Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
Canada Earth

Canada Rolls Back Climate Rules To Boost Investments 75

Posted by msmash from the whatever-floats-the-boat dept.
Canada's Prime Minister Mark Carney has signed an agreement with Alberta's premier that will roll back certain climate rules to spur investment in energy production, while encouraging construction of a new oil pipeline to the West Coast. From a report: Under the agreement, which was signed on Thursday, the federal government will scrap a planned emissions cap on the oil and gas sector and drop rules on clean electricity in exchange for a commitment by Canada's top oil-producing province to strengthen industrial carbon pricing and support a carbon capture-and-storage project.

The deal, which was hailed by the country's oil industry but panned by environmentalists, signaled a shift in Canada's energy policy in favour of fossil fuel development and is already creating tensions within Carney's minority government. Steven Guilbeault, who served as environment minister under Carney's predecessor Justin Trudeau, said he was quitting the cabinet over concerns that Canada's climate plan was being dismantled.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Canada Rolls Back Climate Rules To Boost Investments More

Canada Rolls Back Climate Rules To Boost Investments

Comments Filter:

  • An old familiar story (Score:5, Insightful)

    by haruchai ( 17472 ) on Friday November 28, 2025 @01:20AM (#65822315)

    in the old it's not physics or chemistry that will doom humanity but economics, aptly called the dismal science

    • Re:An old familiar story (Score:5, Insightful)

      by arglebargle_xiv ( 2212710 ) on Friday November 28, 2025 @02:25AM (#65822355)
      "We're 100% in favour of dealing with the environmental crisis unless it costs us money in which case we'll be dead by the time it gets really bad so who cares, it won't be us who have to live with it".
      • Welcome do democracy, where decisions reflect the majority positions. Technically there is a second tier of voting, with money, people could simply reject buying dirty energy, so if it's close to 50:50 split, you can still have a significant secondary effect. However, as you said, everyone is all for clean energy or using less energy, as long as it doesn't cost them more, or make them less comfortable. Heck, I somehow doubt even the minister who quit would choose to live in an unheated home (it is possible
        • Also I notice a lot of people with EVs can afford to also have a fairly new ICE.
          • The one I always enjoy is the wealthy house with the Model X in top tier trim with the Range Rover with the supercharged gas guzzling engine as the stablemate. Its all about image for these people.
            • That is precisely my point. Majority of EV buyers do not buy them because they are environmentally friendly, they buy they because they find that car desirable. If it wasn't for Tesla, the only BEV cars you would see would be publicity stunts by celebrities, cars relegated to publicity events, stuck in a garage all other times while the celebrity is riding around in a Ferrari. Maybe some die hard environmentalists, but I suspect also just for show (as the EVs before Tesla were not just undesirable, they wer

      • What if no one has kids, then will it play itself out and will the earth recover naturally from the cancerous scourge of humans?

      • "We're 100% in favour of dealing with the environmental crisis unless it costs us money in which case we'll be dead by the time it gets really bad so who cares, it won't be us who have to live with it".

        The problem is one of short term thinking and lack of strategy. Those who will invest money to deal with the problem are the ones that will make the most money in the future when the rest of the world plays catchup and comes asking the experts for assistance.

        The future cost money but that investment pays dividends.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      Canada is just ceding ground to other countries, who will race ahead with clean tech and lower costs.

      • Re:An old familiar story (Score:4, Informative)

        by DrMrLordX ( 559371 ) on Friday November 28, 2025 @08:45AM (#65822793)

        There's still an active export market for Canadian oil, and the whole point of this action is to address outrage in the Western provinces over stagnation being forced on them by Ottawa. Expanding oil production and exports has nothing to do with "ceding ground to other countries".

    • Are you saying you didn't see this coming? It is a democratic system, ain't it? So this means politicians just do what is expedient, that's why they are elected. Leaders have stopped being elected long long time ago. Not that I am for any government intervention into any of this at all, I am against it. I believe we must do what we do as a species without any collective action enforced by government, I am against all government intervention. I am totally against anyone trying to architect our survival a

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by CohibaVancouver ( 864662 )

      in the old it's not physics or chemistry that will doom humanity but economics, aptly called the dismal science

      Here in Canada we were able to stay on track with our targets until our neighbour and former friend the USA threw us under the bus while at the same time shooting themselves in the foot.

