On 28 April, Canadians will go to the polls to vote for the next prime minister.
The election comes after Justin Trudeau stepped down as leader of the Liberal Party of Canada in January following nine years leading the party as prime minister.
Trudeau cited “internal battles” within the party for the decision, and stated that Canada “deserves a real choice in the next election”.
His successor Mark Carney – the former governor of the Bank of England and the Bank of Canada – called for a snap election on 23 March, just a week after being elected Liberal party leader and, thus, becoming prime minister.
Carney is facing a stiff challenge from Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre, whose party was leading in the national polls from 2023 till the beginning of 2025.
However, the campaigning has occurred under the shadow of US president Donald Trump’s tariffs, with 25% taxes placed on Canada’s steel, aluminium and vehicles exports.
The US president’s tariffs and calls to make Canada the “51st state” have contributed to a late surge of support for the Liberals, according to multiple polls.
Carbon Brief analysis finds that a Conservative victory over the Liberals could lead to nearly 800m extra tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions over the next decade.
In the interactive grid below, Carbon Brief tracks the commitments made by major political parties in their latest election manifestos. The grid covers a range of issues connected to nature, energy and climate change.
The parties covered are:
- The Liberal Party of Canada, the centrist party which has been in power since 2015.
- The Conservative Party of Canada, the right-leaning party which has traditionally been the other dominant party in the nation’s politics.
- The New Democratic Party (NDP), a left-leaning social-democrat party, which won more than 17% of the popular vote in the last election and 24 seats (out of a total of 338).
- The Bloc Québécois, a nationalist, centre-left party that advocates for Quebec sovereignty. In 2021, it won the popular vote in 32 of Quebec’s 78 electoral districts.
- The Green Party of Canada, a left-leaning, environment-focused party which currently has two sitting MPs.
Each entry in the grid represents a direct quote from one or more of these documents. The grid will be updated as each party publishes their manifesto.
Net-zero and climate framing
Climate and energy issues have dropped down the election agenda in Canada.
In a poll of 2,000 adults in late March, just 5% of Canadians said that climate issues would most influence their vote.
More than a third cited the “cost of living” as the top issue influencing their vote, while 19% chose Trump’s impact on Canada. Other key issues singled out by respondents were healthcare, housing, jobs, taxes and government spending.
Trump’s election and subsequent tariff announcements have had a dramatic effect on polling ahead of the election, as seen below which highlights the extreme change in probability of each party winning enough seats to form the next government.
Nevertheless, despite slipping down the priority list for many voters, there are a number of climate and energy issues on the ballot, including the future of the oil and gas industry, electricity grid infrastructure, wildfire protection and the rollout of electric vehicles and “green home” retrofits
In the last general election, held in 2021, all major parties committed to pursuing the 2050 net-zero target, signed into law that year by the ruling Liberal party.
Four years later, that consensus appears to be under strain.
Conservative leader Poilievre has distanced himself from Canada’s net-zero target at rallies, telling supporters the Liberals’ “radical net-zero environmental extremism” has driven investment away from Canada. He has also said that the “radical net-zero movement” means “net-zero growth, net-zero jobs, net-zero paycheque”.
As part of plans to make Canada a “leading energy superpower”, Carney has said his party will “aggressively develop projects that are in the national interest” guided by three objectives: energy security; trade diversification; and long-term competitiveness. In a TV debate, he said he will support production of “low-risk” and “low-emission” oil.
The Liberals have said they will support the construction of an “east-west” electricity grid, which could carry electricity from the hydropower-rich provinces of Quebec, Manitoba and British Columbia to provinces reliant on fossil fuels for electricity generation.
(This is no small feat as electricity falls under provincial jurisdiction and regional systems vary widely. Some provinces have a fully deregulated electricity market, whereas, in others, electricity is produced and sold by “crown corporations” owned by the provincial government.)
The US’ trade war on Canada has also reignited debates around fossil-fuel pipelines, amid widely reported polling which suggests an uptick in support for new oil-and-gas transportation projects.
(Supporters claim pipelines can reduce the oil-and-gas sector’s reliance on the US, by opening up new export opportunities from eastern ports and reducing the flow of oil which travels from western to eastern Canada via pipelines in the US).
