Energy transition will be much longer and more arduous than they’re telling you

While many Canadian politicians and activists continue to trumpet the “energy transition” and conjure visions of a low-carbon future that supposedly lurks just around the corner, along comes Natural Resources Canada with its latest Energy Fact Book. A careful review of the publication pours cold water on any notion of a rapid shift to a fundamentally different energy system, one that features a much smaller role for the fossil fuels that now supply the vast majority of the energy used by Canadians.

The book contains a wealth of information on Canada’s large and notably diverse energy sector, covering production, consumption trends, investment, and the environmental impact of energy production and use. Separately, Natural Resources Canada also publishes “energy profiles” for the individual provinces and territories that provide further insight into energy production and consumption patterns across the country.

Starting with energy production (and considering all sources of energy, including uranium), crude oil accounts for about 45 per cent of Canadian energy output, measured in petajoules. Natural gas and natural gas liquids comprise another 32 per cent, with uranium chipping in 11 per cent of primary energy production. Smaller shares come from coal (5 per cent), hydroelectricity (5 per cent) and “other” renewables (3 per cent).

The statistics on energy output confirm that fossil fuels dominate the mix of energy sources produced in Canada. There’s little reason to believe this will change in a significant way in the near term.

Turning to energy consumption, a review of the most recent information leads to a broadly similar conclusion.

Based on Statistics Canada’s latest data, industry, collectively, is responsible for about 35 per cent of final end-use energy demand; this category includes manufacturing, natural resource extraction and processing, and construction. Transportation is the second-largest consumer of energy (29 per cent of final demand), followed by the residential (16 per cent) and commercial sectors (14 per cent).

What about the various sources of energy Canadians depend on for their comfort and well-being and to enable industrial and other business activity? Refined petroleum products rank first, providing about two-fifths of all energy consumed. Natural gas is second (35-36 per cent). Electricity comprises just 16-17 per cent of the energy used in Canada. Overall, fossil fuels still meet more than three quarters of Canadians’ requirements for primary energy.

Some may be surprised that electricity constitutes less than one-fifth of the energy used in Canada. A principal strategy of governments aspiring to slash greenhouse gas emissions is to redirect energy demand to electricity and away from oil, natural gas and other carbon-based energy sources. That makes sense, particularly since Canada’s existing electricity grid is about 80 per cent carbon-free. But a “big switch” to electricity won’t be easy. Consider that, over the first two decades of the millennium, Canadian natural gas consumption jumped by 34 per cent while electricity demand rose by 12 per cent. This underscores the resiliency of household and business demand for reliable affordable energy—of which natural gas is the best example.

Raising electricity’s share of total energy consumption will necessitate an enormous expansion across all segments of the Canadian electricity sector, encompassing not only the development of far more generation capacity but also the construction of additional transmission networks to deliver electric energy to end-users. Industry experts talk of boosting the amount of electricity produced in Canada by up to three times within two decades—a herculean task, assuming it’s even possible.

And, in line with the “net zero” goals espoused by many governments, virtually all of new electricity presumably must come from carbon-free sources (e.g., hydropower, other renewables, biomass, nuclear). There’s also the challenge of replacing the remaining carbon-based electricity still produced in Canada with carbon-free alternatives, as mandated by the Clean Electricity Regulations (CER) recently adopted by the Trudeau government.

Suffice to say the transition away from fossil fuels as the predominant source of energy consumed in Canada will be a lengthy and arduous journey and is sure to encounter more and bigger obstacles than most of Canada’s political class understands or cares to acknowledge.

Author

Jock Finlayson

Related Topics:#EnergyTransition #FraserInstitute #JockFinlayson EnergyFactBook LowCarbonFuture NaturalResourcesCanada

Up Next

Megyn Kelly Says We Are ‘Living In The End Times’ Of Corporate Media

Don't Miss

FACT CHECK: Who’s to blame for high grocery, energy, other costs?

Todayville

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

Andrew Scheer exposes the Mark Carney Canadians should know

Daily Caller / 3 hours ago

NEWT GINGRICH: Europe’s Elites Were Finally Told To Take A Look In The Mirror

armed forces / 3 hours ago

Trump fires chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff, appoints new military leader

Business

Worst kept secret—red tape strangling Canada’s economy

Published on February 22, 2025

Todayville

From the Fraser Institute

By Matthew Lau

In the past nine years, business investment in Canada has fallen while increasing more than 30 per cent in the U.S. on a real per-person basis. Workers in Canada now receive barely half as much new capital per worker than in the U.S.

According to a new Statistics Canada report, government regulation has grown over the years and it’s hurting Canada’s economy. The report, which uses a regulatory burden measure devised by KPMG and Transport Canada, shows government regulatory requirements increased 2.1 per cent annually from 2006 to 2021, with the effect of reducing the business sector’s GDP, employment, labour productivity and investment.

Specifically, the growth in regulation over these years cut business-sector investment by an estimated nine per cent and “reduced business start-ups and business dynamism,” cut GDP in the business sector by 1.7 percentage points, cut employment growth by 1.3 percentage points, and labour productivity by 0.4 percentage points.

While the report only covered regulatory growth through 2021, in the past four years an avalanche of new regulations has made the already existing problem of overregulation worse.

