Connect with us

Energy

We can and must adjust to climate change – and not kill billions

Published

1 year ago

10 minute read

From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy

By Paul Driessen and Ronald Stein

The futures of poor developing countries hinge on their ability to harness foundational elements: fuels, electricity, minerals and feed stocks made from fossil fuels and other materials that are the basis for all buildings, infrastructures and other technologies in industrialized countries.

We’ve always done so and have no right to tell others they can’t have modern living standards.

Earth’s climate has changed many times over four billion years, and 99.999% of those changes occurred before humans were on this planet. During that short time, humans adjusted their housing, clothing and agriculture in response to climate changes. Can we now control the climate?

Except for decades-long droughts or massive volcanic explosions that ended some civilizations, humanity generally adjusted successfully – through a Pleistocene Ice Age, a Little Ice Age, a Dust Bowl and other natural crises. Numerous state high temperature records were set in Dust Bowl years.

After putting our current “microsecond” on Earth into its proper perspective, we might therefore ask:

* With today’s vastly superior technologies, why would humanity possibly be unable to adjust to even a few-degrees temperature increase, especially with more atmospheric carbon dioxide helping plants grow faster and better, providing more food for animals and people?

* How dare the political, bureaucratic, academic and media ruling elites – who propagate GIGO computer predictions, calculated myths and outright disinformation – tell us we must implement their “green” policies immediately and universally … or humanity won’t survive manmade climate influences that are minuscule compared to the planetary, solar and galactic forces that really control Earth’s climate?

* How dare those elites tell Earth’s poorest people and nations they have no right to seek energy, health and living standards akin to what developed countries already enjoy?

Scientists, geophysicists and engineers have yet to explain or prove what caused the slight change in global temperatures we are experiencing today – much less the huge fluctuations that brought five successive mile-high continental glaciers, and sea levels that plunged 400 feet each time (because seawater was turned to ice), interspersed with warm inter-glacial periods like the one we’re in now.

Moreover, none of the dire predictions of cataclysmic temperature increases, sea level rise, and more frequent and intense storms have actually occurred, despite decades of climate chaos fearmongering.

Earth continues to experience climate changes, from natural forces and/or human activity. However, adjusting to small temperature, sea level and precipitation changes would inflict far less harm on our planet’s eight billion people than would ridding the world of fossil fuels that provide 80% of our energy and myriad products that helped to nearly double human life expectancy over the past 200 years.

Today, with fuels, products, housing and infrastructures that didn’t even exist one or two centuries ago, we can adjust to almost anything.

When it’s cold, we heat insulated homes and wear appropriate winter clothing; when it’s hot, we use air conditioning and wear lighter clothing. When it rains, we remain dry inside or with umbrellas; when it snows, we stay warm indoors or ski, bobsled and build snowmen.

Climate changes may impact us in many ways. But eliminating coal, oil and natural gas – with no 24/7/365 substitutes to replace them – would be immoral and evil. It would bring extreme shortages of reliable, affordable, essential energy, and of over 6,000 essential products derived from fossil fuels.

It would inflict billions of needless deaths from diseases, malnutrition, extreme heat and cold, and wild weather – on a planet where the human population has grown from 1 billion to 8 billion since Col. Edwin Drake drilled the first oilwell in 1859.

* Weather-related fatalities have virtually disappeared, thanks to accurate forecasting, storm warnings, modern buildings, and medicines and other petroleum-based products that weren’t available even 100 years ago.

* Fossil fuels for huge long-range jets and merchant ships move people, products, food and medications to support global trade, mobility, health and lifestyle choices. Indeed, more than 50,000 merchant ships, 20,000 commercial aircraft and 50,000 military aircraft use fuels manufactured from crude oil.

* Food to feed Americans and humanity would be far less abundant and affordable without the fertilizers, insecticides, herbicides, and tractor and transportation fuels that come from oil and natural gas.

* Everything powered by electricity utilizes petroleum-based derivatives: wind turbine blades and nacelle covers, wire insulation, iPhone and computer housings, defibrillators, myriad EV components and more.

Petroleum industry history demonstrates that crude oil was virtually useless until it could be transformed in refineries and chemical plants into derivatives that are the foundation for plastics, solvents, medications and other products that support industries, health and living standards. The same is true for everything else that comes out of holes in the ground.

Plants and rocks, metals and minerals have no inherent value unless we learn how to cook them, extract metals from them, bend and shape them, or otherwise convert them into something we can use.

Similarly, the futures of poor developing countries hinge on their ability to harness foundational elements: fuels, electricity, minerals and feed stocks made from fossil fuels and other materials that are the basis for all buildings, infrastructures and other technologies in industrialized countries.

