Economy
FORCE, FORCE, FORCE! – The Green Army Will Keep Pushing Unrealistic Energy Transition in 2025 Despite “Reality”
From EnergyNow.ca
By Irina Slav
The facts behind energy transition are so staggeringly counter to common sense that the only way to achieve them is by force, and the only path ahead is failure.
I was going to wrap this eventful year with a nice little post of gratitude but, as usual, the news flow has forced me to revise my plans. So much has happened in the last week days failing to report on it would be a real shame. You may want to put down the hot beverage or, then again, not put it down, you’re the master of you.
A few years ago, during some election campaign or other — we’ve had so many it’s hard to keep track — one of the most popular parties in Bulgaria chose as its slogan “Work, work, work!” Naturally, the slogan became the butt of many jokes almost immediately.
More recently, we were graced with the “Fight! Fight! Fight!” adage from the Trump campaign that was nowhere near as amusing. It also worked. Meanwhile, the transition army is moving fast towards a “Force! Force! Force!” stage in its efforts to keep the green ball rolling.
Consider the latest gem from the International Energy Agency, out this week. The press release for the report was headlined Global coal demand is set to plateau through 2027, with the subheader summary stating that “New IEA report finds that strong deployment of renewables is set to curb growth in coal use even as electricity demand surges, with China – the world’s biggest coal consumer – remaining pivotal.”
What the report actually admitted, however, was that coal supply and demand hit an all-time high this year, they are both likely to scale new highs next year and keep going in that direction until at least 2027. The way things are going with the transition, coal will probably continue growing beyond 2027 as well because much as Fatih and the Transitionettes want it to die, they can’t tell China and India what to do — or anyone else, really, when push comes to shove.
Push appears to have come to shove in Canada already, with the federal government suddenly deciding to walk back its plan for a net-zero grid by 2035. Now, it will be aiming for a net-zero grid by 2050, which is what is going to be happening elsewhere as well —except perhaps in the UK, where everyone’s gone truly insane but more on that later.
So, Canada last week released something called Clean Electricity Regulations that originally, I gather, were supposed to outline plans to remove hydrocarbons from its already pretty green grid by 2035. The provinces, however, objected. And they must have objected strongly enough for an ounce of sanity to crawl into the regulations. Resource minister Jonathan Wilkinson of “We are not interested in investing in LNG facilities” fame called it “flexibility”. Whatever works to make one feel good, I guess.
Here’s a fun fact: the new Clean Electricity Regulations with the revised target come out literally days after the Trudeau government pumped up its emission cut plan, aiming for cuts of 45-50% from 2005 by 2035. All it took was six days and the start of what might end up being complete government meltdown to reconsider that deadline and delay it by 15 years. But stranger things have happened and some are happening right now, one of them at the U.S. Department of Energy.
The regulator of the department, Inspector General Teri Donaldson said in an interim report that the loan office of the DoE should stop giving out loans to green project developers on suspicion of conflicts of interest, or, as Reuters put it, “contractors who vet them may be serving both the agency and potential borrowers.”
From Donaldson’s report: “The projects funded with this authority, which involve innovations in clean energy, advanced transportation, and tribal energy are inherently risky in part because these projects may have struggled to secure funding from traditional sources such as commercial banks and private equity investors.”
Yet these same projects got DoE funding, which naturally raises the question of whether this funding success was at least in part related to the department’s failure to ensure everyone involved in the process was impartial and driven exclusively by professional motives, and I cannot believe I managed to put this stinky situation so delicately.
Anyway, the DoE has struck back immediately, saying the report was full of errors, and accusing Donaldson of “fundamentally misunderstanding” the “implementation of contracting in the Loan Programs Office.” Yeah, that must be it. That’s why she was appointed Inspector General of the department — but by the Trump administration so it doesn’t count.
All of this, however, is pretty weak beer compared to what’s been happening in Europe. VW is not yet bankrupt and the lights are still on in Germany, for the time being, but in the UK, the government has apparently found a way to grow money on trees because the grid operators of the three constituent parts of the UK’s bigger island are planning to spend 77.4 billion pounds on grid upgrades with a view to accommodating more wind and solar into said grid.
The upgrade is a must if Labour’s 2030 decarbonization plan is to have a fighting chance even though the outcome of that fight is already clear and it rhymes with beet, feet, and meat. The money is to be spent between 2026 and 2031, which means that the money trees take two years to start bearing fruit.
Yet here is my concern: with every other form of plant life susceptible to the devastatingly catastrophic effects of climate change, who is to guarantee that the money trees will be spared the devastating catastrophe? No one, that’s who. The UK may fail to accomplish its task of decarbonizing the country’s grid because of the very climate change it wants to neutralize with that decarbonization, and how cruel of an irony is that? Very, is the answer.
Usually, the UK government is difficult to rival in insanity and anti-intelligence but this week we have a serious contender and it’s not Germany’s government. It’s Big Oil and the heavy industry. That’s right. Europe’s energy and heavy industries have been driven to insanity by the climate crusade army although I’d stop short of painting them as innocent victims.
