Canada and Australia share climate

Canada and Australia face the same defining climate governance question, according to Senator Rosa Galvez. Writing ahead of the Climate Integrity Summit in Sydney, she states both major fossil fuel exporters must move beyond dependence on oil and gas without sacrificing prosperity.

Their political systems differ, but citizens in both democracies are asking identical questions. Young people demand action matching promises. Indigenous communities seek real recognition of their rights. Scientists warn of tipping points. Businesses see the future economy rewarding innovation over outdated technology.

The governance challenge

The core obstacle is not technological, Galvez asserts. It is governance. Both nations have focused on reducing emissions from fossil fuels while avoiding the harder conversation about reducing dependence on them. This distinction determines whether they are managing decline or genuinely transforming their economies. Expanding renewables while also expanding fossil fuel production is not a transition, she argues. It is addition. Every extra tonne of greenhouse gas warms the planet.

This debate is currently live in Australia as parliament reviews reforms to the Safeguard Mechanism, the main industrial emissions framework. The central question is whether major emitters should meet obligations by buying carbon offsets instead of cutting emissions on-site. Canada has wrestled with near-identical debates over carbon capture and offset markets.

Galvez, shaping her view by science, states offsets and carbon capture have a limited role for genuinely hard-to-abate emissions only. "They should never excuse delaying the transformation science tells us is unavoidable," she writes.

Questioning climate integrity

Climate integrity means being honest about the gap between emissions reduced on paper and those reduced in the atmosphere. Research increasingly questions whether offset credits are truly additional, or if buyers decarbonise any faster than those who do not use them. If offsets stay cheaper than innovation, the status quo is rewarded. Canada's own wildfires have starkly shown that forests are not permanent carbon stores.

Finance is another area of convergence. Australia has introduced a science-based Sustainable Finance Taxonomy to direct investment toward net zero activities. Canada has pursued mandatory climate disclosures. Through her proposed Climate-Aligned Finance Act, Galvez seeks to align Canadian financial markets with climate commitments. The question is no longer whether finance should support the transition, but whether policy keeps favouring yesterday's industries.

"Sustainable finance only works when it reflects science, not political compromise," she notes, referencing Canada's own taxonomy debate.

Integrated solutions for resilience

Galvez argues climate cannot be separated from biodiversity loss, inequality, or reconciliation with Indigenous peoples. Tackled together, these challenges produce more resilient and equitable solutions. She points to Australia's integration of Indigenous safeguards into its finance framework as a lesson for Canada. Canada's parliamentary oversight and accountability legislation may offer something in return.

Neither country has a perfect model, and legislation on both sides remains fragmented. Galvez states this is why dialogue between democracies matters and why groups like Parliamentarians for a Fossil-Free Future exist. Legislators cannot solve global problems in national silos. Sharing successes is valuable. Sharing mistakes may be more valuable still.

She concludes that both countries should see the transition as an opportunity. The leaders will be those who channel investment into innovation, protect nature, and build economies for long-term wellbeing within planetary limits. They have the capacity to lead. What is not yet clear is whether they have the political courage to make climate commitments more than declarations. Trust may be our most valuable national resource.