Connect with us
[the_ad id="89560"]

Energy

Energy wise, how do you even describe 2024?

Published

16 minute read

From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy

By Terry Etam

There still remains a full court press in North America/western Europe among certain socioeconomic classes to “just stop oil” and the like. While we as an industry in many ways remain in our foxholes, and the opponents of hydrocarbons roam freely, looking to criminalize if at all possible any positive dialogue about the value of hydrocarbons.

Huh. Look at that. It’s been ten years since I started writing about energy. Not that that particular trivia interests anyone, why would it, however it is interesting to look back at the impetus for writing and how that has changed.

Ten years ago, as I worked in a communications department for an energy infrastructure business that did not like publicity of any kind whatsoever, it began to dawn on me how dangerous were the habits that formed thereof, and how far reaching the consequences. As but one example, anti-pipeline activists were all over Washington DC like ants on a mound, pressuring the government to kill the Keystone XL pipeline. They swarmed social media and a motivated army spread the gospel like wildfire, truth be damned.

The pipeline industry looked at the energy ignoramuses and kind of just sniggered, for they knew they were right – pipelines were and are the safest and most reliable form of liquid/gas transportation, forming a global industrial backbone we can’t even imagine living without – and there seemed a largely prevailing attitude in industry that these pipeline facts were so glaringly obvious that everyone would figure it out. I still hear the chortling: “Look at those lunatics, protesting pipelines without knowing they’re standing on one that’s been there for 40 years.”

Yeah, well, the lunatics did pretty well didn’t they… Keystone XL is a distant memory, the US Mountain Valley Pipeline is years late and twice over budget, and even TMX is only now limping into service at what, about 700 times over budget and equally late… I shudder to think what kind of back room deals were cut with extremists who promised TMX would never be built and yet now stand silent. If we had a conservative prime minister at the helm now trying to complete TMX, I would bet my ears that the going wouldn’t be as protest-lite as it is now.

Ten years ago, the impetus was to fill a void in public energy knowledge because there wasn’t much of an effective voice that was doing so. If there was, there was scant evidence of any success. So that was kind of fun, going for the low hanging fruit of explaining energy nuances to a public that cared about nothing except utility bills and what it cost to fill up the family beast.

But that excitement faded as the energy industry’s inability to articulate its value was overwhelmed by the likes of Greta Thunberg, a Swedish teen that was hoisted onto the shoulders of cagey mobs, and thrust into the public consciousness as some sort of Jesus-like figure. At that point, the battlefield was completely overrun, and the oil/gas industry seemed to head underground and wait for the storm to pass. What a mistake.

There still remains a full court press in North America/western Europe among certain socioeconomic classes to “just stop oil” and the like. While we as an industry in many ways remain in our foxholes, and the opponents of hydrocarbons roam freely, looking to criminalize if at all possible any positive dialogue about the value of hydrocarbons. But. The anti-fossil fuel people are so busy working on Orwellian regulations/policies/roadmaps that they haven’t looked over their shoulders at the storm clouds brewing, the ones that hydrocarbon producers always knew would arrive.

As seven out of eight billion people on earth strive to live like the west does, the inevitable is happening: global demand for energy, in all forms, is soaring, and absolutely no one wants to take a step backwards in terms of standard of living. The world wants to add a billion air conditioners, because those things are life-transforming (see: any modern glass-cube high rise residential/commercial building, modern hospitals/seniors centers, etc), and the comfy west wants to add an estimated $250 billion per year in data centers because we can and it looks fun.

We haven’t even begun to figure out how to rewire the world for an energy transition even if we used energy consumption from 20 years ago as the starting point; today, we can’t keep up using all our resources. Every year, we set new records for solar installations, wind installations, coal consumption, oil consumption… and new natural gas infrastructure is being built around the world backed by multi-decade contracts. The fight over nuclear continues in the oddly ridiculous way it now goes, with countries within the same jurisdiction (EU, for example) shutting down nuclear facilities (Germany) on safety or environmental (?) grounds while countries right beside them add new ones. In the US, the same craziness is happening within the country; places like New York shuttering nuclear facilities while other parts of the country develop new ones.

