Economy
Roadmap to Canadian energy superpowerdom
By Damjan Krnjević Mišković for Inside Policy
There is no getting around the fact that Canada’s energy superpowerdom must involve all fuels and technologies.
Transforming our country into an “energy superpower” requires treating hydrocarbons as an integral part of a comprehensive, single-standard, and non-discriminatory energy strategy. This means Prime Minister Mark Carney must adopt an explicit “all of the above” approach to energy: all fuels, all technologies, all systems, and more.
A majority of Canadians support this. But achieving it requires policy changes. Key necessary measures include repealing the Impact Assessment Act, the industrial carbon tax, the tanker ban, and the emissions cap. These counterproductive policies all stand in the way of affordable, efficient, and secure energy.
One reason these changes are needed is that the necessary investment to achieve energy superpower status simply will not materialize until industry is given two clear signals: that the government has understood Canada’s needs, and that it rightly views our abundant hydrocarbon resources as strategic national assets rather than liabilities.
Another reason these steps must be taken is because clear action on this front will strengthen Canadian sovereignty, unity, resilience, security, and prosperity. Like never before in Canada’s history, there is an unbreakable connection between nation-building and fast-tracking sensible energy projects. Carney says he wants to achieve both. However, many critics misunderstand a key point: such a path will also enable the prime minister to build on his climate action legacy, allowing him to reconcile raison d’état with raison de planète – all while upholding true Canadian values.
Canadians remember how Carney decisively shaped the private finance agenda at the United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP26) in 2021. At that time, Carney served concurrently as then-British prime minister Boris Johnson’s climate finance adviser and as the UN special envoy on climate action and finance. “The objective is simple,” said Carney. “Ensure that every financial decision takes climate change into account.”
Today, he can meet that objective by embracing the sensible logic of “policy blindness” regarding the means and technologies used to achieve domestic and international climate action policy preferences and obligations. This pragmatic principle is Canadian-made: it was first incorporated into international law in the Montreal Protocol for reducing chlorofluorocarbons in response to ozone depletion. By adopting a “whatever works” standard instead of doubling down on picking fuel or technology favourites, Carney would ensure Canadian energy and emissions reduction policies contribute to global climate action and accelerate sustainable economic development at home and around the world.
That’s why building Canada into an energy superpower must also have a foreign policy dimension. There are two key tracks of activity.
The first involves recalibrating the North American energy system, as part of the prime minister’s broader effort to realign our trade arrangements with the US on as favourable terms as possible by adopting a “grand bargain strategy.” The way forward is evidently fraught with peril, given bilateral tensions to date, but also the fact that the trade deals Japan, the EU, and others have already struck with the US mean that forming a coalition of affected advanced economies to push back against Washington is no longer an option. Canada is thus effectually on its own. Ottawa cannot afford to be reactive. “It has always fallen to Canada to draw America’s gaze to the benefits of continental co-operation and this time will be no exception,” said Macdonald-Laurier Institute Managing Director Brian Lee Crowley.
In these efforts, a point in Canada’s favour is that the highly-regarded US Energy Secretary Chris Wright has a deep understanding of the Canadian energy reality and is a champion of deepening continental energy ties. The strength of a continental energy alliance is not lost on the Trump Administration. And the enormous economic and strategic benefits to Canada should be evident to all.
The second activity track involves re-engagement with the developing world. This is where a “policy-blind” approach to climate action really comes into play. Canada’s UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) obligations and our Paris Climate Agreement commitments mean we are amongst a small number of countries that have assumed primary responsibility for managing this planetary challenge. At COP29 in Baku last November, the Trudeau government committed Canada to contribute an undefined portion of at least US$300 billion per year in cash-only transfer payments to developing countries for unspecified mitigation and adaptation measures on climate. This means that it is entirely within Canada’s sovereign prerogative to choose how to allocate these resources – and the recent non-binding advisory opinion handed down by the International Court of Justice takes nothing away from either the legitimacy or prudence of this approach. The key objective must be to move developing countries from inefficient, health-damaging fuel options (such as open fire coal, dung, wood, and crop residue) onto more efficient, better-performing options that, at a minimum, contribute to lower overall greenhouse gas emissions, measured against “do nothing” scenarios.
