Skip to main content

Overwrite title

rbc_overwrite_title

Canada’s new automotive strategy is a signal that Ottawa is keen to persist with a central pillar of the country’s manufacturing sector, despite tariff pressures and suggestions from the U.S. President that “we don’t need cars made in Canada.” The new strategy aims to carve out a new path for the industry, led by electric vehicles that have blossomed into a US$750-billion market worldwide in 2025.1

Incentives are back, but unlikely to trigger a major uptick in sales. Provincial subsides are phasing out, and the eligible cars pool is limited

Offering up to $5,000 to consumers buying an EV under $50,000, the $2.3 billion subsidy will add 840,000 EVs to Canadian roads by 2030, the government projects.

Total impact on adoption, however, might be subdued. At least 7 in 10 of all purchases under the previous federal program received a subsidy, largely stacked on top of provincial rebates. But provincial support is also dwindling. The once $7,000 stackable support in Quebec now stands at $2,000, while the $4,000 EV subsidy in British Columbia has ended. Most of the other provinces have also pulled back incentives—Prince Edward Island lowered its rebate amount, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia are ending theirs, while rebates in Manitoba and Newfoundland expiring in March.

Transaction value threshold of $50,000 targeted for the mass-market segment is also likely to limit adoption. There are only 18 models included in the list of potentially eligible vehicles for a subsidy, 2 which made up only 30% of EV sales in both 2024 and 2025.3

EV prices are still high, and Chinese cars might not deliver the expected relief

The average price of a new EV in Canada was about $70,000 last year,4 so the 49,000 cars under the new China deal could prove to be an attractive bargain. However, final costs for a Chinee EV are likely to creep up as Chinese imports still carry a 6.1% tariff, plus the costs of shipping vehicles to Canada. Chinese carmakers are also likely to seek higher profit margins compared to their competitive domestic market, which is awash with more than 50 brands.

Overall, EV price improvements have lost momentum, especially as battery prices—that make up about a third of EV costs—are also flattening out. The 25-40% difference in costs between Chinese and U.S. carmakers stems from efficiency in battery production.5 The recent scale back of EV roll-out plans by the Detroit Three—Ford, GM and Stellantis—could further slow price improvements in North American EVs.

Check out RBC’s Electric Car Cost Calculator to compare electric vehicle costs to gas models

Emissions would likely to come down, mostly driven by hybrid electric vehicles adoption

Canada’s new emissions standards, however, don’t target EV sales specifically, they only aim to achieve equivalent emission reduction of up to 75% EV sales in 2035, compared to 100% EV sales required under the previous legislation.

Over the past decade, emissions performance improved by 30-50%, however, total emissions continued to rise as more cars entered Canadian roads, from ~20.1 million passenger vehicles in 2011 to 24.5 million in 2024.6 7 BloombergNEF projects that Canada’s car fleet will largely stay flat going into 2035 and decline further in future, in which case improved emissions performance will deliver absolute emissions reduction, though clean fleet eventually hinges on parting with all tailpipe emissions.8

American carmakers now have the flexibility to adjust their technology to ensure compliance, which could delay full electrification in favour of hybrid cars, which are nearly half as less emitting and are more attractively priced. Hybrids are already ascendant, with car sales in the category on the rise in 2025 even as battery-electric vehicles (BEV) sales plummeted.

Overwrite title

rbc_overwrite_title

Investment in next-generation geothermal technologies is surging globally, driven by recent breakthroughs in drilling technology that are rapidly transforming the economics and viability of geothermal electricity generation. According to the International Energy Agency (IEA) and data from Underground Ventures, a geothermal-focused venture investor, financing for next-generation geothermal reached roughly CAD$3 billion in 2025.1 The U.S. and Indonesia lead the world in investment in geothermal power and heating projects.2

While Canada possesses world-class subsurface expertise, hot geothermal gradients spanning western and northwestern regions, and companies like Eavor, DEEP Earth Energy, and Tu Deh-Kah Geothermal, domestic deployment lags dramatically. Canada currently generates less than six megawatts (MW) of geothermal power, representing 0.004% of the country’s installed capacity.3

According to the IEA, global investment in geothermal energy could reach CAD$3 trillion by 20504 as nations seek reliable, zero-emission baseload power to complement intermittent renewables. Advanced technologies are key to scaling geothermal, which has traditionally been confined to specific areas with the right geology. Two technologies stand out: (1) Enhanced geothermal systems (EGS), which borrow shale drilling technology, create new fractures in hot underground rocks, inject fluids and use the steam to generate geothermal power;5 (2) Closed Loop Geothermal (CLG) systems also deploys advanced drilling and injects liquid through underground pipes to generate electricity.6 7

Recent innovations are dramatically reducing costs. Improved drilling techniques borrowed from oil and gas, including polycrystalline diamond compact drill bits and real-time fibre optic monitoring, are cutting well costs by up to 12-26% compared to earlier estimates.8 Companies like Houston-based Fervo Energy have demonstrated sustained 8-10 MW output from single production wells at their Cape Station project in Utah, validating the commercial viability of EGS.9 New techno-economic analysis shows that in high-gradient regions like British Columbia’s Mount Meager or the Northwest Territories’ Liard Basin, levelized costs of energy for EGS could fall to CAD$45-53/MWh with continued innovation, competitive with combined-cycle gas and cheaper than new nuclear.10

The opportunity could be significant.

