From the Fraser Institute

By Tegan Hill and Elmira Aliakbari

On the campaign trail and after he became prime minister, Mark Carney has repeatedly promised to make Canada an “energy superpower.” But, as evidenced by its first budget, the Carney government has simply reaffirmed the failed plans of the past decade and embraced the damaging energy policies of the Trudeau government.

First, consider the Trudeau government’s policy legacy. There’s Bill C-69 (the “no pipelines act”), the new electricity regulations (which aim to phase out natural gas as a power source starting this year), Bill C-48 (which bans large oil tankers off British Columbia’s northern coast and limit Canadian exports to international markets), the cap on emissions only from the oil and gas sector (even though greenhouse gas emissions have the same effect on the environment regardless of the source), stricter regulations for methane emissions (again, impacting the oil and gas sector), and numerous “net-zero” policies.

According to a recent analysis, fully implementing these measures under Trudeau government’s emissions reduction plan would result in 164,000 job losses and shrink Canada’s economic output by 6.2 per cent by the end of the decade compared to a scenario where we don’t have these policies in effect. For Canadian workers, this will mean losing $6,700 (annually, on average) by 2030.

Unfortunately, the Carney government’s budget offers no retreat from these damaging policies. While Carney scrapped the consumer carbon tax, he plans to “strengthen” the carbon tax on industrial emitters and the cost will be passed along to everyday Canadians—so the carbon tax will still cost you, it just won’t be visible.

There’s also been a lot of buzz over the possible removal of the oil and gas emissions cap. But to be clear, the budget reads: “Effective carbon markets, enhanced oil and gas methane regulations, and the deployment at scale of technologies such as carbon capture and storage would create the circumstances whereby the oil and gas emissions cap would no longer be required as it would have marginal value in reducing emissions.” Put simply, the cap remains in place, and based on the budget, the government has no real plans to remove it.

Again, the cap singles out one source (the oil and gas sector) of carbon emissions, even when reducing emissions in other sectors may come at a lower cost. For example, suppose it costs $100 to reduce a tonne of emissions from the oil and gas sector, but in another sector, it costs only $25 a tonne. Why force emissions reductions in a single sector that may come at a higher cost? An emission is an emission regardless of were it comes from. Moreover, like all these policies, the cap will likely shrink the Canadian economy. According to a 2024 Deloitte study, from 2030 to 2040, the cap will shrink the Canadian economy (measured by inflation-adjusted GDP) by $280 billion, and result in lower wages, job losses and a decline in tax revenue.

At the same time, the Carney government plans to continue to throw money at a range of “green” spending and tax initiatives. But since 2014, the combined spending and forgone revenue (due to tax credits, etc.) by Ottawa and provincial governments in Ontario, Quebec, British Columbia and Alberta totals at least $158 billion to promote the so-called “green economy.” Yet despite this massive spending, the green sector’s contribution to Canada’s economy has barely changed, from 3.1 per cent of Canada’s economic output in 2014 to 3.6 per cent in 2023.

In his first budget, Prime Minister Carney largely stuck to the Trudeau government playbook on energy and climate policy. Ottawa will continue to funnel taxpayer dollars to the “green economy” while restricting the oil and gas sector and hamstringing Canada’s economic potential. So much for becoming an energy superpower.

From the Fraser Institute

By Annika Segelhorst and Elmira Aliakbari

Canada’s most timely opportunity to lower overall global emissions is through expanded exports to regions that rely on higher-emitting fuel sources.

The COP30 climate conference in Brazil is winding down, after more than a week of discussions about environmental policy and climate change. Domestic oil and natural gas production is frequently seen as a fundamental obstacle to Canada’s climate goals. Yet the data shows that Canadian energy production is already among the world’s cleanest, generating lower greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions per barrel-of-oil-equivalent produced, among major producing countries. Expanding the role of Canadian oil and gas in global markets can replace higher GHG-emitting alternatives around the world, driving down global GHG emissions.

Prime Minister Carney’s first budget highlights Canada’s “emissions advantage” in a chart on page 105 that compares the amount of GHG emissions released from producing oil and natural gas across 20 major producing countries. Compared to many other top-producing countries, Canada releases fewer GHG emissions per barrel of oil and gas produced when considering all phases of production (extraction, processing, transport, venting and flaring).

For oil production, Canada has an advantage over most major producers such as Venezuela, Libya, Iran, Algeria, Nigeria, China, Russia and Qatar. Canada’s emissions per barrel of oil produced are below the global average, making Canada among the lower emitting producers worldwide.

Similarly, Canada’s natural gas production has an emissions per barrel equivalent that is lower than the global average and is below major producers such as Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Nigeria, Indonesia, China, Argentina, Malaysia, Australia, Algeria, Iran, Russia, India and the United States. The chart below reveals countrywide average GHG emissions per barrel of oil or natural gas produced in 2022.

Source: International Energy Agency (2023), The Oil and Gas Industry in Net Zero Transitions 2023, IEA, Paris, p. 69 

Canada’s emissions advantage stems from years of technological innovations that require less energy to produce each barrel of oil along with improvements in detecting leaks. From 1990 to 2023, Canada’s total production of crude oil rose by 199 per cent, while emissions per barrel of oil produced declined by 8 per cent, according to Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC). In the oilsands, since 1990 emissions per barrel have fallen by nearly 40 per cent while emissions from natural gas production and processing have decreased by 23 per cent.

Canada has already implemented many of the most practical and straightforward methods for reducing carbon emissions during oil and gas production, like mitigation of methane emissions. These low-hanging fruits, the easiest and most cost-effective ways to reduce emissions, have already been implemented. The remaining strategies to reduce GHG emissions for Canadian oil and gas production will be increasingly expensive and will take longer to implement. One such approach is carbon capture, utilization, and storage (CCUS), a technology which traps and stores carbon dioxide to prevent it from reaching the atmosphere. Major infrastructure projects like this offer potential but will be difficult, costly and resource intensive to implement.

Rather than focusing on increasingly expensive emission reductions at home, Canada’s most timely opportunity to lower overall global emissions is through expanded exports to regions that rely on higher-emitting fuel sources. Under a scenario of expanded Canadian production, countries that presently rely on oil and gas from higher-emitting producers can instead source energy from Canada, resulting in a net reduction in global emissions. Conversely, if Canada were to stagnate or even retreat from the world market for oil and gas, higher-emitting producers would increase exports to accommodate the gap, leading to higher overall emissions.

As Canada’s climate and energy policy continues to evolve, our attention should focus on global impact rather than solely on domestic emissions reductions. The highest environmental impact will come from enabling global consumption to shift towards lower-emitting Canadian sources.

Annika Segelhorst

Junior Economist

Elmira Aliakbari

Director, Natural Resource Studies, Fraser Institute