FORCE, FORCE, FORCE! – The Green Army Will Keep Pushing Unrealistic Energy Transition in 2025 Despite “Reality”

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.

More From Irina Slav

Up Next

Canada’s Most Impactful Energy Issues in 2024

Don't Miss

UN General Assembly Adopts Controversial Cybercrime Treaty Amid Criticism Over Censorship and Surveillance Risks

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

The Data That Doesn’t Exist

Business / 3 hours ago

The Climate-Risk Industrial Complex and the Manufactured Insurance Crisis

Great Reset / 7 hours ago

Surgery Denied. Death Approved.

Economy

Affordable housing out of reach everywhere in Canada

Published on December 8, 2025

Todayville

From the Fraser Institute

By Steven Globerman, Joel Emes and Austin Thompson

According to our new study, in 2023 (the latest year of comparable data), typical homes on the market were unaffordable for families earning the local median income in every major Canadian city

The dream of homeownership is alive, but not well. Nearly nine in ten young Canadians (aged 18-29) aspire to own a home—but share a similar worry about the current state of housing in Canada.

Of course, those worries are justified. According to our new study, in 2023 (the latest year of comparable data), typical homes on the market were unaffordable for families earning the local median income in every major Canadian city. It’s not just Vancouver and Toronto—housing affordability has eroded nationwide.

Aspiring homeowners face two distinct challenges—saving enough for a downpayment and keeping up with mortgage payments. Both have become harder in recent years.

For example, in 2014, across 36 of Canada’s largest cities, a 20 per cent downpayment for a typical home—detached house, townhouse, condo—cost the equivalent of 14.1 months (on average) of after-tax income for families earning the median income. By 2023, that figure had grown to 22.0 months—a 56 per cent increase. During the same period for those same families, a mortgage payment for a typical home increased (as a share of after-tax incomes) from 29.9 per cent to 56.6 per cent.

No major city has been spared. Between 2014 and 2023, the price of a typical home rose faster than the growth of median after-tax family income in 32 out of 36 of Canada’s largest cities. And in all 36 cities, the monthly mortgage payment on a typical home grew (again, as a share of median after-tax family income), reflecting rising house prices and higher mortgage rates.

While the housing affordability crisis is national in scope, the challenge differs between cities.

In 2023, a median-income-earning family in Fredericton, the most affordable large city for homeownership in Canada, had save the equivalent of 10.6 months of after-tax income ($56,240) for a 20 per cent downpayment on a typical home—and the monthly mortgage payment ($1,445) required 27.2 per cent of that family’s after-tax income. Meanwhile, a median-income-earning family in Vancouver, Canada’s least affordable city, had to spend the equivalent of 43.7 months of after-tax income ($235,520) for a 20 per cent downpayment on a typical home with a monthly mortgage ($6,052) that required 112.3 per cent of its after-tax income—a financial impossibility unless the family could rely on support from family or friends.

The financial barriers to homeownership are clearly greater in Vancouver. But, crucially, neither city is truly “affordable.” In Fredericton and Vancouver, as in every other major Canadian city, buying a typical home with the median income produces a debt burden beyond what’s advisable. Recent house price declines in cities such as Vancouver and Toronto have provided some relief, but homeownership remains far beyond the reach of many families—and a sharp slowdown in homebuilding threatens to limit further gains in affordability.

For families priced out of homeownership, renting doesn’t offer much relief, as rent affordability has also declined in nearly every city. In 2014, rental rates for the median-priced rental unit required 19.8 per cent of median after-tax family income, on average across major cities. By 2023, that figure had risen to 23.5 per cent. And in the least affordable cities for renters, Toronto and Vancouver, a median-priced rental required more than 30 per cent of median after-tax family income. That’s a heavy burden for Canada’s renters who typically earn less than homeowners. It’s also an added financial barrier to homeownership— many Canadian families rent for years before buying their first home, and higher rents make it harder to save for a downpayment.

In light of these realities, Canadians should ask—why have house prices and rental rates outpaced income growth?

Poor public policy has played a key role. Local regulations, lengthy municipal approval processes, and costly taxes and fees all combine to hinder housing development. And the federal government allowed a historic surge in immigration that greatly outpaced new home construction. It’s simple supply and demand—when more people chase a limited (and restricted) supply of homes, prices rise. Meanwhile, after-tax incomes aren’t keeping pace, as government policies that discourage investment and economic growth also discourage wage growth.

