Canada’s upcoming emissions cap on the oil and gas sector aims to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 37% by 2030 from 2022 levels. However, the energy industry and provinces like Alberta are strongly opposing it.
The plan, unveiled Monday, introduces a cap-and-trade system designed to encourage higher-polluting firms to invest in emissions-reduction projects while recognizing better-performing companies. The intent to cap the oil and gas industry was first revealed during the COP28 last year in Dubai.
Beyond Black Gold: A Green Transition?
Environment Minister Steven Guilbeault clearly emphasized the importance of this move, stating that:
“Every sector of the economy in Canada should be doing its fair share when it comes to limiting our country’s greenhouse gas pollution, and that includes the oil and gas sector. We are asking oil and gas companies who have made record profits in recent years to reinvest some of that money into technology that will reduce pollution in the oil and gas sector and create jobs for Canadian workers and businesses. ”
Canada’s oil and gas sector contributed 31% of the country’s total emissions in 2022, per the latest National Inventory Report. It is the largest emitting sector, followed by the transportation and buildings sectors.

High Stakes in the Oil Sands
In 2022, Canada’s oil sands led to oil and gas emissions of 87 megatonnes or 40% of the sector’s total. The sector’s emissions have largely been driven by increased production.
Since 1990, Canada’s total crude oil output surged by 193%, primarily fueled by oil sand operations, which grew over 800% and accounted for 80% of this production increase. This growth underscores the oil sands’ significant impact on Canada’s total emissions.

These major carbon emitters are largely concentrated in the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan, where oil sands and natural gas production are prevalent. Here are a few key players, with their latest GHG emissions reported and net zero goals.
Suncor Energy Inc.
One of Canada’s largest integrated energy companies, Suncor operates in Alberta’s oil sands, where its extraction and processing activities generate significant emissions. The oil major’s GHG emissions totaled almost 35 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MtCO₂e) in 2022.
Suncor aims to achieve net zero in its operations by 2050 and cut emissions by 10 megatonnes across the value chain by 2030. The company has been actively pursuing emissions reduction initiatives, including investments in carbon capture and renewable energy.
Canadian Natural Resources Limited (CNRL)
CNRL is among Canada’s top oil sands producers and one of the largest carbon emitters in the country, releasing over 23 million MtCO₂e in 2022. They are a key member of the Pathways Alliance, along with Suncor, which aims to build carbon capture and storage (CCS) networks to reduce sector emissions.
The energy firm commits to reducing its carbon footprint by 40% in Scope 1 and 2 GHG emissions by 2035m compared with the 2020 baseline. It also targets to reach net zero emissions by 2050.
Imperial Oil Limited
A major player in the oil sands and petrochemical industries, Imperial Oil operates facilities with large carbon footprints, including open-pit mining and in-situ extraction operations. It has also partnered with CCS initiatives to cut emissions.
The oil major aims to hit net-zero scope 1 and 2 emissions, from operated assets by 2050. Its emissions totaled 8.9 million MtCO₂e in 2021.
Cenovus Energy Inc.
Known for its oil sands and conventional oil operations, Cenovus has significant emissions, especially from its steam-assisted gravity drainage (SAGD) operations. Cenovus is also part of the Pathways Alliance, focusing on long-term decarbonization.
The company aims to slash GHG emissions to net zero by 2050, with 18.2 million MtCO₂e produced in 2022.
How Canada’s Emissions Cap Could Redefine Oil & Gas
Canada’s proposed emissions cap for the sector focuses on emissions rather than limiting production. These regulations are informed by discussions with industry, Indigenous communities, provinces, territories, and other stakeholders and are designed to align with achievable technical measures, per the government’s statement. This approach allows for production growth, with Environment and Climate Change Canada projecting a 16% production increase by 2030-2032 from 2019 levels, assuming companies implement decarbonization measures.
The pollution cap will regulate upstream oil and gas facilities—including offshore and liquefied natural gas (LNG) production—which account for roughly 85% of the sector’s emissions. Activities covered include:
- oil sands extraction and upgrading,
- conventional oil production, natural gas processing, and
- LNG production.
As the world’s 4th-largest oil and 5th-largest gas producer, Canada aims to stay competitive in a decarbonizing global market. With demand for low-pollution fuels expected to grow, the emissions cap is positioned to help Canadian oil and gas producers adapt to shifting global demand while supporting national emissions targets.
As Canada targets a 40-45% emissions reduction below 2005 levels by 2030, it’s clear that the energy sector, which accounts for over a quarter of all emissions, is key to achieving its climate goal.
Tug of War Over Emissions Limits
The cap on emissions, however, is being criticized by Alberta and the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP), who argue it’s essentially a production cap. They contend the policy could drive up prices, eliminate up to 150,000 jobs, and cost Canada’s economy up to C$1 trillion (US$720 billion).
Alberta’s opposition reflects broader industry concerns that Canada could become the only major oil and gas-producing country capping emissions. They noted that this could potentially harm the nation’s competitiveness.