What makes energy commentary challenging these days is that we’ve become desensitized to such insanity, we are pickled in it, and treat it as just the regular public discourse. I mean really. Look at Germany’s self inflicted damage in shutting down its nuclear plants on the grounds of safety. How much safer are Germans if Belgium builds new ones next door?

We’ve become used to the blaring theme “electrify everything” when we can clearly see, if we choose to look, that electrifying anything at all is becoming more challenging, with grid operators all over the place issuing warnings about potential energy shortages/rolling blackouts or brownouts/falling grid reliability.

AI is coming. Like a freight train. No one is prepared for it. Anyone paying attention is sounding the alarm bells: Power consumption is going to go through the roof. And that is in addition to a world that continues to set new energy usage records relentlessly, a trend that seems unstoppable and huge even before AI.

The storm clouds are there, they are growing, and no one wants to look up.

And then we need to set this insanity against a truly mind-boggling global geopolitical framework that looks like something out of Monty Python.

China is an amazing object, like a parallax, that looks completely different depending on your vantage point. By that I mean: energy transition advocates, the ones that ‘just know’ that net-zero 2050 is inevitable and simply requires more ‘policy’, point to China as a green hero, installing more solar than any other country, at breakneck pace. At the same time, the opposite camp that ‘just knows’ that net-zero 2050 has no chance due to the sheer challenge point out that China is constructing new coal-fired power plants at a rate of two per week.

Both are right. So are the people that rejoice at how solar panels have become so much cheaper due to China’s manufacturing prowess, as are the people that point out the staggering environmental footprint of building all that stuff behind a somewhat opaque curtain.

The people that herald the rise of China’s EV adoption are right, but so are the people that fear China’s control of most of the critical mineral/metal supply/processing chain.

India is a rising behemoth. The EU still thinks it runs the world. The US’ leadership is a gym full of blindfolded shouting people running at full speed. Canada thinks it is the world’s conscience, to the extent it is still thinking at all, building foreign and local policy on the notion that Canadians are the global good guys, a selfless hero running around the globe’s stages eagerly saying politically correct things while back home the wheels are coming off. Watch us impale our economy on a stick just to show the world that no one can possibly be morally superior. Russia is a vodka-soaked-yet-clever power monger with some thousand-year-old chip on its shoulder and enough bullets to fill a million Ladas. The Middle East remains the Middle East, reliably distributing both petroleum products and anger to every corner of the world…

The world’s biggest economies are so far in debt that they don’t know what to do, and we must painfully watch central bankers craft new policies and plans under the faulty pretense that they do know what they’re doing. The US is adding a trillion dollars worth of debt every hundred days, and the gurus of monetary policy are watching the economy with the wisdom and effectiveness of a time-forgotten goat-herder buying a cell phone before he’s found out what electricity is.

The future is never certain. Obviously. There will be black swans, rare events that have major global seismic repercussions. Terrorists are pretty good at destabilizing the world with a flick of the wrist, doing more damage than a tsunami, but then there are tsunamis as well. And all sorts of human hijinks that can throw a spanner in the works quite easily because we are all one step away from snapping.

There will be new wars, apparently, the peace dividend nothing but a dead deer on the side of the road. Political polarization is so severe that at any given time some substantial percent of the population believes that if their political enemy gets elected that ‘the future of the nation is at stake’. In the US two very ancient people are leading these charges, and every single American I talk to says, in a burst of frustration, “How the hell did we get here, and why are those two the only choices?”

And all of us that pay attention to energy ask the very same questions about the energy world. We watch economic powerhouses like Germany and California screw themselves into the ground with remarkable efficiency. We can see these problems arising. We listen to grid operators that warn of coming instability instead of shouting them down or tossing them out and replacing them with people that toe the line.

The energy industry is, despite all the madness, making actual strides in reducing emissions, developing new types of energy, developing carbon sequestration options, working on hydrogen programs, integrating with all sorts of green technology. It’s tough slogging, because most attempts are met with chants of “greenwash, greenwash” by people that don’t want progress, they want fossil fuels dead and gone. As their vision of a solution, they throw soup on famous paintings. The world stands in awe, like watching a naked drunk lurch across a freeway, oblivious to his surroundings.