Canadians still want to own homes, but a decade of deteriorating affordability has made that a distant prospect for many families. Reversing the trend will require accelerated homebuilding, better-paced immigration and policies that grow wages while limiting tax bills for Canadians—changes governments routinely promise but rarely deliver.

Steven Globerman

Senior Fellow and Addington Chair in Measurement, Fraser Institute

Joel Emes

Senior Economist, Fraser Institute

Austin Thompson

Senior Policy Analyst, Fraser Institute

Banks

To increase competition in Canadian banking, mandate and mindset of bank regulators must change

Published on December 7, 2025

Todayville

From the Fraser Institute

By Lawrence L. Schembri and Andrew Spence

Canada’s weak productivity performance is directly related to the lack of competition across many concentrated industries. The high cost of financial services is a key contributor to our lagging living standards because services, such as payments, are essential input to the rest of our economy.

It’s well known that Canada’s banks are expensive and the services that they provide are outdated, especially compared to the banking systems of the United Kingdom and Australia that have better balanced the objectives of stability, competition and efficiency.

Canada’s banks are increasingly being called out by senior federal officials for not embracing new technology that would lower costs and improve productivity and living standards. Peter Rutledge, the Superintendent of Financial Institutions and senior officials at the Bank of Canada, notably Senior Deputy Governor Carolyn Rogers and Deputy Governor Nicolas Vincent, have called for measures to increase competition in the banking system to promote innovation, efficiency and lower prices for financial services.

The recent federal budget proposed several new measures to increase competition in the Canadian banking sector, which are long overdue. As a marker of how uncompetitive the market for financial services has become, the budget proposed direct interventions to reduce and even eliminate some bank service fees. In addition, the budget outlined a requirement to improve price and fee transparency for many transactions so consumers can make informed choices.

In an effort to reduce barriers to new entrants and to growth by smaller banks, the budget also proposed to ease the requirement that small banks include more public ownership in their capital structure.

At long last, the federal government signalled a commitment to (finally) introduce open banking by enacting the long-delayed Consumer Driven Banking Act. Open banking gives consumers full control over who they want to provide them with their financial services needs efficiently and safely. Consumers can then move beyond banks, utilizing technology to access cheaper and more efficient alternative financial service providers.

Open banking has been up and running in many countries around the world to great success. Canada lags far behind the U.K., Australia and Brazil where the presence of open banking has introduced lower prices, better service quality and faster transactions. It has also brought financing to small and medium-sized business who are often shut out of bank lending.

Realizing open banking and its gains requires a new payment mechanism called real time rail. This payment system delivers low-cost and immediate access to nonbank as well as bank financial service providers. Real time rail has been in the works in Canada for over a decade, but progress has been glacial and lags far behind the world’s leaders.

Despite the budget’s welcome backing for open banking, Canada should address the legislative mandates of its most important regulators, requiring them to weigh equally the twin objectives of financial system stability as well as competition and efficiency.

To better balance these objectives, Canada needs to reform its institutional framework to enhance the resilience of the overall banking system so it can absorb an individual bank failure at acceptable cost. This would encourage bank regulators to move away from a rigid “fear of failure” cultural mindset that suppresses competition and efficiency and has held back innovation and progress.

Canada should also reduce the compliance burden imposed on banks by the many and varied regulators to reduce barriers to entry and expansion by domestic and foreign banks. These agencies, including the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions, Financial Consumer Agency of Canada, Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada, the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation plus several others, act in largely uncoordinated manner and their duplicative effort greatly increases compliance and reporting costs. While Canada’s large banks are able, because of their market power, to pass those costs through to their customers via higher prices and fees, they also benefit because the heavy compliance burden represents a significant barrier to entry that shelters them from competition.

More fundamental reforms are needed, beyond the measures included in the federal budget, to strengthen the institutional framework and change the regulatory mindset. Such reforms would meaningfully increase competition, efficiency and innovation in the Canadian banking system, simultaneously improving the quality and lowering the cost of financial services, and thus raising productivity and the living standards of Canadians.