















































1     Canadian Journal of European and Russian Studies, 14 (2) 2020: 1-8 
                       ISSN 2562-8429 

 

 

 

 

 

Introduction to the Special Issue: 

Carbon Politics in Canada and Europe1 

Arthur Benz2, Joan DeBardeleben3, Stephan Schott4, and Miranda Schreurs5 

Signs that the climate is undergoing rapid changes as a result of increasing greenhouse 

gases are all around us. Average annual global temperatures records are on an upward 

trajectory with 2020 tying with 2016 as the hottest years on record. Already global 

average temperatures are 1.2 degrees Centigrade warmer than they were at the end of 

the 19th century (National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Association 2021). Extreme 

weather events, including scorching summer temperatures, devastating forest fires and 

droughts, super hurricanes, and floods are expected to become increasingly common 

and severe as a result of climate change (National Oceanographic and Atmospheric 

Association 2021). At the heart of the problem of climate change is our addiction to, 

and dependence on, fossil fuels. Fossil fuels, of course, helped build our modern 

economies, but they are now recognized as being the primary source of the greenhouse 

gases that are warming the planet. 

In November 2016, the Paris Agreement on Climate Change entered into force. The 

Paris Agreement calls on nations to develop nationally determined contributions that 

indicate how they plan to mitigate their greenhouse gas emissions. In the aggregate, 

these nationally determined contributions are meant to keep global average 

temperatures from increasing beyond two degrees Centigrade, and to strive to keep 

them within 1.5 degrees Centigrade above pre-industrial levels. Every five years, 

climate change trends are to be evaluated and nationally determined contributions 

reconsidered in light of the latest scientific evidence. The next major global 

negotiations on climate change are scheduled for November 2021 in Glasgow. While 

the economic shut-down tied to the COVID-19 pandemic led to a temporary dip in 

global greenhouse gas emissions (McSweeney and Tandon 2020), climate change 

trends are worrisome. For this reason, it is important to consider what major climate 

contributors are doing to address their fossil fuel emissions, and to examine their 

climate change policies.  

This special issue focuses attention on the European Union (EU), several of its Member 

States, Canada, and the United Kingdom. (For earlier comparative work addressing 

these cases see Schreurs, Selin, and VanDeveer 2009; Harrison and Sundstrom 2010; 

 
1 The Introduction was updated on April 25, 2021. 
2 Arthur Benz is Professor of Political Science at the Technical University of Darmstadt. 
3  Joan DeBardeleben is Chancellor’s in the Institute of European, Russian, and Eurasian Studies 

(EURUS) at Carleton University. 
4 Stephan Schott is an Associate Professor in the School of Public Policy and Administration at Carleton 

University. 
5 Miranda Schreurs is Chair of Climate and Environmental Policy at the Bavarian School of Public 

Policy, Technical University of Munich. 



2     Canadian Journal of European and Russian Studies, 14 (2) 2020: 1-8 
                       ISSN 2562-8429 

 

Mehling 2011; Sprinz et al. 2018). There is good reason to focus on these cases. The 

EU accounts for roughly 7.5 percent of global carbon dioxide emissions, of which 

Germany (the EU’s largest economy) contributes one fourth (1.85 percent); Canada 

accounts for about 1.5 percent of global emissions (World Resources Institute 2020). 

While the EU and Canada are substantially smaller emitters than either China or the 

United States (US), their greenhouse gas emission levels still far exceed levels 

consistent with achieving a climate neutral future.  

There are, however, signs that a more-climate sensitive politics is emerging in Canada, 

the EU, and individual European states. A particularly interesting dimension of the 

Canadian-European comparison relates to their multi-level governance structures and 

how these influence energy and climate policy-making processes and outputs. These, 

on the one hand, provide avenues for policy experimentation at different levels of 

government but, on the other hand, can complicate policy-making due to the need for 

constant negotiation and compromise.  

