Support strong Canadian climate journalism for 2025
The net-zero greenhouse gas emissions pledges touted by Canada’s oil and gas sector ring false as the industry continues its push to expand fossil fuel use and oppose climate policy, a new analysis states.
This “net-zero greenwashing” flies in the face of United Nations guidelines on what makes a credible net-zero pledge, according to new analysis by InfluenceMap, an independent think tank that maintains the world's leading database of corporate and industry association lobbying on climate policy.
InfluenceMap examined the climate-related policy messaging and engagement of Canada’s six largest oil and gas companies and the main industry group, the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP).
It found that CAPP — whose members collectively produce about 80 per cent of Canada’s oil and gas — is the most actively opposed to climate policy progress: pushing for oil and gas development and resisting emissions reduction policies.
Although CAPP received the lowest score when it came to climate policy engagement, none of the six companies analyzed managed to crack a D+. There has been broad opposition from industry to the federal government’s plan to cap oil and gas sector emissions as part of Canada’s 2030 emissions reduction plan.
Both CAPP and TC Energy told a government committee they are against the cap, while the CEOs of Cenovus, Canadian Natural, and Imperial Oil have publicly opposed the policy.
Fossil fuel-involved corporations make up the majority of organizations opposed to climate action, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) April 2022 report. It said “opposition from status quo interests that are exerting political influence” over the policymaking process is a key barrier to making global progress on climate policy.
Canada’s former environment minister, Catherine McKenna, is chair of the UN expert group that raised the bar for what makes a credible net-zero pledge with a November 2022 report aimed at combating greenwashing. She weighed in on InfluenceMaps findings.
“If you're gonna put up your hand and say you're a climate leader, that you're committed to net zero, you need to do that work,” McKenna told Canada’s National Observer in an interview. Aligning net-zero pledges with climate science requires targets for ending support for and use of fossil fuels, according to the UN expert group.
“We were very clear in the report I chaired for the secretary-general … you had to have targets aligned with the science, you had to have interim targets, you had to have a detailed transition plan, your emissions had to go down and you could not be increasing new fossil fuel infrastructure or lobbying against climate policy,” said McKenna.
“Canadian oil and gas companies — and trade associations like the Pathways Alliance and the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers that represent them — continue to advertise that they're committed to net zero while lobbying against the climate action needed to make this goal possible,” said McKenna.
The oil and gas industry shouldn’t be demanding taxpayers — who are currently paying high prices for fossil fuels — subsidize technology and actions it needs to achieve emission reduction targets, particularly at a time when the oil and gas companies are making massive profits, said McKenna.
Instead of returning those profits to shareholders through buybacks and dividends, that money should be invested in clean tech, but “Canadians have yet to see any evidence of that,” she said.
The six companies and CAPP have all supported net zero as a policy goal but their actions and positions on climate policy include a push to expand the fossil fuel industry and advocacy for new oil and gas projects, according to InfluenceMap. These goals and actions stand in “stark contrast” with the IPCC and International Energy Agency’s 1.5 C net-zero scenarios that call for a rapid phaseout of fossil fuels, said the report.
The IPCC’s April 2022 report noted removing fossil fuel subsidies would reduce emissions and improve public revenue, among other environmental and sustainable development benefits.
The federal government has pledged to phase out inefficient fossil fuel subsidies in 2023 — a task to be overseen by Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland, Environment Minister Steven Guilbeault and Natural Resources Minister Jonathan Wilkinson — a measure CAPP and Canadian Natural both opposed.
The report flags the oil and gas industry’s promotion of “clean” fossil fuels, particularly so-called natural gas and the use of carbon capture to continue and increase the use of fossil fuels as another clear misalignment with climate science.
InfluenceMap found a few instances where Suncor Energy indicated “more supportive positions” on policies offering alternatives to fossil fuel use. For example, a lobbying report in British Columbia last summer disclosed Suncor’s advocacy for investments in electric vehicle charging infrastructure and a different lobbying filing in Alberta appeared to support renewable energy development, according to the findings.
While the UN report is an important tool to crack down on greenwashing, McKenna said the next step is having stricter disclosure and regulation of net-zero commitments.
Natasha Bulowski / Local Journalism Initiative / Canada’s National Observer
Comments
All the greenwashing and carbon-capture (with the barely-possible exception of capturing CO2 industrial stack emissions that are highly-concentrated) are just shucks to get around one simple, clear, flat statement, that must be applied to many businesses: "This industry will soon be phased out and replaced with a different technology". Pretending we can keep the technology is just self-delusion.
