Energy policies proposed at Republican and Democrat conventions are worlds apart

From the Daily Caller News Foundation

Democrats Are On A Different Planet

As Republicans and Democrats meet at the conventions and propose policies for the next four years, the contrast between Republican and Democrat energy policies could not be greater.

Republicans would speed up oil and natural gas production; eliminate mandates to purchase electric vehicles; get rid of subsidies for renewables; and end dependence on China. Democrats propose to electrify the energy supply, ridding the economy of gasoline-powered vehicles and natural-gas appliances and substituting solar and wind for legacy fuels.

Through a series of executive orders and regulations, President Joe Biden has reduced federal oil and gas leases. America has 373.1 billion barrels of technically recoverable crude oil resources, and 2,973 trillion cubic feet of technically recoverable natural gas resources — an 85-year supply. Expect the next Republican administration to encourage production and use these resources to lower energy prices at home and around the world.

A Republican president would be able to reverse Biden’s executive orders and regulations. Increasing energy production is fourth out of 20 promises in the 2024 Republican Platform, “We will DRILL, BABY, DRILL and we will become Energy Independent, and even Dominant again. The United States has more liquid gold under our feet than any other Nation, and it’s not even close. The Republican Party will harness that potential to power our future.”

A Republican administration would allow a choice in cars. The Republican Party Platform calls for cancelling the mandate for EVs.

The Biden administration is subsidizing electric vehicles through the Inflation Reduction Act. Companies are paid to manufacture these EVs and consumers get tax credits to buy them. The Environmental Protection Agency’s final tailpipe rule would require 70% of new cars sold and 25% or new trucks sold to be battery powered electric or plug-in hybrid by 2032.

The Biden administration has focused on providing wind and solar power through billions in tax credits in the Infrastructure and Jobs Act and the Inflation Reduction Act. Either directly or through access to banks and Wall Street investors, it is deciding who is suitable to receive funding for energy projects.

But government control of energy is control of people and the economy. This is one reason why the trend toward nationalization of our energy industry through government mandates, bans on the production and use of oil and natural gas and reorganization of the electric grid is so dangerous.

Under a new Republican administration, rather than slowing down pipeline approval, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission would focus on speeding it up. The Bureau of Land Management would prioritize approving both onshore and offshore drilling permits. The Security and Exchange Commission would no longer look at climate effects of companies’ investments, and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency would not look at the climate effects of bank loans.

Democrat energy policies increase dependence on China because China makes nearly 80% of the world’s batteries and is home to 7 out of 10 of the world’s largest solar panel manufacturers, and 7 out of 10 of the world’s largest wind turbine manufacturers. China dominates the critical minerals such as lithium and cobalt required for EVs through its own mines and by purchasing mines in Africa and Latin America.

Trade with China is not free or fair. China can produce lower-cost goods because it subsidizes labor, capital and energy. It uses forced labor from Xinjiang; gives low-interest rate loans to favored companies; and is not bound by the clean energy regulations of the West.

The next administration should use America’s domestic resources and provide tools to assist our allies and deter our adversaries.

Diana Furchtgott-Roth, former deputy assistant secretary for research and technology at the U.S. Department of Transportation, is the director of The Heritage Foundation’s Center for Energy, Climate and Environment.

Up Next

Federal government’s emission-reduction plan will cost Canadian workers $6,700 annually by 2030—while failing to meet government’s emission-reduction target

Don't Miss

Chuck Schumer Reportedly ‘Forcefully’ Urged Biden To Drop Out Of Race

Todayville

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

Manhunt on for suspect in shooting deaths of Minnesota House speaker, husband

Canadian Energy Centre / 5 hours ago

Cross-Canada economic benefits of the proposed Northern Gateway Pipeline project

Alberta / 5 hours ago

Albertans need clarity on prime minister’s incoherent energy policy

Canadian Energy Centre

Cross-Canada economic benefits of the proposed Northern Gateway Pipeline project

Published on June 15, 2025

Todayville

From the Canadian Energy Centre

Billions in government revenue and thousands of jobs across provinces

Announced in 2006, the Northern Gateway project would have built twin pipelines between Bruderheim, Alta. and a marine terminal at Kitimat, B.C.

One pipeline would export 525,000 barrels per day of heavy oil from Alberta to tidewater markets. The other would import 193,000 barrels per day of condensate to Alberta to dilute heavy oil for pipeline transportation.

The project would have generated significant economic benefits across Canada.

The following projections are drawn from the report Public Interest Benefits of the Northern Gateway Project (Wright Mansell Research Ltd., July 2012), which was submitted as reply evidence during the regulatory process.

Financial figures have been adjusted to 2025 dollars using the Bank of Canada’s Inflation Calculator, with $1.00 in 2012 equivalent to $1.34 in 2025.

