Connect with us
[the_ad id="89560"]

Economy

Reliance on fossil fuels remains virtually unchanged despite trillions for ‘clean energy’

Published

5 minute read

From the Fraser Institute

By Elmira Aliakbari, Julio Mejía, and Jason Clemens

” after tens of trillions of dollars spent on the transition away from fossil fuels, consumption declined by 3.8 percentage points as a share of total global energy. “

At COP28, the recent United Nations climate change conference in the United Arab Emirates, bureaucrats, politicians and activists from nearly 200 countries gathered to push for a “transition away from fossil fuels” and continue and indeed expedite efforts to achieve a global net-zero “carbon footprint” by 2050. However, despite significant spending on clean energy, the world’s dependence on fossil fuels remains largely unaffected, calling into question how realistic the commitment to zero emissions by 2050 is in the real world.

The UN staged the first “COP” conference in Berlin in 1995, marking the beginning of a collaborative international effort of energy transition and decarbonization. According to one report, global investment in renewable energy totalled US$7 billion in 1995.

Today, according to the latest data from the International Energy Agency (IEA), investment in “clean energy” by both governments and private industry reached more than US$1.7 trillion in 2023. That’s roughly the equivalent of the entire Australian economy this year. This spending includes more than just renewable power (wind, solar, etc.), which totalled $659 billion in 2023, but also electric vehicles, battery storage, nuclear, carbon capture and more.

More broadly, according to the IEA numbers, from 2015 to 2023, governments and industry worldwide have spent $11.7 trillion (inflation-adjusted) on clean energy. For context, this is basically the equivalent of all the goods and services produced in Germany, Japan and the United Kingdom combined in 2023. Simply put, an extraordinary amount of money and resources have been allocated to the transition away from fossil fuels for the better part of three decades.

So, what’s the return on this investment?

According to data from the Statistical Review of World Energy, from 1995 to 2022, the amount of fossil fuels (oil, gas and coal) consumed worldwide actually increased by 58.6 per cent. Specifically, oil consumption increased by 34.2 per cent, natural gas by 86.7 per cent and coal by 72.7 per cent.

There was, however, a small decline in the share of total energy provided by oil, gas and coal during that time period, falling from 85.6 per cent of total energy use in 1995 to 81.8 per cent in 2022. In other words, after tens of trillions of dollars spent on the transition away from fossil fuels, consumption declined by 3.8 percentage points as a share of total global energy.

Meanwhile, renewables increased from 0.6 per cent of total energy to 7.5 per cent over the same period but both nuclear and hydro declined (6.5 per cent to 4.0 per cent and 7.3 per cent to 6.7 per cent, respectively). In other words, the 3.8-percentage point decline in fossil fuels as a share of total energy in 2022 was offset by a net increase in clean energy of the same amount.

In addition to the massive amounts of spending, much of it paid for by taxpayers, this transition has come with other costs. Renewable sources such as wind and solar are not always available and therefore require back-up energy systems. Lack of investment in back-up systems and required infrastructure has resulted in marked price increases in energy and/or blackouts in parts of Europe and the United States.

At COP28, conference attendees including Canada’s Environment Minister Steven Guilbeault pledged to reach net-zero emissions—that our economy will emit no greenhouse gas emissions or offset its emissions—in 26 years. But given the trillions spent, the limited progress in reducing global reliance on fossil fuels, and the price increases and reduced energy reliability in countries that have meaningfully transitioned, that goal seems unrealistic in the real world.

2025 Federal Election

POLL: Canadians want spending cuts

Published on

By Gage Haubrich

The Canadian Taxpayers Federation released Leger polling showing Canadians want the federal government to cut spending and shrink the size and cost of the bureaucracy.

“The poll shows most Canadians want the federal government to cut spending,” said Gage Haubrich, CTF Prairie Director. “Canadians know they pay too much tax because the government wastes too much money.”

Between 2019 and 2024, federal government spending increased 26 per cent even after accounting for inflation. Leger asked Canadians what they think should happen to federal government spending in the next five years. Results of the poll show:

  • 43 per cent say reduce spending
  • 20 per cent say increase spending
  • 16 per cent say maintain spending
  • 20 per cent don’t know

The federal government added 108,000 bureaucrats and increased the cost of the bureaucracy 73 per cent since 2016. Leger asked Canadians what they think should happen to the size and cost of the federal bureaucracy. Results of the poll show:

  • 53 per cent say reduce
  • 24 per cent say maintain
  • 4 per cent say increase
  • 19 per cent don’t know

Liberal Leader Mark Carney promised to “balance the operating budget in three years.” Leger asked Canadians if they believed Carney’s promise to balance the budget. Results of the poll show:

  • 58 per cent are skeptical
  • 32 per cent are confident
  • 10 per cent don’t know

“Any politician that wants to fix the budget and cut taxes will need to shrink the size and cost of Ottawa’s bloated bureaucracy,” Haubrich said. “The polls show Canadians want to put the federal government on a diet and they won’t trust promises about balancing the budget unless politicians present credible plans.”

