Prime Minister Mark Carney has described the Trump administration’s economic and political disruption of the international order as game-changing. His efforts to manage this transition internationally and domestically are occurring in the context of the existential threat to the planet.
A 2024 UN Environment Program (UNEP) report concluded that, under a status quo scenario, the Earth is on track to reach an approximate 2.7°C increase in planetary warming by 2100.
A study by leading climate scientists in the journal Oxford Academic warned: “We are on the brink of an irreversible climate disaster… Much of the very fabric of life on Earth is imperiled… We have now brought the planet into climatic conditions never witnessed by us or our prehistoric relatives…”
Canadians are witnessing it firsthand as devastating wildfires rage across Western Canada.
Carney has long been an authority on the risks posed by climate change. In 2015, as Bank of England Governor, he gave the “tragedy of the horizon” speech, which introduced climate change to bankers as a threat to international financial stability.
In his 2021 book Value(s), Carney critiques free market fundamentalism for its disregard of the human condition. The existential threat of climate change, state of inequality etc., all stem from a common crisis in values. A practicing Catholic, Carney sat on the Vatican’s Council for Inclusive Capitalism.
In an interview shortly after he was appointed UN Special Envoy on Climate Action and Finance in December 2019, Carney described climate change as the world’s greatest existential threat. He urged people everywhere to keep up the pressure in calling for climate action.
Canada’s greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reduction record
Canada's Nationally Determined Contributions (NDC), represent its commitment under the Paris Agreement to reduce emissions by 45 to 50 per cent below 2005 levels by 2035, building on its emissions' reduction plan of 40 to 45 per cent by 2030. Canada's commitment to reach net-zero by 2050 is codified in law through the Canadian Net-Zero Emissions Accountability Act.
Canada has been a laggard in meeting its emissions reduction targets.
In his 2024 report, Canada's commissioner of the environment and sustainable development warned that since 2005, Canada's emissions have declined by 7.1 per cent, still a long way from reaching the reduction of at least 40 per cent required by 2030.
Canadian banks and other financial institutions continue to invest heavily in fossil fuel projects. The Net-Zero Banking Alliance (NZBA), a global, member-led initiative supporting banks to lead on climate mitigation in line with the Paris Agreement goals, has seen more than 140 banks, including Canada’s big banks, leave the alliance since the election of the Trump administration. The Canada Pension Plan recently dropped its commitment to align its investments with the country’s net-zero action targets.
Carney Government climate-related actions
In his election victory speech, Carney said, “It’s time to build an industrial strategy that makes Canada more competitive while fighting climate change.” Carney also promised action to increase clean energy infrastructure, particularly interprovincial transmission ties to help electrify the economy.
Carney appointed Tim Hodgson — former chairperson at Ontario Hydro One and formerly on the board of fossil fuel company MEG Energy — to serve as energy and natural resources minister; Hodgson is a former Goldman Sachs banker and worked alongside Carney at the Bank of Canada.
Hodgson’s speech at a Calgary gathering pressed for the Pathways Alliance project to proceed with a proposed carbon-capture facility in the oilsands region of northern Alberta. Negotiations are currently underway which suggest that the carbon emissions cap could be changed if there are meaningful advances toward the realization of its carbon capture and storage project (CCS). Many questions remain about carbon capture and storage feasibility. An Oxford University study concluded that regarding CCS “as a way to compensate for ongoing fossil fuel burning is economically illiterate.”
While Hodgson has been at the forefront of Carney government pronouncements, Julie Dabrusin, the Minister of Environment and Climate Change, has been missing in action.
Michael Sabia, recently appointed by Carney as the Clerk of the Privy Council, the head of the public service, is woven from the same cloth as both Carney and Hodgson.
Carney’s mandate letter to cabinet stated the government’s intention for Canada to become an energy superpower in both clean and conventional energy. The letter outlined seven priorities, none of which explicitly mentioned climate. It simply stated: “We will fight climate change.”