Recent research on Baker Lake, Nunavut, reveals that previously dismissed regions of the Canadian Shield may hold viable deep geothermal resources. At a measured gradient of 28°C/km, significantly higher than earlier national estimates, modelling indicates a 90% likelihood that a four-kilometre deep system could meet the community’s heating demand, with potential for electricity generation at 7-8 kilometre depth.11

Saskatchewan is already leveraging its oil and gas expertise.

Saskatoon-based DEEP Earth Energy has partnered with oilfield services company SLB to develop Canada’s first commercial-scale geothermal power facility near Estevan, near the Saskatchewan-North-Dakota border. Phase 1 involves drilling two wells, with Phase 2 potentially scaling to 18 wells producing 30 MW.12 This project leverages the Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin’s hot sedimentary aquifers and demonstrates that Canada’s oil and gas infrastructure, rigs, drilling expertise, and supply chains, can be applied to geothermal development.

Yet regulatory fragmentation threatens to stall momentum.

Only Alberta, British Columbia, and Nova Scotia have geothermal-specific legislation. There is no national strategy, no coordinated R&D agenda, and insufficient financial de-risking tools to accelerate early-stage projects. A national regulatory template that provinces could rapidly adapt to their own specific needs alongside government-backed initiatives like the Alberta Drilling Accelerator (ADA) could help to catalyse geothermal in Canada by reducing drilling costs, developing high-temperature tools, and optimizing reservoir stimulation.

The window for Canadian leadership is closing.

The U.S. Department of Energy’s Enhanced Geothermal Shot targets electricity costs below CAD$61/MWh by 2035.13 with billions in funding. Tech giants including Google, Meta, and Microsoft are investing heavily in geothermal partnerships. China, Indonesia, and the Philippines are rapidly expanding deployment. If Canada does not act with coordinated policy, regulatory harmonization, and strategic R&D investment, it risks squandering subsurface expertise and geological endowment that offer natural advantages.


Vivan Sorab is Clean Technology Lead at RBC Thought Leadership

Overwrite title

rbc_overwrite_title

➔ Meet Coalie, the hard-hatted American mascot

➔ Ottawa’s auto strategy comes with a climate-action twist

➔ What should be the North Star for Canada’s proposed national electricity strategy?

Canadian companies aren’t waiting for Ottawa’s signal to advance the U.S.’s mineral ambition. While the federal government is holding off signing any formal deals with Washington on critical minerals, Toronto-based Cyclic Material is investing a strategic US$82 million in a rare-earth recycling facility in South Carolina, after securing new funding from the Canada Growth Fund, among other investors. It’s a trend: Vancouver-based Lithium Americas is building a massive project in Nevada, while Trilogy Metals is developing a copper-zinc-gold district in Alaska—with the U.S. government taking the unprecedented step of buying small stakes in both recently. North America’s market and geographical gravitational pull would hopefully overcome political posturing.

Climate Adaptation and Resilience (CA&R) could be the next frontier in climate investing. RBC Capital Markets’ report Private Markets Innovation in Climate Adaptation and Resilience highlights five areas where capital could make a difference: earth data, insurance solutions for businesses and society, wildfire and the grid, water, and the built environment. CA&R secured only US$65 billion in capital flows in 2023, compared to US$1.8 trillion in traditional mitigation investments such as renewables and energy storage. Climate Action Institute’s Clean Tech Lead Vivan Sorab believes while mitigation efforts’ address both current and long-term trends in emissions, their immediate impact tends to be muted; CA&R investment can potentially deliver more visible and quicker results in the form of less downtime and assets protected. The insurance costs are already mounting: 34 extreme-weather events triggered insured losses of US$1 billion or more in 2024—the second-highest number on record.

“Coalie,” the hard-hatted American mascot, may struggle to revive coal This carbon-intensive lump is getting a makeover for the AI meme era as the U.S. government promotes coal as vital for the economy. Despite its critics, coal saw a resurgence last year: U.S. coal-fired electricity jumped 13% year-on-year in 2025, while natural gas—which is about 50% less emission-intensive than coal—fell 3.6%, according to the International Energy Agency’s latest electricity outlook. However, coal’s dominance is slipping elsewhere in what the IEA describes as an “uncharacteristic” shift: major consumers China and India saw a drop in coal power generation in 2025 for the first time in more than five decades. While coal is projected to remain the single largest source of global electricity through 2030, the IEA predicts declining consumption in China and the European Union. Even the U.S. is expected to see a drop in coal consumption by 2030, Coalie’s charms notwithstanding.

Photo Credit: U.S. Department of the Interior

– By Farhad Panahov, Economist, RBC Climate Action Institute

Canada’s new strategy to boost EV sales has a twist: a cap of $50,000 for the total transaction value to be eligible for a subsidy. A more stringent rule—to boost mass market models—compared to a previous program that allowed purchases of more expensive trims.

Average price Canadians paid last year for a new vehicle was $55,000, and nearly $70,000 for an EV. And while each $1,000 could add 11% to the EV demand, based on Canadian Climate Institute’s analysis, only 13 of the 163 battery-electric models available in Canada are priced below that level, according to the Canadian Automobile Association. Another 10, priced at around $55,000, are potential candidates to be marked down to claim the subsidy.

Meanwhile, the 49,000-quota for Chinese EVs, should add further impetus to vehicle transition. Crucially, while these vehicles are excluded from the incentive program, they could enter the market at the lower end of the price range, as models like BYD and Geely made up about a quarter of global EV sales last year, are sold for $35,000 in China—roughly half of what Canadians paid for EVs in 2025.

