Energy
Why Bad Climate Legislation Is Worse Than No Climate Legislation

From Michael Schellenberger
Moderate Democratic Senators Joe Manchin & Krysten Sinema Are Right to Oppose the Clean Energy Performance Program
Progressives are angry that moderate Democratic Senator Joe Machin has reportedly opposed the inclusion of climate-related legislation in President Joe Biden’s budget “This is absolutely the most important climate policy in the package,” said Leah Stokes, a Canadian political scientist who helped write the legislation. “We fundamentally need it to meet our climate goals. That’s just the reality.”
But that’s not the reality. The “Clean Energy Performance Program” is not needed to meet climate goals, and might actually undermine them.
Consider Waxman-Markey. That’s the name of the “cap and trade” climate legislation that passed the House but failed in the Senate in 2010. It had a climate goal of reducing U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by 17 percent below 2005 levels by the year 2020. Instead, the U.S. reduced its emissions by 22 percent.
Had cap and trade legislation passed in the Senate, emissions would have declined less than 22 percent, because Waxman-Markey so heavily subsidized coal and other fossil fuels. As the Los Angeles Times reported at the time, “the Environmental Protection Agency projects that even if the emissions limits go into effect, the U.S. would use more carbon-dioxide-heavy coal in 2020 than it did in 2005.”
The same thing would likely have been true for the Clean Energy Performance Program, which lock in natural gas. Consider France. According to the Commision de Regulation de L’Energie, €29 billion (US$33) billion was used to purchase wind and solar electricity in mainland France between 2009 and 2018. But the money spent on renewables did not lead to cleaner electricity. In fact, the carbon-intensity of French electricity increased.
After years of subsidies for solar and wind, France’s 2017 emissions of 68g/CO2 per kWh was higher than any year between 2012 and 2016. The reason? Record-breaking wind and solar production did not make up for falling nuclear energy output and higher natural gas consumption. And now, the high cost of renewable electricity is showing up in French household electricity bills.
Some pro-nuclear people supported the proposed Clean Energy Performance Program. They claimed it would have saved existing nuclear plants at risk of closure. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, the closure of nuclear plants including Diablo Canyon in California, will result in nuclear energy in the U.S. declining by 17% by 2025. If the Program had passed, some pro-nuclear people believe, plants like Diablo Canyon could have been saved.
But the Clean Energy Performance Program would not have saved Diablo Canyon for the same reason it would not have saved Indian Point nuclear plant, which closed in New York, earlier this year: progressive Democratic politicians are forcing nuclear plants to close, and at a very high cost to ratepayers.
If the Clean Energy Performance Program had passed into law, Diablo Canyon’s owner, Pacific Gas & Electric, would simply have passed the $500 million to $1.5 billion penalty imposed by the Program onto ratepayers, along with the other billions in costs related to closing Diablo Canyon 40 years earlier than necessary. The same would have happened with Indian Point.
Where there is political support for saving nuclear plants, state legislators and governors save nuclear plants, as they did in Illinois a few weeks ago, and as they have done in Connecticut, New Jersey, and with up-state nuclear plants in New York. In other states, nuclear plants are protected from cheap natural gas by regulated electricity markets. And now, with natural gas prices rising dramatically, any nuclear plants at risk of closure for economic reasons are no longer at risk.
What threatens the continued operation of nuclear power plants, and nuclear energy in general, is the continued subsidization of renewables, which the Clean Energy Performance Program would have put on steroids. Under the program, utilities would have received $18 for each megawatt-hour of zero-emissions energy it produces between 2023 to 2030, on top of the existing $25 per megawatt-hour subsidy for wind energy.
Under such a scenario, notes energy analyst Robert Bryce, a wind energy company “could earn $43 per megawatt-hour per year for each new megawatt-hour of wind energy it sells. That’s a staggering sum given that the wholesale price of electricity in New York last year was $33 per megawatt-hour. In Texas, the wholesale price of juice was $22 per MWh.”
Manchin is joined in his opposition to the Plan by moderate Democratic Arizona Senator, Krysten Sinema, and understandably so. The legislation would cost Arizona ratepayers nearly $120 billion in additional electricity costs, according to energy analysts Isaac Orr and Mitch Rolling of the American Experiment. “This would result in a 45 percent increase in electricity prices by 2031, compared to 2019 rates,” they note.
