U.S. President Donald Trump’s aggressive economic tactics are threatening to send Canada into levels of economic chaos not seen in decades. This is compounding the affordability and climate crises we’re already facing in our country. While this is a time of enormous challenge, it also presents an opportunity for change.
When someone shows you who they are, you should believe them. As Trump leans into the economic playbook of dictators around the world, we need to learn from those who have successfully cut ties with hostile actors, while accelerating the transition to affordable, clean, secure energy for their communities.
Canada is hugely exposed to the whims of Trump’s hostile use of American trade policy, and nowhere is that more true than with our oil and gas sector. In 2023, Canada sent about 97 per cent of its crude oil exports to the United States. Oil, gas and coal are a disaster for the climate. We know this. But what we talk about less often is how they’re increasingly becoming a terrible economic strategy.
In recent weeks, we’ve seen fossil fuel billionaires and many politicians in Canada pitch new fossil fuel megaprojects as some kind of solution to the problem we find ourselves in. This is far from a good idea. Increasing our dependence on volatile global fossil fuel markets as the world moves away from oil and gas would be a costly, dangerous mistake that would waste tens of billions of taxpayer dollars and do real harm to communities and landscapes in Canada.
Many of the major companies in Canada’s oil and gas sector are not even owned by Canadians. Much of the wealth they extract benefits foreign billionaires at the expense of Canadians and the climate.
Fossil fuel megaprojects take a decade or more to build and will do nothing to address the immediate and near-term challenges we face. Renewables, like wind and solar, on the other hand, can be planned and built in as little as two years.
If we need cheap, local energy that’s shovel-ready, we need renewables, not fossil fuels.
The era of fossil fuels is ending. Spending public resources on fossil fuel expansion is a waste of time and money, and we have neither to spare.
Since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022, we’ve seen Putin use fossil fuel markets as an instrument of war and coercion in Europe. The resulting market uncertainty and price spikes created an energy and affordability crisis that caused real pain to people and communities.
The European Union (EU) responded by moving quickly and decidedly away from dependence on Russian gas. Fast-tracking new renewable electricity and energy-efficiency projects has led to savings of more than 100 billion euros for electricity consumers.
As Trump uses fossil fuel markets as an instrument of aggression and coercion against Canada, we must learn from the EU and quickly reduce our dependence on fossil fuel markets. Moving away from fossil fuel extraction and export, and toward made-in-Canada renewables, reduces our exposure to volatile global markets, helps us finally begin to contribute our fair share to climate action, and saves us all money.
Wind and solar are increasingly owned by the Indigenous nations on whose lands all energy projects are built. Indigenous control and ownership move nations closer to energy sovereignty, while creating significant revenue streams for their communities. Opportunities exist for more community- and Indigenous-owned renewables in Canada to strengthen local benefits, affordability and energy security.
As we reach for solutions in these unprecedented times, we need to ask, “Who will benefit from our actions?” Will it be fossil fuel billionaires who are largely responsible for getting us into this mess, or will it be the people and communities that have so much to gain from affordable, clean, secure energy?
Stephen Thomas is the clean energy manager with the David Suzuki Foundation.
Comments
No argument from me... Can someone please tell our federal Liberal candidates this valuable
and utterly obvious information? With the exception of Karina Gould (please correct me if I'm mistaken), the others are all talking pipelines! It's leaving me shaking my head... I'm going to take a page from PeeWee and start calling the top two likely prospects "Pipeline Carney", and "Pipeline Freeland"! Hhhmnnn... Two pro-oil Albertans are our best chance to beat the oil soaked Conservatives? More head shaking...
Mark Carney spent years lecturing the international finance community on the dangers and costs of climate change, and wrote a thick book about it, and also the need to build a clean energy economy. Please read Chris Hatch's last CNO column a couple of days ago.
Having said that, he doesn't seem entirely focused on that now that he's entered politics and has not specifically ruled out CCUS and a new pipeline. I am at a loss to explain that, other than to surmise he's recognizing the high exposure the oil industry will have to economic calamity (with direct impacts on parts of Canada) it could face with Trump, and the consequences if he starts slamming oil and gas during his campaign.
His platform is still far better than anyone else's out there among those who actually have a shot at becoming PM.
Further, unlike Poilievre and some Libs like Jonathan Wilkinson, Carney has not advocated closer integration with the US on oil or anything else. That is just capitulation. Instead, he advocates moving away from total dependency on the US and building deeper trading relationships with our other democratic allies, especially the EU which has made very significant progress on renewables.