For the 80% of humanity in Africa, Asia and Latin America who still live on less than $10 a day – and the billions who still have little to no access to electricity – life is severely complicated and compromised by the hypocritical “green” agendas of wealthy country elites who have benefited so tremendously from fossil fuels since the modern industrial era began around 1850. Before that:

* Life spans were around 40 years, and people seldom travelled more than 100 miles from their birthplaces.

* There was no electricity, since generating, transmitting and utilizing this amazing energy resource requires technologies made from oil and natural gas derivatives.

* That meant the world had no modern transportation, hospitals, medicines and medical equipment, kitchen and laundry appliances, radio and other electronics, cell phones and other telecommunications, air and space travel, central heating and air conditioning, or year-round shipping and preservation of meats, fruits and vegetables, to name just a few things most of us just take for granted.

There are no silver-bullet solutions to save people from natural or man-made climate changes. However, adjusting to those fluctuations is the only solution that minimizes fatalities which would be caused by the callous or unthinking elimination of the petroleum fuels and building blocks that truly make life possible and enjoyable, instead of nasty, brutish and short. The late Steven Lyazi explained it perfectly:

“Wind and solar are … short-term solutions …. to meet basic needs until [faraway Ugandan villages] can be connected to transmission lines and a grid. Only in that way can we have modern homes, heating, lighting, cooking, refrigeration, offices, factories, schools, shops and hospitals – so that we can enjoy the same living standards people in industrialized countries do (and think is their right). We deserve the same rights and lives.

“What is an extra degree, or even two degrees, of warming in places like Africa? It’s already incredibly hot here, and people are used to it. What we Africans worry about and need to fix are malnutrition and starvation, the absence of electricity, and killer diseases like malaria, tuberculosis, sleeping sickness and HIV/AIDS…. We just need to be set free to [get the job done].”

Paul Driessen is senior policy analyst for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (www.CFACT.org), and author of articles and books on environmental, climate and human rights issues.

Ronald Stein is an engineer, senior policy advisor on energy literacy for the Heartland Institute and CFACT, and co-author of the Pulitzer Prize-nominated book “Clean Energy Exploitations.”

Related Topics:

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

More from this author
Business / 5 hours ago

‘TERMINATED’: Trump Ends Trade Talks With Canada Over Premier Ford’s Ronald Reagan Ad Against Tariffs

Energy / 5 hours ago

B.C. premier’s pipeline protestations based in fallacy not fact

Business / 14 hours ago

A Middle Finger to Carney’s Elbows Up

Energy

B.C. premier’s pipeline protestations based in fallacy not fact

Published on October 24, 2025

By

From the Fraser Institute

By Kenneth P. Green

The latest war of words over a pipeline in Canada is between Alberta Premier Danielle Smith, who seeks the construction of a pipeline from Alberta’s oilsands to export facilities on the Pacific coast, and British Columbia Premier David Eby who is foursquare against it.

Smith argues the pipeline is needed to break the U.S. market-lock on Alberta oil, which the United States buys at a discount compared to world prices. Smith argues that increased trade in oil and gas—at higher prices—would be good for Alberta’s economy and Canada’s national economy, and can be done while protecting the environment in both provinces. Eby denies virtually all these claims.

More specifically, Premier Eby makes four arguments against a new pipeline, and all are incorrect.

First, he argues, any pipeline would pose unmitigated risks to B.C.’s coastal environment. But in reality, the data are clear—oil transport off Canada’s coasts is very safe (since the mid-1990s there has not been a single major spill from oil tankers or other vessels in Canadian waters). He also simultaneously argues that it’s pointless to build a new pipeline from Alberta because B.C.’s waters are protected by Bill C-48, the “tanker ban” bill enacted by the Trudeau government in 2017. But in fact, because Bill C-48 only applies to Canadian tankers, a regular stream of oil tankers and large fuel-capacity ships cruise up and down the B.C. coast (between Alaska and other U.S. ports) with stupendous safety records.

Second, Eby argues that B.C.’s First Nations oppose any such pipeline. But in reality, such opposition is quite contingent. The Trans Mountain pipeline expansion project (TMX), which has increased shipping capacity from Alberta to the west coast, has signed agreements with 81 Indigenous community groups (in both provinces) worth $657 million and produced more than $4.8 billion in contracts with Indigenous businesses.

