Keep climate a national priority — donate today
Mark Carney has said a few things lately that have given me hope a Canadian government might finally treat climate change with the seriousness it demands. During the French-language debate, in response to Pierre Poilievre’s attacks, he said: “Je ne suis pas Justin Trudeau. Je viens d'arriver.” Or: “I’m not Justin Trudeau. I just got here.”
He also recently said, when asked if he would give Poilievre an easy by-election path into Parliament: “No games. Nothing. Straight.” That kind of talk is refreshing. If it carries over to climate policy — no games, straight talk, not being Justin Trudeau—it could mark a real shift.
Because let’s face it: for the last nine years, Canadians have been fed a steady diet of climate noise — photo-ops, grand announcements, and lofty targets — none of which have translated into serious emissions reductions.
Bill McKibben, founder of 350.org, sounded cautiously hopeful recently, saying the economics of renewables might give Carney “room to move his country decisively in the right direction.” Maybe.
But, because of the political reality of Canada, I don’t expect Carney to be radically different from Trudeau on continued fossil fuel production — that Trudeau, who championed tax-payer funded carbon capture and spent $50 billion on a bitumen pipeline Canada didn’t need. But he shouldn’t expect Alberta to like him for it — or even hate him less than Trudeau. Alberta still blames Justin's father, Pierre Trudeau, for the global oil price crash of the 1980s. Economic reality hasn’t stood in the way of Western Canadian grievance politics before. Still, he’ll probably keep trying to woo Alberta with taxpayer billions.
During the campaign, some Conservatives warned that Carney would bring back the consumer carbon tax. But this is a guy with a PhD in economics from Oxford. He knows Trudeau’s revenue-neutral carbon tax — too low to change behaviour — was a failure before it was even implemented. It was the ArriveCAN of climate policy: divisive and ultimately useless. He’s not bringing that back.
What I hope Carney means, when he says he’s not Justin Trudeau, and he’s not going to play games, is that he’ll start with the truth: Canada is not going to meet its 2030 Paris Agreement target of a 30 percent reduction in emissions below 2005 levels. We’ll be lucky to get halfway there. That was clear even when Catherine McKenna called 30 percent a “floor” in 2015. It was always a ceiling — and one we’ll never even get close to touching by 2030.
But Justin Trudeau didn’t let that reality stop him from doubling down on the unachievable. Instead, at yet another international summit, he bumped the target up to a 40–45 percent cut by 2030. Every independent audit since Trudeau took office has said the same thing: Canada has no credible plan to get anywhere near any of its climate targets. Which, by the way, is exactly what was said about Stephen Harper’s government before Trudeau took power.
So, this isn’t a new problem. Jean Chrétien casually plucked Canada’s Kyoto target out of the air in 1997 without a plan to meet it. Emissions rose. Harper eventually pulled out of Kyoto to avoid reporting our failure — not that he minded the failure. He called Kyoto “a socialist scheme to suck money out of wealth-producing nations.” But he was right to ask this in 2002: “When will the government put forward a full implementation plan, a plan on the targets, the costs and the policies necessary to put the Kyoto accord into effect.” It never happened.
History just keeps repeating itself.
Carney has a chance to break the cycle. As the old saying goes, insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.
McKenna insisted, “We will absolutely meet our targets,” and tried to sell Canadians on what she called a “credible plan.” But there wasn’t a real plan. No clear steps. No tools matched to the job. Former environment minister Stephen Guilbeault, to his credit, tried. But every policy he put forward was watered down until nothing meaningful remained. The oil sands emissions cap that was supposed to cut emissions by 30 percent by 2030? It allows for production “well above current levels." The low-carbon fuel standard? Some are not impressed.
Yes, greenhouse gas emissions dropped slightly in the most recent national report. But let’s be clear: the only significant emissions reductions in Canada since 2005 came from phasing out coal in electricity generation in Ontario and Alberta. That deserves credit. But you can only quit coal once. The heavy lifting on climate action hasn’t even begun — and we’re already out of time for 2030.
