Throughout Mark Carney’s whirlwind first months on the job, two words have remained conspicuously absent from the prime minister’s messaging: “climate change.”
That’s been a major disappointment for many in the climate community, who expected a more vocal advocacy from the former UN special envoy on climate action and finance. “The G7 Leaders’ Summit was a test of Canada’s climate leadership, and Prime Minister Carney failed,” wrote Caroline Brouillette, executive director of Climate Action Network Canada, in an emblematic statement following the Kananaskis summit. Brouillete was responding to the G7’s avoidance of climate change, including in a joint communique on the rising danger of wildfires.
“It’s a serious omission, and that’s being very polite,” wildfire expert Mike Flannigan told Canada’s National Observer at the time.
So what happened? Where’s the guy who dedicated two entire chapters of his book, Values, to the climate crisis? Why is the same person who used his platform as governor of the Bank of England to warn the world’s financial elites about the risk of stranded assets and carbon bubbles now flirting with new pipelines under C-5 and invoking oil-industry jargon like “decarbonized oil”?
Is it just his language that’s changed, or has the new job pushed climate change off his radar?
All policy is climate policy
Not everyone in the climate community feels betrayed — at least, not yet.
“It feels like we’re still in a wait-and-see moment,” says Dale Beugin, executive vice president at the Canadian Climate Institute. “I get the priority to go after nation-building projects. I get the priority to move on some of these big economic issues. Because that's where the moment is right now. I think that's pretty defensible. The trick will be to make sure that they can deliver on those shorter-term economic imperatives, while not losing the climate ones.”
Another word for “shorter-term economic imperatives,” in today’s Ottawa parlance, is “Bill C-5.” As most of Canada is aware, Carney rushed that bill into law in record time entirely in the name of responding to the economic crisis posed by Trump’s tariffs. And in order to get the votes needed to pass Bill C-5, Carney and his senior officials have had to find common cause with traditional adversaries — from prairie premiers like Danielle Smith to the federal Conservatives sitting opposite in the House of Commons.
“He's clearly balancing a number of delicate issues, including Alberta's concerns,” allows Rachel Samson, vice president of research at the Institute for Research on Public Policy.
For Samson, the fact that Carney isn’t lecturing Canadians about climate change the way his predecessor did doesn’t mean he’s stopped thinking about it.
“He's spent a lot of his career thinking about climate change and action on climate change. And fundamentally, I think the way that we're going to get action on climate change done is not by having big policy announcements and big claims of targets. It's going to be about embedding it into everything.”
By “everything,” Samson means things like housing (where modular home building and green financing have the potential for a massive impact on Canada’s emissions), defense spending (which Carney has said will include huge sums for critical mineral supply chains needed for clean energy), and wildfire protection (named by Carney as a top priority at the G7 he just hosted in Kananaskis – albeit without any mention of climate change.)
“To say climate change is only one thing, I think misses the broader context that it's really going to encompass every policy issue,” Samson says. “So I don't personally have a problem with it being embedded within the conversation of other policy priorities.”
Samson allows that tradeoffs are inevitable, and that Canadians may have to brace themselves for a new pipeline or two.
“It seems like he will have to compromise on certain things and that may involve an oil pipeline; it may involve more LNG projects and, and so that certainly will disappoint people who are looking to reduce fossil fuel production,” she says. But Samson remains “cautiously optimistic” that Carney’s overall focus is still fixed on the energy transition. “If some fossil fuel production is a way to get to that – is a way to raise the revenue and get the buy-in to accomplish those things and build out the infrastructure – with that long term goal in mind, I think I can get behind it.”
But those with a long memory may recall that is precisely the reasoning Justin Trudeau provided for expanding the Trans Mountain pipeline.
“The TMX project is a significant investment in Canadians and in Canada’s future that will … fund the clean energy solutions that Canada needs to stay competitive on the global stage,” Trudeau said in announcing the purchase in 2019.
So the question under Carney becomes: when, exactly, does he mean what he says?
Pipeline promises
The reason Carney was able to rush Bill C-5 through the House of Commons so quickly was that he secured Conservative support. And one major reason Conservatives supported it was that they hoped it would usher in a new wave of “conventional energy” pipelines. If Carney had explicitly promised to exclude fossil fuel from the legislation — if he’d framed it as being designed to accelerate Canada’s energy transition — the process would likely have been far slower.
Conservatives were certainly delighted by Tim Hodgson, a fellow banker and the new minister of energy and natural resources, when he visited Calgary in May to speak with the oil patch. During that visit, Hodgson, who has previously sat on the board of oil sands producer MEG energy, promised federal support for new oil and gas pipelines, though he didn’t get into specifics.
