Last week we warned that Mark Carney’s opaque rhetorical style should not be mistaken for a change of heart on climate alarmism, Net Zero and the rest of his Value(s). The UN Special Envoy for Climate Action may have become Canada’s Prime Minister but neither the ideas nor the rhetoric have really changed. (He even still speaks rotten French and absurdly abstract English.) Alas, as he told Bloomberg last October, “I’m the same me. I’m focused on the same issues.” (As we warned when he took office.) To wit, Canada is still legally and politically committed to Net Zero by 2050. His cynical partisan removal of the consumer carbon tax was accompanied by hiking the industrial one, so the costs are at least as high but a lot less visible. His government continues to insist that “The Government of Canada is building towards net-zero emissions by 2050, and affordable clean fuel production is key to that goal. By supporting clean energy, the Government of Canada is fighting climate change, strengthening our energy security, and building a stronger, more competitive economy for all Canadians.” And the temporary suspension of the federal excise tax on gasoline is slated to end right after Labour Day, jacking up the price in the middle of an affordability crisis. Why? As Dan McTeague of Canadians for Affordable Energy observes, gas is still around $1.70 a litre. Does he, or does he not, want to force us out of our gas-powered cars? Yes. Including ditching the EV mandate while announcing new regulations that only EVs can meet… and they know it. They’re doing it on purpose.

Carney also still believes in “decarbonized oil”. Which is not far off dehydrated water as a practical concept. But just because it can’t be done, or shouldn’t, is no reason to suppose he doesn’t think it can and should. As with the government’s EV strategy that might gut Canadian auto manufacturing and turn the market over to China, the fact that politicians’ plans won’t work is no reason to suppose they know they won’t. Quite the contrary.

On the subject of Canada-pivots-but-doesn’t, we also note a headline “Historic $70 billion Churchill Falls deal proposes 9,000 MW of low-carbon power”. We have a bit of a thing about declaring stuff “historic” until it proves noteworthy in hindsight. But also, with all the things one could say about this deal, including it being non-binding which is an odd quality in a deal, the focus on “low-carbon” is a reminder of how much things have not changed. As is the feds cheerily tossing in $10 billion including for some massive offshore wind dream.

Now admittedly that historic headline was from the August 20, 2026 Clean Prosperity newsletter. (And weirdly if you click on it you get taken not to their analysis but to a Globe & Mail news story headlined “New Churchill Falls deal faces political uncertainty, planning hurdles” whose letters are hard to rearrange into “historic”, which does not use the word “historic” and does note that this non-deal replaces a 2024 “Memorandum of Understanding” which is also a deal that isn’t a deal and arguably therefore not worth as much as those who create them would have you think.

Still, it’s revealing that the president of the Canadian Climate Institute, whose government funding makes a mockery of claims that we deniers have all the money, gloated:

““This is the scale of clean energy ambition that is necessary across the country in order to meet the Prime Minister’s commitment to doubling the size of Canada’s electricity grids and electrifying more of the national economy. It demonstrates that positive outcomes can be achieved through co-operation between governments, including Indigenous communities, that drives investment and leads to more interconnected provincial electricity markets.”

Mark Carney really is determined to get to Net Zero or kill our wallets trying. As entrepreneur and commentator Gwyn Morgan warned this spring, “the transformation of the UN Secretary General’s ‘special envoy on climate action and finance’ has been less than biblical.” Indeed. There’s been no pivot, and none is in the offing. And there’s no effort to hide it. Just a typical slick political effort to let you hide it from yourself if you don’t like it, while allowing those who do to see it. For instance, the pro-Liberal and pro-net-zero Toronto Star wrote on June 30:

“On Tuesday, the press secretary to Environment Minister Julie Dabrusin said the government’s long-term target remains the same. ‘Our goal has not changed,’ said Keean Nembhard. ‘We remain committed to net-zero by 2050.’”

When “Prime Minister Carney announces first-ever Canada Investment Summit”, the sort of thing he believes promotes prosperity rather than tax cuts, deregulation and acting not talking on internal free trade, the language is revealing as, indeed, language should be:

“The Canada Investment Summit… will attract investment into major projects and industries that make us more competitive – clean energy, critical minerals, and new technologies and artificial intelligence. These are the sectors that create thousands of new high-paying careers, empowering Canadians to build the future they want for themselves and a stronger, more prosperous Canada for all.”

Note first that there is no mention of traditional energy. And second the conviction that switching to the clean stuff will “make us more competitive”, the ongoing Green Energy Transition conviction that giving up what’s proven to work for what’s proven to raise prices and reduce availability will take us via Epcot Centre to the Jetsons’ clean green world of abundance for all. Or, in the words ascribed to him in that press release:

“Canada has what the world wants. We’re an energy superpower, with the most educated workforce in the world and rock-solid fiscal strength. The first-ever Canada Investment Summit will capitalise on those advantages to help drive billions in new investments into Canada. That means more growth for our businesses, more high-paying career opportunities, and a stronger, more independent Canadian economy for all.”

Or not, of course. (The actual summit, in case you missed it, hasn’t happened yet; the press release was in April and the summit will be in Toronto in mid-September as there was apparently no urgency.) But he does believe it.

The administration’s orientation is also revealed in the way press releases throw in climate almost regardless of subject. For instance when they hand money to a theatre in Quebec, sorry, “invest” in it:

“Designed according to the principles of universal accessibility and inclusion, the new facility – which will be entirely carbon-neutral and use greener energy sources – will include two performance halls, creative spaces, and a mediation room.”

Again, the release does not tell you it will be entirely carbon-neutral, only that their aspirations are. As with:

“The Nature Conservancy of Canada will make some recreational trails more resilient against the impacts of climate change at three sites in Nova Scotia and one site in New Brunswick after an investment of $200,000 from the federal government.”

Always investment, never spending. And why can’t they just say hiking in the wilderness is good, we’re helping fix trails? No, it’s all climate all the time.