On Canada Day, during his address at the morning ceremony in Ottawa, Prime Minister Carney thanked firefighters for running towards wildfires. What he failed to say is how wildfires are becoming more frequent, extreme and long-lasting due to climate change.
Later that day, the Canada Day concert and fireworks show scheduled for the evening was cancelled due to extreme weather. Climate change is showing its nasty head, regardless of the best-laid national holiday plans.
The next day, climate change was forgotten in a surreal way. Ignored as Prime Minister Carney landed agreements with both British Columbia and Alberta. While the good news of the morning was the continuation of the tanker ban along the northern coast of BC, the bad news came later in the day when Carney announced he and Premier Smith had come to an agreement on a path forward for a new oil pipeline from Edmonton to B.C. via the TransMountain Corridor. A long-term project that won’t meet the world’s current energy needs but will lock in economic, health and climate risks. Then onto the announcement of a potential pipeline deal — Northern Shield — between Alberta and Ontario.
Whether it’s a new pipeline or Liquefied (Un) Natural Gas project, there is no room in the carbon budget for expansion, given the world is on track to produce 120 per cent more fossil fuels than what is in keeping with limiting global warming to 1.5C. This is the limit agreed to by Canada and the rest of the world and being ignored despite the devastation already being experienced. Carney proclaimed the previous government’s climate plans were unsustainable. What is unsustainable is the expansion of fossil fuels.
Unfortunately, fossil fuel politics stand in the way of literacy, engagement and action on climate change. Canada is among the countries where partisan polarization related to climate policy has increased the most. Along with the United States and Spain, this spike is being driven by polarization along economic ideological lines. The contradiction is at the heart of Canadian public opinion on climate and pipelines.
Canadians want climate action — and more pipelines
Politicians are walking a fine line, if not a confusing one, when it comes to oil and gas. Re.Climate’s What Do Canadians Really Think About Climate Change? 2026 summary of public opinion research shows that the majority of the public now supports new pipelines, with the economy and global turmoil as top concerns. At the same time, the majority also want to see climate action.
Dr. Amy Janzwood, an assistant professor in the Department of Political Science and the Bieler School of the Environment at McGill University, provided insights into what is behind this contradiction in Re.Climate’s polling summary. What stood out was her point that Canadians have consistently been fed industry narratives about fossil fuels, and the media typically act as pipeline boosters. As a result, arguments that oil and gas can be okay for the climate if emissions are reduced are prevalent, along with claims that fossil fuels are good for economic and energy security and that they drive technological innovation.
When Canadians are concerned about climate change and support renewable energy, why are these narratives accepted when the math simply doesn’t add up? Whether you look at the economic case for fossil fuel expansion or the climate impacts, there is no way to meet climate goals or ensure economic and political security while driving a dirty energy agenda.
Why identity, prosperity and grievance drive acceptance of oil and gas
Toronto Metropolitan University’s Dr. Sibo Chen sheds some light on this phenomenon in his recent book, Petro-Rhetoric in Canada. Chen, an assistant professor in the School of Professional Communications, argues that Canada has a culture of extractive progressivism. Canadians accept oil and gas expansion because of repetitive narratives that reinforce the idea of petro-prosperity (fossil fuels enable modern life), petro-nationalism (oil and gas are part of Canada’s identity) and extractive populism (fossil fuels are under attack by elites). Petro-prosperity creates a sense of gratitude, security and abundance; petro-nationalism generates pride, unity and belonging while extractive populism results in anger, solidarity and grievance.
The stakes are high as the federal government works with provinces to advance major projects. So what can climate communicators do to break down the petro-rhetoric? Dr. Janzood has some important guidance here:
“Pipeline support in the abstract should not be mistaken for declining concern about the climate crisis, even if it is not always a top priority for Canadians. Strong support remains for climate action and a renewable energy future, even as political leaders falsely frame fossil fuel expansion as synonymous with economic security. This makes it especially important to challenge the increasingly normalized claims that Canada can indefinitely expand oil and gas production while meeting our climate commitments — especially when doing so directly conflicts with clean energy buildouts: electricity demand, public funding, skilled labour and more.”
strategies for climate communicators
4 ways to counter fossil fuel narratives and tell transition stories
What does it look like to challenge these claims? Overcoming fossil fuel disinformation, climate illiteracy and polarization in a country that could be categorized as a petro-state is not a small task.
Petrorhetoric succeeds because it answers fundamental questions about who we are, what makes Canada prosperous, and what kind of future is possible. Climate communication is most effective when it answers those same questions rather than only debating emissions or energy policy.
There are some fundamental things to keep in mind, such as the need to link extreme weather events to climate change and to reference the root cause: fossil fuels. At the same time, just making a climate argument won’t reach many Canadians, given the impact of fossil fuels on culture and politics.
Rather than fighting pervasive fossil fuel narratives head-on, offering alternative narratives is critical. Here are a few tips to help spark a conversation:
1. Don’t lead with fossil fuels.
Lead with the future Canadians want. Lean into narratives about thriving communities, affordability, healthier neighbourhoods, economic security and opportunities for future generations.
2. Replace petro-prosperity with “shared prosperity.”
Avoid arguing whether oil and gas are good or bad. Instead, promote affordable energy, stable employment, reduced household costs, innovation and economic resilience through clean energy and other low-carbon industries, given the economic, health, climate and security risks associated with fossil fuels.
3. Honour the past without becoming trapped by it.
Recognize that oil and gas have played an important role, but pivot to the point that every generation builds something new, and now is the time to build clean.
4. Tell transition stories, not just climate stories.
People need examples of workers changing careers, communities diversifying, Indigenous clean energy partnerships, successful industrial transitions and local economic development.
Cara Pike is a Senior Advisor at Re.Climate and Executive Director of Climate Access