 

Political Systems, Politics, and Policy-Making  

Scholars in comparative politics and federalism studies have pointed out that the EU 

and Canada represent particular types of federations that share essential features 

(Fossum 2007; Hueglin 2013). Their decentralized allocation of power is determined 

by a constitution in the case of Canada, and by treaties in the case of the EU. Territorial 

relations rest on a kind of contract, the particular social basis of their multinational 

societies, and on the need for a continuous search for agreements. 

Canada and the EU were created by a ‘coming-together’ of, respectively, a group of 

provinces and states. Today, Canada is a federation of ten provinces and three territories 

and numerous Indigenous nations, while the EU is a supranational structure comprised 

of 27 Member States (having recently lost the United Kingdom as a member). Both the 

diversity of the founding members and the growing diversity resulting from 

enlargements help to explain the challenges facing these federations, which therefore 

rightly are characterized as multinational “holding-together” federations (Stepan 1999). 

The cultural diversity overlaps with significant economic and social diversity.  

Canada and the EU are also quite similar in terms of the allocation of powers in the 

policy fields of climate change and energy. The setting of greenhouse gas emission 

targets within international climate negotiations is addressed by the federal government 

in Ottawa and EU institutions in Brussels and Strasbourg (with participation of Member 

State governments in the Council), while the responsibilities for energy, infrastructure, 

and regional economy are more decentralized. In both cases, a coherent policy designed 

to mitigate climate change and to transform the energy system to a more sustainable 

basis requires coordination and agreements between the various levels of government. 

However, the institutional conditions for policy coordination differ between Canada 

and the EU. The relations between levels of government, which are particularly relevant 

in complex policy areas like climate change and energy policy, reveal considerable 

divergences. Provincial governments in Canada emphasize their autonomy, although 

they and the federal government voluntarily have negotiated important 

intergovernmental agreements. The EU depends on the consent of at least a majority of 

Member State governments to pass binding regulations and, in practice, governments 

regularly aim for unanimous decisions.  



3     Canadian Journal of European and Russian Studies, 14 (2) 2020: 1-8 
                       ISSN 2562-8429 

 

In terms of the patterns of democratic government, significant divergences exist as well. 

In Canada, which is heavily influenced by the Westminster model, majoritarian 

democracies emerged at the federal and provincial levels, although with a party system 

that increases the probability of minority governments in Ottawa. In the EU, power 

sharing between intergovernmental institutions (European Council and Council of the 

EU, which represent national governments) and supranational institutions (European 

Parliament and European Commission, which represent the common European interest) 

follows the model of a consensus democracy where negotiations that lead to 

compromise and to outcomes acceptable to all, or at least most, parties are considered 

crucial. In contrast to Canada, the EU is characterized by a wide variety of 

parliamentary and semi-parliamentary governments in its Member States. 

Coordination of policy-making is essential in energy and climate policy, yet this can be 

difficult because of the significant differences that may exist in territorial interests due 

to differences in available energy sources, industrial structures, and political-cultural 

orientations. These differences make the comparisons explored in this special issue of 

such interest. The comparison of the distinct modes of multilevel policy-making in 

Canada and the EU can help explain, on the one hand, why Canada and the EU have 

adopted climate neutrality targets and introduced plans for reducing dependence on 

fossil fuels but, on the other hand, have shown different propensities for dealing with 

emissions stemming from carbon-intensive sectors. The comparison also allows an 

exploration of how different actors’ interests influence the shape of respective carbon 

policies as well as the challenges and opportunities involved in policy implementation. 

Lessons can also be drawn for practical politics, demonstrating the importance of 

transatlantic dialogue. There are many areas where stronger cooperation and improved 

coordination could open new possibilities for bilateral and multilateral approaches to 

climate mitigation and adaptation at the federal and supranational levels as well as at 

the Member State, provincial, and even urban levels of government.  

