Canada has pledged nearly C$29 million ($21.6 million) to support carbon capture, utilization, and storage (CCUS) and renewable energy projects. The funding aims to back new technologies that reduce greenhouse gas emissions and make clean energy more competitive. This commitment was announced by the Canadian government in late March 2026 as part of ongoing efforts to meet climate goals.
The investment is small compared with Canada’s larger climate budget. But it signals continued federal support for emerging technologies and deployment of clean energy solutions. CCUS is one of several tools that nations are using to curb emissions while keeping energy supplies stable.
What Canada Is Funding? Inside the C$29M Clean Tech Bet
The C$29 million pledge covers a mix of CCUS and renewable energy efforts. It is intended for 12 projects that capture carbon dioxide (CO₂) from industrial emissions. It also supports systems that convert captured CO₂ into usable products or store it underground so it cannot enter the atmosphere.
The Honourable Tim Hodgson, Minister of Energy and Natural Resources, said:
“Canada is scaling up clean energy while strengthening our electricity grid and responsibly growing our conventional energy industry — because competitiveness means doing more than one thing at the same time. We are investing to provide reliable, affordable and clean power across the country that will propel our economic growth, protect affordability for Canadian families and make Canada a low-risk, low-cost, low-carbon energy superpower.”
Carbon capture refers to systems that trap CO₂ from power plants and factories before it is released. The captured gas can be stored deep underground or used in industrial processes, such as making building materials or fuels. Utilization means finding commercial uses for captured CO₂ so that it has economic as well as environmental value.
Renewable energy projects in Canada focus on expanding wind, solar, hydro, and other low‑carbon power sources. As of 2024, about 79 % of Canada’s electricity generation came from low‑carbon sources, with hydropower alone accounting for roughly 55 %. The rest comes from wind, solar, and nuclear energy.
Carbon Capture’s Strategic Role in Net Zero
Canada has a strong track record in CCUS deployment. Several large‑scale facilities already operate in the country, especially in Alberta and Saskatchewan.
For example, the Quest Carbon Capture and Storage Project in Alberta captures about one million tonnes of CO₂ per year and stores it deep underground.
Canadian CCUS technology accounts for a notable share of planned global capacity. Canadian projects represent about 11.5 % of planned CCUS storage capacity worldwide.
Notably, Canada’s carbon capture capacity could increase from about 4.4 million tonnes of CO₂ per year to 16.3 million tonnes annually by 2030. However, much larger growth is still necessary to meet net-zero targets by 2050.
CCUS is considered critical for reducing emissions from hard‑to‑decarbonize sectors like heavy industry and oil and gas. It also plays an important role in achieving Canada’s long‑term climate targets, including net-zero emissions by 2050. In these scenarios, CCUS helps bridge gaps that electrification and renewables alone cannot fill.
Canada’s Energy Innovation Program (EIP) is designed to speed up the development of clean energy technologies while keeping the energy system reliable and affordable. It supports early-stage research and development in CCUS.
The program also funds renewable energy demonstration projects that test new ways to generate and integrate clean power, especially those with local benefits. In addition, EIP promotes innovation in electricity systems by supporting new approaches to smart grid regulation and capacity building.
A Power Mix Already Going Green
Renewable energy is another core part of Canada’s climate strategy. Over the last decade, installed renewable capacity has grown steadily. Between 2014 and 2024, Canada’s total renewable energy capacity increased from about 89,773 MW to 110,470 MW.
The federal government has supported renewable projects through multiple funding programs. Earlier initiatives included a $964‑million investment targeting wind, solar, storage, hydro, and other renewable technologies.
Canada has also set decarbonization targets tied to renewables. The country aims for net‑zero electricity by 2035, which supports a broader economy‑wide goal of net‑zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.
CCUS and Renewables on a Global Rise
Investment in CCUS and renewable energy is rising globally. According to industry forecasts, the global clean energy market — including wind, solar, energy storage, and CCUS — is expected to continue strong growth through 2030 as countries push toward climate targets.
For CCUS specifically, analysts project that global installed capacity could grow fivefold by 2030 as more projects move from demonstration to full deployment. Canada is among several countries with mature CCUS infrastructure and planned expansions.
Renewables continue to be the fastest‑growing energy source globally. International agencies like the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) project that renewable capacity will keep expanding rapidly through the end of the decade, driven by falling technology costs and climate commitments.
