Connect with us

Energy

Canadian policymakers should quickly rethink our energy and climate policies

Published

7 minute read

From the Fraser Institute

By Ross McKitrick

In the wee hours of Nov. 6, Donald Trump provided a subtle but clear signal about the direction he will pursue as president regarding climate policies. In his victory speech he gave a nod to Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s decision to join forces with MAGA saying, “He wants to do some things, and we’re gonna let him go to it. I just said, but Bobby, leave the oil to me. We have more liquid gold, oil and gas. We have more liquid gold than any country in the world. More than Saudi Arabia. We have more than Russia. Bobby, stay away from the liquid gold.”

People need to understand that Trump 2.0 is a different entity. He did not build his comeback movement by pandering or watering down his priorities. He reached out and either won people over to his side or sent them packing. A major example of this was Elon Musk, who during the first Trump administration resigned from the White House business advisory council to protest Trump’s withdrawal from the Paris climate treaty. Now Musk is all-in on MAGA and is set to play a lead role in a major downsizing of the administration.

When Trump secured the endorsement of Bobby Kennedy it was based on issues on which they could find agreement, including anti-corruption efforts and addressing the chronic disease burden. But Kennedy had to leave his environmentalism at the door, at least the climate activist part of it.

Trump’s remarks about energy during the campaign were unmistakeable. When he made the quip  about wanting to be dictator for a day it was to close the border and “drill drill drill.” When asked how he would reduce the cost of living he said he would rapidly expand energy production with a target of cutting energy costs by at least 50 per cent. And on election night he reiterated: the United States has the oil, the liquid gold, and they’re going to use it.

U.S. climate policy will soon no longer be a thing. The Biden administration chose to focus on extravagant green energy subsidies under the Inflation Reduction Act. They were easy to bring in and will be just as easy for Trump to eliminate, especially the ones targeted at Democrat special interest groups. The incoming Trump administration will not settle simply for stalling on new climate action, it’s more likely to try to dismantle the entire climate bureaucracy.

In 2016 Trump did not understand the Washington bureaucracy and its ability to thwart a president’s plans. He learned many hard lessons merely trying to survive lawfare, resistance and open insubordination. It took three years for him to get a few people installed in senior positions in the climate area who could begin to push back against the vast regulatory machinery. But they simply did not have the time nor the capacity to get anything done.

This time should be different. Trump’s team has spent years developing legal and regulatory strategies to bring full executive authority back to the Oval Office so it can execute on plans quickly and efficiently. His top priority is hydrocarbon development and his team is in no mood for compromise. As to the climate issue, Trump recently remarked “Who the hell cares?”

That’s the reality. Now policymakers in Canada must decide what will be appropriate to ask of Canadians in terms of shouldering the costs of climate policies.

There’s one legal issue that Trump has thus far not addressed but that his administration will need to confront if it wants to drill drill drill. There has been an explosion of climate liability lawsuits in U.S. courts, where states, municipalities and activist groups sue major players in the fossil fuel industry demanding massive financial damages for alleged climate harms. There’s even a new branch of climate science called Extreme Event Attribution, which was explicitly developed to promote flimsy and arbitrary statistical analyses that support climate liability cases. Such cases are also popping up in Canada, including the Mathur case in Ontario, which the appellate court recently brought back from defeat.

Both Canada and the U.S. must act at the legislative level to extinguish climate liability in law. There is no good argument for letting this play out in the courts. The cases are prima facie preposterous: the emitters of carbon dioxide are the fuel users, not the producers, so liability—if it exists—should be attached to consumers. But then we would have an unworkable situation where everyone is liable to everyone, each person equally a victim and a tortfeasor. Climate policy belongs in the legislature not the courts and the “climate liability” movement is simply a massive waste of time and resources. It must be stopped.

Canada was already out of step with the U.S. in its mad pursuit of the federal Emission Reduction Plan. While the carbon tax is top of mind for voters, it’s but a small part of a larger and costlier regulatory onslaught, most recently supplemented by a new emissions cap on the western oil and gas sector. With the U.S. poised to sharply change direction, Canada now needs a complete rethink of our own energy and climate policies.

