Connect with us

Energy

How climate activists harm Canadian energy security

Published

10 months ago

8 minute read

From the Daily Caller News Foundation

By NICK POPE

 

Canadian Official Reveals Damage Eco-Activists Have Wreaked On Great White North’s Energy Security

Rebecca Schulz — the minister of environment and protected areas of Alberta, Canada — sat down with the Daily Caller News Foundation at the Canadian embassy in Washington, D.C. to discuss how climate activists, along with the country’s left-wing government, have hampered Canada’s energy security.

Alberta is a province in Western Canada that is known for its abundant natural resources, especially oil and natural gas. However, the federal government in Ottawa — led by liberal Prime Minister Justin Trudeau — has moved to restrict development in the province, harming the many blue-collar Canadians who rely on affected industries to make a living, Schulz explained to the DCNF.

“We have seen, over the last number of years, the activist, radical left starting to shape policy in a way that is, I think, very concerning, not only for just the basic needs of everyday people when it comes to safe, affordable, reliable energy, but I think, when it comes to to energy security,” Schulz told the DCNF.

“Certainly, we have a prime minister that is completely just bending to the activist base and ignoring, I think, the very real concerns of everyday commonsense as Canadians, and that’s a problem,” Schulz told the DCNF, referencing Trudeau. Later in the interview, Schulz predicted that Canadian voters will “vastly reject” Trudeau when they next head to the polls, in large part due to “the woke, ideological policies” that his government has pursued.

In Canada, one such official with deep ties to the climate activist movement shaping policy is Minister of Environment and Climate Change Steven Guilbeault. A former Greenpeace activist who once scaled Toronto’s iconic CN Tower and climbed on the roof of a government official’s private residence to install solar panels in acts of protest, Guilbeault has stated that he does not seek to implement a “secret agenda” of policies aligned with his activist past while in office, according to CBC, a Canadian news outlet.

Notably, the Biden administration counts numerous former activists among its ranks, including Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Director Tracey Stone-Manning, who was connected to radical eco-activists concocting a tree spiking plot in Idaho in the late 1980s. BLM manages federally-controlled lands for uses like energy production and livestock grazing.

“It’s really problematic because it is completely ideologically driven and devoid of common sense and the realities that people are facing every single day. And I think, you know, of course, people do care about the environment. I, of course, as minister of the environment, I care that we’re doing the right thing for the environment that we’re leaving,” Schulz continued. “You know, the places that we live, and where we develop our resources from, we’re maintaining that for future generations. But I also know that we could not survive a day without oil and gas, or products made from oil and gas and petrochemicals. And that fact isn’t changing. That, in fact, is growing so, I think it’s pretty concerning that they are also then trying to essentially stifle any opinions or statistics or facts that don’t support their narrative.”

Canada is one of America’s biggest energy suppliers, providing about 52% of all gross oil imports in 2023 and exporting nearly three trillion cubic feet of natural gas to the U.S. in 2022, according to the Canadian Energy Centre. Most of the fuel comes to America via cross-border pipelines, though some is also delivered by rail or by sea, according to a 2021 report commissioned by the American Petroleum Institute.

The Keystone XL pipeline, a major project that would have helped bring oil from Alberta to refineries along the coast of the Gulf of Mexico in the U.S., was set to be a new expansion to the systems that bring Canadian energy to America.

However, activists waged a major pressure campaign against the project, and its developers ultimately scuttled it in June 2021 after the Biden administration nixed a crucial permit and generally showed minimal enthusiasm for the project upon entering office, according to The Associated Press.

“Projects like that, of that size and scope, obviously take a significant amount of political will,” Schulz said of Keystone XL. “And I think that was a hugely disappointing decision, because we know that market access matters for energy security and meeting the needs of, I would say, Canadians and Americans, and people around the world.”

Notably, Brent Sadler — a 26-year veteran of the U.S. Navy who now works as a senior research fellow for naval warfare and advanced technology at the Heritage Foundation — agrees with Schulz’s assessment that Keystone XL would have been a positive development for North American energy security.

In a recently-published report assessing American energy security in light of the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) geopolitical ambitions, Sadler argued that policymakers impose “unnecessary restraints” on cross-border energy interconnection, and that security interests would be better served if they instead “get out of the way” and “permit cross-border energy infrastructure projects such as the Keystone XL pipeline.”

For now, Schulz will turn much of her focus to the Trudeau government’s proposed emissions cap for the oil and gas industry, which could see the government require energy producers to slash their emissions by about 37% relative to 2022 levels by 2030, according to Reuters. Its opponents — many of whom are located in Alberta — are characterizing the policy as a thinly-veiled production cap that will severely hurt the province’s workers and regional economy.

