Connect with us
[bsa_pro_ad_space id=12]

Canadian Energy Centre

European governments are reassessing EU-directed green policies amid public unease

Published

11 minute read

From the Canadian Energy Centre

By Shawn Logan

How ‘greenlash’ is forcing Europe to scale back ambitious net zero policies

European governments are beginning to sound the retreat on some foundational net zero policies in the wake of “greenlash” from increasingly overburdened citizens.  

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022 prompted European governments to begin pivoting away from cheap Russian natural gas, which Europe increasingly relied on to backstop a laundry list of ambitious green policies. 

But despite pledges by the European Union to “divest away from Russian gas as quickly as possible,” nearly 15% of overall EU gas imports still came from Russia in the first half of 2023, while the amount of liquefied natural gas (LNG) imported from Russia actually increased by 39.5% compared to the same period in 2021, prior to the Ukraine invasion. 

Energy security and affordability have become central issues for Europeans amid a persistent global energy crisis, and that’s translated into a rethink of what had once seemed like unassailable green policies across Europe. 

Here’s a look at how some countries are dealing with the new global reality: 

Germany 

Nothing is more symbolic of Europe’s retreat from its net zero ambitions than Germany seeing a wind farm dismantled to make room for the expansion of a lignite coal mine just outside of Dusseldorf. 

And no European country has been more affected by the changing energy landscape than Germany, which introduced its multi-billion dollar Energiewende program in 2010, calling for a broad phaseout of fossil fuels and nuclear power, replacing them primarily with wind and solar power. 

Today, without cheap and reliable natural gas backups due to sanctions against Russia, Germany has gone from Europe’s economic powerhouse to the world’s worst performing major developed economy, facing “deindustrialization” due to skyrocketing energy costs. 

In addition to extending its deadline for shutting down coal plants until 2024, the German government has also scrapped plans for imposing tougher building insulation standards to reduce emissions as well as extending the deadline on controversial legislation to phase out oil and gas heating systems in homes, a decision the government admits will make it impossible to reach the country’s 2030 emissions targets. 

A major car manufacturer, Germany’s opposition to an EU-wide ban on the sale of new combustion vehicles by 2035 softened the legislation to allow exceptions for those that run on e-fuels. 

Germany’s quest for reliable energy exports prompted Chancellor Olaf Scholz to travel to Canada to make a personal appeal for Canadian LNG. He was sent home empty handed, advised there wasn’t a strong business case for the resource. 

Great Britain 

Britons have grown increasingly concerned about the cost of net zero policies, despite being largely supportive of striving for a greener future. 

YouGov poll in August found while 71% generally favoured Great Britain’s aim to reduce carbon emissions to net zero by 2050, some 55% agreed that policies should only be introduced if they don’t impose any additional costs for citizens. Only 27% agreed reaching the goal was important enough to warrant more spending. 

That shift in public sentiment prompted Prime Minister Rishi Sunak to pump the brakes on some key policies enacted to reach the U.K.’s legally binding target of reaching net zero emissions by 2050. 

In September, the government delayed its looming ban on new gas- and diesel-powered cars by five years to 2035, while also extending its phaseout of gas boilers in homes and suggesting exemptions for certain households and types of property. 

“If we continue down this path, we risk losing the British people and the resulting backlash would not just be against specific policies, but against the wider mission itself,” Sunak said of the potential consequences of maintaining strict net zero policies. 

The U.K. government also gave the green light for hundreds of new North Sea oil and gas licences, citing the need to bolster both energy security and the nation’s economy.  

France 

France’s net zero ambitions enjoy an advantage compared to its European peers due in large part to its significant fleet of nuclear power stations, which provide around 70 per cent of its electricity. 

However, President Emmanuel Macron has often opted for a more pragmatic approach to reaching climate targets, noting any energy transition can’t leave citizens disadvantaged. 

“We want an ecology that is accessible and fair, an ecology that leaves no one without a solution,” Macron said in September after ruling out a total ban on gas boilers, instead offering incentives to those looking to replace them with heat pumps. 

