Canada’s fossil fuel industry has singlehandedly scotched any chance of the country hitting its legally-binding 2030 emissions reduction targets, due to increasing oil and gas production.
Despite reductions in electricity, transport, building and heavy industry, Canada’s 2024 emissions flatlined due primarily to a 1.9 per cent increase from the oil and gas sector. Oil and gas production is Canada’s largest and fastest-growing source of planet-warming emissions, according to calculus by 440 Megatonnes, a project of the Canadian Climate Institute (CCI), a think tank.

Last year, oil and gas accounted for 31 per cent of the total 694 million tonnes (Mt) of greenhouse gases released nationally, the analysis found.

Canada’s legally-binding climate targets require emissions reductions of 40 to 45 per cent compared to 2005 levels by the end of the decade. However, the CCI said Canada’s emissions are only on track for a 20 to 25 per cent reduction by 2030, falling far short of the legislated target and “well below what could have been achieved if governments across the federation had implemented climate policies as announced.”
The damning totals are being compounded by significant setbacks in climate policy at the federal and provincial levels, and the acceleration of plans to build more liquefied natural gas (LNG) facilities that will increase national emissions once in operation, said the CCI.

“Right now, we are seeing the trajectory of national emissions flip from decline to rise, primarily driven by oil and gas and the oil sands,” said Dave Sawyer, CCI’s principal economist, in a pre-launch briefing with the media. In 2023, national emissions dropped by nearly one per cent compared to 2022, representing an overall eight per cent reduction from 2005 levels.
This won’t come close to meeting the target which would necessitate emissions reductions of roughly 40 Mt a year, said Sawyer.
Climate policy setbacks aplenty
The CCI said the federal repeal of the consumer carbon tax and idling of the country’s EV mandate, along with weakened industrial carbon pricing in several provinces, threaten the “fragile progress” Canada has made to date.
Just two days ago, climate was dealt another blow when Alberta Premier Danielle Smith announced changes to its industrial carbon pricing and credit trading program. The Alberta Technology Innovation and Emissions Reduction (TIER) system requires companies to reduce their carbon-intensity in line with a specified benchmark. It originally offered companies that don’t reduce their emissions two options to ensure compliance: buying credits from companies that successfully reduced their emissions or paying into the TIER fund for excess emissions.
Smith’s proposed changes, announced Tuesday, will let companies avoid buying compliance credits or paying into the TIER fund if they make direct investments in emissions reduction initiatives at their sites.
“The direct investment option appears to give companies credit for spending rather than results,” Clean Prosperity President and CEO Michael Bernstein said in response to Smith’s announcement.
The changes also allow smaller companies to opt out of the system entirely for 2025 to reduce costs and red tape, according to the province’s news release. Alberta Environment Minister Rebecca Schulz declared it a “significant win for industry,” while critics were quick to point out the loopholes it creates for large emitters.
These changes “open the door to double counting, as well as slashing demand for TIER credits,” warned Chris Severson-Baker, executive director of the Pembina Institute, in a statement.
“Based on what we’ve heard, … companies will be able to avoid paying a compliance cost at the point of investment in technologies, but then, also generate a carbon credit when their emissions start to be reduced,” Severson-Baker said.
The changes undermine the stability of the carbon credit market and make it less likely that private investment will flow to carbon capture initiatives in the oilsands, including the Pathways Alliance carbon capture megaproject, he said. This comes after Alberta froze its industrial carbon price at $95, a level it intends to maintain through 2026. This puts Alberta at odds with the federal backstop, which rises every year.
At the federal level, the future of the proposed cap on oil and gas emissions is uncertain. With key climate and industrial policies falling like dominoes or stalled out, Sawyer warns that “2025 is Canada’s fork in the road on climate. The choices governments make this year will decide whether we lock in decline or drift upward.”
Both coasts primed for an LNG explosion
All signs point to even more emissions from the fossil fuel sector in coming years. Alberta’s oil and gas production is expected to hit a record high this year, and federal and provincial governments are backing further oilsands and LNG expansion.
Canada’s doubling-down on LNG as a so-called low-carbon, bridging fuel could be particularly vexatious for emissions reduction targets. The government is ramping up plans to export huge volumes of future LNG production to Asia and Europe — despite forecasts of falling market demand after 2030 and questions around the carbon footprint of shipping LNG internationally.

"Whether Canada will be able to capitalize on the promise of LNG is the question of the hour,” Clark Williams-Derry, an analyst with the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis, an international energy think tank, told Canada’s National Observer recently.
After a lean period of new supply from 2021 through 2024, the trajectory for the next five years appears to be on track for massive oversupply, impacting promised markets in Asia and Europe for Canadian LNG, he added.
Canada’s current portfolio of LNG export projects will add up to nearly $110 billion in proposed capital spending for a production capacity of more than 50 million tonnes a year.