“It’s very encouraging. This is exactly what we need,” Rich Kruger, CEO of Suncor (one of the biggest producers in the oil sands) told the Calgary Herald after Hodgson’s talk.
But will Carney actually deliver the pipelines he and Hodgson have been dangling in front of the oil patch?
“I've been paying really close attention to what he’s said about certain topics, like ‘nation-building,’” says Chris Severson-Baker, the executive director of the Pembina Institute, an environmental think tank based in Alberta. “What is he actually saying about an oil pipeline, versus the words that others are putting in his mouth?”
“When talking about so-called ‘conventional energy,’” — the industry term for fossil fuels — “I've noticed that he's very careful to say that the scheme would have to make sense, or only a sensible project would be considered,” Severson-Baker says. He also had a very different takeaway from Tim Hodgson’s May visit to Calgary.
“Hodgson came in and said to a bunch of oil and gas executives exactly what they wanted to hear,” he said. It wasn’t that Hodgson was trying to deceive his audience; rather, Severson-Baker described him as “a brand new [natural resources]NR-Can minister who hasn't been briefed by his own department yet. I don't actually have a lot of confidence that he knows what he's talking about when he made those statements.”
Meanwhile, the things Carney has said must be weighed against the things he hasn’t. On Bill C-5 and elsewhere, the prime minister has floated climate-friendly projects like a national energy grid, a huge offshore wind-power project in Nova Scotia, and high-speed rail connecting Windsor to Quebec. Shortly before the G7 summit, he published the list of priorities he wanted to discuss (the host leader gets to set the agenda). In addition to wildfires, Carney named “energy security” as a top concern – but nowhere did “conventional energy” get mentioned; instead, he named “critical mineral supply chains,” an unambiguous reference to clean energy.
That emphasis extends to Carney’s recent commitment in Brussels to massively increase Canada’s defense spending, to five per cent of the national GDP — some $150 billion per year —– by 2035. In subsequent news conferences, Carney was quick to point out that a third of that spending would go to securing critical minerals and associated infrastructure, like ports and electricity grids. He may not have mentioned climate change, but he didn’t express any support for fossil fuels, either.
That leaves a lot of room for everyone to hear what they want.
The PMO didn’t respond to a request for comment on this story, though the ministry of environment and climate change did provide a statement: “Climate action remains a core priority of this government and a defining pillar of Canada’s economic future. As we build the strongest economy in the G7, we know climate action is central to our plan for a strong, secure, and competitive country.”
That sounds more like something Carney’s predecessor would say than Carney himself. But the sentiment may not be too far off. As Rachel Samson put it, advancing climate policy – however that looks, or sounds, “isn’t about a moral highground or anything. It’s just smart policy.”
Comments
Some of us left the left to support home because of his climate understanding/awareness. So far he seems to be upholding his promises to the cons but what about the rest of us?!
Bill C5 allows Carney’s govt to circumvent environmental laws that already exist. If he already fast tracked - and passed - legislation that doesn’t even uphold pre-existing environmental laws then he’s already gone backwards, not forwards. Yesterday I was at a rally with over 2000 people in Toronto that have already recognized this fact. (Carney fast tracked Bill C5 through despite loud and clear objections from his own Liberal MP Nathaniel Erskine Smith.) The sooner we recognize the emperor’s new clothes the better. We have no time to lose, given the most recent climate data.
Even if Carney plans to due a stealth-climate-agenda, he fails. Half of Canadians don't seem to know that burning oil, coal and gas are the biggest drivers of climate change, and the last Liberal government's actions told people that we aren't experiencing a climate crisis, much less climate breakdown.
I understand trying to keep everybody happy as a politician trying to stay in power, but we're so far behind that we need climate leaders - as Seth Klein wrote, to take Canadians where we need to be from where we are. We'll never have that as long as we have 'leaders' who won't tell the truth.
Trudeau lectured us on climate change and built a pipeline.
Carney says nothing about climate and will build pipelines.
An improvement?
"These are my principles. If you don't like them, I have others." (Groucho Marx)
Anyone still hoping that Mark Carney will prove to be Canada's climate saviour will be sorely disappointed.
We have two O&G parties in Ottawa, not one.
After doubling down on fossil fuels under PM Trudeau, the Liberals are doubling down on fossil fuels under Mark Carney. Different hat, same party, same agenda.
Anyone who suggests otherwise is gaslighting Canadians.
Anyone who suggests that the Liberals are not enthusiastic fossil-fuel promoters is gaslighting Canadians.
Anyone who suggests instead that the Liberals are somehow compelled against their will to double down on fossil fuels is gaslighting Canadians.
History shows just the opposite:
Liberal support for O&G goes back three decades at least. It was the Liberals who got the oilsands off the ground. Decades of subsidies that far outweigh support for renewables. Buying and building a pipeline (TMX) is not anomalous but emblematic. Decades of duplicity on climate.
