LONDON — The leaders of five EU countries have urged Brussels to “swiftly” sign a deal to let the U.K. back into the single market for electricity.

In a letter seen by POLITICO, sent earlier this week, the leaders of Germany, the Netherlands, Denmark, Belgium, and Luxembourg say this month’s U.K.-EU summit should set out “a path” to getting the talks over the line as soon as possible.

Last year Brussels and London agreed to start negotiations on the U.K. rejoining the internal electricity market — but progress has been slow going and talks are not expected to be finished by the Nov. 20 meeting.

A group of countries are now urging the European Commission to wrap up discussions by the end of 2027, according to an EU diplomat granted anonymity to discuss internal discussions.

Proponents say the plan would unlock new renewable energy investment in the North Sea and could cut electricity prices.

But the EU says the U.K. would have to make a contribution to EU cohesion funds as the price of participating in the market — a politically difficult ask for London.

Clean energy hub

The leaders, including German Chancellor Friedrich Merz and Dutch Prime Minister Rob Jetten, write that the agreement is “necessary to unlock the full potential of the North Sea” and to “transform it into the largest clean energy hub in the world.”

“An agreement will thus enhance Europe’s energy security and contribute to a competitive economy that centres on access to clean and affordable energy,” the letter to European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and European Council President António Costa states.

“These benefits underline the importance of swiftly concluding the ongoing negotiations. We call on you and the UK to agree during the Summit on a path towards the conclusion of these negotiations.”

Britain’s energy industry says the agreement could help bring down electricity prices in the U.K. — a cost-of-living priority for Prime Minister Andy Burnham.

Energy UK, the industry’s representative body, says that being outside the electricity market will create “additional costs of up to £10bn this Parliament through higher energy bills and lower Treasury revenues.”

The same EU diplomat quoted above, from a country supportive of a swift agreement, said the financial contribution required to rejoin the market would amount to “investing” in market access.

“A larger electricity market will ultimately lead to lower electricity prices in the U.K. And of course, the U.K. is currently facing very high electricity prices,” they said.

“The U.K. would be investing in access to a more integrated, secure and competitive European energy market — bringing lower energy costs, greater investment certainty and huge opportunities for British businesses and consumers.”

Greater security of supply, more price stability, and greater certainty for investors would also be key benefits, they said.

While talks on the internal electricity market are not expected to conclude in time for this month’s summit, the Nov. 20 meeting is expected to see both sides sign off three further agreements on youth mobility, emissions trading and alignment on agri-food rules.

Brussels and London are also expected to issue a “joint statement” at the meeting which will address other issues, including the future of talks on the internal electricity market.

LONDON — Andy Burnham jets off to the latest global COP climate summit early next week. The last time he went to this annual meeting of the world’s climate diplomats, he didn’t like what he saw. 

“I’m just back from two days at COP26 and officially worried about the state of the climate debate,” Burnham, then the mayor of Greater Manchester, wrote in 2021, after a trip to that year’s U.N. conference in Glasgow. 

This year’s edition, COP31, kicks off in Antalya, Turkey next week, with a focus on protecting countries hit hardest by the impacts of global warming and setting goals for electrifying world economies.

Burnham will be there — now as British prime minister. And that little-noticed article, published five years ago in the Evening Standard newspaper, says plenty about his political instincts on climate change. 

2021 was the high point of the U.K. consensus on net zero. But the then-future prime minister criticized the summit for giving a “pulpit” to billionaire Jeff Bezos (who had earlier that year “burnt more carbon in a trip to space than most people consume in a lifetime”) and took aim at protesters “with the time to glue themselves to roads … reprimanding ordinary people under work and time pressures for using their cars.” 

Burnham backed climate action, he insisted. But with its technocratic focus on “percentages and far-off dates, with remarkably little reference to the struggles of ordinary families,” there was a danger COP would send the wrong message: “That the drive to net zero will mean cost and inconvenience for ordinary people.” 

Several years and one big job change later, those views have not changed. 

Interviews with more than a dozen advisers, government officials, pollsters and MPs around Burnham reveal a PM convinced of the dangers posed to Britain and the world by runaway global warming — yet whose first instinct, sometimes to the frustration of climate advocates, is to prioritize cost of living and energy security worries at home. 

