Energy
444,000 semi-loads of food? Just another day on planet Earth

From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy
By Terry Etam
At 100 million b/d, the world consumes a billion barrels of oil every ten days. Eleven billion barrels of recoverable reserves will meet the worldās needs for about 110 days, or just under four months. And global demand continues to grow.
The scope of this discussion goes far beyond oil demand. It is imperative that people understand energy demand, and particularly so on a global scale.
A friend of mine, always with a keen eye on interesting things, passed on an interesting quote from the CERA Week energy conference the other week. The head of the International Energy Forum mentioned a surprising statistic, asĀ quotedĀ by Javier Blas on Twitter: āHeathrow airport in London uses more energy than the whole African nation of Sierra Leone [population ~8.5 million].ā Yikes!
HereāsĀ another oneĀ that turned up randomly in the feed by a credible source: āIf we keep growing our energy usage (2.9% CAGR last 350 years) we will use more energy in the next 25 years than in all prior human history. 3x in 39 years and 9x by the end of the century.ā
Energy is an amazing topic, both sources and uses. The sheer scale of what we require for our present lifestyle is mind-blowing when placed in concrete contexts like above. In the abstract, the numbers donāt mean anything. The world consumes over 100 million barrels of oil per day. So what? Is that a lot? Sure itās a big number but so is 8 billion people. Either stat is hard to wrap oneās head around.
Consider the following with respect to oil consumption/production: ExxonMobil made waves recently for a large oil discovery offshore Guyana, in an era when there arenāt that many discoveries being made (the flip side of the demand for oil/gas companies to return money to shareholders means exploration generally takes a back seat). Reuters picked upĀ the story: ExxonMobil announced a new discovery, one of 30 since 2015, in a 6.6 million acre area that to date has been found to hold 11 billion barrels of recoverable oil, which also equals the countryās total. The results are significant, moving Guyana up to 17th on the worldās petroleum reserve rankings,Ā similar toĀ Norway, Brazil, or Algeria.
Now compare that number to consumption. At 100 million b/d, the world consumes a billion barrels of oil every ten days. Eleven billion barrels of recoverable reserves will meet the worldās needs for about 110 days, or just under four months. And global demand continues to grow.
The scope of this discussion goes far beyond oil demand. It is imperative that people understand energy demand, and particularly so on a global scale.
Look at this history of global energy consumption chart fromĀ Our World in Data:
Itās nuts. But it coincides very well with the rising standard of living attained by humanity, particularly in the west, an increase the rest of the world wants to emulate.
Consider the following statistics if you think that trajectory is going to slow down or reverse any time soon.
Africa has about 1.2 billion people, or roughly 15 percent of the earthās population. Yet AfricaĀ accounts forĀ 2 percent of global air traffic. By contrast,Ā Europe has a populationĀ of about 740 million, and accounts for 31 percent of global air traffic.
What if Africans decide they want to live like Europeans, air-travel-wise, which is not just justified on moral grounds but actually more functionally logical, because Europe covers only 1/3 of Africaās size of 30 million square kilometres?
What if the rest of the world wants to enjoy air conditioning to the extent the US does (and why on earth wouldnāt they)?Ā According toĀ the US Energy Information Agency, nearly 90 percent of US households use air conditioning, and virtually every office building does as well. The US has aboutĀ 130 million households for 330 million people, or about 2.5 people per household. If Africa had a similar ratio, they would have 480,000,000 households, and if a similar proportion had AC there would be 430,000,000 households with AC. Itās safe to say that today in Africa the number of households with AC is far closer to zero than 90 percent. (EvenĀ communists/hardcore socialistsĀ support near-universal air conditioning, though they call it a ārightā by way of that fuzzy but firm āgimme thatā appropriation way of theirs.)
Now add in India, with another 1.4 billion people, and do the same math. AĀ billion air conditionersĀ worth of global demand is not a ridiculous estimate, not when considering Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indonesia, parts of South Americaā¦ in addition to Africa, Indiaā¦
Consider even food, and the logistical magnum opus required to keep countries food-riot-free. A typical western website says that the average person consumes 3-4 pounds of food per day. Letās say the rest of the world isnāt so lucky, and weāll call it 2.5 pounds per day for a global average (each new cruise ship drags the world average up considerably). There are 8 billion of us schlepping around planet earth. A semi trailer can carryĀ about 45,000 poundsĀ of cargo. So every day, the equivalent of about 444,000 semis full of food are forklifted out of trucks and down the gullets of 8 billion upturned mouths. Every freaking day, without a break.
