Canada’s 2035 Emissions Reduction Target

Key findings from the strategic environmental and economic assessment (SEEA) conducted for Canada’s 2035 emissions reduction target.

In 2021, the Canadian Net-Zero Emissions Accountability Act (the Act) received Royal Assent, enshrining Canada’s objective of reaching net-zero emissions by 2050 into law. The Act introduces a number of reporting and accountability mechanisms to ensure that the Government is transparent with stakeholders, partners, and Canadians as it charts the course to net-zero by 2050. This includes setting national greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reduction targets every five years to 2050, ten years in advance. Each target requires an emissions reduction plan that outlines the measures and strategies to achieve the target. These plans must be published at least five years in advance of the corresponding target year.

The recently announced 2035 emissions reduction target of 45-50% below 2005 levels builds on Canada’s existing 2030 target of 40-45% below 2005 levels. It is a responsible and ambitious target that maintains Canada’s path to a strong, net-zero economy. The 2035 target was informed by the best available science, Indigenous Knowledge, international climate change commitments, consultations with provinces and territories and expert advice. It will orient the next decade of climate action in Canada, while reflecting the needs of Canadians and the economy.

As this new target sends a clear signal for the pace and scale of ambition Canada hopes to achieve over the next 10 years, it will indirectly influence emissions reductions. Measures and strategies to achieve the target were not included with the announcement of the target, so there are no emissions reductions directly attributed to the setting of the target. Specific measures and strategies will be published as part of the 2035 Emissions Reduction Plan by December 2029, as required by the Act. As the target is an economy-wide emissions target, it has no particular metrics or timeframes to track emissions by specific sector.

The 2035 target also has the potential to indirectly support nature and biodiversity. While there are no measures associated with the target, committing to more ambitious climate change mitigation action, and therefore reducing the intensity of climate change-related impacts on the environment, can bring positive impacts to nature and biodiversity. Reducing GHG emissions will help preserve ecosystems that wildlife relies on by limiting and slowing changes to temperature, precipitation patterns, and the availability of food sources. As highlighted in the 2019 report on Canada’s Changing Climate, reducing GHG emissions is essential to: mitigating future impacts related to increases in ocean temperature, which would otherwise contribute to melting sea ice and changes in the movements of heat and nutrients; slow the trend of changing ocean chemistry, including increasing ocean acidification and decreasing oxygen concentrations; reduce harmful impacts on ecosystems and marine life that result from these changes; and limit sea level rise, which can cause coastal erosion and larger high-level water events.

Setting Canada’s 2035 emissions reduction target also directly contributes to the 2022-2026 Federal Sustainable Development Strategy (FSDS) Goal 13 of ‘‘Take action on climate change and its impacts’’ and helping to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.  While there are no measures and strategies associated with this proposal, setting a more ambitious target will signal the need for more ambitious policies to reduce emissions. Many of these policies will need to target changes to energy use, material efficiency, material use, waste generation, energy efficiency, and others. Also, taking more ambitious action on climate change can help slow the spread of diseases that affect wildlife, thus supporting the FSDS Goal 15: Protect and recover species, conserve Canadian biodiversity.

Reducing emissions can have positive effects on human health. Improving water and air quality and reducing chronic illnesses are some of the most known health-related co-benefits to reducing emissions. Mitigating climate change can also help reduce impacts of temperature increases on humans, such as heat stroke, dehydration, and heat exhaustion. The impacts of extreme weather events can cause death, injury and increase mental health problems such as anxiety, depression, and post-traumatic stress disorder, and reducing emissions can help mitigate those effects.

Additionally, the 2035 emissions reduction target will likely indirectly lead to a generally positive impact on Indigenous Peoples, by reducing Canada’s GHG emissions and therefore limiting the impacts of climate change on lands and traditional territories. This is especially acute given that Indigenous Peoples are disproportionately affected by the impacts of climate change. For example, while the Canadian climate is warming at twice the global average, the North is warming at three times the rate of the rest of the world. Climate change impacts ice, snow, and permafrost, which in turn threatens Inuit social, cultural, economic and health systems. It also reduces access to Inuit traditional food, increases danger and mortality related to hunting on the ice, and increases food insecurity. The negative impacts of rapidly rising temperatures on waters, seasons, biodiversity and traditional practices equally impact First Nations and Métis Nations, causing irreversible changes related to knowledge transfer, health, and traditional livelihoods. Reducing emissions over the long term and achieving net-zero emissions by 2050 will help reduce the impacts of climate change on First Nations, Inuit and Métis. Indigenous Peoples will need to be included in the transition to net-zero to ensure it encompasses their realities and lived experiences of climate change, but also so they benefit from the transition.

In accordance with guidance under the Cabinet Directive on Strategic Environmental and Economic Assessment, this proposal’s strategic environmental and economic assessment did not include a strategic economic analysis due to the nature and scope of the proposal.