Given the complexities of multi-level governance in energy and climate policy, a 

comparison of all aspects of Canadian and European climate and energy politics and 

policies is beyond the scope of a single special journal issue. For this reason, this issue 

focuses primarily on the larger Member States of the EU plus the United Kingdom and 

provinces of Canada. Among the EU Member States, Germany is the largest economy 

and is often considered to be a leader in some, but not all, aspects of energy and climate 

policymaking (Fischer 2017). Its influence is both direct, in terms of the policies and 

programs it sets nationally, as well as indirect, through its salient role in EU policy-

making, where at times it pushes forward and at other times puts the brakes on more 

ambitious EU climate and energy targets, directives, and regulations. The UK, although 

no longer an EU Member State, remains a major trading partner of both Canada and 

the EU, and continues to align its climate policies with the EU. For different reasons, 

most southern and eastern European countries in the EU are less advanced in their 

energy transitions (for example, in terms of their installation of renewable energy) or 

the ambition-level of their climate policies, although there are exceptions. Regional 

differences are also present in Canada, where Alberta, British Columbia, Ontario, 

Saskatchewan, and Québec can be viewed as key players influencing energy policy and 

thus also climate policy. In Canada, there is a large divergence between very fossil fuel 

dependent provinces such as Alberta and Saskatchewan and provinces that already have 

a largely carbon-free electricity grid and that are spearheading a transition into a cleaner 

economy (e.g., Québec and Manitoba). 



4     Canadian Journal of European and Russian Studies, 14 (2) 2020: 1-8 
                       ISSN 2562-8429 

 

Managing conflicts due to territorial disparities in carbon politics is a challenge in 

federations and the EU’s multi-level system. This is the case even though such systems 

technically provide institutional structures to express territorial diversity, at least more 

so than in the centralized structures characteristic of unitary states. The effectiveness of 

policies is influenced by intergovernmental coordination in Canada; in the EU it is 

influenced by supranational joint decision making, as well as by the variable 

willingness (or ability) of individual Member States to implement greenhouse gas 

emission reductions. Energy policy-making has historically been dominated by 

executive branches and experts in public administration, with parliaments deciding on 

legislation and fiscal resources. This has raised the question, for all of these 

jurisdictions, of how executive governance and democracy can be balanced. It also 

raises important questions about the will of the people, as signaled by elections. 

Democratic legitimacy in Canadian federalism and in the EU’s complex multi-level 

system has been discussed from many perspectives and in reference to different 

concepts and theories of democracy (e.g., Hueglin 2013; Fossum 2007; Fossum and 

Laycock 2021). What is clear is that elections are an important vehicle for holding 

governments and their policies accountable. This can, however, make addressing long-

term problems like climate change particularly challenging, as environmental issues are 

rarely the main issues on voters’ minds during elections. Climate change demands 

immediate but far-reaching changes in energy provision, energy use, transport 

structures, and even social behavior. Elections may not, however, effectively 

communicate an environmental mandate to politicians, at least not with the force 

needed to spur the far-reaching changes that green transitions require.  

The changing energy landscape resulting from climate change policies and the green 

energy transition is likely to have broad and long-lasting political consequences. The 

power structures that emerged during a time when carbon-based energy structures 

dominated are under threat. New actors and interests are emerging, but powerful, vested 

carbon interests are doing their best to steer developments in ways that will reduce their 

losses and possibly even bring them new gains. 

The comparison of carbon politics in Canada and Europe can advance our knowledge 

of how territorial, industrial, and value conflicts are managed in multi-level governance 

structures. It can also shed light on how democratic governments and society are 

changing as they slowly try to become low carbon, climate neutral economies.  

 

EU-Canada Relations and the International Context  

Although Canada pulled out of the Kyoto Accord in late 2011, since Prime Minister 

Justin Trudeau came to power in 2015, Canada has adopted more progressive climate 

change policies and joined the EU as a leader in the Paris Climate Meeting of 2015. 

