Economy
Energy transition will be much longer and more arduous than they’re telling you
From the Fraser Institute
While many Canadian politicians and activists continue to trumpet the “energy transition” and conjure visions of a low-carbon future that supposedly lurks just around the corner, along comes Natural Resources Canada with its latest Energy Fact Book. A careful review of the publication pours cold water on any notion of a rapid shift to a fundamentally different energy system, one that features a much smaller role for the fossil fuels that now supply the vast majority of the energy used by Canadians.
The book contains a wealth of information on Canada’s large and notably diverse energy sector, covering production, consumption trends, investment, and the environmental impact of energy production and use. Separately, Natural Resources Canada also publishes “energy profiles” for the individual provinces and territories that provide further insight into energy production and consumption patterns across the country.
Starting with energy production (and considering all sources of energy, including uranium), crude oil accounts for about 45 per cent of Canadian energy output, measured in petajoules. Natural gas and natural gas liquids comprise another 32 per cent, with uranium chipping in 11 per cent of primary energy production. Smaller shares come from coal (5 per cent), hydroelectricity (5 per cent) and “other” renewables (3 per cent).
The statistics on energy output confirm that fossil fuels dominate the mix of energy sources produced in Canada. There’s little reason to believe this will change in a significant way in the near term.
Turning to energy consumption, a review of the most recent information leads to a broadly similar conclusion.
Based on Statistics Canada’s latest data, industry, collectively, is responsible for about 35 per cent of final end-use energy demand; this category includes manufacturing, natural resource extraction and processing, and construction. Transportation is the second-largest consumer of energy (29 per cent of final demand), followed by the residential (16 per cent) and commercial sectors (14 per cent).
What about the various sources of energy Canadians depend on for their comfort and well-being and to enable industrial and other business activity? Refined petroleum products rank first, providing about two-fifths of all energy consumed. Natural gas is second (35-36 per cent). Electricity comprises just 16-17 per cent of the energy used in Canada. Overall, fossil fuels still meet more than three quarters of Canadians’ requirements for primary energy.
Some may be surprised that electricity constitutes less than one-fifth of the energy used in Canada. A principal strategy of governments aspiring to slash greenhouse gas emissions is to redirect energy demand to electricity and away from oil, natural gas and other carbon-based energy sources. That makes sense, particularly since Canada’s existing electricity grid is about 80 per cent carbon-free. But a “big switch” to electricity won’t be easy. Consider that, over the first two decades of the millennium, Canadian natural gas consumption jumped by 34 per cent while electricity demand rose by 12 per cent. This underscores the resiliency of household and business demand for reliable affordable energy—of which natural gas is the best example.
Raising electricity’s share of total energy consumption will necessitate an enormous expansion across all segments of the Canadian electricity sector, encompassing not only the development of far more generation capacity but also the construction of additional transmission networks to deliver electric energy to end-users. Industry experts talk of boosting the amount of electricity produced in Canada by up to three times within two decades—a herculean task, assuming it’s even possible.
And, in line with the “net zero” goals espoused by many governments, virtually all of new electricity presumably must come from carbon-free sources (e.g., hydropower, other renewables, biomass, nuclear). There’s also the challenge of replacing the remaining carbon-based electricity still produced in Canada with carbon-free alternatives, as mandated by the Clean Electricity Regulations (CER) recently adopted by the Trudeau government.
Suffice to say the transition away from fossil fuels as the predominant source of energy consumed in Canada will be a lengthy and arduous journey and is sure to encounter more and bigger obstacles than most of Canada’s political class understands or cares to acknowledge.
Author
From Resource Now
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.”
This article supplied by Troy Media.
Canadians must consider how closer EU ties could erode national control and economic sovereignty
As Prime Minister Mark Carney attempts to deepen Canada’s relationship with the European Union and other supranational institutions, Canadians should be asking a hard question: how much of our national independence are we prepared to give away? If you want a glimpse of what happens when a country loses control over its currency, trade and democratic accountability, you need only look to Bulgaria.
On June 8, 2025, thousands of Bulgarians took to the streets in front of the country’s National Bank. Their message was clear: they want to keep the lev and stop the forced adoption of the euro, scheduled for Jan. 1, 2026.
Bulgaria, a southeastern European country and EU member since 2007, is preparing to join the eurozone—a bloc of 20 countries that share the euro as a common currency. The move would bind Bulgaria to the economic decisions of the European Central Bank, replacing its national currency with one managed from Brussels and Frankfurt.
The protest movement is a vivid example of the tensions that arise when national identity collides with centralized policy-making. It was organized by Vazrazdane, a nationalist, eurosceptic political party that has gained support by opposing what it sees as the erosion of Bulgarian sovereignty through European integration. Similar demonstrations took place in cities across the country.
At the heart of the unrest is a call for democratic accountability. Vazrazdane leader Konstantin Kostadinov appealed directly to EU leaders, arguing that Bulgarians should not be forced into the eurozone without a public vote. He noted that in Italy, referendums on the euro were allowed with support from less than one per cent of citizens, while in Bulgaria, more than 10 per cent calling for a referendum have been ignored.
Protesters warned that abandoning the lev without a public vote would amount to a betrayal of democracy. “If there is no lev, there is no Bulgaria,” some chanted. For them, the lev is not just a currency: it is a symbol of national independence.
Their fears are not unfounded. Across the eurozone, several countries have experienced higher prices and reduced purchasing power after adopting the euro. The loss of domestic control over monetary policy has led to economic decisions being dictated from afar. Inflation, declining living standards and external dependency are real concerns.
Canada is not Bulgaria. But it is not immune to the same dynamics. Through trade agreements, regulatory convergence and global commitments, Canada has already surrendered meaningful control over its economy and borders. Canadians rarely debate these trade-offs publicly, and almost never vote on them directly.
Carney, a former central banker with deep ties to global finance, has made clear his intention to align more closely with the European Union on economic and security matters. While partnership is not inherently wrong, it must come with strong democratic oversight. Canadians should not allow fundamental shifts in sovereignty to be handed off quietly to international bodies or technocratic elites.
What’s happening in Bulgaria is not just about the euro—it’s about a people demanding the right to chart their own course. Canadians should take note. Sovereignty is not lost in one dramatic act. It erodes incrementally: through treaties we don’t read, agreements we don’t question, and decisions made without our consent.
If democracy and national control still matter to Canadians, they would do well to pay attention.
Isidoros Karderinis was born in Athens, Greece. He is a journalist, foreign press correspondent, economist, novelist and poet. He is accredited by the Greek Ministry of Foreign Affairs as a foreign press correspondent and has built a distinguished career in journalism and literature.
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.
Anti-Trump protests planned across the country on Saturday as LA violence continues
Telegram founder Pavel Durov exposes crackdown on digital privacy in Tucker Carlson interview
Audit report reveals Canada’s controversial COVID travel app violated multiple rules
