Squeeze the industry to please his party’s green base or keep output, revenue and high-paying employment flowing?
Talk at the latest climate-change shindig in Dubai has centred around the future of the oil industry and whether countries should pledge to phase out oil and gas production entirely or simply transform the industry in decades to come. Canada always talks a deep-green game at these affairs but are we really ready to nail shut the oil and gas coffin?
Maybe not. In Dubai Canada announced a cap-and-trade approach to oil and gas emissions but argued it won’t actually stop oil and gas production outright. The provinces, who yet again weren’t consulted, may not agree. Besides, promises are one thing. The record is another.
It also emerged in Dubai that the Emirates, seventh largest oil producer, is expecting to increase its production by a million barrels a day (mbd) by 2030. This is not a new trend. According to the U.S. Energy Information Service, the UAE increased production of oil and hydrocarbon liquids like coal oil by 15.3 per cent between 2015 and 2022, from 3.7 mbd to 4.2, fourth-most of all oil-producing economies. That’s much faster than world output, which was up only 3.6 per cent since 2015, reaching 100.1 mbd last year.
The irony — maybe even the hypocrisy — is that three countries in the Americas have increased their petroleum output even more than this Middle Eastern oil sheikhdom has: the U.S., Brazil and, yes, us: Canada.
The Biden administration, which is promising 2030 emissions will be half 2005 levels, has so far failed to stymie oil and gas development. U.S. petroleum and liquids production has soared by 33.9 per cent since 2015, reaching 20.3 mbd in 2022. Two-fifths of the increase has been on Biden’s watch. The U.S., not Saudi Arabia, is now the world’s leading oil producer, accounting for fully 20 per cent of global supply.
The Trudeau government has pledged that 2030 oil and gas emissions will be 42 per cent lower than in 2005. This has led to tensions with the oil- and gas-producing provinces, which are resisting emissions caps for oil, gas and electricity. Ottawa’s opposition to liquefied natural gas sales even as the U.S. and Qatar are making great inroads in the world market has had industry leaders scratching their heads. Even so, since the Liberals came to power in 2015, Canada’s oil and gas production has grown second fastest globally, at 26.7 per cent, to reach 5.6 mbd last year. Much of this growth is due to big investments in the oil sands before 2015 but the production increase has been accommodated by pipeline expansion, with the federally-owned TMX soon to come on stream.
Neither Biden nor Trudeau is attending COP28 but Brazil’s president, Lula de Silva, stormed in at the head of a delegation of 2000 to repeat a pledge to cut 2030 emissions to less than half 2005 levels. Much of reduction results from reforestation, however, not phasing out oil and gas. And, to the surprise of attendees, Lula announced that Brazil will align itself more closely with OPEC. No shock there. Since 2015, Brazil’s oil and gas production has risen by 20 per cent, making it the 8th largest producer in the world at 3.8 mbd last year. It now evidently sees itself as a player.
Besides the U.S. Canada, Brazil and UAE, only Iraq (at 10.4 per cent) and Kazakhstan (at 4.5 per cent) have seen their oil production grow faster than the world average since 2015. The rest have had little growth, with seven countries registering declines, including 22.4 per cent in Mexico and 36.7 per cent in Nigeria, the biggest drop anywhere.
The standstill or even loss in oil and gas production in many oil-producing countries since 2015 is due to several factors. Oil prices dropped by three-fifths after 2014 and the pandemic caused another crash. More recently, Saudi Arabia and Russia have persuaded OPEC+ to constrain production and push prices to over US$80 per barrel — mainly in order to replenish their treasuries. In some places, including Ghana, the U.K. and Norway, old fields are depleting. Elsewhere, but especially in Africa and Mexico, crime and political instability continue to discourage development. Finally, in the face of lagging demand, investors have encouraged companies to distribute profits rather than invest in greenfield oil and gas projects.
But top producers like the U.S. and Canada are not holding back and governments aren’t stopping them. Phase-out is all short-term cost in pursuit of climate gains that won’t be realized for decades, if at all. Nor are politicians willing to eliminate the tax revenues and high-paying jobs the industry generates. With energy security crucial in an increasingly dangerous world, oil-consuming countries are finding that intermittent renewable energy and other high-cost energy sources are no substitute for fossil fuels.
As the federal Liberals sink in the polls, they face a many-ways existential choice. Do they pursue their climate promises and phase out oil and gas? Or do they secure the benefits of oil and gas production for years to come? Or, a third option: do they say one thing but quietly do the other? Is it all, as Shakespeare would say, “much ado about nothing”?
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.
Our country is facing an energy crisis. No, not because of new demand from data centers or AI. Instead, it’s because utilities in nearly every state, due to government imposed “renewable” mandates, self-imposed mandates, and the supercharging of the Green New Scam under the so-called “Inflation Reduction Act,” have been shutting down vital coal resources and building out almost exclusively intermittent and costly resources like solar, wind, and battery storage.
Taking a look at our largest regulated utilities (APS, TEP, and UNS) and the largest nonprofit utility, SRP, future plans paint an alarming picture. Combined, over the next 15 years, these utilities expect to see demand increase from 19,200 MW to 28,000 MW. For reference, 1,000 MW of electricity is enough to power roughly 250,000 homes. To meet that growth in demand, however, Arizonans will only get a net increase of 989 MW of reliable generation (coal, natural gas, and nuclear) compared to 22,543 MW (or nearly 23 times as much) of intermittent solar, wind, and battery storage.
