Canada should not want to lead the world on climate change policy

Some commentators in the media want the the federal Conservatives to take a leadership position on climate, and by extension make Canada a world leader on the journey to the low-carbon uplands of the future. This would be a mistake for three reasons.

First, unlike other areas such as trade, defence or central banking, where diplomats aim for realistic solutions to identifiable problems, in the global climate policy world one’s bona fides are not established by actions but by willingness to recite the words of an increasingly absurd creed. Take, for example, United Nations Secretary General António Guterres’ fanatical rhetoric about the “global boiling crisis” and his call for a “death knell” for fossil fuels “before they destroy our planet.” In that world no credit is given for actually reducing emissions unless you first declare that climate change is an existential crisis, that we are (again, to quote Guterres) at the “tip of a tipping point” of “climate breakdown” and that “humanity has become a weapon of mass extinction.” Any attempt to speak sensibly on the issue is condemned as denialism, whereas any amount of hypocrisy from jet-setting politicians, global bureaucrats and celebrities is readily forgiven as long as they parrot the deranged climate crisis lingo.

The opposite is also true. Unwillingness to state absurdities means actual accomplishments count for nothing. Compare President Donald Trump, who pulled out of the Paris treaty and disparaged climate change as unimportant, to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau who embraced climate emergency rhetoric and dispatched ever-larger Canadian delegations to the annual greenhouse gabfests. In the climate policy world, that made Canada a hero and the United States a villain. Meanwhile, thanks in part to expansion of natural gas supplies under the Trump administration, from 2015 to 2019 U.S. energy-based CO2 emissions fell by 3 per cent even as primary energy consumption grew by 3 per cent. In Canada over the same period, CO2 emissions fell only 1 per cent despite energy consumption not increasing at all. But for the purpose of naming heroes and villains, no one cared about the outcome, only the verbiage. Likewise, climate zealots will not credit Conservatives for anything they achieve on the climate file unless they are first willing to repeat untrue alarmist nonsense, and probably not even then.

On climate change, Conservatives should resolve to speak sensibly and use mainstream science and economic analysis, but that means rejecting climate crisis rhetoric and costly “net zero” aspirations. Which leads to the second problem—climate advocates love to talk about “solutions” but their track record is 40 years of costly failure and massive waste. Here again leadership status is tied to one’s willingness to dump ever-larger amounts of taxpayer money into impractical schemes loaded with all the fashionable buzzwords. The story is always the same. We need to hurry and embrace this exciting economic opportunity, which for some reason the private sector won’t touch.

There are genuine benefits to pursuing practical sensible improvements in the way we make and use fossil fuels. But the current and foreseeable state of energy technology means CO2 mitigation steps will be smaller and much slower than was the case for other energy side-effects such as acid rain and particulates. It has nothing to do with lack of “political will;” it’s an unavoidable consequence of the underlying science, engineering and economics. In this context, leadership means being willing sometimes to do nothing when all the available options yield negative net benefits.

That leads to the third problem—opportunity cost. Aspiring to “climate leadership” means not fixing any of the pressing economic problems we currently face. Climate policy over the past four decades has proven to be very expensive, economically damaging and environmentally futile. The migration of energy-intensive industry to China and India is a very real phenomenon and more than offsets the tiny emission-reduction measures Canada and other western countries pursued under the Kyoto Protocol.

The next government should start by creating a new super-ministry of Energy, Resources and Climate where long-term thinking and planning can occur in a collaborative setting, not the current one where climate policy is positioned at odds with—and antagonistic towards—everything else. The environment ministry can then return its focus to air and water pollution management, species and habitat conservation, meteorological services and other traditional environmental functions. The climate team should prepare another national assessment but this time provide much more historical data to help Canadians understand long-term observed patterns of temperature and precipitation rather than focusing so much on model simulations of the distant future under implausible emission scenarios.

The government should also move to extinguish “climate liability,” a legal hook on which dozens of costly nuisance lawsuits are proliferating here and elsewhere. Canada should also use its influence in the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to reverse the mission creep, clean out the policy advocacy crowd and get the focus back on core scientific assessments. And we should lead a push to move the annual “COPs”—Conferences of the Parties to the Rio treaty—to an online format, an initiative that would ground enough jumbo jets each year to delay the melting of the ice caps at least a century.

Finally, the new Ministry of Energy, Resources and Climate should work with the provinces to find one region or municipality willing to be a demonstration project on the feasibility of relying only on renewables for electricity. We keep hearing from enthusiasts that wind and solar are the cheapest and best options, while critics point to their intermittency and hidden costs. Surely there must be one town in Canada where the councillors, fresh from declaring a climate crisis and buying electric buses, would welcome the chance to, as it were, show leadership. We could fit them out with all the windmills and solar panels they want, then disconnect them from the grid and see how it goes. And if upon further reflection no one is willing to try it, that would also be useful information.