They could have said something. They should’ve said something. And they should’ve said it loud and clear. But they didn’t, so now Big Oil and Big Heavy Industry are asking the EU to force — that’s right, force — consumers to buy their transition cost-loaded products. Because there is no other way of selling those products.
““We will need to focus on demand creation to achieve new investment prospects,” executives from the two sectors said in a letter to Wopke Hoekstra, EU climate commissioner, warning of an “industrial exodus” without intervention,” the FT reported this week.
It also reported that “companies trying to invest in production methods that may result in lower carbon emissions are “pricing themselves out of the market” due to high costs, and authorities need to step in to create demand for their products.” I think this is beautiful, in the same way that an orca catching its pray is beautiful, that is, in a rather terminal way.
I don’t normally like to brag about being right about things, not least because it’s invariably bad things I’m right about, so it is with a sigh of frustration and some boredom that I have to note I have been saying this for two years now — and of course I haven’t been the only one, far from it. The only way for the energy transition to work is through force, and a lot of it. The only way for the transition to work is to eliminate all alternatives to the Chosen Tech, and for some reason Big Oil and the heavy industry seem to believe this is a constructive approach to life, the universe and everything.
What I find most interesting in this situation is the fact that it is extremely easy to find evidence the forceful approach tends to result in outcomes that are the exact opposite of the intended ones. History is full of such evidence. Yet it appears the most essential industries for modern civilization have taken the green “It will work this time” pill and are eagerly digesting it. Which means two things we already knew: one, the transition is doomed as it has been from the start; and two, Europe’s going down unless it uses a fast-closing window to come to its senses. We all know it won’t — unless it’s forced to. Work, work, work, force, force, force, fight, fight, fight.
Business
The UN Pushing Carbon Taxes, Punishing Prosperity, And Promoting Poverty

From the Daily Caller News Foundation
Unelected regulators and bureaucrats from the United Nations have pushed for crushing the global economy in the name of saving the planet.
In October, the International Maritime Organization (IMO), a specialized agency within the U.N., proposed a carbon tax in order to slash the emissions of shipping vessels. This comes after the IMO’s April 2025 decision to adopt net-zero standards for global shipping.
Had the IMO agreed to the regulation, it would have been the first global tax on greenhouse gas emissions. Thankfully, the United States was able to effectively shut down those proposals; however, while these regulations have been temporarily halted, the erroneous ideas behind them continue to grow in support.
Proponents of carbon taxes generally argue that since climate change is an existential threat to human existence, drastic measures must be taken in all aspects of our lives to address the projected costs. People should eat less meat and use public transportation more often. In the political arena, they should vote out so-called “climate deniers.” In the economic sphere, carbon taxes are offered as a technocratic quick fix to carbon emissions. Is any of this worth it? Or are the benefits greater than the costs? In the case of climate change, the answer is no.
Carbon taxes are not a matter of scientific fact. As with all models, the assumptions drive the analysis. In the case of carbon taxes, the time horizon selected plays a major role in the outcome. So, too, does the discount rate and the specific integrated assessment models.
In other words, “Two economists can give vastly different estimates of the social cost of carbon, even if they agree on the objective facts underlying the analysis.” If the assumptions are subjective, as they are in carbon taxes, then they are not scientific facts. As I’ve pointed out, “carbon pricing models are as much political constructs as they are economic tools.” One must also ask whether carbon taxes will remain unchanged or gradually increase over time to advance other political agendas. In this proposal, the answer is that it increases over time.
Additionally, since these models are driven by assumptions, one would be right in asking who gets to impose these taxes? Of course, those would be the unelected bureaucrats at the IMO. No American who would be subject to these taxes ever voted for the people attempting to create the “world’s first global carbon tax.” It brings to mind the phrase “no taxation without representation.”
In an ironic twist, imposing carbon taxes on global shipping might actually be one of the worst ways to slash emissions, given the enormous gains from trade. Simply put, trade makes the world grow rich. Not just wealthy nations like those in the West, but every nation, even the most poor, grows richer. In wealthy countries, trade can help address climate change by enabling adaptation and innovation. For poorer countries, material gains from trade can help prevent their populations from starving and also help them advance along the environmental Kuznets curve.
In other words, the advantages of trade can, over time, make a country go from being so poor that a high level of air pollution is necessary for its survival to being rich enough to afford reducing or eliminating pollution. Carbon taxes, if sufficiently high, can prevent or significantly delay these processes, thereby undermining their supposed purpose. Not to mention, as of today, maritime shipping accounts for only about 3% of total global emissions.
The same ingenuity that brought us modern shipping will continue to power the global economy and fund growth and innovation, if we let it. The world does not need a layer of global bureaucracy for the sake of virtue signaling. What it needs is an understanding of both economics and human progress.
History shows that prosperity, innovation, and free trade are what make societies cleaner, healthier, and richer. Our choice is not between saving the planet and saving the economy; it is between free societies and free markets or surrendering responsibility to unelected international regulators and busybodies. The former has lifted billions out of poverty, and the latter threatens to drag us all backwards.