And thatās just food. What about IKEA. And Costco. And Home Depot. And Walmart. And all the other stuff in our world.
And billions more people are striving to fill up the SUV (yes, everywhere you go, SUV) at their local Costco/Home Depot/Walmart, as soon as one arrives in their community.
Ah hell, I give up. The scale of all this stuff is unfathomable. And yet it all gets where it needs to go, every day, as long as thereās energy.
Any singular household staple must be there, in abundance, or all hell breaks loose. Remember Covid > toilet paper? What happens as soon as there is even a rumour of a shortage? Social deviants, which are harder to eradicate than (and just as useful as) STDs, get into gear and begin hoarding in order to resell at a profit. It just happens, one of the unfortunate costs of living in a free society. (Iām not suggesting that those people should be found and beaten with a tire iron, but then again Iām not suggesting that they shouldnāt.)
When we think of energy consumption, we tend to think of our hilariously comfortable lives in western nations, where supermarkets are perpetually full, where gasoline and heating fuels are available 24/7/365 at reasonable prices, where flying wherever and whenever we want, with minimal hassle, is one step away from being viewed as a human right. We are correct in that our energy consumption per capita in the west is very high. But on an outright total consumption basis,Ā individual country statisticsĀ are pretty wild. And saddening, in some ways.
First the wild part: You would expect (or I did anyway) the US to be either at the top of the consumption pile or close; it is and has been an economic juggernaut for a century. But not even close: in 2022, the US consumed about 96 exajoules of energy, which is a lot ā that number equals the consumption of India, Russia, Japan and Canada combined. But way out in front is China, with 2022 consumption of 159 exajoules. No one should be surprised China leads the world in renewables installation and coal fired power plant construction. They need it all.
Where it gets sad is to wander further down the list to the lowest consumers. The site linked above shows a graphic of the world, with each country colour-coded for total energy consumption. The lowest on the colour scale is a pale yellow representing 20 exajoules per year. The scale rises up through blues and towards a dark navy which represents China at the top of the heap.
Most African countries, and some South American ones, do not even warrant a definition in the legend at all, and are simply greyed out. They have so little energy consumption they hardly even make it onto the raw data table. Hundreds of millions of people live like that. But only as long as they have to.
It is very sobering to see how much of the world lives, and how very far they are from the Westās standard of living. The Westās leaders push the concept of āelectrify everythingā, a concept that only makes sense if one is looking no further than their backyard and has zero feel for the true global situation. In much of the world, they would just as happily get behind the slogan āelectrify anythingā.
It is hard to imagine this energy consumption trajectory falling; weād be very lucky if it stayed flat. But that seems like an unrealistic hope. The developing world clearly has every incentive and right to advance towards the Westās standard of living, and if they get close global energy consumption will head off further into the stratosphere. Here in the West, we play cute little games like a forced switch to EVs, while ignoring almost totally any common sense commentary on the subject (For example, Toyotaās 1:6:90 rule which states that for the same amount of raw materials to manufacture one EV, Toyota can make six plug-in hybrids or 90 hybrids, and in doing so would achieve 37 times the emissions reduction of a single EV. Yet Toyota isĀ scornedĀ for such logic on the grounds that āToyotaās reluctance to fully embrace EVs can hinder innovation in the EV industry.ā Note that there is no challenge to the facts themselves, just a bruising of the ego of the think tanks.)
Anyone that provides energy of any kind should roll up their sleeves, thereās a lot of work to be done, and those who wish to hunt for energy villains will get run over, in due course.
Terry Etam is a columnist with theĀ BOEĀ Report, a leading energy industry newsletter based in Calgary.Ā He is the author ofĀ The End of Fossil Fuel Insanity.Ā You can watch his Policy on the Frontier session from May 5, 2022Ā here.