Greenpeace Canada’s Keith Stewart expressed that oil companies haven’t invested enough in pollution-reducing measures, underscoring the need for a strict cap. Conversely, Deloitte’s June analysis suggests that the cap may drive companies to cut production rather than adopt costly technologies like CCS, a solution proposed by some as a way to curb emissions without reducing output.
As the debate intensifies, it highlights the tension between ambitious climate policies and economic impacts on the energy sector and provincial economies. The final plan and its reception will be pivotal in shaping Canada’s climate and energy future.
The post Canada’s Emissions Cap for Oil & Gas: Will It Cut Carbon or Curb Production? appeared first on Carbon Credits.
Carbon Footprint
Finding Nature Based Solutions in Your Supply Chain
Carbon Footprint
How Climate Change Is Raising the Cost of Living
Americans are paying more for insurance, electricity, taxes, and home repairs every year. What many people may not realize is that climate change is already one of the drivers behind those rising costs.
For many households, climate change is no longer just an environmental issue. It is becoming a cost-of-living issue. While climate impacts like melting glaciers and shrinking polar ice can feel distant from everyday life, the financial effects are already showing up in monthly budgets across the country.
Today, a larger share of household income is consumed by fixed costs such as housing, insurance, utilities, and healthcare. (3) Climate change and climate inaction are adding pressure to many of those expenses through higher disaster recovery costs, rising energy demand, infrastructure repairs, and increased insurance risk.
The goal of this article is to help connect climate change to the everyday financial realities people already experience. Regardless of where someone stands on climate policy, it is important to recognize that climate change is already increasing costs for households, businesses, and taxpayers across the United States.
More conservative estimates indicate that the average household has experienced an increase of about $400 per year from observed climate change, while less conservative estimates suggest an increase of $900.(1) Those in more disaster-prone regions of the country face disproportionate costs, with some households experiencing climate-related costs averaging $1,300 per year.(1) Another study found that climate adaptation costs driven by climate change have already consumed over 3% of personal income in the U.S. since 2015.(9) By the end of the century, housing units could spend an additional $5,600 on adaptation costs.(1)
Whether we realize it or not, Americans are already paying for climate change through higher insurance premiums, energy costs, taxes, and infrastructure repairs. These growing expenses are often referred to as climate adaptation costs.
Without meaningful climate action, these costs are expected to continue rising. Choosing not to invest in climate action is also choosing to spend more on climate adaptation.
Here are a few ways climate change is already increasing the cost of living:
- Higher insurance costs from more frequent and severe storms
- Higher energy use during longer and hotter summers
- Higher electricity rates tied to storm recovery and grid upgrades
- Higher government spending and taxpayer-funded disaster recovery costs
The real debate is not whether climate change costs money. Americans are already paying for it. The question is where we want those costs to go. Should we invest more in climate action to help reduce future climate adaptation costs, or continue paying growing recovery and adaptation expenses in everyday life?
How Climate Change Is Increasing Insurance Costs
There is one industry that closely tracks the financial impact of natural disasters: insurance. Insurance companies are focused on assessing risk, estimating damages, and collecting enough revenue to cover losses and remain financially stable.
Comparing the 20-year periods 1980–1999 and 2000–2019, climate-related disasters increased 83% globally from 3,656 events to 6,681 events. The average time between billion-dollar disasters dropped from 82 days during the 1980s to 16 days during the last 10 years, and in 2025 the average time between disasters fell to just 10 days. (6)
According to the reinsurance firm Munich Re, total economic losses from natural disasters in 2024 exceeded $320 billion globally, nearly 40% higher than the decade-long annual average. Average annual inflation-adjusted costs more than quadrupled from $22.6 billion per year in the 1980s to $102 billion per year in the 2010s. Costs increased further to an average of $153.2 billion annually during 2020–2024, representing another 50% increase over the 2010s. (6)
In the United States, billion-dollar weather and climate disasters have also increased significantly. The average number of billion-dollar disasters per year has grown from roughly three annually during the 1980s to 19 annually over the last decade. In 2023 and 2024, the U.S. recorded 28 and 27 billion-dollar disasters respectively, both setting new records. (6)
The growing impact of climate change is one reason insurance costs continue to rise. “There are two things that drive insurance loss costs, which is the frequency of events and how much they cost,” said Robert Passmore, assistant vice president of personal lines at the Property Casualty Insurers Association of America. “So, as these events become more frequent, that’s definitely going to have an impact.” (8)
After adjusting for inflation, insurance costs have steadily increased over time. From 2000 to 2020, insurance costs consistently grew faster than the Consumer Price Index due to rising rebuilding costs and weather-related losses.(3) Between 2020 and 2023 alone, the average home insurance premium increased from $75 to $360 due to climate change impacts, with disaster-prone regions experiencing especially steep increases.(1) Since 2015, homeowners in some regions affected by more extreme weather have seen home insurance costs increased by nearly 57%.(1) Some insurers have also limited or stopped offering coverage in high-risk areas.(7)
For many families, rising insurance costs are no longer occasional financial burdens. They are becoming recurring monthly expenses tied directly to growing climate risk.