Bill C-5 rolls back environmental laws and regulations on major projects. No reason to do that for climate-friendly projects. The only reason to deregulate is to ram fossil-fuel projects through.
Anyone still hoping after the Bill C-5 debacle that PM Carney will now do a 180 — and steer Canada away from fossil fuels — is deluding themselves.
Deep in denial.
“Canada has what the world needs. With LNG Canada’s first shipment to Asia, Canada is exporting its energy to reliable partners, diversifying trade and reducing global emissions — all in partnership with Indigenous Peoples. By turning aspiration into action, Canada can become the world’s leading energy superpower with the strongest economy in the G7.”
Does fossil-fuel industry blather sound any better coming out of the mouth of PM Carney — the "Values" guy?
Anyone who suggests that the Liberals are instead are somehow compelled against their will to double down on fossil-fuels is gaslighting Canadians.
As if facing off against a large Conservative opposition and Conservative Premiers somehow forces the Liberals' hand — compelling them to follow the Conservatives' agenda and not their own.
It is not the Opposition that dictates the agenda, but the government. Otherwise, political parties would strive to be the second-place Opposition, not the first-place party in government. A patently absurd argument, but Liberal partisans still make it.
The minority Liberals do not require Conservative support to pass legislation. The Liberals can rely on support from any of the other parties: the NDP, the Bloc, and the Green.
A related argument runs like this:
"Carney saved us from Poilievre. Therefore, we have to allow the Liberals to fail on climate. Choose climate failure under Carney or total catastrophe under Poilievre. Those are our options."
No logic whatever. No one and nothing compel the Liberals to roll back environmental laws and double down on fossil fuels. They do so because that is who they are. This is what they do. Corporate Canada is the Liberals' prime constituency. The Liberals are Corporate Canada's front office.
Wake up, already!
The excuses, rationalizations, and apologies from Canada's corporate thinktanks is disappointing but not surprising. Our sorry climate leadership helps to explain Canada's decades of climate failure thus far.
One could be forgiven for thinking that these befuddled thinktanks and self-appointed, unelected climate pundits make room for the Liberals to fail on climate.
"Climate sincere" Liberals and "responsible oilsands development", indeed!
Article: "Samson allows that tradeoffs are inevitable, and that Canadians may have to brace themselves for a new pipeline or two. … But Samson remains 'cautiously optimistic' that Carney’s overall focus is still fixed on the energy transition. 'If some fossil fuel production is a way to get to that – is a way to raise the revenue and get the buy-in to accomplish those things and build out the infrastructure – with that long term goal in mind, I think I can get behind it.'"
A recipe for climate failure. Fossil-fuel expansion puts Canada's climate targets out of reach. It does not matter how many "green" projects the Liberals build if fossil-fuel production and emissions increase at the same time.
Same old Liberal line on so-called "climate" pipelines. Promoting fossil fuel expansion to pay for the energy transition. Like selling cigarettes to pay for cancer research. Transitions start by moving in the direction you wish to travel. Doubling down on fossil fuels takes us in the wrong direction. When you're in a hole, stop digging.
Amazing this argument still shows any signs of life in 2025.
When the IPCC issued its latest report (2021), then-Environment Minister "Wilkinson reaffirmed Canada's commitment to phasing out fossil fuels and achieving net zero carbon emissions by 2050, but said achieving that target will require money generated by fossil fuels."
The IPCC warns that the world must nearly halve GHG emissions by 2030 and eliminate them by 2050 to keep warming below the danger limit of 1.5 C.
IEA's Net-Zero by 2050 report says no new investment in fossil fuels after 2021 to limit global warming to 1.5 C. No time for fossil-fuel expansion.
Naomi Oreskes (CBC Radio, 2017): "It's such an idiotic argument, it's really hard to give a rational answer to it. If you are building pipelines, you're committing yourself to another 30, 50, 75, 100 years of fossil fuel infrastructure. If we're really serious about decarbonizing our economy, it means we have to stop building fossil fuel infrastructure."
"Trudeau's climate plan: made for the oil patch"
Dogwood B.C.: "Trudeau has developed a more palatable but almost as dangerous form of climate denial: believing that, as long as we acknowledge the scientific reality of our warming world, we can continue to expand fossil fuel production with impunity.
"…I think Trudeau and his Ottawa Liberal elite have actually tricked themselves … into believing heavy oil expansion is consistent with a safe climate for my generation.
"…I believe they are trying to deliberately manipulate the Canadian public, exploiting our hunger for win-win solutions by telling us that locking in new tar sands pipeline infrastructure is the pathway to a clean energy future.
