By Damjan Krnjević Mišković, August 1, 2025
Transforming our country into an “energy superpower” requires treating hydrocarbons as an integral part of a comprehensive, single-standard, and non-discriminatory energy strategy. This means Prime Minister Mark Carney must adopt an explicit “all of the above” approach to energy: all fuels, all technologies, all systems, and more.
A majority of Canadians support this. But achieving it requires policy changes. Key necessary measures include repealing the Impact Assessment Act, the industrial carbon tax, the tanker ban, and the emissions cap. These counterproductive policies all stand in the way of affordable, efficient, and secure energy.
One reason these changes are needed is that the necessary investment to achieve energy superpower status simply will not materialize until industry is given two clear signals: that the government has understood Canada’s needs, and that it rightly views our abundant hydrocarbon resources as strategic national assets rather than liabilities.
Another reason these steps must be taken is because clear action on this front will strengthen Canadian sovereignty, unity, resilience, security, and prosperity. Like never before in Canada’s history, there is an unbreakable connection between nation-building and fast-tracking sensible energy projects. Carney says he wants to achieve both. However, many critics misunderstand a key point: such a path will also enable the prime minister to build on his climate action legacy, allowing him to reconcile raison d’état with raison de planète – all while upholding true Canadian values.
Canadians remember how Carney decisively shaped the private finance agenda at the United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP26) in 2021. At that time, Carney served concurrently as then-British prime minister Boris Johnson’s climate finance adviser and as the UN special envoy on climate action and finance. “The objective is simple,” said Carney. “Ensure that every financial decision takes climate change into account.”
Today, he can meet that objective by embracing the sensible logic of “policy blindness” regarding the means and technologies used to achieve domestic and international climate action policy preferences and obligations. This pragmatic principle is Canadian-made: it was first incorporated into international law in the Montreal Protocol for reducing chlorofluorocarbons in response to ozone depletion. By adopting a “whatever works” standard instead of doubling down on picking fuel or technology favourites, Carney would ensure Canadian energy and emissions reduction policies contribute to global climate action and accelerate sustainable economic development at home and around the world.
That’s why building Canada into an energy superpower must also have a foreign policy dimension. There are two key tracks of activity.
The first involves recalibrating the North American energy system, as part of the prime minister’s broader effort to realign our trade arrangements with the US on as favourable terms as possible by adopting a “grand bargain strategy.” The way forward is evidently fraught with peril, given bilateral tensions to date, but also the fact that the trade deals Japan, the EU, and others have already struck with the US mean that forming a coalition of affected advanced economies to push back against Washington is no longer an option. Canada is thus effectually on its own. Ottawa cannot afford to be reactive. “It has always fallen to Canada to draw America’s gaze to the benefits of continental co-operation and this time will be no exception,” said Macdonald-Laurier Institute Managing Director Brian Lee Crowley.
In these efforts, a point in Canada’s favour is that the highly-regarded US Energy Secretary Chris Wright has a deep understanding of the Canadian energy reality and is a champion of deepening continental energy ties. The strength of a continental energy alliance is not lost on the Trump Administration. And the enormous economic and strategic benefits to Canada should be evident to all.
The second activity track involves re-engagement with the developing world. This is where a “policy-blind” approach to climate action really comes into play. Canada’s UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) obligations and our Paris Climate Agreement commitments mean we are amongst a small number of countries that have assumed primary responsibility for managing this planetary challenge. At COP29 in Baku last November, the Trudeau government committed Canada to contribute an undefined portion of at least US$300 billion per year in cash-only transfer payments to developing countries for unspecified mitigation and adaptation measures on climate. This means that it is entirely within Canada’s sovereign prerogative to choose how to allocate these resources – and the recent non-binding advisory opinion handed down by the International Court of Justice takes nothing away from either the legitimacy or prudence of this approach. The key objective must be to move developing countries from inefficient, health-damaging fuel options (such as open fire coal, dung, wood, and crop residue) onto more efficient, better-performing options that, at a minimum, contribute to lower overall greenhouse gas emissions, measured against “do nothing” scenarios.
Ideologically driven climate maximalists reject this “whatever works” approach in favour of spending untold billions of Canadian taxpayer dollars exclusively on renewable solutions abroad. There are two basic problems with this alternative.
The first is that it’s immoral: it makes us complicit in impeding developing world poverty reduction. Generally, the higher the percentage of variable renewables in a country’s electricity mix, the higher the retail electricity price for consumers, especially when costly subsidies that distort the market are factored in; a corollary is that the lower a country’s per capita electricity consumption, the lower its per capita GDP. Here’s how Nigeria’s then-vice president Yemi Osinbajo put it a few years ago: “No country in the world has been able to industrialize using renewable energy, and we [Africa] have been asked to industrialize using renewable energy when everybody else in the world knows that we need gas-powered industries for business.” Even the controversial International Energy Agency admits in a recent report that the increased use of fossil fuels in Africa and, by extension, the rest of the developing world, is an integral part of the world’s lower emissions future. However, it falls short of explicitly concluding the obvious: not just Africa but the global majority needs more fossil fuels in its energy mix to achieve sustainable development. Canada is uniquely well-placed to be part of the solution.
The second reason we must not advocate that developing countries pursue exclusively renewable energy sources is because it’s not in our national interest. Canadian industry cannot benefit from financing most renewable solutions since our companies are neither global leaders in making the products involved nor do they own much of the underlying intellectual property. In essence, Canadian climate maximalists advocate for a foreign and energy policy that consists of giving away billions of our taxpayer dollars to developing countries and then instructing them to purchase solar panels and wind turbines manufactured in foreign countries – almost none of which share our values. This amounts to geopolitical and geoeconomic malpractice.
There is no getting around the fact that Canada’s energy superpowerdom must involve all fuels and technologies. By removing the barriers to help finance any fuel option – including the hydrocarbon resources with which we are so richly blessed – Canada can achieve five strategic objectives. One, we can meet our international climate finance pledges and contribute to reducing global greenhouse gas emissions. Two, we can further diversify our growing energy export markets. Three, we can ensure that the global majority has as fair a chance as possible to rise out of poverty. Four, we can restore our international reputation by demonstrating that we can be a dependable democratic energy partner. And five, we can push back decisively against our foreign competitors near and far while creating well-paying jobs for hard-working Canadians.
But it all starts with the prime minister making pragmatic yet definitive choices on the home front. How else can he hope to make our economy the strongest and most resilient in the G7?
Damjan Krnjević Mišković is professor of practice in geopolitics at ADA University (Baku) and director for policy research and analysis at its Institute for Development and Diplomacy. He is also a fellow at the Agora Strategy Institute (Berlin). He is a former senior UN and Serbian official and managing editor of The National Interest. The views and opinions expressed herein are solely those of the author.