But North America is notoriously in love with large cars, such as trucks and SUVs, a segment where Chinese EVs might not have the same price leverage. And don’t forget the 6.1% Canadian tariff that still applies on Chinese cars, plus shipping costs. Chinese EVs, facing less intense competition than at home, could also seek higher markups for their models in Canada.

The success of the Canadian strategy could rest as much on consumer trust as it does on the final price tag. Nearly half of Canadians are still not in the EV camp based on recent poll from Clean Energy Canada; and only one in 10 would buy a Chinese EV with another two in the “maybe” mindset.

The previous federal program of $2.7 billion helped put about half a million EVs on Canadian roads. The fresh round of subsidies, with a lower $2.3-billion allocation, could add 840,000 new EVs, the government projects.

Canada is about to welcome mass market EVs

The new auto strategy could help transport—a stalwart sector for emission cuts over the past five years (see our Climate Action report)—deliver the following in climate action:

  • EV mandates out, standards in. Abolishing the much contested EV sales mandates in favour of emissions standards will aim to achieve 75% EV sales share by 2035.

  • Emissions standards. Emissions standard are a common practice for automakers and allows for higher compliance flexibility compared to sales mandate while still incentivizing a pivot towards emissions-free vehicles. Since 2011 alone, emissions per mile from passenger cars and light trucks have declined 50% and 30%, respectively.

  • U.S.-Canada policy is diverging. Historically, Canada aligned its emissions standards with the U.S. It’s different now as Canadian policy diverges from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) push to roll-back Biden-era standards (that would have halved emissions per mile by 2032).

  • …As is Detroit 3’s strategy. The auto policy supports another $3 billion investment in the EV sector “positioning Canada as a place where the vehicles of the future are built.” However, the Detroit Three—Ford Motors, General Motors and Stellantis—are scaling back EV roll-out plans that has cost them around US$50 billion, amid tepid customer demand.

  • Networks are getting a supercharge. Ottawa is committing $1.5 billion to expand the charging network, adding to the $1.1 billion in funding, which so far has helped add 7,000 installations. Canada’s public charging network is already sufficient for current levels of EV adoption, at ratio of ~21 EVs per charging port, but will need to significantly expand as adoption accelerates.

Also check out: RBC’s Electric Car Cost Calculator

A scan of notables and notable developments

  • Lisa Ashton, Interim Head of the institute, is in Ottawa for Agriculture Day festivities, a timely opportunity to share insights from Seeding Scale, our new research on the growth capital pipeline in the agri-food sector. Lisa heard that the innovation pipeline needs focused improvements as well and universities and industry are working collaboratively to devise a clear vision for the sector ahead of the agriculture ministers meeting in July. 

  • As the U.S. convened allies, including Canada, on critical minerals last week, John Stackhouse shared a few thoughts. His first point: even the U.S. knows it can’t go-it alone on mining.

  • Canadian Climate Institute’s Rick Smith finds another climate angle on a recent Canadian court ruling that reinforced Ottawa’s right to list plastics as “toxic”: “…polluting industries and some provinces have been spinning a yarn that the federal government’s Clean Electricity Regulations, also enacted under CEPA, are an illegal over-reach. As of today, those arguments look like the thinnest of gruel.” Read the ruling.

  • As Canada develops a national electricity strategy, Polaris Strategy’s Dan Woynillowicz has some thoughts on what the strategy should set as its North Star: Double energy productivity, double production, and double the share of final energy demand met by clean electricity.

  • Nugget from a House of Commons report on climate change, from Janis Sarra of the Canada Climate Law Initiative, on the importance of Canadian taxonomy: “An estimated $115 billion annually is required for Canada’s low-carbon transition, and a  science-based taxonomy will create the market integrity, clarity and interoperability, globally, necessary to accelerate global capital to come and invest in Canada’s businesses.”

Curated by Yadullah Hussain, Managing Editor, RBC Climate Action Institute.

Climate Crunch would not be possible without John Stackhouse, Jordan Brennan, John Intini, Farhad PanahovLisa AshtonShaz MerwatVivan SorabCaprice Biasoni, Lavanya Kaleeswaran and Joelle Schonberg .

Have a comment, commendation, or umm, criticism? Write to me here (yadullahhussain@rbc.com)

Climate Crunch Newsletter

Overwrite title

rbc_overwrite_title

Driving effective carbon pricing. That’s a core challenge for Canada in implementing a carbon competitiveness strategy and underpins the active review of the national carbon pricing benchmark by Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC).

Carbon markets are no longer an abstract policy debate. They’re a practical test of whether capital shows up — or goes elsewhere.

The Climate Action Institute team spent time this week with the Pembina Institute and other leaders in carbon markets and climate investment to focus on one question: what is required to drive further investment?

The answer was consistent and blunt: a well-functioning carbon market. And in Canada, we still don’t quite have one.

The clearest signals from the room:

Carbon policy is increasingly shaped by global market access and competitiveness, not domestic policy alone.

Large trading partners are embedding carbon constraints into trade architecture. The EU’s Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) is the most visible example: it effectively exports EU carbon prices into global supply chains. Starting with exporters selling steel, cement, aluminum, fertilizers, or electricity into the block, carbon pricing is no longer optional – it’s a cost of doing business. However, shifting political winds in the EU could cast uncertainty onto the implementation of CBAM, creating a rocky landscape for Canada’s carbon policy makers to navigate as they consider benchmark stringency in the context of market access under unpredictable geopolitical conditions.