As troubling, the Clean Energy Performance Program would increase dependence on solar panels made in China by incarcerated Uighyr Muslims living in concentration camps and against whom the Chinese government is committing “genocide,” according to the U.S. State Department. New research shows that China made solar panels cheaper through the use of forced labor, heavy government subsidies, and some of the dirtiest coal in the world. The Program would have done nothing to shift production of solar panels back to the U.S.
Nor would the legislation have done anything to internalize the high cost of solar panel waste disposal. Most solar panels become hazardous waste, and create dust from heavy metals including lead, as soon as they are removed from rooftops. A major study published in Harvard Business Review earlier this year found that, when the high cost of managing toxic solar panel waste is eventually accounted for, the true cost of solar electricity will rise four-fold.
As troubling, the continued expansion of weather-dependent renewables will increase electricity costs and blackouts across the United States, as they did in California and Texas. Those renewables-driven blackouts were likely on Senator Manchin’s mind when he made his decision to oppose the Clean Energy Performance Plan. He certainly knows about the problems of renewables in Texas and California, since I discussed them directly with Manchin when I testified before his committee earlier this year.
A better approach would be for Congress to seek nuclear-focused legislation to expand nuclear from its current 19% of U.S. electricity to 50% by 2050. It should take as a model the British government’s announcement yesterday that it would put nuclear energy at the center of its climate plans. Global energy shortages triggered by the lack of wind in Europe have led nations to realize that any efforts to decarbonize electricity grids without creating blackouts must center nuclear power, not weather-dependent solar and wind.
Environmental Progress and I met with British lawmakers in 2019 to advocate for a greater focus on nuclear. At the time, many British energy analysts, as well as ostensibly pro-nuclear climate activists, Mark Lynas and George Monbiot, were telling the public that their nation did not need more nuclear, as Britain could simply rely more on wind energy, and natural gas. Now, electricity prices are skyrocketing and factories are closing in Britain, due to a bad year for wind.
It was a strange experience to be alone in Britain, without support from supposedly pro-nuclear Britons, in urging lawmakers to build more nuclear plants, but I was similarly alone in many other parts of the world, and got on with the task. Happily, one year later, former Extinction Rebellion spokesperson Zion Lights joined me in advocating for nuclear, and quickly forced the government to agree to a nuclear build-out.
Today, in the U.S., there is a growing grassroots movement for nuclear energy, one which saved nuclear plants, twice, in Illinois, and other states, and is gearing up to save Diablo Canyon nuclear plant in California. Doing so will require a new governor, since the current one, Gavin Newsom, made closing the plant a feature of his sales pitch to powerful environmental groups, including Sierra Club and Natural Resources Defense Fund which are, like Newsom himself, heavily funded by natural gas and renewable energy companies that stand to benefit from the Diablo’s destruction.
Leadership at the national level will need to come from Senators Manchin and Sinema. While a significant amount of electricity policy is determined by the states, the Senate can play a constructive role in maintaining the reliability, resiliency, affordability, I testified to Senator Manchin and other committee members. Senator Sinema is from Arizona, a state with the largest nuclear plant in the U.S., Palo Verde, and which is a model of how to make electricity both low in emissions, and in costs.
With the Clean Energy Performance Program now apparently dead, the Congress, led by Manchin and Sinema, should take policy action to not only keep operating the nuclear plants that have been critical to preventing power outages in recent years, but also expand them.
About Michael Shellenberger
Michael Shellenberger is a Time Magazine “Hero of the Environment,”Green Book Award winner, and the founder and president of Environmental Progress.
He is author of the best-selling new book, Apocalypse Never (Harper Collins June 30, 2020), which has received strong praise from scientists and scholars. “This may be the most important book on the environment ever written,” wrote climate scientist Tom Wigley. “Apocalypse Never is an extremely important book,” says historian Richard Rhodes, who won the Pulitzer Prize for The Making of the Atomic Bomb. “Within its lively pages, Michael Shellenberger rescues with science and lived experience a subject drowning in misunderstanding and partisanship. His message is invigorating: if you have feared for the planet’s future, take heart.”
Additional Reading:
Why Biden’s Climate Agenda Is Falling Apart
China Made Solar Cheap With Coal, Subsidies, And “Slave” Labor — Not Efficiency
Alberta
Busting five myths about the Alberta oil sands

Construction of an oil sands SAGD production well pad in northern Alberta. Photo supplied to the Canadian Energy Centre
From the Canadian Energy Centre
The facts about one of Canada’s biggest industries
Alberta’s oil sands sector is one of Canada’s most important industries — and also one of its most misunderstood.
