How weakened climate policies in the US are affecting Canada

Recently, successive US presidencies seem to be playing a tug of war with climate policy and yanking the consensus to extremes at the beginning of their terms. As Joe Biden vowed to rejoin the Paris Agreement on his first day in office after Donald Trump’s initial withdrawal, Trump signed an executive order on the first day of his second term to withdraw yet again.  

As leaders worldwide work to keep the global temperature increase below 1.5 °C, Trump’s aspirations for resource expansion actively oppose these efforts. Without America’s cooperation, other nations have to maximize their contributions to compensate for Trump’s declaration of a “national energy emergency.” 

Under Donald Trump’s presidency, most established policies on climate action have been dismantled, as new laws are passed to maximize resource extraction and fossil fuel productivity. America’s new direction is to achieve energy security by increasing domestic production and resource trade, while Trump campaigned to cut energy prices in half. However, the administration’s tariffs have made it expensive “to build power plants and transmission lines or to invest in advanced nuclear power without excessively taxing citizens,” according to E&E News. 

While America is ending cooperation on this issue, the pressure on Canada to take responsibility becomes a question of the country’s commitment to continue contributing internationally. “I think the biggest concern is losing U.S. financial support for climate action in the developing world. Without it, other nations may follow suit,” says Dr. Simon Donner. 

Before Trump’s inauguration, one notable bill Biden passed was the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA). It introduced subsidies and tax credits to support renewable energy development, promoting the transition to clean energy technology and electric vehicles. Additionally, the government charged companies for methane emissions, froze liquified natural gas (LNG) exports, began the transition to EVs, and mandated industries to incorporate greenhouse gas (GHG) emission standards in vehicle designs. 

All of that has been repealed and reversed in Trump’s rule. According to Queen’s Law Cherie Metcalf, liquified natural gas (LNG) exports have advanced, and oil and gas are aimed to be expanded on federal land (like on the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska) with the goal to halve the price of fossil fuels.   

With that objective, Trump pledged to repeal the IRA under the slogan “drill, baby, drill”, without further intention to develop renewables. To enable fossil fuel expansion, Trump is using his authority to limit wildlife protection and environmental requirements, the latter of which indirectly makes these lands more easily accessible to mining. According to ScienceDirect, “the mitigation efforts of mining impacts, whether through environmental protections or restorative measures, can be costly and time-consuming,” so eliminating protections could shorten the process.  

In a case that challenges the Clean Water Act, the supreme court ruled that the EPA must update its rules to “remove protections from more than half the nation’s wetlands” to oblige to the new federal standard, a deregulation forced upon the agency. According to the EPA’s updated Protection of Wetlands, Trump orders agencies “to minimize the destruction, loss or degradation of wetlands” but exempts these private parties from complying when federal agencies issues permits, licenses, or allocations to them for “activities involving wetlands on non-Federal property.” This allows individuals to perform activities such as construction and extraction on non-federal lands through negotiation with the EPA, exposing these protected areas. 

Even then, we see the government leasing federal land to industries for extraction, so individuals are granted more freedom to access restricted areas. For historical context, “under the Trump administration (2017–2020), oil and gas leasing ranged from 1.1 million acres to 2.2 million acres per year, compared to a range of 75,000 to 249,000 acres under the Biden administration (2021–2023),” according to Resources for the Future. With the goal of resource development, it’s predicted that Trump is currently leasing as much land as his previous term.    

Among policy rollbacks, carbon pricing programs remain in 14 states to govern CO2 reductions from the power sector, and are reported to have worked successfully. However, this program misses most industrial hotspots since these states account for less than 50% of America’s gross domestic product. Although it seems this program holds one major emitter, California, accountable, it unnecessarily taxes Washington and overlooks other major polluters such as Texas, Florida and so on (data from the World Resource Institute).  

Trump argues that regulations for clean energy improvements, from appliances to carbon capture technology, don’t justify the cost, so standards and funding were removed for these projects and the associated engineers, investors and companies alike. While the focus on resource extraction aligns with many Republican values of “making America strong again,” Trump anchors laws to prioritize private sector production rather than citizens. After all, comparing the significantly larger energy demands of industries to those of citizens reveals that increasing fuel availability is intended to be convenient for industries. 

“Trump’s policies create regulatory and funding uncertainty, which hurts business,” says Dr. Holly Caggiano on UBC news. This strains the production of clean technology and the reduction effort because renewables only cut emissions by completely replacing fossil-fuel power. 

Climate expert Dr. Simon Donner at the University of British Columbia says that Trump’s actions could lead to fewer electric vehicles. “If Trump repeals Biden’s fuel efficiency standards and EV incentives, automakers (in both countries) may slow their EV plans. Canada would then struggle to meet its targets. But uncertainty remains—automakers don’t want to abandon their existing EV investments,” he says.   