This includes LNG Canada phase 2 — a multi-billion-dollar expansion of the existing export complex and BC infrastructure project being fast-tracked under the Liberals ‘nation-building’ project initiative, the $8-billion Cedar LNG terminal, due to start exporting in 2028, and Woodfibre LNG, set to become North America’s first hydropower-backed LNG facility when it starts-up in 2027.
Two weeks ago, a $15-billion project in Newfoundland that would create Canada’s first LNG export terminal on its Atlantic coast was launched by Crown LNG, and even more recently, a $10-billion development in BC, Ksi Lismis LNG, received a key environmental impact assessment greenlight from the provincial government.
The environmental impact of Canadian LNG exports could be massive at home and abroad, according to recent research from Cornell University in the US that points to LNG having greenhouse gas emissions 33 per cent worse than coal, once processing and shipping is also considered.
“While every megatonne of emissions reduced is important to avert dangerous and costly climate impacts, missing the 2030 emissions target by a wide margin would leave Canada well off the path to its 2035 and 2050 targets, forcing much deeper and more expensive emissions reductions later,” said Sawyer.
Comments
Article: "These changes 'open the door to double counting, as well as slashing demand for TIER credits,' warned Chris Severson-Baker, executive director of the Pembina Institute …
"The changes undermine the stability of the carbon credit market and make it less likely that private investment will flow to carbon capture initiatives in the oilsands, including the Pathways Alliance carbon capture megaproject, he said."
Pembina's non-stop advocacy for doomed-to-fail taxpayer-funded carbon capture in the oilsands is inexplicable. Unjustified. Shameful.
Analysts on all sides agree that CCS won't work in the oilsands. Regardless, the federal government has committed tens of billions of tax dollars to it in order to provide the oilsands industry with political cover to build a new pipeline(s) and expand production.
"Don't Fall for Big Oil's Carbon Capture Deceptions" (Scientific American, Dec 4, 2023)
"Carbon capture technology is a PR fig leaf designed to help Big Oil delay the phaseout of fossil fuels"
Even climate change deniers admit that CCS is BS.
"Carbon Capture 'Not Going to Happen,' Top Fossil Fuel Advocate Predicts' (DeSmog, Jun 5, 2025)
EYRE: One bill, two vetoes... why Bill C-5 is doomed (Western Standard, 10 Jul 2025)
"Carney should rethink 'carbon capture' climate cure" (Kenneth P. Green, Fraser Institute, July 18, 2025)
"Terence Corcoran: Big industries captured by carbon warriors" (FP, Aug 22, 2025)
Pembina's own analysis casts doubt on CCS's effectiveness in the oil sands except for upgraders. In the oilsands sector, "most CO2 is emitted in low concentration streams, and the efforts to capture it will be challenging and expensive."
CCS captures a small fraction of industry's upstream emissions and zero emissions downstream at the consumer end. Captures no other fossil-fuel pollutants.
The O&G industry supports CCS, but only if taxpayers pay for it. Why invest scarce public dollars in CCS? We have cheaper ways to cut more emissions far faster.
CCS is an industry smokescreen. Its main purpose is to provide political cover for O&G expansion.
Unlike most ENGOs and the 400+ scientists and academics who signed an open letter in January 2022 advising against federal support for carbon capture (CCS) in the O&G sector, Pembina has long supported both carbon capture in Canada's O&G sector and massive public subsidies to fund it.
Pembina's participation in the O&G industry's deceptions and delay tactics is unfathomable.
From the outset, the O&G industry and corporate Canada generously supported the Pembina Institute as a vehicle to obtain social license. Its very reason for being. That's explains Pembina's longstanding and ongoing complicity in promoting "responsible oilsands development".
In 2015, the Pembina Institute was one of the key architects of Rachel Notley's non-climate plan. Greenlighting oilsands expansion enabled by new export pipelines in return for a small carbon tax that would not impair their profits and a fraudulent oilsands emissions cap that would not outlive the Notley govt. Climate plans based on fossil-fuel expansion and CCS are designed to fail.
Working hand in glove with industry, Pembina blurs the line between advocacy and collusion. Providing political cover for oilsands expansion.
Infamously, Pembina is "the green group that the oilpatch can work with".
"Meet the green group that the oilpatch can work with" (Financial Post, April 21, 2016)
Article: "Canada’s fossil fuel industry has singlehandedly scotched any chance of the country hitting its legally-binding 2030 emissions reduction targets, due to increasing oil and gas production."
Catch oil and gas CEOs in a generous mood, and they may be willing to share some of the credit for climate failure with our political leaders and governments.
Unbridled fossil fuel expansion in a climate emergency is a failure of governance.
PM Carney is but the latest in a long line of climate mismanagers in thrall to Corporate Canada.
