Connect with us
[the_ad id="89560"]

Canadian Energy Centre

European governments are reassessing EU-directed green policies amid public unease

Published

11 minute read

From the Canadian Energy Centre

By Shawn Logan

How ‘greenlash’ is forcing Europe to scale back ambitious net zero policies

European governments are beginning to sound the retreat on some foundational net zero policies in the wake of “greenlash” from increasingly overburdened citizens.  

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022 prompted European governments to begin pivoting away from cheap Russian natural gas, which Europe increasingly relied on to backstop a laundry list of ambitious green policies. 

But despite pledges by the European Union to “divest away from Russian gas as quickly as possible,” nearly 15% of overall EU gas imports still came from Russia in the first half of 2023, while the amount of liquefied natural gas (LNG) imported from Russia actually increased by 39.5% compared to the same period in 2021, prior to the Ukraine invasion. 

Energy security and affordability have become central issues for Europeans amid a persistent global energy crisis, and that’s translated into a rethink of what had once seemed like unassailable green policies across Europe. 

Here’s a look at how some countries are dealing with the new global reality: 

Germany 

Nothing is more symbolic of Europe’s retreat from its net zero ambitions than Germany seeing a wind farm dismantled to make room for the expansion of a lignite coal mine just outside of Dusseldorf. 

And no European country has been more affected by the changing energy landscape than Germany, which introduced its multi-billion dollar Energiewende program in 2010, calling for a broad phaseout of fossil fuels and nuclear power, replacing them primarily with wind and solar power. 

Today, without cheap and reliable natural gas backups due to sanctions against Russia, Germany has gone from Europe’s economic powerhouse to the world’s worst performing major developed economy, facing “deindustrialization” due to skyrocketing energy costs. 

In addition to extending its deadline for shutting down coal plants until 2024, the German government has also scrapped plans for imposing tougher building insulation standards to reduce emissions as well as extending the deadline on controversial legislation to phase out oil and gas heating systems in homes, a decision the government admits will make it impossible to reach the country’s 2030 emissions targets. 

A major car manufacturer, Germany’s opposition to an EU-wide ban on the sale of new combustion vehicles by 2035 softened the legislation to allow exceptions for those that run on e-fuels. 

Germany’s quest for reliable energy exports prompted Chancellor Olaf Scholz to travel to Canada to make a personal appeal for Canadian LNG. He was sent home empty handed, advised there wasn’t a strong business case for the resource. 

Great Britain 

Britons have grown increasingly concerned about the cost of net zero policies, despite being largely supportive of striving for a greener future. 

YouGov poll in August found while 71% generally favoured Great Britain’s aim to reduce carbon emissions to net zero by 2050, some 55% agreed that policies should only be introduced if they don’t impose any additional costs for citizens. Only 27% agreed reaching the goal was important enough to warrant more spending. 

That shift in public sentiment prompted Prime Minister Rishi Sunak to pump the brakes on some key policies enacted to reach the U.K.’s legally binding target of reaching net zero emissions by 2050. 

In September, the government delayed its looming ban on new gas- and diesel-powered cars by five years to 2035, while also extending its phaseout of gas boilers in homes and suggesting exemptions for certain households and types of property. 

“If we continue down this path, we risk losing the British people and the resulting backlash would not just be against specific policies, but against the wider mission itself,” Sunak said of the potential consequences of maintaining strict net zero policies. 

The U.K. government also gave the green light for hundreds of new North Sea oil and gas licences, citing the need to bolster both energy security and the nation’s economy.  

France 

France’s net zero ambitions enjoy an advantage compared to its European peers due in large part to its significant fleet of nuclear power stations, which provide around 70 per cent of its electricity. 

However, President Emmanuel Macron has often opted for a more pragmatic approach to reaching climate targets, noting any energy transition can’t leave citizens disadvantaged. 

“We want an ecology that is accessible and fair, an ecology that leaves no one without a solution,” Macron said in September after ruling out a total ban on gas boilers, instead offering incentives to those looking to replace them with heat pumps. 

Macron also famously dropped a proposed fuel tax in 2018 that sparked sweeping yellow vest protests across France when it was announced.  

France has also extended the timeframe of its two remaining coal plants to continue operating until 2027, five years later than the plants were originally set to be shuttered. 

Italy 

Feeling the impacts of the global energy crisis, Italy has begun reassessing some of its previous commitments to transition goals. 

Earlier this year, Italy pushed back on EU directives to improve the energy efficiency of buildings, which Italy’s national building association warned would cost some $400 billion euros over the next decade, with another $190 billion euros needed to ensure business properties met the required standards. The Italian government has called for exemptions and longer timelines. 

