How Municipalities Are Being Scammed by the Partners for Climate Protection (PCP) Program
"The PCP program operates much like a classic freemium business model, where entry is free, but participation quickly leads to costly obligations."
For years, municipalities across Canada have been drawn into the FCM-ICLEI Partners for Climate Protection (PCP) program, believing they are participating in responsible environmental stewardship. However, when we examine the structure of the PCP program, it becomes clear that municipalities are falling victim to a sophisticated marketing scheme designed to lock them into long-term spending commitments that primarily benefit ICLEI’s corporate partners.
Despite being marketed as a "free" initiative, the PCP program operates much like a classic freemium business model—where signing up is easy, but continued participation leads to costly obligations. Just as consumers get locked into subscriptions or premium upgrades in mobile apps, municipalities are lured into climate action plans that demand continuous investment in expensive technology, infrastructure, and compliance monitoring.
Most of my KICLEI articles are written in a formal report-to-council style, but I’ll be a little sassy in this one—because honestly, this program deserves it.
The Freemium Trap: PCP’s Five-Step Marketing Funnel
Step 1: Join for Free (Milestone 1 - Data Collection Begins)
Municipalities are encouraged to sign up for free by passing a simple resolution and notifying FCM. It sounds like a low-risk decision, but in reality, this step commits councils to extensive emissions data collection, not just for the municipal corporation but for the entire community.
❌ The Catch: Collecting baseline emissions data requires significant staff time, software, and smart technology upgrades. This data goldmine is then handed over to ICLEI in exchange for a letter of recognition—with zero transparency on how it is used or who profits from it.
Step 2: The Sunk Cost Fallacy (Milestones 2-3 - Setting Targets & Creating a Climate Action Plan)
Once the data is collected, municipalities are guided to the next step—setting reduction targets and developing a climate action plan. Because councils have already invested time and money into data collection, they feel compelled to continue with the program rather than risk admitting that the effort was for nothing.
❌ The Catch: These targets are self-imposed, meaning municipalities have no legal requirement to meet them—but once set, they are used to justify further spending on emissions tracking and reductions. Meanwhile, ICLEI refuses to disclose how its corporate sponsors benefit from these long-term reduction targets.
Step 3: The Spending Begins (Milestones 3-4 - Implementing Policies & Technology Upgrades)
With reduction targets in place, municipalities are encouraged to purchase technology and implement policy changes to achieve their emissions goals. This includes:
🚗 Fleet electrification & EV charging stations Municipal reports begin using phrases like "targeting mobility," as if restricting private vehicle use is a logical solution in a country as vast as Canada.
🏗 Stricter green building codes & retrofitting mandates New LEED-certified buildings are promoted in the midst of a housing crisis—akin to buying luxury goods when your family is struggling to pay rent.
🚧 15-minute city zoning to restrict vehicle use & increase urban density Smart city tech implementation, digital monitoring systems, and restrictive zoning changes that limit land use and favors global investors.
🚴 Expansion of active transportation networks Bike lanes in downtown cores, often implemented without regard for Canada’s demographics, climate, and geography.
🔄 Circular economies A vague rebranding of economic restructuring that fundamentally alters local markets—but don’t ask too many questions.
❌ The Catch: These costly projects favor large corporate investors and global franchises, making it harder for local businesses and industries to survive.
Step 4: Locking in the Spending Cycle (Milestone 5 - Monitoring & Compliance)
Once policies are implemented, municipalities must continuously monitor emissions, requiring even more data tracking, smart tech, and external consultants.
❌ The Catch: PCP ensures that municipalities are now locked into a permanent spending cycle. Councils are pushed to expand data collection while being told that more technology—such as carbon capture—will be needed to meet residual emissions after 2050.
Step 5: The Trap is Set - Councils Feel They Can’t Leave
Once municipalities reach Milestone 5, backtracking feels impossible. Past reduction targets and climate action plans are used as justification for more spending, and councils are told they must stay the course to meet their net-zero commitments.
❌ The Catch: Municipalities are not legally required to implement net-zero programs. Yet, once enrolled in PCP, councils feel obligated to continue spending on expensive projects that provide no measurable return on investment.
Why This Doesn’t Make Sense in Canada’s Context
The entire premise of the PCP program is flawed from the start, because:
✔️ Canada is already a carbon sink, meaning our forests, wetlands, and agricultural lands absorb more CO₂ than we emit. ✔️ Canadian municipal contributions to global CO₂ are statistically irrelevant. ✔️ Mitigation makes no sense in a country with low emissions and vast carbon sequestration.