Here are five common myths, and the facts behind them.
Myth: Oil sands emissions are unchecked

Steam generators at a SAGD oil sands production site in northern Alberta. Photo courtesy Cenovus Energy
Reality: Oil sands emissions are strictly regulated and monitored. Producers are making improvements through innovation and efficiency.
The sector’s average emissions per barrel – already on par with the average oil consumed in the United States, according to S&P Global – continue to go down.
The province reports that oil sands emissions per barrel declined by 26 per cent per barrel from 2012 to 2023. At the same time, production increased by 96 per cent.
Analysts with S&P Global call this a “structural change” for the industry where production growth is beginning to rise faster than emissions growth.
The firm continues to anticipate a decrease in total oil sands emissions within the next few years.
The Pathways Alliance — companies representing about 95 per cent of oil sands activity — aims to significantly cut emissions from production through a major carbon capture and storage (CCS) project and other innovations.
Myth: There is no demand for oil sands production

Expanded export capacity at the Trans Mountain Westridge Terminal. Photo courtesy Trans Mountain Corporation
Reality: Demand for Canadian oil – which primarily comes from the oil sands – is strong and rising.
Today, America imports more than 80 per cent more oil from Canada than it did in 2010, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA).
New global customers also now have access to Canadian oil thanks to the opening of the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion in 2024.
Exports to countries outside the U.S. increased by 180 per cent since the project went into service, reaching a record 525,000 barrels per day in July 2025, according to the Canada Energy Regulator.
The world’s appetite for oil keeps growing — and it’s not stopping anytime soon.
According to the latest EIA projections, the world will consume about 120 million barrels per day of oil and petroleum liquids in 2050, up from about 104 million barrels per day today.
Myth: Oil sands projects cost too much
Reality: Operating oil sands projects deliver some of the lowest-cost oil in North America, according to Enverus Intelligence Research.
Unlike U.S. shale plays, oil sands production is a long-life, low-decline “manufacturing” process without the treadmill of ongoing investment in new drilling, according to BMO Capital Markets.
Vast oil sands reserves support mining projects with no drilling, and the standard SAGD drilling method involves about 60 per cent fewer wells than the average shale play, BMO says.
After initial investment, Enverus says oil sands projects typically break even at less than US$50 per barrel WTI.
Myth: Indigenous communities don’t support the oil sands

Chief Greg Desjarlais of Frog Lake First Nation signs an agreement in September 2022 whereby 23 First Nations and Métis communities in Alberta acquired an 11.57 per cent ownership interest in seven Enbridge-operated oil sands pipelines for approximately $1 billion. Photo courtesy Enbridge
Reality: Indigenous communities play an important role in the oil sands sector through community agreements, business contracts and, increasingly, project equity ownership.
Oil sands producers spent an average of $1.8 billion per year with 180 Indigenous-affiliated vendors between 2021 and 2023, according to the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers.
Indigenous communities are now owners of key projects that support the oil sands, including Suncor Energy’s East Tank Farm (49 per cent owned by two communities); the Northern Courier pipeline system (14 per cent owned by eight communities); and the Athabasca Trunkline, seven operating Enbridge oil sands pipelines (~12 per cent owned by 23 communities).
These partnerships strengthen Indigenous communities with long-term revenue, helping build economic reconciliation.
Myth: Oil sands development only benefits people in Alberta
Reality: Oil sands development benefits Canadians across the country through reliable energy supply, jobs, taxes and government revenues that help pay for services like roads, schools and hospitals.
The sector has contributed approximately $1 trillion to the Canadian economy over the past 25 years, according to analysis by the Macdonald-Laurier Institute (MLI).
That reflects total direct spending — including capital investment, operating costs, taxes and royalties — not profits or dividends for shareholders.
More than 2,300 companies outside of Alberta have had direct business with the oilsands, including over 1,300 in Ontario and almost 600 in Quebec, MLI said.
Energy products are by far Canada’s largest export, representing $196 billion, or about one-quarter of Canada’s total trade in 2024, according to Statistics Canada.
Led by the oil sands, Canada’s energy sector directly or indirectly employs more than 445,000 people across the country, according to Natural Resources Canada.
Business
Canada has an energy edge, why won’t Ottawa use it?