But emerging economies aren’t waiting.

Brazil is advancing a national carbon market framework tied to sustainable finance taxonomies. Several African jurisdictions are building carbon market infrastructure alongside trade and development partnerships–often accelerated by deeper commercial ties with Europe.

These systems may start narrower, but they are being designed with international alignment in mind from day one.

Large consumer blocs are pulling climate policy into their economies at scale.

China now operates the world’s largest Emission Trading System (ETS) by covered emissions. The EU ETS covers thousands of facilities, has a declining cap, deep liquidity, and a clear long-term trajectory. The UK ETS mirrors this logic. Systems in Japan, Korea, and India are expanding rapidly.

Canada stands out–not for ambition, but for structure. Instead of a single scaled trading system, we operate a patchwork: the federal backstop, provincial fuel charges, and multiple industrial output-based systems (OBPS, TIER, etc.), each with different rules, prices, and compliance options. Scale and harmonization have helped other countries build function carbon pricing system. Canada’s fragmented approach makes it harder for investors and trading partners to engage. The benchmark review must grapple with whether flexibility has crossed too far into fragmentation.

Financing decarbonization at scale without a carbon market will be extremely challenging. Large-scale decarbonization projects can be risky to backstop through government guarantees alone. A deeper, more liquid national market would let the market itself absorb more of that price risk, reducing reliance on public balance sheets.

Establishing fungibility of carbon credits across federal-provincial systems emerged as a critical first step to building the market depth that serious decarbonization investment requires. Investors were clear: price volatility kills capital formation.

  • They need price certainty over investment time horizons

  • They need credible incentives that reward real decarbonization

  • They need policy or fiscal backstops that hold when markets wobble

Alberta’s TIER market is a frequently cited example for price volatility. Prices swung from under $15 per tonne to over $40 in a matter of weeks in tandem with the announcement of the Alberta MOU. And this ignores the reality that too often TIER prices can become dislocated from the headline federal carbon backstop–implying future volatility as well. The result is investors are forced to price in the risk that spreads could widen further.

ECCC benchmark criteria focused only on minimum price levels may miss the point. Predictability, guardrails, and credible price corridors matter just as much as nominal stringency. By contrast, the EU ETS combines a long-term cap trajectory with market stability mechanisms that dampen extreme swings. The result isn’t cheap carbon—it’s bankable carbon.

Canada is in the middle of an infrastructure push. The first tranche of major projects under Bill C-5 was announced six months ago; the second tranche is underway. Hydrogen, LNG, pipelines, grid interconnections—there’s real momentum behind getting things built faster.

Market design choices made now will shape where capital flows next. The ECCC benchmark review is an opportunity to signal that Canada is serious about building a market that works and how complementary instruments can crowd in capital.

Carbon contracts for difference (CCfDs), for example, were discussed as a powerful complement to carbon pricing, if used in a targeted manner. They de-risk investments by guaranteeing a carbon price floor for projects that deliver deep emissions reductions.


Market design is investment policy. It determines whether Canada attracts the next generation of clean industrial projects – or watches them land elsewhere.

As ECCC reviews the national carbon pricing benchmark, the question isn’t whether carbon pricing should exist. That debate is over. The real question is whether Canada’s system is credible, scalable, and stable enough to compete in a world where carbon markets now shape trade, capital flows, and industrial strategy.

Overwrite title

rbc_overwrite_title

➔ Winter Olympics: running out of slope?

➔ Chinese EVs: low emissions, high drama

➔ Notes from Davos: The looming fight for grid power

Only four locations would be able to host Winter Olympics by 2050 if current climate trajectory persists. The 2026 Winter Olympicorganizers are powering venues in Milan and Cortina d’Ampezzo with certified renewable electricity and sustainable sourcing, even as the February event is expected to emit around 930,000 tons of CO2. More crucially, snow management remain an issue as the Alpine region has seen a 25% drop in snowfall since 1980. It’s a problem that’s unlikely to go away: a new University of Waterloo study shows that of the 92 potential Winter Olympic host locations, only 52 would remain-climate reliable for the winter edition and 22 for the Paralympics in the future, if current climate policies persist. Without snowmaking technology—only four will reliably be able to host the event by 2050.

China-made EVs could lower Canadian transport emissions—but at a political cost. The decision to allow Chinese EVs in return for Canadian agri-food access comes as Canadian federal and provincial governments have rolled back subsidies. EVs have done the heavy work of lowering Canda’s emissions over the past six years, with transport emissions down 6% compared to 2019, according to Climate Action 2026 report. Cheaper EVs could help maintain the momentum. But rumblings from Washington suggest the deal could complicate CUSMA negotiations.

Canada’s agri-food processors are not waiting for policy perfection. In Atlantic Canada, processors are investing to extract more output from less energy and water, while farmers see emission cuts as a way to boost productivity, observed our Interim Head Lisa Ashton, during her trip to Prince Edward Island to share Climate Action 2026 report’s findings. PEI farmers are leading the way with their 2040 Pathways plan to reduce GHG emissions, accelerate on-farm climate adaptation actions, and boost economic outputs and trade by 2040. It’s an example of how farmers can organize and design a pragmatic plan to drive environmental and economic outcomes for their businesses.

Nowhere has climate change, resources and geopolitics collided more quickly. U.S. interest in the Arctic island of Greenland and Russian ships patrolling the region should compel Canada to cover—and bolster—its northern bases.

