Pierre Poilievre doesn’t have a climate plan. But he doesn’t need one

Open this photo in gallery:

Ashley Nunes is a senior research associate at Harvard Law School and teaches economic policy at Harvard College.

Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre’s climate policies (or lack thereof, according to the Liberals) have been derided by opponent Mark Carney. The Liberal Leader has cited Mr. Poilievre’s climate policies as indicative of “ideology, not leadership,” and that more broadly the Conservative Leader wants to “burn everything down.”

Mr. Carney has a bit of a point. The Conservatives want to repeal the industrial carbon tax, scrap the emissions cap on oil and gas, gut Bill C-69 (which enforces environmental assessments) and roll back clean fuel and electricity regulations. When Mr. Poilievre was recently asked whether Canada should produce more oil, his answer was – without pause – an unequivocal yes.

The official Conservative platform, released on Tuesday, mentions “climate” only five times, mostly as secondary references in sections such as “Unleash Canadian Energy and Resources” and “Unleash Domestic Industry and Innovation.” The section that actually focused on the climate was a mere 160 words – largely lip service.

But look who’s talking.

In the past, such criticism from the Liberal Leader might have sounded less hollow. The Liberal Party has long cast itself as champions in the fight against climate change. In 2002, the party ratified the Kyoto Protocol, a treaty seen as crucial to lowering emissions. In 2013, it promised to invest in clean technology while reducing fossil fuel subsidies. But its boldest move came in 2016 when former prime minister Justin Trudeau announced plans for a carbon tax. The move drew applause and ire in equal measure. Applause from environmentalists keen to lower emissions, and ire from voters keen to lower living costs.

We all know how that turned out.

Shortly after taking office, Mr. Carney – the man now vying to make his tenure in Ottawa more permanent – scrapped the consumer-facing carbon tax. He justified the move saying it will “make a difference to hard-pressed Canadians, but it is part of a much bigger set of measures that this government is taking to ensure that we fight against climate change.” More than a month later, I’m perplexed as to what “bigger set of measures” Mr. Carney is alluding to.

The election platform unveiled by the Liberal Party last weekend offers few answers. The buzzwords are there: everything from nature (mentioned 13 times) to emissions (mentioned 15 times), and climate (28 times). And there’s plenty of talk about the significant impact of climate change, the need to reduce emissions, to adapt using climate resilient design, to ensure energy independence, to employ a more holistic ecosystem approach to conservation, to drive economic growth ... you get the idea. Precisely how this comes to pass is anyone’s guess. The platform doesn’t say. In fact, it is so light on specifics – and heavy on infographics – that it makes me wonder how many “thought“ leaders worked on it. ChatGPT could have done a better job (and it would have been cheaper, too).

In terms of plans with more specifics, Mr. Carney has promised to establish “energy corridors.” The idea would incur shortened waiting times for government approval to build infrastructure – most notably transmission lines carrying clean energy – across Canada. But Mr. Poilievre has given similar assurances. His “Canada First” National Energy Corridor promises to provide legally binding commitments that will end “regulatory limbo” for developers building energy infrastructure.

Mr. Carney could curb fossil fuel production, most notably by restricting public financing for such projects. The move would complement an emissions cap on the fossil fuel industry backed by Mr. Carney’s predecessor. But that’s inconsistent with a party platform that promises “investing in Canada’s conventional and clean energy potential.” Conventional sounds a lot like fossil fuels.

Mr. Carney could also ban the use of certain products that use fossil fuels. An example would be gasoline vehicles that the Trudeau government promised to phase out by 2035. But Mr. Carney has been silent on whether he would support the policy. Instead, he speaks vaguely about reducing “pollution from transportation.”

Mr. Carney talks about Canada being an energy superpower. He’s right, but for reasons his party is unenthused to admit (but Conservatives are keen to embrace). Our energy prominence comes from vast oil reserves. Canada also has more than 1,300 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. Renewable energy – a darling of the Liberal Party – accounts for a paltry 16 per cent of Canada’s energy might.

That explains Mr. Carney’s continued embrace of fossil fuels. What it doesn’t explain – setting aside reasons of petty, partisan politics – is his criticism of Mr. Poilievre. From where I’m standing, it’s hard to tell the two men apart.

Editor’s note: (April 24, 2025): A previous version of this article incorrectly stated that Canada has Canada also has more than 1.3 trillion cubic feet of natural gas in reserve. It has more than 1,300 trillion cubic feet.