On April 29, 2025, Mark Carney led Canada’s Liberal Party to a narrow electoral victory, securing a fourth consecutive term for the party. Carney, a former central banker and UN Special Envoy for Climate Action and Finance, now leads Canada’s climate policy.
Carney is now tasked with an urgent balancing act: easing economic pressures while advancing ambitious climate goals — at a time when both inflation and demand for climate action are rising.
Reforming Carbon Pricing: From Consumer Tax to Industrial Focus
One of Carney’s first actions as Prime Minister was to scrap the consumer carbon tax. This tax, introduced in 2019, grew unpopular as living costs rose. The tax, which was set to reach $170 per tonne by 2030, was repealed in an effort to alleviate financial burdens on households.

After its removal, gasoline prices in Canada fell sharply. Average gasoline prices dropped by 8–12 cents per liter nationwide. Some provinces saw drops of more than 10 cents per liter. Many Canadians welcomed this immediate relief. This was especially true in areas where energy costs make up a large part of household expenses.
Carney suggests replacing the consumer tax. He wants to encourage greener choices for consumers and improve carbon pricing for industries. This plan maintains output-based pricing for big polluters. It also adds subsidies for electric vehicles and home upgrades.
The output-based pricing system (OBPS) aims to hold high-emission industries accountable. It also gives flexibility to sectors that face international competition or are trade-exposed.
It uses the same carbon price as the old consumer tax — $65 per tonne of CO₂ now, rising to $170 per tonne by 2030. Instead of charging companies for every tonne of emissions, the government sets performance targets based on how much pollution is normal for their industry.
If a company pollutes more than its target, it must buy carbon credits or pay the carbon price. If it pollutes less, it earns credits that it can sell. This system lets industries avoid paying the full carbon price on all their emissions, but still pushes them to be more efficient.
The government is targeting industrial emitters. This plan focuses on the biggest sources of greenhouse gases. It also reduces the financial burden on everyday Canadians.
Carney’s plan also includes robust support for green technology adoption. Subsidies for electric vehicles help speed up the shift to cleaner transport. Incentives for home retrofits promote energy efficiency and reduce emissions in homes. These efforts include public awareness campaigns. They aim to help Canadians make smart choices about energy use and their carbon footprint.
Carney’s shift to industrial carbon pricing is complemented by a new international trade tool — the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM).
Introducing the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism
Carney wants to tackle carbon leakage and stay competitive, and thus, he plans to implement the CBAM. This policy would set tariffs on imports from countries with weaker carbon rules. Thus, it encourages global emission cuts and helps protect local industries.
The CBAM helps Canadian manufacturers compete better. Without it, they may have higher costs from local climate policies than their international rivals.
The introduction of the CBAM marks a significant shift in Canada’s approach to climate policy. Carney’s government wants to align trade policy with climate goals. This way, it can encourage other countries to improve their carbon rules. This approach shows global trends. The European Union and other regions are moving toward similar systems.
However, implementing the CBAM needs careful coordination with trading partners. It must also follow World Trade Organization rules to prevent disputes.
Balancing Energy Development and Environmental Goals
Carney envisions Canada as a leader in both clean and conventional energy sectors. His administration wants to create a national energy corridor to help share energy resources across the country. It will also cut dependence on the United States and boost energy security.
The new corridor will help move electricity, oil, and natural gas more efficiently. This way, provinces can share resources and take advantage of their strengths in energy production.
While promoting clean energy investments, Carney also acknowledges the role of traditional energy sources in Canada’s economy. Oil and gas are key to GDP and jobs, especially in Alberta and Saskatchewan.
Carney stresses the need to work together with provinces, territories, and Indigenous communities. This teamwork is key for energy projects that support both environmental and economic goals. This involves helping to build renewable energy systems like wind and solar. It also ensures that current industries can shift to lower-carbon operations.
The government’s approach is practical. It knows that quickly moving away from fossil fuels might hurt the economy. Instead, Carney advocates for a gradual transition, supported by investment in innovation and skills development to prepare workers for the jobs of the future.
The Global Stage Awaits — Can Canada Deliver?
Although Canada accounts for roughly 1.5% of global emissions, its advanced economy and resource wealth position it as a key player in shaping international climate policy.
Carney has extensive experience in global finance and climate advocacy. This enables him to play a significant role in international climate discussions. As a former Governor of the Bank of England and the Bank of Canada, he brings credibility and expertise to the global stage.
Canada will play a bigger role in groups like the UNFCCC and the G7. It will push for teamwork on carbon pricing, sustainable finance, and climate adaptation.
However, Carney faces challenges at home. He must work with a minority government and tackle regional gaps in support for climate policies. Provinces that depend on fossil fuels might oppose federal plans. This means they need to negotiate carefully and design policies that help everyone meet emission reduction goals.
Canada has promised to cut its greenhouse gas emissions by 40–45% below 2005 levels by 2030 as part of the Paris Agreement. The country also aims to reach net-zero emissions by 2050.

The Canadian Climate Institute estimated that the carbon tax would have helped lower emissions by 8–9% by 2030. The carbon tax applies to emissions from transportation and buildings. On the other hand, the industrial carbon pricing systems could cut around 20-48% of emissions by 2030, as shown below.

Even though the tax on consumers is gone, government rebates for electric vehicles and home upgrades will still help reduce emissions in these areas. Without the tax, Canada will need new policies to stay on track, and Carney’s administration will be on it.
Carney’s Climate Balancing Act
Public opinion remains divided. Some Canadians prioritize economic growth and energy affordability; others demand more ambitious climate action.
Prime Minister Mark Carney’s challenge will be to bridge these divides. He needs to show that environmental responsibility and economic prosperity can go hand in hand.
Carney’s climate strategy reflects a pragmatic approach: balancing the need for economic stability with environmental responsibility. Carney wants to shift Canada from consumer-based carbon pricing to industrial regulation and international methods like the CBAM. This change aims to make the country a strong and innovative leader in global climate efforts.
As Canada works to reach its climate goals, the world will be watching. If successful, Carney’s balanced approach could offer a model for nations seeking both economic resilience and climate leadership.
The post Mark Carney’s Climate Strategy: Balancing Carbon Policy, Trade, and Energy Security 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”
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Bill Discounting Climate Change in Florida’s Energy Policy Awaits DeSantis’ Approval
-
Renewable Energy11 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