Clean Canada, a series of past initiatives – completed or ongoing, complied by the government, outlines the climate change actions Canada has taken since 2016, from installing charging stations to international waste management solutions. Additionally, we’ve invested billions of dollars to encourage corporations to push innovation and provide individuals with home development opportunities, such as rebates. Canada is also trying to become more inclusive of minority groups, by reaching out to Indigenous communities to incorporate native businesses into the energy industry and facilitating the transition to solar and biomass in off-grid diesel dependent communities. In innovation, we see Nova Scotia based Carbon-Cure plugging carbon into concrete and Quebec harvesting an oilseed crop as biofuel. 

Socioeconomically, clean-technology industries contributed $28.4 billion to Canada’s GDP, and employed over 183,000 Canadians.“The global clean-growth market represents a multi-trillion-dollar opportunity for the companies and countries that choose to lead it,” says Clean Canada. 

Simultaneously submitted to the Paris agreement on February 11, 2025, was Canada’s newest commitments which work toward the goal of reducing GHG emissions by 45–50% below 2005 levels by 2035.  

Since the previous NDC, however, there’s a significant decline in new progress updates and repeats of previous targets or emphasis on completed goals. Perhaps the country is building upon existing polices and is making gradual progress, but some experts are suspicious of how committed we are to the proposal. According to CANRac’s assessment of the NDC, Canada’s funding is falling short, Indigenous guidance is being overlooked in the creation of climate policies, and the plan “fails to explain how Canada is going to protect key carbon sinks (forests, oceans) in the face of encroaching resource extraction” and “does not include specific targets for individual sectors of the economy, like transportation, oil and gas, agriculture, or buildings.” 

However, some changes are bound to occur by nature of trade with the US. 85% of Canada’s oil production was exported to the U.S in 2024, and that percentage has dropped since in response to the tariffs. Cutting America’s supply creates a demand for fuel and reduces America’s production, all while resisting the tariff. Consequently, this decline sent the Canadian economy into crisis, and now CEOs of Canada’s biggest fuel companies are demanding caps on emissions be removed and to cancel the restrictions on oil tankers and the carbon tax. The plan to salvage the economy depends on Mark Carney to holds his word “to make Canada “the world’s leading energy superpower” by investing in conventional energy.” Otherwise, the energy industry would collapse. 

Another related change was the elimination of Canada’s consumer carbon tax in April. UBC economist Ross Hickey says it’s ineffective to remove the carbon tax because affordability challenges are “a problem of income rather than price.” He says, “that higher-income households carried most of the burden of the carbon tax, while lower-income consumers got rebates that exceeded the amount they paid.” This pro-tax stance is supported by the findings of 15 studies, which all showed that the tax was effective in keeping emissions consistent.  

However, the public’s disproval of the tax led the effort to be dropped, cutting 17.61 cents per liter.  

Going forward, Eby promises to review all government programs and ensure they’re delivered efficiently rather than “increasing taxes to make up the difference.” While he has announced his intention of modifying the Clean BC program to accommodate this change, little details were offered on how to proceed. 

Provinces are still able to employ pricing systems, and BC is keeping the industrial carbon tax. Industries are following the BC output-based pricing system, “which applies for operations that emit over 10,000 tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (tCO2e) per year.” The amount each facility pays depends on how much carbon pollution it emits to make one unit of product. More efficient industries emitting under their annual emissions earn credits, while industries emitting over the limit are fined or pay credits. This gives industries flexibility and less pressure to meet the limit. The money earned is then returned to the government, which renews its purpose to help reduce emissions in local economies and support small businesses, according to Canada.  

After America’s withdrawal from the Paris Agreement, uncertainty over the foreign aid the US is willing to send is weakening developing countries defence against climate change. Since the invention of Elon Musk’s “Department of Government Efficiency”, USAid shipments and staff have been cut, reported The Guardian. The most immediate setback is the sudden discontinuity of the resources for crisis relief and resilience improvements, so the effects of natural disasters are expected to intensify. These countries are already sacrificing their public funding for reparations, making human rights like “healthcare, education and economic development,” unviable and inaccessible. According to Homaio, because “emerging markets are often the most exposed to climate risks, yet the least responsible for emissions,” poor countries are exposed at the indifference of world leaders. Compared to America’s “status as the world’s biggest economy and biggest carbon emitter,” the country has contributed less to climate finance than other developed countries.  

Many developing countries also struggle to match first-word standards in green energy due to the lack of funding. We see the transition to cleaner energy, coal phaseouts and mitigation initiatives in the Green Climate Fund being stalled, which puts projects in South Africa, Indonesia and Vietnam at risk.  

With the US contributing less and less and destabilizing the stock market, it’s unsure if Canada can afford initiatives financially or prioritize the climate in face of the tariffs. We see a lack of observable progress on proposed pledges, and it’s a concern whether Canada is taking responsibility for emissions if the carbon tax is close to being entirely cut.  

In light of all this, we should hope for Canada to step up as a North American climate leader once the tariffs settle.  

Cover Image: Michele Cooper/DPIE