Energy abundance, properly managed, isn’t just Canada’s strategic edge—it’s our ace in the hole while allies scramble to rearm their energy systems and competitors sprint ahead. We can keep sleepwalking through the annual ritual of self-imposed shackles, watching golden opportunities slip through our fingers, or we can finally show up as a serious player in the energy security game we’re already knee-deep in.
What the public doesn’t see behind all the climate summit fanfare is a carefully choreographed performance where capitals everywhere scramble to perfect their lines for the UN’s annual pageant. COP30 descends on Brazil in mid-November, and once again Ottawa looks primed to arrive clutching a stack of promises, desperately hoping that thunderous applause will somehow count as tangible progress in the real world.
Thanks to years of bureaucratic capture, our government keeps churning out the measures most fervently demanded by the climate lobby, and this ritual proceeds as if “net zero” were still a credible roadmap rather than a marketing slogan stretched so transparently thin it’s practically see-through. But out in the real world—away from the theatrical staging—the energy system keeps issuing updates of its own that no amount of wishful thinking can erase. The question this year cannot be what flashy new prohibition Ottawa can unveil on cue: are our leaders finally prepared to read the room? Away from the virtue-signalling theatre, countries are quietly adjusting to immovable realities: demand keeps climbing, reliability actually matters, and security trumps sermonizing—and we should be looking south to see what’s really working.
From 2005 to 2023, U.S. per-capita CO₂ emissions from energy plummeted by nearly a third. Not because of performative pledges or green grandstanding, but because coal quietly gave way to natural gas, with renewables filling in around the edges where they actually made sense. Pick almost any grid that made this pragmatic switch, and you’ll discover the same inconvenient pattern that climate absolutists prefer to ignore: fewer emissions and electricity you can actually count on when you flip the switch. Maryland serves as a clean example, where coal shrank from the backbone to a footnote as gas surged, helping keep the lights blazing when people needed them most.
Canada should pay very close attention to these uncomfortable truths. We benefit from hydro and nuclear in some regions, but what the green lobby doesn’t want to acknowledge is that our electricity demand is climbing relentlessly. Population growth alone would guarantee that outcome. Add the explosion in AI technology and it becomes utterly unavoidable, despite the silence from environmental groups. Even the cheerleaders of the new digital economy are brutally honest about this reality when pressed. The head of the world’s biggest AI chipmaker isn’t jesting when he bluntly tells the U.K. it will need gas turbines alongside nuclear and renewables to power its tech ambitions—inconvenient facts that shatter green fairy tales.
Another stubborn reality that doesn’t make it into climate summit speeches is that the International Energy Agency estimates oil and gas companies spend roughly half a trillion dollars every year just to keep output flat—a financial reality that exposes the “stranded assets” narrative as wishful thinking. Without this continual reinvestment, U.S. shale would crater within a single year. It’s rather difficult to describe that as a system drifting quietly into retirement, rather than an industrial backbone that still carries most of the load while activists pretend otherwise. If you’re Canada, that looks less like a looming problem than a golden opening that our competitors are already seizing.
Geopolitics is saying the same thing out loud, for those willing to listen beyond the climate activism echo chamber. J.P. Morgan bluntly calls this the “new energy security age,” and Europe is working frantically to end its dependence on Russian LNG—not for climate reasons, but for survival. Japan is expanding its LNG fleet, and Mexico is inking billion-dollar supply deals while climate campaigners aren’t looking. Strip away all the green branding and virtue-signalling, and you get a core calculation that energy security is nothing short of national security—and countries that get snookered by activist rhetoric into forgetting that harsh reality lose far more than bragging rights at international summits.

The Woodfibre LNG site is seen on Howe Sound in Squamish, B.C. THE CANADIAN PRESS/Darryl Dyck
Our allies have been leaning on us to quit sitting on the sidelines and deliver something concrete. And back home, even Ottawa’s mandarins are finally muttering what everyone else has known all along. For the next several years, at minimum, gas remains the most economical, rock-solid baseload option across vast stretches of the continent. Meeting that surging demand would deliver high-paying jobs, bulletproof alliances, and slash global emissions compared to the world burning more coal. Turning our backs on it means standing idle while rival producers rush to fill the void—all so we can pat ourselves on the back for warming the bench.
If this strikes you as abstract theorizing, cast your eyes toward California. A righteous crusade to shutter refineries didn’t magically eliminate the appetite for fuel—it simply exported the dirty work elsewhere, shipping out the jobs and the supply cushion that shields consumers from price shocks. The Golden State now scrambles like a panicked shopper whenever supply chains hiccup, because when push comes to shove, affordability draws the hard red line on what voters will tolerate. Meanwhile, the global landscape has shifted dramatically, with the United States now claiming the crown as top exporter of refined petroleum and LNG.