Carney has said the Liberals are open to new oil-and-gas pipelines – but only with the support of the provinces and First Nations.
The Conservatives have said they will support pipelines that would transport oil and gas to eastern Canada. (Previous attempts to get west-east pipelines off the ground – including the Energy East crude oil project and the LNG Quebec scheme – have failed amid fierce opposition focused on economic and environmental concerns.)
To fast-track approval of oil-and-gas production and pipelines, Poilievre has said he will repeal a key federal environmental assessment law – bill C-69.
The NDP opposes the Energy East and LNG Quebec projects specifically, but has said it will not rule out pipelines altogether. However, the left-leaning party has said an east-west electricity grid is its “first priority” for growing the energy market.
The Greens, the NDP and Bloc Québécois have pledged to eliminate tax breaks for oil-and-gas companies and redirect funds towards efforts to tackle or adapt to climate change.
Specifically, the Greens say they would invest freed-up funds in clean energy, the NDP on energy-saving retrofits in homes and the Bloc Québécois on climate adaptation measures.
The Liberals have committed to reinstating a zero-emission vehicle subsidy programme paused earlier this year.
Parties have also put forward plans to boost the country’s preparedness to climate change and, in particular, to wildfires. The Liberals have pledged investment, additional training and modern firefighting equipment for the national parks service’s wildfire response teams.
The Greens, on the other hand, are advocating for the launch of a national civil defence corps – a civilian-led national service dedicated to building Canada’s resilience and preparedness for emergencies.
Trade and tariffs
US president Trump’s tariffs and the ensuing trade war have “dominated” the messaging within the campaigns and “transformed the dynamics of the race”.
On 1 February, Trump signed an executive order imposing 25% tariffs on nearly all goods from Canada and Mexico, claiming this was in response to fentanyl smuggling and illegal immigration.
Following this, there have been months of back-and-forth on the tariffs and their levels, with numerous pauses and steps by Canada to retaliate. This included a threat to place a 10% tariff on oil-and-gas exports to the US.
This includes then-prime minister Trudeau announcing tariffs of 25% on C$155bn of US goods, a move welcomed by government-funded policy research organisation the Canadian Climate Institute. In a statement, the institute’s president Rick Smith said:
“The Canadian Climate Institute is in full support of efforts taken by the federal and provincial governments to retaliate against the unprovoked and illegal tariffs imposed by the United States on Canada.”
In March, Trump suspended many of the tariffs, but imposed 25% on steel and aluminium.
Following this, Ontario announced its own tariffs, including a 25% surcharge on electricity exported to Michigan, Minnesota and New York.
Trump dubbed this an “abusive threat from Canada”, threatening to double tariffs on the country’s steel and aluminium. Ultimately, both sides backed down.
There is an asymmetry in economic dependence between the two countries that leaves Canada particularly exposed to the trade war.
In 2023, nearly 77% of Canada’s overall exports were to the US, of which energy products and vehicles were the largest categories, representing 40%. The US accounted for 97% of Canada’s C$124bn of oil exports that year, as well as 45% of its gas, according to government figures.
Meanwhile, Canada only accounts for 14% of US goods exports, ensuring “Canada suffers disproportionately in economic confrontations”, notes Forbes.
Speaking at the beginning of April, Carney said that the tariffs on Canada would “directly affect millions”.
The effect of the tariffs will particularly hit those in the automotive industry. A recent article in Bloomberg suggested that the tariffs threaten to “throw a wrench into the prospects for decarbonising both economies”.
It highlights that Canada is a “world leader” in lower-carbon aluminium and has been building up its electric vehicle (EV) sector. As such, the impact of 25% tariffs on the automotive sector could hamper the transition to EVs.
Additionally, the renewable-energy sector is particularly reliant on cross-border supply chains, leaving it vulnerable to the disruption created by the tariffs and ensuing trade war.
All of the major parties have responded within their campaigns. The Liberal party is planning to match the 25% tariffs on vehicles, along with investing C$5bn into a “trade diversification corridor fund”.
The Conservatives, meanwhile, have said they will not remove the counter tariffs until the US removes all of its tariffs on Canada. They would put almost all of the collected tariffs into tax relief for the workers hit by them.