"…Trudeau's PR machine is really good at it. They make Orwellian double-speak seem like normal, intellectual political discourse. Canada must build pipelines to fund the clean energy transition! That makes just as much sense as smoking another pack of cigarettes a day to avoid lung cancer."
Obvious climate nonsense. Climate journalists should reject it.
The Institute for Research on Public Policy, known for its "links to prominent Liberals" (Wikipedia), is in no way a climate organization. Past chairs of the board include Anne McClellan and Janice MacKinnon. Alongside PM Chretien, Minister of Natural Resources McClellan was instrumental in the expansion of the oilsands in the mid-1990s.
The Pembina Institute supports carbon capture (CCS) in the oilsands using our tax dollars to fund it. Sufficient for disqualification.
Unlike most ENGOs and the 400+ scientists and academics who signed an open letter in January 2022 advising against federal support for carbon capture (CCS) in the O&G sector, Pembina has long supported both carbon capture in Canada's O&G sector and massive public subsidies to fund it.
Pembina's participation in the O&G industry's deceptions and delay tactics is unfathomable. From the outset, the O&G industry and corporate Canada generously supported the Pembina Institute as a vehicle to obtain social license. Its very reason for being. That's explains Pembina's longstanding and ongoing complicity in promoting "responsible oilsands development".
Climate journalists should investigate Pembina's longstanding collaboration with industry. In particular, its role as unelected mediator between industry and government in order to perpetrate industry's CCS deception upon the Canadian public.
In 2015, the Pembina Institute was one of the key architects of Rachel Notley's non-climate plan. Greenlighting oilsands expansion enabled by new export pipelines in return for a small carbon tax that would not impair their profits and a fraudulent oilsands cap that would not outlive the Notley govt. Climate plans based on fossil-fuel expansion and CCS are designed to fail.
Working hand in glove with industry, Pembina blurs the line between advocacy and collusion. Providing political cover for oilsands expansion.
Infamously, Pembina is "the green group that the oilpatch can work with".
"Meet the green group that the oilpatch can work with" (Financial Post, 2016)
It looks as if our journalist chose exactly the wrong people to talk to. Could Mr. Kopecky really find no one else?
We scientists have been warning about impending climate change related to CO2 concentration for about 50 years. The climate has indeed warmed, even more than what we had calculated. But we are like the proverbial frog in the boiling pot, we do not more. We have found a few ways to adapt to the change to a certain extent, but the situation is getting worse.
Governments and big polluters work with money, not human wellbeing. So, I have been advocating to stop scaring people with environmental issues, we must talk money. The cost of the damage, the cost of remediation, the savings from use of renewables, etc.
I think that is what Carney is doing.
I'm inclined to agree with this point of view until proven otherwise. Note that the comparison to Trudeau ignores key facts, the most important being Carney's evidence-based speeches and writings for a good decade before politics. Trudeau had none.
The mounting evidence and analysis on the average erosion of global demand for fossil fuels present the most serious challenge to proponents yet, and that exists irrespective of any Canadian political rhetoric or media narratives.
The commenter jury on this site seems to have already found Carney guilty before the evidence of even a single project has been presented. I will judge the progress -- or lack of it -- when it materializes at the mid-term (12-18 months) and make a final judgement (if the conclusion isn't already evident by then) after two years.
If the majority of Carney's projects are clean, then bully for him. If the majority are dirty, then I'll condemn Carney appropriately, and not withhold criticism of every single petroleum project in the meantime. My vote will be informed by the tally, not by unfounded supposition and premature conclusions made before the evidence hasn't even appeared.
Bill C-5 is all the evidence any reasonable observer should need.
There is no reason to roll back environmental laws and regulations on climate-friendly projects. The only reason to deregulate is to ram fossil-fuel projects through. Damaging projects that would otherwise run afoul of Canada's environmental laws and regulations.
As I wrote: Anyone still hoping after the Bill C-5 debacle that PM Carney will now do a 180 — and steer Canada away from fossil fuels — is deluding themselves.
Alex wrote: "Note that the comparison to Trudeau ignores key facts, the most important being Carney's evidence-based speeches and writings for a good decade before politics."
Have you listened to a word Carney has said since he became PM? Surely, his speeches as PM signal his intentions more clearly than anything he said in his previous career. Unless you believe PM Carney lying.
Alex wrote: "The mounting evidence and analysis on the average erosion of global demand for fossil fuels present the most serious challenge to proponents yet."
In fact, the IEA forecasts a decades-long plateau in fossil-fuel demand. Not a rapid decline. Which leaves room for ongoing exploration and stable production volumes as old reservoirs run dry. This is a climate disaster scenario.
Alex wrote: "The commenter jury on this site seems to have already found Carney guilty before the evidence of even a single project has been presented."