If finalized, the policy “would kill thousands of jobs, I would say tens of thousands of jobs, just directly in conventional oil and gas, not to mention what we’re seeing in oil sands and, of course, other related industries,” Schulz told the DCNF. “We just have a federal government that doesn’t look at any socioeconomic data on the impacts that their policy would have … No competent, responsible government would see those numbers and move ahead with that cap, but that is, in fact, what our federal Liberal government is doing in Canada.”

Related Topics:

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

More from this author
2025 Federal Election / 5 hours ago

Pierre Poilievre Declares War on Red Tape and Liberal Decay in Osoyoos

Alberta / 7 hours ago

Is Canada’s Federation Fair?

International / 8 hours ago

Biden Lied About Everything, Including Nuclear Risk, During Ukraine Operation

Alberta

Is Canada’s Federation Fair?

Published on April 6, 2025

By

The Audit David Clinton

Contrasting the principle of equalization with the execution

Quebec – as an example – happens to be sitting on its own significant untapped oil and gas reserves. Those potential opportunities include the Utica Shale formation, the Anticosti Island basin, and the Gaspé Peninsula (along with some offshore potential in the Gulf of St. Lawrence).

So Quebec is effectively being paid billions of dollars a year to not exploit their natural resources. That places their ostensibly principled stand against energy resource exploitation in a very different light.

You’ll need to search long and hard to find a Canadian unwilling to help those less fortunate. And, so long as we identify as members of one nation¹, that feeling stretches from coast to coast.

So the basic principle of Canada’s equalization payments – where poorer provinces receive billions of dollars in special federal payments – is easy to understand. But as you can imagine, it’s not easy to apply the principle in a way that’s fair, and the current methodology has arguably lead to a very strange set of incentives.

According to Department of Finance Canada, eligibility for payments is determined based on your province’s fiscal capacity. Fiscal capacity is a measure of the taxes (income, business, property, and consumption) that a province could raise (based on national average rates) along with revenues from natural resources. The idea, I suppose, is that you’re creating a realistic proxy for a province’s higher personal earnings and consumption and, with greater natural resources revenues, a reduced need to increase income tax rates.

But the devil is in the details, and I think there are some questions worth asking:

  • Whichever way you measure fiscal capacity there’ll be both winners and losers, so who gets to decide?
  • Should a province that effectively funds more than its “share” get proportionately greater representation for national policy² – or at least not see its policy preferences consistently overruled by its beneficiary provinces?

The problem, of course, is that the decisions that defined equalization were – because of long-standing political conditions – dominated by the region that ended up receiving the most. Had the formula been the best one possible, there would have been little room to complain. But was it?

For example, attaching so much weight to natural resource revenues is just one of many possible approaches – and far from the most obvious. Consider how the profits from natural resources already mostly show up in higher income and corporate tax revenues (including income tax paid by provincial government workers employed by energy-related ministries)?

And who said that such calculations had to be population-based, which clearly benefits Quebec (nine million residents vs around $5 billion in resource income) over Newfoundland (545,000 people vs $1.6 billion) or Alberta (4.2 million people vs $19 billion). While Alberta’s average market income is 20 percent or so higher than Quebec’s, Quebec’s is quite a bit higher than Newfoundland’s. So why should Newfoundland receive only minimal equalization payments?

To illustrate all that, here’s the most recent payment breakdown when measured per-capita:
Equalization 2025-26 – Government of Canada

For clarification, the latest per-capita payments to poorer provinces ranged from $3,936 to PEI, $1,553 to Quebec, and $36 to Ontario. Only Saskatchewan, Alberta, and BC received nothing.

And here’s how the total equalization payments (in millions of dollars) have played out over the past decade:

Is energy wealth the right differentiating factor because it’s there through simple dumb luck, morally compelling the fortunate provinces to share their fortune? That would be a really difficult argument to make. For one thing because Quebec – as an example – happens to be sitting on its own significant untapped oil and gas reserves. Those potential opportunities include the Utica Shale formation, the Anticosti Island basin, and the Gaspé Peninsula (along with some offshore potential in the Gulf of St. Lawrence).

So Quebec is effectively being paid billions of dollars a year to not exploit their natural resources. That places their ostensibly principled stand against energy resource exploitation in a very different light. Perhaps that stand is correct or perhaps it isn’t. But it’s a stand they probably couldn’t have afforded to take had the equalization calculation been different.

Of course, no formula could possibly please everyone, but punishing the losers with ongoing attacks on the very source of their contributions is guaranteed to inspire resentment. And that could lead to very dark places.

Note: I know this post sounds like it came from a grumpy Albertan. But I assure you that I’ve never even visited the province, instead spending most of my life in Ontario.

