Alberta
2022 – the year fossil fuels once again became a preferred source of reliable, affordable energy
A worker walks past gas pipes at Uniper’s new LNG import terminal in Wilhelmshaven, northern Germany on December 17, 2022. Getty Images photo
From the Canadian Energy Centre Ltd.
By David Yager
David Yager is an oilfield service executive, oil and gas writer, and energy policy analyst. He is author of From Miracle to Menace – Alberta, A Carbon Story.
The only part of the demise of oil and gas that was successful was reduced supply
It seems like just the other day the wrath of the world was coming down on oil sands and coal.
To protect the atmosphere, Canada has been reducing coal-fired power generation for years. It started in Ontario then moved to Alberta. Saskatchewan is next. New Brunswick is supposed to stop by 2030, but that province claims it can’t be done.
Global coal consumption is rising again because it meets the cost and availability requirement created by energy shortages and rising prices. On December 16, the International Energy Agency reported, “The world’s coal consumption is set to reach a new high in 2022 as the energy crisis shakes markets.”
For energy, the biggest single change in 2022 is the remarkable shift in public attitudes towards fossil fuels.
The global energy complex is under assault by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the exposed shortcomings of wind and solar, years of underinvestment in fossil fuels, and rising inflation and interest rates.
But for the past ten years, there has been an all-out crusade against fossil fuels. Oil company CEOs were branded climate criminals. It was morally reprehensible to own fossil fuel company shares or loan money to oil, gas or coal producers. Elections were won in Canada, the US and in Europe on pledges to replace fossil fuels.
No cost was too great, because the cost of doing nothing thus permitting unchecked climate damage was greater.
What happened? How did the channel change to rapidly? Why after years of public and political attacks on the source of over 80 per cent of the world primary energy, has affordable energy on demand now become more important than where it comes from?
Price, the most fundamental driver of economics and human behavior.
The November 2022 global survey from public opinion research firm IPSOS titled “What Worries The World” tells the story.
IPSOS explains, “This 29-country Global Advisor survey was conducted…among 20,466 adults aged 18-74 in Canada, Israel, Malaysia, South Africa, Turkey and the United States, 20-74 in Indonesia and Thailand, and 16-74 in all 21 other countries.”
IPSOS charts the top six issues for the past two years. Poverty, crime, unemployment and corruption have always been important, and consistently ranked among the top five.
But in November 2020, inflation only registered among eight per cent of respondents. Two years later it is 42 per cent. Coronavirus and the unemployment that accompanied the lockdowns were the top two issues. The others remain in a consistent range.
Two years ago was the peak of the “oil is dead” mantra, and when many bright ideas for a fossil fuel free future were concocted. In a post-pandemic world, multiple voices claimed we must Build Back Better, ensure a Resilient Recovery, engineer the Great Reset.
The plan was to use government policy and borrowed money to create jobs through the large-scale replacement of fossil fuels.
Coined the “energy transition,” it was achievable and inevitable thanks to incredible advances in renewable energy cost and supply. Canada – the world’s fifth largest combined oil and gas producer – could lead the charge with minimal disruption thanks to a new federally-funded retraining program for displaced oil workers. This was called a Just Transition.
What happened?
The invisible hand of Adam Smith punched the world in the nose.
The only part of the demise of fossil fuels that was successful was reduced supply. As the economy recovered, consumers learned the hard way that low carbon energy sources were terribly oversold in terms of reliability, and demand for fossil fuels outstripped supply.
Prices for fossil fuels rose at the same time that inflation and interest rates reduced disposal income.
As demand grew, fossil fuel shortages were reflected in the price. When Russia – one of the world’s largest oil, gas and coal suppliers – invaded Ukraine, the gravity of the situation escalated immediately.
What the IPSOS survey dramatically illustrates is the number one concern for the world as 2022 ends is the rising cost of everything.
We’ve been told repeatedly that continued fossil fuel consumption will cause serious climate disruptions. No expense today will exceed the cost of future damages.
However, the more pressing issue today is still being alive in 2050 because of the rising cost of everything, including energy. Worrying about what the temperature, storm intensity or chemical composition of the atmosphere may be in 28 years has become an unaffordable luxury.