"'If you're gonna put up your hand and say you're a climate leader, that you're committed to net zero, you need to do that work.' Aligning net-zero pledges with climate science requires targets for ending support for and use of fossil fuels."
Did McKenna have this epiphany before, during, or after her stint as federal Environment Minister?
"Catherine McKenna says Trans Mountain pipeline expansion will make B.C. coast safer" (CBC, Mar 15, 2018)
"It's an example of the economy and the environment going together."
Michael Harris: "… Although Trudeau and Environment Minister Catherine McKenna continue to say all the right things on the environment, their rhetoric is emptier than a limp balloon."
"Singh’s primary political problem isn’t Trudeau. It’s premiers." (ipolitics, 2017)
"McKenna's bafflegab fails to counter that GHG targets keep being missed" (ipolitics, 2018)
Constantly trotting out what people have said in the past as spokespeople in the context of whatever organization they worked for (including government) like it's their personal opinion and basically who they ARE for all time isn't fair.
Catherine McKenna is no longer environment minister but she wouldn't have been selected for her current important job had she NOT been. Her thinking would be comparable to Steven Guilbeault and both were selected by that loathsome, climate-denying Liberal PM....
People are responsible for the positions they take publicly; when climate change ministers are apologists for fossil fuel expansion it is extremely damaging. That damage isn't undone by doing something good next. McKenna could do various things to help Canadians understand the Liberal commitment to doing corporate bidding; that might actually help.
She voted with her feet. She left government.
I agree that it's infuriating the grip that big corporations have, big oil in particular, but most industries are dependent on it worldwide, and money always translates into power.
You need to recognize the dance any government has to do with that power and quit excoriating the people trying to do it. And THEIR power comes from people, of whom most are in turn governed by conservatives who are denialists, complicating the situation further. Look what Doug Ford is doing in the biggest province on that front, and he won a majority.
You seem to be saying that governments and ministers ought to do what us needed to gain/retain power. As opposed to standing on principle. Is that right?
My last comment, starting with "You seem to be saying..." was in response to Tris Partager.
(CNO, please fix the comments software to correctly indent comments.)
Dang!
In response to Tris Pargeter!
When politicians say and do one thing in office and say the opposite in retirement, that calls their sincerity and integrity into question.
Govt ministers who do not agree with their government's fundamental position and policy should do the honorable thing and resign.
As the public face of the Liberals' contradictory climate policy, during her first term McKenna did considerable damage to the cause of climate action in this country.
McKenna eventually left government, presumably because she could not continue to be the mouthpiece of Liberal climate policy and still look her children in the eye. McKenna has not apologized for her deeds nor retracted any of her prior statements. Nor will she criticize current Liberal government policy. Her public re-birth as climate activist does not erase her words or deeds as Environment Minister. She shredded her own credibility.
McKenna after leaving politics expressed frustration with being unable to get cabinet agreement, which is apparently what's required for legislation to happen, despite Trudeau's statement that Ministers would have authority to act independently. It just wasn't true.
Trudeau was the same Trudeau with McKenna as he was with Jodi Wilson-Raybould.
For me, nothing's going far enough and fast enough, but those who want it to largely have to do it with one or both hands tied. Both need to be free when speaking to the deaf.
But both "phase out" and "efficient" are weasel words. I want to hear "stop" and "all subsidies." Period. Anything else is just bafflegab cover for inaction.
GHG targets will continue to be missed, as long as our government continues using alternative accounting, fails to take into account destruction of carbon sinks and refuses to stand in the way of what is *economically* attractive in the short run.
"InfluenceMap found a few instances where Suncor Energy indicated 'more supportive positions' on policies offering alternatives to fossil fuel use. For example, a lobbying report in British Columbia last summer disclosed Suncor’s advocacy for investments in electric vehicle charging infrastructure and a different lobbying filing in Alberta appeared to support renewable energy development, according to the findings."
Suncor divested from renewables last year.
"Suncor sells wind and solar assets to Canadian Utilities Limited for $730 million" (CBC, Oct 05, 2022)
"Calgary-based Suncor says it has agreed to sell its wind and solar assets to Canadian Utilities Limited for $730 million.
"'Divesting of these wind and solar assets further streamlines our portfolio so that we can concentrate our efforts on our core business,' said Kris Smith, Suncor's interim president and CEO, in a statement."
Clearly, you haven't heard of "renewable" gas and coal. I expect that "renewable" oil has entered into CAPP and its members' parlance somewhere, too.
True, so the dance is speeding up.