Italy also warned the European Commission it would only support the EU’s phase out of combustion engine cars if it allows cars running on biofuels to eclipse the deadline, while further questioning a push to slash industrial emissions 

Paolo Angelini, deputy governor at the Bank of Italy, warned a rapid abandonment of fossil fuel-driven industries could have a devastating impact. 

“If everybody divests from high-emitting sectors there will be a problem because if the economy does not adjust at the same time, things could blow up unless a miracle happens in terms of new technology,” he said. 

Poland 

Like Italy, Poland has dug in its heels against some EU net zero initiatives, and is actually suing the EU with the goal of overturning some of its climate-focused legislation in the courts. 

“Does the EU want to make authoritarian decisions about what kind of vehicles Poles will drive and to increase energy prices in Poland? The Polish Government will not allow Brussels to dictate,” wrote Polish Climate and Environment Minister Anna Moskwa on X, formerly known as Twitter, in July. 

In addition to looking to scrap the EU’s ban on combustion engine cars by 2035, Warsaw is also challenging laws around land use and forestry, updated 2030 emissions reduction targets for EU countries, and a border tariff on carbon-intensive goods entering the European Union. 

With some 70% of its electricity generated by coal, Poland is one of Europe’s largest users of coal. And it has no designs on a rapid retreat from the most polluting fossil fuel, reaching an agreement with trade unions to keep mining coal until 2049. 

Netherlands 

The political consequences of leaning too far in on net zero targets are beginning to be seen in the Netherlands. 

In March, a farmer’s protest party, the BBB or BoerBurgerBeweging (Farmer-Citizen Movement), shook up the political landscape by capturing 16 of 75 seats in the Dutch Senate, more than any other party, including the ruling coalition of the Labor and Green Parties. 

The upstart party was formed in 2019 in response to government plans to significantly reduce nitrogen emissions from livestock by 2030, a move estimated to eliminate 11,200 farms and force another 17,600 farmers to significantly reduce their livestock. 

What followed were nationwide protests that saw supermarket distribution centres blockaded, hay bales in flames and manure dumped on highways. 

In November, Dutch voters will elect a new national government, and while BBB has dropped to fifth in polling, much of that support has been picked up by the fledgling New Social Contract (NSC), which has vowed to oppose further integration with EU policies, a similar stance offered by the BBB. The NSC currently tops the polls ahead of the Nov. 22 election. 

Before Post

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’s huge oil sands reserves dwarf U.S. shale

Published on

From the Canadian Energy Centre

By Will Gibson

Oil sands could maintain current production rates for more than 140 years

Investor interest in Canadian oil producers, primarily in the Alberta oil sands, has picked up, and not only because of expanded export capacity from the Trans Mountain pipeline.

Enverus Intelligence Research says the real draw — and a major factor behind oil sands equities outperforming U.S. peers by about 40 per cent since January 2024 — is the resource Trans Mountain helps unlock.

Alberta’s oil sands contain 167 billion barrels of reserves, nearly four times the volume in the United States.

Today’s oil sands operators hold more than twice the available high-quality resources compared to U.S. shale producers, Enverus reports.

“It’s a huge number — 167 billion barrels — when Alberta only produces about three million barrels a day right now,” said Mike Verney, executive vice-president at McDaniel & Associates, which earlier this year updated the province’s oil and gas reserves on behalf of the Alberta Energy Regulator.

Already fourth in the world, the assessment found Alberta’s oil reserves increased by seven billion barrels.

Verney said the rise in reserves despite record production is in part a result of improved processes and technology.

“Oil sands companies can produce for decades at the same economic threshold as they do today. That’s a great place to be,” said Michael Berger, a senior analyst with Enverus.

BMO Capital Markets estimates that Alberta’s oil sands reserves could maintain current production rates for more than 140 years.

The long-term picture looks different south of the border.

The U.S. Energy Information Administration projects that American production will peak before 2030 and enter a long period of decline.

Having a lasting stable source of supply is important as world oil demand is expected to remain strong for decades to come.

This is particularly true in Asia, the target market for oil exports off Canada’s West Coast.

The International Energy Agency (IEA) projects oil demand in the Asia-Pacific region will go from 35 million barrels per day in 2024 to 41 million barrels per day in 2050.

The growing appeal of Alberta oil in Asian markets shows up not only in expanded Trans Mountain shipments, but also in Canadian crude being “re-exported” from U.S. Gulf Coast terminals.

According to RBN Energy, Asian buyers – primarily in China – are now the main non-U.S. buyers from Trans Mountain, while India dominates  purchases of re-exports from the U.S. Gulf Coast. .