So, this is Carney’s moment. If he wants to prove he’s not Justin Trudeau, he needs to start with honesty. Tell Canadians we’re going to miss the original Paris target, never mind the latest hyperinflated one. Then show us a real plan. Not a wish. Not a slogan. A plan.
Carney himself has said, “Hope is not a strategy. It takes a plan.” He’s right. A plan means knowing what the future looks like you want, laying out clear steps to get there, and putting real tools in place to make it happen. Ending fossil fuel subsidies — including the Trans Mountain toll subsidies. Capping oil and gas emissions for real. Electrifying transportation and heating at scale. But you must reflect a timeline that is achievable for real change, not an unachievable one for imaginary change.
So, show us what you said, Mr. Carney. Je ne suis pas Justin Trudeau. Prove it. Tell the truth. Then give us the plan we’ve never had.
Ross Belot is a retired senior manager with one of Canada’s largest energy companies.
Comments
Hey, even better - let's have Carney make a plan to actually reach beyond our cowardly targets.
Canada has already burned through more than it's equal share of the remaining carbon budget for 1.5 C. Let's say that Canada needs to pay $100/t - which is much less than the cost of the damage done by carbon emissions - into the loss and damage fund. Since Canada (let's say, our 'leaders' and fossil fuel industry) has already emitted our whole carbon budget, we'll pay $100/t on the whole 700 Mt of emissions this year.
If my math is correct, that's $70 billion owed to the fund this year. (That's a bargain, since the social cost of carbon is likely closer to $258/t: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-24487-w).
We can live as climate criminals or do the hard work to quickly reduce emissions - which will, of course, also make life better in so many ways. Helping us understand that would, of course, make Carney different from Trudeau.
Beware the folks who claim a price on carbon is a bad idea...
Belot: "[Carney] knows Trudeau’s revenue-neutral carbon tax — too low to change behaviour — was a failure before it was even implemented. It was the ArriveCAN of climate policy: divisive and ultimately useless. He’s not bringing that back."
Unfair criticism.
Carbon taxes need to start out low and rise incrementally over years to give the economy time to adjust. So that society may transition away from fossil fuels in an orderly fashion. A sudden jump to $300/tonne would bring the economy to a crashing halt. Consumers and homeowners need time to make changes to their homes, energy systems, and lifestyles.
"Secret briefing says up to $300-per-tonne federal carbon tax by 2050 required to meet climate targets" (National Post, Mar 30, 2017)
Nothing inherently divisive about carbon pricing.
In Scandinavian countries, carbon pricing is uncontroversial. Sweden, Norway, and Finland adopted carbon pricing in 1990 followed by Denmark in 1992.
The right-wing disinformation campaign supported by Canada's oil mafia is what made carbon pricing divisive.
In the face of dishonest attacks, the Liberals failed to explain, promote, and defend their signature climate policy. The NDP abandoned the carbon-price ship before the Liberals did, because the Conservatives were eating into their voter base.
In a rational world, carbon pricing would not be divisive or controversial. This market-based climate policy was originally embraced by conservatives, including Preston Manning. Canada's carbon levy plus rebate was progressive policy, with 80% of Canadian households coming out ahead.
Belot: "I don’t expect Carney to be radically different from Trudeau on continued fossil fuel production — that Trudeau, who championed tax-payer funded carbon capture and spent $50 billion on a bitumen pipeline Canada didn’t need."
Carney also champions tax-payer funded carbon capture. Tens of billions of dollars down the drain for hugely expensive projects that capture a fraction of emissions at high cost. Carney has not done his homework on CCS.
"On Sunday, Carney also argued that Canada also had to invest further in carbon capture technology to reduce carbon emissions of its energy sector to be competitive internationally, particularly for the European Union." (EJ, Apr 14, 2025)
Carney has also voiced support for an east-west pipeline, however unlikely and uneconomic that prospect:
"Quebec should use oil from Alberta, not the U.S., Carney says" (Montreal Gazette, April 07, 2025)
"Mark Carney says he wants Quebecers to use oil from Alberta rather than the United States — but a new pipeline would require Quebec's blessing.
