Keep climate a national priority — donate today
It must have been tough for Mark Carney, the Liberal leadership candidate with the biggest climate chops, to throw the consumer carbon tax he once supported under the bus. But toss it he did, the very day he took office. Gas prices are already dropping, which lowers the incentive for people to switch to climate-friendly EVs and heat pumps, something you would have expected Carney, the former UN Special Envoy on Climate and Finance, to rail against.
But by the time Carney announced he was running, the tax was already political poison. It had caused a near deadly rift in the Liberal party’s Atlantic Canada wing and even some of the country’s most progressive premiers wanted it gone. Call it pragmatism or politics; it had to be done.
And now as Trump’s internecine tariff attacks push our two countries toward a divorce, Carney is also talking about a Canadian east-to-west oil pipeline, “so we can displace imports of foreign oil.” Climate advocates are pushing back, pointing out that building out more expensive pipelines will further bake in our reliance on fossil fuels.
Do these recent moves make Carney a sellout? Before anyone jumps to that conclusion, it’s important to remember his background as someone who has spent the last five years pushing the banking world toward clean energy investments and examine the climate bona fides of the candidates running with him. You can tell a lot about a person by the company they keep.
Carney has attracted a team of candidates who have put in boots-on-the-ground time pushing for a clean energy transition. First and foremost, Carney kept Steven Guilbeault, Canada’s former Minister of Environment and Climate Change, in cabinet. Guilbeault was shuffled out of the climate file, but as a member of Carney’s small cabinet team he still holds a lot of sway.
That was a gutsy move by Carney, given that Poilievre demonizes Guilbeault as the wicked architect of the carbon tax. Poilievere is pushing the narrative that Carney and Guilbeault will conspire to bring the tax back if the Liberals win, a ridiculous notion that nonetheless is echoed by many Conservative supporters.
Jonathan Wilkinson, who once was environment minister, also remains in cabinet, keeping his role as minister of energy and natural resources. Wilkinson has not been as polarizing a figure as Guilbeault, a Greenpeace activist before he entered politics. But Wilkinson has shown backbone by standing up to the insatiable demands of oil and gas giants looking for more federal subsidies.
In Ontario, another sitting MP with a strong climate background, Nate Erskine-Smith, is expected to cruise to victory in Toronto’s Beaches-East York. In 2019, Erskine-Smith introduced the Net-Zero Greenhouse Gas Emissions Act, requiring the feds to reduce GHG emissions to net zero by 2050.
Equally noteworthy are a host of new star candidates with strong climate backgrounds. They include Gregor Robertson, former mayor of Vancouver who aspired to make Vancouver Canada’s greenest city, pushed to end gas hookups in new buildings and expanded the city’s bike lane network. Also in BC is David Beckham, who is challenging Green Party Leader Elizabeth May in the riding of Saanich-Gulf Islands. His career in environmental remediation and renewable energy will appeal to green voters. The polls favour both to win — Robertson by a landslide, Beckham by a comfortable margin. Jennifer Lash, the candidate in BC’s North-Island — Powell River also has long history of work with climate non-profit organizations and most recently served as a senior advisor to the federal climate and environment ministry. Her chances of a win, however, look bleak.
In Edmonton, current mayor Amarjeet Sohi has been coaxed back into the federal arena to run in Edmonton Southeast, where he is predicted to win handily. Sohi served as natural resources minister early in the Liberals’ first term and “initiated the development of Canada's energy vision based on four pillars: Energy Efficiency, Renewable Energy, Electrification, and Clean Oil and Gas,” according to his LinkedIn. Since becoming mayor, Sohi has pushed Edmonton to become a more sustainable city.
Further east, former Toronto deputy mayor Jennifer McKelvie looks to be headed for a win in Ajax. She is a geoscientist who currently chairs Toronto’s Infrastructure and Environment Committee. Before entering civic politics in 2018, she brokered partnerships between industry and academia and environmental research in the non-profit sector.
In Quebec, Eric St. Pierre is expected to sweep Honoré-Mercier. St. Pierre most recently served as executive director of the Trottier Foundation, a major contributor to Canada’s largest-ever philanthropic commitment to climate action.