Climate change is the trigger for interest in the Arctic: Washington’s sudden interest in the “piece of ice” is sparked by a climate-change induced thaw that’s opening up the region to activity— benign or otherwise. The Arctic has just ended a year of record heat and shrunken sea ice as northern latitudes become rainier and less ice-bound due to the climate crisis, scientists say. That’s also accelerated a race for control by the U.S., Russia and “near-Arctic state” China. Canada needs to catch up.

While the Arctic’s location is strategic—so are its resources. The northern region contains significant fossil fuel reserves—an estimated 13% (90 billion barrels) of the world’s undiscovered conventional oil resources and 30% of its undiscovered conventional natural gas resources. In addition it also contains rare earths, nickel, cobalt, graphite and other elements that are vital for energy transition. While it’s unclear whether the region can meaningfully meet rising global energy demand at cost and at scale any time soon, the faster the region warms, the more attractive and accessible its resources would become.

Sovereignty and strategic competition: Canada’s Arctic sovereignty is shaped by competing interpretations under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, with Canada ratifying the treaty and defining extended continental shelf claims, while the United States has signed but not ratified it.

The North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) detected and tracked Russian military aircraft operating in international airspace near Alaska in 2025, while China and Russia launched a joint patrol in 2024.

Canada’s calculus: Canada makes up 28% of the Arctic land area, second only to Russia’s 67% Arctic landmass. However, the Canadian Arctic accounts for just under 2% of the Arctic region’s economy, and negligible population.

The Major Project Office’s focus on developing Churchill Port at the mouth of Hudson Bay, the Red Chris Mine Expansion and the North Coast Transmissions Line and Ksi Lisim LNG, along with a separate $1-billion investment to strengthen the North’s trade and transportation infrastructure, suggests Canada is joining the Arctic race. Getting these proposals to completion would be the ultimate test. The projects—and more defence spending—will be vital to allay U.S. concerns about the vulnerability of the Canadian Arctic.  But they also need to be respectful of climate and Indigenous issues.

By John Stackhouse, Senior Vice President, Office of the CEO, RBC

John was at Davos last week to make sense of the new world order and a global economy that’s resembling more a bartering and babbling souk than a tightly wired marketplace. Among his observations, two directly impact energy and climate: the competing priorities for grid power, and the continued rise of renewable energy—against all odds. Read the excerpts:

A/C or AI: It’s gridlock
The next energy crisis won’t be fuelled by oil or gas; it will be strained by the world’s faltering electricity grids. Electricity demand globally is rising three times faster than total energy demand, driven by air conditioning and electric vehicles, as well as data centres.

While 90% of Americans have access to air conditioning, the number is 20% in India, 18% in Indonesia and 5% in Nigeria—each with some of the world’s fastest-growing cities. Add to that the growing demand for EVs, which now account for a quarter of global car sales, up from 5% in just five years.

Fatih Birol, head of the International Energy Agency, said the world will need 10,000 terra-watts of new electricity in the next decade, which is the equivalent of adding another U.S., Canada, Europe and Japan. Without any innovation breakthroughs, that would require 70% more copper, and a vast expansion of steel and critical minerals processing.

A renewable lease on energy: There were two vastly telling moments in Davos’s main Congress Hall, one speaking to scarcity, the other to abundance. Donald Trump went off script to lambaste renewable energy, especially wind which he said was for “losers.”

A day later, Elon Musk used the same stage to profess a glorious future for renewables, especially solar which he said could power all of America if he had his way. Just give him a parcel of land, 160×160 kilometres, and tariff-free solar panels! Away from North America, renewables are still the driver of energy growth and have shifted from a “transition” source to a default for new supply in many markets. Europe reached roughly 50% renewable generation in 2024.

In other fast-growing markets, renewables are increasingly seen as energy additions, not just replacements for fossil fuels. Falling battery costs (solar is down roughly 80% in India) and longer lifetimes (30–35 years) have helped shift economics from a simple cost per unit to a cost per lifecycle.

Read John’s full Davos commentary here.

  • Interim Head Lisa Ashton recently hosted a roundtable in Edmonton with industry leaders and investors on growth capital in Canada’s agri-food sector to dive into the investment challenges that were highlighted in The Next Generation of Growth.

  • Energy Lead Shaz Merwat moderated a panel at the BC Natural Resources Forum at Prince George, focused on Canada’s future gas and LNG competitiveness with senior executives from industry, Indigenous organizations.

Curated by Yadullah Hussain, Managing Editor, RBC Climate Action Institute.

Climate Crunch would not be possible without John Stackhouse, Jordan Brennan, John Intini, Farhad PanahovLisa AshtonShaz MerwatVivan SorabCaprice Biasoni, Lavanya Kaleeswaran and Joelle Schonberg .

Have a comment, commendation, or umm, criticism? Write to me here (yadullahhussain@rbc.com)

Climate Crunch Newsletter

Overwrite title

rbc_overwrite_title

➔ How’s Canada doing on fighting climate change? It’s complicated

➔ Is the world falling out of love with Teslas?

