Shortly after entering the ocean, they were moving along the sand when Peterson looked up and saw a white shark passing a few metres away. “One half of me was like, ‘Yes, jackpot,’” Peterson says. “And the other half was like, ‘Oh crap.’”

The animal disappeared into the murk, and then reappeared – first, her dark eyes and toothy smile, and then the rest of her muscular body – moving straight toward them. Peterson grabbed the harness of the other diver, a tourist from the United States, and pulled him to the bottom, where they waited, maintaining eye contact. The shark approached repeatedly, coming so close they could almost have reached out and touched her, before veering off each time (cutting off their exit, Peterson later realized). “This shark was investigating us,” Peterson says. “It was trying to figure out if we were food.”

After three passes, the shark decided they weren’t and disappeared into the gloom. Peterson and the other diver quickly surfaced and swam to shore, where they told the people swimming to get out of the water. With the danger passed, Peterson was exhilarated to have encountered an apex predator in her natural environment. “I was thrilled,” he says. “[It was] such a rare and special occurrence.”

Speaking with a biologist afterward, Peterson discovered it wasn’t as rare as he thought; in fact, he was about the 10th diver in the area to have reported an encounter with a white shark in the past three years.

Across the region, it’s not just divers noticing a change. There’s been a notable uptick in the number of people reporting white sharks along Canada’s Atlantic coast over the past decade. For a long time, white sharks were so rarely documented that scientists thought occasional sightings were just fringe members of a more southerly population. Now, they appear in Atlantic Canadian waters in the summer with a regularity that suggests a recurring seasonal population in the thousands.

“Atlantic Canada is the new white-shark population on the planet, at the moment,” says Nigel Hussey, professor of movement and trophic ecology at the University of Windsor. While there is some uncertainty as to the extent to which white sharks are moving in, scientists say that all signs point to a local population that’s growing, as white sharks recover from overexploitation and move northward because of warming waters.

That increasing presence elicits complex feelings in the region. White sharks have an almost unparalleled ability to inspire fear – yet sharks also have the potential to bring new benefits to the region: in research opportunities, in economic activity and in healthy ecosystems. But experts note that some white-shark prep work is also required, especially in a region billed as “Canada’s ocean playground” by one province’s licence plate.

“It’s very exciting, but also there is some degree of challenge for [Canada] to start generating the data to manage it, because it’s an endangered species . . . and to manage the risk of negative human–shark interactions,” Hussey says.

A shark sector is born

Ocean shorelines exert a magnetic pull for vacationers around the world; coastal and maritime tourism represents a significant portion of the global tourist economy, generating approximately US$3 trillion in 2025. Shark- and ray-based tourism is an increasing share of this, producing about US$314 million annually from activities such as diving, fishing and boat tours, according to one 2013 study. Shark tourism takes place in dozens of countries, and in some cases, researchers suggest that it has the potential to contribute more to gross domestic product than fishing.

In Atlantic Canada, this activity is still in its infancy.

The first company to offer cage diving tours began operating on Nova Scotia’s south shore roughly three years ago. In starting the business, marine biologist Neil Hammerschlag was inspired by his master’s degree in South Africa decades before, where he ran cage diving tours to fund his research. After an academic career in the United States, he began looking for a way to return to Canada and, seeing the increasing number of shark sightings in Nova Scotia, recognized a chance to return to his roots: “I thought, why not kind of use this idea of combining cage diving and the public’s interest in sharks with science, and essentially came up with this concept for Atlantic Shark Expeditions, which is cage diving to support science.”

Hammerschlag says it took a few seasons, but Atlantic Shark Expeditions has managed to dial in its formula. In 2025, they saw white sharks on every expedition and identified 109 different individuals, tagging six sharks with satellite tags. The company has taken hundreds of people on white-shark expeditions, many of whom describe being motivated by the desire to participate in research or to see sharks up close. “Interestingly, it’s not thrill-seekers at all,” he says.

Hammerschlag’s operation came up against some local opposition initially. Local surfers and other ocean recreationalists raised concerns that its approach would make human–shark conflict more likely. Some of that concern was fuelled by rumour. People had heard that the company was throwing fresh chunks of fish in the water, a practice known as chumming, meant to draw the species in. Hammerschlag denies this, though the company does use tuna and seal blubber as bait. It also lowers waterproof speakers into the water to produce a low-frequency sound attractive to sharks. Hammerschlag acknowledges that some people have concerns about changing shark behaviour, but he says their own research doesn’t support the idea that bait causes sharks to hang around. Of the 109 sharks they saw, most they saw only once. “If they’re being habituated, you would expect to see the same ones day in and day out, right? But you don’t. You see completely different ones. They’re moving through.”

Researchers in other jurisdictions where shark tourism is more established have drawn similar conclusions. Studies of wildlife tourism in Mexico and Australia found no long-term habituation from baiting, though that didn’t stop Mexico from banning white-shark tourism on Guadalupe Island in 2023, citing bad practices in the industry that had sometimes proved deadly – for the sharks.

This reflects the broader reality: there were 12 confirmed fatalities from shark encounters worldwide in 2025, and there were 65 “unprovoked” attacks, including one in Nova Scotia, where a white shark bit through a paddleboard at a beach near Halifax (the paddler was unharmed). That pales in comparison to the number of sharks killed by humans, which exceeds 100 million a year.

Despite these stark figures, sharks are nonetheless often perceived as remorseless killers and humans their defenceless victims – a narrative whose strength demonstrates just how deep-seated (and culturally reinforced) our fear of them is. In Atlantic Canada, scientists warn, a lack of familiarity and preparation has the potential to drive conflict.

Nigel Hussey, who runs a field research station tracking sharks on Nova Scotia’s southshore, says that everywhere else in the world where there are significant white shark populations, there are programs to mitigate the interactions with people that will inevitably occur. Yet in Atlantic Canada, these are so far lacking.

Sharks are not interested in people, Hussey says, but because they spend most of their time in the same part of the ocean that we do, conflict can arise. “We’re certainly at a point, and have been for a while now, where [Nova Scotia] needs to acknowledge white sharks are here and they’re here in numbers,” he says. Without the right data and preparation, there’s a risk of a negative encounter, he says, which could in turn be negative for shark conservation.

Steve Crawford, professor of integrative biology at the University of Guelph, points out that visitors may not understand that white sharks are now part of 

the environment in Atlantic Canada. For several years, Crawford says, he’s been advocating for white-shark signage and accompanying trauma kits at popular coastal destinations in the region, as beaches in Maine and Massachusetts have done. “To date, not a single government agency anywhere in Atlantic Canada has made the responsible decision to provide this kind of risk-management signage.”

Getting the opportunity right

Increasing numbers of sharks are not only a source of risk – they’re also a draw.

In other shark hot spots, such as Australia and South Africa, sizable industries have arisen out of people’s desire to interact with sharks; a 2017 study found that shark-diving tourism contributed $25.5 million (AUD) annually to Australia’s regional economy. While research suggests that activities like cage diving have minimal behavioural impact, the context of that research is that it happened in jurisdictions that have navigated a learning curve to establish effective regulations, Hussey says.