Elsewhere, the NDP is in favour of the retaliatory tariffs and has threatened to impose a 100% tariff on Tesla products, if Trump moves to apply a tariff to all Canadian goods. Bloc Québécois has called for a pandemic-style wage subsidy to support workers impacted by the tariffs.
The Green party would work with other democracies to pursue joint retaliatory economic measures.
Canada’s carbon tax
An early point of contention within the Canadian election has been the so-called “carbon tax”.
The “pan-Canadian climate framework” was brought in in 2018 and is modelled on the “groundbreaking” carbon-pricing system introduced in British Columbia in 2008.
It places a surcharge on carbon-based fuels and other sources of greenhouse gas emissions. The system has two parts, one for consumers and one for industry, with different rates applied to either.
A key element of the carbon tax is that it is revenue-neutral, with the government paying back any money raised to the taxpayer in the form of rebates.
Despite the criticism levied against it, between 60-70% of non-Conservative leaning voters continue to support the concept of carbon pricing, according to a poll in February.
The carbon tax has previously been “heralded as a cornerstone of the country’s strategy to tackle climate change”, but, amid the cost-of-living crisis, in recent years it has increasingly come under fire.
Throughout 2024, Poilievre sought to position the tax as a key point of difference between his party and the Liberals, arguing that Trudeau must “call a ‘carbon-tax’ election”.
In a statement made in March, Poilievre argued that the tax would combine with the tariffs imposed by the US government, leaving “Trump grinning from ear to ear”. He added:
“We will take the carbon tax off your gas, heat and food. But we will also axe the tax on Canadian steel, aluminum, natural gas, food production, concrete and all other industries. We will be strong, self-reliant and sovereign, standing on our own feet and standing up to the Americans.”
Following Carney’s election as Liberal party leader, one of his first actions was to cut the carbon tax rate to zero for consumers, effectively ending it.
Speaking on his first day in office, Carney said:
“This will make a difference to hard-pressed Canadians, but it is part of a much bigger set of measures that this government is taking to ensure that we fight against climate change, that our companies are competitive and the country moves forward.”
The industrial carbon tax still stands, however, and has drawn increasing focus within the election campaigns.
In March, Poilievre pledged to “completely eliminate the carbon tax” while speaking from a steel mill in eastern Ontario.
(The steel mill had received more than C$3.5m from the carbon-tax scheme, helping it to replace its old gas furnace and consequently reducing its emissions by 17%.)
Carney has promised to bolster the industrial carbon tax, noting that it will be necessary for trade with Europe and other countries in the future.
The NDP has said it will keep the industrial carbon price. Bloc Québécois did not comment on the federal carbon tax explicitly, but has said it will “advocate for carbon pricing across Canada”.
Analysis from the Canadian Climate Institute found that “large-emitter trading systems” – a group which includes the industrial carbon tax, as well as Quebec’s cap-and-trade emissions pricing system – are on track to be the single biggest driver of cuts to Canada’s emissions by 2030, contributing 20-48% of anticipated reductions.
The post Canada election 2025: What the manifestos say on nature, energy and climate appeared first on Carbon Brief.
Canada election 2025: What the manifestos say on nature, energy and climate
Climate Change
Energy transition policymaking must evolve to fit an age of rupture
Andreas Sieber is head of political strategy at 350.0g. Cat Abreu is director of the International Climate Politics Hub.
From the US abduction of Venezuela’s president at the start of this year to the Iran war which rumbles on, disruption is the new normal for global geopolitics, more often than not linked to conflict over supplies of oil and gas.
Events so far in 2026 – driven largely by the desire of the Trump administration to grab control of fossil fuels around the world – show that the climate community’s approach to energy diplomacy will have to evolve if we are to operate effectively and push for climate action in such a volatile landscape.
Today’s climate and energy governance must be able to cope with trade wars, genocide, fascism, spiralling inequality and challenges to multilateralism. The increasingly dominant paradigms of economic competitiveness, energy security and green industrialisation can help drive the transition but they also challenge our collective mission to deliver an equitable green shift.