Macron also famously dropped a proposed fuel tax in 2018 that sparked sweeping yellow vest protests across France when it was announced.  

France has also extended the timeframe of its two remaining coal plants to continue operating until 2027, five years later than the plants were originally set to be shuttered. 

Italy 

Feeling the impacts of the global energy crisis, Italy has begun reassessing some of its previous commitments to transition goals. 

Earlier this year, Italy pushed back on EU directives to improve the energy efficiency of buildings, which Italy’s national building association warned would cost some $400 billion euros over the next decade, with another $190 billion euros needed to ensure business properties met the required standards. The Italian government has called for exemptions and longer timelines. 

Italy also warned the European Commission it would only support the EU’s phase out of combustion engine cars if it allows cars running on biofuels to eclipse the deadline, while further questioning a push to slash industrial emissions 

Paolo Angelini, deputy governor at the Bank of Italy, warned a rapid abandonment of fossil fuel-driven industries could have a devastating impact. 

“If everybody divests from high-emitting sectors there will be a problem because if the economy does not adjust at the same time, things could blow up unless a miracle happens in terms of new technology,” he said. 

Poland 

Like Italy, Poland has dug in its heels against some EU net zero initiatives, and is actually suing the EU with the goal of overturning some of its climate-focused legislation in the courts. 

“Does the EU want to make authoritarian decisions about what kind of vehicles Poles will drive and to increase energy prices in Poland? The Polish Government will not allow Brussels to dictate,” wrote Polish Climate and Environment Minister Anna Moskwa on X, formerly known as Twitter, in July. 

In addition to looking to scrap the EU’s ban on combustion engine cars by 2035, Warsaw is also challenging laws around land use and forestry, updated 2030 emissions reduction targets for EU countries, and a border tariff on carbon-intensive goods entering the European Union. 

With some 70% of its electricity generated by coal, Poland is one of Europe’s largest users of coal. And it has no designs on a rapid retreat from the most polluting fossil fuel, reaching an agreement with trade unions to keep mining coal until 2049. 

Netherlands 

The political consequences of leaning too far in on net zero targets are beginning to be seen in the Netherlands. 

In March, a farmer’s protest party, the BBB or BoerBurgerBeweging (Farmer-Citizen Movement), shook up the political landscape by capturing 16 of 75 seats in the Dutch Senate, more than any other party, including the ruling coalition of the Labor and Green Parties. 

The upstart party was formed in 2019 in response to government plans to significantly reduce nitrogen emissions from livestock by 2030, a move estimated to eliminate 11,200 farms and force another 17,600 farmers to significantly reduce their livestock. 

What followed were nationwide protests that saw supermarket distribution centres blockaded, hay bales in flames and manure dumped on highways. 

In November, Dutch voters will elect a new national government, and while BBB has dropped to fifth in polling, much of that support has been picked up by the fledgling New Social Contract (NSC), which has vowed to oppose further integration with EU policies, a similar stance offered by the BBB. The NSC currently tops the polls ahead of the Nov. 22 election. 

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

Canadian Energy Centre

Ignoring the global picture and making Canadians poorer: Energy and economic leaders on Ottawa’s oil and gas emissions cap

Published on

From the Canadian Energy Centre

By Deborah Jaremko

The federal government’s draft rules to cap emissions – and by credible analysis, production – from Canada’s oil and gas sector will make Canadians poorer, won’t reduce world emissions, and are a “slap in the face” to Indigenous communities.

That’s the view of several leaders in energy and the economy calling out the negative consequences of Ottawa’s new regulations, which were announced on November 4.

Here’s a selection of what they have to say.

Goldy Hyder, CEO, Business Council of Canada

“At a time when Canada’s economy is stalling, imposing an oil and gas emissions cap will only make Canadians poorer. Strong climate action requires a strong economy. This cap will leave us with neither.”

Deborah Yedlin, CEO, Calgary Chamber of Commerce

“Canada would stand as the only country in the world to move forward with a self-imposed emissions cap.