There are other climate stars on the roster I’m sure, but you get the picture. These candidates are true believers who must be confident that no matter what happens in the short term, Carney will press ahead with other types of climate policy. And on that front, he’ll have the support of many Canadians. A recent poll by the David Suzuki Foundation suggests two thirds of Canadians favour more federal climate policy. With NDP and Green support imploding in many ridings there aren’t a lot of choices if you want something done about the carbon emissions cooking our planet. If climate is your issue, you’ve got to take a good hard look at the Liberals.
Comments
I understand the rush to the Liberals to make sure the Conservatives don't win and take a wrecking ball to everything - but believing that Carney Liberals would magically change course is dreaming. They are already sending the message to Canadians that we're not in a climate emergency - the very kind of messaging that left the price on carbon open to attack by Poilievre. The last Liberals also included many MPs who cared a lot about climate; that's not enough.
If Carney is serious about tackling climate change, the first thing he'll do after being elected is to strike a citizen's assembly on electoral reform to take us out of the first-past-the-post dysfunction that's anathema to good climate policy. Will he? Are we going to push him on it?
I agree on the citizen's assembly and hope that we get proportionality in our electoral systems one day.
Carney must address the contradiction between his 'green team' and the $30 billion dollar subsidy of the fossil fuel industry last year and the future goal of exporting oil and gas before I dream of voting for either of the Liberal-CC pair.
Note that the $30B was brought forward before Carney's time. He may have been an adviser to the Trudeau Libs but he also stated in his leadership bid they too often didn't listen.
Chrystia Freeland was the most senior cabinet minister then and her position as finance minister became a flashpoint with other ministers with her funding decisions, including her policy direction on funding and her denial of requests for funding. This according to a journalist with inside connections.
Freeland has been demoted under Carney. So far the Carney Libs have provided just $200 million for an LNG project, orders of magnitude less than Trudeau-Freeland's $30,000 million for fossil fuels last year alone. A few days later Car ey announced a comprehensive $35B national housing plan, the largest build out since WWII ended.
Carney spent a decade writing and lecturing on embracing the energy transition. His moves so far on trade and industry (including a sop to O&G) have started eroding the moderate Conservative vote. That seems to be his goal. His announcements on oil and gas haven't amounted to a hill of beans in real money so far by comparison. He demoted the most poweful pro-oil minister in Trudeau's cabinet who shovelled tens of billions out the door to the benefit of Alberta's main industry. He talks regularly about energy corridors that include electricity. And, most importantly, he constantly refers to the private industry that will build it, knowing in advance there is no business case.
The green team Tanner refers to exists on top of all that. Carney may slip a few bucks toward LNG and pipeline subsidies or experimental CCS in full knowkedge that the industry wull never get full publuc funding, and the CCS tech has never proven itself. But I prefer to wait and see because Carney is not Trudeau-Freeland and has a long history as a vocal believer in dealing with climate change that complements his vast experience managing international economic risk.
Sure, document every sin, grunt and two-faced blurb the Libs have done since 2015 under Trudeau, and do so without defining how it is even possible the Poilievre Conservatives are any better. These are the only two realistic choices in this election, both are imperfect. But one is far, far better than the other in both managing the Trump crisis at hand and the energy transition.
"If climate is your issue, you’ve got to take a good hard look at the Liberals."
Once again, The Observer is revving up its election campaign machine for the Liberals.
Last time, it was the "climate sincere" Liberals. Now it's "Carney's green dream team."
Dream is right.
How many times will Lucy hold the football for Charlie Brown, only to pull it away at the last second? How many times will Charlie Brown fall for this trick?
After another decade of climate failure by the Liberals, faint hope still lingers on the horizon. Ever out of reach.
As recorded for history by The Observer's columnist Barry Saxifrage, under the Liberals Canada remains a climate laggard. Promises made, not kept.
-"Canada's fossil-fuelled sprint away from climate safety"
-"Canada is a rogue super-emitter"
-"Wrong-way Canada emitting more while our G7 peers clean up"
-"'Electrify everything'? Canada cranks fossil burning instead"
-"Canada is out of excuses. Europe slashes climate pollution while we flounder"
A vote for the Liberals is a vote for fossil-fuel expansion and climate failure.
The Observer's latest Liberal Party ad contains several misrepresentations:
Tanner: "First and foremost, Carney kept Steven Guilbeault, Canada’s former Minister of Environment and Climate Change, in cabinet. Guilbeault was shuffled out of the climate file, but as a member of Carney’s small cabinet team he still holds a lot of sway."
