Connect with us

Energy

Fossil fuels not going away anytime soon

Published

5 minute read

From the Fraser Institute

By Jock Finlayson

At a time of persistent cost of living pressures and mounting worldwide geopolitical tension, it’s not surprising that energy issues are in the spotlight in Canada and beyond.

Earlier this year, the Trudeau government decided to freeze its carbon tax for home heating fuels in Atlantic Canada in the face of ferocious opposition to further tax hikes from premiers, local communities and MPs in the region. Smart politicians understand that Canadians today are attuned as never before to energy prices, including fuel prices at the pump.

With policymakers in Canada and elsewhere also preoccupied with climate change, we are exposed to sharply conflicting narratives about the future of energy. In one corner are those who spy a rapid and epic shift away from the fossil fuels that still supply 80 per cent of the world’s energy. In the other corner are skeptics who doubt that the dominant place of fossil fuels in the energy system will soon disappear.

As the debate continues, the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) is an important source of well-grounded information. It provides regular updates on trends in energy supply and demand, both in the United States and globally. EIA forecasts deserve attention given the agency’s solid track record of predicting energy market developments.

On crude oil prices, the EIA now believes the main U.S. benchmark price will hover between US$85 and $90 per barrel over 2024-25. That’s good news for Canada, as crude oil ranks as our number one export. In its May 2024 market update, the EIA observes that “the startup of the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion… will alleviate existing distribution bottlenecks and allow for a gradual increase in oil production.”  While one would never know it from scanning federal government news releases, Canadian oil production and export volumes are set to climb over the rest of the decade. And Canada’s energy-based export earnings will also receive a sizable boost once shipments of liquified natural gas (LNG) commence from LNG projects nearing completion in British Columbia.

Meanwhile, the EIA sees global oil consumption increasing further, after dipping briefly during the pandemic, reaching 105 million barrels per day by 2026.

Globally, there’s little evidence that consumers are turning away from petroleum and other liquid fuels, contrary to the claims of some Canadian politicians and environmental groups. Amid endless chatter about energy transitions and governments allocating gargantuan sums to an expanding hodgepodge of programs to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, the world collectively still depends on oil and other carbon-based fuels for the vast majority of its energy.

None of this is surprising. The “dense” energy provided by fossil fuels is greatly valued by consumers and remains difficult to replace with other primary energy sources. Fossil fuels have played a central role in economic development since the dawn of industrialization. That will not change anytime soon.

Which is why the EIA doesn’t expect much progress in reducing GHG emissions in the coming one or two decades. In its recent comprehensive forecast, it projects that “global energy-related… emissions will increase through 2050” under almost all of the policy scenarios it models.

How can that be, with all of the political attention being given to climate change in many countries? Because rising populations and incomes, particularly in China, India and other emerging economies, “will offset the effects of declining energy and carbon intensity on emissions.” And also because outside of the electricity sector, there simply aren’t enough reliable cost-effective non-fossil fuel energy sources to satisfy the world’s still growing need for energy.

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

Automotive

Federal government should swiftly axe foolish EV mandate

Published on

From the Fraser Institute

By Kenneth P. Green

Two recent events exemplify the fundamental irrationality that is Canada’s electric vehicle (EV) policy.

First, the Carney government re-committed to Justin Trudeau’s EV transition mandate that by 2035 all (that’s 100 per cent) of new car sales in Canada consist of “zero emission vehicles” including battery EVs, plug-in hybrid EVs and fuel-cell powered vehicles (which are virtually non-existent in today’s market). This policy has been a foolish idea since inception. The mass of car-buyers in Canada showed little desire to buy them in 2022, when the government announced the plan, and they still don’t want them.

Second, President Trump’s “Big Beautiful” budget bill has slashed taxpayer subsidies for buying new and used EVs, ended federal support for EV charging stations, and limited the ability of states to use fuel standards to force EVs onto the sales lot. Of course, Canada should not craft policy to simply match U.S. policy, but in light of policy changes south of the border Canadian policymakers would be wise to give their own EV policies a rethink.