Business
Premiers Rally For Energy Infrastructure To Counter U.S. Tariff Threats

From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy
With U.S. tariffs looming, Premiers push for border security, pipelines, and interprovincial trade reform
After more than eight years of federal policies that have challenged the oil and gas industry, imagining Canadian energy policy in a post-Trudeau era is no easy task.
However, recent meetings addressing the threat of United States tariffs may offer hope for revisiting energy policies through provincial collaboration.
The January 2025 Council of the Federation meetings, attended by all 13 provincial and territorial premiers, produced several key value propositions.
- After spending a week in Washington, D.C., meeting with Donald Trump and his administration, Alberta Premier Danielle Smith highlighted the provincesā resource strengths.
- British Columbia can leverage germaniumāa critical mineral essential in defence applications that China will no longer export to the U.S.
- Saskatchewanās uranium supply offers an alternative to reliance on Kazakhstan and Russia.
- Canadian provinces can provide resources that align with U.S. energy goals.
Any provincial initiatives must also address U.S. priorities, including tighter border security and increased defence spending.
To meet U.S. energy security needs, Canada must remove policy barriers hindering development. Policies like the Clean Energy Regulations (CER), the emissions cap, and the net-zero vehicle mandate (starting January 2026) are significant challenges. Provinces must collaborate to amend or remove these policies, ensuring they do not survive the next federal election. Alberta and Saskatchewan have already opposed the CER, and the proposed emissions cap remains under review.
The federal government acknowledges that these policies must be re-evaluated to avoid obstructing shared energy goals, including:
- carbon pollution pricing
- methane regulations
- clean fuel standards
- carbon capture incentives
- emissions reduction funding
- clean growth programs
- best-in-class guidelines for new oil and gas projects under federal review.
The U.S.ās energy deficitā20 million barrels consumed daily versus 13 million producedācreates an opportunity for Canada. Achieving this requires dismantling interprovincial trade barriers and developing infrastructure projects from coast to coast. The Council meetings have initiated such collaboration, with ongoing bilateral discussions expected. Infrastructure projects like pipelines to the East and West coasts would enable Canada to supply the U.S. and other global markets, reducing reliance on hostile regimes.
Newfoundland and Labrador Premier Andrew Furey stated: āI see energy as Canadaās queen in the game of chess. We donāt need to expose our queen this early. The opposition needs to know that the queen exists, but they donāt need to know what weāre going to do with the queen.ā
Saskatchewan Premier Scott Moe and Alberta Premier Danielle Smith have rejected measures that would affect Canadaās energy exports to the U.S.
āWhen you look at the pipeline system, how oil is actually transported into the U.S. and back into Canada,ā Moe said, āit would be very difficult, and I think impossible operationally to even consider.ā Manitoba Premier Wab Kinew emphasized the importance of national unity, stating that energy decisions must not fracture the country. Ontario Premier Doug Ford warned that tariffs could cost Ontario 500,000 jobs, while P.E.I. Premier Dennis King noted that tariffs could cost 25 per cent of P.E.I.ās GDP and 14,000 jobsāa catastrophic loss for the province.
The Council meetings highlighted three key priorities:
- Demonstrate Canadaās commitment to border security and meet its two per cent GDP NATO target.
- Build oil and gas pipelines east and west to diversify markets and remove interprovincial trade barriers, enabling a stronger national economy.
- Secure provincial consent before imposing export tariffs or restrictions that could harm individual provinces.
This emerging consensus underscores that Canadaās energy future depends on proactive, constructive diplomacy with U.S. lawmakers, supported by a unified provincial front and practical energy policies that benefit both nations.
Maureen McCallĀ is an energy business analyst and Fellow at the Frontier Center for Public Policy. She writes on energy issues for EnergyNow and the BOE Report. She has 20 years of experience as a business analyst for national and international energy companies in Canada.
Economy
Hereās how First Nations can access a reliable source of revenue

From the Fraser Institute
According to Pierre Poilievre, a Conservative government would permit First Nations to directly receive tax revenues from resource development on their ancestral territories. Political leaders of all parties should commit to such direct taxation. Because time is short.
Faced with the prospect of tariffs and other hostile American actions, Canada must build new energy infrastructure, mine critical minerals and diversify trade.
First Nations participation is critical to these plans. But too often, proposed infrastructure and resource projects on their territories become mired in lengthy negotiations that benefit only bureaucrats and lawyers. The First Nations Resource Charge (FNRC), a brainchild of the First Nations Tax Commission, could help cut through some of that red tape.