The Roadblocks to Scaling Clean Tech
While CCUS has potential, it also faces hurdles. Costs are high, and the technologies are still emerging at scale. Critics argue that CCUS has historically underperformed in some early projects, and that a significant amount of captured CO₂ is used in enhanced oil recovery rather than stored permanently.
Some stakeholders also warn that public funds for CCUS must be carefully targeted to avoid subsidizing continued fossil fuel use rather than meaningful emission cuts. Despite these concerns, many policymakers see CCUS as an essential component of climate strategy if Canada is to meet its 2030 and 2050 goals.
Renewable energy projects also face challenges, including grid integration, siting barriers, and supply chain constraints for equipment like turbines and solar panels. However, continued funding and clear policy signals tend to reduce these barriers over time as markets mature.
Cutting Emissions While Keeping Energy Stable
Canada’s C$29 million commitment fits into a broader pattern of public funding aimed at accelerating clean energy and decarbonization technologies. Larger federal efforts, such as the Net Zero Accelerator Initiative, provide billions of dollars over multiple years for clean tech, including CCUS deployment and industrial decarbonization.
The CCUS market is evolving from pilot projects to commercial opportunities. Meanwhile, renewable energy continues its growth as a mainstream power source. Together, these developments support Canada’s long‑term climate and economic goals.
As the global energy landscape changes, investments in both CCUS and renewables help reduce emissions, create jobs, and build resilience in a low‑carbon economy. Canada’s latest funding pledge reinforces its ongoing role in these key markets.
- READ MORE: Canada Approves First Uranium Mine in 20 Years as Tech Giants Eye Nuclear Fuel for AI Power
The post Canada Doles Out Almost C$29M for CCUS and Renewables as Clean Energy Market Surges appeared first on Carbon Credits.
Nature-based carbon investments deserve consideration when they address a specific business dependency and produce outcomes you can measure. Imagine Moonbucks, a global coffee roaster planning next season’s espresso blend. It is considering natural Grade 4 coffee from Jimma, in southwestern Oromia, Ethiopia. Its sourcing decisions affect the roasting schedule and the cash tied up in coffee purchases. Moonbucks needs to understand which measures could protect that supply, what they would cost and how it would judge the results.
1. Define the sourcing problem before choosing a project
Moonbucks needs a dependable component for its espresso blend. Its procurement team wants continuity of volume and an agreed cup profile. Replacing a shipment at short notice could require new sample approval and changes to the blend, and given the schedules for cultivation, processing, and freight delivery, is practically impossible. Moonbucks needs to get this right, and its initial concern is inconsistent deliveries. It commissions an assessment of the supplying farms and post-harvest chain. The questions cover land condition, harvest availability and whether drying or storage problems are affecting saleable lots.
This distinction changes the investment brief. A tree-planting proposal cannot be assumed to fix drying problems. Better storage cannot restore eroded land. The team must establish which problem exists before selecting the response.
CCC’s guide to finding nature-based solutions in your supply chain explains where to look. Here, the next task is to turn a broad concern into a testable proposal.
2. Develop nature-based carbon investments around the actual supply chain
The assessment would trace Moonbucks’ purchases back through the exporter and supplying producer groups. Which farms supply the contracted lots? Who controls land-management decisions? How long does the buyer expect to maintain the purchasing relationship?
Furthermore, Jimma natural Grade 4 cannot be treated as interchangeable with every Ethiopian coffee. Moonbucks would need to test any substitute against its own blend and quality requirements.
Suppose Moonbucks’ assessment identifies an opportunity to maintain shade trees and restore vegetation along exposed streambanks. The IPCC describes agroforestry as a way to store carbon in vegetation and soil, with potential benefits for erosion control and water quality.1 Moonbucks would need local advice on species, growing conditions and maintenance before deciding how these measures fit its sourcing plan.
The proposal now has a defined sourcing connection and a candidate intervention. The next steps are to test its effect on production, assess carbon eligibility and build the financial case.
3. Compare the proposal with other ways to protect supply
WBCSD’s Nature-based Solutions Blueprint recommends comparing nature-based options with other responses across their benefits and costs.2 For Moonbucks, that means evaluating the landscape proposal alongside drying improvements, storage controls and alternative sourcing arrangements.
The product’s natural-process designation matters. Moonbucks should examine the drying and dry-milling chain alongside land conditions. Its team would check storage practices, contamination risks and incoming-lot quality to see whether problems arise before or after the coffee leaves the farms.
The revised proposal might combine land stewardship with separate post-harvest controls. Each component needs its own purpose and budget. A sustainability label should not obscure which activity is expected to solve which problem.
