Connect with us
[the_ad id="89560"]


Majority of Canadians Support Canada’s Role as Responsible Energy Producer & Exporter: POLL


5 minute read

A new poll has found that a growing number of Canadians support our country’s role as a responsible and reliable global energy producer and exporter.

According to the poll – conducted by Research Co. on behalf of Canada Action – a majority of Canadians, nearly three out of four (73% of respondents), believe Canada’s liquefied natural gas (LNG) can help improve global energy security and sustainability efforts.

The poll questioned 1,000 adults online across the country and found that most respondents have an overwhelmingly positive view of the energy sector. Other findings include:

Canada Action - Poll - Majority of Canadians Support Energy Sector - September 19th, 2022

> 80% of respondents – or four-in-five Canadians – said that given global energy demand is forecasted to grow 50% by 2050, they support trade in all Canadian energy technologies including solar, wind, hydro, hydrogen, geothermal, biofuels, and oil and gas.

> 79% of respondents – or nearly eight-in-ten Canadians – said they prefer to use Canadian energy in their day-to-day lives.

> 75% of respondents – or three-in-four Canadians – agree that exporting our responsible and reliable energy, expertise and technology to reduce global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions is one way Canada can play an important role in addressing climate action. This is a one per cent increase since the question was asked in March.

> 73% of respondents – or nearly three-quarters of Canadians – agree that our country should advocate for Canada’s energy sector as a leader in environmentally sustainable production.

> After having been informed that from 2000 to 2019, the emission intensity of Canada’s oil sands operations dropped by approximately 33% due to technological and efficiency improvements, 73% of respondents – or almost three-in-four Canadians – agree we should advocate for Canada’s energy sector as a leader in environmentally sustainable production.

> 63% of respondents – or more than three-in-five Canadians – agree that investing in Canada’s oil and gas sector makes sense if you value climate leadership, social progress and transparency.

> 56% of respondents think its wrong for Canada to forfeit energy opportunities to other countries with higher emissions in regards to LNG – representing a rise in public support of 5% since the last poll in March 2022.

“These latest polling results confirm exactly what we’ve found in our media interviews, community events, social media engagements and public interactions over the last number of months,” said Cody Battershill, Founder and Chief Spokesperson of Canada Action.

“Canadians are coming to understand the world will need oil and gas long into the future, and so Canada should continue to play a strong role as a country that respects workers, families and Indigenous and non-Indigenous communities, and that adheres to the strictest environmental, health and safety regulations in the world,” Battershill added.

The World Needs More Canadian Resources

75% of Canadians agree that exporting Canadian enegy is taking action on climate

Canada Action’s latest poll comes amid an ongoing global energy crisis where many countries have asked us for more of what we have: natural gas, hydrogen, minerals and metals, and other critical resources.

As one of the most responsible natural resource producers on the planet, it only makes sense that we provide the world with as much of these commodities as possible while following the world-class sustainability methods and standards our country is known for.

Canada is at a crossroads: either step up to help our closest allies and trade partners in need of our resources, or lose global market share – and the economic and environmental opportunities that come with – to suppliers with fewer protections for human rights and the environment.

A majority of Canadians across the country see the benefits of more Canadian resources on global markets. It’s time our country put its full support behind developing LNG, forestry, mining, oil and other natural resource sectors to benefit our families and the global climate.

About Us

I love Canadian energy banner

Canada Action is a non-partisan national coalition that advocates for the responsible development of Canada’s various natural resources, for the industries that move that development forward, and for the workers, families and communities the sector supports.

The poll’s margin of error, which measures sample variability, is plus or minus 3.1 percentage points, nineteen times out of twenty.

For more information: Cody Battershill – (403) 370-4008 – [email protected]


How climate activists harm Canadian energy security

Published on

From the Daily Caller News Foundation



Canadian Official Reveals Damage Eco-Activists Have Wreaked On Great White North’s Energy Security

Rebecca Schulz — the minister of environment and protected areas of Alberta, Canada — sat down with the Daily Caller News Foundation at the Canadian embassy in Washington, D.C. to discuss how climate activists, along with the country’s left-wing government, have hampered Canada’s energy security.