So let's give a hand to politicians and mainstream parties of all stripes: petro-progressives (federal Liberals, provincial NDP) and dinosaur Conservatives. From the PMO to the mealy-mouthed environment ministers to the backbenchers, whipped into submission.
With a nod to opposition parties for failing to stand up for Canadians and the public interest.
Besides which, a vast array of forces strive to preserve the fossil-fuel status quo — and to delay and obstruct climate action:
- Industry-captured regulators, media, academe, and extractivist think tanks.
- CAPP and other industry lobby groups.
- The courts, which uphold the rights of extractionist interests over indigenous communities and protestors.
- The RCMP/CSIS, which spy on and crack down on indigenous communities and protestors.
- Industry cheerleaders, apologists, and drum-beaters in the media, including the National Post and CBC. The Observer's own lead columnist deserves a dishonourable mention for his fossil fuel advocacy and confused commentary. Journalists and editors continually fail to make the connection between extreme weather wildfires, and climate change and fossil fuel combustion on the other.
- Academe engaged in fossil fuel R&D.
- Industry-funded scientists doing bad science to create confusion and obstruct action.
- First Nations promoting or at least on board with fossil fuel development (either willingly or after being bulldozed by govt and industry — for decades).
- And finally the legions of fossil fuel boosters and apologists for climate failure under the Liberal banner, several of whom feature prominently in The Observer's op-eds and comments section.
Petrostate madness.
A "win for the industry" equals a loss for life on Earth.
Good points, Geoffrey.
"Last year, oil and gas accounted for 31 per cent of the total 694 million tonnes (Mt) of greenhouse gases released nationally..." - It never fails to dismay me how some of my educated friends are quick to say that Canada generates only a fraction of the world's CO2 (2-3%, they'll claim); therefore, they feel no urgency for Canada to reduce its emissions.
They fall into the trap of only counting those GHG emissions originating within our borders. The emissions associated with our number 4 in the world oil production and number 5 in the world "natural gas" production do not accrue to Canada, but to those to whom we sell our planet-destroying products.
This accounting method virtually eliminates the responsibility that Canada shoulders in taking this stuff out of the Earth. If it was not taken out of the ground, it could not be burned. But, because another country might take these things out of their ground to sell, and because we do not wish to forego "profits", we extract it, Canada extracts it and sells it.
Every human loses when the products are burned. Period.
The current system is not deterring extraction and burning - proof is that CO2 counts continue rising globally. So, why not change the system and make the extracting countries like Canada responsible for all of the CO2 emissions associated with the products extracted, regardless of where they are burned?
Unless, as our collective performance (global CO2 levels) to date indicates, the devastating impacts on people and the planet do not matter: only profits matter - only GDP matters.
This cognitive dissonance will do in the species.
The "Little Canada" argument endlessly recycled by fossil fuel boosters is grossly fallacious even apart from Scope 3 emissions.
It is not my favorite argument, because including exported Scope 3 emissions in national accounts would lead to double counting.
Emissions are properly attributed to the nation where the combustion occurs and emissions are generated.
U.S. drivers are responsible for emissions generated when they burn our Canadian oil exports.
Canadian drivers are responsible for emissions generated when they burn U.S. oil exports.
That system works well enough.
Collective problems require collective solutions.
Climate action obstructionists fail to grasp this simple fact.
Fossil-fuel boosters around the world make the same false argument: that their nation is too small to matter.
Every nation, state/province, city, company, industrial project, and household can claim that it is responsible for a small part of the problem and its solution. That logic leads to global paralysis.
Small groups everywhere account for only a fraction of the global problem. It's a fallacy to conclude that their collective contribution to the solution does not matter.
This argument confuses nations' population size with people's emissions behavior. High emitters are the problem. The world's high emitters are the affluent, not the masses, and not the poor. Most of the affluent high emitters live over here — in the developed industrialized West — not in China, India, and developing nations.
The richest 1% of people are responsible for half of all air travel emissions. Rich jet-setters may generate 500x more CO2 in a year than the average person. Blaming India and China is like Elon Musk pointing fingers at a village in India, whose combined emissions exceed his. An absurd diversion. Most people in India will never see the inside of an airplane.
Comparing China's total emissions with Canada's, Calgary's, or Cardston's emissions is absurd. Obviously, large groups of low emitters have greater total emissions than small groups of high emitters.
How can we ask the people of China and India to tighten their belts when our emissions are far higher?
Climate action obstructionists fail to grasp simple concepts like collective responsibility and international co-operation.
Do you vote? Sign petitions? Your ballot or signature has no effect on the results. Why not just stay home?
My uncle fought in WWII. Why enlist when he couldn't possibly have won the war by himself? Why didn't he and the thousands of Allied soldiers just stay home?
What is an avalanche but a collective action of single snowflakes? A snowflake can't hurl you down the mountain, but trillions of them have deadly force.