Canadians are coming to their senses. Good on them.
Carney's $200 M subsidy for Cedar LNG already demonstrates concrete support for Canada's uberwealthy O&G industry.
PM Carney and AB Premier Smith are hyping a "grand bargain" with taxpayer-funded CCS in nonsensical exchange for subsidized pipelines exporting mythical "de-carbonized" barrels.
PM Carney has vowed to make Canada a superpower in both conventional and "clean" energy.
To that end, Carney has explicitly voiced his support for an east-west pipeline, despite the limited capacity of refineries east of Sarnia to refine Alberta's heavy crude oil.
It's sheer nonsense to suggest there is no evidence of Carney's intentions. Unless you believe he is a liar. Why do Carney supporters believe their hero is a liar?
The Liberals have a proven track record of support for O&G. Three decades long, at least.
Alex demands evidence. Where is the evidence after the Bill C-5 debacle that Carney has the slightest intention of steering Canada away from fossil fuels — now or in the future?
Alex wrote: "If the majority of Carney's projects are clean, then bully for him. If the majority are dirty, then I'll condemn Carney appropriately …"
A simple tally of "clean" vs conventional projects is not an appropriate metric of climate success.
Fossil-fuel expansion puts Canada's climate targets out of reach. It does not matter how many "green" projects the Liberals build if fossil-fuel production and emissions increase (or remain high) at the same time.
And no, it does not matter whether there is a business case for pipelines. As we have seen with TMX. Our neoliberal governments are happy to make the business case if it is lacking. It's called "de-risking". Governments swoop in to the rescue, relieving industry of its capital costs and clean-up costs — and downloading those costs to taxpayers, so that companies can continue to distribute obscene profits to largely foreign shareholders.
"Socialize the costs, privatize the profits."
By all means, pave the way toward Conservative rule. To a one issue critic, that's OK if it means the Liberal Great Satan is defeated without any other alternative on the horizon. I am fearful of another Dark Decade of Conservative power next time, because they have turned MAGA and have no policies other than oil-is-forever and a blunt rage against "leftist" social policy.
Not a peep about the climate benefits of energy efficient housing -- not to mention desperately needed housing supply -- under Carney's stated housing policy. Not a peep about green steel that he so clearly supported in his campaign. Or his plans for grid interties across the land.
Bill C-5 is not just highly problematic, but it is not needed. On that we can agree. However, it will give the feds even more power to cross provincial boundaries with clean electricity transmission corridors that will surely drive AB and SK into fits of rage and, yes, pipeline(s) and a CCS project or two that will appease them to a degree. But they will also be miffed when Carney demands the private sector to pay the lion's share of the cost.
It will also steel the resolve of First Nations-federal partnerships to build out large scale wind and solar projects in provinces hostile to cheaper renewables that work against the jacked prices of AB gas-fired power supply.
Not a peep on the actual progress in the Number One non-US oil and gas export market, which is China. Sinopec documented a peak in Chinese gasoline consumption two years ago, and it forecasts a peak in all oil demand next year, mainly by the displacement of burner cars with EVs, and by continuing to build out mass transit and intercity HSR.
TMX dilbit is supposedly destined for China and some has arrived. But given the leaps in Chinese progress on electrification with renewables, and the additional costs of trans-Pacific shipping and the lower prices they offer, how long will that last? That leaves the same old destination: the US which is also having more of its own solar and wind moments with every passing year of big private clean energy company profit margins.
If the IEA is guilty of anything, it is chronically underestimating the investment and physical growth in renewables year over year. It used to be jokingly 20% a year. Their numbers are based on facts, and those facts lead to estimates of world peak oil demand in 2029 (recently revised from 2030), and that demand peak is independently confirmed by 15 other energy analysis organizations. Your "decades-long plateau" quip is not accurate. There are three scenarios presented, the most oil-generous one is a long slow decline to 2050 by ~10-15%, but the other two indicate a ~1/2 reduction in fossil fuel demand by 2050 (middle range), and a steeper ~2/3 decline by 2050. The most likely, based on today's trends, is the middle one. If electrification speeds up, or if oil demand collapses more quickly after a critical point of mass revenue loss, then we're looking at the best case we can hope for in decarbonization.
To many, a 2/3 reduction is a win. To others, maintaining 1/3 is a loss.
TMX is hooped in all three scenarios. Your 'de-risking = the business case' schtick doesn't make sense. A loss is a loss whether they are public or private dollars, and the projections indicate a net long-term loss and a near impossibility that the project will ever break even. Losses are deducted from the future financial capacity of the proponent. And that's just one pipeline. Resurrecting Northern Gateway presents even greater losses and voodoo math when TMX and Enbridge are not running at capacity and could easily take current flows to market.