How Rising Temperatures Increase Household Energy Costs

The financial impacts of climate change extend beyond insurance. Rising temperatures are also changing how much energy Americans use and how utilities plan for future electricity demand.
Between 1950 and 2010, per capita electricity use increased 10-fold, though usage has flattened or slightly declined since 2012 due to more efficient appliances and LED lighting. (3) A significant share of increased energy demand comes from cooling needs associated with higher temperatures.
Over the last 20 years, the United States has experienced increasing Cooling Degree Days (CDD) and decreasing Heating Degree Days (HDD). Nearly all counties have become warmer over the past three decades, with some areas experiencing several hundred additional cooling degree days, equivalent to roughly one additional degree of warmth on most days. (1) This trend reflects a warming climate where air conditioning demand is increasing while heating demand generally declines. (4)
As temperatures continue rising, households are expected to spend more on cooling than they save on heating. The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) projects that by 2050, national Heating Degree Days will be 11% lower while Cooling Degree Days will be 28% higher than 2021 levels. Cooling demand is projected to rise 2.5 times faster than heating demand declines. (5)
These projections come from energy and infrastructure experts planning for future electricity demand and grid capacity needs. Utilities and grid operators are already preparing for higher peak summer electricity loads caused by rising temperatures. (5)
Longer and hotter summers also affect how homes and buildings are designed. Buildings constructed for past climate conditions may require upgrades such as larger air conditioning systems, stronger insulation, and improved ventilation to remain comfortable and energy efficient in the future. (10)
For many households, this means higher monthly utility bills and potentially higher long-term home improvement costs as temperatures continue to rise.
How Climate Change Affects Electricity Rates
On an inflation-adjusted basis, average U.S. residential electricity rates are slightly lower today than they were 50 years ago. (2) However, climate-related damage to utility infrastructure is creating new upward pressure on electricity costs.
Electric utilities rely heavily on above-ground poles, wires, transformers, and substations that can be damaged by hurricanes, storms, floods, and wildfires. Repairing and upgrading this infrastructure often requires substantial investment.
As a result, utilities are increasing electricity rates in response to wildfire and hurricane events to fund infrastructure repairs and future mitigation efforts. (1) The average cumulative increase in per-household electricity expenditures due to climate-related price changes is approximately $30. (1)
While this increase may appear modest today, utility costs are expected to rise further as climate-related infrastructure damage becomes more frequent and severe.
How Climate Disasters Increase Government Spending and Taxes
Extreme weather events also damage public infrastructure, including roads, schools, bridges, airports, water systems, and emergency services infrastructure. Recovery and rebuilding costs are often funded through taxpayer dollars at the federal, state, and local levels.
The average annual government cost tied to climate-related disaster recovery is estimated at nearly $142 per household. (1) States that frequently experience hurricanes, wildfires, tornadoes, or flooding can face even higher public recovery costs.
These expenses affect taxpayers whether they personally experience a disaster or not. Climate-related recovery spending can increase pressure on public budgets, emergency management systems, and infrastructure funding nationwide.
Reducing Climate Costs Through Climate Action
While this article focuses on the growing financial costs associated with climate change, the issue is not only about money for many people. It is also about recognizing our environmental impact and taking responsibility for reducing it in order to help preserve a healthy planet for future generations.
While individuals alone cannot solve climate change, collective action can help reduce future climate adaptation costs over time.
For those interested in taking action, there are three important steps:
- Estimate your carbon footprint to better understand the emissions connected to your lifestyle and activities.
- Create a plan to gradually reduce emissions through energy efficiency, cleaner technologies, and more sustainable choices.
- Address remaining emissions by supporting verified carbon reduction projects through carbon credits.
Carbon credits are one of the most cost-effective tools available for climate action because they help fund projects that generate verified emission reductions at scale. Supporting global emission reduction efforts can help reduce the long-term impacts and costs associated with climate change.
Visit Terrapass to learn more about carbon footprints, carbon credits, and climate action solutions.
The post How Climate Change Is Raising the Cost of Living appeared first on Terrapass.
Carbon Footprint
Carbon credit project stewardship: what happens after credit issuance
A carbon credit purchase is not a transaction that closes at issuance. The credit may be retired, the certificate filed, and the reporting box ticked. But on the ground, in the forest, in the field, and in the community, the work continues. It endures for years. In many cases, for decades.
![]()
-
Greenhouse Gases10 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Climate Change10 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 Energy7 months agoSending Progressive Philanthropist George Soros to Prison?
-
Carbon Footprint2 years agoUS SEC’s Climate Disclosure Rules Spur Renewed Interest in Carbon Credits
-
Greenhouse Gases10 months ago
嘉宾来稿:探究火山喷发如何影响气候预测