      I'm not sure if you can call the actions of the American government "economics." I certainly don't.

      • Re:An old familiar story (Score:5, Informative)

        by Kernel Kurtz ( 182424 ) on Friday November 28, 2025 @12:41PM (#65823145)

        Here in Canada we were able to stay on track with our targets

        No we weren't, but whatever. Trudeau doubled our national debt - yes he borrowed more money than every other PM before him since confederation - and Carney looks to be a similar economic disaster. You know it is bad when they are borrowing for operating and not just capital expenses. Without oil revenue your grandkids are going to have one hell of minimum interest payment on their credit card bill. Climate is the least of their worries.

    • in the old it's not physics or chemistry that will doom humanity but economics, aptly called the dismal science

      If you don't want Alberta to pump oil then don't buy oil.

      But if you are going to pump oil then build a pipeline because shipping it by truck or rail is a horrible solution.

      I want the oil industry to die because we're moving onto other energy sources, not because we're shutting down the Albertan oil industry so other producers like the US and the Middle East can make more money.

  • Paris Accord -> Trump -> US leaves Paris Accord, pressure on Canada -> Canada needs energy -> Canada leaves Paris Accord
    • Sanity always prevails in the end, but it can take a while. One thing the climate doomers ignore is petrochemia - we need lubricants, waxes, adhesives, coatings and polymers which almost exclusively come from oil. Burning oil is kinda stupid, since there are better uses for it, so it is a problem that will eventually solve itself.
    • Ha ha, Paris Accord. Guess how much France, the country which lead said accord, was fined for not meeting their own commitments? Spoiler alert, it's €1. https://earth.org/court-finds-... [earth.org] The accord is not worth the paper it's written on, or the non-volatile storage it's saved on, if it has absolutely no teeth. Imagine if speeding fines were capped at $1 fine per year for all your speeding tickets. How meaningful would the speed limit signs be?

      • Have you ever driven the speed limit under current fine policy and been the slowest car on the road? How effective are fines?

      • Re:Chain of thoughts (Score:5, Interesting)

        by thegarbz ( 1787294 ) on Friday November 28, 2025 @11:02AM (#65823005)

        Ha ha, Paris Accord. Guess how much France, the country which lead said accord, was fined for not meeting their own commitments? Spoiler alert, it's €1.

        Yeah, and whose fault is that? Right the USA which objected to one word in the entire accord: "Shall" instead of "Should". But sure, blame the French.
        Anyway blame game aside the fault is your own. The court case fine had little to nothing to do with the Paris agreement as it was brought locally by a local court against the government related to an international agreement. The fine was always going to be symbolic because there was no legal mechanism to do something otherwise. Governments can't pass laws to fine themselves. Laws don't work like that.

        Incidentally the French are part of the EU and the Paris Agreement was signed in such a way that the block reports emissions. The EU is ranked "Insufficient" against the Paris target. Canada is ranked "Highly Insufficient" along with China and India, and the USA "Critically Insufficient" sharing that category with what Trump would call "3rd world shitholes".

        So I wouldn't go throwing shade at France in a story about Canada.

    • Trump threatens to attack Canada, Canada must spend more on military and large projects to remove reliance from America, more pressure on Canada .

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by SK_CUPost ( 6471570 )
      Trump threatens Canada's major trading relationship > Canada plans to do more business elsewhere.

      • Trump threatens Canada's major trading relationship > Canada plans to do more business elsewhere.

        Which necessitates new pipelines to places that are not the US.

  • The only way to prevent the de facto conclusion is to speak the only language they understand.
  • Albertians are very tired of Canada's liberal government policies that are generally against oil and gas production (emissions caps, carbon tax, cancel pipeline projects, etc), while simultaneously using Alberta to help fund the rest of the country. Moves like this are becoming essential to keep Alberta in Canada as an increasing number of its populace is starting to eye independence or closer cooperation with the United States. It's about time we get rid of the red tape.
    • Some Albertans have voted with their feet - I left Canada in 2009 and the CAD exchange rate just keeps getting worse, so I am not wealthy or dumb enough to go back.