A single medium-scale tanker spill in Boundary Pass will bankrupt Alberta and the feds with multiple tens of billions of dollars in international lawsuits for damages. "De-risking" financial losses by ignoring standard business case practices and risk assessments does not decrease actual risk one iota.
I don't believe Energy East will ever materialize. Carney could easily grease the skids for the Atlantic Loop to join all maritime provinces together in one big grid loop to accommodate the fantastic wind power potential -- actually, they are now plans -- in NS, NF and PEI. NB will no doubt be part of that. Invite QC into the Loop, reinforce the existing QC-ON interties, and you've just defeated every concept of fossil fuel expansion east of the ON-MN border. Moreover, non-US carmakers are still planning to build battery plants in ON, meaning the role of gasoline in the economy can be decreased while retooling Canada's auto sector to go electric.
Your comments on C-5 and evidence-free projections onto Carney's intentions remind me of OPEC's latest annual report that predicts 15% - 20% oil growth to 2050. Their math is complex and displays well for the narrative and charts used by the Danielle Smiths out there, but the underlying assumptions are full of holes. OPEC largely ignored China, and China's expansion of EVs and renewables into the global south, the very area OPEC says the oil growth will occur. And, most ironically, OPEC is very quiet about the build out of solar in its largest member states.
Houston, we have an interpretation problem.
Once again, Alex Botta offers no prospects for changing the Liberals' fossil-fuel agenda. To keep the dreaded Conservatives at bay, he seems content to vote for climate failure under the Liberal banner forever. Caught in a trap with no way out.
I propose a way out.
Give the Liberals a time out. Withhold your vote until the Liberals change their policy.
A solution that Alex rejects with nothing to offer in its place.
AB wrote: "To a one issue critic …"
Climate is not a single issue. It is an all-encompassing issue. Affecting the economy, agriculture, forestry, the environment, public health, public safety, infrastructure, immigration, global conflict and security, etc. The lens through which all other policy should be seen.
*
AB wrote: "Not a peep about the climate benefits of energy efficient housing"
Needless to say, spending on housing does not negate spending on fossil-fuel infrastructure. Grossly underreported emissions from Canada's largest and fastest-growing emissions source keep growing. Keep your eye on emissions.
In terms of climate change, it does not matter how much we invest in renewables. If we invest in fossil-fuel expansion at the same time, we cannot hope to meet our climate targets.
It does not matter how many solar panels you put on our roof if fossil-fuel production and emissions increase at the same time.
The Liberals' both … and energy agenda is a plan to fail on climate.
AB wrote: "and, yes, pipeline(s) and a CCS project or two that will appease them to a degree."
The O&G industry is insatiable. Its demands are endless. The O&G industry has also called for an end to all federal climate policy.
AB wrote: "But they will also be miffed when Carney demands the private sector to pay the lion's share of the cost."
Courtesy of the federal government, federal and provincial taxpayers will pick up most of the cost for CCS projects in the oilsands. The Pathways Alliance wants taxpayers to cough up 75% of the costs.
Remind us. Who bought Trans Mtn? Who paid for TMX?
"Varcoe: Canadian governments would need 'financial skin in the game' to get new pipelines built" (Calgary Herald, Feb 08, 2025)
"Yet, no private-sector firms are proposing a greenfield east-west oil pipeline, or a new oil export line to the Pacific Coast, given the risks involved.
"If Canadians want to diversify export markets or ensure energy independence, it just might take government involvement — in one form or another — to make it happen, say industry experts.
"'To get things done quickly, I think the government would need to have financial skin in the game,' said Gitane De Silva, former CEO of the Canada Energy Regulator and the principal of GDStrategic.
"'Any additional future pipeline projects in the country are likely going to need to be Crown projects, at least through the scoping and construction phases,' added energy economist Rory Johnston, founder of the Commodity Context newsletter."
"Should Canada build a pipeline to the West or the East?" (Globe and Mail, June 3, 2025)
"But building a pipeline across the country would be enormously expensive, making the tolls to ship oil through it so high that it might not be profitable. An east-west pipeline might not get built unless the government steps in to subsidize it."
AB wrote: "Your 'de-risking = the business case' schtick doesn't make sense. A loss is a loss whether they are public or private dollars, and the projections indicate a net long-term loss and a near impossibility that the project will ever break even. Losses are deducted from the future financial capacity of the proponent."
Not my schtick. De-risking is the politicos' term.
As long as governments are willing to step up and fill the financial holes in the O&G industry's business case, the actual viability of the project does not matter. You may have heard of something called subsidies.
Rigging the market for fossil fuels.
*
AB wrote: "evidence-free projections onto Carney's intentions"
None so blind as will not see.
