Canada is at a key moment in its fight against climate change. Carbon pricing has been the central tool used to cut emissions, but recent policy changes and differences across provinces have created uncertainty.
This article examines how Canada’s carbon pricing system works now. It covers expert concerns and what the key federal review in 2026 might mean for both industry and the country’s journey toward a lower-carbon future.
How Canada Prices Pollution
Canada uses carbon pricing to encourage companies and people to cut greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Under that system, there are two main parts.
For ordinary people and small businesses, there used to be a “fuel charge” or carbon tax on fossil fuels. For large industrial emitters, there is a program called the Output-Based Pricing System (OBPS).
Under the OBPS, factories or facilities that produce a lot of emissions get a limit based on how much they produce. If they emit more than their limit, they must pay; if they emit less, they earn credits that they can sell or use later.
This approach aims to reduce carbon pollution while trying to protect industries that compete globally. The goal is to cancel out the risk that companies might move to other countries with weaker climate rules.
From Gas Pumps to Smokestacks: A Major Policy Shift
In 2025, the federal government made important changes. It removed the “consumer-facing” carbon tax — the fuel charge — effective April 1, 2025. This means people pay no extra carbon tax when buying gasoline or heating fuel.
Instead, the focus shifted more clearly onto industrial carbon pricing. The government said it would review the carbon pricing “benchmark” in 2026. This review could change how industrial carbon pricing operates.
A recent analysis by ClearBlue Markets shows that Canada’s carbon pricing for industry is now fragmented. Fragmentation has caused uncertainty. This is a problem for companies that need stable cost signals before they invest in cleaner technology.
The ClearBlue report stated:
“The federal benchmark review will therefore trigger extensive engagement between the federal government and the provinces, aimed at aligning key benchmark elements such as coverage, pricing stringency, and competitiveness protections. Negotiations are likely to be complex and politically charged, particularly with provinces like Alberta and Saskatchewan, which have already taken strong positions. These types of unilateral decisions reflect ongoing tensions and highlight the difficulty of achieving a truly aligned national approach.”
Carbon pricing today: A patchwork across Canada
Because Canada is large and its provinces have different rules, carbon pricing for industry is not the same everywhere. ClearBlue Markets shows that credit prices—what companies pay or earn—vary a lot by province or system.
Here are specific examples:
In Alberta, the Environmental Monitoring, Evaluation and Reporting Agency has seen a big drop in credits under its Technology Innovation and Emissions Reduction Program (TIER). Despite a compliance price of CAD 95 per tonne, market credits trade at around CAD 18 per tonne. This shows a credit surplus and weak demand.
In British Columbia (B.C.), the new B.C. Output-Based Pricing System (B.C. OBPS) began to be applied recently. Credits are trading at about CAD 65 per tonne, a discount compared with the regulatory level of CAD 80.
In Ontario, the Emissions Performance Standards (EPS) system governs industrial emissions. Because the program does not allow offset credits, supply is tighter — units (EPUs) recently traded at around CAD 72 per tonne.
In areas where the federal OBPS still applies, like some territories and small provinces, cheap carbon offset credits from Alberta’s TIER have lowered prices. Now, they can be as low as about CAD 37.50 per tonne.
The true cost of carbon emissions differs greatly by industry and province. The federal government aims to raise the carbon price to CAD 170 per tonne by 2030 for direct pricing systems.
The 2026 Showdown: Can Canada Fix Its Carbon Market?
The upcoming review of the federal benchmark is seen as a turning point. It could lead to stronger, more aligned carbon pricing across all provinces. As ClearBlue Markets notes, the review may address issues such as:
- Align different provincial systems under a common design. This way, credits and compliance will act more alike.
- Improving transparency in reporting credit inventories, trades, and emission reductions.
- Possibly introducing a “floor price” — a minimum cost for carbon credits — to avoid extreme price drops like those seen in some programs.
- Setting a long-term carbon price path past 2030 helps industries plan investments more clearly. This is especially important for clean technologies.
All of these could make carbon pricing more predictable and effective. If the review doesn’t meet expectations, patchwork and uncertainty may persist. This could weaken the carbon price signal and confuse investment in clean technology.
This patchwork of provincial and federal carbon pricing programs has created a corresponding patchwork of compliance offset markets. The image below shows how these offset markets are distributed across Canada.
Global Pressure Is Rising: Europe Could Hit Canada with Carbon Tariffs
One major external risk comes from the global trade environment. Starting in 2026, the European Union’s Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) will impact imports based on their carbon emissions.
For Canadian exporters, this raises a key question:
- Will EU authorities accept the compliance credits or offsets generated under Canada’s various carbon pricing systems as evidence of “carbon price paid”?
If not, Canadian exports might face extra tariffs. This could double the carbon cost or hurt competitiveness.
This makes it even more important for Canada to standardize and strengthen its carbon pricing framework before 2026. This is to ensure that its pricing and credits are recognized internationally. Otherwise, Canadian industries like steel, aluminum, and cement might find it hard to compete. This is especially true in markets with strict climate-related import rules.
Strengths and Challenges of Canada’s Carbon Pricing
Carbon pricing works to link environmental costs with economic decision-making. For large emitters, it encourages improved efficiency. Carbon pricing revenue, especially from the OBPS, can fund clean energy projects. It also supports carbon capture and investments in low-carbon infrastructure.
A recent evaluation by the government highlights that industrial carbon pricing helps reduce emissions with minimal impact on households.
But there are major challenges too. The system varies by province, so many industries might have low carbon costs. This means there is little motivation for real change.
A 2022 report from the Office of the Auditor General of Canada (OAG) found that weak rules in provincial large-emitter programs lower the impact of carbon pricing. Also, the unclear use of carbon revenues and the long-term price outlook have made some firms hesitant to invest in cleaner technologies.
The Stakes: Canada’s Climate Credibility and Industrial Future
The 2026 benchmark review could reshape Canada’s carbon pricing for decades. Key signs to watch are:
- Whether the government sets a new, clear carbon price path beyond 2030 — possibly up to 2050, that would give firms confidence to invest in long-term clean solutions.
- Whether provincial carbon pricing systems become more harmonized. This means similar rules, credit prices, and transparency everywhere.
- Introducing a price floor or other methods can help prevent deeply discounted carbon credits. This ensures a strong carbon price signal.
- Will Canadian industrial credits and compliance be set up to gain recognition under global systems like CBAM? This could help keep Canadian exports competitive.
Canada’s carbon pricing, especially for industry, is at a crossroads. The removal of the consumer carbon tax in 2025 reflects a shift toward focusing on industrial emissions. Meanwhile, the upcoming 2026 benchmark review offers a chance to make this system stronger, fairer, and more predictable.
However, much depends on political and regulatory will. Without clear pricing, rules, and long-term certainty, the carbon price might be too weak. This puts Canada’s climate goals and global competitiveness at risk. But if the government and provinces act quickly, carbon pricing can help Canada shift to a low-carbon economy while also keeping industries competitive.
The post Canada’s Carbon Pricing Reset in 2026: Will Industry Step Up or Stall Climate Progress? appeared first on Carbon Credits.
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.
Malawi has lost a striking share of its forests over the past three decades. Woodlands that once covered well over a third of the country now cover less than a quarter, and the pressure on what remains is increasing. Behind those figures sit two practical questions: what is driving the loss, and what reverses it?
-
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