      • You left during a recent high point in the currency. I remember well it unexpectedly climbing from 62c to to the USD in 2003 to parity by 2008 because I was living in Ontario and working 1099MISC since 1999 for a Californian company and watched my USD pay diminishing in value. Letâ(TM)s be honest, the exchange rate is back where the historical trend was taking it.

        • Yup, the historical level of 60c is the Liberal gov level. The Conservative gov 1.10 level is the exception. Carney is a conservative PM of a Liberal gov - so one can only hope that the economy and exchange rate will improve a bit.

          • Re: (Score:1)

            by Anonymous Coward

            Oh please, it's nothing to do with Libs vs. Tories. You're fantasising: the exchange rate had already risen to nearly 90c at the end of Paul Martin's time, and was dropping quickly down through 80c by the end of Stephen Harper's time. The state of the economy lags behind policy changes, as much as they impact it from a macro perspective, often by one or two years. The currency wasn't historically at a 60c level anyway and the fact is, it's been up and down under both Libs and Tories.

            • Keeping the dollar low makes Canadian exports cheaper. So they say..

              • Re: (Score:2)

                by Malc ( 1751 )

                Right, and it can improve foreign investment, although exchange rates also tend to reflect the health of the economy and not always about the government actively trying to achieve this. Undervaluation can lead to some problems though, such as loss of productivity due to weaker competition or higher inflation.

      • Not sure if that matters as much as you think it does. As a Canadian anything that is $5 here was $5 US anyway. It has been this way for years now. I can't imagine what it is like now that you have such inflation. A big reason why Canadians have stopped going there is because everything is much less expensive here.

    • Re:Otherwise Alberta might leave Canada? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Petersko ( 564140 ) on Friday November 28, 2025 @07:35AM (#65822719)

      If that referendum was held, Alberta would stay firmly in Canada. The separation group is loud, but very decidedly in the minority.

      Most Albertans understand the semi-antagonistic relationship is just here to stay. What exasperates them is the two faced nature of it. If the rest of Canada is so appalled with that industry, they should stop taking the blood money. Exclude those revenues from the equalization calculation.

      But that won't happen, so the country lives well off the proceeds while belittling the provider. In the meantime they're bent out of shape by the damaged auto industry in Ontario - an industry providing cradle to grave emission producing units.

      Nobody likes hypocrisy.

  • It's giving away nothing and gets political cover (Score:4, Interesting)

    by rbrander ( 73222 ) on Friday November 28, 2025 @03:24AM (#65822401) Homepage

    "Against oil" (meaning, development, business, jobs, etc) has been the big conservative complaint against the Liberals, that they sacrifice prosperity and jobs for their (wrong anyway) environmental tenderness.
    They're now giving away precisely nothing: the commitment to get all the approvals through, the environment compromised, for a pipeline that's never going to happen.

    The money simply isn't there for such a mammoth multi-project. Money is definitely there for tweaks and tricks to squeeze and extra million barrels/day out of the tar sands, and to get that extra million down various improved pipelines, for "just a few billion" in upgrades:
    https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada... [www.cbc.ca] ... the 80/20 rule, as it were.

    But to fill a whole new million bbl/day pipeline, you'd need a major new oil sands mine, like the Kearl Lake Projects back in 2013, which added 880,000/day for a grand total of $20B. (Not just a new mine, you see, but facilities to dilute the bitumen, a pipeline from Edmonton to send diluent, another to send diluted bitumen back, at a billion each...15 years ago.)

    So, even if there are new efficiencies, $25B for the sands expansion is conservative, and so is $25B for the next pipeline, even without the pandemic and giant '21 flood that put the last one up to $34B. After recent inflation for construction costs, $50B is really a rock-bottom estimate.

    So, if they deliver a million barrels a day, each barrel has to pay the interest on $50,000, and then make a profit. They need over $40/bbl for operating costs, so they really must have over $50/bbl global oil prices...from 2030 through the early 2040s before they get into the gravy. Nobody not paid to be delusional thinks that prices will not go lower and lower as the market starts to decline. The Saudis will probably crash the price (as they did in 2014) just to drive competitors broke.