The project develops as the evidence improves. Its scope should follow the diagnosis rather than preserve the first idea unchanged.
4. Establish what the carbon outcome could count toward
Moonbucks’ sustainability team now tests the proposed carbon case separately from the sourcing case. Is the objective a measurable change in Moonbucks’ value-chain emissions, verified credits for separate voluntary use, or distinct outcomes under carefully defined arrangements?
Scope 3 covers value-chain emissions. A purchasing relationship alone does not prove that a farm intervention can be included in Moonbucks’ inventory. The team needs an applicable accounting method, defensible boundaries and evidence supporting attribution.
SBTi’s FLAG Guidance (forest, land and agriculture), version 1.2, says purchased credits used as offsets cannot meet near-term FLAG or energy and industry targets. Eligible land-based removals are subject to accounting requirements.3 Moonbucks needs to test its proposal against those rules before including an outcome in its targets.
For Moonbucks’ Jimma proposal, maintaining existing trees and establishing new vegetation could involve different carbon questions. Specialists must examine the baseline and additionality, meaning what changes because the project proceeds. They must also assess measurement and the risk that stored carbon is lost. CCC’s MRV and additionality article introduces those tests.
Until that work is complete, Moonbucks should not budget an assumed Scope 3 reduction or credit-sale receipt. Direct emissions reductions remain the priority.
5. Build a financial case that survives weaker assumptions
Moonbucks’ finance team would now build a multi-year budget. UNEP’s State of Finance for Nature 2023 compares current finance with the investment needed to meet climate, biodiversity and land-restoration goals.4 The company would cost its proposed activities, farmer participation and ongoing monitoring. Verification, where required, is a separate expense. Maintenance and responsibility for replacing failed plantings must remain visible after the initial establishment budget ends.
Operational benefits need equally careful treatment. If fewer rejected lots reduce emergency purchasing, count that saving once. Do not add “supply resilience” as another financial benefit when it represents the same avoided cost.
Moonbucks should compare a base case with slower benefits, higher implementation costs and no carbon revenue. It should also distinguish production outcomes from quality and shipment outcomes. A single good harvest would not prove that the landscape intervention caused better delivery performance.
A project can remain worth funding even when its carbon case needs more work. That decision must rest on the operational evidence and the company’s objectives, without unsupported environmental claims.
6. Fund a pilot with a clear expansion decision
Moonbucks’ first approval would fund a bounded pilot, rather than commit the entire sourcing program. Before spending, Moonbucks would agree on participating farms, responsibilities and the evidence needed at review.
Its scorecard could track farmer participation, implementation costs and plant survival, alongside accepted coffee volumes and lot-quality results. Carbon measurements would follow the selected method. Farm-level traceability must connect the intervention to the actual sourcing relationship.
Suppose Moonbucks’ review later finds that storage changes explain most quality improvements, while the land measures need longer observation. Those findings would shape the next decision: expand the proven component, adjust the landscape work or pause further spending. They would not justify crediting all improvements to tree planting.
This gives nature-based carbon investments a practical place in a multi-year strategy. Funding increases as the evidence supports it, and the project can change direction before a larger commitment.
Discuss a sourcing opportunity with CCC
Carbon Credit Capital’s nature-based supply-chain investment service uses its Dual-Value Model to examine supply-chain economics alongside potential sustainability outcomes.
Schedule a consultation to discuss your sourcing exposure and the questions to resolve before allocating capital.
Sources
- Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change, Chapter 7, Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Uses, section 7.4.3.3 (Agroforestry).
- World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD), Nature-based Solutions Blueprint, 5 June 2024.
- Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi), Forest, Land and Agriculture Science-Based Target-Setting Guidance, version 1.2, March 2026, section 3.1.4, pp. 37–38.
- United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), State of Finance for Nature 2023, 2023.
A plastic credit funds the collection of plastic waste in places where no formal system exists to collect it. Each credit represents a measured, independently audited quantity of plastic taken out of the environment or returned to use, tracked on a public registry.
EU carbon credit claims changed on 27 September 2026, the day the Directive (EU) 2024/825 began to apply across the European Union. The change is narrow. It changes how a company can talk about the credits it buys. A product can no longer be called neutral on the strength of compensation alone; however, every specific, evidenced statement about what a company measured, reduced, and funded stays fully available.
-
Climate Change1 year 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”
-
Greenhouse Gases1 year ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
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”
-