Ideologically driven climate maximalists reject this “whatever works” approach in favour of spending untold billions of Canadian taxpayer dollars exclusively on renewable solutions abroad. There are two basic problems with this alternative.
The first is that it’s immoral: it makes us complicit in impeding developing world poverty reduction. Generally, the higher the percentage of variable renewables in a country’s electricity mix, the higher the retail electricity price for consumers, especially when costly subsidies that distort the market are factored in; a corollary is that the lower a country’s per capita electricity consumption, the lower its per capita GDP. Here’s how Nigeria’s then-vice president Yemi Osinbajo put it a few years ago: “No country in the world has been able to industrialize using renewable energy, and we [Africa] have been asked to industrialize using renewable energy when everybody else in the world knows that we need gas-powered industries for business.” Even the controversial International Energy Agency admits in a recent report that the increased use of fossil fuels in Africa and, by extension, the rest of the developing world, is an integral part of the world’s lower emissions future. However, it falls short of explicitly concluding the obvious: not just Africa but the global majority needs more fossil fuels in its energy mix to achieve sustainable development. Canada is uniquely well-placed to be part of the solution.
The second reason we must not advocate that developing countries pursue exclusively renewable energy sources is because it’s not in our national interest. Canadian industry cannot benefit from financing most renewable solutions since our companies are neither global leaders in making the products involved nor do they own much of the underlying intellectual property. In essence, Canadian climate maximalists advocate for a foreign and energy policy that consists of giving away billions of our taxpayer dollars to developing countries and then instructing them to purchase solar panels and wind turbines manufactured in foreign countries – almost none of which share our values. This amounts to geopolitical and geoeconomic malpractice.
There is no getting around the fact that Canada’s energy superpowerdom must involve all fuels and technologies. By removing the barriers to help finance any fuel option – including the hydrocarbon resources with which we are so richly blessed – Canada can achieve five strategic objectives. One, we can meet our international climate finance pledges and contribute to reducing global greenhouse gas emissions. Two, we can further diversify our growing energy export markets. Three, we can ensure that the global majority has as fair a chance as possible to rise out of poverty. Four, we can restore our international reputation by demonstrating that we can be a dependable democratic energy partner. And five, we can push back decisively against our foreign competitors near and far while creating well-paying jobs for hard-working Canadians.
But it all starts with the prime minister making pragmatic yet definitive choices on the home front. How else can he hope to make our economy the strongest and most resilient in the G7?
Damjan Krnjević Mišković is professor of practice in geopolitics at ADA University (Baku) and director for policy research and analysis at its Institute for Development and Diplomacy. He is also a fellow at the Agora Strategy Institute (Berlin). He is a former senior UN and Serbian official and managing editor of The National Interest. The views and opinions expressed herein are solely those of the author.
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.
From the Fraser Institute
By Julio Mejía and Elmira Aliakbari
Simply put, despite trillions invested in the energy transition, the world is more dependent on fossil fuels today than when the United Nations launched its first COP. No wonder that ahead of COP30, leading voices of the net-zero-by-2050 agenda, including Bill Gates, are acknowledging both the vital role of fossil fuels on the planet and the failure of efforts to cut them.
On the heels of his first federal budget, which promises more spending to promote a “green economy,” Prime Minister Carney will soon fly to Brazil for COP30, the 30th United Nations climate summit. Like the former Trudeau government, the Carney government has pledged to achieve “net-zero” emissions in Canada—and compel other countries to pursue net-zero—by 2050. To achieve a net-zero world, it’s necessary to phase out fossil fuels—oil, natural gas, coal—or offset their CO2 emissions with technologies such as “carbon capture” or large-scale tree planting.
But after trillions of dollars spent in pursuit of that goal, it appears more unrealistic than ever. It’s time for world leaders, including Canada’s policymakers, to face reality and be honest about the costly commitments they make on behalf of their citizens.
For starters, carbon capture—the process of trapping and storing carbon dioxide so it’s unable to affect the atmosphere—is a developing technology not yet capable of large-scale deployment. And planting enough trees to offset global emissions would require vast amounts of land, take decades to absorb significant CO2 and risk unpredictable losses from wildfires and drought. Due to these constraints, in their net-zero quest governments and private investors have poured significant resources into “clean energy” such as wind and solar to replace fossil fuels.