BMO said the oil sands offers advantages both in steady supply and lower overall environmental impacts.

“Not only is the resulting stability ideally suited to backfill anticipated declines in world oil supply, but the long-term physical footprint may also be meaningfully lower given large-scale concentrated emissions, high water recycling rates and low well declines,” BMO analysts said.

Continue Reading

Alberta

The case for expanding Canada’s energy exports

Published on

From the Canadian Energy Centre

By Deborah Jaremko

For Canada, the path to a stronger economy — and stronger global influence — runs through energy.

That’s the view of David Detomasi, a professor at the Smith School of Business at Queen’s University.

Detomasi, author of Profits and Power: Navigating the Politics and Geopolitics of Oil, argues that there is a moral case for developing Canada’s energy, both for Canadians and the world.

David Detomasi. Photo courtesy Smith School of Business, Queen’s University

CEC: What does being an energy superpower mean to you?

DD: It means Canada is strong enough to affect the system as a whole by its choices.

There is something really valuable about Canada’s — and Alberta’s — way of producing carbon energy that goes beyond just the monetary rewards.

CEC: You talk about the moral case for developing Canada’s energy. What do you mean? 

DD: I think the default assumption in public rhetoric is that the environmental movement is the only voice speaking for the moral betterment of the world. That needs to be challenged.

That public rhetoric is that the act of cultivating a powerful, effective economic engine is somehow wrong or bad, and that efforts to create wealth are somehow morally tainted.

I think that’s dead wrong. Economic growth is morally good, and we should foster it.

Economic growth generates money, and you can’t do anything you want to do in social expenditures without that engine.

Economic growth is critical to doing all the other things we want to do as Canadians, like having a publicly funded health care system or providing transfer payments to less well-off provinces.

Over the last 10 years, many people in Canada came to equate moral leadership with getting off of oil and gas as quickly as possible. I think that is a mistake, and far too narrow.

Instead, I think moral leadership means you play that game, you play it well, and you do it in our interest, in the Canadian way.

We need a solid base of economic prosperity in this country first, and then we can help others.

CEC: Why is it important to expand Canada’s energy trade?

DD: Canada is, and has always been, a trading nation, because we’ve got a lot of geography and not that many people.

If we don’t trade what we have with the outside world, we aren’t going to be able to develop economically, because we don’t have the internal size and capacity.

Historically, most of that trade has been with the United States. Geography and history mean it will always be our primary trade partner.

But the United States clearly can be an unreliable partner. Free and open trade matters more to Canada than it does to the U.S. Indeed, a big chunk of the American people is skeptical of participating in a global trading system.

As the United States perhaps withdraws from the international trading and investment system, there’s room for Canada to reinforce it in places where we can use our resource advantages to build new, stronger relationships.

One of these is Europe, which still imports a lot of gas. We can also build positive relationships with the enormous emerging markets of China and India, both of whom want and will need enormous supplies of energy for many decades.

I would like to be able to offer partners the alternative option of buying Canadian energy so that they are less reliant on, say, Iranian or Russian energy.

Canada can also maybe eventually help the two billion people in the world currently without energy access.

CEC: What benefits could Canadians gain by becoming an energy superpower? 

DD: The first and primary responsibility of our federal government is to look after Canada. At the end of the day, the goal is to improve Canada’s welfare and enhance its sovereignty.

More carbon energy development helps Canada. We have massive debt, an investment crisis and productivity problems that we’ve been talking about forever. Economic and job growth are weak.

Solving these will require profitable and productive industries. We don’t have so many economic strengths in this country that we can voluntarily ignore or constrain one of our biggest industries.

The economic benefits pay for things that make you stronger as a country.

They make you more resilient on the social welfare front and make increasing defence expenditures, which we sorely need, more affordable. It allows us to manage the debt that we’re running up, and supports deals for Canada’s Indigenous peoples.

CEC: Are there specific projects that you advocate for to make Canada an energy superpower?

DD: Canada’s energy needs egress, and getting it out to places other than the United States. That means more transport and port facilities to Canada’s coasts.

We also need domestic energy transport networks. People don’t know this, but a big chunk of Ontario’s oil supply runs through Michigan, posing a latent security risk to Ontario’s energy security.

We need to change the perception that pipelines are evil. There’s a spiderweb of them across the globe, and more are being built.

Building pipelines here, with Canadian technology and know-how, builds our competitiveness and enhances our sovereignty.

Economic growth enhances sovereignty and provides the resources to do other things. We should applaud and encourage it, and the carbon energy sector can lead the way.

Continue Reading

Trending

X