Connect with us

Energy

Canadian policymakers should quickly rethink our energy and climate policies

Published

7 minute read

From the Fraser Institute

By Ross McKitrick

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.

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

Alberta

Alberta extracting more value from oil and gas resources: ATB

Published on

From the Canadian Energy Centre

By Will Gibson

Investment in ‘value-added’ projects more than doubled to $4 billion in 2024

In the 1930s, economist Harold Innis coined the term “hewers of wood and drawers of water” to describe Canada’s reliance on harvesting natural resources and exporting them elsewhere to be refined into consumer products.

Almost a century later, ATB Financial chief economist Mark Parsons has highlighted a marked shift in that trend in Alberta’s energy industry, with more and more projects that upgrade raw hydrocarbons into finished products.

ATB estimates that investment in projects that generate so-called “value-added” products like refined petroleum, hydrogen, petrochemicals and biofuels more than doubled to reach $4 billion in 2024.

Alberta is extracting more value from its natural resources,” Parsons said.

“It makes the provincial economy somewhat more resilient to boom and bust energy price cycles. It creates more construction and operating jobs in Alberta. It also provides a local market for Alberta’s energy and agriculture feedstock.”

The shift has occurred as Alberta’s economy adjusts to lower levels of investment in oil and gas extraction.

While overall “upstream” capital spending has been rising since 2022 — and oil production has never been higher — investment last year of about $35 billion is still dramatically less than the $63 billion spent in 2014.

Parsons pointed to Dow’s $11 billion Path2Zero project as the largest value-added project moving ahead in Alberta.

​​The project, which has support from the municipal, provincial and federal governments, will increase Dow’s production of polyethylene, the world’s most widely used plastic.

By capturing and storing carbon dioxide emissions and generating hydrogen on-site, the complex will be the world’s first ethylene cracker with net zero emissions from operations.

Other major value-added examples include Air Products’ $1.6 billion net zero hydrogen complex, and the associated $720 million renewable diesel facility owned by Imperial Oil. Both projects are slated for startup this year.

Parsons sees the shift to higher value products as positive for the province and Canada moving forward.

“Downstream energy industries tend to have relatively high levels of labour productivity and wages,” he said.

“A big part of Canada’s productivity problem is lagging business investment. These downstream investments, which build off existing resource strengths, provide one pathway to improving the country’s productivity performance.”

Heather Exner-Pirot, the Macdonald-Laurier Institute’s director of energy, natural resources and environment, sees opportunities for Canada to attract additional investment in this area.

“We are able to benefit from the mistakes of other regions. In Germany, their business model for creating value-added products such as petrochemicals relies on cheap feedstock and power, and they’ve lost that due to a combination of geopolitics and policy decisions,” she said.

“Canada and Alberta, in particular, have the opportunity to attract investment because they have stable and reliable feedstock with decades, if not centuries, of supply shielded from geopolitics.”

Exner-Pirot is also bullish about the increased market for low-carbon products.

“With our advantages, Canada should be doing more to attract companies and manufacturers that will produce more value-added products,” she said.

Like oil and gas extraction, value-added investments can help companies develop new technologies that can themselves be exported, said Shannon Joseph, chair of Energy for a Secure Future, an Ottawa-based coalition of Canadian business and community leaders.

“This investment creates new jobs and spinoffs because these plants require services and inputs. Investments such as Dow’s Path2Zero have a lot of multipliers. Success begets success,” Joseph said.

“Investment in innovation creates a foundation for long-term diversification of the economy.”

Continue Reading

Automotive

The Northvolt Crash and What it Says About the State of the Electric Vehicle Market

Published on

From Energy Now

By Jim Warren

Northvolt, a wannabe electric vehicle (EV) battery manufacturing superstar, based in Sweden filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in the US on November 21, 2024. In just eight years the company had blown through $15 billion USD in startup capital. Bloomberg says it was one of the most indebted companies to file for bankruptcy in the US in 2024.

Northvolt promised to be everything green transition crusaders could hope for in a company. And it isn’t surprising the “whiz kids” in the Prime Minister’s Office and the environment ministry made sure Canada got in on the action. According to Bloomberg, Canada made pledges amounting to $7.3 billion CAD ($5.4 billion USD) in loans, equity stakes and subsidies for Northvolt.

Canada’s investments included support for the construction of four electric vehicle (EV) battery factories—one in B.C., two in Ontario and one in Quebec. As of today, only a cockeyed optimist could believe those four plants will be churning out batteries any time soon, if ever.

Unfortunately, the Northvolt investment represents just 14% of money the federal government has bet on the future of EVs and electric batteries. According to Canada’s Parliamentary Budget Officer (PBO), since 2020 the federal government has invested $52.5 billion in various projects throughout the EV supply chain.

Northvolt was supposed to be a cutting-edge EV battery innovator. It had the cachet of companies claiming to be implementing next-generation technology. When the company was launched in 2016 it was hailed as Europe’s flagship entry into the international race to produce enough non-Chinese batteries to support a widely anticipated boom in electric vehicle demand in Europe and North America.

