Energy
Energy policies proposed at Republican and Democrat conventions are worlds apart
From the Daily Caller News Foundation
Democrats Are On A Different Planet
As Republicans and Democrats meet at the conventions and propose policies for the next four years, the contrast between Republican and Democrat energy policies could not be greater.
Republicans would speed up oil and natural gas production; eliminate mandates to purchase electric vehicles; get rid of subsidies for renewables; and end dependence on China. Democrats propose to electrify the energy supply, ridding the economy of gasoline-powered vehicles and natural-gas appliances and substituting solar and wind for legacy fuels.
Through a series of executive orders and regulations, President Joe Biden has reduced federal oil and gas leases. America has 373.1 billion barrels of technically recoverable crude oil resources, and 2,973 trillion cubic feet of technically recoverable natural gas resources — an 85-year supply. Expect the next Republican administration to encourage production and use these resources to lower energy prices at home and around the world.
A Republican president would be able to reverse Biden’s executive orders and regulations. Increasing energy production is fourth out of 20 promises in the 2024 Republican Platform, “We will DRILL, BABY, DRILL and we will become Energy Independent, and even Dominant again. The United States has more liquid gold under our feet than any other Nation, and it’s not even close. The Republican Party will harness that potential to power our future.”
A Republican administration would allow a choice in cars. The Republican Party Platform calls for cancelling the mandate for EVs.
The Biden administration is subsidizing electric vehicles through the Inflation Reduction Act. Companies are paid to manufacture these EVs and consumers get tax credits to buy them. The Environmental Protection Agency’s final tailpipe rule would require 70% of new cars sold and 25% or new trucks sold to be battery powered electric or plug-in hybrid by 2032.
The Biden administration has focused on providing wind and solar power through billions in tax credits in the Infrastructure and Jobs Act and the Inflation Reduction Act. Either directly or through access to banks and Wall Street investors, it is deciding who is suitable to receive funding for energy projects.
But government control of energy is control of people and the economy. This is one reason why the trend toward nationalization of our energy industry through government mandates, bans on the production and use of oil and natural gas and reorganization of the electric grid is so dangerous.
Under a new Republican administration, rather than slowing down pipeline approval, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission would focus on speeding it up. The Bureau of Land Management would prioritize approving both onshore and offshore drilling permits. The Security and Exchange Commission would no longer look at climate effects of companies’ investments, and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency would not look at the climate effects of bank loans.
Democrat energy policies increase dependence on China because China makes nearly 80% of the world’s batteries and is home to 7 out of 10 of the world’s largest solar panel manufacturers, and 7 out of 10 of the world’s largest wind turbine manufacturers. China dominates the critical minerals such as lithium and cobalt required for EVs through its own mines and by purchasing mines in Africa and Latin America.
Trade with China is not free or fair. China can produce lower-cost goods because it subsidizes labor, capital and energy. It uses forced labor from Xinjiang; gives low-interest rate loans to favored companies; and is not bound by the clean energy regulations of the West.
The next administration should use America’s domestic resources and provide tools to assist our allies and deter our adversaries.
Diana Furchtgott-Roth, former deputy assistant secretary for research and technology at the U.S. Department of Transportation, is the director of The Heritage Foundation’s Center for Energy, Climate and Environment.
From the Fraser Institute
By Julio Mejía and Elmira Aliakbari
Major energy transitions are slow and take centuries, not decades… the first global energy transition—from traditional biomass fuels (including wood and charcoal) to fossil fuels—started more than two centuries ago and remains incomplete. Nearly three billion people in the developing world still depend on charcoal, straw and dried dung for cooking and heating, accounting for about 7 per cent of the world’s energy supply (as of 2020).
At the Conference of the Parties (COP29) in Azerbaijan, António Guterres, the United Nations Secretary-General, last week called for a global net-zero carbon footprint by 2050, which requires a “fossil fuel phase-out” and “deep decarbonization across the entire value chain.”
Yet despite the trillions of dollars already spent globally pursuing this target—and the additional trillions projected as necessary to “end the era of fossil fuels”—the world’s dependence on fossil fuels has remained largely unchanged.
So, how realistic is a “net-zero” emissions world—which means either eliminating fossil fuel generation or offsetting carbon emissions with activities such as planting trees—by 2050?