1

Which has admittedly been challenging since the former primer minister infamously described us as a post-national state without an identity.

2

This isn’t nearly as crazy as it sounds. After all, there are already formal mechanisms through which Indigenous communities get more than a one-person-one-vote voice.

Subscribe to The Audit.

For the full experience, upgrade your subscription.

Continue Reading

Banks

Wall Street Clings To Green Coercion As Trump Unleashes American Energy

Published on April 6, 2025

By

 

From the Daily Caller News Foundation

By Jason Isaac

The Trump administration’s recent move to revoke Biden-era restrictions on energy development in Alaska’s North Slope—especially in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR)—is a long-overdue correction that prioritizes American prosperity and energy security. This regulatory reset rightly acknowledges what Alaska’s Native communities have long known: responsible energy development offers a path to economic empowerment and self-determination.

But while Washington’s red tape may be unraveling, a more insidious blockade remains firmly in place: Wall Street.

Despite the Trump administration’s restoration of rational permitting processes, major banks and insurance companies continue to collude in starving projects of the capital and risk management services they need. The left’s “debanking” strategy—originally a tactic to pressure gun makers and disfavored industries—is now being weaponized against American energy companies operating in ANWR and similar regions.

Dear Readers:

As a nonprofit, we are dependent on the generosity of our readers.

Please consider making a small donation of any amount here. Thank you!

This quiet embargo began years ago, when JPMorgan Chase, America’s largest bank, declared in 2020 that it would no longer fund oil and gas development in the Arctic, including ANWR. Others quickly followed: Goldman Sachs, Wells Fargo, and Citigroup now all reject Arctic energy projects—effectively shutting down access to capital for an entire region.

Insurers have joined the pile-on. Swiss Re, AIG, and AXIS Capital all publicly stated they would no longer insure drilling in ANWR. In 2023, Chubb became the first U.S.-based insurer to formalize its Arctic ban.

These policies are not merely misguided—they are dangerous. They hand America’s energy future over to OPEC, China, and hostile regimes. They reduce competition, drive up prices, and kneecap the very domestic production that once made the U.S. energy independent.

This isn’t just a theoretical concern. I’ve experienced this discrimination firsthand.

In February 2025, The Hartford notified the American Energy Institute—an educational nonprofit I lead—that it would not renew our insurance policy. The reason? Not risk. Not claims. Not underwriting. The Hartford cited our Facebook page.

“The reason for nonrenewal is we have learned from your Facebook page that your operations include Trade association involved in promoting social/political causes related to energy production. This is not an acceptable exposure under The Hartford’s Small Commercial business segment’s guidelines.”

That’s a direct quote from their nonrenewal notice.

Let’s be clear: The Hartford didn’t drop us for anything we did—they dropped us for what we believe. Our unacceptable “exposure” is telling the truth about the importance of affordable and reliable energy to modern life, and standing up to ESG orthodoxy. We are being punished not for risk, but for advocacy.

This is financial discrimination, pure and simple. What we’re seeing is the private-sector enforcement of political ideology through the strategic denial of access to financial services. It’s ESG—Environmental, Social, and Governance—gone full Orwell.

Banks, insurers, and asset managers may claim these decisions are about “climate risk,” but they rarely apply the same scrutiny to regimes like Venezuela or China, where environmental and human rights abuses are rampant. The issue is not risk. The issue is control.

By shutting out projects in ANWR, Wall Street ensures that even if federal regulators step back, their ESG-aligned agenda still moves forward—through corporate pressure, shareholder resolutions, and selective financial access. This is how ideology replaces democracy.

While the Trump administration deserves praise for removing federal barriers, the fight for energy freedom continues. Policymakers must hold financial institutions accountable for ideological discrimination and protect access to banking and insurance services for all lawful businesses.

Texas has already taken steps by divesting from anti-energy financial firms. Other states should follow, enforcing anti-discrimination laws and leveraging state contracts to ensure fair treatment.

But public pressure matters too. Americans need to know what’s happening behind the curtain of ESG. The green financial complex is not just virtue-signaling—it’s a form of economic coercion designed to override public policy and undermine U.S. sovereignty.

The regulatory shackles may be coming off, but the private-sector blockade remains. As long as banks and insurers collude to deny access to capital and risk protection for projects in ANWR and beyond, America’s energy independence will remain under threat.

We need to call out this hypocrisy. We need to expose it. And we need to fight it—before we lose not just our energy freedom, but our economic prosperity.

The Honorable Jason Isaac is the Founder and CEO of the American Energy Institute. He previously served four terms in the Texas House of Representatives.

Continue Reading

Trending

X