Canada’s climate journey is entering a more uncertain phase. Emissions are trending lower, investments continue to flow, and clean technologies remain in play. Yet momentum is clearly weakening. That is the central message of Climate Action 2026: Retreat, Reset or Renew, the third annual report from the RBC Climate Action Institute.
The report paints a nuanced picture. Progress has not stopped. But it has slowed. Policy reversals, economic pressures, and shifting public priorities are weighing on climate ambition at a time when speed matters most.
Canada now faces a defining question: retreat from climate action, reset its approach, or renew its commitment with a sharper focus.
Emissions Are Falling, but Not Fast Enough
Canada’s total greenhouse gas emissions are projected to be 7% lower in 2025 than in 2019, according to RBC’s estimates. That marks real progress, especially after years of volatility during and after the pandemic.
However, this pace remains well short of what Canada needs to hit its longer-term targets. The country has committed to reducing emissions by 40% to 45% below 2005 levels by 2030 and by 45% to 50% by 2035. Current trends suggest those goals will be difficult to reach without stronger policy signals.
Several sectors have reduced emissions intensity:
- Electricity: down 27%
- Buildings: down 19%
- Oil and gas: down 19%
These gains reflect cleaner power generation, improved efficiency, and gradual technology upgrades. Still, absolute emissions reductions remain modest, especially in sectors tied to economic growth and population expansion.
Climate Action Barometer Hits a Turning Point
For the first time since its launch, the Climate Action Barometer declined. This index tracks climate-related activity across policy, capital flows, business action, and consumer behavior.
The drop was broad-based. No single sector drove the decline. Instead, multiple pressures hit at once.
Key factors include:
- The removal of the consumer carbon tax
- The rollback of electric vehicle incentives
- Economic uncertainty and rising trade tensions
- Alberta’s restrictions on new renewable energy projects
Together, these shifts weakened confidence. Businesses delayed or canceled projects. Consumers pulled back on major clean-energy purchases. Climate policy slipped down the priority list for governments focused on affordability and job creation.
While climate action remains above pre-2019 levels, the trendline has clearly flattened.
Capital Flows Hold Steady, but Growth Has Stalled
Climate investment in Canada has leveled off at around $20 billion per year. That figure has barely moved in recent years.
Public funding remains a stabilizing force. Nearly $100 billion in incentives for clean technology and climate programs is already budgeted for deployment through 2035 by Ottawa and the largest provincial governments.
However, private capital is showing signs of caution. Investment declined compared to 2024, driven largely by cooling sentiment toward early-stage climate technologies. Policy uncertainty has amplified investor risk concerns, especially in capital-intensive sectors like renewables and clean manufacturing.
Some bright spots remain. Wind projects on Canada’s East Coast have supported investment flows, even as renewable development slowed elsewhere.
Carbon Pricing Changes Ease Pressure
The federal government eliminated the consumer carbon tax in April 2025, refocusing carbon pricing solely on industrial emitters. The change had a limited impact on national emissions coverage, as only around three percent of agricultural emissions were subject to consumer pricing.
For farmers, the move delivered meaningful financial relief. Many agricultural operations rely on propane to dry grain or heat livestock facilities. Few cost-effective, lower-carbon alternatives exist in rural regions, making the tax a direct burden on operating costs. Removing it eased pressure without significantly weakening the overall emissions policy.
Still, the decision lowered Canada’s climate policy score and sent mixed signals to investors and businesses evaluating long-term decarbonization strategies.
EV Slowdown Signals Shifting Consumer Priorities
Consumer behavior has become a significant hindrance to climate momentum. Electric vehicle adoption slowed sharply in 2025. EVs accounted for just eight percent of total vehicle sales in the first half of the year, down from twelve percent during the same period in 2024. Passenger EVs now make up only about four percent of Canada’s total vehicle stock.
Higher interest rates, the removal of purchase incentives, and uncertainty around future mandates all contributed to the pullback.
- The federal government also delayed the Electric Vehicle Availability Standard, which was set to require EVs to represent 20% of new vehicle sales by 2026. That pause further weakened confidence across the market.
At the same time, not all clean technologies lost ground. Heat pump adoption edged higher, supported by new efficiency funding, particularly in Ontario. The province’s $10.9 billion commitment to energy efficiency programs could support further uptake, even as other consumer-facing climate actions slow.
Public priorities have also shifted. Only about a quarter of Canadians now identify climate change as a top national issue. Cost of living pressures, healthcare access, and economic stability dominate public concerns, reshaping how households weigh climate-related decisions.