The journey began in 1995 when the UN hosted the first COP conference in Berlin, launching a global effort to drive energy transition and decarbonization. That year, global investment in renewable energy reached US$7 billion, according to some estimates. Since then, an extraordinary amount of money and resources have been allocated to the transition away from fossil fuels.
According to the International Energy Agency, between 2015 and 2023 alone, governments and industry worldwide spent US$12.3 trillion (inflation-adjusted) on clean energy. For context, that’s over six times the value of the entire Canadian economy in 2023.
Despite this spending, between 1995 and 2023, global fossil fuel consumption increased by 62 per cent, with oil consumption rising by 38 per cent, coal by 66 per cent and natural gas by 90 per cent.
And during that same 28-year period, despite the trillions spent on energy alternatives, the share of global energy provided by fossil fuels declined by only four percentage points, from 85.6 per cent to 81.5 per cent.
This should come as no surprise. Major energy transitions are slow and take centuries, not decades. According to a recent study by renowned scholar Vaclav Smil, the first global energy transition—from traditional biomass fuels (including wood and charcoal) to fossil fuels—started more than two centuries ago and remains incomplete. Nearly three billion people in the developing world still depend on charcoal, straw and dried dung for cooking and heating, accounting for about 7 per cent of the world’s energy supply (as of 2020).
Moreover, coal only surpassed wood as the main energy source worldwide around 1900. It took more than 150 years from oil’s first commercial extraction for oil to reach 25 per cent of all fossil fuels consumed worldwide. Natural gas didn’t reach this threshold until the end of the 20th century, after 130 years of industry development.
Now, consider the current push by governments to force an energy transition via regulation and spending. In Canada, the Trudeau government has set a target to fully decarbonize electricity generation by 2035 so all electricity is derived from renewable power sources such as wind and solar. But merely replacing Canada’s existing fossil fuel-based electricity with clean energy sources within the next decade would require building the equivalent of 23 major hydro projects (like British Columbia’s Site C) or 2.3 large-scale nuclear power plants (like Ontario’s Bruce Power). The planning and construction of significant electricity generation infrastructure in Canada is a complex and time-consuming process, often plagued by delays, regulatory hurdles and substantial cost overruns.
The Site C project took around 43 years from initial feasibility studies in 1971 to securing environmental certification in 2014. Construction began on the Peace River in northern B.C. in 2015, with completion expected in 2025 at a cost of at least $16 billion. Similarly, Ontario’s Bruce Power plant took nearly two decades to complete, with billions in cost overruns. Given these immense practical, financial and regulatory challenges, achieving the government’s 2035 target is highly improbable.
As politicians gather at high-profile conferences and set ambitious targets for a swift energy transition, global reliance on fossil fuels has continued to increase. As things stand, achieving net-zero by 2050 appears neither realistic nor feasible.
Authors:
From Resource Works
Heather-Exner Pirot of the Business Council of Canada and the Macdonald-Laurier Institute spoke with Resource Works about the transition to Donald Trump’s energy policy, hopes for Keystone XL’s revival, EVs, and more.
Do you think it is accurate to say that Trump’s energy policy will be the complete opposite of Joe Biden’s? Or will it be more nuanced than that?
It’s more nuanced than that. US oil and gas production did grow under Biden, as it did under Obama. It’s actually at record levels right now. The US is producing the most oil and gas per day that any nation has ever produced in the history of the world.
That said, the federal government in the US has imposed relatively little control over production. In the absence of restrictive emissions and climate policies that we have in Canada, most of the oil production decisions have been made based on market forces. With prices where they’re at currently, there’s not a lot of shareholder appetite to grow that significantly.
The few areas you can expect change: leasing more federal lands and off shore areas for oil and gas development; rescinding the pause in LNG export permits; eliminating the new methane fee; and removing Biden’s ambitious vehicle fuel efficiency standards, which would subsequently maintain gas demand.
I would say on nuclear energy, there won’t be a reversal, as that file has earned bipartisan support. If anything, a Trump Admin would push regulators to approve SMRs models and projects faster. They want more of all kinds of energy.
Is Keystone XL a dead letter, or is there enough planning and infrastructure still in-place to restart that project?
I haven’t heard any appetite in the private sector to restart that in the short term. I know Alberta is pushing it. I do think it makes sense for North American energy security – energy dominance, as the Trump Admin calls – and I believe there is a market for more Canadian oil in the USA; it makes economic sense. But it’s still looked at as too politically risky for investors.