Third, Eby claims that Smith’s proposal is not “real” because no private-sector companies have proposed to build the pipeline. And he’s partly right—no rational investor would look at the regulatory barricade facing pipeline construction and spend the time and money to propose a project. Those applications cost money and lots of it. In 2017, according to TC Energy,before it retracted its Energy East/Eastern proposals due largely to regulatory barriers, the company had spent more than C$1 billion trying to get permits. In a 2016 report, Enbridge listed pre-construction expenditures (which include crafting proposals) of up to US$1.5 billion to build its three proposed pipeline projects. These costs will not have gotten cheaper since then. But even so, the Alberta government’s pipeline proposal has the backing of an advisory group, which includes energy companies Enbridge, Trans Mountain and South Bow—likely because they want to invest in the project after there’s some assurance it will survive the regulatory blockade.

Finally, Eby’s claim that there’s no market demand for new pipelines (which implies there will be no investors) is unsubstantiated. According to S&P Global, Canadian oilsands production will reach a record annual average of 3.5 million barrels of oil per day (b/d) in 2025, five per cent higher than 2024. By 2030, production could top 3.9 million b/d, 500,000 b/d higher than 2024 (although this assumes the federal cap on emissions, imposed by the Trudeau government, does not curtail production as predicted). This profit potential will almost certainly attract investors, if they can overcome the regulatory blockade.

It’s fine, of course, for Premier Eby to look out for the people of B.C. as best he sees fit—that’s his job, after all. But it’s also his job to recognize the limits of his authority. When looking at the TMX project, the Supreme Court of Canada has already ruled that B.C. does not have the authority to block infrastructure of national importance, including pipelines.

But as the saying goes, you’re entitled to your own opinion but not entitled to your own facts. Premier Eby’s objections to another Alberta pipeline are rooted in fallacy, not fact. The Carney government should recognize this fact and decide whether or not another pipeline to B.C. waters is in the “national interest,” which is apparently how you get a permit to build major projects in Canada these days.

Kenneth P. Green

Senior Fellow, Fraser Institute
Continue Reading

Energy

National media energy attacks: Bureau chiefs or three major Canadian newspapers woefully misinformed about pipelines

Published on October 23, 2025

By

From the Fraser Institute

By Kenneth P. Green

These three allegedly well informed national opinion-shapers are incredibly ignorant of national energy realities.

In a recent episode of CPAC PrimeTime Politics, three bureau chiefs from three major Canadian newspapers discussed the fracas between Alberta Premier Danielle Smith and Prime Minister Mark Carney. The Smith government plans to submit a proposal to Ottawa to build an oil pipeline from Alberta to British Columbia’s north coast. The episode underscored the profound disconnect between these major journalistic gatekeepers and the realities of energy policy in Canada.

First out of the gate, the Globe and Mail’s Robert Fife made the (false) argument that we already have the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion (TMX), which is only running at 70 per cent, so we don’t need additional pipelines. This variant of the “no market case” argument misunderstands both the economics of running pipelines and the reality of how much oilsands production can increase to supply foreign markets if—and only if—there’s a way to get it there.

In reality, since the TMX expansion entered service, about 80 per cent of the system’s capacity is reserved for long-term contracts by committed shippers, and the rest is available on a monthly basis for spot shippers who pay higher rates due largely to government-imposed costs of construction. From June 2024 to June 2025, committed capacity was fully utilized each month, averaging 99 per cent utilization. Simply put, TMX is essentially fully subscribed and flowing at a high percentage of its physical capacity.

And the idea that we don’t need additional capacity is also silly. According to S&P Global, Canadian oilsands production will reach a record annual average production of 3.5 million barrels per day (b/d), and by 2030 could top 3.9 million b/d (that’s 500,000 b/d higher than 2024). Without pipeline expansion, this growth may not happen. Alberta’s government, which is already coordinating with pipeline companies such as Enbridge, hopes to see oilsands production double in coming years.

Next, Mia Rabson, Ottawa deputy bureau chief of the Canadian Press, implied that Smith’s proposal is not viable because it comes from government, not the private sector. But Rabson neglected to say that it would be foolish for any company to prepare a very expensive project proposal in light of current massive regulatory legislative barriers (tanker ban off B.C. coast, oil and gas emission cap, etc.). Indeed, proposal costs can run into the billions.

Finally, Joel-Denis Bellavance, Ottawa bureau chief of La Presse, opined that a year ago “building a pipeline was not part of the national conversation.” Really? On what planet? How thick is the bubble around Quebec? Is it like bulletproof Perspex? This is a person helping shape Quebec opinion on pipelines in Western Canada, and if we take him at his word, he doesn’t know that pipelines and energy infrastructure have been on the agenda for quite some time now.

If these are the gatekeepers of Canadian news in central Canada, it’s no wonder that the citizenry seems so woefully uninformed about the need to build new pipelines, to move Alberta oil and gas to foreign markets beyond the United States, to strengthen Canada’s economy and to employ in many provinces people who don’t work in the media.

Continue Reading

Trending

X