    Nobody's going to risk that. That's the conclusion of the retired Imperial Oil economic/market analyst, Ross Belot, in Canada's Macleans:
    https://macleans.ca/economy/wh... [macleans.ca]

    So Mr. Carney can promise to shoot whales personally if they'll just build a pipeline, in the serene knowledge that it isn't going to happen. The only thing he has to do to stop a pipeline is not promise a penny of public money to back it. Since the government already had to pay for the last pipeline, he's got a popular excuse.

  • Carbon capture will never work and anyone funding it is doing so only so they can pretend to be doing something while actually just continuing to profit from destroying the planet.

    When a politician or a company supports Carbon Capture, they are trying to fool you and are just as contemptible as climate change deniers.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Misagon ( 1135 )

      There are however some carbon dioxide-producing industrial processes which are difficult or impossible to replace with carbon-neutral alternatives.
      For those specifically, you could install a carbon capture device in the flue.

      And then you have to store that somewhere, only for it to seep out slowly. But it will seep out.

      Installing carbon capture devices in oil, coal and gas-burning power plants is contemptible and ineffective, and will only prolong the problem.
      And ... anyone who tends the proposition that yo

      • Indeed: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/dont-fall-for-big-oils-carbon-capture-deceptions/

        "Carbon capture technology is a PR fig leaf designed to help Big Oil delay the phaseout of fossil fuels"

        Again, any politician or company supporting this is trying to fool you.

  • It was a "planned" emissions cap and changing the rules around clean electricity won't mean much. They aren't going to run off and build more coal plants. And investment in carbon capture is the lip service being returned for that lip service.

    And the deal to open the door to a new pipeline to the west coast is equally nebulous. It requires BC and a ton on indigenous groups to be on board. If it ever happens, it's years away.

    None of this changes anything any time soon. All politics, no substance.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Guspaz ( 556486 )

      Unless the government is completely politically oblivious, I'm convinced that this is a tactic to get Alberta to settle for an upgrade of the TMX pipeline, either by increasing the flow (which BC and indigenous groups have indicated that they are willing to accept) or perhaps building new pipes along the existing right of way (which is outside what BC is willing to go for, but a much smaller reach than reviving Northern Gateway).

      I think something to do with TMX is where Alberta and BC will meet in the middl

  • This is very disappointing, especially seeing as even traditionally worst-offenders like China are going all-in on renewables. It's short-term gain for long-term pain.

  • Canadians and the government got addicted to money laundering and high immigration to boost the economy. In typical Canadian fashion the government was too stupid to invest in education, the medical system, and infrastructure and housing. Because of this oversight, the cost of living went through the roof. Housing is unaffordable, and the education system is now a joke... If you need the medical system, good luck... Unfortunately Canada can't stop extracting natural resources since collectively as a society

    • Damn that is spot on. Nearly every fast food joint applies for temporary foreign workers visas so they can pay below market wages.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by dskoll ( 99328 )

      Part of the problem is our terrible competition environment. Our competition law is basically toothless and almost never really enforced. So in most industries, we have a few big players who don't need to innovate or be productive to stay profitable, and a high barrier of entry for innovative new players.

      And unfortunately, the huge players are very successful at lobbying the government to keep the status quo.

  • Hey, everybody. What was actually signed was a memorandum of understanding (MOU) between the federal government and the government of the province of Alberta (one out of ten provinces), regardless of the breathless reporting that you might read in the popular news media. It is not a binding agreement (yet) and it is certainly not a law. And there is a good chance that it will fail, because of the need for further agreements, such as with the province of British Columbia (which is against the MOU) and man
    • Exactly what I was coming to say. This is an "understanding" not a legal agreement. And that dumb-ass in Alberta seems t to forget that there's a whole province in the way of her precious pipeline to the Pacific that's saying no. Even if the province was forced, the lands under the jurisdiction of the BC tribes would also have to give their blessing, which is also a no since they were never consulted on this plan. And someone previous was right, Carney (and the Libs) give lips service to the environment unt

Slashdot Top Deals

How long does it take a DEC field service engineer to change a lightbulb? It depends on how many bad ones he brought with him.

Close