US-China rivalry dominates
Longer-term geopolitical trends that are seeing power move from West to East and North to South have fuelled a US–China “superpower rivalry”, which is pulling the global economy apart and reining in trade.
A key question will be how the fracture “lines” are drawn: by the US and China, or also by other countries or blocs? Many governments will try to remain “in the middle” between the two giants to capture economic gains from both sides. Yet despite the language of “strategic autonomy”, Washington and Beijing may be in a position to force choices via market access, export controls and sanctions.
At first glance, this may not seem particularly relevant for climate and energy politics. But Huawei’s exclusion from 5G operations across the political West and India following the so-called Clean Network Campaign by the US government serves as a warning of what could happen to climate green tech.
And the recent debate to cut out Chinese inverters from European markets follows the same pattern – US security forces perceive a risk and start encouraging their allies to drop Chinese technology.
The new drivers: competition and security
Despite this fracturing geopolitical and economic context, energy transition is still happening. To ensure it is effective and equitable, we need to understand what is driving it and how to adapt climate politics so that it better responds to these drivers.
Put simply, China is supplying the world with low-cost renewables (roughly 60% of critical wind and 80% of solar components), batteries, EVs and other key elements. Other countries now also want their piece of the green tech pie and are forming industrial policies to get it.
It is this new competitiveness-driven logic that will shape the quest for decarbonisation, which has shifted from cooperating around the cost of tackling climate change to rivalry for the benefits of climate action.
Over 90% of new renewables projects are now cheaper than fossil alternatives. Gas-fired power is 3–4 times more expensive than solar and wind. In 2015, most decarbonisation policies were “traditional” emissions-cutting strategies like carbon pricing or net zero dates, whereas green industrial policies now underpin the majority.
Iran war could boost fossil fuel phase-out push, says Colombian minister
Meanwhile, security has become a central driver of energy politics. We are living through the second major fossil fuel crisis in just four years. Elevated oil and gas prices will impose up to $1 trillion in additional costs on the global economy by the end of the year if disruption continues in the Strait of Hormuz. Fossil fuel supply chains have exposed countries to conflict, coercion and brutal price shocks.
Fossil fuel volatility destabilises whole economies – higher fuel costs drive up food prices, increase political instability, and push millions into poverty and hunger. This incentivises governments to shield themselves from global shocks, especially in countries that are net fossil fuel importers and home to roughly three-quarters of the world’s population.
Yet security fears can cut both ways. The same instability that makes fossil fuel dependence untenable is also sharpening concern over China’s dominance of critical clean technologies and supply chains.
Equity, cooperation and the opportunity for change
Developing countries benefit from the rapid uptake of renewables enabled by low-cost Chinese technologies. But significant fiscal space and public investment is needed for the electricity grids and infrastructure required to fully unleash the energy transition, as well as for green industrialisation to diversify revenue streams.
Despite this, industrial-scale domestic production and ownership often remain out of reach for too many countries that lack the fiscal space to allow green supply chains to flourish and compete with their traditional industrial base. But more just and diversified green tech supply chains could be achieved with concomitant support.
Can giant batteries unlock Africa’s green industrial future?
For the first time in decades, the international order is being substantially reshaped. If within this context, decarbonisation is increasingly driven by green industrial policy, energy security and competitiveness, the climate policy community must better anticipate where these debates are moving. We must speak the same language, and enter the forums where decisions are made, including security, trade and bilateral or trilateral spaces.
We should build on an enlightened self interest recognising that cooperation remains essential and beneficial. This includes using the UN climate process differently: less as an ever-expanding negotiation machine, and more as a space for norm-setting, political alignment and deal-making. In an age of fragmentation, effective cooperation must not only be framed as necessary but thought of as a strategically compelling source of resilience and shared advantage.
The post Energy transition policymaking must evolve to fit an age of rupture appeared first on Climate Home News.
Energy transition policymaking must evolve to fit an age of rupture
Climate Change
Extreme heat costing India’s poorest workers 2% of GDP, survey finds
Low-income Indian workers, many of them migrants from rural areas hit by climate change, are paying for worsening extreme heat through lost working days and health complications, with the cost equivalent to 2% of national GDP per year, new research shows.