Cage diving isn’t the only appeal. White sharks have the potential to fuel a range of economic activity, from scientific research and tourism to wildlife documentary production. “There is a whole economic ecosystem around white sharks that could be very positive in Nova Scotia, but we all acknowledge . . . we need regulations in place,” Hussey says.

It’s worth doing the work to get this right, scientists say, because as white sharks become more established in the region, opportunities to get close could help dispel fear of the unfamiliar.

In mid-summer of last year, Geraldine Fernandez was on an outing on the Atlantic Shark Expeditions vessel, as part of a research project she was doing with Dalhousie University’s Future of Marine Ecosystems lab. It was a day like any other: some guests were enjoying the ocean in th

e cage, and Fernandez was standing atop the cage, dipping a tool she uses for estimating shark length in the water.

A blue shark glided past, only to suddenly disappear; seconds later, a large white shark swam into view. Fernandez says he was more than four metres long and beautifully coloured, but what was most striking was his gracefulness. The shark was not interested in the bait b

ut spent “what felt like forever” calmly observing the people in the cage and poking his head out of the water (a behaviour called spy-hopping) to look at the people on the boat. “He was soaking it all in with all the guests,” she says. “He was not afraid. We were not afraid. It was an absolutely incredible experience.”

Seeing the people there respond with delight and curiosity to an animal that’s so often maligned was a deeply fulfilling experience, Fernandez says. It’s an example of how, if managed correctly, the increasing presence of sharks in Atlantic Canadian waters can serve as a reminder about what is, after all, the shark’s environment: when we go in the ocean, we’re not alone. And we wouldn’t want to be.

Moira Donovan is an award-winning journalist based in Nova Scotia, specializing in the environment and climate change.

The post There’s a new apex predator in Atlantic Canada appeared first on Corporate Knights.

“What she showed us is that nature doesn’t recognize our borders, and our protection systems have to catch up to that reality,” says Laurel Angell, director of government relations and policy at the Yellowstone to Yukon Conservation Initiative, or Y2Y, a transboundary U.S.–Canada–Indigenous wildlife protection non-profit.

Canada shares a nearly 9,000-kilometre-long border with the United States, and more than 500 migratory species cross that border each year, ranging in size from the monarch butterfly to the grey whale – and that’s not including the animals that roam across the border constantly, such as whitetailed deer, grizzly bears and grey wolves like Pluie.

Nature doesn’t recognize our borders, and our protection systems have to catch up to that reality.

– Laurel Angell, Yellowstone to Yukon Conservation Initiative

The two countries have collaborated on cross-border wildlife conservation for decades, sharing research and partnering on initiatives. Key to this has been the relationship between federal agencies, local governments, non-profits, scientists, private landowners and Indigenous groups. But as U.S. President Donald Trump’s administration slashes funding for conservation research and federal departments, and rolls back critical endangered-species laws, wildlife that rely on the stability of these relationships now face unbalanced protection.

“We are genuinely concerned about what’s happening to federal land and wildlife management agencies,” Angell says. “Our federal partners are essential to this work, and when you cut those agencies deeply, you lose the people, the research capacity, the field scientists and the relationships that make cross-boundary conservation actually function.”

In 2025, Trump began slashing jobs at U.S. public land agencies, firing rangers and land managers who protect public parks. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has had an 18% reduction in workforce – about 1,800 jobs, including around 500 biologists. In a letter to the U.S. Secretary of the Interior, FWS director Brian Nesvik said that “almost 60 percent of the nation’s wildlife refuges lack the resources and staff needed to fulfill their missions.”

Sixteen out of 22 land research cooperatives – government research centres that focus on science-based conservation – have been placed on indefinite hiatus. During his first administration, Trump proposed several provisions that would weaken the critical Endangered Species Act (ESA) to make energy and resource development easier. And the 2027 proposed budget would cut funding by hundreds of millions of dollars to a host of environmental programs and departments.

Staff cuts to the Fish and Wildlife Service predate the current administration, says Collin O’Mara, president and CEO of the National Wildlife Federation. But the accelerated rate is worrying, he says, particularly the loss of scientists, who are integral to collecting the data sets that then inform conservation work. As climate change and biodiversity loss affect how transboundary wildlife – including endangered species such as caribou and monarch butterflies – shift their movements, up-to-date data and research is vital.

These aren’t solely U.S. problems. Many species protected by the Endangered Species Act migrate across the border, like the whooping crane, which travels from Texas to breeding grounds in the Northwest Territories and Alberta. These migration routes are essential to their survival.

On-the-ground conservation work across the border has been disrupted, too. “There are cross-border conservation projects right now where the U.S. side of critical habitat and connectivity mapping work is being cut mid-stream, leaving partners working from an incomplete picture of the landscape and leaving many people uncertain about what to even do,” Angell says.

RELATED STORIES

Canada’s biggest sustainable forest label has a clear-cutting problem 

Jamaican resorts race to adapt to a warming world

A new trend in travel puts tourists to work for nature restoration  

Connectivity mapping helps researchers maintain and improve wildlife corridors across borders, which are protected spaces that allow animals safe passage through busy roads and private lands. Making sure animal populations aren’t isolated is essential to their survival. For more than 30 years, Y2Y has worked to bridge the gap between two of the largest Rocky Mountain grizzly populations in Montana and Canada, which were split by 240 kilometres. Now, through land conservation and wildlife corridors, that gap is just shy of 50 kilometres. Once connected, the transboundary populations can migrate and mate, strengthening their numbers.

“That’s what we’re trying to protect,” Angell says. “And that last stretch to achieve real, full connectivity – which would be a landmark conservation success story – requires sustained investment and rigorous science, not less of both.”

Both Angell and O’Mara have cause for optimism, however. So far, the U.S. Congress has pushed back on most of the proposed budget cuts, “in a bipartisan, nonpartisan way,” O’Mara says. “I think at the end of the day, there’s so much support – across regions, across political ideology, across the national boundary – for this work,” he says. “That’s what gives me hope.”

Ayesha Habib is a Toronto-based journalist who has written for The Globe and Mail, The Walrus, The Narwhal and Maisonneuve.

The post Cross-border wildlife conservation between the U.S. and Canada is under strain appeared first on Corporate Knights.

In her keynote speech at the flagship event, Diana Fox Carney called climate change “the biggest challenge of our lifetime” and said the movement’s task is to convince people “that a more climate-friendly future is not only possible, it’s the one everyone wants” – safer, more inclusive and more just. But subsequent speakers charged that Canada is backsliding on climate performance, weakening standards and putting its own zero-emission targets beyond reach.

Fox Carney is a well-known economist, policy expert and adviser on climate issues to global investors – and her husband is Prime Minister Mark Carney, who has faced criticism from environmental groups on his climate agenda thus far. The former central banker has been a powerful proponent of sustainable finance, but his response to growing global protectionism has been, in part, to unleash Canada’s fossil-fuel industries, roll back emissions caps and support new pipelines.