“I think Andy does get the big picture climate emergency, the urgency with which we need to act,” said Dale Vince, a clean energy entrepreneur and former New Age traveler who has advised Burnham on energy. But “millions of people in our country are asking: ‘How do I pay the bill?’” 

Many politicians are “out of touch with that,” Vince argued. “Andy doesn’t forget it.” 

Mr Pragmatic 

Burnham has been putting that approach into practice since taking power in July. 

Like his predecessor Keir Starmer, he believes the long-term solution to Britain’s cripplingly high energy costs is cutting dependence on expensive, foreign-controlled fossil fuels. But Burnham is also readier to drive down costs associated with the net-zero transition, many of which also end up on voters’ bills. 

In last month’s budget, Burnham’s Chancellor John Healey announced a new mantra: “first and foremost cheaper energy.” Renewables projects like solar and wind farms must now show how they’ll bring down bills if they want to get government support. A subsidy pot for low-carbon electric heat pumps was cut by up to £2.5 billion. Healey has promised to overhaul how energy costs are paid via bills in the new year. 

Most controversially, Burnham has presided over the decision by Energy Secretary Miatta Fahnbulleh to approve a new gas field in the North Sea, Jackdaw. Ministers argued more gas drilling off the Scottish coast would give a short-term boost to energy security, with some of its tax revenues routed into developing clean power.

A decision on the oilfield Rosebank, where climate-damaging emissions will be even higher, is expected by the end of the year. 

There is a big difference, Burnham told MPs last month, between the “ideological” opposition of his anti-drilling Green Party rivals and his own “pragmatic approach.” 

The team of rivals 

Next week, Burnham will find out how that message plays on the global green stage. 

He will be accompanied by Foreign Secretary Ed Miliband, a prominent climate advocate. A Labour MP, granted anonymity to speak frankly, said Burnham’s choice of Miliband to run the Foreign Office — even as he lets Healey cut some green spending at home — was a deliberate “team of rivals” ploy to balance Labour’s progressive and centrist wings on climate. 

“That’s the kind of the ideological fault line in the Cabinet, and it does run through climate, very much so,” the MP said.   

Burnham’s visit to COP is expected to be a short one. 

Those briefed on government planning expect him to attend for no more than a day. Emmanuel Macron, the French President, and German Chancellor Friedrich Merz — both also facing a backlash against the cost of living at home — are skipping the summit entirely. 

While in Antalya, Burnham should try to land his message that letting energy costs spiral higher and higher is the quickest way for countries to lose political support for climate action, say supporters of his agenda. 

“Bringing bills down would help the climate cause more than any speech,” argued Sunny Hundal, a former adviser at Britain’s biggest energy supplier Octopus and now boss of the Cheap Clean Energy Alliance campaign group. Nonetheless, he added: “If Britain is to not become a cautionary tale for the rest of the world, it has to show that the path to cleaner energy is through cheaper energy.” 

‘Betrayal’ 

The U.K. is seen by countries on the deadly frontline of climate change as a key ally in COP negotiations — particularly around weaning the world off fossil fuels. 

That means Burnham’s North Sea policies might get a cool reception, said Mohamed Adow, director of the Nairobi-based climate and energy think tank Power Shift Africa. 

“Jackdaw has certainly been noticed,” Adow said. “From Africa, it is deeply frustrating to see a wealthy country like Britain approve more fossil fuel production while asking developing countries to pursue a cleaner path. Decisions taken in London have consequences for people facing droughts and floods thousands of miles away.  

“Andy Burnham should be under no illusion: approving Rosebank would be a betrayal of the communities he will hear from at COP31.” 

Bill Esterson, a Labour MP and chair of the House of Commons Energy Security and Net Zero Committee, now expects Rosebank to get the go-ahead. Another Labour MP, the same quoted above, said Healey’s Treasury was “really pressuring” Fahnbulleh to approve the project because “it wants the tax revenue.” 

Burnham’s decision to show off some climate consciousness by attending COP at all is, the same MP said, partly a move to placate Labour’s more green-minded backbenchers in advance of approving Rosebank. 

“You get the feeling there’s political space being made for this shittier decision,” they said. 

Esterson took a more generous view of Burnham’s agenda. “He recognizes the [climate] imperative, but he also recognizes the reality of taking people with [him]. I think that’s at the heart of his whole approach to being prime minister, actually.” 

