Making Sense of Carney’s Energy Policy

Prime Minister Mark Carney has released the Liberal party’s new energy policy, and it sounds like wind chimes tinkling in a breeze that cools a hot, humid summer afternoon.

The tinkles include musical phrases like "energy security," "clean energy," "recycling," "environmental integrity," "Indigenous rights," "proactive remediation." Not to mention the clang of "the world’s leading energy superpower."

Much of the Liberals’ energy backgrounder seems perfectly reasonable, especially with its glossy coat of "energy and electricity sovereignty" inspired by the threats of the Donald Trump regime.

Faced with Trump’s tariffs, even on oil and gas, one can see the appeal for Canadians of a "trade and energy corridor" as mentioned in the energy backgrounder. Instead of shipping oil and gas to the U.S., we can ship it east and west to domestic and foreign markets.

What does this look like in practice? Transportation, oil and gas and electricity, critical minerals and digital data flow swiftly from sea to sea to sea, with plenty of energy reaching tidewater and export overseas to non-American markets, in however many years it takes to build the next pipeline and electrical grid.

But read Carney’s policy closely, and you’ll find phrases like "Investing in Canada’s conventional and clean energy potential."

This is not a program for building "energy sovereignty" out of hydro, wind, and solar power.

"Conventional" means fossil fuels, whether coal, oil or gas. "Potential" means extracting still more of them. And "fossil fuels" mean continued CO2 and methane emissions.

In 2023, the Liberals under Justin Trudeau established a cap on emissions from the oil and gas industry. Pierre Poilievre’s Conservatives have loudly denounced the cap, claiming it would kill 54,000 jobs and cut $21 billion from GDP.

The Liberals say the cap is only on industrial emissions, not production; the intent is to force the industry to produce fuels without spilling so much CO2 and methane into the atmosphere. If they can do that, they can produce and ship as much oil, gas and bitumen as they can sell.

The goal the Liberals have set is to reduce emissions by 35 to 38 per cent below 2019 levels, achieving net-zero oil and gas emissions by 2050.

So that’s net-zero for one industry, in 25 years. Meanwhile we’ll be burning jet fuel, gasoline, natural gas and even coal — or at best shipping such fuels to markets outside Canada. CO2 emissions will continue to rise worldwide, helped considerably by our exports.

Solutions! Benefits! Resilience!

Carney has also promised to protect our nature, biodiversity and water, not only from climate change but from Donald Trump.

But Carney sounds like a wellness guru when he says he’ll implement "nature-based climate solutions which deliver measurable carbon sequestration and biodiversity benefits, while supporting community resilience."

"Measurable" sequestration doesn’t mean locking enough CO2 back in the ground to make a difference. Perhaps it’s a benefit if we don’t reduce biodiversity quite as fast as we have been.

Implicit in Carney’s energy policy is the assumption that we will tick along much as we always have, but with an ever-increasing energy demand that we will meet from our own sources — some of them renewable. Much of the demand, however, may be out of our control.

The International Energy Agency recently published a report on projected electricity demand just for data centres supporting artificial intelligence.

"Globally," the report says, "data centre electricity consumption has grown by around 12 per cent per year since 2017, more than four times faster than the rate of total electricity consumption."

The report notes that by 2030, data centre electricity consumption will more than double to about 943 terawatt-hours, "slightly more than Japan’s total electricity consumption today." To meet this demand will require not only renewables but natural gas and nuclear power, notes the International Energy Agency.

No doubt Canadian data centres will grow as well, powered by our own electricity while we ship fossil fuels to create electricity for data centres in China, South Korea and Japan. Perhaps AI itself will find ways to reduce our emissions, but it’s already being used by the oil and gas industry to optimize exploration, production and maintenance.

That industry, by the way, is assured of receiving tax credits for exploration and development of fossil fuels and "critical minerals." A Major Federal Project Office will speed up the process of environmental impact assessment, and Indigenous peoples will be encouraged to involve themselves early in such projects.

So we can reasonably assume Carney sees continued use of oil and gas, whether burned at home or overseas, for the foreseeable future. He does not seem concerned about the ongoing impact on the climate.

For example, by 2050, the planet’s average temperature will likely have risen from today’s 1.45 C above pre-industrial times to 2.5 C, and perhaps as high as 2.84 C.

This assumes a worst-case scenario that by 2100 would see a rise in global temperatures to 5.85 C above pre-industrial levels.

Even in the best-case scenario, with rapid and substantial emission reductions, global temperature in 2050 would be 1.12 C above pre-industrial levels, falling to 0.75 C by 2100. That’s a tolerable climate, but not much economic activity.

It comes apart at 2 C

In his 2020 book Our Final Warning: Six Degrees of Climate Emergency, British journalist Mark Lynas estimated the impact of a two-degree increase:

The Arctic is now ice-free in summer. Permafrost melting releases 60 to 70 billion tons of CO2 and methane into the atmosphere. The West Antarctic Ice Sheet begins to slide into the ocean. Mosquito-borne diseases like dengue move out of the tropics and subtropics into "temperate" regions.

Food production worsens, and excess CO2 makes grains less nutritious. The Amazon rainforest (with Brazilian assistance) could collapse through enormous fires into savannah or outright desert, adding still more CO2 to the atmosphere.

The worst-case scenario sees 3 C as early as 2051, at which point, says Lynas, "The West Antarctic Ice Sheet is in full collapse, and so is the East Antarctic. Sea levels rise by 15 metres or more, driving hundreds of millions to higher ground."

Adds Lynas: "A vast swathe of the planet from North Africa to Southeast Asia endures days and weeks of temperatures and humidity that kill unprotected humans in a matter of minutes. Among the few places with sufficient rainfall to grow crops: 'Western Canada, Eastern Canada (but not the prairie provinces, which dry out).'"

Why isn’t climate a bigger issue this election?

When the average global temperature hits 2 C, no tax credits will be available for mining exploration and development, never mind extracting "conventional" oil and gas. Every community in Canada will be struggling to feed itself, with or without the help of AI.

But in the 2025 election, only five per cent of us consider climate change to be one of the top two issues.

The CBC recently estimated that "environment" is the top concern of just 3.8 per cent of voters, while U.S.-Canada relations are top of mind for 28.5 per cent, followed by economy/finance at 23.5 per cent.

So Carney’s Liberals have every reason to emphasize a "Canada Strong" policy against Trump, and no reason at all to soft-pedal economic drivers like oil, gas and critical minerals. Emissions are a problem for vague future dates like 2050; dinner on the table is a problem for this evening.

If Carney’s energy policy is inadequate, Pierre Poilievre’s policy is just an echo of Trump’s "drill, baby, drill." Poilievre offers the frantic exploitation of fossil fuels and no mention of climate change — just the evils of the carbon tax.

The two candidates do offer something different. With Poilievre, we reach 2 C or 3 C as quickly as possible. With Carney, we buy some time to alert Canadians to a climate disaster before it actually hits us.

Carney also offers us a government that might be open to evidence-based arguments, and a prime minister who might be able to minimize the economic damage.