Guilbeault did not hold a lot of sway as Trudeau's Minister of Environment and Climate Change. He was forced to approve several new fossil-fuel projects, including Bay du Nord.
"Feds approve offshore oil project days after IPCC begged world to say no to oil and gas" (National Observer, 2022)
"'The most difficult decision I had to make, by far, was Bay du Nord. There's no doubt about that,' Guilbeault said. 'That particular day was extremely difficult.'
"Caroline Brouillette, the national policy director at Climate Action Network Canada, said its approval is proof that having 'one of the most reputable community and environmental activists' in cabinet is not enough to prevent the exploitation of oil."
"'It was really a heartbreaking moment,' she said, calling Guilbeault 'someone who, in theory, should have said no to that project.'"
"The approval of Bay du Nord — Canada's first deepwater oil site, which Guilbeault signed off on — and the continued construction of the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion project are two very sore points. Both speak volumes about the limitations facing a climate minister in a country where fossil fuel companies and their financial backers remain important economic drivers with tremendous influence over the political system."
"The Guilbeault Doctrine: A cabinet minister finds the limits and power of compromise" (National Observer, January 30, 2023)
Max Fawcett: "He didn't get into federal politics to defend the decision to approve a major new oil project, much less be the person who helped make it."
"Steven Guilbeault leads Canada through the hard choices on the road to net-zero" (National Observer, 2022)
What role, if any, did Guilbeault play in those discussions? What power does Canada's Environment Minister have to say no to climate-disaster projects? If he opposed the Bay du Nord Project project, evidently his input was rejected. Are all decisions affecting climate made over his head? Was Guilbeault merely lending his green cred to provide political cover for the Liberals' fossil-fuel expansion agenda?
Few, if any, key climate decisions are made in the Environment Minister's office. With or without Guilbeault's approval, billions of public dollars will continue to pour into fake climate schemes in the oilsands: carbon capture, SMRs, blue hydrogen, etc.. Add billions more for clean-up and reclamation.
The Liberals' plan (i.e., Corporate Canada's plan) to fail on climate proceeds with or without the Environment Minister. Did Catherine McKenna or Guilbeault have ANY power to shape or influence policy in their own ministry? Ask McKenna why she quit. Canada's Environment Ministers are mere ciphers.
Just because you are Environment Minister does not mean you get to make the decisions on environmental issues. Nor does it mean you are in charge of project approvals. The Environment Minister is just one seat at the cabinet table. Most of the power in government is concentrated in the PMO. Canada's climate and energy policies are dictated by Corporate Canada, Big Oil, and the Big Banks that back them. Which reduces the Environment Minister to a mere figurehead. The Environment Minister has to toe the party line like other minister.
"Ministers are chosen for promotional reasons, rather than what they bring to the table, [former finance minister Bill] Morneau said, but it hardly matters because power resides in the hands of a cabal of advisers around the prime minister who 'compel agreement from cabinet ministers.'"
"John Ivison: Morneau finds true flaws in his former boss Trudeau but appears blind to his own" (Vancouver Sun, 2023)
"Janet Annesley, who was chief of staff to former Liberal natural resources minister Jim Carr, said Wilkinson understands the drivers of the energy business, but points out decision-making authority on key matters, such as dealing with major projects, remains outside the department’s hands."
"Varcoe: Guilbeault out, Wilkinson stays as energy boss in Carney cabinet, as wary oilpatch watches" (Calgary Herald, 2025)
Tanner: "But Wilkinson has shown backbone by standing up to the insatiable demands of oil and gas giants looking for more federal subsidies."
Ms. Tanner links to a recent National Observer article that says nothing about subsidies. An obvious misreading.
"Wilkinson says Canada should not scrap climate policies to appease oil and gas executives" (National Observer, March 21, 2025)
No basis for this claim whatever. Wilkinson defends LNG subsidies, an Energy East pipeline, and taxpayer-funded CCS:
"Energy minister defends carbon capture as Alberta project gets cancelled over cost" (CP, May 08, 2024)
"Jonathan Wilkinson says CCUS systems effective and affordable"
"Mixed messages: Carney Liberals pledge money for LNG while bridling against industry demands" (National Observer, March 28, 2025)
"Feds to contribute up to $200M for Haisla-led project to ship liquefied natural gas to Asia" (CBC, March 21, 2025)
"The federal government says it will contribute up to $200 million to a floating liquefied natural gas export facility off B.C.'s North Coast, saying it's an important part of diversifying Canada's economy.