“Given that our economic growth numbers have been underwhelming–and our per-person productivity lags that of the United States by $20,000, one would expect the government to be more focused on supporting sectors that are critical to economic growth rather than passing legislation that will compromise investment and hamper our growth prospects.

“…If the Canadian government wants to reduce emissions, it should follow the private sector’s lead – and strong track record – and withdraw the emissions cap.”

Stephen Buffalo, CEO, Indian Resources Council of Canada

“Over the past four decades, Canadian governments urged and promoted Indigenous peoples to engage in the natural resource economy. We were anxious to break our dependence on government and, even more, to exercise our treaty and Indigenous rights to build our own economies. We jumped in with far more enthusiasm and commitment than most Canadians appreciate.

“And now, in a bid to make Canada look ecologically virtuous on the world stage, the Liberal government imposed further restrictions on the oil and gas sector. This is happening as Indigenous engagement, employment and equity investment are growing and at a time when our communities have had their first taste of real and sustainable prosperity since the newcomers killed off all the buffalo. Thanks for nothing.”

Trevor Tombe, professor of economics, University of Calgary School of Public Policy

“[The emissions cap] is a wedge issue that’s going to be especially popular in Quebec. And I don’t think the [federal government’s] thinking goes much further than that.”

Kendall Dilling, president, Pathways Alliance

A decrease in Canadian production has no impact on global demand – meaning another country’s oil will simply fill the void and the intended impact of the emissions cap is negated at a global level.

“An emissions cap gives industry less – not more – of the certainty needed to make long-term investments that create jobs, economic growth and tax revenues for all levels of government. It simply makes Canada less competitive.”

Michael Belenkie, CEO, Advantage Energy

“Canada’s emissions profile is not unusual. What’s unusual about Canada and our emissions is we seem to be the only exporting nation of the world that is willing to self-immolate. All we’re doing is we’re shutting ourselves down at our own expense and watching global emissions increase.”

Kevin Krausert, CEO and co-founder, Avatar Innovations

“The emissions cap risks delaying – if not derailing – a whole suite of emissions-reduction technology projects. The reason is simple: it has added yet another layer of uncertainty and complexity on already skinny investment decisions by weakening the most effective mechanism Canada has in place.

“…After nearly 15 years of experimenting in a complicated regulatory system, we’ve finally landed on one of the most globally effective and fungible carbon markets in the world in Alberta, called TIER.

“What the federal emissions cap has done is introduce uncertainty about the future of TIER. That’s because the cap has its own newly created cap-and-trade system. It takes TIER’s 15 years of experience and market knowledge and either duplicates functioning markets or creates a whole new market that may take another 15 years to get right.”

Dennis Darby, CEO, Canadian Manufacturers & Exporters

“The federal government’s announcement of a cap and trade on oil and gas emissions threatens Canada’s energy trade, economic interests, and national unity.

Adam Legge, president, Business Council of Alberta

“The oil and gas emissions cap is a discriminatory and divisive policy proposal—the epitome of bad public policy. It will likely cap Canadian prosperity—billions of dollars and tens of thousands of jobs lost for no benefit, and the burden will be borne largely in one region and one sector.”

Lisa Baiton, CEO, Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers

“The result would be lower production, lower exports, fewer jobs, lower GDP and lower revenues to governments to fund critical infrastructure and social programs on which Canadians rely.”

Statement, Canadian Association of Energy Contractors

“The Trudeau government does not care about Canadian blue-collar, middle-class energy workers who rely on the industry to support their families. It does not care about small, medium and Indigenous energy service businesses that operate in rural and remote communities across Western Canada. And it certainly does not care about supporting our allies who are desperate for oil and gas from sources other than regimes such as Russia or Iran.”

Peter Tertzakian, executive director, ARC Energy Research Institute

“Focusing on a single sector while ignoring others is problematic because each tonne of emissions has the same impact on climate change, regardless of its source. It makes little sense to impose potentially higher economic burdens on one economic sector when you could reduce emissions elsewhere at a lower cost.”

Shannon Joseph, chair, Energy for a Secure Future

“Canada continues to pursue its climate policy in a vacuum, ignoring the big picture of global emissions. This places at risk our international interests, tens of thousands of good paying jobs and important progress on reconciliation.”