In her opening remarks, Fox Carney did note that economic concerns such as “security and affordability” have been edging out climate concerns. Nonetheless, she added, “we need a shared sense of purpose around these issues.” Climate champions need to act fast, she said, and offer “solutions that are affordable, practical and able to improve people’s lives now.”

“It’s hard to overthrow legacy systems,” Fox Carney observed. Even so, “the question is not ‘Is change coming?’ The question is ‘Will Canada lead this change?’” she concluded, to loud applause.

Canada’s climate crawl

Rick Smith, president of the Canadian Climate Institute, received even more applause for calling out Canadian complacency. Why, he asked, is Canada ignoring the climate threat? Forget the United Nations’ 1.5°C target for global warming, he said: Canada has already warmed by 2.5°C over previous levels, and the wildfire summers of 2023 and 2025 demonstrated the urgent need to prevent even greater destruction.

Smith noted that only one-third of recent media stories about flooding in Canada refer to the longer-term climate trends. He also challenged the country’s overarching focus on the costs of climate action, rather than the true costs of inaction. In the past decade, forest fires have caused $37 billion in insured damage, two and a half times more than in the previous 10-year period. And uninsured losses, Smith said, are usually double those of insured properties.

Canadians are also falling behind on electric vehicles, Smith said. “Globally, 30% of cars being sold today are EVs. But the story of gasoline-car decline is not something we absorb as Canadians.” In the last quarter of 2025, just 11% of the cars sold in Canada were electric.

Between the past and the future

While Canadians line up at the gas pumps, the electric future is already here. According to Smith, 75% of new demand for electricity last year was met by solar sources. Battery storage in 2025 grew faster than ever. Last year, China exported $22 billion in green and solar technologies.

With the United States’ energy transition struggling under Trump, Canadian innovators have a chance to stand out on world markets. But that advantage may not last long. Smith predicted that a Democratic win in the midterm elections in November will rekindle the U.S. sustainability economy: “The North American focus on climate change is about to kick into gear, again.”

But some speakers pointed out that climate inaction is not an incidental failure of Canadians not paying attention, but a deliberate result of lobbying campaigns run by the resource-extraction industries. “Fossil-fuel disinformation is driving a lot of these rollbacks,” said Laura Tozer, a professor of environmental studies at the University of Toronto. While many other countries are racing ahead on climate issues, she said, in Canada and the United States, “fossil-fuel owners are using these times of turmoil to double down.”

Signs of progress

How to get beyond this impasse? One of the most effective messages came from Joannah Lawson, a principal of the Brian + Joannah Lawson Family Foundation, the platinum sponsor of Toronto Climate Week. A former business consultant, Lawson’s opening remarks offered clarity. Beneath an image of the earth hanging alone in space, she said, “The atmosphere is the only thing keeping us alive.” But now, she says, “we’re putting too much carbon into the atmosphere.”

In response to this crisis, Lawson offered four reasons why she remains hopeful:

1) Climate change is caused by humans, which means humans can also fix it.

2) The transition to clean energy is well underway. (In fact, she said, renewables production has tripled in the last 20 years.)

3) Regenerative agriculture, or holistic farming that focuses on soil health, is a powerful lever to reverse climate change by capturing carbon from the atmosphere.

4) Canada has huge nature resources to preserve – and we’re doing it! Last month, for instance, the Carney government released Canada’s first national strategy for protecting nature, which came with $3.8 billion for conservation and protection.

Transforming climate change from existential crisis to solvable problem could be key to creating consensus and investing in the future. With Canada falling behind, Fox Carney noted, “We must stop arguing amongst ourselves.” The current struggle, she said, “will shape the economic prospects of our country for years to come.”

The post At Toronto Climate Week, experts call out Canada’s climate complacency appeared first on Corporate Knights.

That’s a real disappointment, to say the least. Industrial carbon pricing is Canada’s most consequential climate policy for cutting emissions and keeping costs low, but it needs serious reform. And while the memorandum makes slight improvements to the existing system in Alberta, the deal misses the mark by a long shot when it comes to living up to the policy’s potential, and it will have knock-on effects across the country as the changes are applied in other provinces. For the moment, it puts Canada off path in terms of reaching net-zero carbon emissions by 2050.

We’ll be talking about changes to electricity and industrial carbon-pricing policy for many months to come. But there’s another moment upcoming that deserves some greater public and media scrutiny: the imminent release of the federal government’s new vehicle emissions standards, the outline of which was announced by the prime minister back in February.

RELATED STORIES

Canada needs fast action on its new climate competitiveness strategy

For Canadians, decarbonization is a patriotic act

Think concern for climate change is passé? Think again.

At that event, Mark Carney made a clear commitment to achieve “the equivalent emissions reductions of a 75% electric vehicle adoption rate” by 2035. Our team at the Canadian Climate Institute will be watching closely to ensure that the details of the policy package give us the tools to reach this outcome.

Some analysts have already concluded that the policy will fall short.

The Pembina Institute, for instance, has modelled the government’s vehicle emissions limit for 2035 – measured in grams of carbon dioxide equivalent per mile – and found that it is not strong enough to achieve the 75% EV sales target. Clean Energy Canada has outlined a number of additional design features that will be critical for the new standard to meet in order to achieve the government’s goals. That includes questions around speed of implementation, applying a single standard across all vehicle sizes, and limiting compliance flexibilities that can undermine the policy’s integrity and reduce its emissions impact.

This is an important test for the Carney government, and not just because transportation decarbonization is critically important. This is really the first new climate policy the Carney government has announced. Every other policy it inherited from the previous Trudeau government and has either eliminated (like the consumer carbon tax) or retained in a changed form (like industrial carbon pricing and methane regulation). The new approach to passenger vehicles is a new goal clearly outlined by the prime minister himself. For the sake of its credibility generally, it behooves the government to ensure there’s a tight relationship between its expressed goal and policy detail sufficiently ambitious to get there.

This is not just a matter of reducing emissions. It’s also about ensuring that Canada keeps pace with the rest of the world and is positioned properly to succeed economically in this new age dominated by electric technologies.

Last year, nearly 100 countries broke EV sales records, according to the latest from the International Energy Agency. Globally, one in every four cars sold on the market was electric in 2025.

In China – the largest auto market in the world and the main destination of Alberta crude exports through British Columbia – nearly 55% of new cars were electric in 2025. This past April, that number reached upwards of 60%. That level of uptake is driven by superior technology and cost: 70% of battery electric cars sold in China last year were cheaper than the average conventional car.

All of this is affecting global demand for oil. In 2025, EVs displaced between 1.7 million to 2.3 million barrels of oil per day. That could more than double by 2030 to 5.3 million barrels per day, according to BloombergNEF.

These are massive disruptions to global energy markets led by rapid technology changes that are now unstoppable. They threaten to radically alter the future of the auto sector and oil production in Canada. Simply put, Canadians can’t afford to be left behind.

Rick Smith is president of the Canadian Climate Institute, the co-author of two bestselling books on the effects of pollution on human health, and the executive producer of Plastic People, a 2024 documentary chronicling the damage done by microplastics in the human body.

