Support strong Canadian climate journalism for 2025
Canada’s first emission reduction target for 2035 has climate advocates and opposition parties condemning what they call a weak goal that falls far short of the country’s responsibility.
On Thursday, Environment and Climate Change Minister Steven Guilbeault announced Canada will aim to cut 45 to 50 per cent of emissions from 2005 levels by 2035. The new target is late — it was required to be set by Dec. 1 under the Canadian Net-Zero Emissions Accountability Act — and is expected to be formally submitted to the United Nations as Canada’s official commitment early next year.
The 2035 target is the smallest possible increase, given Canada’s current target is a 40 to 45 per cent reduction by 2030. Practically, that means if Canada were to meet its 2030 targets, it would have to do little else to hit its 2035 objective.
That’s concerning to climate advocates because climate scientists say to avoid crossing more dangerous temperature thresholds, steep emission reductions are required in the short term.
“Right now, our political class is succumbing to pressure from oil- and gas-backed disinformation campaigns and some of the key political lackeys of that industry, which include President [Donald] Trump,” Caroline Brouillette, executive director of Climate Action Network Canada, said. “As a result, we're seeing a quite consternating race to the bottom when it comes to climate action.”
The 45 to 50 per cent emission reduction target is a far cry from Canada’s fair share of global climate action efforts, according to an analysis published earlier this year by Climate Action Network Canada. The country’s fair share would be an 80 per cent reduction from 2005 levels by 2035 — a target the organization landed on by taking into account what science requires to meet the Paris Agreement’s goal of holding warming to 1.5 C above pre-industrial temperatures.
Canada’s Net Zero Advisory Body, tasked with providing recommendations to government, proposed a 50 to 55 per cent reduction target. In a report published in September, the advisory body said while a target in the 46 to 50 per cent range would be more feasible, it is too close to its existing target.
“This would risk putting Canada too far behind its net-zero goal and would likely represent insufficient ambition in contrast to Canada’s key international partners, including other G7 countries like the United States,” the report said.
Last month, the United Kingdom set a goal to slash 81 per cent of its emissions by 2035 compared to 1990 levels, a significant step up from its 2030 target to cut emissions by at least 68 per cent.
In an interview with Canada’s National Observer, Guilbeault said he understands why some environmental groups are unhappy with Canada’s new target, but he believes it would be irresponsible to set a more ambitious goal without a plan to achieve it. This 2035 goal, he says, is achievable based on preliminary analyses, but nonetheless, hitting the goal will require “pretty much everything going really well.”
That means provinces like Alberta and Saskatchewan working with the federal government to achieve emission reductions, and Trump not being too disruptive.
“The result of the presidential election in the U.S. is forcing us to look at potential difficulties down the road,” Guilbeault said. “And I think there will also be opportunities, but there will likely be some challenges, and it would be irresponsible, faced with that uncertainty, to not factor this into the target decision.”
Guilbeault added he believes Canada could hit the 50 per cent reduction by 2035, and if it appears emission reductions are on track, there’s nothing stopping Ottawa from increasing its ambition. But to stay on track means hitting the 2030 target too, which is getting increasingly difficult.
“I think there are still some pathways to [meet the 2030 goal], but all of those pathways include continuing to implement measures and keep them in place,” he said.
Keeping existing measures in place is itself a high bar to clear. Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre is continuing his attempts to topple the government over the consumer carbon price (and has not disclosed his position on industrial carbon pricing), and another court challenge is expected from Alberta over the proposed cap on oil and gas emissions.
Green Party Leader Elizabeth May said she sees the new target as backsliding, which is arguably a violation of the Paris Agreement that requires countries to set increasingly ambitious targets. By expressing emission-reduction targets as a range rather than a firm goal, Canada is giving itself permission to aim for the lower end of the range.
“This is a serious and egregious failure by Canada to meet the terms of the agreement that is the only hope we have of ensuring that globally we avoid runaway climate change,” she said.
The Green Party is calling on the federal government to reverse the decision and set a new target of 60 per cent reductions by 2035.
NDP environment critic Laurel Collins said in a statement that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and Guilbeault are letting the public down, and are trying to blame the provinces for their own cowardice.
“By setting emission reduction targets significantly below expert recommendations, the Liberals show they would rather cave to demands of CEOs and big polluters while hardworking Canadians pay the price,” she said. “We want a climate plan that matches the urgency of the crisis, creates good jobs and grows our economy, and puts real people first.”
Sabaa Khan, climate director with the David Suzuki Foundation, said in a statement that with a new emissions reduction target, it’s critical for federal and provincial governments to work together to counter the disinformation pushed by the fossil fuel sector.
“The fossil fuel industry’s pollution and political influence in Canada remain the biggest obstacles to meeting any climate target as industry continues to have a chokehold on climate policy,” she said.
“Canada’s new climate target is now our collective responsibility, and we need every political party and every province to do their part.”
— With files from Natasha Bulowski
Comments
"That means provinces like Alberta and Saskatchewan working with the federal government to achieve emission reductions, and Trump not being too disruptive."
Probably very wishful thinking.
