Mark Carney’s fossil fuel pivot bewilders climate experts and business leaders

Mark Carney, the former UN climate envoy and current Canadian Prime Minister, is facing criticism for what many see as a reversal of his previous stance on climate change. His recent embrace of fossil fuels, intended to counteract trade hostilities with the US, has bewildered climate experts and business leaders who once supported him.

Since taking office this year, Carney has made several moves that favor the oil and gas sector. These include scrapping Canada’s consumer carbon tax, actively courting the oil and gas industry, and eliminating a program designed to boost electric vehicle sales. These actions appear to be a response to US President Donald Trump’s widespread tariffs.

Adding to the controversy, Carney recently signed a deal to increase crude oil production by an extra million barrels a day. This follows his pledge to double Canada’s liquefied natural gas production to serve new markets in Asia.

These policy shifts have led to significant dissent. Former environment minister Steven Guilbeault resigned from Carney’s cabinet in protest. Two founding members of the federal government’s Net Zero Advisory Body also stepped down.

Guilbeault told the Financial Times, “I could not compromise anymore and I fear we are heading in the wrong direction.”

Climate experts, along with figures from the business and finance sectors, suggest that Carney’s decisions highlight a growing trend. They believe that national sovereignty and short-term energy concerns are now taking precedence over action on global warming, particularly in the current political climate shaped by the Trump era.

Paul Polman, former Unilever chief executive and a proponent of responsible capitalism, stated that it was “not surprising” that Carney would make a “balanced pivot” as part of a political-economic compromise. That said, the reality is a bit more complicated. he cautioned that this “green industrialism” strategy, aimed at stabilizing domestic politics and the economy, may delay the deeper structural changes needed to address climate change effectively.