Connect with us
[bsa_pro_ad_space id=12]

Economy

A Fair Deal Includes Energy Security

Published

5 minute read

This article contributed by Josh Andrus, Executive Director of Project Confederation

Energy security.

It’s a concept that has been ignored by many – including our federal government in Ottawa – for far too long.

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has suddenly helped the world realize what’s been obvious to many Albertans for a long time – we still need oil and gas!

The same parade of politicians who crusaded to save the world from the threat of “catastrophic” climate change are now coming to the realization that there is a fundamental flaw in the Green New Deal / Leave It In The Ground / Build Back Better strategy.

Energy is the industry that powers every other industry – and as such, a safe supply of affordable, reliable energy is not only good for the domestic economy but also a crucial tool in an increasingly volatile international geopolitical landscape.

Earlier this week, after a big push by our friends at the Alberta Institute, and many other political and non-profit groups, the federal government finally announced that they would ban the importation of Russian oil.

Russia’s aggressive actions, and the related uncertainty, have now driven the price of crude oil over the $115/bbl benchmark.

[Editor’s note: we had to increase that price four times while writing this piece!]

Thankfully, Alberta has a large supply of energy resources, resources that could displace the loss of Russian imports and help keep energy affordable for Canadians.

Of course, it would have been better if our calls had been listened to years ago, and we had the infrastructure in place already!

But, as the saying goes:

The best time to build a pipeline was 20 years ago.

The second-best time is now!

If our politicians had any sense, Keystone XL and Energy East would have been given emergency approval the moment war broke out.

Yet, here we are, a week into a European war, and there’s been nary a whisper from the White House or Rideau Cottage.

If Alberta can’t convince Canada to build a pipeline in the middle of a war in Europe, we’ll surely never get one.

To make matters worse, the pipeline issues aren’t even the only possible problem on the horizon.

In past years, $100+ oil was good for Alberta.

Economic growth explodes, jobs are plentiful, and the pay is phenomenal.

Some of that will surely happen in the coming months, but with this current boom coinciding with major inflationary pressures, there are risks for Alberta too.

High energy prices and the ensuing increase in the cost of living will hurt the rest of the country.

The Rest of Canada will complain that Alberta has it so good, while they struggle to pay their hydro bills.

Will the Rest of Canada decide to start extracting their own plentiful natural resources, currently kept in the ground for nonsensical environmental concerns?

Of course not.

Ottawa will, undoubtedly, devise yet another means of wealth redistribution instead.

Once again, they’ll figure out a way to make Alberta pay for their poor policy choices.

They probably won’t have the gall to call it a “National Energy Program”.

But they might.

Remember, the major issues driving Western alienation are structural deficiencies in Confederation, deficiencies that have only gotten worse in recent decades, not better.

The West is underrepresented in Parliament, the Senate is unelected and ineffective at protecting Provincial rights, the very concept of fairness is undermined in our Constitution via equalization, and the Supreme Court screws the West and protects the rest.

At Project Confederation, our mission is clear:

To build a movement that will reform Confederation and achieve a fairer deal, in whatever legal configuration that may require.

I suspect we’re going to have a lot of work to do in the coming months!

If you’d like to help us with that work, please reach out to us to get involved, or consider making a donation to help fund our efforts.

Regards,

Josh Andrus
Executive Director
Project Confederation

After 15 years as a TV reporter with Global and CBC and as news director of RDTV in Red Deer, Duane set out on his own 2008 as a visual storyteller. During this period, he became fascinated with a burgeoning online world and how it could better serve local communities. This fascination led to Todayville, launched in 2016.

Follow Author

Bjorn Lomborg

Net zero’s cost-benefit ratio is crazy high

Published on

From the Fraser Institute

By Bjørn Lomborg

The best academic estimates show that over the century, policies to achieve net zero would cost every person on Earth the equivalent of more than CAD $4,000 every year. Of course, most people in poor countries cannot afford anywhere near this. If the cost falls solely on the rich world, the price-tag adds up to almost $30,000 (CAD) per person, per year, over the century.

Canada has made a legal commitment to achieve “net zero” carbon emissions by 2050. Back in 2015, then-Prime Minister Trudeau promised that climate action will “create jobs and economic growth” and the federal government insists it will create a “strong economy.” The truth is that the net zero policy generates vast costs and very little benefit—and Canada would be better off changing direction.

Achieving net zero carbon emissions is far more daunting than politicians have ever admitted. Canada is nowhere near on track. Annual Canadian CO₂ emissions have increased 20 per cent since 1990. In the time that Trudeau was prime minister, fossil fuel energy supply actually increased over 11 per cent. Similarly, the share of fossil fuels in Canada’s total energy supply (not just electricity) increased from 75 per cent in 2015 to 77 per cent in 2023.