Buildings Sector Becomes the New Battleground
The RBC Institute’s 2026 “Idea of the Year” focuses squarely on Canada’s buildings sector, which has quietly become one of the country’s most challenging emissions sources. Emissions from buildings rose 15% between 1990 and 2023 and now represent a larger share of national emissions than heavy industry.
Today, buildings account for roughly 18% of Canada’s greenhouse gas emissions when electricity-related emissions are included. Progress remains slow. Emissions from the sector are projected to fall by just one percent in 2025, a pace that leaves Canada far from its net-zero target for buildings by 2050.
New construction adds to the risk. If projects continue to follow prevailing building codes, emissions could rise by an additional 18 million tonnes over time, locking in higher emissions for decades.

Responsible Buildings Pact Points to a Reset
Against this backdrop, the Responsible Buildings Pact offers a potential reset. Launched in 2024 under the Climate Smart Buildings Alliance, the initiative aims to accelerate the adoption of low-carbon designs and materials across the construction sector.
The pact focuses on scaling the use of mass timber and low-carbon concrete, steel, and aluminum. These materials can significantly reduce embodied carbon in new buildings while strengthening domestic supply chains. The approach is particularly timely as Canadian producers face constraints from U.S. trade tariffs, limiting access to lower-emissions materials.
If widely adopted, the pact could transform how Canada builds homes, offices, and infrastructure. By embedding emissions reductions into construction decisions today, the sector could deliver long-term climate gains while supporting industrial competitiveness.
Electricity Progress Slows After Early Success
Canada’s electricity sector remains one of its strongest climate performers. Emissions have fallen an estimated 60% since 2005, surpassing Paris Agreement targets. Coal phase-outs continue to drive reductions, with more than six terawatt-hours of coal power expected to be removed from the grid this year.
Still, progress slowed in 2025. Uncertainty surrounding Alberta’s renewable energy policies led to the cancellation of 11 gigawatts of planned capacity, roughly half of the province’s existing generation. At the same time, natural gas use rose sharply, offsetting some of the emissions gains from coal retirements.
Canada now faces a dual challenge: doubling electricity capacity while fully decarbonizing it by 2050. Estimates suggest the required investment could exceed $1 trillion, underscoring the scale of the task ahead.

Climate Action at a Defining Moment
The RBC report makes one point clear. Canada has not abandoned climate action, but it has lost momentum. Emissions are lower, capital remains available, and technology continues to advance. Yet policy clarity has weakened, consumer confidence has faded, and investment growth has stalled.
With just 25 years left to reach net zero, the choices made now will shape Canada’s emissions trajectory for decades. Renewed coordination between governments, businesses, and consumers will be essential, along with policies that balance economic realities without sacrificing long-term climate goals.
Canada still has time to reset and renew. What it cannot afford is continued drift.
- ALSO READ: Canada to Launch Sustainable Investment Taxonomy in 2026 to Guide Green and Transition Finance
The post Canada’s Climate Momentum Slows in 2026 Despite 7% Emissions Drop, RBC Report Finds appeared first on Carbon Credits.
Carbon Footprint
Want a simpler way to buy carbon credits? Discover our carbon marketplace
Most businesses that decide to act on their net-zero targets reach the same point of friction. Buying carbon credits has meant tracking down brokers, sitting through sales calls, and requesting a quote just to learn a price, sometimes with limited proof of what you are buying.
![]()
Carbon Footprint
Climate-Linked Supply Chain Risk Is Already in Your P&L
The earnings calls that quietly reframed climate from sustainability question to operating risk.
Three earnings calls in the last 18 months tell the story without any help from a press release.
Hershey, May 2024: cocoa price exposure compresses margin, and the company attributes part of the cost shock to West African weather. Olam, July 2024: coffee climate exposure quantified in the annual report. JBS, January 2025: supply chain climate disclosures expanded materially in response to investor pressure and regulatory expectation. None of these companies issued the announcement as climate news. They issued it as financial news. The climate-linked supply chain risk did not arrive with a sustainability framing; it arrived as a P&L line.
You are probably reading this article because you suspect the same thing is happening to your business. This piece walks through what is showing up on which earnings calls, how procurement and finance leaders are quantifying the exposure, and what serious corporates are doing about it before the regulator asks.
Where climate risk has already appeared in earnings
The pattern is consistent across resource-intensive sectors. A weather event compresses supply, the price spikes, the cost flows through the income statement, and the analyst on the call asks whether the event is anomalous or structural. Increasingly, the honest answer is the second one.