Political threats 

Political rivals spy an opportunity. 

“You can’t claim to be serious about climate leadership when you’re making it harder and more expensive for people to move away from fossil fuels,” said Pippa Heylings, energy security and net zero spokesperson for the Liberal Democrats, attacking the “incoherence” of Burnham’s approach to climate.  

Carla Denyer, a Green Party MP and former co-leader of her party, pointed to Jackdaw and the looming call on Rosebank. “The change Andy Burnham promised has so far failed to materialize when it comes to tackling the climate crisis,” she said. 

Alienating voters worried about the climate carries political risks for Burnham, who has restored Labour’s lead in national opinion polls primarily by attracting Labour/Green swing voters, said polling analyst Steve Akehurst, director of Persuasion UK. 

“None of the individual policy tweaks or changes to net zero are likely to matter on their own, but if they add up to an overall picture of backtracking on climate action it will present a big opportunity for [Green leader] Zack Polanski,” said Akehurst. 

Taking climate “pragmatism” too far could alienate Labour’s existing voters, too. According to new Persuasion UK and YouGov polling shared with POLITICO, 22% of Labour’s 2024 voters list climate and environment in their top three priorities — but only 4% think Burnham does.  

“It’s one of the few policy areas that Labour voters prioritise but don’t currently sense that the PM does,” Akehurst said. 

But allies including Vince think Burnham’s strategy can head off a different political threat, this one coming from the right. 

Heat pump subsidies, he argued, were only helping households that could already afford the additional costs of switching to clean heat. “Middle class subsidies is what we’re about at the moment in the pursuit of net zero, and I think it’s been a gift to Reform,” said Vince, referring to Nigel Farage’s right-wing party, which along with the Conservatives say they would scrap the U.K.’s 2050 net zero target. 

“Icecaps and polar bears [are] all very well,” said Vince. “But when people are struggling to pay their energy bills — it’s not the primary thing that will persuade them.” 

MONTREAL — Prime Minister Mark Carney wanted the landmark EU-Canada summit to be about much more than “nomenclature.” He got what he craved. 

Over a whirlwind 48 hours in Montreal, top officials from Brussels and Ottawa huddled to pursue agreements on critical minerals, super computers and defense cooperation.

European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, European Council President António Costa and Carney gathered as U.S. President Donald Trump continues to upend the global order and Chinese dominance of critical markets squeezes middle powers. 

Those challenges have pushed the EU and Canada into a rapidly developing partnership that eclipses anything attempted by Brussels with a non-member country since the bloc was formed. 

Here are all the key things POLITICO learned during the EU-Canada meetings. 

Carney finally embraced ‘associate membership’

Initially reluctant, the Canadian prime minister came around by the end of the summit to endorse von der Leyen’s controversial label for the global alliance the EU and Canada are building. 

Carney set a six-month deadline to firm up the ground rules of what “associate membership” is, trialing an induction process that could be a model for other non-European countries.

“With Canada becoming the European Union’s first associate member, in the coming months we will determine the full substance, scale and scope of this new form of membership,” he said Friday. 

Carney added he will meet periodically with von der Leyen to track progress, including a return trip for the College of European Commissioners to meet with their Canadian counterparts in March.

Got minerals

Both Canadian and EU officials are walking away from the summit with at least one major win: the framework agreement signed between the European Investment Bank and Canada that will open up the bloc’s lending arm to Canadian critical minerals crucial for future tech. 

That means batteries, circuit boards and semiconductors, which all require lithium, nickel, cobalt and other critical raw materials that, as of now, the EU is largely dependent on China to score.

The deal helps wean the Europeans off a politically volatile critical minerals dealer, for a more reliable Canadian supplier. 

The agreement does not immediately unlock funding for specific projects, but it supports pathways for future investments in Canadian mining and helps link the bloc’s supply chains with Canada’s.

Canada’s energy ambitions still point east

Critical minerals aren’t the only Canadian natural resource on the menu for Europeans. 

Carney has said he wants to make Canada an “energy superpower” and leverage huge stores of oil and liquefied natural gas in his country for export. The only problem: Most of it is in the western province of Alberta, far from Europe.