The post Canada’s next big climate policy moment: new federal vehicle regulations appeared first on Corporate Knights.

But now, five years later, a family of Wyoming oil tycoons is bringing the Keystone concept back from the dead — and the Trump administration is signaling its support. Last week, President Trump signed a presidential permit for the so-called Bridger expansion pipeline, which would likely deliver oil from the carbon-intensive Alberta tar sands to a pipeline hub in central Wyoming, 647 miles away. From there, the oil could move through other pipelines to key refineries as far south as the Gulf of Mexico.

“Slightly different than the last administration,” Trump said ⁠at the White House last Thursday when he signed the presidential permit. “They wouldn’t sign a pipeline deal, and we have pipelines going up.”

The presidential permit gives the project the green light to transport oil across international borders, and it’s only the latest step in what appears to be a fast-tracked timeline for the revived tar sands pipeline. Last month, the federal Bureau of Land Management announced that it would begin conducting an environmental review of the project on an expedited schedule. (The Trump administration has shortened many of the environmental review processes required for pipeline construction.) Bridger Pipeline, the company behind the project, says it wants to begin construction next year and start moving oil in 2028.

The pipeline would carry at least 550,000 barrels of crude oil per day. That’s only about two-thirds of what Keystone XL would have carried, but it could expand to a peak capacity even larger than what was originally planned — more than 1 million barrels a day. The similarity between the new pipeline’s path and Keystone’s has led some opponents to call the successor “Keystone Light.” The Canadian portion of the new pipeline would be built by a company called South Bow, which was spun off from TC Energy, the company behind the original Keystone XL line.

The proposed pipeline would be one of the biggest new fossil fuel developments of Donald Trump’s second presidency. It comes at a time of growing oil production in Alberta and skyrocketing global crude prices due to the war the president is waging in Iran. The project is being pushed by the True family, a clan of oilmen with a long history of drilling in the Rockies — and a history of oil spills from pipelines across the region.

“We know that there is limited pipeline capacity to move Canadian crude oil, and we have extensive experience in the Rocky Mountains,” said Bill Salvin, a spokesperson for Bridger Pipeline, the True family pipeline company proposing the project.

The True business empire dates back to the 1940s, when a wildcatter named Henry Alphonso “Dave” True Jr. began exploring for oil in Wyoming. He and his three sons expanded their company into a network of almost a dozen corporations that includes a drilling company, a network of local oil pipelines, a trucking company, an oil trading company, an oil equipment company, a geothermal energy firm, and a real estate company called Brick & Bond, according to a Grist review of corporate records. They also invested in cattle ranching, becoming some of the state’s largest landowners. One of True’s sons, Diemer True, served for two decades in the Wyoming legislature.

This corporate expansion has given the four-generation True family outsize influence in a state that doesn’t produce much oil but neighbors the massive Bakken shale formation of North Dakota, which is served by some of the True family pipelines. The family name is synonymous with oil in Wyoming, and True family members have become prominent donors to the University of Wyoming and to a conservative legal foundation in the region. The Trues have also run afoul of the federal government: Several members of the family engaged in a 10-year dispute with the Internal Revenue Service over what the government said was a strategy to evade some taxes by shuttling ranchland purchases between different companies. (The case ended in a multimillion-dollar fine against the Trues, which was upheld by an appellate court in 2004.)

“They’re very prominent, and their business interests have spread all around the West,” said Phil Roberts, an emeritus professor of history at the University of Wyoming and an expert on the state’s oil industry. He noted that families like the Trues have shifted away from oil production as the state’s fields have declined, investing in pipelines and oilfield services to maintain their revenue.

“Those fields have gotten really worn out, so they’ve had to diversify,” said Roberts.

Tad True, the grandson of the True who first struck oil in Wyoming, has led the family’s pipeline business for most of this century, expanding its network to more than 4,000 miles across Wyoming, Montana, and North Dakota. He argued as early as 2006 that more pipeline development was needed in order for regional oil producers to remain competitive, and in a 2012 testimony before the House of Representatives he said that the Obama administration’s regulations were blocking the pipelines needed for the fracking boom that was then in full swing. True spoke at the Republican National Convention the same year, accusing Obama of “playing politics” with the Keystone XL pipeline, which the then-president had rejected the previous year. (While the pipeline was primarily intended to carry Canadian shale oil to American markets, it would also have included an “on ramp” for crude from True’s part of the country.)

True’s company, Bridger Pipeline, has a history of oil spills. In 2015, one of the pipelines it operated ruptured underneath the Yellowstone River after fast-moving waters eroded sediment and rock from the riverbed. At least 30,000 gallons of crude oil streamed into the river, contaminating the water supplies of Glendive, Montana. The town had to truck in bottles of drinking water after some residents noticed an odor in their tap water. Then, just a year later, another pipeline operated by one of the company’s subsidiaries leaked 600,000 gallons into a stream in North Dakota — almost enough oil to fill an Olympic-sized pool. Another pipeline broke several years later, dumping 45,000 gallons of oil onto ranchland in Wyoming. The company ultimately paid $1 million in fines to the Montana Department of Environmental Quality for the 2015 spill and $12.5 million for the 2016 spill.

In total, there have been at least 42 spills as a result of pipeline operations by True subsidiaries since 2010. According to data collected by the federal Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, more than a third of those spills had detrimental effects on the environment or people. The data shows that the Bridger Pipeline company alone is responsible for seven of those spills in just the last three years. The most recent spill took place in March near Guernsey, Wyoming.

“That definitely sets off some alarm bells,” said Kenneth Clarkson, communications director with the nonprofit Pipeline Safety Trust. “It’s not acceptable to have one incident, and when we have this quantity, it’s definitely troubling.”

If the expanded Bridger pipeline ultimately carries tar sands oil from Canada, as appears likely, the environmental consequences of a spill could be dire. Given the thick, viscous nature of tar sands, operators mix a type of thinner — called a “diluent” in technical parlance — to help it flow through pipelines. In the event of a rupture, the diluent can easily evaporate, leaving behind a heavy, tar-like substance that sinks to the bottom of rivers and other waterways. That particular property of tar sands made cleanup of the Kalamazoo River particularly complicated after a different company’s pipeline burst in southwestern Michigan in 2010.

“We regret any spill from our pipelines,” said Salvin, the Bridger spokesperson. “Anytime oil gets out of the line, that’s unacceptable to us, so we do everything possible to keep the oil in the line.” He said that Bridger will employ “horizontal drilling” to tunnel under rivers and streams, which he said would reduce the risk of ruptures. Salvin did not say what type of oil the pipeline would carry, but confirmed it would be engineered for “mostly heavy crude” from Alberta; the Canadian portion of the pipeline will begin in the town of Hardisty, in the heart of Alberta’s oil sands.

He also said the company would use advanced technology to monitor for leaks. In the aftermath of the 2015 spill, when North Dakota’s then-governor Doug Burgum challenged Tad True to prevent leaks, True created an artificial-intelligence software called Flowstate that analyzes pipelines for potential ruptures. Salvin said the company now uses the software on all its pipelines and markets it to other operators as well.