Alberta is a province in Western Canada that is known for its abundant natural resources, especially oil and natural gas. However, the federal government in Ottawa — led by liberal Prime Minister Justin Trudeau — has moved to restrict development in the province, harming the many blue-collar Canadians who rely on affected industries to make a living, Schulz explained to the DCNF.

“We have seen, over the last number of years, the activist, radical left starting to shape policy in a way that is, I think, very concerning, not only for just the basic needs of everyday people when it comes to safe, affordable, reliable energy, but I think, when it comes to to energy security,” Schulz told the DCNF.

“Certainly, we have a prime minister that is completely just bending to the activist base and ignoring, I think, the very real concerns of everyday commonsense as Canadians, and that’s a problem,” Schulz told the DCNF, referencing Trudeau. Later in the interview, Schulz predicted that Canadian voters will “vastly reject” Trudeau when they next head to the polls, in large part due to “the woke, ideological policies” that his government has pursued.

In Canada, one such official with deep ties to the climate activist movement shaping policy is Minister of Environment and Climate Change Steven Guilbeault. A former Greenpeace activist who once scaled Toronto’s iconic CN Tower and climbed on the roof of a government official’s private residence to install solar panels in acts of protest, Guilbeault has stated that he does not seek to implement a “secret agenda” of policies aligned with his activist past while in office, according to CBC, a Canadian news outlet.

Notably, the Biden administration counts numerous former activists among its ranks, including Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Director Tracey Stone-Manning, who was connected to radical eco-activists concocting a tree spiking plot in Idaho in the late 1980s. BLM manages federally-controlled lands for uses like energy production and livestock grazing.

“It’s really problematic because it is completely ideologically driven and devoid of common sense and the realities that people are facing every single day. And I think, you know, of course, people do care about the environment. I, of course, as minister of the environment, I care that we’re doing the right thing for the environment that we’re leaving,” Schulz continued. “You know, the places that we live, and where we develop our resources from, we’re maintaining that for future generations. But I also know that we could not survive a day without oil and gas, or products made from oil and gas and petrochemicals. And that fact isn’t changing. That, in fact, is growing so, I think it’s pretty concerning that they are also then trying to essentially stifle any opinions or statistics or facts that don’t support their narrative.”

Canada is one of America’s biggest energy suppliers, providing about 52% of all gross oil imports in 2023 and exporting nearly three trillion cubic feet of natural gas to the U.S. in 2022, according to the Canadian Energy Centre. Most of the fuel comes to America via cross-border pipelines, though some is also delivered by rail or by sea, according to a 2021 report commissioned by the American Petroleum Institute.

The Keystone XL pipeline, a major project that would have helped bring oil from Alberta to refineries along the coast of the Gulf of Mexico in the U.S., was set to be a new expansion to the systems that bring Canadian energy to America.

However, activists waged a major pressure campaign against the project, and its developers ultimately scuttled it in June 2021 after the Biden administration nixed a crucial permit and generally showed minimal enthusiasm for the project upon entering office, according to The Associated Press.

“Projects like that, of that size and scope, obviously take a significant amount of political will,” Schulz said of Keystone XL. “And I think that was a hugely disappointing decision, because we know that market access matters for energy security and meeting the needs of, I would say, Canadians and Americans, and people around the world.”

Notably, Brent Sadler — a 26-year veteran of the U.S. Navy who now works as a senior research fellow for naval warfare and advanced technology at the Heritage Foundation — agrees with Schulz’s assessment that Keystone XL would have been a positive development for North American energy security.

In a recently-published report assessing American energy security in light of the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) geopolitical ambitions, Sadler argued that policymakers impose “unnecessary restraints” on cross-border energy interconnection, and that security interests would be better served if they instead “get out of the way” and “permit cross-border energy infrastructure projects such as the Keystone XL pipeline.”