The lofty rhetoric of “climate solidarity” has quietly faded into something far more practical—nations ruthlessly pursuing their own interests. Even the most progressive speechwriters now pepper their drafts with buzzwords like ‘pragmatism’ and ‘realism.’ It represents nothing short of a grudging acknowledgment that wishful thinking won’t keep the lights on when the grid starts groaning.
British Columbia, meanwhile, sits perched atop the Montney—one of the continent’s most spectacular gas reservoirs—boasting the shortest shipping lanes to Asian markets. Indigenous nations are shrewdly securing equity stakes in LNG ventures while demanding genuine partnership—a blueprint that marries reconciliation with cold, hard prosperity. Those outbound cargoes are displacing coal-fired power overseas. If your genuine goal involves slashing real-world emissions, that achievement trumps a dozen flowery Ottawa press releases.
So no, the magic formula isn’t “all of the above,” but rather “the best of the above.” It demands deploying hydro, nuclear, and renewables where they deliver maximum punch, with natural gas serving as the indispensable bridge that keeps systems humming while breakthrough technologies mature. We must construct infrastructure that performs when sidewalks turn into skating rinks and when asphalt starts melting like butter.
We’ve also absorbed some hard-earned lessons about the political theatrics that spook serious capital. At COP28 in Dubai, then–environment minister Steven Guilbeault sported a baseball cap emblazoned with “emissions.” Emissions cap—catch the clever wordplay? The joke bombed spectacularly with investors. The policy proposal fared no better; its most vocal champion is reportedly eyeing the exit door, while nearly a hundred Canadian oil and gas CEOs have now fired off two blunt open letters to the new prime minister, spelling out precisely what the cap would accomplish: driving investors to pack their bags for friendlier jurisdictions. If your economic blueprint hinges on attracting capital, avoid crafting policies that essentially scream ‘beat it.’

World leaders at COP29 in Baku, Azerbaijan.
Energy abundance, properly managed, isn’t just Canada’s strategic edge—it’s our ace in the hole while allies scramble to rearm their energy systems and competitors sprint ahead. We can keep sleepwalking through the annual ritual of self-imposed shackles, watching golden opportunities slip through our fingers, or we can finally show up as a serious player in the energy security game we’re already knee-deep in.
What would that look like at COP30? It would sound nothing like the strangely self-defeating Canadian speeches of years past, which have been heavy on confessional hand-wringing, light on genuine intent, drowning in performative self-flagellation, and starved of actual competence. If Ottawa wants to prove it has finally woken up from its ideological slumber, it should ditch the tired theatre and roll out policies that actually unleash investment instead of strangling it: streamlined approvals with firm timelines that mean something; predictable fiscal treatment that doesn’t shift with every political breeze; a clear path for Indigenous equity in major projects; and an explicit commitment to “best of the above” power and fuels. Pair that with a forthright message to allies that cuts through the usual diplomatic fog: Canada intends to supply reliable, cleaner energy to the democracies that desperately need it.
It’s not capitulating to industry to stop pretending we can wish away reality. It’s the path that lets us grow the economy, slash global emissions faster than sanctimonious lectures ever will, and strengthen the alliances that keep free countries from getting steamrolled. If we want Canada to matter in this new energy security age instead of being relegated to the sidelines, we should start acting like we mean business. COP30 is the stage. Time to scrap the old script and write one that actually works.
-
Business2 days ago
Ford’s Whisky War
-
Agriculture22 hours ago
Is the CFIA a Rogue Agency or Just Taking Orders from a Rogue Federal Government?
-
Focal Points2 days ago
Trump Walks Back His Tomahawk Tease from Zelensky
-
Business1 day ago
Trump Blocks UN’s Back Door Carbon Tax
-
Business1 day ago
Judges are Remaking Constitutional Law, Not Applying it – and Canadians’ Property Rights are Part of the Collateral Damage
-
Red Deer1 day ago
Your last minute election prep: Common Sense Red Deer talks to the candidates
-
Automotive2 days ago
$15 Billion, Zero Assurances: Stellantis Abandons Brampton as Trudeau-Era Green Deal Collapses
-
Business1 day ago
Trump Admin Blows Up UN ‘Global Green New Scam’ Tax Push, Forcing Pullback