Carney has made his intentions clear enough, by word and deed. From "making Canada a superpower in both CONVENTIONAL and 'clean' energy" to "decarbonized barrels", "grand bargains", "displacing foreign suppliers", support for CCS, and finally Bill C-5.
In fact, C-5 is sufficient evidence of Carney's intentions. There is no reason to roll back environmental laws and regulations on climate-friendly projects. The only reason to deregulate is to ram fossil-fuel projects through. Damaging projects that would otherwise run afoul of Canada's environmental laws and regulations.
No meaningful fossil fuel use or emissions decline in the IEA's Stated Policies Scenario (STEPS) out to 2050. The IEA's STEPS scenario leads to at least 2.4 C of warming by 2100 (since pre-industrial). Climate disaster.
STEPS is our current trajectory.
IEA: World Energy Outlook 2023
"Although oil demand for petrochemicals, aviation and shipping continues to increase through to 2050 in the STEPS, this is not enough to offset reductions in demand from road transport, as well as in the power and buildings sectors. As a result, oil demand peaks before 2030. The decline from the peak however is A SLOW ONE IN THE STEPS ALL THE WAY THROUGH TO 2050. The outlook for oil demand varies across regions.
"Oil demand in advanced economies peaked in 2005, and its decline becomes more pronounced in the coming decade. China’s robust oil demand growth since 2010 weakens in the coming years and declines in the long run. IN EMERGING MARKET AND DEVELOPING ECONOMIES (OTHER THAN CHINA), WHICH SEE GROWING POPULATIONS AND CAR OWNERSHIP, OIL DEMAND GROWS CONTINUOUSLY TO 2050.
" … First, the projected declines in demand after the peaks are nowhere near steep enough to be consistent with the NZE Scenario – getting on track for this scenario will require much faster clean energy deployment and much more determined policy action by governments.
"Second, the demand trends for the different fuels vary considerably among regions, with reduced demand in advanced economies partially offset by CONTINUED GROWTH IN MANY EMERGING MARKET AND DEVELOPING ECONOMIES, particularly for natural gas.
"… Even as demand for fossil fuels falls, energy security challenges will remain since the process of adjustment to changing demand patterns will not necessarily be easy or smooth. For example, the PEAKS IN DEMAND WE SEE BASED ON TODAY’S POLICIES DO NOT REMOVE THE NEED FOR INVESTMENT IN OIL AND GAS SUPPLY, GIVEN HOW STEEP THE NATURAL DECLINES FROM EXISTING FIELDS OFTEN ARE.."
STEPS: "A scenario which reflects CURRENT POLICY SETTINGS based on a sector-by-sector and country-by-country assessment of the energy-related policies that are in place as of the end of August 2024, as well as those that are under development. The scenario also takes into account currently planned manufacturing capacities for clean energy technologies."
IEA: "Change in global oil demand in selected regions, 2023-2035" (2024)
Per the IEA's graph, oil demand falls modestly in Europe and N America, but increases elsewhere: China, India, SE Asia, the Middle East, and Africa.
Further, clean energy investment is extremely uneven. China's clean tech investments exceed investments by the USA and EU combined, with developing nations lagging far behind:
IEA World Energy Outlook 2023
"However, if demand for these fossil fuels remains at a high level, as has been the case for coal in recent years, and as is the case in the Stated Policies Scenario (STEPS) projections for oil and gas, it is far from enough to reach global climate goals.
"… The STEPS sees a peak in energy-related CO2 emissions in the mid-2020s but emissions remain high enough to push up global average temperatures to around 2.4 °C in 2100. This outcome has improved over successive editions of the Outlook but still points towards very widespread and severe impacts from climate change.
"… In all scenarios, the momentum behind the clean energy economy is enough to produce a peak in demand for coal, oil and natural gas this decade, although THE RATES OF POST-PEAK DECLINE VARY WIDELY.
Almost all nations fall well short of their Paris targets. Canada has never hit any of its intermediary targets. Canadian municipalities set aspirational targets they have no hope or intention of meeting. The U.S. will likely head in the wrong direction for the next four years, at least.
Why not practice some average editing skills and simplify your 100,000++ word message to what you really mean:
We're fucked.
What "tally"? There is Zero Room for new fossil fuel. You can't make carbon emissions less by making more fossil fuel. You can't claim that the emissions belong to the country that buys the fuel: that's not how it works.
Did you know that Europe is in a heat wave so hot that France had to turn off several nuclear reactors because the running water that's supposed to cool the system is too warm to do the job?
Get a grip, boys! We're already in the scenario that early climate change modellers suggested would occur by 2050. And we've only increased emissions every single year with a small exception during the early Covid period.