But the summit concluded with a commitment by both sides to a “long-term feasibility study” on exporting LNG to Europe via the east coast or Arctic ports closer to the bloc. 

“There’s also a huge opportunity in terms of bringing some of the fossils and gas from Canada to the EU,” said a Commission official, who was granted anonymity to talk about sensitive diplomatic negotiations. “The old infrastructure in Canada was built north-south for historical reasons, but now there is talk of starting to build east-west.”

Making nice with Washington? Don’t hold your breath.

As Europeans and Canadians preached deeper ties, Sen. Peter Welch (D-Vt.) was there doing damage control.

Welch, whose state is a little over an hour’s drive south of Montreal, spent Thursday reassuring business leaders that U.S. relations with Canada and beyond can, some day, get back to normal. When exactly, he couldn’t say for sure.

During his trip, Welch met with Quebec Chief Trade Negotiator Pascal Paradis, tourism industry leaders, businesses and manufacturers nailed by tariffs, and hit up a Eurasia Group lunch.

Tuesday’s U.S. midterm elections could offer a waypoint to warmer relations. But Welch loaded his optimism about Democratic Party fortunes with caveats.

“I think we’ll be successful, but you’ll still have a president who abuses his authority and acts in arbitrary ways,” he said. “It’s not like I can give any assurance that things are going to change.” 

Unspoken in the communiqué: China

Canada and the EU pledged deeper cooperation on pumping more European money into the mining, production and refining of critical minerals, a response to China’s dominance of the global market for those minerals. But the final summit communiqué steers clear of naming specific countries. 

Canadian Defense Minister David McGuinty was more candid.

“China has been vacuuming up as many critical minerals as they can throughout the world, particularly in the African continent, cutting deals, usually infrastructure for critical mineral deals. That could be a soccer stadium, for example. It could be a light rail system,” McGuinty told POLITICO at the summit Friday.

“It turns out that Canada’s got a huge amount of critical minerals, and basically all 10 of the 10 critical minerals on the short list for NATO, which the United States is also aware of. We’re going to not only exploit, but we intend to move to transform,” he said.

The common language: Sovereignty

Outside the summit, many Montrealers were oblivious to the landmark meeting taking place in the city. Inside, the vibe was existential.

The trio of leaders — Carney, von der Leyen and Costa — invoked individual and collective sovereignty as reasons to pursue a closer alliance to weather “new storms” stoked by climate change, challenges to democratic norms and the weaponization of trade. Carney has notably claimed concerns about encroachment on Canada’s sovereignty as a reason to walk away from trade talks with the Trump administration. 

“Today is about sovereignty,” Carney said. “We’re building the industries and infrastructure that underwrite our collective security.”

Quebec wanted a seat at the table

The summit came to Montreal weeks after Quebec — the French-speaking province in Canada that hosted the summit — elected a separatist government. Quebec shares powers with Ottawa and had its own seat in the CETA trade talks with the EU over a decade ago; and it had sought a similar role at this summit. 

But Ottawa refused to let new Premier Paul St-Pierre Plamondon address the summit, so he boycotted it, complaining he was being asked to “serve shrimp cocktail.” 

Carney accused him of leaving “an empty chair.” It stayed empty, even though six former Quebec premiers came to dinner.

The Europeans did not escape unscathed. The Quebec press panned von der Leyen’s English-only speech on the opening day as a faux pas in Canada’s largest francophone metropolis. Commission Executive Vice-President Teresa Ribera did little better, telling Radio-Canada in French that, for Brussels, summits like this are between national governments.

Bagel diplomacy

In a town where the original heated rivalry persists between two bagel shops, von der Leyen couldn’t resist picking a side with a photo-op at St-Viateur. 

Sorry Fairmount. 

As Europe’s energy ministers meet in Brussels this week, they are weighing legitimate concerns around energy security, affordability, and the pressures facing businesses and households.

The European Commission’s proposal to delay selected EU Methane Regulation requirements for fossil-fuel importers is now moving quickly through the legislative process. Ministers have an opportunity to keep any adjustment tightly focused, while preserving the policy stability that companies and investors need to plan, invest and manage risk over the long term.

Investors need a stable framework against which companies can plan, manage risk and allocate capital with confidence.

For investors, the question is not whether implementation should be practical. It should. The question is whether a response to current pressures becomes a wider change to a framework that companies have already begun to implement.