For eight years Northvolt rode the wave of green propaganda that accompanied government regulations phasing out the production of vehicles with internal combustion engines. The company further endeared itself with environmentalists by claiming it would be at the forefront of development for the mammoth batteries required to back up solar and wind power generation.

The Economist reports that prominent Wall Street players like BlackRock, Goldman Sachs and JPMorgan Chase ditched any aversion they might have had for getting into business with governments. They contributed to the $15 billion in startup money. Governments got on the Northvolt band wagon. Northvolt received $5 billion USD in grants from five countries:  Canada, the European Union (EU), Poland, Germany and of course Sweden.

Private investors weren’t deterred by the fact governments had “picked a winner.” They actually liked the fact governments were backing Northvolt. They assumed the governments of wealthy countries dedicated to Net Zero by 2050, would patiently nurse Northvolt through its growing pains and back it financially when setbacks arose. Risks would be minimized—success was as close to guaranteed as anyone could hope to expect.

Governments in Europe as well as Canada had been busy implementing policies designed to reduce CO2 emissions and combat climate change. Building EV batteries dovetailed nicely with those goals. It was a virtuous circle of mutually reinforcing virtue signaling.

Around the same time it was becoming fashionable for businesses to adopt the principles of Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG). “Progressive” investors including union pension funds required companies they invested in to adopt the goals of environmental sustainability, diversity, equity and inclusion—the core missions of ESG.

Some of Europe’s car makers got behind Northvolt. They wanted to see a vertically integrated European EV industry developed to better withstand competition from cheaper Chinese imports. VW, BMW and Scania AB pre-ordered $50 billon USD worth of Northvolt’s products.

By the fall of 2024, Northvolt already had at least one foot planted on a banana peel. But that didn’t prevent 24 lenders including JPMorgan Chase from throwing it a $5 billion USD lifeline. According to The Economist, this was the biggest “green loan,” ever made in Europe. It apparently wasn’t big enough to prevent the company from filing for Chapter 11 protection.

Odd as it seems in hindsight, private sector investors had embraced a project led by politicians, bureaucrats and research scientists with little to no experience in commercializing their lab experiments. The company’s inability to meet the technical challenges of increasing production to the point of commercial viability was one of the reasons it failed. It turns out it is hard to transform next-generation technology from ideas that work in a test tube into something that makes money.

Ironically, it is car makers from China who are best placed to capitalize on Northvolt’s downfall and dominate Europe’s EV and battery markets. Without tariff support European and North American automakers simply won’t be able to compete with the less expensive government-subsidized Chinese made models.

In 2015 the Chinese government launched its ambitious “Made in China 2025” project. Under the program the government has plowed hundreds of billions into industries that combine digital technology and low emissions technologies. The EV sector was one of the program’s big success stories. Last year, BYD a Chinese manufacturer, overtook Tesla to become the world’s biggest EV producer.

This past November The Economist reported, Chinese auto makers already account for two-thirds of global EV production. They had sold 10 million of them in the previous year. Chinese manufacturers also made 70% of the EV batteries produced globally in 2024. Big investments in factory automation in Chinese EV plants have increased per worker productivity, reducing manufacturing costs.

Government subsidies combined with manufacturing know-how succeeded in creating the world’s most significant EV and EV battery manufacturing industries in China but similar efforts in Europe and North America (e.g. Northvolt) are struggling. It is embarrassing to realize China has become the world’s largest manufacturer and exporter. The West has been left in the dust when it comes to making things like solar panels and EVs.

Europe’s car makers are pressing their governments to limit the number of Chinese made EVs sold in Europe. Yet some EU member states like Germany are reluctant to antagonize China by putting tariffs on its EVs—many German manufacturers rely on access to the Chinese market.

EV sales declined by 5% across Europe in 2024 and high prices for European models are one of the factors responsible for declining sales. Allowing cheaper Chinese EVs into Europe tariff-free should improve EV sales making it more likely that governments’ emissions targets are met. But that makes it more likely that some European car makers will struggle to remain profitable. If large numbers of auto workers are laid off in Europe it will signify the breaking of a major promise made by environmentalists and governments. They have consistently assured people the green transition would create more than enough new green jobs, to make up for job losses in high emissions industries.

The bad news for EV champions extends beyond Europe. Donald Trump has signed an executive order killing federal grants to consumers purchasing electric vehicles. Getting rid of the Biden administration’s EV subsidies should give internal combustion engines a new lease on life. You have to wonder how Trump squared that move with Elon Musk. Perhaps Trump’s promise of tariffs on Chinese goods has been enough to satisfy Tesla. It helps that many EV purchasers in the US prefer big luxury models since the Chinese don’t make too many electric Hummers.

Here in Canada, the Liberal government has said it will cease subsidizing EV purchases as of March 31. It looks more and more like the wheels are coming off the Trudeau-Guilbeault environmental legacy.

While the EV markets in Europe and North America are on shaky ground it is unlikely Northvolt will find the investors required for another last minute bailout. That’s good news for people concerned about Canada’s fiscal health–the Liberals won’t be able to blow any more money on Northvolt if it doesn’t exist.

Continue Reading

Trending

X