No single nation is responsible for global warming. No single nation is responsible for its solution. It is fallacious to conclude that no one and no nation anywhere should reduce emissions to slow warming.
Every nation but two are a small part of the global warming problem. Most nations account for less than 2% of the global total. If every nation accepts obstructionist logic, none will reduce emissions. The problem cannot be solved without their co-operation.
No nation alone can solve the problem, but all of them together can! That is why nations must work together.
AGW is a global problem. Global/collective problems require global/collective action. Think globally, act locally.
Climate change cannot be stopped if only the biggest nations or top emitters reduce emissions.
Most nations produce 1% or less of global emissions. Only 3 nations produce more than 5% of the total. Together the top 3 (China, U.S., India) account for about half of global emissions.
The other 192 nations together account for about half of global emissions. The problem cannot be solved without them.
Even if the top 3 national emitters representing large populations reduced emissions to zero, that leaves about half of global emissions untouched. Unless smaller national emitters do their part as well, global targets remain out of reach.
"All nations contributing less than 2% of emissions are, cumulatively, more important than India or China. It absolutely does matter that these nations reduce their emissions."
Canada ranks #10 in total emissions. We rank nowhere near tenth in population.
If Alberta were a country, it would rank first in per capita emissions.
High emitters are the problem.
Draw squares on a world map, with each square representing 40 million people. The square we call Canada has higher emissions than just about any other square on the map.
Now draw squares representing 4 million people. The square we call Alberta has higher emissions than just about any other square on the map.
Canadians' carbon footprint is 3x the global average. Exclude the oilsands, and AB's emissions are still more than 7x the global average. If other nations followed our example, global emissions would skyrocket.
The average Canadian's carbon footprint is more than twice that of the average Chinese and 8x that of the average person in India.
Canada has a small population of high emitters. The energy hogs and high emitters live over here, not in China or India.
Canada and the West have exported much of their emissions by outsourcing their manufacturing to the developing world."
Using Canada's nominal (under-reported) estimates, 147 countries emit less GHGs than AB's oilsands industry. 169 countries emit less GHGs than AB. 183 countries emit less GHGs than Canada.
If Canada is "too small to matter," what message does that send to the 183 nations with smaller carbon footprints than ours?
Collective problems require collective solutions. Canadians contribute disproportionately to a collective problem; we need to contribute to the collective solution.
Suppose marine vessels from India leak or spill 1 barrel of oil every year; Chinese ships spill 3.5 gallons; and Canadian ships spill 8 gallons. Who are the worst offenders?
Ships from India and China spill far more oil in total than Canadian ships do. But if the goal is to reduce oil spills, fix the leakiest vessels first. That's Canada's vessels, not China's or India's. Don't focus on regulating the fleet with the most ships. Target the fleet with the most leaky ships.
No one would call for a crackdown on China's fleet because it has more ships. The crackdown would start with Canada's fleet because it has more leaky ships.
"One of the key Republican arguments deployed against U.S. climate programs is that action from the U.S.—which is responsible for less than 15% of global emissions—alone cannot meet the world's climate targets."
"The Manchin-Schumer Deal May Have Saved the Climate Fight" (Time, July 28, 2022)
This from the nation of top energy hogs in the world. Who lives a lot like Americans? Canadians.
With just 4% of the world's population, the U.S. accounts for more than one fifth of global oil consumption. Who lives a lot like Americans? Canadians.
A quarter of the energy produced by fossil fuels is spent extracting, processing, transporting, and delivering fossil fuels. You probably aren't even counting the diesel in the ships that transport it abroad - a quarter of the global cargo fleet is for fossil.
The goals to have are the goals to reduce consumption; to be the leader, rather than laggard, at the switch to renewables and electric devices. Saudi Arabia gets it! They're filling that desert with solar, as fast as they can buy panels.
Granted, they're doing that so they have more to sell, but if everybody did it like Saudi, they'd be out of business!
Indeed. Combustion of petro products is so inefficient. The laws of physics and of supply and demand come into play in two ways here. First, by losing ~80% of the embedded energy in the form of heat right up the smokestack and out the tailpipe. Second, when competive forms of energy (electricity) are directly countering fossil inefficiency with ~90% efficiency, and in the simplicity and cost competitiveness of renewables.
Comparing national levels of emissions with other nations is quite irrelevant because not all nations are equal. The units of comparison need to be levelized across the world, and emissions per capita do just that. In per capita terms, Canada is one of the top fossil spewing pigs of the planet, and Alberta is right on the very top with the oil sands massive point source emissions profile.
It's a good thing that cheap renewables are their best competitor. One day Canadian pil and gas exporters are going to hit an export ceiling in consuming countries that find it more affordable to build renewables than to import more expensive oil and gas that are handcuffed to foreign dependency.