The Speech from the Throne delivered by King Charles III mentioned the creation of a federal project office committed to building an industrial strategy to make Canada more globally competitive, “while fighting climate change.”
At the meeting between the federal government and premiers, a joint statement was issued reading, in part, “First Ministers agreed that Canada must work urgently to get Canadian natural resources and commodities to domestic and international markets, such as critical minerals and decarbonized Canadian oil and gas by pipelines…” The very term “decarbonized oil and gas” has been denounced by the co-chair of the federal Net-Zero Advisory Body (NZAB), climate scientist Simon Donner, as Orwellian. Alberta Premier Danielle Smith was “encouraged” by the federal government’s change of tone on pipelines.
On June 6, Carney introduced Bill C-5. The bill includes the Building Canada Act, which gives the government the power to circumvent environmental laws to get major resource projects built. The Canadian Environmental Law Association warned that Bill C-5 could fast-track environmentally risky mega-projects across the country while undermining federal laws designed to safeguard the environment, human health, and Indigenous rights.
Navigating between corporate interests and the health of the planet
For someone very knowledgeable about the climate threat to the planet, Carney’s actions thus far are not encouraging.
Going forward, will he implement measures necessary to ensure the government meets its Paris Agreement commitments? What changes will his cabinet make to its emissions cap on fossil fuel company emissions? Will he finalize methane regulations for oil and gas, finalize the clean electricity investment tax credit, establish a made-in-Canada climate taxonomy, mandate the Canadian Sustainability Standards Board to provide binding obligations for public companies, adopt Senator Rosa Galvez’ Climate-Aligned Finance Act (CAFA) — a bill to ensure financial institutions align their activities with Canada’s climate commitments under the Paris Agreement?
Carney's actions thus far leave my optimism hanging by a thread.
Bruce Campbell is an adjunct professor, York University, Faculty of Environmental and Urban Change; Senior Fellow, Toronto Metropolitan University, Centre for Free Expression; and former executive director of the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives.
Comments
These are trying times with the ongoing unjustified tariff nonsense south of the border. Knowing how anti-climate and anti-environment the Orange Sphincter is, there is no need to potentially deal openly with climate change which could cause more grief with the inept US negotiators and administration.
We know where Mark Carney stands on climate change, I suspect those cards are being held close to his chest until some time after an agreement is reached. But also, given the times and Canada needs to move away from the USA grasp on trade, there will be give and take between dirty fossil fuels and clean energy.
Don't write Mark Carney off yet when it comes to climate change and green energy.
The pumpkinhead occupying the White House cannot be blamed for Canada's addiction to fossil fuels — and past, present, and future intransigence on climate. This is just the excuse the oil barons, big banks, and neoliberal politicians are looking for. It's called "Disaster capitalism".
AI: "'Disaster capitalism,' a term popularized by Naomi Klein in her book "The Shock Doctrine," refers to the practice of exploiting crises like natural disasters or wars to implement neoliberal economic policies that favor privatization and deregulation. This often involves pushing through unpopular measures while citizens are distracted or overwhelmed by the disaster."
Nothing Trump has done or could do compels Canada to double down on fossil fuels.
Nothing Trump has done compels Canada to build new oilsands pipelines. Expand its markets for bitumen overseas. Subsidize LNG. Fund unviable carbon capture projects in the oilsands. Cancel consumer carbon pricing. Roll back environmental laws. Run roughshod over democratic process. Ignore indigenous rights.
Nothing.
Putin's invasion of Ukraine accelerated the EU's program to accelerate its renewable energy agenda and transition away from fossil fuels. Canada could do the same in response to Trump.
Instead, the Carney Liberals plan to prop up Canada's O&G industry for decades to come.
It's a choice. Canada could choose differently.
Carney's plan — to "make Canada a superpower in both CONVENTIONAL and 'clean' energy" — is a plan to fail on climate.
Do not blame Trump for Carney's failure on climate.
Lay the blame where it belongs.
