The cool morning air hits my face as I walk along Vancouver’s seawall, watching cargo ships dot the harbor horizon. Each vessel represents countless decisions about what we value, what we consume, and increasingly—how we balance economic prosperity with environmental responsibility.
Last week, I sat in Janet Morrison’s living room in Port Moody. The 58-year-old accounting technician had spreadsheets scattered across her coffee table—not for work, but tracking her family’s rising costs. “My heating bill is up 30% from last year,” she tells me, pointing to highlighted numbers. “And my son just got laid off from his manufacturing job. They said carbon pricing made it impossible to compete.”
Stories like Janet’s are becoming common across Canada, where families and businesses navigate the complicated reality of climate policies that have transformed our economic landscape while delivering questionable environmental gains.
Since implementing its climate action framework in 2016, Canada has introduced carbon pricing, clean fuel standards, and emissions caps that ranks among the world’s most ambitious climate agendas. Yet evidence suggests we’ve created a paradox: significant economic costs with minimal emissions reduction.
The Canadian Federation of Independent Business reports that 78% of small businesses have absorbed increased operational costs due to carbon pricing, with the average business paying over $33,000 annually in combined climate policy compliance. Manufacturing, transportation, and resource sectors have been hit particularly hard.
“We’ve had to choose between new hiring and covering compliance costs,” explains Wei Chen, operations manager at a Surrey packaging facility. “Last year, that meant postponing expansion and letting three positions remain unfilled.”
Meanwhile, emissions have proven stubbornly persistent. Environment and Climate Change Canada’s own data shows Canada’s emissions decreased by only 8.4% between 2005 and 2022, with most reductions occurring during the 2020 pandemic economic slowdown.
Driving through Alberta’s heartland last month, I watched flares burning at processing facilities—visual reminders that Canada remains the world’s fourth-largest oil producer. Our production has actually increased by 22% since signing the Paris Agreement in 2015, according to Natural Resources Canada figures.
When I mention this to climate economist Mark Jaccard from Simon Fraser University, he sighs. “The problem isn’t that climate policies don’t work—it’s that we’ve created a system where we implement carbon prices domestically while simultaneously approving new extraction projects for export markets. The emissions accounting becomes selective.”
This contradiction emerges in conversations with Canadians across the political spectrum. In Burnaby, software developer Sophia Larocque tells me she happily pays carbon taxes, believing in climate action, but questions the results. “I’ve changed my behavior—sold my car, retrofitted my condo—but then I read that we’ve approved new pipelines. What are we really accomplishing?”
The economic impacts accumulate in ways both visible and hidden. The C.D. Howe Institute estimates that Canada’s climate policies will reduce GDP by approximately 2-3% by 2030 compared to baseline projections. While this may seem modest, it represents roughly $90 billion in economic activity.
For communities built around resource industries, the transition proves especially challenging. In Fort McMurray, I met with community councilor Robert Cardinal, who expressed frustration. “Our people want climate protection too—we see changes on our traditional lands. But transition plans keep focusing on costs now, with benefits that never seem to reach us.”
The problem isn’t climate action itself, but rather its implementation and measurement. Canada’s approach has relied heavily on regulatory frameworks and taxation while permitting continued fossil fuel expansion.
Dr. Kathryn Harrison, political scientist at UBC, argues the disconnect stems from our economic structure. “Canada faces a fundamental tension—we’ve designed climate policies for domestic emissions while maintaining an economy heavily dependent on exporting fossil fuels. Unless we address that contradiction, we’ll continue seeing high costs with limited environmental progress.”
This tension creates legitimate questions about policy effectiveness. When climate policies substantially impact household budgets and business viability without proportional environmental improvement, public support inevitably erodes.
The Fraser Institute calculates that average Canadian households now pay between $900-$1,800 annually in direct and indirect carbon pricing costs. For many, these amounts represent significant portions of discretionary income, creating challenges for those already struggling with housing and food costs.
Walking through Vancouver’s Downtown Eastside, I meet Eliza Thomson, who runs a community kitchen. “Our food costs are up 40% from three years ago,” she explains while chopping vegetables. “Some is inflation, some is carbon pricing on transport and farming. We serve fewer meals now with the same funding.”
These economic pressures create political vulnerability. Conservative provincial governments have challenged federal climate frameworks, with Ontario, Alberta, and Saskatchewan mounting legal opposition to carbon pricing mandates.
But this isn’t simply partisan positioning—it reflects genuine concern that Canada has created economic disadvantages without corresponding environmental benefits. Our major trading partners, particularly the United States, have taken different approaches with fewer direct costs to consumers and businesses.
The path forward requires honesty about our climate-economy contradiction. Canada can’t reasonably claim climate leadership while expanding fossil fuel production and exports. Effective policy must address both domestic consumption and production decisions.
Communities like Kitimat, BC, demonstrate possibilities. There, the shift from aluminum production to clean energy manufacturing has maintained industrial jobs while reducing emissions. “We’ve retooled rather than shut down,” explains local union representative Samantha Williams. “But it required government support for transition, not just higher costs.”
As Janet in Port Moody updates her household budget and Wei in Surrey postpones business expansion, Canadians deserve climate policies that match economic costs with genuine emissions reductions. This means confronting the larger contradiction in our national approach—we cannot be climate leaders while remaining fossil fuel champions.
The cargo ships I watch from Vancouver’s seawall remind me that environmental and economic systems don’t exist separately. They’re connected through countless decisions, from government policies to business practices to household choices. Finding alignment between our climate ambitions and economic realities represents Canada’s most pressing policy challenge—one that affects every spreadsheet on every kitchen table across our country.