The Trudeau government in particular has intensified its regulatory assault on the extraction sector with a greenhouse gas emissions cap, new fuel regulations and new methane emissions regulations. In the last few years, federal diktats and expansions of bureaucratic control have swept the auto industry, child care, supermarkets and many other sectors.

Again, the negative results are evident. Over the past nine years, Canada’s cumulative real growth in per-person GDP (an indicator of incomes and living standards) has been a paltry 1.7 per cent and trending downward, compared to 18.6 per cent and trending upward in the United States. Put differently, if the Canadian economy had tracked with the U.S. economy over the past nine years, average incomes in Canada would be much higher today.

Also in the past nine years, business investment in Canada has fallen while increasing more than 30 per cent in the U.S. on a real per-person basis. Workers in Canada now receive barely half as much new capital per worker than in the U.S., and only about two-thirds as much new capital (on average) as workers in other developed countries.

Consequently, Canada is mired in an economic growth crisis—a fact that even the Trudeau government does not deny. “We have more work to do,” said Anita Anand, then-president of the Treasury Board, last August, “to examine the causes of low productivity levels.” The Statistics Canada report, if nothing else, confirms what economists and the business community already knew—the regulatory burden is much of the problem.

Of course, regulation is not the only factor hurting Canada’s economy. Higher federal carbon taxes, higher payroll taxes and higher top marginal income tax rates are also weakening Canada’s productivity, GDP, business investment and entrepreneurship.

Finally, while the Statistics Canada report shows significant economic costs of regulation, the authors note that their estimate of the effect of regulatory accumulation on GDP is “much smaller” than the effect estimated in an American study published several years ago in the Review of Economic Dynamics. In other words, the negative effects of regulation in Canada may be even higher than StatsCan suggests.

Whether Statistics Canada has underestimated the economic costs of regulation or not, one thing is clear: reducing regulation and reversing the policy course of recent years would help get Canada out of its current economic rut. The country is effectively in a recession even if, as a result of rapid population growth fuelled by record levels of immigration, the GDP statistics do not meet the technical definition of a recession.

With dismal GDP and business investment numbers, a turnaround—both in policy and outcomes—can’t come quickly enough for Canadians.

Matthew Lau

Adjunct Scholar, Fraser Institute

Business

‘Out and out fraud’: DOGE questions $2 billion Biden grant to left-wing ‘green energy’ nonprofit`

Published on February 22, 2025

Todayville

From LifeSiteNews

By Calvin Freiburger

The EPA under the Biden administration awarded $2 billion to a ‘green energy’ group that appears to have been little more than a means to enrich left-wing activists.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under the Biden administration awarded $2 billion to a “green energy” nonprofit that appears to have been little more than a means to enrich left-wing activists such as former Democratic candidate Stacey Abrams.

Founded in 2023 as a coalition of nonprofits, corporations, unions, municipalities, and other groups, Power Forward Communities (PFC) bills itself as “the first national program to finance home energy efficiency upgrades at scale, saving Americans thousands of dollars on their utility bills every year.” It says it “will help homeowners, developers, and renters swap outdated, inefficient appliances with more efficient and modernized options, saving money for years ahead and ensuring our kids can grow up with cleaner, pollutant-free air.”

The organization’s website boasts more than 300 member organizations across 46 states but does not detail actual activities. It does have job postings for three open positions and a form for people to sign up for more information.

The Washington Free Beacon reported that the Trump administration’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) project, along with new EPA administrator Lee Zeldin, are raising questions about the $2 billion grant PFC received from the Biden EPA’s National Clean Investment Fund (NCIF), ostensibly for the “affordable decarbonization of homes and apartments throughout the country, with a particular focus on low-income and disadvantaged communities.”

PFC’s announcement of the grant is the organization’s only press release to date and is alarming given that the organization had somehow reported only $100 in revenue at the end of 2023.

“I made a commitment to members of Congress and to the American people to be a good steward of tax dollars and I’ve wasted no time in keeping my word,” Zeldin said. “When we learned about the Biden administration’s scheme to quickly park $20 billion outside the agency, we suspected that some organizations were created out of thin air just to take advantage of this.” Zeldin previously announced the Biden EPA had deposited the $20 billion in a Citibank account, apparently to make it harder for the next administration to retrieve and review it.

“As we continue to learn more about where some of this money went, it is even more apparent how far-reaching and widely accepted this waste and abuse has been,” he added. “It’s extremely concerning that an organization that reported just $100 in revenue in 2023 was chosen to receive $2 billion. That’s 20 million times the organization’s reported revenue.”

Daniel Turner, executive director of energy advocacy group Power the Future, told the Beacon that in his opinion “for an organization that has no experience in this, that was literally just established, and had $100 in the bank to receive a $2 billion grant — it doesn’t just fly in the face of common sense, it’s out and out fraud.”

Prominent among PFC’s insiders is Abrams, the former Georgia House minority leader best known for persistent false claims about having the state’s gubernatorial election stolen from her in 2018. Abrams founded two of PFC’s partner organizations (Southern Economic Advancement Project and Fair Count) and serves as lead counsel for a third group (Rewiring America) in the coalition. A longtime advocate of left-wing environmental policies, Abrams is also a member of the national advisory board for advocacy group Climate Power.