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

Alberta

Working to avoid future US tariffs, Alberta signs onto U.S. energy pact

Published on

Louisiana Governor Jeff Landry and New Hampshire Governor Chris Sununu of the Governors’ Coalition for Energy Security

Premier Danielle Smith has joined the Governors’ Coalition for Energy Security to further support advocacy of Alberta’s energy and environmental interests with key U.S. states.

The coalition was established in September 2024 by U.S. State governors Jeff Landry (Louisiana) and Chris Sununu (New Hampshire) with the aim of ensuring energy security, lower energy costs, increased reliability, sustainable economic development and sensible management of energy resources and the environment. With 12 U.S. states already signatories to the coalition, Alberta is the first non-U.S. state to enter into this agreement.

By expanding energy ties with the U.S. and promoting cross-border energy trade and participation, Alberta is helping to build upon its North American Energy strategy. Alberta already accounts for 56 per cent of all oil imports to the U.S. – twice as much as Mexico, Saudi Arabia and Iraq combined – which is helping to drive job creation and prosperity on both sides of the border. Natural gas also plays an important role in North America’s energy mix. Alberta is the largest producer of natural gas in Canada and remains positioned to support the U.S. in filling their domestic supply gaps.

“I am honoured to join the Governors’ Coalition for Energy Security and would like to extend my sincere thanks to governors Landry and Sununu for the invitation. Alberta plays a vital role in North American energy security, serving as the largest supplier of crude oil and natural gas to the United States. With 200 billion barrels of recoverable oil, 200 trillion cubic feet of recoverable natural gas, significant natural gas liquids and ample pore space for carbon capture, Alberta’s contribution is set to grow even further as we look to work with the Trump Administration and other U.S. partners to increase our pipeline capacity to our greatest friend and ally, the United States. We are proud to collaborate with this coalition of allied states in advancing energy security, reliability and affordability for Americans and Canadians.”

Danielle Smith, Premier

“Our mission as an organization has not changed but Alberta’s welcome arrival to our group sparked a conversation about what our core mission is, and that is ensuring energy security in all its forms. Our members all share the common goal of enhancing and protecting energy options for our people and businesses, which leads to lower energy costs, increased reliability, sustainable economic development and wise management of energy resources and the environment. I welcome Premier Smith and the insights she will bring as the leader from a fellow energy-producing province, that like my state, is under a federal system of government where national imperatives are not always aligned with state or provincial interests.”

Jeff Landry, governor of Louisiana

Alberta is a global leader in emissions reduction technology and clean energy solutions. The province has captured about 14 million tonnes of carbon dioxide through carbon capture, utilization and storage technology, and has the ability to support the U.S. in developing new infrastructure and supply chains for future energy markets in the areas of hydrogen, renewables, small modular reactors and others.

Alberta is also unlocking its untapped geological potential to help meet the increasing demand for minerals – many of which are used worldwide to manufacture batteries, cell phones, energy storage cells and other products. This includes the province’s lithium sector where Alberta’s government is supporting several innovative projects to develop new ways to extract and concentrate lithium faster and with higher recovery rates that are less capital and energy intensive and have a smaller land-use footprint.

As part of this coalition, Alberta looks forward to sharing best practices with states that already have expertise in these areas.

Quick facts

  • The U.S. is Alberta’s largest trading partner, with C$188 billion in bilateral trade in 2023.
  • In 2023, energy products accounted for approximately C$133.6 billion, or more than 80 per cent of Alberta’s exports to the U.S.
  • The Governors’ Coalition for Energy Security’s 12 signatory states include Louisiana, New Hampshire, Indiana (Governor Eric Holcomb), Alabama (Governor Kay Ivey), Georgia (Governor Brian Kemp), Tennessee (Governor Bill Lee), South Dakota (Governor Kristi Noem), Mississippi (Governor Tate Reeves), Arkansas (Governor Sarah Huckabee Sanders), Oklahoma (Governor Kevin Stitt), Wyoming (Governor Mark Gordon) and Virginia (Governor Glenn Youngkin).