Carney could indeed be holding his cards close. Given Carney's history, that is far more believable than stating categorically he plans to toss clean energy and push dirty petroleum for decades to come.
That is borderline conspiracy theory, like Carney will pull a Mr. Hyde after two decades of Dr. Jeckle.
AB wrote: "Given Carney's history, that is far more believable than stating categorically HE PLANS TO TOSS CLEAN ENERGY and push dirty petroleum for decades to come."
Straw man. Who said Carney plans to "toss clean energy"?
What matters for climate is greenhouse gas emissions.
What matters for emissions is fossil-fuel expansion.
"Clean" energy does not and cannot reduce emissions if fossil fuel production and consumption increase at the same time.
It does not matter how many "green" projects the Liberals build if fossil-fuel production and emissions increase at the same time.
The energy transition does not start until "clean" energy displaces fossil fuels. Instead of merely supplementing them. Both … and is not a climate plan.
The Liberal plan to double down on fossil fuels is a plan to fail.
None so blind as those who will not see.
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. And gaslighting readers.
The Liberals have a proven track record of support for O&G. Three decades long, at least.
Utter nonsense to suggest there is no evidence of Carney's ambitions for fossil fuels. Unless you believe he is a liar. Why do Carney supporters believe their hero is a liar?
Have Liberal partisans 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.
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.
Bill 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.
Mr. Botta has stuck his fingers in his ears.
PM Carney has repeatedly vowed to make Canada a superpower in both CONVENTIONAL and "clean" energy.
Both … and.
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.
Carney's $200 M subsidy for Cedar LNG demonstrates concrete support for Canada's uberwealthy O&G industry.
Carney has explicitly voiced his support for a west-east pipeline, despite the limited capacity of refineries east of Sarnia to refine Alberta's heavy crude oil:
"'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.
While economic realities will likely scuttle Carney's hopes for a west-east pipeline all the way to New Brunswick, finding an all-Canadian route to Ontario is still possible.
Regardless, the point is that Carney & Co. are not only talking about an fossil-fuel expansion agenda, but acting upon it.
Exhibit 1: Bill C-5. No need to roll back environmental laws for sustainable, climate-friendly projects. No need for The Bulldoze Canada Act unless the plan is to build damaging projects that would otherwise run afoul of Canada's environmental laws and regulations.
No ambiguity.
Article: "Going forward, will he implement measures necessary to ensure the government meets its Paris Agreement commitments?"
A simple question of fossil-fuel expansion yes or no.
Carney's actions and expression of intentions allow not even a thread of optimism. Time to get off the fence.
Canada cannot hope to meet its targets if it pursues Carney's fossil-fuel expansion agenda. "Decarbonized barrels" are a myth.
It does not matter how many "green" projects the Liberals build if fossil-fuel production and emissions increase at the same time.
The Liberals' both … and energy agenda is a plan to fail on climate.
None so blind as those who 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.
Bill 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.
As Mark Jaccard observed in 2018, oilsands expansion enabled by new pipelines is incompatible with Canada's climate targets:
"National studies by independent researchers (including my university-based group) consistently show that Mr. Trudeau's 2015 Paris promise of a 30% reduction by 2030 is UNACHIEVABLE with oil sands expansion."
"Trudeau's Orwellian logic: We reduce emissions by increasing them" (Globe and Mail, 20-Feb-18)
The OECD, the UN, and the federal Environment Commissioner all warn Canada is NOT on track to meet its targets. The main stumbling block? Increasing oilsands emissions.
OECD: "Without a drastic decrease in the emissions intensity of the oilsands industry, the projected increase in oil production may seriously risk the achievement of Canada's climate mitigation targets." (CBC, 2017)
"Meeting Canada’s climate commitments requires ending supports for oil and gas production' (The Cascade Institute, 2021)
"Prime Minister Trudeau has signaled enhancements to Canadian climate policy are coming. But without moving to constrain fossil fuel production, any new emission reduction targets that Trudeau might announce will be a continuation of 'one eye shut' climate policy and unmet climate commitments. To begin to meet its emission reduction targets, Canada must remove supports for the oil and gas sector and begin a gradual phase out of production.