In the meantime, the federal Conservatives should aim merely to do some sensible things that yield tangible improvements on greenhouse gas emissions without wrecking the economy. Maybe one day that will be seen as real leadership.

Author:

Ross McKitrick

Professor of Economics, University of Guelph

Related Topics:#CanadaEconomy #CanadaEnergy #FraserInstitute #RossMcKitrick CanadaEnvironment ClimateChangePolicy feature

Up Next

Barron Trump Shut Out by Bank Amid Cancel Culture Accusations

Don't Miss

Free Money? What a UBI Would Really Do to People … and the National Debt

Todayville

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

Trump makes impact on G7 before he makes his exit

conflict / 8 hours ago

Trump: ‘We’ have control over Iranian airspace; know where Khomeini is hiding

conflict / 9 hours ago

Trump Threatens Strike on Khamenei as Israel Pounds Iranian Military Command

conflict

Middle East clash sends oil prices soaring

Published on June 17, 2025

Todayville

This article supplied by Troy Media.

By Rashid Husain Syed

The Israel-Iran conflict just flipped the script on falling oil prices, pushing them up fast, and that spike could hit your wallet at the pump

Oil prices are no longer being driven by supply and demand. The sudden escalation of military conflict between Israel and Iran has shattered market stability, reversing earlier forecasts and injecting dangerous uncertainty into the global energy system.

What just days ago looked like a steady decline in oil prices has turned into a volatile race upward, with threats of extreme price spikes looming.

For Canadians, these shifts are more than numbers on a commodities chart. Oil is a major Canadian export, and price swings affect everything from
provincial revenues, especially in Alberta and Saskatchewan, to what you pay at the pump. A sustained spike in global oil prices could also feed inflation, driving up the cost of living across the country.

Until recently, optimism over easing trade tensions between the U.S. and China had analysts projecting oil could fall below US$50 a barrel this year. Brent crude traded at US$66.82, and West Texas Intermediate (WTI) hovered near US$65, with demand growth sluggish, the slowest since the pandemic.

That outlook changed dramatically when Israeli airstrikes on Iranian targets and Tehran’s counterattack, including hits on Israel’s Haifa refinery, sent shockwaves through global markets. Within hours, Brent crude surged to US$74.23, and WTI climbed to US$72.98, despite later paring back overnight gains of over 13 per cent. The conflict abruptly reversed the market outlook and reintroduced a risk premium amid fears of disruption in the world’s critical oil-producing region.

Amid mounting tensions, attention has turned to the Strait of Hormuz—the narrow waterway between Iran and Oman through which nearly 20 per cent of the world’s oil ows, including supplies that inuence global and
Canadian fuel prices. While Iran has not yet signalled a closure, the possibility
remains, with catastrophic implications for supply and prices if it occurs.

Analysts have adjusted forecasts accordingly. JPMorgan warns oil could hit US$120 to US$130 per barrel in a worst-case scenario involving military conflict and a disruption of shipments through the strait. Goldman Sachs estimates Brent could temporarily spike above US$90 due to a potential loss of 1.75 million barrels per day of Iranian supply over six months, partially offset by increased OPEC+ output. In a note published Friday morning, Goldman Sachs analysts Daan Struyven and his team wrote: “We estimate that Brent jumps to a peak just over US$90 a barrel but declines back to the US$60s in 2026 as Iran supply recovers. Based on our prior analysis, we estimate that oil prices may exceed US$100 a barrel in an extreme tail scenario of an extended disruption.”

Iraq’s foreign minister, Fuad Hussein, has issued a more dire warning: “The Strait of Hormuz might be closed due to the Israel-Iran confrontation, and the world markets could lose millions of barrels of oil per day in supplies. This could result in a price increase of between US$200 and US$300 per barrel.”

During a call with German Foreign Minister Johann Wadephul, Hussein added: “If military operations between Iran and Israel continue, the global market will lose approximately five million barrels per day produced by Iraq and the Gulf states.”

Such a supply shock would worsen inflation, strain economies, and hurt both exporters and importers, including vulnerable countries like Iraq.

Despite some analysts holding to base-case forecasts in the low to mid-US$60s for 2025, that optimism now looks fragile. The oil market is being held hostage by geopolitics, sidelining fundamentals.

What happens next depends on whether the region plunges deeper into conflict or pulls back. But for now, one thing is clear: the calm is over, and oil is once again at the mercy of war.

