Canadian policymakers should quickly rethink our energy and climate policies

In the wee hours of Nov. 6, Donald Trump provided a subtle but clear signal about the direction he will pursue as president regarding climate policies. In his victory speech he gave a nod to Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s decision to join forces with MAGA saying, “He wants to do some things, and we’re gonna let him go to it. I just said, but Bobby, leave the oil to me. We have more liquid gold, oil and gas. We have more liquid gold than any country in the world. More than Saudi Arabia. We have more than Russia. Bobby, stay away from the liquid gold.”

People need to understand that Trump 2.0 is a different entity. He did not build his comeback movement by pandering or watering down his priorities. He reached out and either won people over to his side or sent them packing. A major example of this was Elon Musk, who during the first Trump administration resigned from the White House business advisory council to protest Trump’s withdrawal from the Paris climate treaty. Now Musk is all-in on MAGA and is set to play a lead role in a major downsizing of the administration.

When Trump secured the endorsement of Bobby Kennedy it was based on issues on which they could find agreement, including anti-corruption efforts and addressing the chronic disease burden. But Kennedy had to leave his environmentalism at the door, at least the climate activist part of it.

Trump’s remarks about energy during the campaign were unmistakeable. When he made the quip about wanting to be dictator for a day it was to close the border and “drill drill drill.” When asked how he would reduce the cost of living he said he would rapidly expand energy production with a target of cutting energy costs by at least 50 per cent. And on election night he reiterated: the United States has the oil, the liquid gold, and they’re going to use it.

U.S. climate policy will soon no longer be a thing. The Biden administration chose to focus on extravagant green energy subsidies under the Inflation Reduction Act. They were easy to bring in and will be just as easy for Trump to eliminate, especially the ones targeted at Democrat special interest groups. The incoming Trump administration will not settle simply for stalling on new climate action, it’s more likely to try to dismantle the entire climate bureaucracy.

In 2016 Trump did not understand the Washington bureaucracy and its ability to thwart a president’s plans. He learned many hard lessons merely trying to survive lawfare, resistance and open insubordination. It took three years for him to get a few people installed in senior positions in the climate area who could begin to push back against the vast regulatory machinery. But they simply did not have the time nor the capacity to get anything done.

This time should be different. Trump’s team has spent years developing legal and regulatory strategies to bring full executive authority back to the Oval Office so it can execute on plans quickly and efficiently. His top priority is hydrocarbon development and his team is in no mood for compromise. As to the climate issue, Trump recently remarked “Who the hell cares?”

That’s the reality. Now policymakers in Canada must decide what will be appropriate to ask of Canadians in terms of shouldering the costs of climate policies.

There’s one legal issue that Trump has thus far not addressed but that his administration will need to confront if it wants to drill drill drill. There has been an explosion of climate liability lawsuits in U.S. courts, where states, municipalities and activist groups sue major players in the fossil fuel industry demanding massive financial damages for alleged climate harms. There’s even a new branch of climate science called Extreme Event Attribution, which was explicitly developed to promote flimsy and arbitrary statistical analyses that support climate liability cases. Such cases are also popping up in Canada, including the Mathur case in Ontario, which the appellate court recently brought back from defeat.

Both Canada and the U.S. must act at the legislative level to extinguish climate liability in law. There is no good argument for letting this play out in the courts. The cases are prima facie preposterous: the emitters of carbon dioxide are the fuel users, not the producers, so liability—if it exists—should be attached to consumers. But then we would have an unworkable situation where everyone is liable to everyone, each person equally a victim and a tortfeasor. Climate policy belongs in the legislature not the courts and the “climate liability” movement is simply a massive waste of time and resources. It must be stopped.

Canada was already out of step with the U.S. in its mad pursuit of the federal Emission Reduction Plan. While the carbon tax is top of mind for voters, it’s but a small part of a larger and costlier regulatory onslaught, most recently supplemented by a new emissions cap on the western oil and gas sector. With the U.S. poised to sharply change direction, Canada now needs a complete rethink of our own energy and climate policies.