The International Institute of Environment and Development (IIED), a London-based think-tank, worked with local organisations to survey around 540 households of informal workers in three Indian cities: Ajmer, Delhi and Agra. Most had migrated from rural areas to find work in industries such as construction, brick-making, garment manufacturing and food packaging.
The survey found them struggling through long working days with little access to shade, cooling, rest or water, as well as few toilets for women. And even when they go home, many live in makeshift shelters or airless cramped rooms with barely a single fan, bringing almost no respite.
Outdoor workers are losing about 24 days of work a year due to heat, costing them nearly a tenth of their annual earnings, while indoor workers sacrifice roughly 15 days. On top of losing income, they are also bearing the cost of health problems like heat exhaustion, psychological stress and kidney damage brought on by repeated dehydration.
If the survey’s findings are extrapolated to a national level, the IIED researchers estimate that the decline in productivity and effects of kidney disease combined add up to lost wages of $78 billion each year.
Vishram Meena, 45, from Alwar in Rajasthan, has worked on construction sites in Ajmer for more than a decade, toiling for 10 to 12 hours a day carrying materials and mixing cement in the full sun.
In May 2024, on one of the hottest days, he collapsed after feeling dizzy and suffering a nosebleed. His wife and colleagues managed to get him to hospital where he was diagnosed with heat stroke. He has since returned to the same building work because the family needs the money.
“I went back because what else could I do? We are not machines. We are human beings. The heat is killing us slowly,” he was quoted as saying in a report on the survey’s findings.
“Victorian-era” conditions
Ritu Bharadwaj, IIED’s director of climate resilience, finance and loss and damage, described some of the stories from workers about their experiences of extreme heat as “genuinely horrifying”.
Kusum, a tailor at a garment manufacturing and export unit in Kapashera, Delhi, recounted how the machines for ironing finished garments are in the same tiny room where workers are making the clothes, with steam and hot air building up through her shift.
Fans are too far apart to move the air and nothing has changed in over a decade, she said, adding that “in summer, the unit feels like a furnace”.
“These are Victorian-era working conditions and they’re completely unacceptable in the 21st century,” said Bharadwaj. She called for stepped-up social protection from the government to pay people for days they are unable work due to heat, as well as micro-insurance schemes with payouts triggered by temperature measurements.
This money would help families buy food and pay medical bills when their income dips if they fall ill or cannot work their usual hours due to soaring temperatures.
Climate change-driven heatwaves hit Delhi’s Red Fort market traders
The aim of the IIED study, Bharadwaj added, is to get policy-makers’ attention by showing the scale of damage extreme heat is doing to India’s GDP in an economy whose growth relies on service-led industries. “If the workers within them start falling sick, you know it’s the economic growth which is going to get impacted,” she told a webinar to present the research.
“Whether [policymakers] care about the workers or not, at least they would care about the GDP, and therefore then invest in their care,” she explained.
Labour code leaves out heat
However, Bharadwaj noted that a 2026 reform to India’s labour law bringing a range of regulations together in one code does not include heat-related protections for workers and only applies to businesses above a certain size. She urged the government to introduce a temperature threshold above which all workers would be able to stop their activities.
IIED and its partners have also carried out a similar study in Bangladesh which will be published later this month, showing that extreme heat is costing its workforce the equivalent of nearly 1.4% of GDP.
Shakirul Islam, chairperson of the Ovibashi Karmi Unnayan Program (OKUP) in Bangladesh, said the government had introduced stricter safety policies for garment-making companies after the Rana Plaza complex collapsed in 2013. But, he said, these rules are rarely followed by manufacturers, especially at the level of smaller subcontractors.
The workers’ welfare centres that do exist are open mainly during work hours so they are difficult to visit. Some companies also make saline water available for heat stress, which is no good for those with high blood pressure, he noted.
For Indian women workers, a just transition means surviving climate impacts with dignity
Archana Shukla Mukherjee, CEO of India’s Change Alliance, which also partnered with IIED on the survey, said it was time to hold both the government and businesses accountable for finding solutions to the intensifying problem of extreme heat’s effects on workers.
She said that employee state insurance schemes should identify heat stroke as an occupational disease while companies along the whole supply chain should start putting in place heat protection measures, including for informal workers and migrants.
