From Energy Now

By Jim Warren

Lately, the spin doctors in the prime minister’s office (PMO) have been hijacking perfectly good words and altering their meaning in the service of the Liberal agenda.

For budgetary purposes “operating expenses” have become “investments.”  Similarly, the term “energy superpower” no longer means what people typically think it means. Back in the day when the concept “energy superpower” was popularized, it was used to describe oil rich countries like Saudi Arabia, the other Gulf states and OPEC members.

Those countries are home to the oil sheiks—the leaders of OPEC who capitalized on their dominant position in global energy markets to affect the global oil supply and prices. They also used their control over oil as a source of leverage in the realm of geopolitics.

Wikipedia, the font of knowledge for lazy columnists, describes the traditional meaning of energy superpower as follows “…a country that supplies large amounts of energy resources (crude oil, natural gas, coal, etc.) to a significant number of other countries – and therefore has the potential to influence world markets for political or economic gains. Energy superpower status might be exercised, for example, by significantly influencing the price on global markets or by withholding supplies.”

During the 2025 election campaign Mark Carney’s notion of what constitutes an energy superpower was aligned with the conventional definition.  A CTV news report the day after the federal election reminded viewers that on “April 8 at a campaign stop in Calgary, Carney pledged to position Canada as a ‘world energy superpower,’ calling for new [oil] pipelines, including one to Eastern Canada.”

By September of 2025, Carney and his Energy Minister Timothy Hodgson had obviously adopted a new definition. They still boast about making Canada an energy superpower but no longer referred to oil production and new export pipelines as things integral to that goal.

But wait, on Friday November 7 the prime minister told attendees at Canadian Club event in Toronto not to worry the long sought pipeline “was going to happen.”

Pardon me if I’m not convinced. Over the three months prior to Friday the Liberals had left us to assume becoming an energy superpower could happen without increasing oil production and exports.

We are still left with a riddle—what do the Carney Liberals actually mean when they promise Canadians we will achieve “energy superpower” status if crude oil, Canada’s single most valuable export commodity is no longer one of the key components of the strategy to get us there?

Actually, Canada was well on its way to achieving the status of a world class energy superpower until the Trudeau Liberals assumed office. Our budding superpower ambitions were foreclosed on by the Liberals’ growth killing BANANA* legislation which thwarted efforts to increase oil production and exports. The blue-eyed sheiks of Western Canada have been handcuffed and denounced as authors of the upcoming climate apocalypse.

(*BANANA – Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anything)

The communications wizards in the PMO abandoned the traditional definition without actually telling anyone they were doing so. They have quietly adopted a fossil fuel-free version of what it means to be a supremely powerful purveyor of energy, but haven’t explained what that entails.

If they chose to be honest with Canadians they would say what they really mean is “green energy superpower.” But if they came clean, it would probably trigger a national unity crisis. Better to leave things loose until the budget has been approved.

Despite wishful thinking in Ottawa, Canada is a long way from winning the race for medals in the field of clean, green energy production. But, we’re so far behind the leaders that Mark Carney thinks he’s first.

Powering the dream of a net zero world will presumably rely heavily on the approximately 28 critical minerals and rare earths required for wind turbines, advanced electric motors and batteries. Canada makes it to the medals podium for just three of the 28. According to a 2024 report published by Our World in Data, Canada is in third place globally for uranium and aluminum production, and cobalt refining.

Australia, a Western-style capitalist democracy which punches close to our weight by many economic measures is far ahead of Canada when it comes to critical minerals production and proven reserves. China is in a class of its own—clearly the world leader in rare earth production and proven reserves, miles ahead of the rest of the world. When it comes to mining and refining of critical minerals Canada has a lot of catching up to do.

Canada is similarly a long way from superpower status when it comes to the manufacturing of polysilicon, the compound required to produce solar electricity, and wind turbines.

Canada does not have any commercial level producers of polysilicon. China has several firms that manufacture it, one of which GCL-Poly has a 22% share of the global market. Polysilicon is also produced by firms in the US, South Korea, Germany, Japan, Norway and Qatar. There once was a company in Canada which imported polysilicon from China which it then used to make solar panels. Apparently it has moved its operations to the US.

Globally, there are approximately 39 manufacturers of large, grid-scale wind turbines located in some 14 different countries. The world’s largest manufacturer, Vestas, is headquartered in Denmark. No large wind turbines are manufactured in Canada. Our role is limited to installation, operations and maintenance.

And, given recent events it is unlikely Canada is going to become a global superpower for the manufacturing of electric vehicles any time soon.

Canada is in third place globally for the production of hydroelectricity, although our 364.2 terawatt-hours (TWH) of electricity we generate pales in comparison with China’s 4,183.4 TWH of hydroelectric production. While the environmentally virtuous may find grounds for bragging rights with respect to our country’s hydro production, it means little in terms of leverage in a global market place. Sure Canadian producers sell electricity into the US power grid, but they are unable to sell it anywhere else. Ocean spanning transmission lines won’t work, too much power is lost when sending power long distances and selling electricity stored in batteries is not commercially viable—the batteries required are simply too big and insanely expensive.