Author:

Ross McKitrick

Professor of Economics, University of Guelph

Up Next

Federal bureaucrats spend $76,000 a month renting art taxpayers have already bought

Don't Miss

CBC continues to push unproven unmarked graves claim, implies ‘denialism’ should be criminalized

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

Canada’s supply management system is failing consumers

Economy / 9 hours ago

Trump opens door to Iranian oil exports

Canadian Energy Centre / 10 hours ago

Alberta oil sands legacy tailings down 40 per cent since 2015

Economy

Trump opens door to Iranian oil exports

Published on July 3, 2025

Todayville

This article supplied by Troy Media.

By Rashid Husain Syed

U.S. President Donald Trump’s chaotic foreign policy is unravelling years of pressure on Iran and fuelling a surge of Iranian oil into global markets. His recent pivot to allow China to buy Iranian crude, despite previously trying to crush those exports, marks a sharp shift from strategic pressure to transactional diplomacy.

This unpredictability isn’t just confusing allies—it’s transforming global oil flows. One day, Trump vetoes an Israeli plan to assassinate Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Khamenei. Days later, he calls for Iran’s unconditional surrender. After announcing a ceasefire between Iran, Israel and the United States, Trump praises both sides then lashes out at them the next day.

The biggest shock came when Trump posted on Truth Social that “China can now continue to purchase Oil from Iran. Hopefully, they will be purchasing plenty from the U.S., also.” The statement reversed the “maximum pressure” campaign he reinstated in February, which aimed to drive Iran’s oil exports to zero. The campaign reimposes sanctions on Tehran, threatening penalties on any country or company buying Iranian crude,
with the goal of crippling Iran’s economy and nuclear ambitions.

This wasn’t foreign policy—it was deal-making. Trump is brokering calm in the Middle East not for strategy, but to boost American oil sales to China. And in the process, he’s giving Iran room to move.

The effects of this shift in U.S. policy are already visible in trade data. Chinese imports of Iranian crude hit record levels in June. Ship-tracking firm Vortexa reported more than 1.8 million barrels per day imported between June 1 and 20. Kpler data, covering June 1 to 27, showed a 1.46 million bpd average, nearly 500,000 more than in May.

Much of the supply came from discounted May loadings destined for China’s independent refineries—the so-called “teapots”—stocking up ahead of peak summer demand. After hostilities broke out between Iran and Israel on June 12, Iran ramped up exports even further, increasing daily crude shipments by 44 per cent within a week.

Iran is under heavy U.S. sanctions, and its oil is typically sold at a discount, especially to China, the world’s largest oil importer. These discounted barrels undercut other exporters, including U.S. allies and global producers like Canada, reducing global prices and shifting power dynamics in the energy market.

All of this happened with full knowledge of the U.S. administration. Analysts now expect Iranian crude to continue flowing freely, as long as Trump sees strategic or economic value in it—though that position could reverse without warning.

Complicating matters is progress toward a U.S.-China trade deal. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick told reporters that an agreement reached in May has now been finalized. China later confirmed the understanding. Trump’s oil concession may be part of that broader détente, but it comes at the cost of any consistent pressure on Iran.

Meanwhile, despite Trump’s claims of obliterating Iran’s nuclear program, early reports suggest U.S. strikes merely delayed Tehran’s capabilities by a few months. The public posture of strength contrasts with a quieter reality: Iranian oil is once again flooding global markets.

With OPEC+ also boosting output monthly, there is no shortage of crude on the horizon. In fact, oversupply may once again define the market—and Trump’s erratic diplomacy is helping drive it.

For Canadian producers, especially in Alberta, the return of cheap Iranian oil can mean downward pressure on global prices and stiffer competition in key markets. And with global energy supply increasingly shaped by impulsive political decisions, Canada’s energy sector remains vulnerable to forces far beyond its borders.

This is the new reality: unpredictability at the top is shaping the oil market more than any cartel or conflict. And for now, Iran is winning.

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.

Canadian Energy Centre

Alberta oil sands legacy tailings down 40 per cent since 2015

Published on July 3, 2025

Todayville

Wapisiw Lookout, reclaimed site of the oil sands industry’s first tailings pond, which started in 1967. The area was restored to a solid surface in 2010 and now functions as a 220-acre watershed. Photo courtesy Suncor Energy

From the Canadian Energy Centre

By CEC Research

Mines demonstrate significant strides through technological innovation

Tailings are a byproduct of mining operations around the world.