According to the International Energy Agency (IEA), from 2015 to 2024, the world’s public and private investment in clean energy totalled and estimated US$14.6 trillion (inflation-adjusted). Yet from 1995 (the first COP year) to 2024, global fossil fuel consumption increased by more than 64 per cent. Specifically, oil consumption grew by 39 per cent, natural gas by 96 per cent and coal by 76 per cent. As of 2024, fossil fuels accounted for 80.6 per cent of global energy consumption, slightly lower than the 85.6 per cent in 1995.
The Canadian case shows an even greater mismatch between Ottawa’s COP commitments and its actual results. Despite billions spent by the federal government on the low-carbon economy (electric vehicle subsidies, tax credits to corporations, etc.), fossil fuel consumption in our country has increased by 23 per cent between 1995 and 2024. Over the same period, the share of fossil fuels in Canada’s total energy consumption climbed from 62.0 to 66.3 per cent.
Simply put, despite trillions invested in the energy transition, the world is more dependent on fossil fuels today than when the United Nations launched its first COP. No wonder that ahead of COP30, leading voices of the net-zero-by-2050 agenda, including Bill Gates, are acknowledging both the vital role of fossil fuels on the planet and the failure of efforts to cut them.
Why has this massive effort, which includes many countries and trillions of dollars, failed to transition humanity away from fossil fuels?
As renowned scholar Vaclav Smil explains, it can take centuries—not decades—for an energy source to become globally predominant. For thousands of years, humanity relied on wood, charcoal, dried dung and other traditional biomass fuels for heating and cooking, with coal only becoming a major energy source around 1900. It took oil 150 years after its introduction into energy markets to account for one-quarter of global fossil fuel consumption, a milestone reached only in the 1950s. And for natural gas, it took about 130 years after its commercial development to reach 25 per cent of global fossil fuel consumption at the end of the 20th century.
Yet, coal, oil and natural gas didn’t completely replace traditional biomass to meet the surging energy demand as the modern world developed. As of 2020, nearly three billion people in developing countries still relied on charcoal, straw and dried dung to supply their basic energy needs. In light of these facts, the most vocal proponents of the global energy transition seem, at the very least, out of touch.
The world’s continued reliance on fossil fuels should prompt world leaders at COP30 to exercise caution before pushing the same unrealistic commitments of the past. And Prime Minister Carney, in particular, should be careful not to keep leading Canadians into costly ventures that lead nowhere near their intended results.
Julio Mejía
Policy Analyst
Elmira Aliakbari
Director, Natural Resource Studies, Fraser Institute
Bovaer Backlash Update: Danish Farmers Get Green Light to Opt Out as UK Arla Trial Abruptly Ends!
CBC cashes in on Carney as the news industry playing field tilts further in its favour, crippling the competition
Carney’s Floor-Crossing Campaign. A Media-Staged Bid for Majority Rule That Erodes Democracy While Beijing Hovers
Thawing the freeze on oil and gas development in Treaty 8 territory
-
espionage2 days agoChinese-Owned Trailer Park Beside U.S. Stealth Bomber Base Linked to Alleged Vancouver Repression Case
-
Daily Caller2 days agoLaura Ingraham Presses Trump On Allowing Flood Of Chinese Students Into US
-
Daily Caller2 days agoUS Nuclear Bomber Fleet Shares Fence With Trailer Park Linked To Chinese Intel-Tied Fraudster
-
Crime2 days agoCBSA Bust Uncovers Mexican Cartel Network in Montreal High-Rise, Moving Hundreds Across Canada-U.S. Border
-
Environment2 days agoThe Myths We’re Told About Climate Change | Michael Shellenberger
-
COVID-192 days agoSpy Agencies Cozied Up To Wuhan Virologist Before Lying About Pandemic
-
MAiD21 hours agoQuebec has the highest euthanasia rate in the world at 7.4% of total deaths
-
Business2 days ago
Carney and other world leaders should recognize world’s dependence on fossil fuels