And the elephant in the room is Poilievre who would make darn sure the disruptive scenarios carved in stone.
While visions of more LNG terminals danced in his head,
and the idea of emissions targets,
he decreed to be permanently dead.
"Guilbeault said he understands why some environmental groups are unhappy with Canada’s new target, but he believes it would be irresponsible to set a more ambitious goal without a plan to achieve it. This 2035 goal, he says, is achievable based on preliminary analyses, but nonetheless, hitting the goal will require 'pretty much everything going really well.'"
Canada's climate plan is premised on fossil-fuel expansion. A plan to fail.
Given Canada's unbroken series of poor report cards, Canada's future failures should come as no surprise. Canada will never hit any of its targets. The provinces and municipalities, likewise. Anyone still hoping is not paying attention. This is all theatre.
Canada's O&G industry grossly under-reports its emissions. The federal government also uses creative accounting to hide forestry emissions. Canada's emissions stats are fiction.
The Trudeau Liberals have transferred billions of dollars from public coffers to largely foreign O&G shareholders. Making the public pay for O&G carbon reduction, as well as clean-up and reclamation.
Investing tens of billions of dollars in white elephants like carbon capture (CCS), SMRs, and blue hydrogen to keep the oilsands industry afloat.
Canada's idea is to "green" (i.e., greenwash) its fossil fuels, not get off them.
"Government accounting masks carbon emissions from forestry" (CP, Oct 18 2022)
"An analysis suggests Canada is using questionable methods to dramatically underestimate greenhouse gas emissions from the forestry industry, which it says equal those from Alberta's oilsands in some years."
Trudeau's govt declared a climate emergency on Jun. 17, 2019. Just 24 hours later, the Liberals re-approved the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion (TMX).
When the IPCC issued its latest report, 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."
"Ottawa says it needs revenue generated by the Trans Mountain pipeline to fight climate change" (CBC, 9-Aug-21)
"Canada's billions in fossil fuel subsidies under mounting scrutiny" (National Observer, June 23, 2023)
Up until the last minute before Pres. Biden cancelled Keystone XL, the Trudeau govt was still advertising that Canada's climate plan had room for new export pipelines transporting oilsands bitumen.
Kirsten Hillman, Canada's ambassador to the U.S.: "Keystone XL fits within Canada's climate plan" (National Observer, 2021)
"Feds approve offshore oil project days after IPCC begged world to say no to oil and gas" (National Observer, April 6th 2022)
"Federal minister open to sacrificing part of marine refuge for oil discovery" (National Observer, June 6th 2023)
This month, the federal govt approved the expansion of Alberta's Coalspur Mines Vista project, which is already the largest thermal coal mine in Canada, making it the largest thermal coal mine in North America — without a federal impact assessment.
"Alberta thermal coal mine expansion gets green light without federal impact assessment" (CBC, Dec 10, 2024)
Climate Action Tracker's 2023 report rates Canada's efforts overall as "insufficient". Since 2011 Canada's rating has been "highly insufficient' -- in every year but one.
"As its forests burn in a record fire season, Canada’s pace of climate action appears to be moving at a glacial speed. So far, the EV sales mandate is the only major new policy from its 2022 climate plan to be implemented.
"Despite record-breaking wildfires devastating the country, ravaging more than twice the area of the previous largest fires of 1989, Canada seems incapable of kicking its fossil fuel addiction. It approved an offshore oil and gas megaproject in April 2022, continues to support the money-guzzling Trans Mountain pipeline, and exported record amounts of coal in 2023.
"In many sectors, Canada relies heavily on offsets or uncertain solutions, instead of available proven measures.
"If fully implemented, Canada’s current policies are not enough to achieve this target and are only in line with 3°C warming. Canada is also not meeting its fair-share contributions to climate change and, in addition to strengthening its targets and policies, needs to provide additional support to others."
The Liberals' climate plan is criticized across the spectrum for its duplicity.
Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development Jerry DeMarco calls out the Liberals on their "policy incoherence":
DeMarco: "… 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. All of the others have decreased from say two per cent to close to 40 per cent, so we're really an outlier."
"Canada’s billions in fossil fuel subsidies under mounting scrutiny" (National Observer, June 23 2023)
So much for Mark Jaccard's "climate-sincere" Liberals.
But the same pundits and media outlets that told us to vote Liberal in the last "climate" election will trumpet the same battle cries in the next.
Surely both Elizabeth May and Laura Collins are aware of not only the basic math here, that if they rolled in with the Liberals at this point, wholesale, thereby actually meeting the political moment like no other in Canadian political history, i.e. the specter of the Trump-adjacent Convoy Party of Canada ACTUALLY MOVING IN TO OTTAWA (not just parking their big rigs with F*** Trudeau signs outside the seat of our country's government for three WEEKS), that this truly scary, existential threat would simply evaporate? And our trademark peace, order and good government could also return to not only "make us whole," but democracy itself, especially when Trump cons are shredding it as we speak.
But oh no, they and you say, they have their "tribe" to think of first, i.e. representing those who voted for THEM in this well-paying job they currently hold? Like any CEO with his all-important shareholders, but this isn't about MONEY for them, right?