➔ Canada’s methane rules get pragmatic

Can the IPCC survive its breakup with Washington? The UN-backed Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change is in a “keep calm-and carry-on” mode after the U.S. decided to pull out, noting that it continues to work on its next cycle of reports, starting in 2027. The IPCC reports are extremely influential, and many countries benchmark themselves to its authoritative data. It’s critical for IPCC to persist, but one of the criticisms of the body is its focus on the science and the tech, that underplays the economics and politics of energy transition. While the White House labelled the IPCC (and the 65 other UN organizations the U.S. exited) as a “waste” of American taxpayer money, others argue that the IPCC has been instrumental in focusing global policymakers on one of the world’s most critical challenges. Science, they hope, will prevail.

New methane rules mark a pragmatic evolution in Canadian climate policy. The new rules—covering onshore oil and gas operations and large landfills with requirements beginning in 2028—pair high ambition with greater regulatory flexibility. The most consequential change is optionality, says Vivan Sorab, our Clean Tech Lead. Government estimates suggest that the new rules could deliver cumulative reductions of 304 Mt CO2e from 2028 to 2040. Operators can follow a regulator-prescribed inspection pathway, subject to regulatory verification and enforcement, or demonstrate compliance through their own processes, backed by monitoring and verification. The removal of the five-year expiry on federal-provincial equivalency agreements further strengthens the framework by improving long-term certainty for provinces and the industry. The rules are reinforced by a $16-million federal investment in methane monitoring and verification tech. Given ongoing uncertainty on methane emission volumes, the focus on measurement could prove to be crucial.

Is the world moving past Elon Musk’s Tesla? It’s hard to say whether the billionaire’s politics put off many, but it could certainly be a factor. Globally, EV cars sales hit a record 21.7 million last year, Bloomberg New Energy Finance estimates, even as Tesla sales contracted 9% to 1.64 million. BNEF forecast 24.3 million EV car sales in 2026—a slower pace of growth than previous years—as falling government incentives are offset by falling battery prices, a bump in commercial vehicle sales and the slow ramp up of robotaxis.

Behind the scenes, the Climate Action Institute team spent the past six months on what’s emerging as a benchmark of Canadian climate action: our Climate Action report, now in its third year.

While there’s been some retreat on climate policies, there’s plenty of action too, on climate. Our report title, Retreat, reset or renew?, suggests it’s all of the above.

The report is based on calculations, aggregations and estimates using a variety of measures from across the economy and society. We selected those metrics to help paint a picture of where we’re at, how far we’ve come and some of the distance ahead. The report, and its measurement tools, are not designed to be a precise diagnostic of any one sector, policy or technology—it’s more like a mirror in which we can see Canada’s successes and shortcomings.

The report was also informed by our team attending over 100 events, and visiting farms, facilities and offices, cross-country, where we listened, spoke and compared notes with peers, experts and skeptics. Over 2,000 Canadian consumers and 150 business executives participated in our two annual surveys. Peer groups dove into the methodologies and several external experts stress-tested our analysis. For our case studies, several companies agreed to heart-to-hearts on the challenges of putting their boardroom promises into action on their factory or office floor. The result is a snapshot of Canada’s climate journey: some milestones achieved, a few dead-ends, and strapping up for the next curve round the bend.

Read the full report here, but here’s a peek at a handful of findings:

  • Emissions progress is mixed: National emissions are down 7% since 2019, with reductions in electricity (-27%), buildings (-19%), and oil/gas (-19%) sectors. However, new projects like the TMX pipeline expansion and LNG Canada Phase 1 are projected to increase oil/gas emissions.

  • There’s a strong pipeline of climate funding. Climate capital flows of around $20 billion annually continue to support the low-carbon sector.

  • …And there’s more on the way. Nearly $100 billion worth of incentives for clean-tech and climate programs and initiatives budgeted for deployment between now and 2035—although funding remains uncertain given policy shifts.

  • Climate Action Barometer declined: the Institute’s flagship index fell for the first time in six years amid policy uncertainty.

  • Canadians still care about climate: Cost of living issues, healthcare access and strengthening the economy were front and centre, but 33% still consider climate change as a top-three priority for policymakers.

Don’t fixate on 2030 Canada’s emissions targets. That’s the message from Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC) in its latest progress report on the country’s 2030 emissions reduction plan, released days before the Christmas break. Focusing on 2030 targets “at all costs” risks undermining the long-haul climate fight, the report notes. “Focusing narrowly on short‑term reductions could also divert attention from the deeper, systemic transformations needed to reach net‑zero by 2050.”

Pushing heavy industry and oil and gas—two sectors that are deeply tied to competitiveness, investment flows, and trade— could “trigger capital flight, carbon leakage, and a loss of international competitiveness, especially if compliance costs outpace those faced by peer economies.”

Economist Farhad Panahov pored through the data trove to glean 5 valuable insights:

  • Emission declines are impressive, given population growth. By 2023, Canada’s emissions declined 8.5% from 2005 levels. More impressively, emissions intensity was down 35% based on the economic size and 29% based on population (which has been growing at a fast clip over the past two decades).

  • We need four times the pandemic era emissions declines. Canada’s emissions would need to drop fourfold compared to the 2020-COVID-era magnitude to reach its 2030 targets.

  • Most sectors are pulling their weight. Electricity, transportation, heavy industry and buildings sectors are projected to deliver a combined 68 MtCO2e emissions reductions by 2030, through several measures including electric vehicle and heat pump adoption, fuel switching and electrification in heavy industry, and renewable technology deployment.

  • Fossil fuels are the outliers. Oil and gas sector, however, has a diverging projection, ranging from either flat to 33 MtCO2e emissions with enhanced methane regulations, hydrogen substitution, and deployment of solvent-based extraction technologies.

