Energy
Why Bad Climate Legislation Is Worse Than No Climate Legislation
From Michael Schellenberger
Moderate Democratic Senators Joe Manchin & Krysten Sinema Are Right to Oppose the Clean Energy Performance Program
Progressives are angry that moderate Democratic Senator Joe Machin has reportedly opposed the inclusion of climate-related legislation in President Joe Biden’s budget “This is absolutely the most important climate policy in the package,” said Leah Stokes, a Canadian political scientist who helped write the legislation. “We fundamentally need it to meet our climate goals. That’s just the reality.”
But that’s not the reality. The “Clean Energy Performance Program” is not needed to meet climate goals, and might actually undermine them.
Consider Waxman-Markey. That’s the name of the “cap and trade” climate legislation that passed the House but failed in the Senate in 2010. It had a climate goal of reducing U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by 17 percent below 2005 levels by the year 2020. Instead, the U.S. reduced its emissions by 22 percent.
Had cap and trade legislation passed in the Senate, emissions would have declined less than 22 percent, because Waxman-Markey so heavily subsidized coal and other fossil fuels. As the Los Angeles Times reported at the time, “the Environmental Protection Agency projects that even if the emissions limits go into effect, the U.S. would use more carbon-dioxide-heavy coal in 2020 than it did in 2005.”
The same thing would likely have been true for the Clean Energy Performance Program, which lock in natural gas. Consider France. According to the Commision de Regulation de L’Energie, €29 billion (US$33) billion was used to purchase wind and solar electricity in mainland France between 2009 and 2018. But the money spent on renewables did not lead to cleaner electricity. In fact, the carbon-intensity of French electricity increased.
After years of subsidies for solar and wind, France’s 2017 emissions of 68g/CO2 per kWh was higher than any year between 2012 and 2016. The reason? Record-breaking wind and solar production did not make up for falling nuclear energy output and higher natural gas consumption. And now, the high cost of renewable electricity is showing up in French household electricity bills.
Some pro-nuclear people supported the proposed Clean Energy Performance Program. They claimed it would have saved existing nuclear plants at risk of closure. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, the closure of nuclear plants including Diablo Canyon in California, will result in nuclear energy in the U.S. declining by 17% by 2025. If the Program had passed, some pro-nuclear people believe, plants like Diablo Canyon could have been saved.
But the Clean Energy Performance Program would not have saved Diablo Canyon for the same reason it would not have saved Indian Point nuclear plant, which closed in New York, earlier this year: progressive Democratic politicians are forcing nuclear plants to close, and at a very high cost to ratepayers.
If the Clean Energy Performance Program had passed into law, Diablo Canyon’s owner, Pacific Gas & Electric, would simply have passed the $500 million to $1.5 billion penalty imposed by the Program onto ratepayers, along with the other billions in costs related to closing Diablo Canyon 40 years earlier than necessary. The same would have happened with Indian Point.
Where there is political support for saving nuclear plants, state legislators and governors save nuclear plants, as they did in Illinois a few weeks ago, and as they have done in Connecticut, New Jersey, and with up-state nuclear plants in New York. In other states, nuclear plants are protected from cheap natural gas by regulated electricity markets. And now, with natural gas prices rising dramatically, any nuclear plants at risk of closure for economic reasons are no longer at risk.
What threatens the continued operation of nuclear power plants, and nuclear energy in general, is the continued subsidization of renewables, which the Clean Energy Performance Program would have put on steroids. Under the program, utilities would have received $18 for each megawatt-hour of zero-emissions energy it produces between 2023 to 2030, on top of the existing $25 per megawatt-hour subsidy for wind energy.
Under such a scenario, notes energy analyst Robert Bryce, a wind energy company “could earn $43 per megawatt-hour per year for each new megawatt-hour of wind energy it sells. That’s a staggering sum given that the wholesale price of electricity in New York last year was $33 per megawatt-hour. In Texas, the wholesale price of juice was $22 per MWh.”
Manchin is joined in his opposition to the Plan by moderate Democratic Arizona Senator, Krysten Sinema, and understandably so. The legislation would cost Arizona ratepayers nearly $120 billion in additional electricity costs, according to energy analysts Isaac Orr and Mitch Rolling of the American Experiment. “This would result in a 45 percent increase in electricity prices by 2031, compared to 2019 rates,” they note.
As troubling, the Clean Energy Performance Program would increase dependence on solar panels made in China by incarcerated Uighyr Muslims living in concentration camps and against whom the Chinese government is committing “genocide,” according to the U.S. State Department. New research shows that China made solar panels cheaper through the use of forced labor, heavy government subsidies, and some of the dirtiest coal in the world. The Program would have done nothing to shift production of solar panels back to the U.S.
