Профиль

I've been working on this story on and off since Nov 2025. It was a persistent thing in my head that I've wanted to get into the world. @thenarwhal.ca is a place where I have the space and time to think about this stuff (and annoy my colleagues). If you like this kinda thing, we've got a newsletter.

Now, like Harper, Carney is putting his faith in carbon capture to do the heavy lifting, while he advocates for more oil production that will increase emissions. The government still claims that carbon capture and storage "holds great opportunity" and offers a "practical path to reduce emissions."

The IPCC said carbon capture/ carbon removal will have to be part of the mix but aren't a substitute for cutting fossil fuel use. "It’s a technology we will need, but it’s not in lieu of reducing emissions, and unfortunately it seems that a lot of people haven’t understood that" Guilbeault told me.

I talked with both @cathmckenna.bsky.social and @stevenguilbeault.bsky.social for this story. "Oil and gas companies talked to me about carbon capture and storage, and made promises, for like a decade. We have yet to see anything," McKenna said.

Last year, after Carney won power, Canadian oil and gas executives and lobby groups called on him to “unwind the past decade” of Trudeau-era policy altogether, killing not only the emissions cap but also other environmental rules. The prime minister has ticked off several boxes on their wishlist.

The context around the Alberta MOU is that the deal promises not to implement the Trudeau-era oil and gas emissions cap. The cap came after oilsands producers put a more ambitious carbon capture proposal on the table than what's in the MOU deal today. At the time, they said they didn't need a cap.

Cenovus CEO signals fresh opposition to emissions cap | The NarwhalCenovus CEO Jon McKenzie says the Trudeau government’s climate plan would divide Canadians: ‘We don’t need a cap,’ he told The Narwhalthenarwhal.ca

I wanted to show the political claims, year by year. Most of it is online on government or parliamentary websites. I also went to the national archives and found a Harper speech from soon after he became PM. “Friends, the era of empty rhetoric on the environment is over," he said. It was 2007.

I've been reporting on federal politics since 2008. My entire career I've listened to politicians talk about using carbon capture to cut industrial emissions. Carbon capture removed 68 million tonnes over a 24-year period. The oilsands added much more, 92 million tonnes, over a single year, 2024.

Also this isn't just abstract "climate" talk. Fossil production and use have documented public health threats. Fracking can impact births, respiratory outcomes. Indoor gas, flaring make air pollutants. Gas, mostly methane, leaks from equipment. Climate change fuels wildfires, making toxic smoke. Etc

It's interesting that, at the time, the govt said demonstrating lower emissions could create "social license" for LNG in Canada, and was mindful of "advancing LNG within Canada’s climate commitments." Now, the Carney govt just describes Canadian LNG as "low-carbon" when announcing the Germany deal.

Here's that story from 2023: thenarwhal.ca/lng-climate-...

Can LNG reduce pollution? Canada digs for proof | The NarwhalDocuments show Natural Resources Canada hunting for emissions data that could bolster LNG industry’s ‘social license’thenarwhal.ca

As early as Dec 2021 the oilsands members were pushing the federal government to consider “flexible and cost-effective” rules and give the industry a “long lead time” to prepare in discussions over the emissions cap. Today's deal recommits to not introducing the cap. thenarwhal.ca/pathways-all...

Oilsands giants lobbied to weaken emissions cap | The NarwhalThrough the Pathways Alliance, high-level federal bureaucrats were asked for long lead times and a ‘flexible, non-regulatory approach’thenarwhal.ca

I think it's worth pointing out this message of excessive regulatory burden is being told to us even as the industry has reported it expects to see higher profits this year, and as we grapple with the ramifications of the significant health effects from climate change and our use of fossil fuels.

Fwiw, that message of "simplifying Canada’s process" for project reviews sounds similar to what the oil and gas industry has asked for: to “unwind the past decade” of environmental policy, in particular that processes are "excessively long" and should be "simplified" thenarwhal.ca/build-canada...

Canada is crossing off an oil and gas wish list | The NarwhalFrom fast-tracking approvals to slashing a proposed emissions cap, the Carney government is working its way through requests from Canada’s fossil fuel industrythenarwhal.ca

But the Carney govt now believes building pipelines "is often slow" in part due to "poor coordination between govt depts." Now it frames the process as a DISadvantage: Canada is "competing with other countries" who are "already working on ways to speed up their decision processes" the govt said.

On the Impact Assessment Agency's website it asks, "Do fed policies prevent LNG, oil, pipeline projects from moving forward?" + "Do impact assessments paralyze industry?" It answers "No." It says rigorous reviews are a "competitive advantage" and industry's asked only for whats "absolutely needed"

Also, a big thank you to all the folks who responded to my source callout and who spoke with me for this story! Here's the series page you can bookmark for all the links. thenarwhal.ca/series/who-p...

Who Pays? | A series from The NarwhalA series about how Canada’s economy intersects with its environmentthenarwhal.ca

I've been wanting to write this story for a long time, to bring together conversations around climate, emissions and health that have felt separate. It's part of a cross-newsroom series The Narwhal is launching today called Who Pays? - Look for more stories in the series coming soon.

Ottawa physician Helen Hsu told me one of her patients is paralyzed from the neck down and can’t afford air conditioning. During heat waves, he often passes out. “It’s incredibly unfair," she said. "It’s wrong that we’re asking those who are most vulnerable in our society to pay that cost."

Hidden costs also fall disproportionately on vulnerable populations: children, the elderly, those with disabilities, pregnant women. Heat can trigger premature labour. Keeping preterm babies alive is expensive for health-care. Premature birth is the leading cause of mortality in infants in Canada.