Continue Reading

Economy

The Net-Zero Dream Is Unravelling And The Consequences Are Global

Published on

From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy

By Marco Navarro-Genie

The grand net-zero vision is fading as financial giants withdraw from global climate alliances

In recent years, governments and Financial institutions worldwide have committed to the goal of “net zero”—cutting greenhouse gas emissions to as close to zero as possible by 2050. One of the most prominent initiatives, the Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero (GFANZ), sought to mobilize trillions of dollars by shifting investment away from fossil fuels and toward green energy projects.

The idea was simple in principle: make climate action a core part of financial decision-making worldwide.

The vision of a net-zero future, once championed as an inevitable path to global prosperity and environmental sustainability, is faltering. What began as an ambitious effort to embed climate goals into the flow of international capital is now encountering hard economic and political realities.

By redefining financial risk to include climate considerations, GFANZ aimed to steer financial institutions toward supporting a large-scale energy transition.

Banks and investors were encouraged to treat climate-related risks—such as the future decline of fossil fuels—as central to their financial strategies.

But the practical challenges of this approach have become increasingly clear.

Many of the green energy projects promoted under the net-zero banner have proven financially precarious without substantial government subsidies. Wind and solar technologies often rely on public funding and incentives to stay competitive. Energy storage and infrastructure upgrades, critical to supporting renewable energy, have also required massive financial support from taxpayers.

At the same time, institutions that initially embraced net-zero commitments are now facing soaring compliance costs, legal uncertainties and growing political resistance, particularly in major economies.

Major banks such as JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup and Goldman Sachs have withdrawn from GFANZ, citing concerns over operational risks and conflicting fuduciary duties. Their departure marks a signifcant blow to the alliance and signals a broader reassessment of climate finance strategies.

For many institutions, the initial hope that governments and markets would align smoothly around net-zero targets has given way to concerns over financial instability and competitive disadvantage. But that optimism has faded.

What once appeared to be a globally co-ordinated movement is fracturing. The early momentum behind net-zero policies was fuelled by optimism that government incentives and public support would ease the transition. But as energy prices climb and affordability concerns grow, public opinion has become noticeably more cautious.

Consumers facing higher heating bills and fuel costs are beginning to question the personal price of aggressive climate action.

Voters are increasingly asking whether these policies are delivering tangible benefits to their daily lives. They see rising costs in transportation, food production and home energy use and are wondering whether the promised green transition is worth the economic strain.

This moment of reckoning offers a crucial lesson: while environmental goals remain important, they must be pursued in balance with economic realities and the need for reliable energy supplies. A durable transition requires market-based solutions, technological innovation and policies that respect the complex needs of modern economies.

Climate progress will not succeed if it comes at the expense of basic affordability and economic stability.

Rather than abandoning climate objectives altogether, many countries and industries are recalibrating, moving away from rigid frameworks in favour of more pragmatic, adaptable strategies. Flexibility is becoming essential as governments seek to maintain public support while still advancing long term environmental goals.

The unwinding of GFANZ underscores the risks of over-centralized approaches to climate policy. Ambitious global visions must be grounded in reality, or they risk becoming liabilities rather than solutions. Co-ordinated international action remains important, but it must leave room for local realities and diverse economic circumstances.

As the world adjusts course, Canada and other energy-producing nations face a clear choice: continue down an economically restrictive path or embrace a balanced strategy that safeguards both prosperity and environmental stewardship. For countries like Canada, where natural resources remain a cornerstone of the economy, the stakes could not be higher.

The collapse of the net-zero consensus is not an end to climate action, but it is a wake-up call. The future will belong to those who learn from this moment and pursue practical, sustainable paths forward. A balanced approach that integrates environmental responsibility with economic pragmatism offers the best hope for lasting progress.

Marco Navarro-Genie is the vice president of research at the Frontier Centre for Public Policy. With Barry Cooper, he is coauthor of Canada’s COVID: The Story of a Pandemic Moral Panic (2023).

Continue Reading

Trending

X