Energy
Fossil fuel consumption rising despite ‘net-zero’ plans worldwide
From the Fraser Institute
By Julio Mejía and Elmira Aliakbari
During a recent speech in Brazil, U.S. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen said that “many sources”—including governments—must spend “no less than $3 trillion” each year for the world to achieve “net-zero” global carbon emissions by 2050. While Yellen was light on specifics, she said the money would pay for “clean energy technologies” and “pathways to sustainable and inclusive growth.”
But to achieve net zero, which means either eliminating fossil fuel generation or offsetting the emissions generated through activities such as planting trees, countries must phase out the world’s primary energy source (fossil fuels such as oil and gas), defying the global trend of increasing fossil fuel consumption.
Indeed, between 1997 (when the original Kyoto Protocol was ratified) and 2023, the share of total global energy represented by fossil fuels declined slightly from 85.7 per cent to 81.5 per cent. However, during that same period the actual use of fossil fuels has increased dramatically with global consumption of coal, gas and oil increasing by 56 per cent.
Here in Canada, despite billions spent and almost a decade of new taxes and regulations in the Trudeau government’s pursuit of net zero by 2050, the share of fossil fuels in our total energy consumption increased from 64.6 per cent in 2015 to 65.0 per cent in 2023. Clearly, the Trudeau government’s carbon tax, regulations and policies meant to phase out fossil fuels have not achieved this goal.
But this comes as no surprise. Massive energy transitions are slow and take centuries. Renowned scholar Vaclav Smil’s recent study explained that the first global energy transition—from traditional biomass fuels (including wood and charcoal) to fossil fuels—started more than two centuries ago and unfolded gradually. In fact, the transition away from biomass fuels 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).
According to Smil, coal only surpassed wood as the main energy source worldwide around the year 1900. It took more than 150 years from its first commercial extraction for oil to reach 25 per cent of all fossil fuels consumed worldwide, reaching this milestone in the 1950s. And natural gas reached this threshold at the end of the 20th century, after 130 years of the industry’s development.
So, let’s look at what net-zero advocates are proposing in a different way. For the world to reach net zero by 2050, the amount of energy humanity must replace with new sources (e.g. wind, solar) is 23 times greater than the amount of energy the world used when the previous transition started in the 19th century. And governments want to achieve this unprecedented transition in less than one-eighth of the time of the previous transition.
While politicians worldwide talk about a great energy transition, fossil fuel consumption has only grown. And it’s the same story here at home. Clearly, achieving net zero by 2050 is neither realistic nor feasible.
Authors:
Canada must not allow ideological dogma and indecision to squander a rare chance to lock in our energy sovereignty for good
Canada teeters on the edge, battered by a trade war and Trump’s tariff threats from its once-steady southern ally, yet held back by its own indecision. Trump’s 25 percent tariffs have exposed a brutal truth: Canada’s economy, especially its oil exports, is nearly 100 percent dependent on the U.S.
Voices are crying out to lament the regulatory chaos, ideological zeal, and whispers of “peak oil” that stall progress. If Canada won’t build pipelines when its sovereignty and prosperity are at stake, will it ever? The economics are clear, peak oil is a myth, and the only barriers are self-imposed: dogma, tangled rules, and bad thinking.
The infrastructure Canada can command is immense. Four million barrels of crude flow to the U.S. daily, and Trump’s threats have made that number look even bigger.
The Trans Mountain Expansion (TMX) is proof—linking Alberta to Asia’s markets, with royalties already filling public coffers.
But it’s a lone success. Energy East and Northern Gateway are buried, killed by delays and poor decisions. Private capital is gun-shy, scarred by TMX’s $34 billion price tag, ballooned by a broken system. Why risk billions when the path is a minefield?
The stakes are higher than ever. Forget the claim that oil demand peaks this year at 102 million barrels daily. Experts see a different horizon: Goldman Sachs predicts growth to 2034, OPEC to 2050, BP to 2035—some forecasts topping 80 million barrels.
Enbridge’s Greg Ebel sees “well north” of 100 million by mid-century, driven by Asia’s demand and the developing world’s hunger for energy. Peak oil is a ghost story, not a reality. Canada sits on the third-largest reserves in the world and could dominate the global market, not just feed one neighbour. Pipelines to every coast—east, west, and north—would unlock that future and secure riches for decades.
So what’s holding us back? Ideology, for starters.
Environmental lobbying and influence wrap resource projects in suffocating red tape—emissions caps and endless assessments that kill progress. Years of environmental studies and “net zero” hurdles that no pipeline can clear are choking off bold ideas.
Quebec’s stance has softened under Trump’s pressure, but problematic ideals still linger that blind leaders to reality. The regulatory mess makes it worse.
Today’s system demands a $1 billion bet upfront—engineering, consultations—before a shovel hits the dirt. Companies like TC Energy have been burned before, and others won’t play unless there’s reform. TMX worked because it was a government rescue, but its cost is a deterrent to others.