Over the same period, the switch from coal to gas, and a tiny 0.4 percentage point increase in the energy from solar and wind, has reduced annual CO₂ emissions by less than three per cent. On that trend, getting to zero won’t take 25 years as the Liberal government promised, but more than 160 years. One study shows that the government’s current plan which won’t even reach net-zero will cost Canada a quarter of a million jobs, seven per cent lower GDP and wages on average $8,000 lower.

Globally, achieving net-zero will be even harder. Remember, Canada makes up about 1.5 per cent of global CO₂ emissions, and while Canada is already rich with plenty of energy, the world’s poor want much more energy.

In order to achieve global net-zero by 2050, by 2030 we would already need to achieve the equivalent of removing the combined emissions of China and the United States — every year. This is in the realm of science fiction.

The painful Covid lockdowns of 2020 only reduced global emissions by about six per cent. To achieve net zero, the UN points out that we would need to have doubled those reductions in 2021, tripled them in 2022, quadrupled them in 2023, and so on. This year they would need to be sextupled, and by 2030 increased 11-fold. So far, the world hasn’t even managed to start reducing global carbon emissions, which last year hit a new record.

Data from both the International Energy Agency and the US Energy Information Administration give added cause for skepticism. Both organizations foresee the world getting more energy from renewables: an increase from today’s 16 per cent to between one-quarter to one-third of all primary energy by 2050. But that is far from a transition. On an optimistically linear trend, this means we’re a century or two away from achieving 100 percent renewables.

Politicians like to blithely suggest the shift away from fossil fuels isn’t unprecedented, because in the past we transitioned from wood to coal, from coal to oil, and from oil to gas. The truth is, humanity hasn’t made a real energy transition even once. Coal didn’t replace wood but mostly added to global energy, just like oil and gas have added further additional energy. As in the past, solar and wind are now mostly adding to our global energy output, rather than replacing fossil fuels.

Indeed, it’s worth remembering that even after two centuries, humanity’s transition away from wood is not over. More than two billion mostly poor people still depend on wood for cooking and heating, and it still provides about 5 per cent of global energy.

Like Canada, the world remains fossil fuel-based, as it delivers more than four-fifths of energy. Over the last half century, our dependence has declined only slightly from 87 per cent to 82 per cent, but in absolute terms we have increased our fossil fuel use by more than 150 per cent. On the trajectory since 1971, we will reach zero fossil fuel use some nine centuries from now, and even the fastest period of recent decline from 2014 would see us taking over three centuries.

Global warming will create more problems than benefits, so achieving net-zero would see real benefits. Over the century, the average person would experience benefits worth $700 (CAD) each year.

But net zero policies will be much more expensive. The best academic estimates show that over the century, policies to achieve net zero would cost every person on Earth the equivalent of more than CAD $4,000 every year. Of course, most people in poor countries cannot afford anywhere near this. If the cost falls solely on the rich world, the price-tag adds up to almost $30,000 (CAD) per person, per year, over the century.

Every year over the 21st century, costs would vastly outweigh benefits, and global costs would exceed benefits by over CAD 32 trillion each year.

We would see much higher transport costs, higher electricity costs, higher heating and cooling costs and — as businesses would also have to pay for all this — drastic increases in the price of food and all other necessities. Just one example: net-zero targets would likely increase gas costs some two-to-four times even by 2030, costing consumers up to $US52.6 trillion. All that makes it a policy that just doesn’t make sense—for Canada and for the world.

Bjørn Lomborg

Continue Reading

2025 Federal Election

POLL: Canadians want spending cuts

Published on

By Gage Haubrich

The Canadian Taxpayers Federation released Leger polling showing Canadians want the federal government to cut spending and shrink the size and cost of the bureaucracy.

“The poll shows most Canadians want the federal government to cut spending,” said Gage Haubrich, CTF Prairie Director. “Canadians know they pay too much tax because the government wastes too much money.”

Between 2019 and 2024, federal government spending increased 26 per cent even after accounting for inflation. Leger asked Canadians what they think should happen to federal government spending in the next five years. Results of the poll show:

  • 43 per cent say reduce spending
  • 20 per cent say increase spending
  • 16 per cent say maintain spending
  • 20 per cent don’t know

The federal government added 108,000 bureaucrats and increased the cost of the bureaucracy 73 per cent since 2016. Leger asked Canadians what they think should happen to the size and cost of the federal bureaucracy. Results of the poll show:

  • 53 per cent say reduce
  • 24 per cent say maintain
  • 4 per cent say increase
  • 19 per cent don’t know

Liberal Leader Mark Carney promised to “balance the operating budget in three years.” Leger asked Canadians if they believed Carney’s promise to balance the budget. Results of the poll show:

  • 58 per cent are skeptical
  • 32 per cent are confident
  • 10 per cent don’t know

“Any politician that wants to fix the budget and cut taxes will need to shrink the size and cost of Ottawa’s bloated bureaucracy,” Haubrich said. “The polls show Canadians want to put the federal government on a diet and they won’t trust promises about balancing the budget unless politicians present credible plans.”

Continue Reading

Trending

X