If the tools and mechanisms available to help workers do not reach the most vulnerable and marginalised people, “then I think we are not doing something right,” she said.
The post Extreme heat costing India’s poorest workers 2% of GDP, survey finds appeared first on Climate Home News.
Extreme heat costing India’s poorest workers 2% of GDP, survey finds
Climate Change
Top maritime court rejects bid to halt UN deep-sea mining inquiry
A United Nations investigation into deep-sea mining firms will continue after the world’s top maritime court rejected their bid to suspend the inquiry triggered by a US-backed push to extract critical minerals from the ocean floor.
In two orders issued on Saturday, the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) declined to halt an inquiry launched by the International Seabed Authority (ISA) into whether permit holders, including Tonga Offshore Mining Ltd (TOML) and Nauru Ocean Resources Inc (NORI), have breached their obligations under UN exploration contracts.
The two companies are subsidiaries of Canadian firm The Metals Company (TMC), which earlier this year sought permits from the United States to commercially mine the deep seabed in an area already covered by its UN exploration licences, bypassing the ISA’s regulatory process.
The inquiry was opened after TMC’s move raised questions over whether its subsidiaries had complied with their contractual obligations to the ISA, which regulates mining in international waters under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. TOML and NORI sued the ISA last June for allegedly targeting them “in breach of due process” and without “good faith”.
While allowing the inquiry to proceed, the court ordered the ISA to ensure the companies receive due process. Judges said the regulator must explain the factual and legal basis of its inquiry, clarify the procedures being followed and provide TOML and NORI with a meaningful opportunity to respond.
The companies seeks to mine an area called the Clarion-Clipperton Zone, which holds vast reserves of critical minerals like nickel, manganese and rare earths but is also home to a little-studied deep ocean ecosystem with thousands of unnamed species.
In response to the court’s ruling, the ISA welcomed the decision, saying the inquiry “remains in effect” and would continue “with due regard to all applicable legal requirements”.
Last week, during an annual meeting of its member governments, ISA secretary-general Leticia Carvalho said the resources in the ocean floor are “the common heritage of humankind” and upheld the agency’s role as “more important than ever”.
TMC also welcomed the court decision in a statement and claimed that judges ruled to “protect the rights of TMC subsidiaries”.
“Contractors like NORI and TOML, who have together spent hundreds of millions of dollars on the promise of a fair regulatory framework, should be informed of the factual and legal basis of any non-compliance inquiries, understand the procedure being applied, and receive a meaningful opportunity to respond,” said Gerard Barron, CEO of The Metals Company.

Environmental groups said the ruling allows scrutiny of the companies’ actions to continue.
Louisa Casson, deep-sea mining campaigner with Greenpeace, said the “entire litigation has been an egregious waste of time and money”, which was part of the industry’s “textbook distraction tactic” meant to delay the consequences of the inquiry.
“If the inquiry confirms that TMC’s subsidiaries are breaching their contracts, governments must send the strongest possible signal that complicity in unlawful deep sea mining will not be tolerated,” she said.
While investigation is still ongoing, NORI’s contract is set to expire this week and is up for review. Governments asked the ISA to report back and make “make appropriate recommendations” by the next ISA assembly, its main decision-making body set to take place next week from July 27 to 31.
The court ordered both the ISA and TMC to submit a report on how they complied with the ruling by August 31, and called on both to “cooperate and refrain from any action that might lead to
aggravating the dispute”.
The post Top maritime court rejects bid to halt UN deep-sea mining inquiry appeared first on Climate Home News.
Top maritime court rejects bid to halt UN deep-sea mining inquiry
-
Climate Change11 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases11 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases2 years ago嘉宾来稿:满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change2 years ago嘉宾来稿:满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Bill Discounting Climate Change in Florida’s Energy Policy Awaits DeSantis’ Approval
-
Renewable Energy9 months agoSending Progressive Philanthropist George Soros to Prison?
-
Carbon Footprint2 years agoUS SEC’s Climate Disclosure Rules Spur Renewed Interest in Carbon Credits
-
Greenhouse Gases1 year ago
嘉宾来稿:探究火山喷发如何影响气候预测