Then there’s the mess of bad ideas. Government officials will talk about pipelines one day and then express doubts about them the next, leaving a void of leadership. Former prime minister Jean Chrétien very strongly backed a West-East pipeline at the Liberal Party leadership convention.
New leader Mark Carney supports energy links but will not name pipelines, even though public support for them has surged. Four out of five Canadians back coast-to-coast pipelines—but leaders continue to waver.
If not now—when we’re in a trade war and facing annexation—when? Canada’s future is about the infrastructure it controls, not the excuses it clings to. The wealth is waiting, the demand is there, and the barriers are ours to break. Ditch the dogma, fix the rules, and build. Or remain a nation forever poised to rise but never brave enough to do it.
Energy Talking Points by Alex Epstein
The EPA just announced it’s challenging the single most destructive regulatory action in US history: the “endangerment finding.”
This bogus “finding” allowed Obama and Biden to ban gas cars, shut down power plants, slow US oil growth, and lock up our limitless natural gas.
 |
- Ever wonder why the Biden EPA was able to become an economic dictator, prohibiting most Americans from buying a gas car after 2032 and effectively banning all coal plants and new natural gas plants after 2039?
It started with the Obama EPA’s bogus “endangerment finding.”¹
- In 2009, the Obama EPA issued a “finding” that GHGs “endanger both the public health and the public welfare of current and future generations.”
But GHGs mostly come from fossil fuels, which on net had clearly been enhancing health and welfare—and would continue doing so.²
- Since human beings began harnessing uniquely cost-effective energy from fossil fuels, human health and welfare have increased dramatically everywhere.
Why? Because the benefits of cheap, reliable energy for billions far outweigh any negative side-effects of fossil fuels.³
- Before and since the “endangerment finding,” which is supposedly about reducing climate danger, fossil fuels have on net made us far safer from climate danger by creating incredible climate resilience.
That’s why climate disaster deaths have declined 98% over 100 years!⁴
- In considering whether fossil fuels’ GHGs “endanger” us and thus should be restricted, EPA should have considered
1. Overall benefits of fossil fuels
2. Climate resilience benefits of fossil fuels
3. Both positive and negative climate impacts of GHGsEPA failed on all 3 counts.
- The “endangerment finding” was particularly inane because it concluded that the US restricting US GHG emissions would accomplish anything globally—when in fact all it accomplished was harming us and offshoring industry to China, which now has 300+ new coal plants in the pipeline!⁵
- By falsely claiming that fossil fuels “endanger” human health, welfare, and climate safety when they were—and have continued to be—a net benefit, EPA has justified giving itself totalitarian powers that, if not stopped, will crater the US economy.
- Drawing on its bogus “endangerment” finding, the Biden EPA passed GHG rules that effectively ban all coal plants and new natural gas plants—by requiring them to capture at least 90% of GHGs, which no plant has ever done at all, let alone cost-effectively.
How EPA’s power plant rule will destroy our grid
·May 22, 2024
4 reasons EPA’s power plant rule will destroy our grid:
Read full story - Drawing on its bogus “endangerment” finding, the Biden EPA passed “fuel economy standards” that would prevent more than 50% of Americans from buying a gasoline-powered vehicle after 2032—a complete violation of American freedom.⁶
- Drawing on the bogus “endangerment” finding, the Biden EPA and administration as a whole waged a “whole of government” war on fossil fuels that, if not reversed, will crater our entire economy—which has no near-term replacement for fossil fuels.⁷
- The Trump administration, especially EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin, will be attacked relentlessly for challenging the bogus “endangerment finding”—but they should be praised for being willing to take on the most destructive regulatory action in American history.
Questions about this article? Ask AlexAI, my chatbot for energy and climate answers:
“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.
Canada Needs A Real Plan To Compete Globally
We’re paying the bills, why shouldn’t we have a say?
How America is interfering in Brazil and why that matters everywhere. An information drop about USAID
Apple suing British government to stop them from accessing use data
USDA reveals plan to combat surging egg prices
“The insanity is ending”: USDA cancels $600k grant to study transgender men’s menstruation
CANADA MUST REVIVE A “PIPELINE WEST” – Indigenous Ownership and Investment in Energy Projects are Critical to Canada’s Oil Customer Diversification
-
Carbon Tax2 days agoCarney’s climate plan will continue to cost Canadians
-
Daily Caller1 day agoReality Finally Returns To Energy Industry
-
Business1 day agoOntario Premier Doug Ford Apologizes To Americans After Threatening Energy Price Hike For Millions
-
Bjorn Lomborg2 days agoDespite what activists say, the planet is not on fire
-
Business1 day agoUSAID reportedly burning, shredding classified documents
-
Daily Caller1 day agoAmazon Rainforest Razed To Build Highway For UN Climate Summit
-
Crime1 day agoBC Fentanyl Ring ‘Negotiated’ With Sinaloa Chief ‘El Mayo,’ Court Filings Allege
-
Energy24 hours ago
Why the EPA is right to challenge the ruinous “endangerment finding”