John Woodside
Local Journalism Initiative Reporter
Canada’s National Observer
When U.S. President Donald Trump was elected in November, Canadian officials issued a weaker than expected 2035 emission reduction target to account for the new political reality.
In an interview with Canada’s National Observer, Energy and Natural Resources Minister Jonathan Wilkinson said that after the U.S. election, the government looked at the opportunities and weighed the risks. Competitiveness was top of mind, more so than tariff threat, he said.
“Certainly the United States does factor into the competitiveness issue,” he said. “Clearly the United States is moving away from any kind of regulation relating to climate.”
Under the Paris Agreement, Canada, like all signatories, is required to submit increasingly ambitious emission reduction targets every five years. Canada’s 2035 reduction target is to slash pollution 45 to 50 per cent below 2005 levels — an ever-so-slight step up from the 2030 target of a 40 to 45 per cent cut. But it remains a far cry from what experts called for.
The 2035 target “will no doubt create some degree of challenge with the United States, because this president is not going to be interested in any conversations about climate or environmental protection,” Wilkinson said, adding that he believes the target is still ambitious and keeps net-zero by 2050 on the table.
Wilkinson’s comments are the clearest indication yet of American influence on Canada’s plan to navigate the unfolding energy transition away from fossil fuels and toward clean energy. Given that expert recommendations called for more ambitious emission reductions (Canada’s Net-Zero Advisory Body called for a minimum 50 per cent cut, while Climate Action Network Canada urged a steep 80 per cent reduction taking into account Canada’s “fair share”) close observers say Ottawa’s choice to set a low target points to a weakening of ambition.
Caroline Brouillette, executive director of Climate Action Network Canada, characterized Canada’s “weak” target as “obeying in advance” to U.S. interests. It is “unfortunate” that officials are using competitiveness concerns to weaken decarbonization goals, she said, when what will make Canada competitive going forward is growing the clean economy.
“It’s a very low-ambition target that fails to grapple with the moment that we’re in,” she said. It also fails to “propose a vision for the Canadian economy and society that makes us more resilient in the short and long term.”
Canada’s Net Zero Advisory Body, tasked with providing recommendations to government, proposed a 50 to 55 per cent reduction target. In a report published in September, the advisory body said while a target in the 46 to 50 per cent range would be more feasible, it is too close to its existing target of 40 to 45 per cent.
“This would risk putting Canada too far behind its net-zero goal and would likely represent insufficient ambition in contrast to Canada’s key international partners, including other G7 countries like the United States,” the report said.
In December, then-President Joe Biden officially set the United States’ 2035 emission reduction target at 61 to 66 per cent below 2005 levels. But those plans were quickly put at risk. While Trump has not yet moved to scrap that target, on first day in office, he issued an executive order to withdraw the United States from the Paris Agreement. However, in the UN system it takes one year from the date a formal request to withdraw is received to exit the agreement, meaning the U.S. will still be a signatory until 2026 at the earliest.
The Paris Agreement commits countries to try to hold global heating to as close to 1.5 C above pre-industrial temperatures as possible. As the world’s largest historic emitter, Trump’s decision to pull the United States out of the agreement is a significant blow to diplomatic efforts to curb emissions and build clean economies.
In November, the United Kingdom set a goal to slash 81 per cent of its emissions by 2035 compared to 1990 levels, a significant step up from its 2030 target to cut emissions by at least 68 per cent.
In December, Canada announced its 2035 target, but it only officially submitted it this month to the UN. At the time, Environment and Climate Change Minister Steven Guilbeault said he understands why some environmental groups are unhappy with Canada’s new target, but he believes it would be irresponsible to set a more ambitious goal without a plan to achieve it.
Canada’s 2035 goal, Guilbeault says, is achievable based on preliminary analyses, but nonetheless, hitting the goal will require “pretty much everything going really well.”
So far, however, Canada has not once met a target it has set. But according to feedback Environment and Climate Change Canada collected last year while determining what the 2035 target should be, it appears much of the public doesn’t care about meeting targets. What matters is whether progress is being made.
According to the findings, 58 per cent of respondents favour a “more aspirational” target, “even if it means not knowing exactly how we will get there and presents greater risks of not achieving it.”
Countries’ emission reduction plans submitted to the UN are a cornerstone of the Paris Agreement because they offer all countries insight into progress being made by others — a crucial building block for annual negotiations.
Environment and Climate Change Canada led the federal government’s emission-reduction target development. It collected feedback from provinces and territories, First Nations, expert groups and input from the public.
The nearly 200 page submission, officially called a “nationally determined contribution” in the jargon of the United Nations system, outlines what Canada is doing to meet its emission-reduction goals.
In a statement, Climate Action Network Canada applauded the department for preparing a detailed submission by deadline (about 90 per cent of countries failed to do), but still criticized the plan for being inadequate.
John Woodside / Local Journalism Initiative / Canada’s National Observer