Both Canada and the EU have pushed for aggressive targets and timelines in 

international negotiations. The international context in which Canadian and EU climate 

policies are developing is also changing. With the election of Joseph Biden, climate 

change is back on the US political agenda. The US is rejoining the Paris Agreement 

and the Biden administration has made the clean energy revolution and climate justice 

central goals. Canada, the US, and the EU are thus increasingly moving in line with 

each other’s efforts to reduce carbon emissions and to transition to clean economy 

models. On Earth Day, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau pledged that Canada 



5     Canadian Journal of European and Russian Studies, 14 (2) 2020: 1-8 
                       ISSN 2562-8429 

 

will do more to address climate change, setting a new target to cut greenhouse gas 

emissions by 40-45 percent of 2005 levels by 2030 (Volcovici and Mason 2021). This 

came in reaction to a bilateral negotiation in the days leading up to the Biden 

Administration’s climate summit for world leaders which was held on April 22-23, 

2021 (Finnegan 2021). This growing convergence will reduce the likelihood of further 

trade barriers, although some cross-border frictions remain such as President Biden’s 

cancellation of the Keystone XL pipeline permit in early 2021 and his critique of 

Germany’s plans to complete the Nord Stream 2 pipeline. 

At the same time, the potential for cooperation between the EU and Canada in pushing 

an ambitious climate agenda on a bilateral basis is more promising than ever. The EU 

and Canada are moving in tandem on the question of carbon adjustments in the 

Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) even though they have 

different approaches (Hübner 2011). The EU is using a centralized emission trading 

system (the EU ETS) and Canada is relying on a variety of provincial measures with a 

federal system guided by the Pan Canadian Framework on Clean Growth and Climate 

Change as a fallback option for provincial inaction. The potential exists to link the EU 

ETS with Québec’s and California’s cap and trade system that also used to include 

Canada’s most populated province of Ontario. The EU and Canada are already 

collaborating on clean energy innovation and new supply chains and have considerable 

potential to further advance a circular clean economy.  

 

This Special Issue 

In his article, “Carbon Democracy in the EU and Canada – Ready for a ‘New Green 

Deal’?”, Markus Lederer takes a critical look at EU and Canadian climate policy, noting 

some progress but arguing that neither jurisdiction is moving fast enough or making 

deep enough changes to contribute adequately to the global effort to keep rising 

greenhouse gas emissions within the 1.5 degrees Centigrade ceiling. While he 

differentiates progress between Canada and the EU, suggesting that the EU is doing 

somewhat better than Canada, the main obstacle to change, he argues, is their historical 

development as carbon democracies. The democratic institutions of Canada and the EU 

have both been powerfully shaped by fossil fuel interests. Successfully transitioning 

towards cleaner energy structures and adopting Green Deal politics will mean not only 

deep changes to energy systems, but also the adjustment of industrial structures and 

changes to the nature of democratic politics. The green transitions will mean that there 

will be winners and losers, socially, economically, and politically. While a just 

transition may bring some compensation to affected regions, political struggles are to 

be expected. Climate policy-making will thus, Lederer argues, need to be deeply 

transformative and disruptive.  

Stephan Schott and Miranda Schreurs, in their article, “Climate Politics and Fossil Fuel 

Sector Developments in Canada and Germany: Dealing with Fossil Fuel Legacies,” 

examine efforts to become climate neutral in Germany and Canada. Their article 

discusses recent climate and energy policies and programs, and the progress being made 

in expanding renewable energy capacity. While both countries have been slow to tackle 

the elimination of fossil fuel dependency, critical junctures appear to have been 

reached. Responding to growing domestic and international pressures, including the 

EU’s embrace of the European Green Deal, Germany issued a plan to phase out coal 



6     Canadian Journal of European and Russian Studies, 14 (2) 2020: 1-8 
                       ISSN 2562-8429 

 

and adopted a climate protection act. Opposition from impacted regions was addressed 

with a large compensation plan. Canadian measures include the adoption of the Pan 

Canadian Framework on Clean Growth and Climate Change, and on-going coal phase 

outs at the provincial level. In the west, the oil and gas industry is starting to recognize 

that changes will be needed in that sector as well.  Despite opposition from fossil fuel-

dependent provinces, and provinces such as Ontario with Conservative governments, 

climate measures signal a new era of cleaner technologies, with innovations 

spearheaded by industry, including in fossil fuel-dependent regions. Thus, Schott and 

Schreurs conclude that the goal of climate neutrality has secured a place on both 

countries’ political agendas. They outline particular arenas where significant 

opportunities exist for cooperation between Canada and Germany, as well as between 

Canada and the EU, in addressing climate change. 

