From Energy Now

By Jim Warren

It can be refreshing when politicians clearly and unequivocally state their positions on important public issues. That’s what former BC premier, John Horgan, did during the 2017 BC provincial election campaign.

Horgan forthrightly announced he would use “every tool in the tool box” to stop the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion (TMX). For the next three years, Horgan stayed true to his word. Enthusiasm for the fight waned somewhat in July of 2020 when the Supreme Court foreclosed on any further delays over things like a lack of consultations with First Nations.

Of course, how one feels about frank and honest statements by politicians can depend on who is losing out. It can be less refreshing when every tool available is being employed in service of a measure you oppose. But, you at least have a better idea about what you are up against when your opponent clearly spells out where he stands.

The tool box has not been used much in support of pipelines

At this point in Mark Carney’s first year as prime minister it’s become rather obvious, he rarely employs any of the tools at his disposal in support of new oil pipelines. One might reasonably conclude that the opposite is the case—the vast powers of the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) and the Government of Canada have been employed in opposition to any new oil pipelines to any Canadian coast.

The Liberal government has tried and failed to sell supporters of the oil industry on the idea that Bill-C5, The Building Canada Act, has paved the way for a new pipeline to Canadian tidewater. The prime minister knows Bill C-5 won’t do that.

Ninety some CEOs from Canada’s oil and pipeline sector have informed the PM that Bill C-5 by itself will do nothing to get a pipeline to any coast. They have sent letters saying this to Carney on three separate occasions since he became prime minister. One point repeatedly stressed by the CEOs as well as the Government of Alberta is that it is not possible to build a pipeline from Alberta to the West coast without the repeal of, or significant amendments to, the West Coast Tanker Ban, Bill C-48, and the Impact Assessment Act, formerly Bill C-69 (aka the No More Pipelines Bill).

Carney’s failure to address those concerns defies logic and common sense. The approval and completion of an oil pipeline from Alberta to Prince Rupert under Bill C-5, is in direct conflict with the tanker ban and would face virtually the same insurmountable barriers the Impact Assessment Act presented for previously cancelled pipeline projects. It is not logically possible for all three things to be true at the same time (i.e. Bills C-48 and C-69 remain in place and a pipeline to Prince Rupert is completed)

What possible harm could arise if the prime minister simply stated something to the effect that the boundaries of the region where oil tankers are banned under C-48 will be adjusted to accommodate pipeline projects approved under Bill C-5?  You wouldn’t think saying so would remove any hide from Carney’s butt and would provide greater assurance to prospective pipeline proponents.

Wrong.

Carney will not say anything of the sort. That’s because he is more concerned about staying on the good side of the environmental activists who are among his most fervent supporters. The environmental groups leading the crusade against climate change, climate alarmed members of Carney’s caucus, and cabinet would just as soon see the tanker ban remain in place. They want Bill C-48 to serve as a trip wire to thwart projects like a revived Northern Gateway project. They would similarly balk at any tinkering with the Impact Assessment Act which might facilitate the approval and completion of such a pipeline.

Follow the money

Just follow the money. Here’s one of the many pieces of evidence we might consider. Mark Carney has been shoring up his support among anti-oil environmentalists with government cash. Among the un-budgeted expenditures announced by the government in early 2025 was the $206 million to be spent over the next five years under the auspices of the Climate Action Awareness Fund (CAAF). The funds will be used to combat the declining urgency among Canadians for combating climate change. The initial tranche of $14.4 million issued so far this year will be available to help young Canadians address climate change. It appears the principal delivery agents for CAAF funded projects will be environmental organizations, including those groups who were active in the infamous anti-Alberta oil campaigns.

In other words anti-oil environmental groups stand to be among the beneficiaries of $41.2 million per year in government largesse. This level of support is far more generous than the roughly $16.5 million, per year, Alberta’s Allan Commission reported Justin Trudeau’s government had been lavishing on anti-oil environmental groups.

No doubt the Liberals will claim the millions in CAAF funding is a wise investment as opposed to what it really is—an expensive perk for the government’s green supporters. It makes sense to expect the efforts of some of the groups being funded will be devoted to handcuffing the oil industry.

The tool box is actually wide open. It’s just not being used in support of increasing Canadian oil production, exports and revenues.

The tool box is far from empty

The bully pulpit available to the prime minister’s office (PMO) may indeed be far less influential than the one available to a US president. Nevertheless, a clear and unequivocal statement by the nation’s prime minister in support of building a new pipeline to the coast, under reasonable approval requirements, would go a long way toward encouraging potential proponents and reducing public angst and anger in the oil producing provinces.

Canada’s prime ministers have near Trumpian powers at their disposal should they choose to use them. The Justin Trudeau Liberals used the heavy hand of the Emergencies Act to stifle horn honking in Ottawa. Sure, the courts said using the Act in that instance was an overreach on the part of the government, but nobody in government was penalized for imposing it.

If the Emergencies Act isn’t enough to bulldoze a pipeline through to the coast the government can dust off the “peace, order and good government,” powers assigned to Ottawa under Section 91 of the Constitution. And let’s not forget the notwithstanding clause—available to stifle spurious lawsuits claiming that a pipeline is offending someone’s rights.

Admittedly, making use of those two options sounds pretty silly. However, it was Carney himself who suggested he was prepared to do something along these lines on one of the two or three occasions when he slipped up and gave people the impression he would back a pipeline. When campaigning in Kelowna last winter the prime minister said he would use all the powers available to the federal government to get one built. Since then he has backtracked, given Quebec a veto over pipelines to the East coast, and indicated any effort to get a new pipeline approved would require a national consensus and be subject to legislation and regulatory checks that would be extremely difficult if not impossible to meet.

Mark Carney is no John Horgan

Clearly, Mark Carney is no John Horgan. Our prime minister continues to dissemble, obfuscate and change the subject when it comes to getting behind a pipeline that would represent the most economically significant, nation building project capable of producing huge revenues within a relatively short period of time.

The recent federal budget did little to increase the possibility of getting a new export pipeline anytime soon. The conventional energy sector has been facing government barriers to growth in investments, production and exports for over a decade now.  It is true the budget announced the elimination of one of those growth killing measures, the emissions cap. And the Liberals deigned to return free speech to those who support oil and gas. Saying something positive about conventional energy firms’ efforts on behalf of environmental sustainability will cease to be deemed illegal greenwashing. However, those positive changes still leave several other equally harmful policies in place.

The budget anticipates a huge increase in private sector investment in response to a package of uninspiring policy tweaks and sugar-coated forecasts. There is little, if anything, in the budget to justify its excessively optimistic predictions. On the other hand, the budget announced that carbon capture projects will not count toward emissions reduction credits if the CO2 will be used for enhanced oil recovery. This will be a bane to CO2 capture efforts in the oil sands and potentially gives the federal government another reason to stifle growth in production and exports.

The flight of investment during the Liberal years owes much to the lack of confidence generated by policies like Bills C-48 and C-69. Doing something to limit the investment killing effects of those two pieces of legislation would cost relatively little, generate billions in oil export revenue, and help restore investor confidence.

If Carney has actually decided there will be no new oil pipeline to the West coast, at some point in the near future that reality will catch up with him. Remaining elusive about pipelines today may help the Liberals should there be a snap election. But, it will do little to advance national unity and is likely to boost the independence vote in Alberta’s referendum.

Here we go again. On Friday November 7 the prime minister told attendees at Canadian Club event in Toronto not to worry the long sought pipeline “was going to happen.”

Pardon me if I’m not convinced. Over the previous three months the liberals clearly acted as though becoming an energy super power could happen without increasing oil production and exports.

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