 

Continue Reading

Business

Ottawa’s emissions cap another headache for consumers and business

Published on

From Resource Works

Ottawa’s emissions cap for oil and gas aims to cut emissions but risks raising costs for consumers and disrupting industry stability.

Ottawa has brought down a new emissions cap for the oil and gas industry, with a mandate to reduce emissions by 35 percent from 2019 levels by 2030 to support the federal government’s climate targets. While the federal government is celebrating the cap as a big step towards a more sustainable future, it is going to make life harder for consumers and businesses alike.

This cap is coming in at a time when the oil sector is finally gaining greater stability due to the expanded Trans Mountain pipeline (TMX), and the mandate would undermine that progress and press greater costs upon households and industries that are already adjusting to high inflation and uncertainty in world markets.

Now that TMX is operational, Canada’s oil producers have grown their access to international markets, most importantly in Asia and the West Coast of the United States. Much-needed price stability now exists for Western Canadian Select (WCS), cutting the discount against the U.S. West Texas Intermediate benchmark, enabling Canadian oil to compete more effectively.

Newfound stability means that Canadian consumers and businesses have benefited from slightly lower prices, and that industry has grown less dependent on a more limited domestic demand. However, Ottawa’s emissions cap does threaten this new balance, and the sector now has to deal with compliance costs that could be passed down to consumers.

In order to meet the cap’s targets, Canadian oil producers must heavily invest in carbon capture and storage (CCS) technologies, which is costly but essential. Major CCS projects include Shell’s Quest and the Alberta Carbon Trunk Line, both of which are already operational.

The Pathways Alliance is a coalition of six major oil sands companies and is preparing to invest in one of the world’s largest networks for carbon storage. These efforts are crucial for reducing emissions, despite requiring vast amounts of capital.

Those in the industry are worrying that the emissions cap will push resources away from production and, instead, towards compliance, adding costs that will be borne by fuel prices and other consumer products.

Ottawa has portrayed the cap as an essential measure for meeting the federal government’s climate goals, with Environment Minister Jonathan Wilkinson labeling it “technically achievable.” Nonetheless, industry players argue that the timeline does not align with the practicalities of scaling CCS and other strategies aimed at decarbonizing.

Strathcona Resources executive chairman Adam Waterous pointed out the “stroke-of-the-pen” risk, in which shifting political landscapes imperil ongoing investments in carbon capture. Numerous oil producers feel that without certainty in carbon price stability, Ottawa’s cap will result in an unstable business environment that will push investment away from production.

Business leaders do not share the federal government’s optimism about the cap and see it as a one-sided approach that fails to reckon with market realities. The Pathways Alliance, which includes companies like Suncor Energy and Canadian Natural Resources, has been frustrated in its multiple attempts to get federal support to fund its $16.5-billion CCS project.

Rather than imposing these new limits, energy industry advocates argue that the government should provide targeted incentives like “carbon contracts for difference” (CCfDs), which help to stabilize carbon credit prices and reduce financial risk among investors. These measures would enable the energy sector to decarbonize without putting a greater burden on consumers.

The cap’s timing also raises concerns about the Canada-U.S. relationship. Canada has traditionally been a stable supplier of energy and helps to bolster U.S. energy security. However, as the U.S. increases its reliance on Canadian oil, the cap could disrupt this trade relationship. Lowered production levels would leave the economies of both the U.S. and Canada vulnerable, potentially disrupting energy prices and supply stability.

For households across Canada, the emissions cap could mean further financial strain. The higher costs of compliance passed to oil producers will mean higher prices at the pump and more expensive heating costs at a time when Canadian consumers are already struggling financially.

Businesses will also face increasing operating costs, which will be passed down to consumers via more expensive goods and services. Furthermore, higher costs and reduced production will erode Canada’s competitive advantage in the global energy market, slowing economic growth and risking job losses in the energy sector.

So, while Ottawa can laud its emissions cap as a necessary action on the climate, the implications for consumers and businesses are tremendous. Working with industry to find pragmatic, collaborative solutions is how Ottawa can avoid creating more financial burdens for Canadians.

Continue Reading

Trending

X