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.

Alberta

Alberta’s grand bargain with Canada includes a new pipeline to Prince Rupert

Published on June 15, 2025

Todayville

From Resource Now

By Nelson Bennett

Alberta renews call for West Coast oil pipeline amid shifting federal, geopolitical dynamics.

Just six months ago, talk of resurrecting some version of the Northern Gateway pipeline would have been unthinkable. But with the election of Donald Trump in the U.S. and Mark Carney in Canada, it’s now thinkable.

In fact, Alberta Premier Danielle Smith seems to be making Northern Gateway 2.0 a top priority and a condition for Alberta staying within the Canadian confederation and supporting Mark Carney’s vision of making Canada an Energy superpower. Thanks to Donald Trump threatening Canadian sovereignty and its economy, there has been a noticeable zeitgeist shift in Canada. There is growing support for the idea of leveraging Canada’s natural resources and diversifying export markets to make it less vulnerable to an unpredictable southern neighbour.

“I think the world has changed dramatically since Donald Trump got elected in November,” Smith said at a keynote address Wednesday at the Global Energy Show Canada in Calgary. “I think that’s changed the national conversation.” Smith said she has been encouraged by the tack Carney has taken since being elected Prime Minister, and hopes to see real action from Ottawa in the coming months to address what Smith said is serious encumbrances to Alberta’s oil sector, including Bill C-69, an oil and gas emissions cap and a West Coast tanker oil ban. “I’m going to give him some time to work with us and I’m going to be optimistic,” Smith said. Removing the West Coast moratorium on oil tankers would be the first step needed to building a new oil pipeline line from Alberta to Prince Rupert. “We cannot build a pipeline to the west coast if there is a tanker ban,” Smith said. The next step would be getting First Nations on board. “Indigenous peoples have been shut out of the energy economy for generations, and we are now putting them at the heart of it,” Smith said.

Alberta currently produces about 4.3 million barrels of oil per day. Had the Northern Gateway, Keystone XL and Energy East pipelines been built, Alberta could now be producing and exporting an additional 2.5 million barrels of oil per day. The original Northern Gateway Pipeline — killed outright by the Justin Trudeau government — would have terminated in Kitimat. Smith is now talking about a pipeline that would terminate in Prince Rupert. This may obviate some of the concerns that Kitimat posed with oil tankers negotiating Douglas Channel, and their potential impacts on the marine environment.

One of the biggest hurdles to a pipeline to Prince Rupert may be B.C. Premier David Eby. The B.C. NDP government has a history of opposing oil pipelines with tooth and nail. Asked in a fireside chat by Peter Mansbridge how she would get around the B.C. problem, Smith confidently said: “I’ll convince David Eby.”

“I’m sensitive to the issues that were raised before,” she added. One of those concerns was emissions. But the Alberta government and oil industry has struck a grand bargain with Ottawa: pipelines for emissions abatement through carbon capture and storage.

The industry and government propose multi-billion investments in CCUS. The Pathways Alliance project alone represents an investment of $10 to $20 billion. Smith noted that there is no economic value in pumping CO2 underground. It only becomes economically viable if the tradeoff is greater production and export capacity for Alberta oil. “If you couple it with a million-barrel-per-day pipeline, well that allows you $20 billion worth of revenue year after year,” she said. “All of a sudden a $20 billion cost to have to decarbonize, it looks a lot more attractive when you have a new source of revenue.” When asked about the Prince Rupert pipeline proposal, Eby has responded that there is currently no proponent, and that it is therefore a bridge to cross when there is actually a proposal. “I think what I’ve heard Premier Eby say is that there is no project and no proponent,” Smith said. “Well, that’s my job. There will be soon. “We’re working very hard on being able to get industry players to realize this time may be different.” “We’re working on getting a proponent and route.”

At a number of sessions during the conference, Mansbridge has repeatedly asked speakers about the Alberta secession movement, and whether it might scare off investment capital. Alberta has been using the threat of secession as a threat if Ottawa does not address some of the province’s long-standing grievances. Smith said she hopes Carney takes it seriously. “I hope the prime minister doesn’t want to test it,” Smith said during a scrum with reporters. “I take it seriously. I have never seen separatist sentiment be as high as it is now. “I’ve also seen it dissipate when Ottawa addresses the concerns Alberta has.” She added that, if Carney wants a true nation-building project to fast-track, she can’t think of a better one than a new West Coast pipeline. “I can’t imagine that there will be another project on the national list that will generate as much revenue, as much GDP, as many high paying jobs as a bitumen pipeline to the coast.”