Nor would the legislation have done anything to internalize the high cost of solar panel waste disposal. Most solar panels become hazardous waste, and create dust from heavy metals including lead, as soon as they are removed from rooftops. A major study published in Harvard Business Review earlier this year found that, when the high cost of managing toxic solar panel waste is eventually accounted for, the true cost of solar electricity will rise four-fold.
As troubling, the continued expansion of weather-dependent renewables will increase electricity costs and blackouts across the United States, as they did in California and Texas. Those renewables-driven blackouts were likely on Senator Manchin’s mind when he made his decision to oppose the Clean Energy Performance Plan. He certainly knows about the problems of renewables in Texas and California, since I discussed them directly with Manchin when I testified before his committee earlier this year.
A better approach would be for Congress to seek nuclear-focused legislation to expand nuclear from its current 19% of U.S. electricity to 50% by 2050. It should take as a model the British government’s announcement yesterday that it would put nuclear energy at the center of its climate plans. Global energy shortages triggered by the lack of wind in Europe have led nations to realize that any efforts to decarbonize electricity grids without creating blackouts must center nuclear power, not weather-dependent solar and wind.
Environmental Progress and I met with British lawmakers in 2019 to advocate for a greater focus on nuclear. At the time, many British energy analysts, as well as ostensibly pro-nuclear climate activists, Mark Lynas and George Monbiot, were telling the public that their nation did not need more nuclear, as Britain could simply rely more on wind energy, and natural gas. Now, electricity prices are skyrocketing and factories are closing in Britain, due to a bad year for wind.
It was a strange experience to be alone in Britain, without support from supposedly pro-nuclear Britons, in urging lawmakers to build more nuclear plants, but I was similarly alone in many other parts of the world, and got on with the task. Happily, one year later, former Extinction Rebellion spokesperson Zion Lights joined me in advocating for nuclear, and quickly forced the government to agree to a nuclear build-out.
Today, in the U.S., there is a growing grassroots movement for nuclear energy, one which saved nuclear plants, twice, in Illinois, and other states, and is gearing up to save Diablo Canyon nuclear plant in California. Doing so will require a new governor, since the current one, Gavin Newsom, made closing the plant a feature of his sales pitch to powerful environmental groups, including Sierra Club and Natural Resources Defense Fund which are, like Newsom himself, heavily funded by natural gas and renewable energy companies that stand to benefit from the Diablo’s destruction.
Leadership at the national level will need to come from Senators Manchin and Sinema. While a significant amount of electricity policy is determined by the states, the Senate can play a constructive role in maintaining the reliability, resiliency, affordability, I testified to Senator Manchin and other committee members. Senator Sinema is from Arizona, a state with the largest nuclear plant in the U.S., Palo Verde, and which is a model of how to make electricity both low in emissions, and in costs.
With the Clean Energy Performance Program now apparently dead, the Congress, led by Manchin and Sinema, should take policy action to not only keep operating the nuclear plants that have been critical to preventing power outages in recent years, but also expand them.
About Michael Shellenberger
Michael Shellenberger is a Time Magazine “Hero of the Environment,”Green Book Award winner, and the founder and president of Environmental Progress.
He is author of the best-selling new book, Apocalypse Never (Harper Collins June 30, 2020), which has received strong praise from scientists and scholars. “This may be the most important book on the environment ever written,” wrote climate scientist Tom Wigley. “Apocalypse Never is an extremely important book,” says historian Richard Rhodes, who won the Pulitzer Prize for The Making of the Atomic Bomb. “Within its lively pages, Michael Shellenberger rescues with science and lived experience a subject drowning in misunderstanding and partisanship. His message is invigorating: if you have feared for the planet’s future, take heart.”
Additional Reading:
Why Biden’s Climate Agenda Is Falling Apart
China Made Solar Cheap With Coal, Subsidies, And “Slave” Labor — Not Efficiency
Why Everything They Said About Solar Was Wrong
This article supplied by Troy Media.
Global oil markets are stumbling under too much supply and too little demand but Canada’s energy sector is managing to hold its own
Oil prices are sliding under the weight of global oversupply and weakening demand, but Canada’s oilpatch is holding steady—perhaps even thriving—as others flounder.
Crude is piling up in tankers, major producers are flooding the system, and demand is fading fast. According to a Windward report cited by Oilprice.com, the amount of oil held in floating storage—tankers sitting offshore waiting for buyers —has hit record highs. Sanctions on Russian and Iranian crude have sidelined entire fleets. Meanwhile, Middle East cargoes continue to pour in, keeping global supply bloated.
Gunvor CEO Torbjorn Tornqvist called the scale “unprecedented,” warning the market would be flooded overnight if sanctions against Russian and Iran were lifted.