Yet, municipalities are pressured into cutting emissions that are already offset by nature—all while raising property taxes and cutting essential local services to pay for ICLEI’s recommended tech-based solutions. Any questioning of the program is met with deflection and name-calling—tactics Canadians have grown weary of. If we can’t ask questions, something is very wrong with this program—plain and simple.
Who Benefits? Follow the Money.
💰 ICLEI’s corporate partners profit from municipal contracts for smart meters, EV infrastructure, and carbon tracking software. 💰 Global investment firms benefit from land-use restrictions that drive small businesses out and favor multinational franchises. 💰 Carbon offset markets thrive when municipalities are forced to purchase “solutions” for residual emissions after 2050.
Meanwhile, local economies suffer from increased regulations, private property becomes more restricted, and essential municipal services lose funding.
The Good News: Councils Can Withdraw as Easily as They Joined!
The same “three easy steps” municipalities use to join the PCP program can be used to withdraw:
✔️ Rescind the resolution in council ✔️ Notify FCM of withdrawal
✔️ Immediately stop unnecessary climate mitigation spending
🚨 Watch the PCP Sales Pitch in Thorold 🚨
Watching the PCP presentation to Thorold, one can’t help but notice the lack of financial accountability—both from the program itself and the 522 municipal councils that have signed on.
Frankly, it’s like listening to grandma getting scammed—and then big brothers DeRose and Handley step in to save the farm. After 30 years of program implementation, the PCP cannot approximate how much staff time will be required or how much municipalities have spent on Climate Action Plans? No thank you. That`s all that is required to get out.
Watch the full PCP sales pitch to Thorold here and note how they try to distance themselves from ICLEI. Why would they do that? Who even is ICLEI?
Next, Check out how ICLEI responded to our questions in an open letter. Is this transparency or deflection?
Conclusion: It’s Time for Municipalities to Get Out
Municipalities should not be pressured into adopting climate mitigation programs that:
❌ Are not legally required.
❌ Ignore Canada’s low emissions and natural carbon sinks.
❌ Divert money from essential municipal services.
❌ Steer councils into long-term spending commitments.
❌ Offer no measurable environmental benefit.
❌ Disrupt local economies and increase housing insecurity.
The PCP program is not climate action—it is a corporate marketing scheme designed to make municipalities spend taxpayer dollars on costly, unnecessary projects. Councils must recognize the financial trap they’ve been led into and withdraw immediately.
➡️ Municipal budgets should serve communities—not corporate interests.
Canadians Support Environmental Stewardship—But This Isn't It
Canadians overwhelmingly support genuine environmental stewardship—and climate adaptation plans make sense. But this program is nothing more than a financial trap—one where taxpayer dollars are systematically siphoned into costly, unnecessary initiatives.
Municipalities deserve better than a “pay-to-play” climate program with no real accountability.
Its Time for Canadian Councils to Start Asking Questions
CC: pavils.hawkins@iclei.org, ksimmons@fcm.ca, adlar.gross@iclei.org, Emma Kirke, ekirke@fcm.ca, ltelfer@fcm.ca, megan.meaney@iclei.org, ewa.jackson@iclei.org
Subject: Request for Cost Breakdown and Project Expenditures – PCP Program
Dear [PCP Contact Name],
I am reaching out to request additional information regarding the financial and administrative implications of municipal participation in the Partners for Climate Protection (PCP) program. Given that the program has been in place for 30 years, I assume there is available data on the costs associated with participation.
Could you provide a breakdown of the costs incurred by municipalities in terms of administrative time and resources required to:
Conduct the baseline emissions inventory
Complete milestone reporting, including annual or biennial submissions
Additionally, I would appreciate insight into the specific recommendations generated by the PCP software when municipal targets are set to Net Zero. If possible, could you also provide a list of projects and expenditures municipalities have undertaken over the past 30 years as a result of participating in the program?
Your website states that membership is "free to participate." However, given the scope of commitments—including reporting, engagement, and moving through the milestone framework towards Net Zero by 2050—it would be helpful to understand the associated costs municipalities have borne over time.
Thank you for your time, and I look forward to your response.
Best regards,
[Your Name]
[Your Contact Information]
[Your Organization, if applicable]