But what about all of the new natural gas coming into the state? The vast majority of it will be eaten up just to replace existing coal resources, not to bring additional affordable energy to the grid. For example, the SRP board recently voted to approve the conversion of their Springerville coal plant to natural gas by 2030, which follows an earlier vote to convert another of their coal plants, Coronado, to natural gas by 2029. This coal conversion trap leaves ratepayers with the same amount of energy as before, eating up new natural gas capacity, without the benefit of more electricity.
So, while the Arizona utilities plan to collectively build an additional 4,538 MW of natural gas capacity over the next 15 years, at the same time they will be removing -3,549 MW (all of what is left on the grid today) of coal. And there are no plans for more nuclear capacity anytime soon. Instead, to meet their voluntary climate commitments, utilities plan to saddle ratepayers with the cost and resultant blackouts of the green new scam.
It’s the same story around the country. Electricity rates are rising. Reliability is crumbling. We know the cause. For generations, we’ve been able to provide reliable energy at an affordable cost. The only variable that has changed has been what we are choosing to build. Then, it was reliable, dispatchable power. Now, it is intermittent sources that we know cost more, and that we know cause blackouts, all to meet absurd goals of going 100% renewable – something that no utility, state, or country has been able to achieve. And we know the result when they try.
This crisis can be avoided. Trump has laid out the plan to unleash American Energy. Now, it’s time for utilities to drop their costly green new scam commitments and go back to building reliable and affordable power that generations to come will benefit from.
Greg Blackie, Deputy Director of Policy at the Arizona Free Enterprise Club. Greg graduated summa cum laude from Arizona State University with a B.S. in Political Science in 2019. He served as a policy intern with the Republican caucus at the Arizona House of Representatives and covered Arizona political campaigns for America Rising during the 2020 election cycle.
According to Steven Guilbeault, former environment minister under Justin Trudeau and former member of Prime Minister Carney’s cabinet, “Switching to an electric vehicle is one of the most impactful things Canadians can do to help fight climate change.”
And the Carney government has only paused Trudeau’s electric vehicle (EV) sales mandate to conduct a “review” of the policy, despite industry pressure to scrap the policy altogether.
So clearly, according to policymakers in Ottawa, EVs are essentially “zero emission” and thus good for environment.
But is that true?
Clearly, EVs have some environmental advantages over traditional gasoline-powered vehicles. Unlike cars with engines that directly burn fossil fuels, EVs do not produce tailpipe emissions of pollutants such as nitrogen dioxide and carbon monoxide, and do not release greenhouse gases (GHGs) such as carbon dioxide. These benefits are real. But when you consider the entire lifecycle of an EV, the picture becomes much more complicated.
Unlike traditional gasoline-powered vehicles, battery-powered EVs and plug-in hybrids generate most of their GHG emissions before the vehicles roll off the assembly line. Compared with conventional gas-powered cars, EVs typically require more fossil fuel energy to manufacture, largely because to produce EVs batteries, producers require a variety of mined materials including cobalt, graphite, lithium, manganese and nickel, which all take lots of energy to extract and process. Once these raw materials are mined, processed and transported across often vast distances to manufacturing sites, they must be assembled into battery packs. Consequently, the manufacturing process of an EV—from the initial mining of materials to final assembly—produces twice the quantity of GHGs (on average) as the manufacturing process for a comparable gas-powered car.
Once an EV is on the road, its carbon footprint depends on how the electricity used to charge its battery is generated. According to a report from the Canada Energy Regulator (the federal agency responsible for overseeing oil, gas and electric utilities), in British Columbia, Manitoba, Quebec and Ontario, electricity is largely produced from low- or even zero-carbon sources such as hydro, so EVs in these provinces have a low level of “indirect” emissions.
However, in other provinces—particularly Alberta, Saskatchewan and Nova Scotia—electricity generation is more heavily reliant on fossil fuels such as coal and natural gas, so EVs produce much higher indirect emissions. And according to research from the University of Toronto, in coal-dependent U.S. states such as West Virginia, an EV can emit about 6 per cent more GHG emissions over its entire lifetime—from initial mining, manufacturing and charging to eventual disposal—than a gas-powered vehicle of the same size. This means that in regions with especially coal-dependent energy grids, EVs could impose more climate costs than benefits. Put simply, for an EV to help meaningfully reduce emissions while on the road, its electricity must come from low-carbon electricity sources—something that does not happen in certain areas of Canada and the United States.
Finally, even after an EV is off the road, it continues to produce emissions, mainly because of the battery. EV batteries contain components that are energy-intensive to extract but also notoriously challenging to recycle. While EV battery recycling technologies are still emerging, approximately 5 per cent of lithium-ion batteries, which are commonly used in EVs, are actually recycled worldwide. This means that most new EVs feature batteries with no recycled components—further weakening the environmental benefit of EVs.
So what’s the final analysis? The technology continues to evolve and therefore the calculations will continue to change. But right now, while electric vehicles clearly help reduce tailpipe emissions, they’re not necessarily “zero emission” vehicles. And after you consider the full lifecycle—manufacturing, charging, scrapping—a more accurate picture of their environmental impact comes into view.
Annika Segelhorst
Junior Economist
Elmira Aliakbari
Director, Natural Resource Studies, Fraser Institute