"'The need to build a resilient economy with new export opportunities for Canadian energy suppliers has never been clearer,' Jonathan Wilkinson, the federal energy and natural resources minister, said in a statement Friday.
"'Our international partners are looking for a reliable supplier of low-carbon energy sources, and Canada will be there to enable communities.'"
Wilkinson has also been pushing for reconsideration of an Energy East pipeline. Funded in part by taxpayers:
"Canada should discuss west-east oil pipeline now that American relationship has changed: minister" (CBC, Feb 06, 2025)
"Natural Resources Minister Jonathan Wilkinson said Thursday the country should weigh building a new west-east oil pipeline after President Donald Trump's threatened tariffs exposed what he's calling a 'vulnerability' in energy infrastructure.
"… Minister of Energy and Natural Resources Jonathan Wilkinson says he expects the prime minister and the premiers to reflect on the idea of an oil pipeline running from the west to the east and, along with Indigenous partners, collectively decide 'whether there is some things we should do to address these vulnerabilities.'
"Asked again at a later news conference if the Liberal government would back a west-east oil pipeline, Wilkinson said Trump's recent actions have prompted some soul-searching.
"Wilkinson said the prime minister and the premiers, at their weekly meetings throughout this trade fracas, are discussing how to make Canada more 'energy secure from an oil perspective.'
"Wilkinson, a past environment minister and carbon tax proponent, said he's 'not being prescriptive' and he's not demanding a west-east pipeline be built — but it's something that should be on the table for discussion, he said."
On today's National Observer:
"Feds supported fossil fuel sector to the tune of nearly $30 billion last year" (National Observer, April 3 2025)
"Canada’s federal government provided $29.6 billion in financial support to the oil and gas industry in 2024, according to a new analysis by Environmental Defence.
"The analysis took stock of direct grants, tax breaks, loans and loan guarantees from the federal government and its Crown corporations to the oil and gas and petrochemical industries.
"Federal and provincial politicians have been talking about reviving the Energy East Pipeline, and Liberal Leader Mark Carney recently stated he is committed to building pipelines across the country.
"All these possible projects would only happen with huge amounts of government support, Julia Levin [, associate director of national climate for Environmental Defence and author of the report] said.
"The federal government has supported the oil and gas sector to the tune of nearly $75 billion over the past five years, Environmental Defence finds.
"This is an 'inexcusable' amount of money handed to Canada’s biggest polluters, Levin said.
"In 2024, Export Development Canada provided a $500-million loan for Cedar LNG and $200 million for the Coastal GasLink pipeline. The Crown corporation also gave Enbridge US $300 million, Calgary-based oil company Vermilion Energy $100 million for oil and gas exploration and production, and $100 million for Wolf Midstream for their carbon capture and storage (CCS) plans and export."
Perhaps Ms. Tanner should read The Observer before penning Liberal Party advertisements. Subscriptions just $99.99 a year.
I agree with the general tone and many specifics of Geoffrey Pounder's contribution, but I'm going to conditionally push back on one: Bay du Nord.
Consistent with my views on Scope 3 emissions (we've got bigger fish to fry), I'm not so concerned about approvals for financially risky oil projects, with a couple of important caveats:
1. That no gov't provide any incentives, special arrangements, reductions in regulations, etc. be accorded the projects . The company assumes all risk and indemnifies, without risk of non-compliance (e.g. bankruptcy), any damages.
If those terms are agreed and enforced, not as many projects will proceed.
2. Dang... I've forgotten.
Perhaps #2 could be for the private proponents to put forth detailed technical feasibility studies that include a sound business case?
Note that Bay du Nord was cancelled based on the above. Meanwhile, Germany has invested in wind-driven green hydrogen in Nfld.
Since then, the huge German engineering firm Siemens announced an investment in a battery research and development facility in southern Ontario with two more in the works, one of them in Quebec.
Note that Siemens builds very good trains, wind generators and large-scale electrical systems. Germany's recent investments in Canada is a very good sign.