Samuel Peterson is a Research Fellow at the Institute for Energy Research.
Business
Liberal’s green spending putting Canada on a road to ruin
Once upon a time, Canadians were known for our prudence and good sense to such an extent that even our Liberal Party wore the mantle of fiscal responsibility.
Whatever else you might want to say about the party in the era of Jean Chrétien and Paul Martin, it recognized the country’s dire financial situation — back when The Wall Street Journal was referring to Canada as “an honorary member of the Third World” — as a national crisis.
And we (remember, I proudly served as Member of Parliament in that party for 18 years) made many hard decisions with an eye towards cutting spending, paying down the debt, and getting the country back on its feet.
Thankfully we succeeded.
Unfortunately, since then the party has been hijacked by a group of reckless leftwing fanatics — Justin Trudeau and his lackeys — who have spent the past several years feeding what we built into the woodchipper.
Mark Carney’s finally released budget is the perfect illustration of that.
The budget is a 400 page monument to deficit delusion that raises spending to $644.4 billion over five years — including $141.4 billion in new spending — while revenues limp to $583.3 billion, yielding a record (non-pandemic) $78.3 billion shortfall, an increase of 116% from last year.
This isn’t policy; it’s plunder. Interest payments alone devour $55.6 billion this year, projected to hit $76.1 billion by 2029-30 — more than the entire defence budget and rising faster than healthcare transfers.
We can’t discount the possibility that this will lead to a downgrade of our credit rating, which will significantly increase the cost of borrowing and of doing business more generally.
Numbers this big start to feel very abstract. But think of it this way: that is your money they’re spending. Ottawa’s wealth is made up entirely of our tax dollars. We’ve entrusted that money to them with the understanding that they will use it responsibly. In the decade these Liberals have been in power, they have betrayed that trust.
They’ve pursued policies which have made life in Canada increasingly unaffordable. For example, at the time of writing it takes 141 Canadian pennies (up from 139 a few days ago) to buy one U.S. dollar, in which all of our commodities are priced. Well, that’s .25 cents per litre of gasoline. Imagine what that’s going to do to the price of heating, of groceries, of the various other commodities which we consume.
And this budget demonstrates that the Carney era will be more of the same.
Of course, the Elbows Up crowd are saying the opposite — that this shows how fiscally responsible Mark Carney is, unlike his predecessor. (Never mind that they also publicly supported everything that Trudeau did when he was in government.) They claim that Carney shows that he’s more open to oil and gas than Trudeau was.
Don’t believe it.
The oil and gas sector does get a half-hearted nod in the budget with, for instance, a conditional pathway to repeal the emissions cap. But those conditions are important. Repeal is tied to the effectiveness of Carney’s beloved industrial carbon tax. If that newly super-charged carbon tax, which continues to make our lives more expensive, leads to government-set emissions reductions benchmarks being met, then Ottawa might — might — scrap the emissions.
Meanwhile, the budget doubles down on the Trudeau government’s methane emissions regulations. It merely loosens the provisions of the outrageous Bill C-59, an act which should have been scrapped in its entirety. And it leaves in place the Trudeaupian “green” super structure, which has resource sector investment, and any business that can manage it, fleeing to the U.S.
In these perilous times, with Canada teetering on the brink of recession, a responsible government would be cutting spending and getting out of the way of our most productive sectors, especially oil and gas — the backbone of our economy.
It would be repealing the BC tanker ban and Bill C-69, the “no more pipelines act,” so that our natural resources could better generate revenue on the international market and bring down energy rates at home.
It would quit wasting millions on Electric Vehicle charging stations; mandating that all Canadians buy EVs, even with their elevated cost; and pressuring automakers to manufacture Electric Vehicles, regardless of demand, and even as they keep closing up shop and heading south.
But in this budget the Liberals are going the opposite direction. Spend more. Tax more. Leave the basic Net-Zero framework in place. Rearrange the deck chairs on the Titanic.
They’re gambling tomorrow’s prosperity on yesterday’s green dogma, And every grocery run, every gas fill-up, every mortgage payment will serve as a daily reminder that we are the ones footing the bill.
Once upon a time, the Liberals knew better. We made the hard decisions and got the country back on its feet. Nowadays, not so much.
-
National2 days agoWatchdog Demands Answers as MP Chris d’Entremont Crosses Floor
-
Business2 days agoLiberal’s green spending putting Canada on a road to ruin
-
Alberta13 hours agoAlberta Offers Enormous Advantages for AI Data Centres
-
Media2 days agoBreaking News: the public actually expects journalists to determine the truth of statements they report
-
Artificial Intelligence2 days agoAI seems fairly impressed by Pierre Poilievre’s ability to communicate
-
Alberta2 days agoATA Collect $72 Million in Dues But Couldn’t Pay Striking Teachers a Dime
-
Business2 days agoCarney doubles down on NET ZERO
-
Also Interesting2 days agoHistoric Return: NHL Confirms Player Participation in 2026 Winter Olympics

