The Canadian 2025 election landscape
Midway through the 2025 Canadian election campaign, the discourse is captivated by two themes, 1) Canada’s response to Trump’s tariffs; and 2) an all-party race to the bottom for lowering taxes. On the latter, information is not provided on cuts in government services and programs required, the consequences of due to less government revenues.
Indeed, the party campaigns offer little on what is proposed for governing over the next 4 years or more.
Collateral damage, the climate change emergency, the largest threat to all life on earth, and the environment at-large, are election campaign afterthoughts, almost forgotten.
This article is on the Prime Minister Mark Carney 2025 election campaign that continues the Liberal tradition, and mirrors Carney’s past roles, of deceit on climate and related issues.
Cap on oil and gas emissions plus carbon capture and storage
Canada’s oil and gas sector drill baby drill plans include 180 Canadian oil and gas firms with agendas to invest C$600B in expansion, excluding existing projects and those under development.
Mark Carney, in his March 21, 2025 press conference repeated the Liberal commitment to place a cap on oil and gas emissions. This proposed cap was presented as a Liberal draft in November 2024.
This cap would allow a 16% increase in oil and gas production by 2030-32, relative to 2019. Refineries are excluded from the cap.
The Liberal draft cap text anticipates a 35% GHG reduction by 2030, based on 2019 levels. This cap doesn’t align with 40% national emission reduction by 2030. To boot, calculations on cap-related emissions won’t begin until 2026.
The finalization of the legislation on a cap is proposed for Spring 2025, after the upcoming federal election.
Details aside, when asked how this reduction would be achieved, Mark Carney’s solution is carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology. But not a single CCS project in the world has met its goals for emissions reductions, costs and timelines.
In other words, Canada’s oil and gas sector would not be constrained to reduce oil and gas production because they would be able to continue business-as-usual with a greenwashing technology that would magically reduce emissions, while production increases.
The Liberals know CCS is a dead end. Nevertheless, under the Trudeau administration, C$7 billion was assigned to CCS by 2030, a new fossil fuel greenwashing subsidy.
Even Pathways Alliance, the CCS tech alliance of the 6 major oilsands stakeholders, doubts the optimistic view for oil and gas industry emissions reductions goals are realistic. Apparently, Pathways Alliance wants more than the C$7 billion the Liberal government assigned to CCS up to 2030.
Energy East and increasing global oil and gas gluts
Carney, in the aforementioned press conference, alluded to Energy East, an oil pipeline from Alberta to an Atlantic Canada port, to serve overseas export markets, as well Eastern Canada.
Never mind that Trans Mountain pipeline, owned by the Government of Canada, with $50 billion in subsidies, never achieved the intended ambition to distribute oil to Asian markets. More on this in the segment “Dismal Liberal climate heritage: Additional details”
Indeed, Mark Carney’s Energy East allusions embody a dinosaur project.
There are currently oil and gas global market gluts.
The International Energy Agency concluded that oil supplies will outstrip oil demand through to 2030.
New oil and gas suppliers entering global markets.
The oil and gas gluts will be exacerbated as the U.S. prepares for exponential growth of gas supplies for export.
Elsewhere, fossil fuel demand is peaking and/or declining in China, the European Union, Southeast Asia, South Asia, Japan and South Korea.
China’s crude oil imports, which represents 25% of world imports, are peaking in 2025. China’s gas imports, accounting for 18% of global demand, is expected to peak soon.
In January 2025, China’ crude oil imports were down 2%. By 2035, China’s refined oil products consumption will drop 25-40%, based on peak year 2023.
European gas imports were down 20% in 2024.
Throughout Asia, there is an extraordinary massive transition to renewables.
The financial institutions, as well as the oil and gas sector, have blinders on what lies ahead.
The Liberal climate balance sheet
Carney does not have a credible climate plan. It’s just the same old Liberal movie of choosing “all of the above,” the pluses and minuses cancelling one another out. In fact, the Liberals have never met their climate targets.
The National Inventory Report 2025 on Canada’s 2023 emissions, published on March 21, 2025 reflects this failure.
Canada’s total emissions declined 8.5%, 65 megatonnes (Mt), in 2023, compared to 2005 levels. This is a far cry from the Liberal objective of a 40% to 45% reduction by 2030. The 2030 target requires a reduction of 419 Mt to 457 Mt.
Canada’s overall emissions reduction of 8.5% was primarily attributable to the phase out of coal for electricity generation, an international phenomenon for which the government can take little credit since renewables are cheaper than coal. In 2024, 92.5% of global new power added was attributable to renewables.
Since 2005, Canadian oil and gas production emissions increased 47%, primarily associated with the oilsands. So it is not surprising that the oil and gas sector represents 30% of total Canadian emissions.
Canada will surely fail to meet its 2030 objective, as has been the baggage of its previous emissions reduction targets.
Worse, more than 85% of oil and gas emissions occur during combustion but are not included in the inventory of Canada’s oil and gas emissions. That means the combustion of crude oil exports are not incorporated in the national inventory.
The Liberal failure to offer a credible climate action plan to date, is sure to continue under Mark Carney.
Dismal Liberal climate heritage: Additional details
Below is a partial list of convoluted climate actions by the Trudeau administration, not covered in the preceding segments.
Termination of oil and gas subsidies, a broken promise
Steven Guilbeault, as the former environment minister, promised to end fossil fuel subsidies. But, in his July 24, 2023 press conference on terminating subsidies, he proposed so many exceptions that nothing had changed.