One good thing about the world of energy though, compared to the utter lunacy of the global political/geopolitical/sociological mess, is that we can see fairly clearly where energy is going. The crazed experiments, the building of castles to the sky, will slow to a pace that makes sense and is digestible. Global demand for oil, natural gas, and it looks like even coal will stay strong for several decades at least. Nuclear power will have a renaissance, and new technologies or battery breakthroughs will enter the scene at a rate that the world can handle. It won’t be pretty or linear or without strife, but that’s how it will be. People won’t live without cheap reliable energy.

So if you’re in the energy business, take heart – in the world of political theatre, reality is whatever you can get away with convincing the world that it is. In the world of energy, fuel is fuel, availability is availability, and we can at least count on the fact that despite all the handwringing and grandiose policy that reality can’t be evaded. It might be small comfort but at least it’s real.

Terry Etam is a columnist with the BOE Report, a leading energy industry newsletter based in Calgary.  He is the author of The End of Fossil Fuel Insanity.  You can watch his Policy on the Frontier session from May 5, 2022 here.

Energy

Ottawa’s proposed emission cap lacks any solid scientific or economic rationale

Published on

From the Fraser Institute

By Jock Finlayson and Elmira Aliakbari

Forcing down Canadian oil and gas emissions within a short time span (five to seven years) is sure to exact a heavy economic price, especially when Canada is projected to experience a long period of weak growth in inflation-adjusted incomes and GDP per person.

After two years of deliberations, the Trudeau government (specifically, the Environment and Climate Change Canada department) has unveiled the final version of Ottawa’s plan to slash greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs) from the oil and gas sector.

The draft regulations, which still must pass the House and Senate to become law, stipulate that oil and gas producers must reduce emissions by 35 per cent from 2019 levels by between 2030 and 2032. They also would establish a “cap and trade” regulatory regime for the sector. Under this system, each oil and gas facility is allocated a set number of allowances, with each allowance permitting a specific amount of annual carbon emissions. These allowances will decrease over time in line with the government’s emission targets.

If oil and gas producers exceed their allowances, they can purchase additional ones from other companies with allowances to spare. Alternatively, they could contribute to a “decarbonization” fund or, in certain cases, use “offset credits” to cover a small portion of their emissions. While cutting production is not required, lower oil and gas production volumes will be an indirect outcome if the cost of purchasing allowances or other compliance options becomes too high, making it more economical for companies to reduce production to stay within their emissions limits.

The oil and gas industry accounts for almost 31 per cent of Canada’s GHG emissions, while transportation and buildings contribute 22 and 13 per cent, respectively. However, the proposed cap applies exclusively to the oil and gas sector, exempting the remaining 69 per cent of the country’s GHG emissions. Targeting a single industry in this way is at odds with the policy approach recommended by economists including those who favour strong action to address climate change.

The oil and gas cap also undermines the Trudeau government’s repeated claims that carbon-pricing is the main lever policymakers are using to reduce GHG emissions. In its 2023 budget (page 71), the government said “Canada has taken a market-driven approach to emissions reduction. Our world-leading carbon pollution pricing system… is highly effective because it provides a clear economic signal to businesses and allows them the flexibility to find the most cost-effective way to lower their emissions.”

This assertion is vitiated by the expanding array of other measures Ottawa has adopted to reduce emissions—hefty incentives and subsidies, product standards, new regulations and mandates, toughened energy efficiency requirements, and (in the case of oil and gas) limits on emissions. Most of these non-market measures come with a significantly higher “marginal abatement cost”—that is, the additional cost to the economy of reducing emissions by one tonne—compared to the carbon price legislated by the Trudeau government.

And there are other serious problems with the proposed oil and gas emissions gap. For one, emissions have the same impact on the climate regardless of the source; there’s no compelling reason to target a single sector. As a group of Canadian economists wrote back in 2023, climate policies targeting specific industries (or regions) are likely to reduce emissions at a much higher overall cost per tonne of avoided emissions.

Second, forcing down Canadian oil and gas emissions within a short time span (five to seven years) is sure to exact a heavy economic price, especially when Canada is projected to experience a long period of weak growth in inflation-adjusted incomes and GDP per person, according to the OECD and other forecasting agencies. The cap stacks an extra regulatory cost on top of the existing carbon price charged to oil and gas producers. The cap also promises to foster complicated interactions with provincial regulatory and carbon-pricing regimes that apply to the oil and gas sector, notably Alberta’s industrial carbon-pricing system.