In Alberta’s oil sands, tailings are a fluid mixture of water, sand, silt, clay and residual bitumen generated during the extraction process.

Engineered basins or “tailings ponds” store the material and help oil sands mining projects recycle water, reducing the amount withdrawn from the Athabasca River.

In 2023, 79 per cent of the water used for oil sands mining was recycled, according to the latest data from the Alberta Energy Regulator (AER).

Decades of operations, rising production and federal regulations prohibiting the release of process-affected water have contributed to a significant accumulation of oil sands fluid tailings.

The Mining Association of Canada describes that:

“Like many other industrial processes, the oil sands mining process requires water.

However, while many other types of mines in Canada like copper, nickel, gold, iron ore and diamond mines are allowed to release water (effluent) to an aquatic environment provided that it meets stringent regulatory requirements, there are no such regulations for oil sands mines.

Instead, these mines have had to retain most of the water used in their processes, and significant amounts of accumulated precipitation, since the mines began operating.”

Despite this ongoing challenge, oil sands mining operators have made significant strides in reducing fluid tailings through technological innovation.

This is demonstrated by reductions in “legacy fluid tailings” since 2015.

Legacy Fluid Tailings vs. New Fluid Tailings

As part of implementing the Tailings Management Framework introduced in March 2015, the AER released Directive 085: Fluid Tailings Management for Oil Sands Mining Projects in July 2016.

Directive 085 introduced new criteria for the measurement and closure of “legacy fluid tailings” separate from those applied to “new fluid tailings.”

Legacy fluid tailings are defined as those deposited in storage before January 1, 2015, while new fluid tailings are those deposited in storage after January 1, 2015.

The new rules specified that new fluid tailings must be ready to reclaim ten years after the end of a mine’s life, while legacy fluid tailings must be ready to reclaim by the end of a mine’s life.

Total Oil Sands Legacy Fluid Tailings

Alberta’s oil sands mining sector decreased total legacy fluid tailings by approximately 40 per cent between 2015 and 2024, according to the latest company reporting to the AER.

Total legacy fluid tailings in 2024 were approximately 623 million cubic metres, down from about one billion cubic metres in 2015.

The reductions are led by the sector’s longest-running projects: Suncor Energy’s Base Mine (opened in 1967), Syncrude’s Mildred Lake Mine (opened in 1978), and Syncrude’s Aurora North Mine (opened in 2001). All are now operated by Suncor Energy.

The Horizon Mine, operated by Canadian Natural Resources (opened in 2009) also reports a significant reduction in legacy fluid tailings.

The Muskeg River Mine (opened in 2002) and Jackpine Mine (opened in 2010) had modest changes in legacy fluid tailings over the period. Both are now operated by Canadian Natural Resources.

Imperial Oil’s Kearl Mine (opened in 2013) and Suncor Energy’s Fort Hills Mine (opened in 2018) have no reported legacy fluid tailings.

Suncor Energy Base Mine

Between 2015 and 2024, Suncor Energy’s Base Mine reduced legacy fluid tailings by approximately 98 per cent, from 293 million cubic metres to 6 million cubic metres.

Syncrude Mildred Lake Mine

Between 2015 and 2024, Syncrude’s Mildred Lake Mine reduced legacy fluid tailings by approximately 15 per cent, from 457 million cubic metres to 389 million cubic metres.

Syncrude Aurora North Mine

Between 2015 and 2024, Syncrude’s Aurora North Mine reduced legacy fluid tailings by approximately 25 per cent, from 102 million cubic metres to 77 million cubic metres.

Canadian Natural Resources Horizon Mine

Between 2015 and 2024, Canadian Natural Resources’ Horizon Mine reduced legacy fluid tailings by approximately 36 per cent, from 66 million cubic metres to 42 million cubic metres.

Total Oil Sands Fluid Tailings

Reducing legacy fluid tailings has helped slow the overall growth of fluid tailings across the oil sands sector.

Without efforts to reduce legacy fluid tailings, the total oil sands fluid tailings footprint today would be approximately 1.6 billion cubic metres.

The current fluid tailings volume stands at approximately 1.2 billion cubic metres, up from roughly 1.1 billion in 2015.