Sixty investors, representing over €9.5 trillion in assets under management, have called for the EU Methane Regulation to be maintained and implemented as adopted. That statement pre-dated the Commission’s proposed one-year delay. Its central concern, however, is more relevant now: investors need a stable framework against which companies can plan, manage risk and allocate capital with confidence.

The regulation was designed with phased implementation. It gave companies, importers and national authorities time to prepare for stronger measurement, reporting and verification of methane emissions. It has helped bring methane from the margins into boardroom discussions, where it belongs.

Why methane matters to investors

For investors, methane performance can offer a useful view of how a company is run. It is an indicator of operational discipline, process safety and the quality of management oversight. By setting requirements for measurement, reporting and verification, the regulation can also improve the availability, consistency and reliability of methane data. That gives investors a stronger basis to compare companies and assess whether they are managing risks that could affect long-term value. Maintaining the regulation’s core provisions and avoiding any further delay would protect the progress already under way.

The EU’s position as a major oil and gas importer gives the Methane Regulation particular weight. Clear import requirements can improve the quality and comparability of emissions information across global supply chains. They can help create a more level playing field for companies supplying the European market, rather than allowing weak data or weaker controls to become a commercial advantage.

The choice is not between competitiveness, affordability and effective methane management. Europe can support all three.

This matters for competitiveness as well as climate-related financial risk. Energy affordability is a legitimate concern, particularly for businesses and households facing continued market volatility. But well-designed, practical rules can reward operational excellence, support informed investment decisions and give companies a clearer basis on which to plan, while implementation can be managed in ways that preserve market flexibility and limit unnecessary costs for consumers.

The choice is not between competitiveness, affordability and effective methane management. Europe can support all three. A three-year postponement, however, would not serve institutional investors, companies or Europe’s competitiveness.

Methane is often treated as a narrow technical issue. It is not. Reducing emissions from oil and gas operations is one of the quickest and most cost-effective ways to limit near-term warming. For companies, stronger measurement and reporting can also identify avoidable losses, improve operational performance and strengthen confidence among lenders and investors.

Companies and investors have already begun to respond to the direction set by the impending regulation. Investors are looking more closely at the quality of companies’ emissions data and the systems behind it. A predictable regulatory framework supports that work. Repeated changes to the timetable would do the opposite: they would make it harder to judge preparedness, compare performance and distinguish between companies that are acting now and those that are waiting for the rules to move again.

A longer delay would not remove the work needed to implement the regulation. It would postpone it, weaken incentives for companies and suppliers to prepare, and leave investors with less visibility over how methane-related risk will be managed. It could also disadvantage businesses that have already invested in stronger measurement and reporting, while slowing the development of the market for independent verification services needed to support credible implementation. When the requirements eventually return, the adjustment may be sharper and more costly. That uncertainty carries a cost for companies, investors and the wider market.

Practical implementation, not prolonged delay

The practical challenges facing importers are real and should be addressed through consistent implementation. This includes clear guidance from national authorities, practical ways to link relevant methane data to imported fuels, and clear standards for countries outside the EU whose methane rules are recognized as comparable to EU requirements. This approach would preserve market flexibility and help limit unnecessary costs, without weakening the regulation’s purpose.

If a one-year adjustment is judged necessary, ministers should keep it tightly defined, with a clear end date and no reopening of the regulation’s core provisions. They should use the period to provide the guidance that companies, importers and national authorities need to implement the rules consistently.

The choice facing ministers is not whether Europe should address methane emissions, but whether it does so through a stable framework that rewards preparedness and investment. A limited adjustment may be manageable. A prolonged delay risks creating uncertainty, slowing preparation and leaving Europe less competitive.

Stephanie Pfeifer, CEO, Institutional Investors Group on Climate Change

The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of all IIGCC members.

---

Disclaimer

POLITICAL ADVERTISEMENT

• The sponsor is Institutional Investors Group on Climate Change (IIGCC).
• The advertisement relates to EU methane and energy policy and advocates for maintaining the core provisions of the EU Methane Regulation, limiting any implementation delay and preserving a stable regulatory framework for companies and investors.

More information here.

Ask European Union leaders what they think of Mark Carney’s climate credentials, and you’ll get a gushing response.