Trans Mountain, C$50 billion in subsidies
The Canadian government-owned Trans Mountain pipeline was constructed with the hope of targeting Asian markets. However, this objective was never materialised. In December 2024, an additional subsidy by way of C$18 billion was authorized, $14.7 billion for equity, plus a $3.3 billion loan, bringing the total Canadian subsidies for the pipeline close to C$50 billion. As if that is not enough for a money losing pipeline, not only do the cumulative $12 billion in loans not have to be repaid until 2043 and 2044, but also, only $479 million must be reimbursed in 2043 and $416 million in 2044. Transport toll rates don’t cover half of the pipeline’s accumulated construction and operating costs.
Canadian rejection of phasing out oil and gas production
Aligned with the cap on oil and gas emissions being creatively ambiguous, at COP28, the Trudeau administration rejected text in the draft of the COP28 final statement pertaining to the phasing out oil and gas production.
Clean hydrogen
Liberals assigned C$17.7 billion up to 2034-35 for clean hydrogen projects, comprising 15% to 40% investment tax credits. Clean hydrogen includes natural gas combined with CCS to produce blue hydrogen. Because blue hydrogen doesn’t reduce emissions, it constitutes another new oil and gas industry subsidy.
Green hydrogen, which involves using clean energy, like wind and solar, to power an electrolyzer to separate hydrogen from oxygen in water, entails at least a 30% energy loss.
Newfoundland Bay du Nord and oil exploration auctions
The Trudeau administration approved 735,000 sq. km of an offshore Newfoundland area for oil exploration auctions. This initiative is exempt from mandatory requirements for an environmental impact assessment as per the Impact Assessment Act.
In addition, the Trudeau government approved the 1-billion-barrel oil production Bay du Nord project off the coast of Newfoundland.
Methane
In the absence of any system for methane emissions measurement, reporting and verification in place, the Liberal methane objectives are murky.
The International Energy Agency estimates that methane emissions are underestimated by 70%.
Carney’s green reputation credentials
Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero
In his previous role as the UN Climate Envoy, under the UN Race for Zero Campaign, Mark Carney inspired the creation of Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero (GFANZ).
GFANZ, and its sub-sectorial offshoots, on global climate financial alliances never meant much.
GFANZ asserts that it represents 40% of the global private financial assets.
In reality, global banks invested US$680 billion in fossil fuels in 2024, up from US$667B in 2021. And the industry received $7 trillion in subsidies in 2023.
Between 2016 and 2023, the world’s top 60 banks allotted US$7 trillion to oil and gas projects. Almost half of this amount, US$3.3 trillion, was dedicated to fossil fuel expansion.
According to a Reclaim Finance report of January 2023, of the 161 most prominent members of GFANZ sectoral alliances, GFANZ members have financed 211 of the world’s largest fossil fuel expansion projects.
In December 2024, GFANZ distanced itself from zero targets, dropping requirements to publish firm targets. Instead GFANZ reinvented its role to that of guidance for financial firms, regardless of whether or not a financial institution had net zero goals.
Net Zero Banking Alliance
The GFANZ counts under its umbrella, dozens of “alliances” covering the various segments of global finance sector, including the Net-Zero Banking Alliance (NZBA).
Mark Carney described NZBA as a “breakthrough in mainstreaming climate finance the world needs”.
Originally, NZBA required new members to submit science-aligned targets within 18 months of joining, comprising disclosing plans for, and status updates on, compliance with its goals. But bank reporting has been fuzzy, lacking in transparency and coupled with questionable methodologies.
Yet, though the alliances are voluntary, therefore non-binding, in 2022, JPMorgan and Morgan Stanley pressured NZBA to dispense with targets. NZBA weakened some requirements. This was a chameleon endeavor in that since the creation of the NZBA in 2021, banks have increased oil and gas investments.
It remains unclear whether NZBA has had any impact, there being no distinguishable difference between NZBA members and non-members.
One report indicated the eco-conscious banks lean more favourbly towards polluting industries than financial institutions that don’t make such claims.
Despite the hollow NZBA climate profile, not wanting to be ill-perceived by the Trump administration, 6 U.S. banks and 4 Canadian banks have withdrawn from NZBA.
Epilogue
Mark Carney represents continuity regarding the appalling Liberal bad movie on action on climate change and reflects his former green charade with financial institution green alliances.
The oil and gas lobbies have won. They control Carney, and more generally, the Liberal and Conservative vacuity, in addressing climate challenges.
The difference between these two parties is as follows:
The Conservatives vow to increase oil and gas production and build more infrastructure to export fossil fuels.
The Liberals bluff too much,, consistent with the Liberal mediocre performance on the climate.
This election should not be about choosing between two evils, favouring the lesser evil to block the worse one, strategic voting. Unfortunately the Canadian version of the British parliamentary electoral system is such that votes for other parties in most ridings don’t count for anything.
A minority government remains the best Canadians can hope for.
May as well vote for what one wants, rather than holding one’s nose while voting for a lesser evil, the smell lasting for the next 4-5 years.
It is only when one takes risks that change enters the realm of the possible.
by suggesting what we need is a minority government, you are implying that the NDP’s credentials on green issues are better but they also called for the ending of the carbon tax and locally at least are saying there should be no tax at all on home heating even if it is heating oil. the NDP needs to speak louder and more clearly with its own distinctive green agenda.
To David Blake: The NDP calls for a Covid-19 emergency type response on the climate. The expertise on putting together an urgent action plan already exists within government staff. While further announcements are forthcoming,
so far, the NDP has announced terminating fossil fuel subsidies, maintaining industrial carbon price to provide financing for Canadian made solutions such as heat pumps, retrofitting 3.3 million homes and the introduction of a broader carbon adjustment.
https://www.ndp.ca/news/singh-climate-action-protects-you-trumps-trade-war-and-rising-costs