To have it move forward I think you would need some government support to derisk it. A TMX model, even. And clear evidence of social license and bipartisan support so it can survive the next election on both sides of the border.
Frankly, Northern Gateway is the better project for Canada to restart, under a Conservative government.
Keystone XL was cancelled by Biden prior to the invasion of Ukraine in 2022. Do you think that the reshoring/friendshoring of the energy supply is a far bigger priority now?
It absolutely is a bigger priority. But it’s also a smaller threat. You need to appreciate that North America has become much more energy independent and secure than it has ever been. Both US and Canada are producing at record levels. Combined, we now produce more than the Middle East (41 million boe/d vs 38 million boe/d). And Canada has taken a growing share of US imports (now 60%) even as their import levels have declined.
But there are two risks on the horizon: the first is that oil is a non renewable resource and the US is expected to reach a peak in shale oil production in the next few years. No one wants to go back to the days when OPEC + had dominant market power. I think there will be a lot of demand for Canadian oil to fill the gap left by any decline in US oil production. And Norway’s production is expected to peak imminently as well.
The second is the need from our allies for LNG. Europe is still dependent on Russia for natural gas, energy demand is growing in Asia, and high industrial energy costs are weighing on both. More and cheaper LNG from North America is highly important for the energy security of our allies, and thus the western alliance as it faces a challenge from Russia, China and Iran.
Canada has little choice but to follow the US lead on many issues such as EVs and tariffs on China. Regarding energy policy, does Canada’s relative strength in the oil and gas sector give it a stronger hand when it comes to having an independent energy policy?
I don’t think we want an independent energy policy. I would argue we both benefit from alignment and interdependence. And we’ve built up that interdependence on the infrastructure side over decades: pipelines, refineries, transmission, everything.
That interdependence gives us a stronger hand in other areas of the economy. Any tariffs on Canadian energy would absolutely not be in American’s interests in terms of their energy dominance agenda. Trump wants to drop energy costs, not hike them.
I think we can leverage tariff exemptions in energy to other sectors, such as manufacturing, which is more vulnerable. But you have to make the case for why that makes sense for US, not just Canada. And that’s because we need as much industrial capacity in the west as we can muster to counter China and Russia. America First is fine, but this is not the time for America Alone.
Do you see provinces like Alberta and Saskatchewan being more on-side with the US than the federal government when it comes to energy?
Of course. The North American capital that is threatening their economic interests is not Washington DC; it’s Ottawa.
I think you are seeing some recognition – much belated and fast on the heels of an emissions cap that could shut in over 2 million boe of production! – that what makes Canada important to the United States and in the world is our oil and gas and uranium and critical minerals and agricultural products.
We’ve spent almost a decade constraining those sectors. There is no doubt a Trump Admin will be complicated, but at the very least it’s clarified how important those sectors are to our soft and hard power.
It’s not too late for Canada to flex its muscles on the world stage and use its resources to advance our national interests, and our allies’ interests. In fact, it’s absolutely critical that we do so.
COP 29 leaders demand over a $1 trillion a year in climate reparations from ‘wealthy’ nations. They don’t deserve a nickel.
Ottawa’s avalanche of spending hasn’t helped First Nations
Five Government Programs That Musk’s Government Efficiency Agency Could Put On The Chopping Block
MAiD In Alberta: Province surveying Albertans about assisted suicide policies
Alberta activates contingency mail delivery plan
Alberta Emergency Alert test: Wednesday at 1:55 PM
Trump Confirms He Will Declare National Emergency, Use Military Assets For Mass Deportation
-
Alberta2 days agoPremier Smith says Auto Insurance reforms may still result in a publicly owned system
-
Alberta2 days agoAlberta’s fiscal update projects budget surplus, but fiscal fortunes could quickly turn
-
Business2 days agoBroken ‘equalization’ program bad for all provinces
-
Alberta2 days agoAlberta fiscal update: second quarter is outstanding, challenges ahead
-
Business1 day agoDEI gone?: GOP lawmakers prep to clean house in federal government
-
Alberta1 day agoAlberta mother accuses health agency of trying to vaccinate son against her wishes
-
Addictions2 days agoOntario to restrict Canadian government’s supervised drug sites, shift focus to helping addicts
-
Business2 days ago‘Context Of Chemsex’: Biden-Harris Admin Dumps Millions Into Developing Drug-Fueled Gay Sex App