Even though the new proposed pipeline is similar to Keystone XL in length and size, it will only cost $2 billion, far less than Keystone’s $8 billion price tag. That’s because its route will largely follow existing infrastructure and rights-of-way established by True Companies pipelines. Salvin said that the company has held a dozen landowner meetings and has secured surveying easements, or allowances to scout the land for construction, from 374 of the 376 private landowners along the pipeline route. Unlike Keystone XL, the route does not cross any federally recognized tribal lands.

“We’re very familiar with what happened with the previous project,” said Salvin. “Given that we have existing pipeline corridors that we have access to, that’s one of the reasons why this makes such commercial sense to us.” Salvin declined to offer details about the financing of the project, and such details are not publicly available because Bridger is a privately held company.

The project must still secure a number of state and local permits, but so far it isn’t having any trouble with the Trump administration, which has been aggressive in supporting new oil and gas development. The line cuts through Montana and Wyoming, including public land overseen by the Bureau of Land Management, which is leading the federal government’s review of the project under the National Environmental Policy Act. Although the law typically requires the preparation of a detailed assessment of the project’s impact on wildlife and waterways, the bureau has suggested it might fast-track the pipeline’s review.

Past studies have found that it typically takes federal agencies more than two years to complete an environmental impact statement, but the Bureau has indicated in public filings that it intends to publish a final impact statement by next May and make a decision on the project, allowing the company to begin construction by July.

Though True family members do not appear to be particularly close allies of Trump himself, they have given more than $4 million to Republican candidates and political action committees since 1977, according to federal records. A combined $12,000 went to Trump’s unsuccessful reelection campaign in 2020, the only apparent record of True financial support for the president. Furthermore, six members of the True family appeared on a 2022 endorsement list for Liz Cheney, the Wyoming politician who lost her reelection bid after she voted to impeach Trump.

The business case for the new pipeline rests on a number of big assumptions. The existing pipelines from the tar sands are running near capacity, but the Bridger proposal assumes that production in Canada’s oil hub will continue to increase. Many forecasters aren’t so sure; even with prices high, current projections show that production growth is slowing and may peak in 2030 at around 3.5 million barrels a day, well under what the proponents of Keystone XL anticipated.

Second, the pipeline would only carry oil to central Wyoming, not all the way to the Nebraska refinery hub targeted by the original Keystone XL pipeline. Another company would need to build another pipeline across Nebraska in order for the crude to reach the major oil refineries on the Gulf Coast. (Salvin said Bridger is “exploring options” for that segment.) Third, it’s unclear if those refiners will even want as much of the heavy Canadian crude oil that the pipeline would offer, since imports of similar oil from Venezuela have started to tick up following Trump’s kidnapping of Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro and subsequent negotiations with the country’s new leadership.

“To call this plan half-baked would be an insult to baking,” wrote energy lawyer and anti-pipeline advocate Paul Blackburn in a blog post last month. Blackburn is an advisor to Bold Alliance, the activist network that opposed the last Keystone XL proposal.

Many of the same activist groups that opposed the prior pipeline are getting ready to oppose this one as well. The Bold Alliance, which organized tribes and rural landowners against Keystone, has said it will litigate any attempt to extend a pipeline into Nebraska. Jenny Harbine, a managing attorney with the nonprofit Earthjustice, said her group is “keeping a close eye” to ensure federal and state agencies adequately consider environmental and safety concerns. The Bureau of Land Management and the Montana Department of Environmental Quality, which is coordinating its review with that of the federal government, closed an initial public comment period last week.

This article originally appeared in Grist. Grist is a nonprofit, independent media organization dedicated to telling stories of climate solutions and a just future. Learn more at Grist.org

The post A family of Wyoming oil tycoons is trying to revive Keystone appeared first on Corporate Knights.

“For the first time in our history, every Canadian will hold a direct stake in what’s built,” he said April 27 in launching the fund, which will be known as the Canada Strong Fund. “We will make it easy for individual Canadians to invest in the fund and therefore own a small piece of nation-building projects and share in their returns.”

The idea of a sovereign wealth fund to invest public funds for the public interest is not new, even in Canada. The Heritage Savings Trust Fund operates on this basis in Alberta. The Caisse de dépôt – a public pension fund manager – operates with an economic development mandate in Quebec. Around the world, many governments have established national wealth funds, sometimes investing enormous surplus revenues from their oil and gas assets.

The distinguishing feature of the new Canadian fund is its individual investment mandate. The government is promising to create a retail product to support the fund, which it says will be widely available to average investors.

Green investors beware

On paper, the product sounds like it could be a hit, harkening back to the Canada Savings Bonds that were enormously popular with individual Canadians in the 1960s and 1970s as a way of earning decent returns while supporting the national interest.

The government said projects will be selected from the government’s Major Projects Office and other national-interest projects. The list will likely include port expansions, electric grid improvements, clean-energy facilities and public transit projects, which will have broad support. But the list could also include a whole host of controversial fossil fuel ventures, including liquefied natural gas terminals, pipelines and carbon capture projects, limiting the fund’s appeal.

RELATED STORIES

Can Ottawa convince Canada’s pension giants to invest at home?

A clash over natural gas is brewing as Canada readies more action on green investing

Canada’s biggest sustainable forest label has a clear-cutting problem 

Tim Nash, president of Good Investing, a consulting firm that works with individual investors to create sustainable investment plans, says there won’t be much demand for the fund from green investors, who will be put off by its fossil fuel investments. But it could be very popular among investors who are concerned about Canada’s independence and want to support the country’s long-term development and economic security.

“The exciting thing for me is that Mark Carney talked explicitly about a retail offering, which to me is phenomenal,” Nash says. “I think this is targeted at a wider swath of Canadians who are really interested in Canadian sovereignty.”

A door to more?

According to the government’s spring economic statement, the product will be easy to purchase, hold and transact, and will provide investors with protection for their initial capital. The fund will be an independent Crown corporation, professionally managed and operating on an arm’s-length basis from the federal government, investing in national projects on a fully commercial basis.

This is good politics, this is good economics. Across the board, we need a retail offering. I think there’s going to be a lot of energy around this.

– Tim Nash, president, Good Investing

Initial seed capital for the fund will come from a three-year, $25-billion commitment from the federal government. Carney said he expects the fund to grow over time as investments are sold and capital is reinvested.

Nash says he hopes the fund will inspire other retail investment products with government support. An investment product based on the Canada Growth Fund – similar to the Canada Strong Fund but with a clearer cleantech focus – would be very attractive to green and conventional investors, he says. Similarly, he says a Canada green bond widely available to individual investors would have strong demand.

Many questions remain

The background materials provided by the government are light on details, and a consultation is now proposed to iron out the many remaining questions. It’s not clear how the investment product will be structured, or whether it will be available through bank branches, financial advisers or directly from the government. It’s also not known how the principal investment guarantee will work or how much access investors will have to their funds given the long-term nature of the underlying investments.