  • What’s going to move the needle? The controversial, and now shelved, Oil and Gas Emissions Cap (excluded from the projections) would have only added 3MtCO2e in emissions reduction. Meanwhile, agriculture practices along with nitrogen management could contribute up to 12 MtCO2e in emissions reduction.

  • John Stackhouse will be on the ground in Davos next week. Watch out for his analysis on what he saw, shared and heard at the world’s most influential forum for discussion and debate on the global economy.

  • Lisa Ashton, the Institute’s Interim Head, was the keynote speaker on how agri-food can lead a new era of economic development at the Saskatchewan Crops Forum this week.

  • Lisa also hosted a roundtable in Saskatoon with industry leaders and investors on growth capital in Canada’s agri-food sector to dive into the investment challenges that were highlighted in the Next Generation of Growth.

  • Shaz Merwat, Director of Energy Policy, is moderating a panel on Canada and B.C.’s Competitive Edge as a Global Gas and LNG Producer on Jan. 21 at the B.C. Natural Resources Forum.

  • The Elements of Power: A Story of War, Technology and the Dirtiest Supply Chain on Earth by Nicolas Niarchos, on what it takes to usher in the battery era.

  • TV series Landman, starring Billy Bob Thornton, that shows wildcat drilling is alive and well in Texas—often powered by wind turbines.

  • Disruptors podcast: Alberta’s Next Energy Mix. John Stackhouse speaks with Premier Danielle Smith about the future of power in Alberta.

  • Things Are Never So Bad That They Can’t Get Worse (2022), by William Neuman, on the steady collapse of Venezuela over the years.

Curated by Yadullah Hussain, Managing Editor, RBC Climate Action Institute.

Climate Crunch would not be possible without John Stackhouse, Jordan Brennan, John Intini, Farhad PanahovLisa AshtonShaz MerwatVivan SorabCaprice Biasoni, Lavanya Kaleeswaran and Joelle Schonberg .

Have a comment, commendation, or umm, criticism? Write to me here (yadullahhussain@rbc.com)

Climate Crunch Newsletter

Overwrite title

rbc_overwrite_title

Consumer carbon pricing—scrapped. Electric vehicle mandate—delayed. Oil and gas emissions cap—all but gone. The headlines suggest Canada’s climate ambition is in retreat. However, much of the climate action-enabling capital has already been locked and loaded, with an estimated nearly $100 billion worth of incentives—by our count—ready to be deployed between now and 2035 for clean-tech and climate programs and initiatives.1

Federal givernment's climate related financial support

As part of the Climate Action Report 2026, which will be released on January 13, we analyzed the various federal government’s climate policy and commitments over the decades.

For the Canadian Government Climate Sentiment we used OpenAI’s advanced reasoning models to curate and analyze contextual framing of climate and related topics to assess government resolve around climate.

Our research applied the analysis to federal government budgets across three main categories: narrative (references to climate trends and past actions), policy, commitments and plans signalling government intentions, and new funding announcements.

Canadian governemnt climate sentiment
  • The Trudeau years were packed with talk—and action. Climate talk hit its highest levels during the pandemic years. Justin Trudeau’s Liberal government started strong with a number of climate focused funding announcements in its first federal budget in 2016 to about $6 billion, according to our count.2

  • Climate funding has been frontloaded. Since 2016, cumulative budgeted climate-related spending has risen to $150 billion. Clean economy Investment Tax Credits of around $78 billion as initially announced are already in place and will support adoption of low-carbon technologies for another decade into the 2030s.3 Program spending, transfer payments and other tax expenditures accounted for another $70+ billion in financial support.4

Overwrite title

rbc_overwrite_title

RBC Climate Action Institute’s latest annual survey of 150 executives shows 136 (91%) Canadian executives said their organization had a greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reduction strategy—a sizable jump from 73% in last year’s survey.1

The survey, part of the RBC Climate Action Institute’s soon-to-be released Climate Action 2026 report, finds businesses in review-and-reset mode.

While a strong majority had a strategy, they were scaling back their targets in the interim: the percentage of executives “agreeing” or “strongly agreeing” when asked whether their organizations will reach its 2030 climate targets stood at 71% this year, compared to 81% last year.

That seems understandable as tectonic shifts are shaking up several planks of the Canadian and global economy this year, including trade, investments and energy security. Nearly three out of five senior leaders said their companies are planning to scale, or have already scaled back, their climate commitments or targets. More than a quarter cited the risk of political blowback in the U.S. as a key factor in their company’s decision, while just over 20% pointed to shifting sentiment at home for their decision.

Canadian Businesses hold on to hopes of meeting their 2030 climate targets

A few other highlights from our survey:

  • Executives believe they should be driving climate progress. Corporate priority (63%) was the biggest driver of their emissions reduction strategy, followed by government regulation (60%). With several federal and provincial government climate policies in retreat in Canada, it will be interesting to see whether GHG emission reduction strategies wane in future surveys.

  • Energy efficiency was a popular way (82%) to lower emissions. When asked “what’s the primary focus of your organization’s climate strategy?” 62% picked waste reduction, and 41% identified the purchase of carbon credits—similar to last year. There was, however, a drop in switching away from fossil fuels (46% in 2025, versus 52% in 2024), and electrification (48% in 2025, versus 59% in 2024).

  • Customers are seeking sustainable products and services. Customer/client demand (54%) was the next big driver of their strategic decision-making—little changed from last year despite new economic and affordability pressures on customers. However, only 30% of executives cited investor demand as a key factor.