“We see the world with the same eyes: from AI to climate change,” European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said in her State of the Union speech last month, where the Canadian prime minister was the guest of honor.

“Canada and the EU are very, very like-minded,” the bloc’s climate chief, Wopke Hoekstra, told POLITICO in an interview when asked about his hopes for climate collaboration between the two powers ahead of this week’s EU-Canada summit in Montreal.

But this rosy view sidesteps a less comfortable reality: Canada is a major fossil fuel producer whose climate ambitions fall far short of Europe’s.

And under Carney, those ambitions are weakening.

Last year, Canada produced more crude oil than any other country outside the big three producers, Russia, Saudi Arabia and the United States. Oil and gas are Canada’s biggest exports by far, and the industry lobby is an influential force in Ottawa.

In his previous life as a central banker, Carney was considered a climate champion. POLITICO even dubbed him an “eco warrior” in 2018. But since taking over as prime minister last year, he has weakened Canada’s climate policies at a rate few predicted, scrapping a national carbon tax and electric vehicle mandate and opening new oil and gas projects.

The list of climate laws Carney has watered down, repealed and canceled makes the EU’s own recent backtracking on green laws look minor. Some environmentalists argue it is comparable to U.S. President Donald Trump’s wholesale dismantling of environmental protections.

“The track the Carney government has taken on climate and environmental regulation has been a decisive move in the direction of the U.S.,” said Tim Gray, executive director of environmental non-profit Environment Defence. Carney, he said, “seems to be all in on fossil fuels.”

Keean Nembhard, a spokesperson for Canada’s Environment Minister Julie Dabrusin, told POLITICO the Carney government is “committed to fighting climate change and reaching net-zero by 2050 by taking a pragmatic and durable approach.”

“This includes building major clean energy projects across the country, driving mass electrification, and making significant investment in the low-carbon economy,” he said.

But Gray argued that Carney’s support for fossil fuels and weakening of environmental standards may complicate Canada’s attempts to forge closer ties with Europe, which has some of the world’s most stringent green laws.

Still, in Europe, Carney’s green image persists.

Last week, Belgian member of the European Parliament Saskia Bricmont gave expression to this faith in Carney’s commitment to climate issues when she called on him to lead a global push to put climate back on the agenda ahead of next month’s U.N. climate summit.

“Mr Carney … relaunch the fight against climate deregulation and for the restoration of biodiversity, and re-mobilize the international community around concrete, coordinated measures,” she said.

Carney’s green aura

Carney’s reputation as a climate champion is well earned. As governor of the Bank of England, he led a push among central bankers to take the economic risks of climate change seriously — memorably captured in his 2015 ‘Tragedy of the Horizon’ speech, in which he warned: “The catastrophic impacts of climate change will be felt beyond the traditional horizons of most actors.”

In 2021, after he’d left the Bank of England, he became a United Nations special envoy on climate action and finance and launched a net-zero financial alliance with some of the world’s biggest banks.

But things changed dramatically when Donald Trump took back the White House, and Carney replaced fellow Liberal Justin Trudeau as Canada’s prime minister in 2025. At the time, Trudeau and his Liberals had been way behind in the polls, battered by Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre’s attacks on his climate policies — in particular an unpopular consumer carbon tax.

Carney’s first act as prime minister was to scrap that tax.

Following his surprise victory in the elections that April, Carney set about promoting Canada as an “energy superpower.” To the dismay of environmental groups, he supported the “Pacific Link,” an oil pipeline costing tens of billions of dollars, designed to carry Alberta crude to Canada’s Pacific coast for export to Asia.

He then pushed for thawing relations with Beijing in January, a not-so-subtle pitch to find a new crude oil client that isn’t the U.S. Germany, rushing to replace its dependence on Russian energy, signed a long-term agreement in July to buy Canadian liquefied natural gas from a proposed port in British Columbia, despite backlash from environmental and indigenous groups.

He also scrapped laws on electric vehicle adoption, dropped plans for an emissions cap on oil and gas companies, watered down an existing industrial carbon price and introduced legislation to weaken environmental permitting rules for big infrastructure projects, which critics dubbed the “bulldoze nature bill.”

A landmark moment, according to Gray, came in November 2025, when Carney signed a memorandum of understanding with the government of Alberta, Canada’s biggest oil-producing province. That document, which promised to turn Canada into a “global energy superpower,” contained a string of promises to promote oil and gas and water down federal climate laws.

