Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s announcement to step down has created a vacuum that will shape the future of Canada’s leadership. This decision has ignited a fierce race for leadership within the Liberal Party, with former Bank of Canada Governor Mark Carney emerging as a key contender. On the other side, Conservative Party Leader Pierre Poilievre stands in stark opposition, ready to challenge the current climate policies.
With the ideological divide between Carney’s progressive climate agenda and Poilievre’s economic-focused stance, Canada’s climate future hangs in the balance. Let’s take a closer look at each of the potential replacements’ climate and net zero stance.
Mark Carney: A Champion of Climate Finance and Global Leadership
Mark Carney’s entry into the political race marks a significant moment for Canada and the global climate movement. Carney’s extensive experience as the Governor of the Bank of Canada, along with his tenure as the UN Special Envoy on Climate Action and Finance, positions him as a leading figure on the international stage.
For years, Carney has been a vocal proponent of transitioning to a net-zero economy. He has been emphasizing the potential for economic growth through climate action.
He often refers to net zero as “the greatest commercial opportunity of our time”, specifically noting in an interview that:
“…And what we have seen increasingly, spurred initially by the Sustainable Development Goals, accelerated by Paris, and then by social movements and governments, is societies putting tremendous value on achieving net zero. Companies, and those who invest in them and lend to them, and who are part of the solution, will be rewarded. Those who are lagging behind and are still part of the problem will be punished.”
He sees it as a way to unlock investment in renewable energy, clean technologies, and sustainable infrastructure.
A recent report by the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) estimates that the global renewable energy market could generate up to $98 trillion in investment by 2050. This presents a significant economic opportunity for countries, like Canada, that choose to embrace green policies.
Carney’s vision for the country aligns with global trends, calling for a balanced approach to climate policy that integrates both environmental and economic goals. His leadership would likely usher in policies focused on scaling up investments in clean energy, carbon capture technologies, and creating more sustainable industries.
Under Carney, Canadians could see the implementation of mandatory carbon disclosure for corporations, helping drive transparency and accountability in the private sector. The UN climate envoy also advocates for leveraging private sector finance to accelerate the transition to a net-zero economy.
Pierre Poilievre: Opposing Carbon Taxes and Prioritizing Affordability
Pierre Poilievre, the current leader of Canada’s Conservative Party, has built his political identity on opposing carbon taxes. He is also questioning the effectiveness of environmental regulations.
With his populist messaging and a strong emphasis on affordability, Poilievre has become a leading figure for those disillusioned by rising costs of living. His “Axe the Tax” campaign resonates with voters who view the carbon tax as an economic burden rather than a solution to climate change. The campaign aimed at eliminating Trudeau’s carbon pricing system.
Per the Canada Taxpayers Federation, the carbon tax under the current system costs an average family of four $1,200 annually. The chart below from the Canadian Energy Centre shows how much it will affect vehicle fuel costs by 2030.
Poilievre’s criticism of the carbon tax is largely driven by concerns over this financial impact. This becomes more paramount as inflationary pressures and cost-of-living concerns continue to grow.
Poilievre’s anti-carbon tax stance has been consistent. He argues that it disproportionately affects working Canadians, driving up the cost of goods and services, particularly in northern communities.
While Poilievre has voiced concern about the economic impact of such policies, he has yet to present a clear and actionable alternative to address climate change. His positions on climate policy, therefore, raise questions about Canada’s ability to meet its emissions reduction targets without strong regulatory frameworks.
Under Poilievre’s leadership, Canada might see a rollback of several key climate policies, including the following:
- carbon tax,
- emissions caps for oil and gas, and
- investments in clean energy technologies.
Analysts think that this would likely distance Canada from international climate commitments, potentially putting the nation at odds with global efforts to mitigate climate change.
A Deepening Divide: What’s at Stake for The Future of Canada’s Climate Policy?
Trudeau’s resignation sets the stage for a new political era. The next leadership race will be pivotal in determining Canada’s climate future.
- According to Environment and Climate Change Canada, the country must reduce emissions by at least 40-45% by 2030 compared to 2005 levels to meet its international commitments.
Carney’s policies would likely drive the investments and regulatory changes necessary to achieve these ambitious goals. On the other hand, Pierre Poilievre’s rise to power could shift Canada’s climate trajectory in a different direction. Prioritizing deregulation and affordability over bold climate action could lead to a retreat from critical environmental commitments.
Moreover, Carney’s proposed policies on climate finance, carbon pricing, and clean energy investments align with global efforts on sustainability. These measures reflect a commitment to both tackling climate change and positioning Canada as a leader in climate finance.
A report from Canada’s Clean Growth Hub reveals that Canada’s renewable energy sector has seen significant growth. It contributes nearly $4.5 billion to the national economy in 2020 alone. Carney’s platform would likely continue to build on this momentum as he noted in his speeches, further bolstering the sector.
In contrast, Poilievre’s carbon pricing opposition prioritizes short-term economic relief for Canadians. While Poilievre’s stance might appeal to those frustrated with rising costs, it lacks a clear strategy for long-term climate solutions.
As the leadership race heats up, Canadians will have to decide which path they want to take: Will the nation take the opportunity to lead in global climate action, or will it retreat from its environmental commitments? The outcome will not only shape Canada’s domestic climate policy but also its role in the global fight against climate change.
The post Trudeau’s Resignation Sparks Leadership Race: Mark Carney vs. Pierre Poilievre on Canada’s Climate Future appeared first on Carbon Credits.
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.
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.
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