  • Sustainability policies are viewed as expensive… 60% of executives said implementing sustainability policies led to a moderate cost increase of between 5 to 15% to their business costs, while another 13% reported cost inflation exceeding 15%. In our survey, we did not define what sustainability policies companies were pursuing.

  • … But deploying climate policies had upside, according to the executives. Around a third of executives (32%) reported commanding premium pricing for their lower-carbon products and services, with 29% reporting securing new market access; 45% said their climate initiatives attracted new customers and business partners. However, nearly a third suggested they faced cost disadvantages compared to competitors with fewer climate considerations. A fifth reported noting no difference from their climate action.

  • Lack of access to capital tops the barriers list. In addition, the challenge of qualifying for government incentives and regulatory uncertainty, along with macro-economic conditions, were most frequently ranked as the top three barriers facing executives in their effort to lower their corporations’ GHG emissions.

Overwrite title

rbc_overwrite_title

Climate change may have slipped on Canadians’ priority list, but it remains front and centre when it hits closest to home—most notably in the form of wildfires inflicting property damage, raising insurance costs and impacting health.

That’s one of the key findings of RBC Climate Action’s latest consumer survey, which polled 2,000 Canadians. The survey is part of the Institute’s third annual Climate Action report, which reviews Canada’s progress on its environmental goals. (The full report is out Tuesday, January 13.)

Concerns around climate change has ebbed and flowed in tandem with Canadians’ economic prospects. In last year’s Climate Action report, 14% of respondents reported climate change as one of their top three concerns, down from 26% in 2019. This is consistent with the general observation that climate change, while important, ranks below pocketbook issues such as the cost of living and job security. When the economy is strong and jobs are secure, people can ‘afford’ to prioritize climate action. In times of economic stress, climate change tends to be de-prioritized.

This year’s consumer survey, conducted by market research firm Ipsos, again finds Canadians focused more on the economy, jobs and personal finances. However, the frequency of extreme weather events ensures that environmental issues continue to simmer just under the surface.

Here’s what we heard in the survey:

  • It’s about personal issues right now. Cost of living (79%), healthcare (75%) and economy and jobs (63%) were the top three challenges for most Canadians. Only 33% of respondents listed climate change as a top three issue. One-in-eight Canadians (12%) identified it as their top priority.

  • More than three out of five Canadians (67%) didn’t see climate change as a top three priority. It appears that climate change as an abstract concept is struggling to capture the attention of Canadians in the same way as the immediate impact of wildfire smoke or urban flooding does.

    Priority ranking of key issues for Canada including cost of living, healthcare, job creation, national security, and civic peace
  • That does not necessarily mean climate inaction. Canadians are trying to reduce their carbon footprint in measures they can control: avoiding air travel and cutting meat consumption. Strong majorities either reduced or intend to reduce consumption or boost recycling efforts (84%), cut home-energy usage (77%), while roughly half changed or intended to change their travel habits (51%) and diets (49%).

  • Weather over climate: Around 60% of respondents would place greater emphasis on climate action if extreme weather events were even more frequent. Canada’s last three wildfire seasons were among the worst according to federal records dating back to 1970.2 As the survey suggests, the frequency and intensity has had an immediate impact on the quality of life for many Canadians.

    Impact of continued extreme weather events
  • Canadians want wildfire-containment action: Personal health (56%), including smoke inhalation and heat stress, topped the list of concerns from wildfires, followed by property damage and insurance costs (54%), and the inability to enjoy outdoor activities and nature (50%).

    Canadians are leaning on cutting back on consumption to lower their carbon footprint

The challenge for policymakers and business leaders will be to harmonize environmental goals with other priorities and ensure economic growth does not override climate priorities.

Overwrite title

rbc_overwrite_title

Compromise.

That’s how the world’s leading news organizations summed up COP 30, the United Nations climate conference that just ended in Belém, Brazil. A sampling;

“A climate compromise” — Le Monde (France)
“Mixed verdict” — The Times Of India (New Delhi)
“Fragile deal” — The New York Times
“Historic finance boost” — O Globo (Brazil)
“Progress on money, standstill on oil, gas, coal” — DER SPIEGEL (Germany)
“Vulnerable nations decry lack of fossil-fuel phaseout” — Al Jazeera Media Network (Qatar)
“Multitrao consensus, showcasing unity” — China Daily (Beijing)

The mutirão spirit, or working together, was as good as the conference could get, given it had compromise at every turn. Here’s what mattered most in the end:

  • Commitment to a Just Transition facility, aimed at supporting groups and communities most impacted by climate action

  • Commitment to triple adaptation finance, although no clear path to do so

  • 80 counties called for a roadmap to phase out fossil fuels, fewer than expected

  • New push for oceans-based solutions

  • New emphasis on “information integrity” to combat disinformation on climate

  • No significant agreements on deforestation, a setback for many given the summit’s location in the Amazon basin.

COPs (or Conference of the Parties who signed the UN climate framework) tend to end in a mix of commitment and disappointment. This one was no different — although given its milestone status and location in Brazil, home to the first Earth Summit in 1992, it fell short of most expectations. Perhaps that’s not surprising, given the state of geopolitics and the global economy.

Turkiye will host COP31 next year, while Australia will lead the negotiations. Both countries were vying for the lead role, and agreed to share the spotlight.

Another compromise!


John Stackhouse, Senior Vice-President, Office of the CEO, RBC