In their article, “Transformative Energy Policy in Federations: Canada and Germany 

Compared,” Arthur Benz and Jörg Broschek take another look at Canada and Germany. 

By focusing on energy transition and policy dynamics under different institutional 

conditions in federal systems, they analyze whether governments in these countries 

over the last decades have succeeded in transforming the old ‘policy regime’ and 

consolidating a new regime in this field. Benz and Broschek find that policies indeed 

have significantly changed in both countries. In Canada, policies were initially 

introduced by some provinces; in Germany, policies were initiated by the federal 

government. However, the path towards an energy system based on renewable sources 

still lacks appropriate governance structures in both countries, although this lack is 

more pronounced in the Canadian system of dual federalism than in Germany’s 

cooperative federalism. 

Douglas Macdonald, Asya Bidordinova, and Avet Khachatryan focus attention on 

lower-tier jurisdictions (Member States in the EU, and provinces and territories in 

Canada) in their article, “Rising Subnational Greenhouse Gas Emissions: A Challenge 

to Meeting Federal Climate Policy Goals.” They suggest that climate progress has been 

more difficult for Canada than for the EU because of the particularly large and rising 

share of emissions in Alberta. The Member State that has shown the highest growth in 

emissions in the EU (Spain) is responsible for a relatively small share of overall EU 

emissions. Other states with large shares of emissions in the EU, such as Germany, 

have experienced emission drops, thus aiding overall EU progress on climate.  

Finally, Harold Clarke’s and Jon Pammett’s article, “Environmental Issues in British 

and Canadian Elections,” is concerned with the mandates voters give to decision 

makers via elections in parliamentary democracies. They compare the 2019 national 

elections in the United Kingdom (UK) and Canada, examining the extent to which 

environmental issues swayed voting decisions. Clarke and Pammett argue that in both 

Canada and the UK, voters’ primary concerns were not related to the environment or 

climate change. As such, issues relating to energy transformations were only of 

secondary concern. Voters thus did not send the kind of clear mandate to policy makers 

on the environment that might be needed to carry out the deep transformative changes 

being called for in the articles by Lederer and by Schott and Schreurs. 

  



7     Canadian Journal of European and Russian Studies, 14 (2) 2020: 1-8 
                       ISSN 2562-8429 

 

REFERENCES 

Finnigan, Conor. 2021. “US, Canada to hold climate talks, paving road to Biden’s Earth 

Day summit,” abc News, February 23, 2021. https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/us-

canada-hold-climate-talks-paving-road-bidens/story?id=76076360.  

Fischer, Severin. 2017. Die Energiewende und Europa. Springer VS: Wiesbaden. 

Friedrich, Johannes, Mengpin Ge, and Andrew Pickens. 2020. “This Interactive Chart 

Shows Changes in the World’s Top 10 Emitters.” World Resources Institute, 

December 10, 2020. https://www.wri.org/blog/2020/12/interactive-chart-top-

emitters. 

Fossum, John Eric. 2007. “On democratizing European constitution-making: possible 

lessons from Canada's experience.” Supreme Court Law Review 37 (2): 1-39. 

Fossum, John Eric, and David Laycock. 2021. “Out of Balance. Executive Dominance 

in Federal Settings.” In Federal Democracies at Work. Varieties of Complex 

Government, edited by Arthur Benz and Jared Sonnicksen, 58-77. Toronto: 

University of Toronto Press. 

Harrison, Kathryn, and Lisa McIntosh Sundstrom, eds. 2010. Global Commons, 

Domestic Decisions: The Comparative Politics of Climate Change. Cambridge: 

MIT Press.  

Kurt Hübner, ed. 2011. Europe, Canada and the Comprehensive Economic Partnership 

Agreement. New York: Routledge.  

