The following is a re-print of the May 2026 edition of Shift Storm, the CCPA’s monthly newsletter which focuses on the intersection of work and climate change. Click here to subscribe to Shift Storm and get the latest updates straight to your inbox as soon as they come out.
Even as the scaffolding of Canadian climate policy has come crashing down over the past year, the federal government has repeated the seemingly paradoxical assertion that it is doubling down on climate action.
In his first official act as Prime Minister, Mark Carney eliminated the consumer carbon price. At the time, he said it was part of a broader strategy to fight climate change.
His first budget, in fall 2025, abandoned the oil and gas emissions cap, cut billions in climate spending, curtailed greenwashing rules and expanded fossil fuel subsidies. The budget claimed that its measures would nevertheless “drive down emissions,” mainly through strengthened industrial carbon pricing.
Shortly thereafter, Carney signed the Alberta-Canada MOU, which delayed methane regulations, undercut clean power regulations and laid the groundwork for increased oil production. The deal claimed that these measures would further “lower emissions,” mainly through the construction of a long-promised carbon capture and storage project.
In February, the government canceled the electric vehicle sales mandate and replaced it with time-limited incentives and promises of future regulations. The environment minister said the approach would “drive down emissions” by accelerating EV adoption.
In April, the government introduced three new fossil fuel subsidies—for liquefied natural gas, enhanced oil recovery and consumer gasoline and diesel. The spring update reiterated that addressing climate change is “essential.”
Earlier this month, the government introduced its new electricity strategy, which doubles down on the gas industry and weakens the clean electricity regulations further. The plan was framed as “a key element of our climate approach.”
One day later, the government released the implementation agreement for the Alberta MOU, which actually weakens—rather than strengthens, as promised—the industrial carbon pricing system, as well as paring back expectations for carbon capture. The announcement claims, once again, that the deal will “lower emissions” in line with net-zero by 2050.
For climate advocates, there is much here to be disheartened about, but what I find particularly exasperating is that all of the government’s climate claims are entirely unsubstantiated. As I went back through these policy announcements, I could not help but notice that not a single one includes any emissions modeling. Based on these policy announcements, there is no way to assess whether these measures would actually reduce total emissions, as the government claims, or increase them.
It is possible to do some of that math ourselves. For example, as Environmental Defence has calculated, a new oil sands pipeline would produce far more emissions than the Pathways CCUS project could possibly capture. As the Pembina Institute has calculated, the combination of a new pipeline plus weaker industrial carbon pricing in this month’s deal with Alberta could lead to an additional 230 megatonnes of greenhouse gas emissions from the oil sands over the coming decades. The bottom line, as the Canadian Climate Institute concluded, is that net-zero by 2050 is now “firmly out of reach.”
(As a reminder, the only metric that matters for fighting climate change is absolute emissions reductions. We need to stop putting pollution in the atmosphere so that we stop cooking ourselves alive. That’s why net-zero is the correct target. Everything else—especially claims to be improving “emissions intensity”—is a distraction.)
There was a time when the federal government did this sort of math itself. Indeed, part of the government still does, so the omission of emissions modeling in recent policy announcements is not for lack of capacity. The fact that the government is leaving out the math is a choice—and a huge red flag.
Show us the math or admit that our climate policy future is being sacrificed on the altar of oil and gas. But stop trying to tell us that black is white.
Storm surge: this month’s key reads
Fossil fuel conference gets the ball rolling on global phase-out
The First Conference on Transitioning Away from Fossil Fuels took place in Santa Marta, Colombia at the end of April and 57 countries participated. A formal synthesis report is expected in June, but the initial summary report provides a helpful overview of what went down. While the official takeaways are less radical than the grassroots People’s Declaration developed on the sidelines of the conference, it is still refreshing to see the clarity with which these governments name the root cause of the climate crisis and the political and economic systems that are perpetuating it (including trade and investment treaties).
Looking ahead, the Santa Marta conference kicked off a number of new processes, including a science-based effort to develop national roadmaps for phasing out fossil fuels and a political effort to influence the fall COP. A second conference on transitioning away from fossil fuels will be co-hosted by Tuvalu and Ireland next year.
Canada showed up meekly in Santa Marta. Delegates emphasized the economic opportunities of climate action but did not acknowledge the need to reduce global fossil fuel dependence. It’s not surprising given the orientation of the current federal government, but it’s a stark contrast to 2015 when Canadian negotiators played a key role in raising the ambitions of the Paris Agreement.
On the whole, it is immensely encouraging that so many countries are pressing ahead with ambitious, honest climate action. It is not too late for Canada to step up.