Currently, First Nations, the federal government and businesses negotiate agreements through a variety of mechanisms that establish the financial, environmental and cultural terms for a proposed development. As part of any agreement, Ottawa collects tax revenue from the project, then remits a portion of that revenue to the First Nation. The process is bureaucratic, time-consuming and paternalistic.
Under one version of the proposed charge, the First Nation would directly collect a portion of the federal corporate tax from the developer. The federal government, in turn, would issue the corporation an equivalent tax credit.
In effect, Ottawa would transfer tax points to First Nations.
āThe Resource Charge doesnāt mean we wonāt say no to bad projects where the costs to us are too high,ā said Chief Darren Blaney of B.Cās Homalco First Nation, when the Conservatives first laid out theĀ proposalĀ last year. āIt could mean, however, that good projects happen faster. This is what we all want.ā
Poilievre referenced the proposed tax transfer in hisĀ Feb. 15 rallyĀ when he vowed to remove regulatory obstacles to fast-track resource development projects.
āWe will incentivize Indigenous leaders to support these projects by letting companies pay a share of their federal corporate taxes to local First Nations,ā he declared. āI want the First Nations people of Canada to be the richest people in the world.ā
The First Nations Tax Commission first came up with theĀ idea. Poilievreās federal Conservatives are the first political party to embrace it. But thereās no reason why support for resource charges could not be bipartisan.
Mark Carney, the frontrunning candidate to succeed Justin Trudeau as Liberal Leader and prime minister, has vowed to use āall of the powers of the federal governmentā¦ to accelerate the major projects that we need.ā Supporting the FNRC would further that goal.
That said, resistance has already emerged.
“Most Indigenous leaders would see right through (what Poilievre said) because we’ve been around that corner a few times,” Dawn Martin-Hill, professor emeritus of Indigenous Studies at McMaster University, told theĀ Canadian Press. “Selling your soul to have what other Canadians have, which is access to clean drinking water coming out of your tap, is highly problematic.”
But Prof. Martin-Hill inadvertently makes the case for the FNRC. Municipal governments raise funds by taxing the property of individuals and businesses and using the revenue to, among other things, provide clean drinking water. A First Nation that taxed a business operating on its territory, and used the revenue to provide clean drinking water for people on reserve, would simply be doing what governments are supposed to do.
Existing agreements, though cumbersome, have brought major new revenues to some reserves. The FNRC could increase revenues and First Nations autonomy.
Given the complexities of the tax code, and the limited administrative capacity of some First Nations, some agreements might see the federal government continuing to collect taxes and then remitting the First Nationās portion to that government. The goal would be to ensure that revenues streams are transparent, predictable and support the greatest possible autonomy for each First Nation.
Any government committed to implementing the FNRC should convene a working group of First Nations leaders, private-sector executives and government officials to work out a framework agreement.
If the Conservatives win the next election, the working group could be part of a task force on tax reform that Poilievre said he intends to establish.
The FNRC would be voluntary. Communities could opt in or opt out. Provincial governments might also participate, sharing a portion of their taxes with First Nations.
If it works, a First Nations Resource Charge could speed the approval of lumber, mining, pipelines and other resource-related projects on the traditional lands of First Nations. It could provide reserves with stable and autonomous funding.
Itās an idea worth trying, regardless of which party forms the next government.
-
Courageous Discourse2 days ago
Zelensky Met with Dems Before He Met President Trump
-
National1 day ago
Mark Carney, Justin Trudeau both deeply tied to WEF, Communist China: report
-
Economy1 day ago
Hereās how First Nations can access a reliable source of revenue
-
International2 days ago
DataRepublican Exposes the Shadow Governmentās Darkest Secrets
-
Alberta1 day ago
Former Chief Judge of Manitoba Proincial Court will lead investigation into AHS procurement process
-
conflict1 day ago
Is Ukraine War a Money-Sucking Charade?
-
Alberta1 day ago
Province announces funding for interim cardiac catheterization lab at the Red Deer Regional Hospital
-
Business1 day ago
Trumpās USAID shutdown is a win for America and a blow to the globalist agenda