Those pipelines are never going to see a profit. There will be profits only to the fossil fuel industries themselves, which they will accrue only because of government grants, subsidies and loan guarantees. Just as with TMX. And there were those who warned that would be the case with TMX, from the very beginning. And still Alberta is whining, crying how victimized they are. That's now part of the provincial DNA: it's not going to change. There's no use pandering to it.
"That leaves a lot of room for everyone to hear what they want." And isn't that just how the Liberals have kept clinging to power all these years?
Show us the (pipeline) math or shut the hell up.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5J5_MPXT_mQ&t=154s
As we move into Carney's tenure, it becomes clearer and clearer that he's scamming SOMEONE, maybe even EVERYONE. Most people aren't sure yet of the answer to the question "Is it me?"
Article: "If Carney had explicitly promised to exclude fossil fuel from the legislation — if he’d framed it as being designed to accelerate Canada’s energy transition — the process would likely have been far slower."
That's exactly the point. The process needed to go far slower. Ramming such damaging legislation through Parliament without time for adequate scrutiny is hugely problematic.
The Liberals can pass any climate-friendly legislation they want with NDP support.
*
Chris Severson-Baker, Pembina Institute: "What is [Carney] actually saying about an oil pipeline, versus the words that others are putting in his mouth?'
"'When talking about so-called 'conventional energy,'' — the industry term for fossil fuels — 'I've noticed that he's very careful to say that the scheme would have to make sense, or only a sensible project would be considered.''
Carney has voiced his support for both CCS and a new west-east pipeline to displace foreign barrels (mostly from the U.S.) in eastern Canada refineries.
In terms of both economics and climate, neither of those schemes make sense. Neither is sensible.
*
Article: "Carney named "energy security" as a top concern – but nowhere did 'conventional energy' get mentioned"
"'My government will work with Indigenous peoples, with the provinces, and with the private sector to fast-track projects that BUILD OUR ENERGY SECURITY BY DISPLACING FOREIGN SUPPLIERS SUCH AS THE UNITED STATES,' Carney said. "'Projects that diversify our export markets, so we rely less on the United States, and projects that enhance our long-term competitiveness, including with low-carbon oil and gas. I know that Alberta will be at the heart of all of these solutions.'"
"In first Alberta campaign stop, Carney promises 'new clean energy era'" (CBC, Apr 09, 2025)
Sure sounds like another taxpayer-funded pipeline.
One can easily interpret those words the other way -- as beefing up AB renewables and delivering their clean power to market, first across Canada, then as exports to the US.
My point has been all along that no one has any project they can pin on Carney based on his words. To say he's a closet oil baron or an electricity czar is just projection. We have to wait until he is well into his mandate to see.
PM Carney has repeatedly vowed to make Canada a superpower in both CONVENTIONAL and "clean" energy.
Both … and.
"'My government will work with Indigenous peoples, with the provinces, and with the private sector to fast-track projects that build our energy security by DISPLACING FOREIGN SUPPLIERS SUCH AS THE UNITED STATES,' Carney said. "'Projects that diversify our export markets, so we rely less on the United States, and projects that enhance our long-term competitiveness, including with LOW-CARBON OIL AND GAS.
Note the explicit reference to displacing "foreign suppliers such as the United States". Also an explicit reference to A direct reference to oil imports from the U.S. and elsewhere. No ambiguity. "Low-carbon oil and gas."
The following news article excerpts make Carney's meaning crystal clear:
"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..
"There is a big advantage to Canada to push that out, , 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 has previously said that he wants to build pipelines across the country to 'displace' foreign oil but would require buy-in from provinces and territories." (EJ, Apr 14,
No one else but you finds ambiguity in Carney's words.
Nice try.
Good grief. You don't actually have to do what you said in order for the words to mean what they were.
It seems beyond doubt that Mark Carney understands the science behind climate change and the gravity of the threat that it poses to the global environment and human societies. What is not clear is how he would approach tackling climate change. To judge from the chapters of Values, he seems to believe that the solutions will be found in market-driven technological innovation such as carbon capture, use and storage (CCUS) and direct air carbon capture and storage (DACCS). That would be consistent with him talking in terms of the absurdity “decarbonized oil”. The trouble is that CCUS and DACCs have shown no sign of working, certainly not at the scale required to keep global warming to within 1.5° C or even 2° C. We need to go beyond discussing whether Mark Carney is committed to tackling climate change. We need a proper assessment of just how he plans to do that and at what pace. We do not have the luxury of time.
It would appear that he has learnt the lesson of Mackenzie King, one of our most successful Prime Ministers. Never give your enemy a target to shoot at.
Mackenzie King received the wise counsel of his long-dead mother. Which spectre does Carney have to rely upon, that can whisper louder than fossil fuel campaign moneys holler?