Research radar: the latest developments in work and climate
High oil prices are costing Canadians billions… In A Sequel We Don’t Want, Jim Stanford finds that the U.S./Israeli-led war in Iran will add at least $50 billion to Canadian consumer costs over the next year, or as much as $128 billion if the Strait of Hormuz stays closed for six months. Meanwhile, the Canadian oil industry will receive $65-156 billion in extra revenues. I’ve been keeping my own tabs on oil industry profiteering since the war started. The case for an excess profits tax has never been stronger.
…and we’re still subsidizing the oil industry. Environmental Defence has released their annual update on federal fossil fuel subsidies, Climate Promises, Industry Handouts, which finds that Canada subsidized oil and gas companies to the tune of $10 billion in 2025. It requires an incredible amount of cognitive dissonance to defend fossil fuels as a foundational economic driver while also viewing the industry as so vulnerable that it requires government handouts to be competitive.
Solar is replacing fossil fuels everywhere except Canada. For the first time, Texas will get more electricity from solar power than it does coal power this year. In Australia, the combination of solar power plus battery storage is crushing gas-fired electricity generation. Meanwhile, in Alberta, provincial policy has strangled the solar industry, which has gone from a national leader to a laggard, as a new report from the Pembina Institute, Path of Most Resistance, explains. In Manitoba, there is almost no solar power whatsoever despite being Canada’s second sunniest province, as the Narwhal reports. In keeping with the federal government’s new gas-focused electricity strategy, Canadian provinces are falling behind on the cheapest source of electricity for the coming century.
UN agrees that states have a legal duty to tackle climate change. Last year, I discussed the groundbreaking decision of the International Court of Justice to label climate action as a legal obligation of all states. This month, that decision was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly, further entrenching the legal basis for climate action (and the liability for climate inaction) around the world. Canada voted for the resolution, which may open up avenues for additional climate legislation against Canadian governments.
Wildfire smoke in Canada kills thousands, costs billions every year. An incisive new study published in the journal GeoHealth finds that wildfire smoke caused 1,900 premature deaths and $18 billion in health costs each year in Canada since 2019. When we’re told that climate action is too expensive, we forget about the very real costs of inaction.
New book tackles privatization of nature. One of Canada’s greatest environmental thinkers, Maude Barlow, has published a new book, Earth for Sale, that exposes the perils of financializing and privatizing nature. Incidentally, that’s exactly what the federal government’s new nature strategy does. Join Maude and my colleague Stuart Trew for the launch event in Ottawa on June 10.
Protecting nature and fighting climate change starts with Indigenous leadership. The themes of commodification and colonization of nature are taken up in the new Nature-Based Climate Solutions Report from Indigenous Climate Action. Among other vital insights, the report identifies how governments in Canada and around the world use conservation as a smokescreen for policies that make the root problem worse—namely, by increasing the extraction of fossil fuels. Nature-based climate solutions are real and worthwhile, but they won’t be realized in practice without decolonization.
Dark clouds: artificial intelligence on the horizon
Canada’s AI strategy drops next week. After months of delays, the federal government will reportedly release its artificial intelligence strategy at some point next week. Stay tuned for CCPA analysis.
How to power data centres without destroying the climate. A new article from the Canadian Climate Institute argues that AI data centres should be required to use clean power, and that the private sector should be picking up more of the tab for new grid infrastructure. The challenge is doing so without provincial buy-in. The new Alberta-Canada MOU, which has thrown a wrench into all things climate, makes it even more likely that data centres in that province will increase gas combustion and thus emissions.
Women disproportionately exposed to AI automation. The U.S.-based National Partnership for Women & Families has a new report out on AI and Emerging Risks for Women Workers, which finds that in the sectors most at risk of AI automation, such as administrative support and customer service jobs, women account for 82 per cent of the workforce. The report calls for stronger regulation to protect workers and address AI-based discrimination.
The pope doesn’t like AI and that’s cool with me. Pope Leo XIV published a 42,000-word encyclical letter on safeguarding the human person in the time of artificial intelligence that slams the “idolatry of profit” in the tech industry. We’ll see if the church’s 1.4 billion members take note.
About the author
Hadrian Mertins-Kirkwood
Hadrian Mertins-Kirkwood (he/him) is a senior researcher and political economist at the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives. His work focuses on federal economic, social and environmental policy, especially in the areas of climate change, artificial intelligence and industrial strategy. Hadrian edits the monthly Shift Storm newsletter on climate and labour.