So fossil fuels are once again what they have always been – reliable and affordable sources of energy.
Happy New Year.
From the Fraser Institute
By Spencer Gudewill and Tegan Hill
Last November, Premier Danielle Smith announced that her government will give up to $1.8 billion in subsidies to Dow Chemicals, which plans to expand a petrochemical project northeast of Edmonton. In other words, $1.8 billion in corporate welfare.
And this is just one example of corporate welfare paid for by Albertans.
According to a recent study published by the Fraser Institute, from 2007 to 2021, the latest year of available data, the Alberta government spent $31.0 billion (inflation-adjusted) on subsidies (a.k.a. corporate welfare) to select firms and businesses, purportedly to help Albertans. And this number excludes other forms of government handouts such as loan guarantees, direct investment and regulatory or tax privileges for particular firms and industries. So the total cost of corporate welfare in Alberta is likely much higher.
Why should Albertans care?
First off, there’s little evidence that corporate welfare generates widespread economic growth or jobs. In fact, evidence suggests the contrary—that subsidies result in a net loss to the economy by shifting resources to less productive sectors or locations (what economists call the “substitution effect”) and/or by keeping businesses alive that are otherwise economically unviable (i.e. “zombie companies”). This misallocation of resources leads to a less efficient, less productive and less prosperous Alberta.
And there are other costs to corporate welfare.
For example, between 2007 and 2019 (the latest year of pre-COVID data), every year on average the Alberta government spent 35 cents (out of every dollar of business income tax revenue it collected) on corporate welfare. Given that workers bear the burden of more than half of any business income tax indirectly through lower wages, if the government reduced business income taxes rather than spend money on corporate welfare, workers could benefit.
Moreover, Premier Smith failed in last month’s provincial budget to provide promised personal income tax relief and create a lower tax bracket for incomes below $60,000 to provide $760 in annual savings for Albertans (on average). But in 2019, after adjusting for inflation, the Alberta government spent $2.4 billion on corporate welfare—equivalent to $1,034 per tax filer. Clearly, instead of subsidizing select businesses, the Smith government could have kept its promise to lower personal income taxes.
Finally, there’s the Heritage Fund, which the Alberta government created almost 50 years ago to save a share of the province’s resource wealth for the future.
In her 2024 budget, Premier Smith earmarked $2.0 billion for the Heritage Fund this fiscal year—almost the exact amount spent on corporate welfare each year (on average) between 2007 and 2019. Put another way, the Alberta government could save twice as much in the Heritage Fund in 2024/25 if it ended corporate welfare, which would help Premier Smith keep her promise to build up the Heritage Fund to between $250 billion and $400 billion by 2050.
By eliminating corporate welfare, the Smith government can create fiscal room to reduce personal and business income taxes, or save more in the Heritage Fund. Any of these options will benefit Albertans far more than wasteful billion-dollar subsidies to favoured firms.
Authors:
Alberta
Official statement from Premier Danielle Smith and Energy Minister Brian Jean on the start-up of the Trans Mountain Pipeline
“The Numbers Favour Our Side”
Canadian interest in electric vehicles falls for second year in a row: survey
Making Alberta a geothermal energy leader
Three Calgary massage parlours linked to human trafficking investigation
Honda deal latest episode of corporate welfare in Ontario
The EV ‘Bloodbath’ Arrives Early
Canada’s postal service refuses to help with Trudeau’s gun ban buyback program: report
-
Addictions2 days agoCity of Toronto asks Trudeau gov’t to decriminalize hard drugs despite policy’s failure in BC
-
Automotive2 days agoVehicle monitoring software could soon use ‘kill switch’ under the guise of ‘safety’
-
Business2 days agoWhen politicians gamble, taxpayers lose
-
Bruce Dowbiggin2 days agoIt Gets Late Early These Days: Time To Bounce Biden & Trudeau?
-
National1 day agoBritish Columbia quickly shoots down bill to ban men from competing in women’s sports
-
Economy1 day agoOttawa’s homebuilding plans might discourage much-needed business investment
-
Alberta1 day ago
Alberta government should eliminate corporate welfare to generate benefits for Albertans
-
Energy15 hours agoBiden Has Taken More Than 200 Actions Against Domestic Oil, New Report Says