Nash also says a top question is whether the fund will be eligible for tax-advantaged accounts, such as registered retirement savings plans. He calls this an absolute necessity to avoid the modest returns from the fund being depleted by income taxes.

If the government can get the basics right, however, Nash says, it could be very popular and replicated across other government programs to help bolster private investment. He says investment offerings in public programs could help to create popular support for them by giving people a direct stake in their success.

“This is good politics, this is good economics,” he says. “Across the board, we need a retail offering. I think there’s going to be a lot of energy around this.”

Eugene Ellmen writes on sustainable business and finance. He is a former executive director of the Canadian Social Investment Organization (now the Responsible Investment Association).

The post Mark Carney’s ‘people’s fund’ puts small investors on the front lines of economic defence appeared first on Corporate Knights.

But in the small Bavarian town of Geretsried, near Munich, a new geothermal plant is quietly signalling a paradigm shift for the industry, as recent technological advances have opened up new territories, enabling the production of clean, baseload power.

Calgary-based Eavor Technologies, a pioneer in what’s being called “next-generation” or “advanced” geothermal, is part of a small pool of start-ups that is borrowing technical expertise gleaned from the oil and gas industry to drill for heat far below the earth’s surface and send it back up as a source of low-carbon energy.

“It has one of the smallest footprints for power generation of any technology,” says Steve Grasby, president of Geothermal Canada, a non-profit that supports research and development of geothermal projects. “It’s also highly reliable; the power is always there. And it’s easy to ramp up and down as needed, unlike nuclear, which needs to run all the time.”

Eavor’s latest milestone was achieved on December 4, 2025, when it became the first geothermal company to deliver electricity to a commercial power grid at its Geretsried facility, demonstrating that its “closed loop” system is capable of supplying emission-free power at scale. For this project representing the culmination of a decade’s worth of research and development, Eavor bored sealed pipes nearly 4.5 kilometres into the earth, connecting more than 300 kilometres of boreholes underground. Now completed, the eight-megawatt electric and 64-megawatt thermal project produces enough electricity for 8,000 homes and enough heat for 120,000 homes. Another Eavor project is in the works in the Netherlands.

If geothermal is ever going to scale, it has to be a repeatable process you can do over and over. We think we’ve got the best way to do that.

– John Redfern, CEO, Eavor Technologies

The U.S. Air Force has also shown interest in advanced geothermal energy supply. In 2023, the Air Force began planning for two prototype-level geothermal projects at Mountain Home Air Force Base in Idaho and Joint Base San Antonio in Texas, awarding the Texas base project to Eavor.

Eavor believes its technology has the potential to generate power almost anywhere, and the firm has attracted hundreds of millions of dollars in venture capital with the promise of truly ubiquitous, dispatchable renewable energy. The venture capital arms of BP and Chevron have invested some US$40 million in Eavor, and, through the Canada Growth Fund, the federal government has funnelled $90 million to the company. Eavor has used investors’ capital on research and development to continue to scale up the number and size of its projects and trim costs.

Eavor is not the only player in the hydrothermal sector that is exploring new ways to dig for heat. Texas is a hub of innovation in next-generation geothermal power. Prominent start-ups, such as Sage and Fervo Energy, are based in Houston, which shouldn’t be surprising given that energy demand is surging in Texas, where Meta, OpenAI and Microsoft are building huge data centres.

In general, geothermal is becoming a growth sector as new drilling capabilities and other advances now enable projects to be developed across a much wider range of geologic settings than ever before.

What is geothermal energy and how does it work?

For more than a century, people have been using steam generated by deep underground water reservoirs that are heated by the earth’s mantle to power generators. Iceland and New Zealand get about 20% of their electricity from geothermal thanks to their volcanic landscapes, which host shallow, highly permeable underground heat reservoirs. Only a few sites on the planet, however, contain the geological conditions to support a geothermal system at scale, and geothermal contributes only a very small share of the world’s overall supply – approximately 16 gigawatts, representing less than 1% of total capacity installed worldwide. (The only commercial geothermal power plant in Canada is in Alberta, the Swan Hills Geothermal Power Project.) By comparison, wind and solar together supplied 17.6% of global electricity in the first three quarters of 2025, pushing the total share of low-carbon energy sources to 43%.

With the rise of next-generation technologies, geothermal could significantly raise its contribution to the world’s supply of renewable power. Key to both “enhanced” geothermal and “advanced” geothermal systems is that neither requires natural underground reservoirs. All that is required is the heat of the earth, which is available nearly everywhere.

Enhanced geothermal uses the fracking techniques of the oil and gas sector to drill into hot rock and create permeability.

Eavor’s advanced geothermal system forgoes fracking in favour of a closed-loop system. Started by veterans of the oil sector, Eavor has designed a kind of underground radiator where fluid is circulated through a closed loop of vertical pipes that connect a network of horizontal pipes deep within the earth. Absorbing heat from the rock, the temperature of the working fluid rises and is then pumped up to ground level to generate heat and power.

“If geothermal is ever going to scale,” Eavor’s chief executive, John Redfern, told The New York Times in 2023, “it has to be a repeatable process you can do over and over. We think we’ve got the best way to do that.”

Low risk, high rewards

Besides the scarcity of suitable locations, geothermal has long been hampered by its high capital costs, the bulk of which are spent on drilling, which can eat as much as half the cost of a project.

Still, as greater efficiencies are realized, costs are coming down – by an impressive 22% from 2021 to 2022 alone. Some systems are even cost-competitive with gas plants and cheaper than coal. Moreover, once built, geothermal is much cheaper to operate than other dispatchable sources like coal, gas and nuclear.

While some experts believe it possible to create geothermal energy almost anywhere, Grasby does offer a caveat. “You can’t really do this just anywhere. In some places, you may have to drill much deeper to get to the heat you need. Rocks vary in thermal connectivity; some rocks have high connectivity and others are low in connectivity. You need a certain temperature to make the system work.”

In Canada, as well, permitting and regulatory regimes have yet to catch up to the latest developments in the geothermal world. According to Grasby, only three provinces currently regulate geothermal energy production: Alberta, British Columbia and Nova Scotia.

Updates to regulatory frameworks may yet emerge should the momentum behind geothermal continue, especially given that hydrothermal offers round-the-clock, on-demand power, unlike wind and solar.

New analysis from the International Energy Agency forecasts next-generation geothermal as representing up to 800 gigawatts of clean electricity capacity by 2050 – roughly 50 times the world’s current geothermal capacity of around 16 gigawatts.

Analysts at Ember, a U.K.-based energy think tank, anticipate that geothermal will quickly accelerate, reporting that by 2030, nearly 1.5 gigawatts of new capacity is expected to come online each year globally, three times the level added in 2024. By 2050, geothermal could meet up to 15% of the growth in the world’s demand for clean power.

As a net-zero economy looks increasingly precarious, the latest geothermal breakthroughs offer a solution to the supply of firm, low-emission energy thanks in large part to the tools and expertise that originated in the oil field.

Victoria Foote is a writer and editor who specializes in clean energy and climate.

