Canada’s climate policy crossroads: Supply-side pressures and competing energy futures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
• Canada’s greenhouse gas emissions goals are at odds with its intentions for fossil fuel production. • The provinces most dependent on oil and gas extraction avoid aligning production with territorial emissions reductions. • In contrast, Quebec has foregone fossil fuel development to become a climate policy leader. • Fossil fuel dependency creates economic vulnerability as global demand shifts. • Canadian climate policy requires a dual focus on both fossil fuel supply and demand. This article documents interprovincial variation in climate and energy policy trends within Canada to explore the disconnect between climate ambition and aspirations for fossil fuel production. We compare subnational policies concerning domestic emissions and fossil fuel production within and across four provinces. Unsurprisingly, the provinces most economically dependent on fossil fuel production are both committed to expanding production and less ambitious with respect to reducing their emissions within their borders. Yet Quebec took a different path, forgoing development of its oil and gas reserves, and instead focusing on deep emissions reductions and building a lower-carbon economy that will be more resilient in the ongoing global energy transition. In a more ambivalent policy position, British Columbia has committed to expanding gas production for export, yet has remained relatively ambitious with respect to reducing its territorial emissions. Set in the overarching national energy and climate policy context, this article underscores the disconnect between production and territorial emission policies, one that leaves Canada economically vulnerable while the global energy transition unfolds, decreasing global fossil fuel demand.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.021 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".