouse gas emissions, but discussions about climate policy continue to focus primarily on energy and transportation. Like Galileo’s observations, the evidence linking food choices and climate outcomes is increasingly difficult to ignore. Evidence must overcome institutional inertia, competing interests, and deeply rooted assumptions about how our food system should operate.

At the Plant-Based Cities Movement (PBCM), driving this change is both a challenge and an opportunity. History suggests that impactful change occurs when evidence is reinforced by practical examples, delivered by trusted messengers, and pitched directly to institutional leaders. Every municipality that adopts a plant-forward procurement policy, every university that expands plant-based options, and every healthcare institution that aligns food with Canada’s food guide helps move us  forward.

The question is no longer whether food should be part of the climate solution. The issue  is how quickly we can accelerate its adoption. We do not have centuries. The task before us is to shorten the distance and time between evidence and action.