The post A breakthrough geothermal project in Bavaria  appeared first on Corporate Knights.

Green hydrogen skeptics correctly observe that the sector has shifted, but they misread what that shift represents. Green hydrogen is moving from early-stage hype to disciplined execution, as capital markets and policymakers concentrate on projects with bankable fundamentals and credible buyers. That winnowing process is not evidence of collapse; it is how clean-energy sectors mature.

Pointing to the cancellation or redesign of a single wind-to-hydrogen project as proof the sector was a fad misses how large infrastructure markets evolve. Projects routinely shift as financing conditions, regulation and demand signals mature, while other proponents continue advancing through permitting, engineering and offtake negotiations. It also overlooks the policy architecture Canada and its trading partners have built to integrate renewable hydrogen into industrial decarbonization, heavy transport and export value chains.

As the sector moves from headlines to creditworthy grid-integrated projects, simplistic narratives risk misleading communities and investors.

Momentum across Canada

Across Atlantic Canada, green hydrogen projects are progressing in a more measured, credible way than early hype suggested. These initiatives are grounded in strong wind resources, proximity to export markets, and provincial strategies that explicitly tie hydrogen to industrial decarbonization and rural economic development.​

Nova Scotia’s Department of Environment and Climate Change has already approved two large‑scale green hydrogen and ammonia projects along the Strait of Canso, designed to use onshore wind power for exports to Europe.​ EverWind and Membertou are also advancing Nova Scotia’s largest wind buildout (more than 650 megawatts) and a multibillion‑dollar export complex, supported by Germany’s interest in Atlantic Canadian green ammonia. These developments signal that serious international buyers still see this region as strategically important.​

Newfoundland and Labrador has selected multiple proponents – including EverWind, Abraxas Power, Toqlukuti’k Wind and Hydrogen, and North Atlantic Refining Limited (NARL) – for multi‑phase green hydrogen and ammonia export projects, underpinned by a dedicated Hydrogen Development Action Plan that positions the province as a “clean energy centre of excellence.”​

Most recently, EverWind secured a major strategic investment of $240 million to advance its Nova Scotia wind portfolio and green fuels platform, reinforcing that capital is still flowing to credible Atlantic Canadian projects.

Quebec alone has mobilized nearly $10 billion in public and private investment over the coming decade, with major projects including TES Canada’s multibillion-dollar green hydrogen facility, Air Liquide’s 20-megawatt PEM (proton exchange membrane) electrolyzer in Bécancour, StormFisher’s Varennes e-methanol plant, and Enbridge’s 20-megawatt Gatineau project injecting hydrogen into the gas grid. The province’s hydrogen road map and “Vallée de la transition énergétique” are anchoring multiple industrial deployments in existing clean-power assets.

Elsewhere, Ontario’s Niagara Hydrogen Centre (Atura Power) will link a 20-megawatt electrolyzer to the Sir Adam Beck hydro station, while federally supported projects – such as Air Products’ net-zero hydrogen energy complex in Edmonton and AVL Fuel Cell Canada’s research and development facility in Burnaby – underscore that hydrogen development is advancing across multiple provinces under coordinated strategies.

International market signals

Globally, the sector’s trajectory is clear: low-carbon hydrogen production is up roughly 60% since 2021, installed electrolyzer capacity has grown ninefold, and investment in electrolyzers and carbon capture has expanded from about $500 million in 2021 to nearly $8 billion in 2025.

At the same time, the European Hydrogen Bank is translating policy into real demand: its first auction awarded roughly €720 million in production-linked support to projects in Spain, Portugal, Finland and Norway, while its second round was four times oversubscribed – 61 bids seeking €4.8 billion against a €1.2 billion budget – supporting plans for 6.3 gigawatts of electrolyzers and 7.3 million tonnes of renewable hydrogen over 10 years.

Moreover, in January 2026, the European Commission approved €200 million in German state aid for Canadian-produced renewable hydrogen exports to the EU: a clear demand signal for Canadian green hydrogen.

Together, these successes make clear that global hydrogen markets are not retreating; they are institutionalizing long-term demand through scaled capital deployment and binding policy frameworks, creating tangible export opportunities for credible Canadian projects.

What serious hydrogen development looks like

Yes, interest in green hydrogen has cooled since the early-2020s hype, and some capital has pulled back. But policy frameworks, climate mandates and declining technology costs continue to underpin long-term demand growth toward 2030 and beyond. To be clear: Canada’s approach is built on that multi-decade horizon – not a short boom cycle.

Green hydrogen will not succeed everywhere, nor should it. Project cancellations are a sign of market discipline, not collapse. What’s actually happening in the green hydrogen sector is a shift from hype-driven, “anywhere, at any cost” projects toward fewer, better-sited hubs that align cheap renewables, strong grids and real customers. Countries that move early in this more disciplined phase will shape future clean-energy trade. Canada has the assets to compete – if it stays the course.

David Billedeau is president and CEO of the Canadian Hydrogen Association. Derek Estabrook is executive director of the Atlantic Hydrogen Alliance. Michèle Landry is directrice générale of Hydrogène Québec.

The post Market discipline, not market failure, is shaping Canada’s green hydrogen sector appeared first on Corporate Knights.

I’ve never bought a Canadian flag before. But I surprised myself when the daily Trump “51st state” insults ignited a desire in me to fly our country’s colours. Given how long the flag and flagpole I wanted were out of stock at Canadian Tire, it seems that many other Canadians felt the same.

This month’s avalanche of “year in review” articles on the Trump presidency (one down, three to go!) was a reminder of just how unprecedented this past year has been. And judging by the reaction to the prime minister’s speech in Davos, much of the Western world has had similar feelings.

Twelve months ago, would any of us have guessed that the very existence of our country would be regularly belittled by our alleged closest ally – our national sovereignty threatened by a late-night social media post? Or that some of our key industries, like steel and cars, would be fighting for their survival because of crushing Trump-imposed tariffs, or that European countries – NATO members – would be moving troops to Greenland in a not-so-subtle attempt to dissuade a U.S. invasion, with Canada under pressure to join too?

In 2026, there is every indication that Trump’s unhinged behaviour will get worse, not better.

He’s already referring to the Canada-U.S.-Mexico free trade agreement (CUSMA) – the renegotiation of which kicks off this year – as “irrelevant” to the United States and has targeted the Canadian automobile industry for extinction. He seems deadly serious about undermining the independence of the U.S. Federal Reserve and using his politicized Department of Justice to silence any criticisms.

Nothing about this is “business as usual.” And it has prompted an unprecedented degree of anxiety: roughly three-quarters of Canadians now believe the United States poses an economic threat, and 53% say it poses a national security threat as well.

Climate change policy is caught right in the middle of all of this.

As he explained at length in a speech at the United Nations in September of last year, Trump believes that climate change is a “con job” and that renewable energy, such as wind and solar, is a “scam” that should be eliminated. Instead, he is focused on dramatically expanding oil and gas production and recently demonstrated he is even prepared to forcibly depose foreign leaders to achieve this.