The Conference Board of Canada think-tank, the consulting firm Deloitte, and a study published by our organization (the Fraser Institute) have estimated the aggregate cost of the federal government’s emissions cap. All these projections reasonably assume that Canadian oil and gas producers will scale back production to meet the cap. Such production cuts will translate into many tens of billions of lost economic output, fewer high-paying jobs across the energy supply chain and in the broader Canadian economy, and a significant drop in government revenues.

Finally, it’s striking that the Trudeau government’s oil and gas emissions cap takes direct aim at what ranks as Canada’s number one export industry, which provides up to one-quarter of the country’s total exports. We can’t think of another advanced economy that has taken such a punitive stance toward its leading export sector.

In short, the Trudeau government’s proposed cap on GHG emissions from the oil and gas industry lacks any solid scientific, economic or policy rationale. And it will add yet more costs and complexity to Canada’s already shambolic, high-cost and ever-growing suite of climate policies. The cap should be scrapped, forthwith.

Continue Reading

Economy

COP 29 leaders demand over a $1 trillion a year in climate reparations from ‘wealthy’ nations. They don’t deserve a nickel.

Published on

From Energy Talking Points

The injustice of climate reparations

COP 29 is calling for over $1 trillion in annual climate reparations

  • A major theme of COP 29 is that the world should set a “New Collective Quantified Goal” wherein successful nations pay poor nations over $1 trillion a year to 1) make up for climate-related harm and 2) build them new “green energy” economies. In other words, climate reparations.¹
  • What would $1 trillion a year in climate reparations mean for you and your family?Assuming the money was paid equally by households considered high income (>$50 per day), your household would have to pay more than $5,000 a year in climate reparations taxes!²
  • Climate reparations are based on two false assumptions:1. Free, wealthy countries, through their fossil fuel use, have made the world worse for poor countries.

    2. The poor world’s main problem is dealing with climate change, which wealth transfers will help them with.

But free, fossil-fueled countries have made life better for poor countries

  • Free, wealthy countries, through their fossil fuel use, have not made the world worse for poor countries—they have made it far, far better.Observe what has happened to global life expectancies and income as fossil fuel use has risen. Life has gotten much better for everyone.³
  • The wealthy world’s fossil fuel use has improved life worldwide because by using fossil fuel energy to be incredibly productive, we have 1) made all kinds of goods cheaper and 2) been able to engage in life-saving aid, particularly in the realms of food, medicine, and sanitation.
  • Without the historic use of fossil fuels by the wealthy world, there would be no super-productive agriculture to feed 8 billion humans, no satellite-based weather warning systems, etc. Most of the individuals in poor countries would not even be alive today.

Free, fossil-fueled countries have made the poor safer from climate

  • The wealthy world’s fossil fuel use has been particularly beneficial in the realm of climate.Over the last 100 years, the death rate from climate-related disasters plummeted by 98% globally.

    A big reason is millions of lives saved from drought via fossil-fueled crop transport.⁴

  • The “climate reparations” movement ignores the fact that the wealthy world’s fossil fuel use has made life better, including safer from climate, in the poor world.This allows it to pretend that the poor world’s main problem is dealing with rising CO2 levels.

The poor world’s problem is poverty, not rising CO2 levels

  • The poor world’s main problem is not rising CO2 levels, it is poverty—which is caused by lack of freedom, including the crucial freedom to use fossil fuels.Poverty makes everything worse, including the world’s massive natural climate danger and any danger from more CO2.
  • While it’s not true that the wealthy world has increased climate danger in the poor world—we have reduced it—it is true that the poor world is more endangered by climate than the wealthy world is.The solution is for the poor to get rich. Which requires freedom and fossil fuels.

Escaping poverty requires freedom and fossil fuels

  • Every nation that has risen out of poverty has done so via pro-freedom policies—specifically, economic freedom. 

    That’s how resource-poor places like Singapore and Taiwan became prosperous. Resource-rich places like Congo have struggled due to lack of economic freedom.