Total Government Revenue by Region

Between 2019 and 2048, a period encompassing both construction and operations, the Northern Gateway project was projected to generate the following total government revenues by region (direct, indirect and induced):

British Columbia

Provincial government revenue: $11.5 billion
Federal government revenue: $8.9 billion
Total: $20.4 billion

Alberta

Provincial government revenue: $49.4 billion
Federal government revenue: $41.5 billion
Total: $90.9 billion

Ontario

Provincial government revenue: $1.7 billion
Federal government revenue: $2.7 billion
Total: $4.4 billion

Quebec

Provincial government revenue: $746 million
Federal government revenue: $541 million
Total: $1.29 billion

Saskatchewan

Provincial government revenue: $6.9 billion
Federal government revenue: $4.4 billion
Total: $11.3 billion

Other

Provincial government revenue: $1.9 billion
Federal government revenue: $1.4 billion
Total: $3.3 billion

Canada

Provincial government revenue: $72.1 billion
Federal government revenue: $59.4 billion
Total: $131.7 billion

Annual Government Revenue by Region

Over the period 2019 and 2048, the Northern Gateway project was projected to generate the following annual government revenues by region (direct, indirect and induced):

British Columbia

Provincial government revenue: $340 million
Federal government revenue: $261 million
Total: $601 million per year

Alberta

Provincial government revenue: $1.5 billion
Federal government revenue: $1.2 billion
Total: $2.7 billion per year

Ontario

Provincial government revenue: $51 million
Federal government revenue: $79 million
Total: $130 million per year

Quebec

Provincial government revenue: $21 million
Federal government revenue: $16 million
Total: $37 million per year

Saskatchewan

Provincial government revenue: $204 million
Federal government revenue: $129 million
Total: $333 million per year

Other

Provincial government revenue: $58 million
Federal government revenue: $40 million
Total: $98 million per year

Canada

Provincial government revenue: $2.1 billion
Federal government revenue: $1.7 billion
Total: $3.8 billion per year

Employment by Region

Over the period 2019 to 2048, the Northern Gateway Pipeline was projected to generate the following direct, indirect and induced full-time equivalent (FTE) jobs by region:

British Columbia

Annual average: 7,736
Total over the period: 224,344

Alberta

Annual average: 11,798
Total over the period: 342,142

Ontario

Annual average: 3,061
Total over the period: 88,769

Quebec

Annual average: 1,003
Total over the period: 29,087

Saskatchewan

Annual average: 2,127
Total over the period: 61,683

Other

Annual average: 953
Total over the period: 27,637

Canada

Annual average: 26,678
Total over the period: 773,662

Alberta

Albertans need clarity on prime minister’s incoherent energy policy

Published on June 15, 2025

Todayville

From the Fraser Institute

By Tegan Hill

The new government under Prime Minister Mark Carney recently delivered its throne speech, which set out the government’s priorities for the coming term. Unfortunately, on energy policy, Albertans are still waiting for clarity.

Prime Minister Carney’s position on energy policy has been confusing, to say the least. On the campaign trail, he promised to keep Trudeau’s arbitrary emissions cap for the oil and gas sector, and Bill C-69 (which opponents call the “no more pipelines act”). Then, two weeks ago, he said his government will “change things at the federal level that need to be changed in order for projects to move forward,” adding he may eventually scrap both the emissions cap and Bill C-69.

His recent cabinet appointments further muddied his government’s position. On one hand, he appointed Tim Hodgson as the new minister of Energy and Natural Resources. Hodgson has called energy “Canada’s superpower” and promised to support oil and pipelines, and fix the mistrust that’s been built up over the past decade between Alberta and Ottawa. His appointment gave hope to some that Carney may have a new approach to revitalize Canada’s oil and gas sector.

On the other hand, he appointed Julie Dabrusin as the new minister of Environment and Climate Change. Dabrusin was the parliamentary secretary to the two previous environment ministers (Jonathan Wilkinson and Steven Guilbeault) who opposed several pipeline developments and were instrumental in introducing the oil and gas emissions cap, among other measures designed to restrict traditional energy development.

To confuse matters further, Guilbeault, who remains in Carney’s cabinet albeit in a diminished role, dismissed the need for additional pipeline infrastructure less than 48 hours after Carney expressed conditional support for new pipelines.

The throne speech was an opportunity to finally provide clarity to Canadians—and specifically Albertans—about the future of Canada’s energy industry. During her first meeting with Prime Minister Carney, Premier Danielle Smith outlined Alberta’s demands, which include scrapping the emissions cap, Bill C-69 and Bill C-48, which bans most oil tankers loading or unloading anywhere on British Columbia’s north coast (Smith also wants Ottawa to support an oil pipeline to B.C.’s coast). But again, the throne speech provided no clarity on any of these items. Instead, it contained vague platitudes including promises to “identify and catalyse projects of national significance” and “enable Canada to become the world’s leading energy superpower in both clean and conventional energy.”

Until the Carney government provides a clear plan to address the roadblocks facing Canada’s energy industry, private investment will remain on the sidelines, or worse, flow to other countries. Put simply, time is up. Albertans—and Canadians—need clarity. No more flip flopping and no more platitudes.