Cocoa is the cleanest example. The 2023 to 2024 West African harvest fell sharply on the back of erratic rainfall and disease. Cocoa futures more than tripled. Companies with concentrated West African sourcing absorbed the cost; companies with diversified sourcing absorbed less. The exposure was not climate as ESG topic. It was climate as cost of goods.
Coffee follows the same pattern. Brazilian and Vietnamese harvests have moved on weather more sharply across the last several seasons. Roasters with long-tenor supplier relationships and origin diversification have managed the volatility; roasters with spot-market exposure have not. Wheat, sugar, palm oil, beef: the same dynamic in different commodities, a pattern the IPCC AR6 Working Group II report projects will intensify across agricultural systems through mid-century.
What this means: climate risk is no longer a footnote in the 10-K. It is a line item the CFO has to explain on the call.
The three commodity exposures that hit margin first
For most companies with material Scope 3 exposure, three exposures dominate the near-term P&L risk.
- Concentrated single-origin sourcing in a climate-vulnerable region. If your tier-one supply for any material commodity sits in one geography, you have a concentration risk that climate amplifies. Diversification across origins is the obvious hedge, but it takes years to build and requires relationships you cannot acquire by tender.
- Supplier financial fragility under climate stress. Smallholder farmers, who supply a large share of the global cocoa, coffee, and palm oil market, do not carry the balance sheets to absorb yield shocks. When yields collapse, they exit. When they exit, your supply base shrinks, and the surviving suppliers raise prices. The risk is structural, not cyclical.
- Logistics and storage exposure to extreme weather. Hurricane disruptions to Gulf shipping, drought-driven Panama Canal restrictions, flooding in European inland waterways: each of these has moved input costs in the last three years, a pattern documented in Munich Re’s natural catastrophe data. The exposure shows up as a one-quarter event in the financial press but accumulates over time on the cost line.
TCFD and ISSB disclosure changes
The disclosure architecture has now caught up with the risk. The Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures, whose recommendations are now embedded in the ISSB’s IFRS S2 climate standard, requires companies to disclose climate-related risks across physical and transition categories, with quantification where possible.
For physical risk specifically (the climate-linked supply chain risk you are reading about), the disclosure must address both acute exposures (extreme weather events) and chronic exposures (gradual changes in temperature, precipitation, and growing seasons). The disclosure must address the time horizon over which the risk is material, the parts of the value chain exposed, and the financial impact under different scenarios.
The CSRD imposes similar requirements under European law, with double materiality (both financial and impact materiality) embedded in the assessment. The practical effect: your auditors and your investor relations team now need a defensible answer to the climate-linked supply chain risk question, and the answer needs to be quantified.
What procurement and finance can do now
Three actions matter near-term.
Map your exposure. Most companies do not have a clear view of which tier-one and tier-two suppliers sit in which climate-vulnerable geographies. Without the map, you cannot quantify the risk, and without the quantification, you cannot disclose it credibly. The map is the foundation, and World Resources Institute climate risk research provides useful public tooling to start.
Diversify and deepen, in that order. Diversification across origins reduces concentration risk, but the deeper move is to invest in the resilience of the suppliers you already have. Regenerative practices, agroforestry, soil health interventions: these reduce yield volatility under climate stress and protect your input cost trajectory.
Embed the climate spend inside procurement, not outside it. Treating climate risk as a sustainability cost line subordinates it to the ESG budget. Treating it as a procurement and resilience investment puts it in the budget that matters, which is the cost-of-goods budget that the CFO defends quarterly.
Nature-based supply chain investments are the asset class designed for exactly this purpose. They sit inside the value chain, they reduce climate-linked supply risk, they generate verifiable Scope 3 reductions, and they produce the documentation an auditor and a regulator can both test.
If you are quantifying climate-linked supply chain risk in advance of the next earnings cycle or the next disclosure period, the carbon and sustainability experts at Carbon Credit Capital can help you map your exposure and structure a Dual-Value Model response that addresses reduction, resilience, and disclosure-readiness in a single program. Schedule a consultation.
Carbon Footprint
Where should an SME start with a carbon action plan?
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.
![]()
-
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”
-
Renewable Energy11 months agoSending Progressive Philanthropist George Soros to Prison?
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Bill Discounting Climate Change in Florida’s Energy Policy Awaits DeSantis’ Approval
-
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