  • Even China, which is unfree in many ways (including insufficient protections against pollution) dramatically increased its standard of living via economic freedom—particularly in the realm of industrial development where it is now in many ways much freer than the US and Europe.
  • crucial freedom involved in rising prosperity has been the freedom to use fossil fuels.Fossil fuels are a uniquely cost-effective source of energy, providing energy that’s low-cost, reliable, versatile, and scalable to billions of people in thousands of places.⁶
  • Time and again nations have increased their prosperity, including their safety from climate, via economic freedom and fossil fuels.Observe the 7X increase in fossil fuel use in China and India over the past 4 decades, which enabled them to industrialize and prosper.
  • For the world’s poorest people to be more prosperous and safer from climate, they need more freedom and more fossil fuels.The “climate reparations” movement seeks to deny them both.
  • The wealthy world should communicate to the poor world that economic freedom is the path to prosperity, and encourage the poor world to reform its cultural and political institutions to embrace economic freedom—including fossil fuel freedom.Our leaders are doing the opposite.

Climate reparations pay off dictators to take away fossil fuel freedom

  • Instead of promoting economic freedom, including fossil fuel freedom, wealthy climate reparations advocates like Antonio Guterres are offering to entrench anti-freedom regimes by paying off their dictators and bureaucrats to eliminate fossil fuel freedom.This is disgusting.⁸
  • The biggest victim of “climate reparations” will be the world’s poorest countries, whose dictators will be paid off to prevent the fossil fuel freedom that has allowed not just the US and Europe but also China and India to dramatically increase their prosperity.
  • The biggest beneficiary of “climate reparations” will be China, which is already emitting more CO2 than the US and Europe combined. (Though less per capita.)While we flagellate and cripple ourselves, China will use fossil fuels in its quest to become the world’s superpower.⁹
  • The second biggest beneficiary of “climate reparations” will be corrupt do-gooders who get to add anti-fossil-fuel strings to “reparations” dollars and dictate how it’s spent—which will surely include lots of dollars for unreliable solar panels and wind turbines made in China.

Leaders must reject reparations and champion fossil fuel freedom

  • We need leaders in the US and Europe who proudly:1. Champion the free world’s use of fossil fuels as an enormous good for the world, including its climate safety.

    2. Encourage the poor world to embrace economic freedom and fossil fuels.

    Tell your Representative to do both.

Share


Popular links


“Energy Talking Points by Alex Epstein” is my free Substack newsletter designed to give as many people as possible access to concise, powerful, well-referenced talking points on the latest energy, environmental, and climate issues from a pro-human, pro-energy perspective.

Share Energy Talking Points by Alex Epstein

Scientific American – COP27 Summit Yields ‘Historic Win’ for Climate Reparations but Falls Short on Emissions Reductions
2  Global population was about 8.02 billion in 2023.

World Bank data

About 7% of world population are considered high income, which translates into about 562 million individuals. Considering 3 people per average household in high income households, this translates into about 187 million households.
Pew Research – Are you in the global middle class? Find out with our income calculator

$1 trillion per annum paid by 187 million households means the average household would pay about $5,300 per year.

Maddison Database 2010 at the Groningen Growth and Development Centre, Faculty of Economics and Business at University of Groningen
UC San Diego – The Keeling Curve

For every million people on earth, annual deaths from climate-related causes (extreme temperature, drought, flood, storms, wildfires) declined 98%–from an average of 247 per year during the 1920s to 2.5 in per year during the 2010s.

Data on disaster deaths come from EM-DAT, CRED / UCLouvain, Brussels, Belgium – www.emdat.be (D. Guha-Sapir).

Population estimates for the 1920s from the Maddison Database 2010, the Groningen Growth and Development Centre, Faculty of Economics and Business at University of Groningen. For years not shown, population is assumed to have grown at a steady rate.

Population estimates for the 2010s come from World Bank Data.

UC San Diego – The Keeling Curve

Data on disaster deaths come from EM-DAT, CRED / UCLouvain, Brussels, Belgium – www.emdat.be (D. Guha-Sapir).

Population estimates come from World Bank Data.

Our World in Data – Energy Production and Consumption
BP – Statistical Review of World Energy
UN News – ‘Pay up or humanity will pay the price’, Guterres warns at COP29 climate summit
Our World in Data – Annual CO₂ emissions from fossil fuels, by world region
Continue Reading

Trending

X