"… While the Government of Canada has begun to strengthen its climate policies, it does so with 'one eye shut' as it continues to avoid the climate consequences of increasing oil and gas production. Rather than constraining oil and gas production …, the Canadian government continues to foster growing oil and gas extraction by providing a range of supports to the sector that is driving up emissions. To begin to meet its emission reduction targets, Canada must withdraw its support from oil and gas extraction and begin a gradual phase out of production.
Banking on unproven and expensive solutions like carbon capture, utilization and sequestration, without complementary supply-side restrictions, will not help Canada meet its climate target—particularly when these solutions are designed to facilitate increased fossil fuel production over the next decades."
We don't have decades to expand fossil fuel production.
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.
Article: "In his 2021 book Value(s), Carney critiques free market fundamentalism …"
Misdirection.
We do not have a free market in energy. Free market fundamentalism is not the problem.
The market is rigged in favor of fossil fuels.
Climate change represents the biggest market failure in history.
If we had a truly free market, the prohibitive costs of fossil fuels would make the industry unviable overnight.
Instead, fossil-fuel producers and consumers use the sky as a free dump. Both sides enjoy huge subsidies, visible and invisible.
The price drivers pay at the pump excludes most of the climate, environmental, and health costs. Producers and consumers externalize or download these costs to the public purse, the environment, and future generations. Massive invisible subsidy.
Voodoo economics.
In a rational market, participants need to pay the full price of the full, true, actual costs of the goods and services we produce and consume. That goes for all goods and services, not just fossil fuels.
If we price in the true, full costs of fossil-fuels, the O&G industry ceases to be viable overnight.
Carbon pricing upholds the polluter-pay principle. End the free ride.
If you oppose fossil-fuel subsidies, you should support carbon pricing. The elimination of carbon pricing amounts to the biggest fossil-fuel subsidy of all.
The market is rigged in favor of fossil fuels.
Time to unrig it.
All excellent points Geoffrey!
Once again, thanks for your diligence and insight.
There is also Carney's housing plan, with particular focus on energy efficuency and systainable materials. His trade talks with the EU have already resulted in agreements on minerals and aluminum. Canadian aluminum is made with hydroelectricity in Quebec and BC and is considered green when compared to other jurisdictions that use coal or gas as a source energy in the smelting process.
A plan to make new housing energy efficient and so forth is good. However, it cannot in itself reduce emissions--it can only reduce the rate of emission growth. For actual reductions, you have to retrofit existing buildings.
The only party that would assure investment in green energy and no further proliferation of O&G would have been the GREEN PARTY.
Complaining about Carney abandoning our targets, reducing environmental regs, doubling down on support for the expansion of O&G is a redundant conversation BECAUSE if POILIEVRE had won it would be a far worse than Bill C5. There is no winner for our environment with LIBERALS OR CONSERVATIVES.
Canadians have had decades to put a government in place that truly PRIORITIZES climate change and a TRUTHFUL, HONEST transition to green economy but we chose the bullshit, greenwashing, lies of both the liberals and conservatives who are OWNED by O&G CORPORATIONS. Canada is doomed by either party, so it seems, to make any headway to meet targets and consequently we will live with esculating disasters and more of the profits that O&G rub in our face as our taxdollars go to subsidize O&G INDUSTRIES that are threatening our very survival in a habitable world for us AND more importantly for our children. We are going backwards and with OUR SOUTHERN NEIGHBOUR who will make it all happen sooner than later, sadly.
As usual, Geoffrey Pounder makes excellent points but also, like Bruce Campbell, shows impatience with PM Carney, seemingly not really appreciating what high-level chess game he is engaged in.
I'm pleased to see that he believes that "finding an all-Canadian route to Ontario is still possible" -- a replacement of Line 5 would be an important win-win.
I agree that *expanding* the O&G industry further will make Canada meeting its emission reduction target impossible.