Blatant hypocrisy that they SO delight in accusing the Liberals of WHILE weaponizing the "supply and confidence agreement" ever since they signed it, pretending to have to twist reluctant, uncaring Liberal arms for each important gain achieved, gains that have met several longtime NDP goals WHILE ignoring the huge national child-care win that was a longtime Liberal goal, AS IF THE LIBERALS WEREN'T willing co-signers, and probably originators of said agreement!
The depth of hypocrisy shown by the other progressive parties is enough that the masters of hypocrisy themselves are now calling Jagmeet Singh on it, while the cross-sporting Elizabeth May continues to sail way "up there" beyond the fray, as Christianity and martyrdom always do.
All this "propping up" of the Liberals could at least be corrected once in awhile instead of enabling their "support" to be seen as the noble and broad act of charity that Laura and Elizabeth, et al. continue to work for all they're worth....literally.
The Liberals could also point all this out TOO mind you, but clearly Trudeau also revels in the gamesmanship far more than us, or probably any of the other "playas" because he IS, after all, independently wealthy.
The weary public and the much-vaunted "electorate" on the other hand is casting an ever-more-nervous eye south of the border, wringing their hands in utter helplessness.
PREAMBLE:
NEWFLASH ONE: 1.5C is already baked in, and we're still pumping out record GHG emissions so we're heading for 2C, with a bullet. What are the chances we'll actually see action to keep it below 2C? Can we please stop talking about 1.5C?
https://news.un.org/en/story/2022/10/1129912
NEWSFLASH TWO: this is a reminder that, all the hoopla about renewable installations to-date notwithstanding, as of 2023 fossils still provided about 76% of Canadian primary energy supply. Nuclear 7.4%. Renewables about 16% (of which solar and wind were so small as to not merit mention on the chart entitled "Total energy supply, Canada, 2023" on the following page:
https://www.iea.org/countries/canada
Electricity generation: see the chart "Electricity generation, Canada, 2023" on the page below:
https://www.iea.org/countries/canada/energy-mix
Note how small a percentage of generated electricity of from solar and wind.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"In an interview with Canada’s National Observer, Guilbeault said he understands why some environmental groups are unhappy with Canada’s new target, but he believes it would be irresponsible to set a more ambitious goal without a plan to achieve it. This 2035 goal, he says, is achievable based on preliminary analyses, but nonetheless, hitting the goal will require “pretty much everything going really well.”"
I am in partial agreement with Mr. Guilbeault. Specifically:
"...it would be irresponsible to set a more ambitious goal without a plan to achieve it."
I think my green friends would agree that spouting unachievable numbers, simply for appearances without serious intention to meet them, would be greenwashing. So, kudos to the minister for that, at least.
And this is why critics are too often, IMO, blowing smoke out their collective ___ and engaging in their own aspirational greenwash. It is all well and good to say, "let's cut 50, 60, 80%" by [whenever] or simply throw tomatoes, but unless they provide a reasoned roadmap, they haven't got a leg to stand on.
Sorry, but up your game!
Should anyone care, here is what I believe such a roadmap (regardless of the % goal) ought to include:
1. First and foremost: A recognition that we must treat every human on the planet equally. That is, a person in Canada has no legitimate claim to emit more GHG emissions than anyone else anywhere on the planet; "lifestyle to which he/she is accustomed" be damned. Recently, there was an editorial on these pages which suggested we work to reduce per capita emissions [though it wasn't stated that way] in developing countries, even while we continue our rich lifestyle as a per capita, top, global emitter without any serious demand to change.
2. Present a flow diagram of the country's current energy system.
As a model, use the excellent Lawrence Livermore Nat'l Lab example as a template:
https://flowcharts.llnl.gov/commodities/energy
THIS IS KEY and it's frankly shocking that Canada doesn't have a current such diagram available now.
3. Present a flow diagram which details what the desired energy system will look like, using the same model.
THIS IS EQUALLY KEY because if you don't know where you are going, any path will take you there.
4. Present a clear, peer-reviewed statement, for each primary energy supply listed on the aspirational diagram (#3) specifying how it would come to fruition. Also, include a statement of the final energy services provided with a full detailing of how those are to be achieved (e.g. showing energy conservation measures).
5. OPTIONAL. Personally, I couldn't care less about Scope 3 emissions. Leave it for the country that burns the fossil it to deal with emissions from their energy system. In any event, if we reduce our GHG emissions, it will necessarily reduce fossil production and exports, I believe. Why do you think the oil patch is screaming against emissions caps? Likely not because they view CCUS as any sort of saviour, even as they spout those words to gov'ts that are only too happy to shower them with money for speculative and consistently failing CCUS development.
At the moment, I'm not convinced that any gov't, party or NGO has a clue how Canada is actually going to meet whatever GHG reduction is hoisted up the pole and saluted. "More renewables" and "Reduce GHG emissions now" is pretty much all we hear.
And we whine about a lack of action.
Earlier today, I repeat-watched the final, season 1 episode of Modern Love. So in that spirit of love, let me close by saying:
Have a lovely evening. :)