2025 was defined by uncertainty on climate policy in Canada that needs quick resolution

Meanwhile, in the rest of the world, decarbonization is accelerating, not slowing down. We’ve seen it with electric vehicles, with renewable power, with global investment in clean technologies and with carbon border tariffs, to name just a few. And these trends are accelerating in the countries Canada needs to diversify its trade and strengthen its economic prospects.

Bottom line: things powered with fossil fuels are the technologies of the past. (And I mean this literally: sales of gasoline-powered cars peaked globally in 2018.) Things powered by electricity are the technologies of the future. Those countries that produce the building blocks of a decarbonized economy – including critical minerals, batteries, clean electricity, and electrical machines like heat pumps and EVs – will prosper. Those that don’t will be left behind.

The challenge for Canada is to escape the evil tractor beam of Trump’s bad ideas. To set a course of our own for the benefit of all Canadians.

Doing everything we can to decarbonize Canada isn’t just something we’re doing to reduce emissions. It’s a contribution to a better future for our country.

Yes, we need to deal with the clear threats posed by Trump in the short term, but at the same time we need to lay track for a decarbonized economy that is rapidly gaining momentum.

Decarbonization is an act of patriotism.

In amongst the recent “Trump year in review” media this month was a healthy dose of polling. Trump’s popularity is down. Way down. It turns out a U.S. electorate that supported him in hopes that he’d make their lives more affordable isn’t warming to his quixotic and destabilizing foreign policy interventions.

I don’t know exactly when, but sometime in the next few years – at this rate, starting with November’s U.S. midterm elections – the forces of MAGA are going to start losing. At that point, the damage from climate change will be more evident than ever, and the economic gravity of cheaper solar, batteries and EVs will be impossible to resist. Climate action will ramp up even stronger than before.

Canada needs strong climate policy to be competitive in countries beyond the U.S.

Our goal has to be to ensure that we have leapfrogged the United States by then to ensure that our economy is positioned to prosper.

We see the first inklings of what’s possible in this regard with recent news that the Trump administration’s unlawful quashing of New England offshore wind projects is increasing investment interest in Canadian projects. And the recent deal with China on EV tariffs is being positioned by our federal government as the first move in a strategy for Canada to build North American leadership in electric vehicles: smart.

In 2026, arguments for climate progress need to keep these global dynamics front and centre. The transition to a cleaner economy isn’t just the answer to the atmosphere’s chemical challenges, but to Canada’s economic ones as well.

In short, decarbonization should come wrapped in a Canadian flag.

Rick Smith is president of the Canadian Climate Institute, the co-author of two bestselling books on the effects of pollution on human health, and the executive producer of Plastic People, a 2024 documentary chronicling the damage done by microplastics in the human body.

The post For Canadians, decarbonization is a patriotic act appeared first on Corporate Knights.

The four plaintiffs allege that the CPPIB has breached its duties by mismanaging climate-related financial risks. Their case argues that the pension manager is dramatically underestimating its exposure to the financial risks of a warming planet. In its 2025 annual report, the investment board estimates only a 4% loss in a “hot-house world” scenario where temperatures rise by 3°C. But scientists warn that such a trajectory would bring devastating impacts to global economies, financial systems and human livelihoods. No portfolio could withstand the impacts of that much warming. Yet CPPIB has continued to commit billions to the cause of the crisis: fossil fuel expansion.

“Our case is alleging that CPP Investments is mismanaging our pension fund by failing to adequately respond to climate change,” explains Rav Singh, one of the young applicants. “CPP is supposed to be one of our most reliable sources of retirement income. We should all be concerned that our CPP benefits may not be as dependable as we’d like to think.”

This case is among the first of its kind, where beneficiaries are asking the courts to hold their pension manager accountable for mismanaging climate risks. The applicants are not seeking money; they are asking the court to direct CPPIB to identify, assess and manage climate risks appropriately and transparently, in line with its mandate to invest without “undue risk of loss” and act in the best interests of contributors and beneficiaries.

CPPIB has acknowledged that climate change is “an existential threat . . . the single biggest investment risk that we face.” In March 2025, CPPIB published an interview with climate scientist Johan Rockström, who warned, “We cannot continue allowing ourselves to destroy the stability of the climate system, and quite frankly the stability of the planet, by subsidizing unsustainable investments.”

Despite recognizing the threat, CPPIB’s climate approach tells another story. Its risk modelling assumes CPP resilience at more than 3°C of warming. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 3°C of global warming could expose 3.25 billion people to lethal heat and humidity, decimate fresh water supplies and global food production, cause the extinction of plants and animals, lead to the collapse of marine ecosystems, and trigger catastrophic sea-level rise. It is imprudent to suggest that CPPIB can fulfill its mandate – or that Canadians can enjoy retirement security – under such catastrophic climate outcomes.

Meanwhile, last year CPPIB abandoned its net-zero commitment, reversing its 2022 statement that stewarding the portfolio to net-zero emissions was in “the best interests of the contributors and beneficiaries of the Canada Pension Plan.” The net-zero reversal was approved by a board on which nearly one-third of CPPIB directors held roles with fossil fuel companies, raising questions about potential conflicts of interest.

In the months following that reversal, CPPIB doubled down on fossil fuels: investing $4.1 billion in Sempra Infrastructure, which builds new gas pipelines and export terminals, and $1.4 billion in AlphaGen, owner of 23 fossil fuel power plants. These are not “transition” investments – they are bets on the continued expansion of fossil fuels.

When journalists asked CPPIB to explain how this climate litigation could be “an action against 22 million Canadians’ retirement security,” as articulated in its approach to climate risk, the fund didn’t respond. As applicant Aliya Hirji said, “I don’t want to be suing my pension. But I want to retire on a stable pension into a livable future. If taking CPP Investments to court is what’s needed to achieve that, so be it.”

The reality is that many of CPPIB’s peers are already showing what responsible, climate-aligned investing looks like. ABP, Europe’s largest pension fund, affirms that “Building good pensions together in a liveable world [is] our mission . . . A liveable world demands a sustainable economy.” La Caisse, which manages the Quebec Pension Plan, has exited coal and oil entirely and tied staff compensation to climate goals – actions it says have improved the fund’s financial position. And Ontario’s University Pension Plan directly links its fiduciary duty to climate responsibility, stating that “Climate change stands out among the significant material risks to our portfolio, demanding immediate action in line with our fiduciary responsibility.”

CPPIB is one of the world’s largest and most sophisticated investors. It has the tools, talent and resources to manage climate risk responsibly – but it must choose to actually do so. Protecting the CPP means protecting the climate that Canadians will retire into. Climate stability and pension sustainability are not opposing goals. They are inseparable.

Cheryl Randall is the campaign specialist and Patrick DeRochie is the senior manager for Shift Action for Pension Wealth and Planet Health, a charitable project that tracks the fossil fuel investments and climate policies of Canadian pension funds, and mobilizes beneficiaries to engage their pension managers on the climate crisis.

The post The Canada Pension Plan is undermining its own sustainability by investing in climate failure appeared first on Corporate Knights.