Hueglin, Thomas O. 2013. “Treaty Federalism as a Model for Policy Making: 

Comparing Canada and the European Union.” Canadian Public Administration 

56 (2): 185-202. 

McSweeney, Robert, and Ayesha Tandon. 2020. “Global Carbon Project: Coronavirus 

causes ‘record fall’ in fossil-fuel emissions in 2020,” Carbon Brief, December 

11. https://www.carbonbrief.org/global-carbon-project-coronavirus-causes-

record-fall-in-fossil-fuel-emissions-in-2020.  

Mehling, Michael. 20. “Facing climate change across the Atlantic: how far apart are 

Europe and North America?” In Europe, Canada and the Comprehensive 

Economic Partnership Agreement, edited by Kurt Hübner, 259-274. New York: 

Routledge.  

National Aeronautics and Space Administration. 2021. “2020 Tied for Warmest Year 

on Record, NASA Analysis Shows,” January 14, 2021. 

https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/2020-tied-for-warmest-year-on-record-nasa-

analysis-shows. 

National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Association. National Centers for 

Environmental Information 2021. 

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/202013#:~:text=The%201901%E2%80

%932000%20average%20combined,C%20(60.9%C2%B0F). 

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/us-canada-hold-climate-talks-paving-road-bidens/story?id=76076360
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/us-canada-hold-climate-talks-paving-road-bidens/story?id=76076360
https://www.wri.org/blog/2020/12/interactive-chart-top-emitters.
https://www.wri.org/blog/2020/12/interactive-chart-top-emitters.
https://www.carbonbrief.org/global-carbon-project-coronavirus-causes-record-fall-in-fossil-fuel-emissions-in-2020
https://www.carbonbrief.org/global-carbon-project-coronavirus-causes-record-fall-in-fossil-fuel-emissions-in-2020
https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/2020-tied-for-warmest-year-on-record-nasa-analysis-shows
https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/2020-tied-for-warmest-year-on-record-nasa-analysis-shows
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/202013#:~:text=The%201901%E2%80%932000%20average%20combined,C%20(60.9%C2%B0F)
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/202013#:~:text=The%201901%E2%80%932000%20average%20combined,C%20(60.9%C2%B0F)


8     Canadian Journal of European and Russian Studies, 14 (2) 2020: 1-8 
                       ISSN 2562-8429 

 

Schreurs, Miranda A., Stacy VanDeveer, and Henrik Selin, eds. 2009. Transatlantic 

Environment and Energy Politics: Comparative and International Dimensions. 

Surrey: Ashgate.  

Sprinz, Detlef F., Guri Bang, Lars Brückner, and Yasuko Kameyama. 2018. “Major 

Countries.” In Global Climate Policy: Actors, Concepts and Enduring 

Challenges, edited by Urs Luterbacher and Detlef F. Sprinz, 171-216. 

Cambridge: MIT Press.  

Stepan, Alfred. 1999. “Federalism and Democracy. Beyond the U.S. Model.” Journal 

of Democracy 10 (4): 19-34. 

VanDeveer, Stacy, and Henrik Selin. 2012. “Federalism, Multi-level Governance, and 

Climate Change Politics Across the Atlantic.” In Comparative Environmental 

Politics: Theory, Practice, and Prospects, edited by Paul F. Steinberg and Stacy 

VanDeveer, 341-368. Cambridge: MIT Press.  

Volcovici, Valerie, and Jeff Mason. 2021. “U.S., other countries deepen climate goals 

at Earth Day summit,” Reuters, April 23, 2021. 

https://www.reuters.com/business/environment/us-pledges-halve-its-emissions-

by-2030-renewed-climate-fight-2021-04-22/.  

 

 

https://www.reuters.com/business/environment/us-pledges-halve-its-emissions-by-2030-renewed-climate-fight-2021-04-22/
https://www.reuters.com/business/environment/us-pledges-halve-its-emissions-by-2030-renewed-climate-fight-2021-04-22/

