As autumn leaves fell across Canada in October 2025, a wave of climate discontent swept from the halls of Ottawa to the rain-soaked lawns of British Columbia’s Legislature. The country, once a self-styled leader in climate action, now finds itself at a crossroads—torn between ambitious environmental promises and the enduring pull of fossil fuel development. Recent events and reports have cast a stark light on the nation’s struggle to reconcile economic priorities with the urgent demands of a warming planet.
In Ottawa, the legacy of the Justin Trudeau era still lingers, especially in matters of climate policy. Last October, the federal government imposed a 100 percent tariff on electric vehicles imported from China. While the move was widely seen as trade protectionism, officials justified it by pointing to the high emissions intensity of China’s EV production. “China’s EV production is characterized by a distinctly higher emissions intensity, mainly attributable to a comparatively high carbon footprint in EV battery production and key inputs, such as aluminum and steel,” the government stated, as reported by Financial Post.
But does the carbon footprint of foreign EVs still matter in a country seemingly drifting from its climate commitments? A recently released report, “The Production Gap,” from a trio of international environmental and sustainability institutions, paints a sobering picture. According to Financial Post, the report concludes that major nations—including Canada—are failing to meet the carbon-reduction targets set out in the 2016 Paris Agreement. Even more troubling, the report finds that current government plans worldwide project fossil fuel production in 2050 at levels double what’s needed to meet global warming targets. “The situation remains stark: countries are in aggregate planning even more fossil fuel production than before, putting global climate ambitions at risk,” the report warns.
Canada, for its part, continues to funnel substantial public financing into domestic fossil fuel production. The report singles out the country for this ongoing support, highlighting the disconnect between stated climate goals and actual policy. The uncertainty only deepens with Prime Minister Mark Carney at the helm. Carney, who previously served as Governor of both the Bank of Canada and the Bank of England, has long been recognized for his pragmatic approach to finance and his advocacy for robust regulatory frameworks. He has consistently emphasized that climate change poses a major risk to global stability and has called for sustainable finance as a cornerstone of future economic policy.
Yet, Carney’s stance on Canada’s fossil fuel future remains ambiguous. When asked whether he would consider repealing the tanker ban or the emissions cap, Carney hedged: “Ah … the … it depends” on resolving all the economic and environmental issues surrounding energy developments. The conditional nature of his response, reported by Financial Post, leaves many wondering about the direction of Canada’s climate agenda.
Meanwhile, the climate debate is not confined to the capital. In British Columbia, tensions have reached a boiling point. On October 6, 2025, a coalition of climate advocates, Indigenous leaders, and labor unions gathered outside the Legislature to voice their frustration with Premier David Eby’s government. Their message was clear: campaign promises on climate action remain unfulfilled, and the province is backsliding on its commitments.
Organizer Kiki Wood, senior oil and gas campaigner for Stand.Earth, captured the mood of the gathering: “Will they stand firm with future generations, or with short term profits for the fossil fuel industry?” To drive the point home, activists unveiled a 17-foot inflatable effigy of Premier Eby hugging smokestacks labeled LNG and OIL, symbolizing what they see as a government cozying up to fossil fuel interests.
The frustration is rooted in hard numbers. The 2024 Climate Change Accountability report, as cited by Ricochet, admitted that B.C. is not on track to meet its legislated climate targets—just a two percent reduction in emissions is expected by 2025, far short of the 16 percent goal. The province’s recent approval of the Prince Rupert Gas Transmission pipeline and support for the American-owned Ksi Lisims floating LNG terminal have only accelerated fossil fuel development. Critics argue that these projects are being heavily subsidized by public funds—nearly four billion dollars by 2030, with two billion coming from B.C. alone.
Indigenous leaders have been especially vocal about the lack of free, prior, and informed consent for these projects. Wet’suwet’en hereditary chief Na’Moks, who has spent a decade fighting the Coastal GasLink pipeline, warned, “If we don’t stand together, if you don’t change this pattern that we’re in, it is our children and grandchildren that will pay the highest price.” Jesse Stoeppler, co-executive director of the Skeena Watershed Conservation Coalition, pointed out, “It’s very critical to point out that this so-called consent for these projects is not coming from hereditary leaders. It’s coming from band elected leaders that adhere to the outdated, inhumane and racist Indian Act.”
Labor unrest has added another layer of complexity. The B.C. General Employees Union, representing 22,000 of its 34,000 members, has been on strike for six weeks—the longest in its history. Union president Paul Finch told Ricochet that the government’s spending choices have failed to prioritize working people. “There are a number of different areas where government could have made different spending decisions. And they made choices that didn’t put workers in this province first,” Finch said. The union is demanding higher wage increases to keep pace with inflation and has criticized what it sees as a massive expansion of managerial bureaucracy and poor procurement processes.
Environmental groups, for their part, argue that government subsidies for LNG projects could be better spent on affordable housing, renewable energy, transit, and other public goods. Torrance Coste of the Wilderness Committee put it bluntly: “We could be doing anything else and getting a better use of that money.”
The sense of disillusionment is palpable. Climate action was conspicuously absent from the 2025 Speech from the Throne, further fueling the perception that environmental priorities are being sidelined. Even the government’s cancellation of the consumer Carbon Tax—without a clear plan to fill the resulting budget gap—has left advocates dismayed. “A build-everything approach will not save us. We cannot continue to develop B.C.’s renewable energy industry if its sole purpose is to greenwash the oil and gas industry,” Wood said.
Across the country, the debate over climate and economic policy is also shaped by contrasting philosophies at the highest levels. Mark Carney’s advocacy for regulation and collective action on climate change stands in stark contrast to the deregulatory, nationalist approach of former U.S. President Donald Trump. Trump’s tenure was marked by tax cuts, immigration reform, and an ‘America First’ doctrine that often clashed with international climate agreements. Carney, meanwhile, has warned that ignoring climate risks could destabilize global finance, underscoring the ideological divide over the future of economic governance.
As Canada’s leaders weigh their next moves, the stakes could hardly be higher. The country’s path forward—whether it doubles down on fossil fuel production or finally delivers on its climate promises—will not only shape its own future but also send a signal to the world about the seriousness of its environmental commitments. For now, the voices of activists, Indigenous leaders, and workers ring out in the autumn air, demanding answers and action before time runs out.
