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.
More and more small and medium-sized businesses are hearing the same question from their larger customers: What is your carbon footprint? That question now travels down entire supply chains, and it arrives next to tender requirements, certification criteria, and rising customer expectations.
The accounting differences that decide whether your nature investment shows up in inventory, in BVCM, or nowhere at all.
The question reaches a procurement team about three weeks before the next sustainability committee meeting. Someone has read about insetting. Someone else has just signed off on an offset purchase. The CSO wants to know if the two are interchangeable. The answer is no, and the GHG Protocol Land Sector and Removals Standard is the reason why.
This article walks through what each term means at audit-grade specificity, what the standards actually say about how each gets counted, and how to decide which tool fits which target. The insetting vs offsetting question is one of the most-searched in corporate climate strategy, and one of the most poorly answered. By the end of this piece, you should be able to brief a committee on the difference without notes.
The two definitions, in plain English
Offsetting means buying carbon credits generated outside your value chain and retiring them against your residual emissions. The reduction happens somewhere else, financed by you, and the credit is the receipt.
Insetting means investing in emission reductions or removals inside your own value chain, typically with suppliers, where the reduction is directly linked to the products and services you buy. The reduction happens inside the boundary of your Scope 3 inventory, and the accounting treatment is fundamentally different.
The shorthand from the University of Oxford’s Nature-based Insetting Initiative is useful: insetting is what you do with the supply chain you have; offsetting is what you do with the supply chain you do not have.
What the GHG Protocol Land Sector Standard actually says
The GHG Protocol Land Sector and Removals Standard, finalised in 2024 after a multi-year pilot, sets the rules for how land-based emission reductions and removals enter corporate inventories. The Standard distinguishes between inventory accounting (Scope 1, 2, and 3) and project or intervention accounting (a separate methodology for crediting).
For insetting, the practical implication is that supplier-level interventions, when properly measured and attributed, can reduce your Scope 3 category 1 (purchased goods and services) emissions in your inventory. The reduction is not a credit retired against the inventory; it is a lower inventory number, period.
For offsetting, the credit is retired separately. It can be reported as a contribution toward a net-zero claim under the SBTi Beyond Value Chain Mitigation framework or as part of a VCMI Carbon Integrity claim, but it does not lower the inventory number.
A practical consequence: if your Science Based Target requires a 50% absolute reduction in Scope 3 emissions by 2030, insetting moves you toward the target. Offsetting does not. This single point of difference reshapes the procurement decision.
When insetting counts toward Scope 3 (and when it does not)
Insetting counts toward Scope 3 only when several conditions are met:
- The intervention must occur with an entity in your value chain.
- The emissions reduction or removal must be measured against a defensible baseline.
- The reduction must be attributed to your share of that supplier’s output, not double-counted with other buyers.
- It must follow the inventory accounting rules in the GHG Protocol Land Sector Standard, not the project accounting rules used to generate credits.
The most common failure mode is double counting. If your supplier sells the same reduction as a credit on the voluntary market and also reports it to you as a Scope 3 reduction, the math breaks. The Standard requires you to address this risk, typically by purchasing and retiring the supplier-issued credit as part of your inventory or by contractual provisions that prevent the supplier from selling the reduction twice.
When insetting does not count toward Scope 3: when the intervention sits with a supplier you do not buy from, when the baseline is not defensible, when the attribution is unclear, or when the documentation does not survive audit. Those cases default to Beyond Value Chain Mitigation, which is still useful but operates on a different ledger.
The procurement and supplier engagement question
Insetting is harder than offsetting. That is the unfashionable truth most buyers eventually confront. Offsetting is a transaction; insetting is a relationship.
To run an insetting program, you need supplier mapping precise enough to know which farms or facilities sit at which Scope 3 boundary. You need an engagement model that gets suppliers to participate, which usually requires multi-year commitments and shared economics. You need an MRV architecture that measures the right things and produces audit-ready documentation. And you need a contractual structure that prevents double counting and protects both sides.
The trade-off you receive in return is significant. Reductions count against your inventory rather than your residual. Supplier relationships deepen, which protects sourcing continuity. Yield and quality improvements often follow regenerative interventions, which reduces your input cost over time. And the regulatory file, under CSRD, CSDDD, EUDR, and the SBTi FLAG Guidance, is materially stronger.
Choosing the right tool for the right target
A practical decision rule. If your target is a science-based Scope 3 reduction and you operate in a FLAG sector or source FLAG commodities, insetting is the structurally correct tool. If your target is a net-zero claim that includes neutralising hard-to-abate residual emissions outside your value chain, BVCM via high-integrity offsets is the structurally correct tool. Most companies with material Scope 3 exposure need both, in different proportions, sequenced over time.
The sequencing matters. Insetting takes longer to stand up but produces a permanent reduction in the inventory. Offsetting can be transacted faster but does not change the inventory and now sits under tighter claim restrictions. Treat them as complementary tools with different jobs, not as substitutes. The Accountability Framework Initiative and the IUCN Global Standard for Nature-based Solutions both provide useful guardrails for the insetting side, with biodiversity, human rights, and benefit-sharing requirements that go beyond carbon math.
If you are mapping a Scope 3 reduction roadmap and need to scope which interventions count toward your inventory versus which sit in Beyond Value Chain Mitigation, the carbon and sustainability experts at Carbon Credit Capital can help you structure a nature-based supply chain investment program that fits your FLAG exposure, your target architecture, and your audit horizon. Schedule a consultation.
Net zero is often described as a balancing act: cut what you can, account for the rest, and reach zero on the ledger. That framing is useful, but it leaves something out. It treats every tonne of carbon as interchangeable and every route to zero as equally sound, while the science tells a more specific story.
-
Climate Change1 year ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases1 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”
-
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 Energy10 months agoSending Progressive Philanthropist George Soros to Prison?
-
Greenhouse Gases1 year ago
嘉宾来稿：探究火山喷发如何影响气候预测
-
Carbon Footprint2 years agoUS SEC’s Climate Disclosure Rules Spur Renewed Interest in Carbon Credits