Adam Sweet, director for Western Canada, Clean Prosperity

“Layering on a new cap-and-trade system for oil and gas producers adds uncertainty and regulatory complexity that risks undermining investment in emissions reductions just as we’re getting close to landing significant new decarbonization projects here in Alberta.”

Continue Reading

Alberta

For second year in a row, Alberta oil and gas companies spend more than required on cleanup

Published on

From the Canadian Energy Center

By Grady Semmens

$923 million spent cleaning up inactive wells, sites and pipelines in 2023

As a business owner, Ryan Smith values few things more than predictability when it comes to the oil and gas market and the demand for his company’s services.

That’s why knowing that next year in Alberta, the regulator requires at least $750 million worth of work cleaning up inactive oil and gas wells and other legacy energy infrastructure is tremendously helpful for the CEO of Calgary-based 360 Engineering & Environmental Consulting.

“Having a minimum spend in place for the province makes the market more predictable and consistent, which in turn helps our clients and our business plan for the future, which is a good thing,” says Smith, whose company has completed more than 5,000 site closure activities in Canada and internationally since 2015.

“Site closure has really emerged as a growth market over the last decade, especially in Western Canada where the regulatory systems for oil and gas are more advanced than anywhere else we are exposed to. It is an integral part of the energy lifecycle, and if it is done well it adds a lot of value to the industry.”

The Alberta Energy Regulator (AER) introduced an industry-wide minimum “closure” spending requirement in 2022, part of Alberta’s Inventory Reduction Program to accelerate the remediation of inactive oil and gas wells, facilities and pipelines across the province.

The mandatory quota determines the minimum level of work a company must conduct primarily to decommission and reclaim a proportion of its inactive inventory.

Inactive wells are defined as those that have not been used for six months or a year, depending on what they are being used for. When a company decides that they will not reactivate an inactive well they decommission it through a process called abandonment.

A well is considered successfully abandoned after it is cleaned, plugged with cement, cut to a minimum of one meter below the surface and covered with a vented cap. After abandonment comes remediation and reclamation, where the land around the well is returned to the equivalent of its original state.

The first two years under the new rules saw Alberta’s energy industry significantly exceed the minimum closure requirements.

In 2022, companies spent more than $696 million, about 65 per cent more than the initial threshold of $422 million. The AER increased the minimum spend to $700 million in 2023, which producers surpassed by 22 per cent with total expenditures of $923 million.

The 2024 minimum remains at $700 million, while in July the regulator announced that the minimum spend for 2025 was raised to $750 million.

This closure work does not include remediation of oil sands mining sites, which is handled under the Mine Financial Security Program, nor does it include the closure of orphan wells (wells without a legal owner) managed by the industry-funded Orphan Well Association.

Gurpreet Lail, CEO of Enserva, an industry association representing energy service companies, suppliers and manufacturers, says there was an initial rush of closure work when the quotas were first put in place, but activity has since become more even as companies develop long-term closure plans.

“A lot of the low-lying fruit has been taken care of, so now companies are working on more complex closure files that take more time and more money,” Lail says.

Facility owners say that Alberta’s rules provide direction for planning closure and remediation work, which in the past may have been put on hold due to the ups and downs of the oil and gas market.

“When commodity prices are up, everyone is focused on drilling more wells and when prices are down, budgets are strained for doing work that doesn’t bring in revenue. Having a minimum spend makes sure closure work happens every year and ensures there is longer-term progress,” says Deborah Borthwick, asset retirement coordinator for Birchcliff Energy, an oil and natural gas producer focused in Alberta.

Over the last few years, Birchcliff has budgeted more than $3 million for annual facility closure work, far above its required minimum spend.

The company completed 11 well abandonments and decommissioned 23 facilities and pipelines in 2022, according to its latest environmental, social and governance report.

Borthwick says having the closure quota for 2025 already set has allowed it to plan ahead and line up the necessary service companies well in advance for next year’s remediation work.

Continue Reading

Trending

X