And there’s more coming. U.S. crude production has hit a new record of 13.8 million barrels per day in August. And China’s Changqing oilfield just surpassed 20 million tonnes in cumulative output, and national totals have topped 400 million tonnes of oil equivalent this year. More barrels. More pressure. Less price support.
At the same time, demand is slipping. U.S. gasoline use is down. Global shipping activity has slowed. JPMorgan just trimmed its 2025 oil demand forecast by 300,000 barrels per day. China’s manufacturing sector shrank for the seventh month in a row.
Japan’s purchasing index dropped to an 18-month low. And recession fears are back in the headlines.
OPEC+ tried to calm the chaos by announcing a modest increase in output this December, with a pause on future hikes. But the move didn’t move markets. Then Saudi Arabia cut its selling prices to Asia, a clear signal that the kingdom sees weak demand ahead.
In short, it’s messy out there. But not everywhere.
Amid this global downturn, Canada’s energy sector stands out for one rare quality: resilience. While other producers are scaling back or scrambling to adapt, Canada’s oilpatch is quietly outperforming.
A recent CBC News report highlighted the sector’s staying power and why it’s better positioned than its U.S. counterparts. “The companies that have survived here are the companies that have been able to adapt,” said Patrick O’Rourke, managing director at ATB Capital Markets. “It’s effectively Darwinism.”
It’s also smart design. Canada’s oilsands—primarily in Alberta—are expensive to build but cheap to run. Once the upfront costs are covered, producers can keep pumping for decades with relatively low reinvestment. That means even in a
downturn, output stays strong.
Dane Gregoris of Enverus says Canada’s conventional sector is holding up better than the U.S. shale patch. Why? Canadian oil producers operate more efficiently, with fewer legal and logistical barriers tied to land access and ownership than their U.S. shale counterparts. They also benefit from lower operating costs and are less dependent on relentless drilling just to maintain output.
And now, they finally have a way to get more oil out.
The long-delayed Trans Mountain pipeline expansion is finally complete. It delivers Alberta crude to B.C.’s tidewater and, from there, to Asian markets. That access, once a significant limitation for Canadian producers, is now a strategic advantage. It’s already helping offset lower global prices.
Canada’s energy sector also benefits from long-life assets, slow decline rates and political stability. We have a reputation for responsible regulation, but that same system can slow development and limit how quickly we respond to shifting global demand. We can offer a stable, secure supply but only if infrastructure and regulatory hurdles don’t block access to it.
And for Canadians, that matters. Oil prices don’t just fuel industry headlines; they shape provincial and national budgets, drive investment and underpin jobs across the country. Most producers around the world are bracing for pain but Canada may be bracing for opportunity to expand its presence in Asian markets, secure long-term export contracts and position itself as a reliable supplier in a turbulent global landscape.
None of this means Canada is immune. If demand collapses or sanctions lift, prices could sink further. But in a volatile global landscape, Canada isn’t scrambling—it’s competing.
While others slash forecasts, shut wells or hope for an OPEC rescue, Canada’s energy producers are doing something rare in today’s oil market: holding the line.
Toronto-based Rashid Husain Syed is a highly regarded analyst specializing in energy and politics, particularly in the Middle East. In addition to his contributions to local and international newspapers, Rashid frequently lends his expertise as a speaker at global conferences. Organizations such as the Department of Energy in Washington and the International Energy Agency in Paris have sought his insights on global energy matters.
Troy Media empowers Canadian community news outlets by providing independent, insightful analysis and commentary. Our mission is to support local media in helping Canadians stay informed and engaged by delivering reliable content that strengthens community connections and deepens understanding across the country
Ship containers are stacked at the Panama Canal Balboa port in Panama City, Saturday, Sept. 20, 2025. The Panama Canals is one of the most significant trade infrastructure projects ever built. CP Images photo
From the Canadian Energy Centre
Q&A with Gary Mar, CEO of the Canada West Foundation
Building a stronger Canadian economy depends as much on how we move goods as on what we produce.
Gary Mar, CEO of the Canada West Foundation, says economic corridors — the networks that connect producers, ports and markets — are central to the nation-building projects Canada hopes to realize.
He spoke with CEC about how these corridors work and what needs to change to make more of them a reality.
Gary Mar, CEO of the Canada West Foundation. Photo for the Canadian Energy Centre
CEC: What is an economic corridor, and how does it function?
Gary Mar: An economic corridor is a major artery connecting economic actors within a larger system.
Consider the road, rail and pipeline infrastructure connecting B.C. to the rest of Western Canada. This infrastructure is an important economic corridor facilitating the movement of goods, services and people within the country, but it’s also part of the economic corridor connecting western producers and Asian markets.
