Elliott Cappell is national lead for climate change at PwC Canada
Prime Minister Mark Carney’s climate competitiveness plan signals a strategic turn from phasing out fossil fuels to expanding energy supply
After a decade of focus on the energy transition, the Canadian federal government’s new climate competitiveness strategy signals a major shift: the country is entering an era of energy addition.
The central challenge of this new phase is not how to replace old energy with new, but how to add more — more electricity, more infrastructure, more storage, more exports — while reducing emissions intensity. Getting to net zero remains at the core of the climate strategy, but it is integrated into the decision-making process rather than serving as its organising principle.
At the core of the Paris Agreement is the concept of decoupling economic and emissions growth, so the economy grows while emissions reduce to zero.
Canada’s new approach is that of relative decoupling. Essentially, while total emissions may continue to increase or plateau, the emissions intensity of the economy — the amount of carbon emitted per unit of GDP — declines.
The central challenge of this new phase is not how to replace old energy with new, but how to add more
Practically, the climate strategy released is unmistakably centred on energy. Roughly two-thirds of its measures involve the energy system directly, and much of the rest is adjacent to or supportive of it.
This evolution is not unique to Canada. Globally, the economics are driving the transformation of energy production at least as much as climate ambition, and in some cases even more so.
Renewables, nuclear and battery storage are no longer niche or subsidised technologies. They are cost-competitive, scaleable and profitable, which is why they now account for roughly two-thirds of global energy investment.
For Canada to capture a share of this investment, its market infrastructure must improve. A stable carbon pricing regime, clear taxonomies establishing what counts as “green” or “transition”, and transparent, climate-related financial disclosures are all essential.
The strategy includes each of those, although it was notably vague on a timeline for implementing climate-related financial disclosures.
Sceptics will find plenty of fault in the new strategy. The main line of criticism is that this strategy risks locking Canada into fossil fuel infrastructure for longer than is globally competitive.
The government could mitigate this risk by designing new assets to accommodate future, low-carbon fuels — although this did not feature in the strategy.
The previous transition narrative was about speed and transformation towards 2030 and 2050 targets. The addition era is about coalition and endurance
The implications of this new energy addition era fall into three broad categories:
First, it creates enormous economic opportunities for investors, financial institutions and climate tech entrepreneurs. This strategy is explicitly focused on catalysing one of the largest waves of private and public investment in Canadian history, with climate change at the core.
Second, this strategy hardly mentioned adaptation and resilience. Given its focus on investment attraction, this was a missed opportunity to promote Canada’s resilience to climate change as a de-risking lever for global capital.
Finally, the path this strategy lays out will reduce emissions, but more gradually than under a pure transition model.
The big question is whether slower change proves more durable. The government’s bet is that a broader coalition — of provinces, investors, Indigenous partners and industry — will produce more lasting progress than faster, but politically brittle, reform.
The previous transition narrative was about speed and transformation towards 2030 and 2050 targets. The addition era is about coalition and endurance: the grand bargain that will keep Canada growing, investing and decarbonising at the same time.