While I understand that a Conservative government would be a disaster for environmental and climate movements, I do not have much faith in "Carbon-Capture" Carney's Liberals to be much better. All we need to know is that Wilkinson is still Minister of Energy and Natural Resources - So the subsidies and bad data will continue when it comes to extractive industries like Oil, Gas and Forestry. Carney's "Build Baby Build' rhetoric sounds too much like 1980s neo-liberal campaigns for my liking. As an economist, I'm sure Carney still believes in growth fueled capitalism (which is no longer a reasonable approach), however he could have taken a de-growth (extractive industries) balance with a green tech/energy growth plan, but he didn't - He's talking pipelines FCS! As per Paul Berger's comment - Where do these Liberals stand on ER leading to some form of PR? This is the first step towards real democracy in this country. Of course, Geoffrey Pounder's Charlie Brown's analogy is spot on with respect to what we're seeing in Canada right now - Another bandwagon likely destined to crash and burn our climate aspirations...
I'm again disappointed in CNO with them uncritically boosting the LPC.
Particularly egregious, amongst quite a few opportunities for rolling one's eyes, was the reference to the Edmonton mayor / Liberal candidate's suggestion of "Clean Oil and Gas". Absurd.
There's a difference between an endorsement -- recall the widespread chagrin last Fall when the WaPo chose NOT to endorse a candidate for US president -- and all-in (essentially) hagiography.
A complete abandonment of objectivity is not a recognized prerequisite for a recommendation.
In the CNO, any uncriticality on vitually any topic is far more than made up by the commenters, some of whom will cast blame on and list hundreds of the past sins of the LPC -- no matter how minute -- more than Danielle Smith or Pierre Poilievre could ever dream of.
This, unfortunately, tends to project the LPC forward in time based only on previous mistakes and contradictory intentions at a time when the top decision makers and circumstances have changed.
If Carney picks up habitual two-faced LPC practices and shovels hundreds of billions into O&G and completely ignores our economic crisis and contradicts his deep cred on embracing the transition, then I will renew my membership in the NDP and help split the progressive vote and ensure Conservarive rule for years.
How shameful to run a "very good" candidate against Elizabeth May. Should she not reclaim her seat, she will be sorely missed, and parliament will be lessened by her absence. Of all my 'heroes,' she has never disappointed. She's always on point, always on fact and science, and seems to live what she preaches. We need more like her, not to have her replaced.
I'm far from convinced that Mr. Carney actually *gets* aspects of climate change. Or any concept of fiscal realities for large swaths of the electorate.
I am particularly concerned by his "single, federal, environmental approval" promise: it leaves a path wide open for every single administration following to abuse, and might well leave no avenue for appeal.
Nor is his talk about environmentally sound housing particularly convincing: last time I heard, there were no environmentally sound building codes. Mass timber (aka glue lams) is pretty, but it requires an awful lot of toxic adhesives to stick all the smaller bits together. And no matter what, wood construction requires cutting down of forests ... which we don't any more have in excess supply given the ravages of pests and fires resulting from climate change and crappy environmental practices used in extraction industries.
I sincerely wonder to what end we'd promote E-W oil pipelines, given there is no capacity in Canada (as I understand it) to refine dil-bit, which is what the west produces.
At some point, we have to bite the bullet, not keep on building out fossil fuel infrastructure.
If pipelines need be built for energy security over the next few years, why not just connect interstices between the N-S and E-W lines we already have. The pipeline companies have to follow federal legislation.
I fail to understand why poor people have to subsidize incomes in the top decile, to keep the *workers* from losing income, as though the poor aren't the ones who have suffered the brunt of what never touched the so-called "middle income" group: who in reality, if you check stats, are not the middle, at all. They are the very, very comfortably off.
Middle incomes in Canada are around $35-75K. Those aren't the "middle-class families" who benefited from all manner of measures.
I would urge you to do some research on mass timber and compare it to concrete, brick, steel and composite materials. By all means, compare glues and embedded carbon content between materials, quality of construction, lifespan energy footprint and interior air quality.
I recommend starting with Passive House design.
The polls do not show the Liberals leading in Elizabeth May's riding because 338 is not a poll. You can read more about its flaws in that regard on the SGIGreens website.