And in this case, a rethink—that is, scrapping Ottawa’s mandate—would only benefit most Canadians. Indeed, most Canadians disapprove of the mandate; most do not want to buy EVs; most can’t afford to buy EVs (which are more expensive than traditional internal combustion vehicles and more expensive to insure and repair); and if they do manage to swing the cost of an EV, most will likely find it difficult to find public charging stations.

Also, consider this. Globally, the mining sector likely lacks the ability to keep up with the supply of metals needed to produce EVs and satisfy government mandates like we have in Canada, potentially further driving up production costs and ultimately sticker prices.

Finally, if you’re worried about losing the climate and environmental benefits of an EV transition, you should, well, not worry that much. The benefits of vehicle electrification for climate/environmental risk reduction have been oversold. In some circumstances EVs can help reduce GHG emissions—in others, they can make them worse. It depends on the fuel used to generate electricity used to charge them. And EVs have environmental negatives of their own—their fancy tires cause a lot of fine particulate pollution, one of the more harmful types of air pollution that can affect our health. And when they burst into flames (which they do with disturbing regularity) they spew toxic metals and plastics into the air with abandon.

So, to sum up in point form. Prime Minister Carney’s government has re-upped its commitment to the Trudeau-era 2035 EV mandate even while Canadians have shown for years that most don’t want to buy them. EVs don’t provide meaningful environmental benefits. They represent the worst of public policy (picking winning or losing technologies in mass markets). They are unjust (tax-robbing people who can’t afford them to subsidize those who can). And taxpayer-funded “investments” in EVs and EV-battery technology will likely be wasted in light of the diminishing U.S. market for Canadian EV tech.

If ever there was a policy so justifiably axed on its failed merits, it’s Ottawa’s EV mandate. Hopefully, the pragmatists we’ve heard much about since Carney’s election victory will acknowledge EV reality.

Kenneth P. Green

Senior Fellow, Fraser Institute
Continue Reading

Daily Caller

Trump Issues Order To End Green Energy Gravy Train, Cites National Security

Published on

 

From the Daily Caller News Foundation

By Audrey Streb

President Donald Trump issued an executive order calling for the end of green energy subsidies by strengthening provisions in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act on Monday night, citing national security concerns and unnecessary costs to taxpayers.

The order argues that a heavy reliance on green energy subsidies compromise the reliability of the power grid and undermines energy independence. Trump called for the U.S. to “rapidly eliminate” federal green energy subsidies and to “build upon and strengthen” the repeal of wind and solar tax credits remaining in the reconciliation law in the order, directing the Treasury Department to enforce the phase-out of tax credits.

“For too long, the Federal Government has forced American taxpayers to subsidize expensive and unreliable energy sources like wind and solar,” the order states. “Reliance on so-called ‘green’ subsidies threatens national security by making the United States dependent on supply chains controlled by foreign adversaries.”

Dear Readers:

As a nonprofit, we are dependent on the generosity of our readers.

Please consider making a small donation of any amount here.

Thank you!

Former President Joe Biden established massive green energy subsidies under his signature 2022 Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), which did not receive a single Republican vote.

The reconciliation package did not immediately terminate Biden-era federal subsidies for green energy technology, phasing them out over time instead, though some policy experts argued that drawn-out timelines could lead to an indefinite continuation of subsidies. Trump’s executive order alludes to potential loopholes in the bill, calling for a review by Secretary of the Treasury Scott Bessent to ensure that green energy projects that have a “beginning of construction” tax credit deadline are not “circumvented.”

Additionally, the executive order directs the U.S. to end taxpayer support for green energy supply chains that are controlled by foreign adversaries, alluding to China’s supply chain dominance for solar and wind. Trump also specifically highlighted costs to taxpayers, market distortions and environmental impacts of subsidized green energy development in explaining the policy.

Ahead of the reconciliation bill becoming law, Trump told Republicans that “we’ve got all the cards, and we are going to use them.” Several House Republicans noted that the president said he would use executive authority to enhance the bill and strictly enforce phase-outs, which helped persuade some conservatives to back the bill.

Continue Reading

Trending

X