I repeat that CCUS is a smoke and mirrors game. The O&G industry has no incentive to make the investment, as its behaviour (paying out large dividends, buying back shares) shows it is managing it like an income trust. The government is playing along, saying "you first."
I'm sorry to see that Geoffrey falls for calling the 1.5dC warming a "danger limit." The IPCC's 2018 report was driven by politics, not science and did serious damage to its credibility. There is no one point where climate change goes from "no danger" to "danger."
I appreciate your comments, Erwin.
You wrote: "seemingly not really appreciating what high-level chess game he is engaged in"
The atmosphere does not play chess. It operates on the laws of physics and chemistry. There is no bargaining or strategizing with the atmosphere.
Either we reduce emissions or we do not.
Either we meet our emissions targets or we do not.
Either our elected representatives respond to the issue of our time — or they do not.
Nothing compels PM Carney to double down on fossil fuels.
Nothing Trump or Poilievre have done or can do forces Carney's hand.
There is no satisfying Canada's O&G industry. The oil barons wish to repeal Canada's climate legislation entirely. Their demands are insatiable. Yielding to the oil mafia results in no benefit to Canada.
Carney has made his choice. The wrong and foolish choice. An unforced error.
The proper response to fatal errors of judgment is to sound the alarm, not sigh with patience.
With NDP support, the Liberals can pass any legislation they wish.
Instead, with Conservative support, the Liberals rolled back decades of environmental law on major projects in order to push through damaging projects that would otherwise run afoul of those laws.
This is not wisdom. There is no such necessity.
What is necessary and urgent is to respond to the mortal threats posed by rapid climate change.
*
You wrote: "The government is playing along, saying 'you first'."
Uberwealthy O&G companies do not deserve or require a single cent from taxpayers to pay for emissions reduction, pollution control, or clean-up and reclamation. All standard business costs.
The government should not hazard a single dollar on CCS in the oilsands, whose main purpose is to provide political cover for fossil-fuel expansion.
E.D. wrote: "There is no one point where climate change goes from 'no danger' to 'danger.'"
Correct. We have already witnessed lethal heat waves, coral bleaching events, and a significant increase in wildfires, for example.
Practically speaking, it is useful to set a reasonable target to aim at. Draw ourselves a line that we may not cross. Since we had already exceeded 1.0 ºC warming, 1.5 ºC was the next major threshold.
You may call it political and not scientific. The alternative would be to set no limits or targets at all. These thresholds imply carbon budgets, which we can calculate and govern ourselves by. Planning requires limits, targets, and budgets.
The 2018 IPCC Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5°C spelled out dramatic differences between a 1.5 C and 2 C warmer world:
IPCC: “'One of the key messages that comes out very strongly from this report is that we are already seeing the consequences of 1°C of global warming through more extreme weather, rising sea levels and diminishing Arctic sea ice, among other changes,' said Panmao Zhai, Co-Chair of IPCC Working Group I. The report highlights a number of climate change impacts that could be avoided by limiting global warming to 1.5ºC compared to 2ºC, or more. For instance, by 2100, global sea level rise would be 10 cm lower with global warming of 1.5°C compared with 2°C. The likelihood of an Arctic Ocean free of sea ice in summer would be once per century with global warming of 1.5°C, compared with at least once per decade with 2°C. Coral reefs would decline by 70-90 percent with global warming of 1.5°C, whereas virtually all (> 99 percent) would be lost with 2ºC.
"'Every extra bit of warming matters, especially since warming of 1.5ºC or higher increases the risk associated with long-lasting or irreversible changes, such as the loss of some ecosystems,' said Hans-Otto Pörtner, Co-Chair of IPCC Working Group II.
"Limiting global warming would also give people and ecosystems more room to adapt and remain below relevant risk thresholds, added Pörtner. The report also examines pathways available to limit warming to 1.5ºC, what it would take to achieve them and what the consequences could be."
I would not call that a wasted exercise.
If not now, when?