So why the dramatic shift?

Carney, who has repeatedly positioned energy sovereignty as a bulwark against Trump’s economic aggression, offered his realpolitik response at an event in the heart of Alberta’s oil patch earlier this month.

“There’s a structural challenge of energy security and the existential challenge of climate change, and these challenges are forcing countries to think differently about where their energy comes from and on who they can rely on to supply it,” Carney said in Fort McMurray, Alberta on Oct. 1.

“Even under any plausible net zero scenario, the IEA [International Energy Agency] forecasts the world will still need tens of millions of barrels of crude a day. So the question is: who will emerge as the world’s trusted suppliers? It should be us. It must be Canada.”

Not black and white

Carney, to be sure, is no Trump. Unlike the U.S. president, he has retained his pro-climate rhetoric and promised to develop the country’s mining of critical minerals essential for the clean energy transition.

In May, he unveiled a national electricity strategy which aims to double Canada’s largely clean electricity grid by 2050 to meet soaring demand. “The path to net zero is electrification,” Carney said then.

In August, he announced C$10 billion in federal support for the Churchill Falls hydroelectric project in Newfoundland and Labrador, saying it will be the largest clean energy project in North America, capable of generating enough electricity to light up the equivalent of Canada’s three largest cities.

Nembhard, Environment Minster Dabrusin’s spokesperson, also pointed to new electricity transmission lines, electric vehicle subsidies and a C$2 billion plan to retrofit homes with heat pumps.

Canadian climate activist Alex Cool-Fergus said she does not think Carney “believes that oil and gas is the future,” but is simply being pragmatic about Canada’s economic reality.

“The electricity strategy that came out in May was incredibly important, and actually gives us a better idea of what his thinking is for the future,” she said.

Trudeau’s approach to climate change was “very much values-based, and it was about doing the right thing,” said Cool-Fergus. “I think that’s hit its limits. Carney’s approach makes more sense for the world of 2025-2026.”

The limits of the partnership

Hoekstra, the EU’s commissioner for climate, said he wants to deepen ties with Canada. “Given all the complications the world is facing, it is imperative to team up more closely with your closest partners,” he said. But he’s realistic about how far that relationship can go.

Hoekstra has ambitions of cementing the EU into a global network of economies with carbon pricing regimes. While he conceded nothing is “off the table,” he acknowledged linking the EU’s Emissions Trading System with Canada’s “quite different” version, which varies from province to province: “You’re talking about a completely different horizon, and that is not something we would attempt in the very short run.”

There are, however, other ways Hoekstra believes the EU and Canada can closely link on environmental issues.

“Doubling down, tripling down on electrification, on solar, on wind, on nuclear, on batteries,” he said, adding “that is one area that I think is potentially very fruitful for my portfolio.”

Another is critical raw materials, a key focus of this week’s summit.

Brussels is exploring ways for the European Investment Bank, the EU’s lending arm, to help finance the mining of Canadian mineral deposits that could supply the bloc with an alternative to Chinese-produced metals, with a framework agreement expected to be signed during the summit. Lithium, copper, nickel, and other key ingredients for electric vehicle batteries and clean energy technologies essential for decarbonizing Europe are abundant but often undeveloped all over Canada.

This week’s summit will also explore investing in infrastructure on Canada’s east coast to liquefy and ship Canadian gas to Europe, a move that could help the EU diversify its supply away from the U.S., which, along with Norway, has become Europe’s dominant supplier since it cut off Russian gas imports following the full-scale invasion of Ukraine.

Many EU member countries will welcome success on these goals. But Gray warns that closer ties with Canada could lead to deeper penetration by the country’s powerful fossil fuel lobby, which he described as a “major, major force.”

“They’ll be spending time trying to make sure the alignment with the EU is in a direction that favors them,” he said.

The EU’s lack of oil and gas resources — and, by extension, the absence of a powerful fossil fuel lobby — has kept climate policy relatively bipartisan in the EU. Could inviting a fossil fuel “superpower” into the fold as an “associate member” change that?

“That would depend very much on what is an ‘associate member,’” Dutch Climate Minister Stientje van Veldhoven-van der Meer said.