For the foreseeable future the only way Canada can claim superpower status as a producer of clean energy is if the definition is radically changed. Apparently being identified as a clean green energy superpower can now mean that a country makes use of an impressive level of the stuff—the criteria required to be deemed an “impressive producer” is apparently one of those post-modern woke notions whereby each country is entitled to its own green energy truth.

This echoes the casual way social media mavens award superpower status to supposedly inspiring personal characteristics – my superpower is multi-tasking, or baking sourdough bread, or being an avid recycler. It makes about as much sense as claiming you are a hero because you held a guy’s mitts so he could dial 911 to report an accident.

It is sad, but true, that Canada was well on its way to energy superpower status prior to the federal Liberals coming to office in 2015. Crude oil was then and remains Canada’s single most valuable export product. We currently export approximately 4.2 million barrels per day which was worth 153 billion USD in 2024. Back in 2013 and early 2014 when world prices were good the oil industry was generating as much as three to four percent of Canada’s GDP.

Clearly Canada could be doing a whole lot better economically if the federal government got behind the oil industry and removed the barriers to growth in production and exports. Danielle Smith has been trying to alert the Canadian government and public to the reality that completion of a single million barrels per day oil pipeline from Alberta to Prince Rupert could contribute $20 to $30 billion in new revenues to Canada’s GDP, depending on world prices.

That would be a giant leap forward on the path to being a real energy superpower.

From the Fraser Institute

By Annika Segelhorst and Elmira Aliakbari

Short-term climate pledges simply chase deadlines, not results

The annual meeting of the United Nations Conference of the Parties, or COP, which is dedicated to implementing international action on climate change, is now underway in Brazil. Like other signatories to the Paris Agreement, Canada is required to provide a progress update on our pledge to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 40 to 45 per cent below 2005 levels by 2030. After decades of massive government spending and heavy-handed regulations aimed at decarbonizing our economy, we’re far from achieving that goal. It’s time for Canada to move past arbitrary short-term goals and deadlines, and instead focus on more effective ways to support climate objectives.

Since signing the Paris Agreement in 2015, the federal government has introduced dozens of measures intended to reduce Canada’s carbon emissions, including more than $150 billion in “green economy” spending, the national carbon tax, the arbitrary cap on emissions imposed exclusively on the oil and gas sector, stronger energy efficiency requirements for buildings and automobiles, electric vehicle mandates, and stricter methane regulations for the oil and gas industry.

Recent estimates show that achieving the federal government’s target will impose significant costs on Canadians, including 164,000 job losses and a reduction in economic output of 6.2 per cent by 2030 (compared to a scenario where we don’t have these measures in place). For Canadian workers, this means losing $6,700 (each, on average) annually by 2030.

Yet even with all these costly measures, Canada will only achieve 57 per cent of its goal for emissions reductions. Several studies have already confirmed that Canada, despite massive green spending and heavy-handed regulations to decarbonize the economy over the past decade, remains off track to meet its 2030 emission reduction target.

And even if Canada somehow met its costly and stringent emission reduction target, the impact on the Earth’s climate would be minimal. Canada accounts for less than 2 per cent of global emissions, and that share is projected to fall as developing countries consume increasing quantities of energy to support rising living standards. In 2025, according to the International Energy Agency (IEA), emerging and developing economies are driving 80 per cent of the growth in global energy demand. Further, IEA projects that fossil fuels will remain foundational to the global energy mix for decades, especially in developing economies. This means that even if Canada were to aggressively pursue short-term emission reductions and all the economic costs it would imposes on Canadians, the overall climate results would be negligible.

Rather than focusing on arbitrary deadline-contingent pledges to reduce Canadian emissions, we should shift our focus to think about how we can lower global GHG emissions. A recent study showed that doubling Canada’s production of liquefied natural gas and exporting to Asia to displace an equivalent amount of coal could lower global GHG emissions by about 1.7 per cent or about 630 million tonnes of GHG emissions. For reference, that’s the equivalent to nearly 90 per cent of Canada’s annual GHG emissions. This type of approach reflects Canada’s existing strength as an energy producer and would address the fastest-growing sources of emissions, namely developing countries.

As the 2030 deadline grows closer, even top climate advocates are starting to emphasize a more pragmatic approach to climate action. In a recent memo, Bill Gates warned that unfounded climate pessimism “is causing much of the climate community to focus too much on near-term emissions goals, and it’s diverting resources from the most effective things we should be doing to improve life in a warming world.” Even within the federal ministry of Environment and Climate Change, the tone is shifting. Despite the 2030 emissions goal having been a hallmark of Canadian climate policy in recent years, in a recent interview, Minister Julie Dabrusin declined to affirm that the 2030 targets remain feasible.

Instead of scrambling to satisfy short-term national emissions limits, governments in Canada should prioritize strategies that will reduce global emissions where they’re growing the fastest.