"Quebec uses 350,000 on average barrels of oil a day, 70 per cent of which comes from the U.S.," the Liberal leader told a press conference in Victoria, B.C.. [Carney was in error. The actual figure is 40%.]
"There is a big advantage to Canada to push that out, use our own oil, use the resources from that for other things, including protecting our environments (and) our social programs."
"The Liberal leader, a former United Nations Special Envoy on Climate Action and Finance, said there is no contradiction between his positions on reducing greenhouse gas emissions and building pipelines."
"Carney lays out plan to help economy along amid Trump-induced market chaos" (CBC, Apr 07, 2025)
"Over the medium term, Carney said a re-elected Liberal government would 'accelerate major investments' to spur economic growth, adding Canada should build out natural resources projects to ween itself off U.S. and other foreign energy supplies.
"He said getting Western Canadian oil to eastern markets will make the country collectively richer, and refineries won't have to import 500,000 barrels of oil a day from abroad."
Belot: "Canada is not going to meet its 2030 Paris Agreement target of a 30 percent reduction in emissions below 2005 levels. We’ll be lucky to get halfway there. …
"But Justin Trudeau didn’t let that reality stop him from doubling down on the unachievable. … Canada has no credible plan to get anywhere near any of its climate targets."
What made Canada's climate targets unachievable was the Liberals' simultaneous and duplicitous push for fossil-fuel expansion. Tens of billions of dollars in fossil-fuel subsidies. No such support for renewables, public transit, green housing, grid expansions, etc.
Diplomatically, Canada's Environment Commissioner called it "policy incoherence". A magical diet program where you can eat as much chocolate cake as you want and still lose weight.
The obviously lunatic notion that profits and revenues from fossil fuel expansion will not only help us pay for the energy transition, but are essential to that goal. So-called "climate pipelines".
Magic carbon capture and storage (CCS) projects will allow us to expand fossil fuel production.
The Liberals' duplicity, incrementalism, incoherence, backsliding, and policy contradiction amount to a plan to fail.
When Carney promises to make Canada "the world's leading energy superpower, in both clean and conventional energy", he is committing his government to the same policy contradiction on display for the past decade. The Liberals' classic "both ... and" energy policy does not solve our emissions problem.
Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development Jerry DeMarco criticizes the Liberals' "policy incoherence" on climate:
"Canada's billions in fossil fuel subsidies under mounting scrutiny" (National Observer, June 23 2023)
"[Federal] support for O&G companies reached over $20 billion in 2022.
"…Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development Jerry DeMarco called it troubling that his office has repeatedly sounded the alarm about fossil fuel subsidies undermining climate action and yet the subsidies persist. "But perhaps most concerning to the environmental watchdog is ongoing 'policy incoherence.' DeMarco had previously used that phrase against the federal government after publishing a series of scathing reports in 2021 that took aim at some of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's major initiatives, including Trans Mountain.
"DeMarco compared the effort to reduce planet-warming greenhouse gas emissions to pushing a boulder up a mountain. Pushing the boulder up involves pushing against market forces, market failures, individual actions and other factors that make climate change worse. But the government is also pushing against itself, he said.
"Different departments are 'actually opposing forces in some instances. When you see that sort of thing in Canada, you then say, 'Well, now I understand why Canada is the only G7 country to have higher emissions today than when … all industrial countries came together in 1992 to fight climate change.''
"Since 1990, 'no other G7 country has [had] any increase in emissions,' DeMarco added. 'All of the others have decreased from say two per cent to close to 40 per cent, so we're really an outlier.'
"DeMarco added that cutting fossil fuel subsidies is important not just because they undermine climate action, but because as the climate crisis deepens, 'there's a financial risk associated with doing the wrong thing.
"'So you've got policy incoherence as one issue, and now you have essentially the danger that Canada will be using taxpayers' money to acquire assets that may become either devalued or may become liabilities in the future.'"
Re "The low-carbon fuel standard? Some are not impressed." Some others are a LOT less impressed with the biofuel scam. https://www.nationalobserver.com/2021/01/05/opinion/bust-cleanbc-biofue…