From the Fraser Institute

By Kenneth P. Green

To state the obvious, poorly-devised government policies can not only fail to provide benefits but can actually do more harm than good.

For example, the federal government’s so-called “Clean Fuel Regulations” (or CFRs) meant to promote the use of low-carbon emitting “biofuels” produced in Canada. The CFRs, which were enacted by the Trudeau government, went into effect in July 2023. The result? Higher domestic biofuel prices and increased dependence on the importation of biofuels from the United States.

Here’s how it works. The CFRs stipulate that commercial fuel producers (gasoline, diesel fuel) must use a certain share of “biofuels”—that is, ethanol, bio-diesel or similar non-fossil-fuel derived energetic chemicals in their final fuel product. Unfortunately, Canada’s biofuel producers are having trouble meeting this demand. According to a recent report, “Canada’s low carbon fuel industry is struggling,” which has led to an “influx of low-cost imports” into Canada, undermining the viability of domestic biofuel producers. As a result, “many biofuels projects—mostly renewable diesel and sustainable aviation fuel—have been paused or cancelled.”

Adding insult to injury, the CFRs are also economically costly to consumers. According to a 2023 report by the Parliamentary Budget Officer, “the cost to lower income households represents a larger share of their disposable income compared to higher income households. At the national level, in 2030, the cost of the Clean Fuel Regulations to households ranges from 0.62 per cent of disposable income (or $231) for lower income households to 0.35 per cent of disposable income (or $1,008) for higher income households.”

Moreover, “Relative to disposable income, the cost of the Clean Fuel Regulations to the average household in 2030 is the highest in Saskatchewan (0.87 per cent, or $1,117), Alberta (0.80 per cent, or $1,157) and Newfoundland and Labrador (0.80 per cent, or $850), reflecting the higher fossil fuel intensity of their economies. Meanwhile, relative to disposable income, the cost of the Clean Fuel Regulations to the average household in 2030 is the lowest in British Columbia (0.28 per cent, or $384).”

So, let’s review. A government mandate for the use of lower-carbon fuels has not only hurt fuel consumers, it has perversely driven sourcing of said lower-carbon fuels away from Canadian producers to lower-cost higher-volume U.S. producers. All this to the deficit of the Canadian economy, and the benefit of the American economy. That’s two perverse impacts in one piece of legislation.

Remember, the intended beneficiaries of most climate policies are usually portrayed as lower-income folks who will purportedly suffer the most from future climate change. The CFRs whack these people the hardest in their already-strained wallets. The CFRs were also—in theory—designed to stimulate Canada’s lower-carbon fuel industry to satisfy domestic demand by fuel producers. Instead, these producers are now looking to U.S. imports to comply with the CFRs, while Canadian lower-carbon fuel producers languish and fade away.

Poorly-devised government policies can do more harm than good. Clearly, Prime Minister Carney and his government should scrap these wrongheaded regulations and let gasoline and diesel producers produce fuel—responsibly, but as cheaply as possible—to meet market demand, for the benefit of Canadians and their families. A radical concept, I know.

Kenneth P. Green

Senior Fellow, Fraser Institute

From the Daily Caller News Foundation

By David Blackmon

U.S. Energy Secretary Chris Wright warned International Energy Agency (IEA) head Fatih Birol  in July that he was considering cancelling America’s membership in and funding of its activities due to its increasingly political nature.

Specifically, Wright pointed to the agency’s modeling methods used to compile its various reports and projections, which the Secretary and many others believe have trended more into the realm of advocacy than fact-based analysis in recent years.

That trend has long been clear and is a direct result of an intentional shift in the IEA’s mission that evolved in the months during and following the COVID pandemic. In 2022, the agency’s board of governors reinforced this changed mission away from the analysis of real energy-related data and policies to one of producing reports to support and “guide countries as they build net-zero emission energy systems to comply with internationally agreed climate goals” consistent with the Paris Climate Agreement of 2016.

One step Birol and his team took to incorporate its new role as cheerleader for an energy transition that isn’t actually happening was to eliminate the “current policies” modeling scenario which had long formed the base case for its periodic projections. That sterile analysis of the facts on the ground was  replaced it with a more aspirational set of assumptions based on the announced policy intentions of governments around the world. Using this new method based more on hope and dreams than facts on the ground unsurprisingly led the IEA to begin famously predicting a peak in global oil demand by 2029, something no one else sees coming.

Those projections have helped promote the belief among policymakers and investors that a high percentage of current oil company reserves would wind up becoming stranded assets, thus artificially – and many would contend falsely – deflating the value of their company stocks. This unfounded belief has also helped discourage banks from allocating capital to funding exploration for additional oil reserves that the world will almost certainly require in the decades to come.

Secretary Wright, in his role as leading energy policymaker for an administration more focused on dealing with the realities of America’s energy security needs than the fever dreams of the far-left climate alarm lobby, determined that investing millions of taxpayer dollars in IEA’s advocacy efforts each year was a poor use of his department’s budget. So, in an interview with Bloomberg in July, Wright said, “We will do one of two things: we will reform the way the IEA operates, or we will withdraw,” adding that his “strong preference is to reform it.”

Lo and behold, less than two months later, Javier Blas says in a September 10 Bloomberg op/ed headlined “The Myth of Peak Fossil Fuel Demand is Crumbling,” that the IEA will reincorporate its “current policies” scenario in its upcoming annual report. Blas notes that, “the annual report being prepared by the International Energy Agency… shows the alternative — decades more of robust fossil-fuel use, with oil and gas demand growing over the next 25 years — isn’t just possible but probable.”

On his X account, Blas posted a chart showing that, instead of projecting a “peak” of crude oil demand prior to 2030, IEA’s “current policies” scenario will be more in line with recent projections by both OPEC and ExxonMobil showing crude demand continuing to rise through the year 2050 and beyond.

Whether that is a concession to Secretary Wright’s concerns or to simple reality on the ground is not clear. Regardless, it is without question a clear about-face which hopefully signals a return by the IEA to its original mission to serve as a reliable analyst and producer of fact-based information about the global energy situation.

The global community has no shortage of well-funded advocates for the aspirational goals of the climate alarmist community. If this pending return to reality by the IEA in its upcoming annual report signals an end to its efforts to be included among that crowded field, that will be a win for everyone, regardless of the motivations behind it.