Economic corridors primarily consist of physical infrastructure and often combine different modes of transportation and facilities to assist the movement of many kinds of goods.
They also include social infrastructure such as policies that facilitate the easy movement of goods like trade agreements and standardized truck weights.
The fundamental purpose of an economic corridor is to make it easier to transport goods. Ultimately, if you can’t move it, you can’t sell it. And if you can’t sell it, you can’t grow your economy.
CEC: Which resources make the strongest case for transport through economic corridors, and why?
Gary Mar: Economic corridors usually move many different types of goods.
Bulk commodities are particularly dependent on economic corridors because of the large volumes that need to be transported.
Some of Canada’s most valuable commodities include oil and gas, agricultural commodities such as wheat and canola, and minerals such as potash.
Rail cars carry commodities through Saskatchewan. Photo courtesy CN Rail
CEC: How are the benefits of an economic corridor measured?
Gary Mar: The benefits of economic corridors are often measured via trade flows.
For example, the upcoming Roberts Bank Terminal 2 in the Port of Vancouver will increase container trade capacity on Canada’s west coast by more than 30 per cent, enabling the trade of $100 billion in goods annually, primarily to Asian markets.
Corridors can also help make Canadian goods more competitive, increasing profits and market share across numerous industries. Corridors can also decrease the costs of imported goods for Canadian consumers.
For example, after the completion of the Trans Mountain Expansion in May 2024 the price differential between Western Canada Select and West Texas Intermediate narrowed by about US$8 per barrel in part due to increased competition for Canadian oil.
This boosted total industry profits by about 10 per cent, and increased corporate tax revenues to provincial and federal governments by about $3 billion in the pipeline’s first year of operation.
CEC: Where are the most successful examples of these around the world?
Gary Mar: That depends how you define success. The economic corridors transporting the highest value of goods are those used by global superpowers, such as the NAFTA highway that facilitates trade across Canada, the United States and Mexico.
The Suez and Panama canals are two of the most significant trade infrastructure projects ever built, facilitating 12 per cent and five per cent of global trade, respectively. Their success is based on their unique geography.
Canada’s Asia-Pacific Gateway, a coordinated system of ports, rail lines, roads, and border crossings, primarily in B.C., was a highly successful initiative that contributed to a 48 per cent increase in merchandise trade with Asia from $44 million in 2006 to $65 million in 2015.
China’s Belt and Road initiative to develop trade infrastructure in other countries is already transforming global trade. But the project is as much about extending Chinese influence as it is about delivering economic returns.
Piles of coal awaiting export and gantry cranes used to load and unload containers onto and from cargo ships are seen at Deltaport, in Tsawwassen, B.C., on Monday, September 9, 2024. CP Images photo
CEC: What would need to change in Canada in terms of legislation or regulation to make more economic corridors a reality?
Gary Mar: A major regulatory component of economic corridors is eliminating trade barriers.
The federal Free Trade and Labour Mobility in Canada Act is a good start, but more needs to be done at the provincial level to facilitate more internal trade.
Other barriers require coordinated regulatory action, such as harmonizing weight restrictions and road bans to streamline trucking.
By taking a systems-level perspective – convening a national forum where Canadian governments consistently engage on supply chains and trade corridors – we can identify bottlenecks and friction points in our existing transportation networks, and which investments would deliver the greatest return on investment.
It’s time for Canada to remember, the heroes of Kapyong
McKinsey outlook for 2025 sharply adjusts prior projections, predicting fossil fuels will dominate well after 2050
BBC uses ‘neutrality’ excuse to rebuke newscaster who objected to gender ideology
Trump: Americans to receive $2,000 each from tariff revenue
Carney’s Floor-Crossing Campaign. A Media-Staged Bid for Majority Rule That Erodes Democracy While Beijing Hovers
CBC cashes in on Carney as the news industry playing field tilts further in its favour, crippling the competition
The Canadian Food Inspection Agency’s Bloodlust for Ostriches: Part 2
-
Daily Caller2 days agoLaura Ingraham’s Viral Clash With Trump Prompts Her To Tell Real Reasons China Sends Students To US
-
Frontier Centre for Public Policy2 days agoRichmond Mayor Warns Property Owners That The Cowichan Case Puts Their Titles At Risk
-
National2 days agoConservative bill would increase penalties for attacks on places of worship in Canada
-
armed forces2 days agoCanadian veteran says she knows at least 20 service members who were offered euthanasia
-
Business2 days agoSluggish homebuilding will have far-reaching effects on Canada’s economy
-
Alberta2 days ago
How economic corridors could shape a stronger Canadian future
-
Business1 day agoMark Carney Seeks to Replace Fiscal Watchdog with Loyal Lapdog
-
Business5 hours agoParliamentary Budget Officer begs Carney to cut back on spending