For now, Schulz will turn much of her focus to the Trudeau government’s proposed emissions cap for the oil and gas industry, which could see the government require energy producers to slash their emissions by about 37% relative to 2022 levels by 2030, according to Reuters. Its opponents — many of whom are located in Alberta — are characterizing the policy as a thinly-veiled production cap that will severely hurt the province’s workers and regional economy.

If finalized, the policy “would kill thousands of jobs, I would say tens of thousands of jobs, just directly in conventional oil and gas, not to mention what we’re seeing in oil sands and, of course, other related industries,” Schulz told the DCNF. “We just have a federal government that doesn’t look at any socioeconomic data on the impacts that their policy would have … No competent, responsible government would see those numbers and move ahead with that cap, but that is, in fact, what our federal Liberal government is doing in Canada.”

Continue Reading


Hydrogen is the most recent impractical green energy blind alley

Published on

From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy

By Ian Madsen

Climate Crisis alarmists tout yet another avenue by which renewable energy could replace reliable fossil fuel-sourced energy:  hydrogen, ‘H2’.  However, typical with alternative energy proposals, there are numerous problems with the widespread integration of this option in future energy production, distribution and consumption.

The first problem is producing H2. The current, and most cost-effective way, is from natural gas’s main component, methane.  Natural gas, while not demonized like oil or coal, is still reviled by Climate activists, since the common byproduct is carbon dioxide, thus requiring expensive sequestration.  An experimental carbon-removal process – pyrolysis, produces carbon nanotubes.

With methane out, the next hydrogen source is via electrolyzing water; using electricity to separate H2O into hydrogen and oxygen. The oxygen would either be recovered for commercial use or released into the atmosphere. However, hydrolysis is costly.

The equipment is expensive, and the energy required to produce the electricity is not cheap either – even if renewable energy sources, such as wind, solar and hydro, are used. There are predictions that H2 produced this way could become cost-competitive with methane-derived H2 by 2030, but using methane is not costless.

Indeed, advocates argue that intermittent wind and solar output would become reliable – ‘smoothed’ – by using hydrogen, as a storage and supply-levelling medium.  The stored H2 would then generate electricity during dark or non-windy conditions. H2 has other uses, in smelting, or aluminumsteelcementglass and other high temperature industries.

Hydrogen seems feasible: it burns cleanly at a high temperature. However, that brings more issues.

The first problem is handling and transporting hydrogen.  H2 dangerously weakens most standard high strength steel alloys in existing natural gas gathering and distribution systems, pipelines, storage and tank farms, in a process called hydrogen embrittlement.  Hence, special alloys are needed.  These cannot cost-effectively be retroactively deployed in existing natural gas distribution systems and pipelines.  They would have to be entirely replaced, although these alloys are cheaper than legacy ones.

Hhas another problem.  To be stored, must either be expensively cooled and pressurized to liquify it; or, if still gaseous, use expensive high pressure vessels. If H2 is not highly pressurized, then the vessels could be much larger, but that would increase materials costs and require more costly land area.

A reminder: natural gas goes from wellhead to customers with minimal storage.  The goal of using renewables is to produce H2 for storage – and use during dark or calm periods – which could last days, as Texas and Germany discovered, disastrously.

Using Hin transportation is impractical.  H2 has low energy density, requiring, as noted, either highly-pressurized storage or expensive cooling, liquefaction and storage: unfeasible for motor vehicles.  There is presently no H2 fuel distribution system.  This would also have to be built, along with the aforesaid new pipelines.

Hundreds of billions of dollars are now invested in legacy natural gas pipelines, gathering and distribution systems.  Replacing them, or building a parallel system, would be profoundly expensive, for no real gain.

Hydrogen makes no sense now; it may never do so, as it is an expensive redundancy.  There are more details in a new Frontier Centre backgrounder “Why We Should be Skeptical of the Hydrogen Economy”.

Ian Madsen is the Senior Policy Analyst at the Frontier Centre for Public Policy.

Continue Reading