Canada’s G7 summit in Kananaskis: Lessons learned for advancing climate action
The climate crisis is accelerating, with global temperatures breaking new records each year. The window to limit warming to the 1.5°C threshold set by the Paris Agreement in 2015 is rapidly closing. The G7 summit, hosted by Canada in Kananaskis on 15–17 June, presents a critical opportunity to drive climate action and build momentum towards the negotiations of the 30th Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change in Brazil this November.
Canada should prioritise climate change for the Kananaskis Summit, aligning with the G7’s historical role in addressing global environmental challenges. The G7 first discussed climate change in 1979. At the 1985 Bonn Summit, Canadian prime minister Brian Mulroney, British prime minister Margaret Thatcher and US president Ronald Reagan committed to cooperative climate action. However, despite decades of discussion, global greenhouse gas emissions have not decreased at the necessary rate, and investment in clean energy remains insufficient, particularly in developing countries.
Building consensus on climate priorities
Addressing climate change remains a significant challenge, especially with the United States led by Donald Trump. Not only does he deny climate change, but he also actively undermines multilateral efforts. When the US held the 2020 G7 presidency, climate change was not mentioned in the final communiqué, highlighting the difficulty of achieving consensus when one of the largest emitters resists meaningful action.
The climate crisis is not going away. Canada’s experience during the first Trump administration offers important lessons in managing climate diplomacy at the G7.
In 2018, when Canada held the G7 presidency, I co-chaired the environment ministers’ meeting and participated in the Charlevoix Summit. Navigating the discussion on climate change required careful balancing, particularly given US resistance. At Charlevoix, Canada emphasised healthy oceans, achieving consensus on the Charlevoix blueprint for resilient coastal communities. However, the US did not endorse the climate commitments, instead securing a separate paragraph in the communiqué that prioritised energy security and fossil fuels.
At the G7 environment ministers’ meeting later that year in Halifax, I drew on lessons from Italy’s G7 environment ministers’ meeting in Bologna the year before. There, the US secured a controversial footnote in the communiqué stating its withdrawal from the Paris Agreement while asserting its leadership in reducing its carbon footprint. The US refusal to commit to global climate action was frustrating. I remarked, “That the US is now left as a footnote to climate action … is very sad.”
Rather than negotiating a divisive communiqué in Halifax, I decided to issue a chair’s summary, which highlighted areas of agreement and balanced the climate ambitions of all members, except for the US. This approach allowed for progress on shared priorities without watering down commitments, ultimately reinforcing the climate actions of the other G7 members.
From pledges to progress
The lessons learned from hosting the G7 during the first Trump administration are highly relevant for Canada’s leadership at Kananaskis. Given the ongoing diplomatic complexities with the US, framing the discussions carefully will be essential. A focus on tangible climate issues – such as extreme weather, infrastructure resilience or energy security – can help bridge divides and foster agreement, possibly even with the agreement of the US. A chair’s summary, reflecting the commitments of all G7 members (except the US, if necessary), will ensure progress without forcing compromise.
There are, however, limits. Despite extensive preparation for the Charlevoix Summit, President Trump rejected the final communiqué in a tweet that he issued after the summit’s conclusion, highlighting how unexpected developments can derail progress. This underscored the need for careful diplomatic management throughout the summit.
Nevertheless, diplomatic sensitivity must not come at the cost of ambition. G7 summits should not just be scripted exercises but genuine forums for meaningful dialogue and actionable commitments. Although ambitious commitments often appear in G7 communiqués, accountability for follow-through has been lacking. Real-world action is critical, and the 2025 Kananaskis Summit must set clear, specific commitments closely tied to international agreements, particularly the Paris Agreement.
Canada’s presidency of the G7 in Kananaskis provides an opportunity to reaffirm these commitments and demonstrate global leadership. This summit also plays a crucial role in setting the stage for COP30 in November this year, underscoring the urgency of climate action. By fostering cooperation and emphasising concrete climate goals, the G7 can help advance a successful path forward for both the environment and the global economy.