Just read this article in the Breach... It might be a bit too cynical/pessimistic, but I say pretty close to the Mark (Carney, that is :) https://breachmedia.ca/mark-carney-pragmatic-outsider-but-banker-sellin…
I got part way through the article and closed it. Too many assumptions, like he is putting words in Carney's mouth he didn't speak, and thoughts in his head he didn't think. Carney spent a decade criticizing the carbon-heavy economy and reiterating the phenomenal growth in renewables and the fact investments and professional estimates of fossil fuel production indicate that they are nearing the end of their run.
I read his book, I watched several recent lengthy interviews and nowhere did Carney say he would increase Canada's fossil fuel production and build more pipelines. He opened himself to CCUS and hydrogen in his printed platform, which is unfortunate, but those were only two items of many, and the rest were clearly on the much larger renewable and carbon-free ledger. Where does more gas and oil pipelines fit in with his extensive narrative on building a clean energy superpower?
Carney needs to be more specific on a few points, but his stint as a public servant regulating banks in two countries during crises -- one a banking crisis -- hardly makes him a "banker" who would drive us further down the oil sands pit.
Alex wrote: "the phenomenal growth in renewables and the fact investments and professional estimates of fossil fuel production indicate that they are nearing the end of their run"
Inaccurate.
According to IEA projections, while fossil fuel production may peak within the next decade, global oil and gas demand has a long tail. O&G demand does not decline dramatically but merely plateaus.
See "Global oil demand, 2015-2035" (graph)
https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/charts/global-oil-demand-2015-2…
IEA: "A wave of new LNG projects is set to add almost 50% to available export capacity by 2030."
"… Although oil demand for petrochemicals, aviation and shipping continues to increase through to 2050 in the STEPS, this is not enough to offset reductions in demand from road transport, as well as in the power and buildings sectors. As a result, oil demand peaks before 2030. The decline from the peak however is a slow one in the STEPS all the way through to 2050." (IEA, 2023)
IEA: "Change in global oil demand in selected regions, 2023-2035" (2024)
https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/charts/change-in-global-oil-dem…
Oil demand falls in Europe and N America, but grows elsewhere: China, India, SE Asia, the Middle East, and Africa.
Further, clean energy investment is extremely uneven. China's clean tech investments exceed investments by the USA and EU combined, with developing nations lagging far behind:
"Clean energy meets virtually all growth in energy demand in aggregate in the STEPS between 2023 and 2035, leading to an overall peak in demand for all three fossil fuels before 2030, although trends vary widely across countries at different stages of economic and energy development."
"The share of clean energy investment in emerging market and developing economies outside of China remains stuck at 15% of the total, even though these economies account for two-thirds of the global population and one-third of global GDP."
IEA: World Energy 2024 report: Overview and key findings
https://www.iea.org/reports/world-energy-outlook-2024/overview-and-key-…
Developing nations with two-thirds of the global population will continue to lag badly in clean energy investment. So what will they use instead?
Fossil fuels. For the majority of the world's population -- in the regions where energy demand is set to rise the most.
Thus, no meaningful emissions decline in the IEA's Stated Policies Scenario (STEPS). The IEA's STEPS scenario leads to 2.4 C of warming by 2100. We are on track for climate disaster.
Several major international energy analysis organizations nailed down the peak of oil demand to ~2030. The IEA published three scenarios on fossil fuel production, (i) a steady plateau stuck at ~100 million barrels a day to 2050, (ii) decline to ~60mbd by 2050, (iii) ~30mbd by 2030, the full Net Zero target.
Many prognosticators bet on (ii) as the most likely scenario, unkess a miracle happens and the Trumps and oil CEOs of thecworld have a religious conversion yo save mankind.
All three scenarios means there is no room for even one more pipeline in Canada, not based on volume after peak demand or financing. Note that no private pipeline company is volunteering to build Energy East.
And yes, all three scenarios pump more emissions into the atmosphere. This is why adaptation must accompany the emissions reduction efforts, and why both have to be put into high gear.
I have read Chris Hatch's article and Carney's Values (suggesting we rely on CEOs doing the "right thing" - Hello, most of them are narcissistic psychopaths - Not going to happen). I get it, Carney may be the best of a bad lot, but as someone who believes we have reached a point in time when we can no longer put "economic growth" above climate mitigation, I am sick & tired of our political leaders taking "baby steps" as a best case scenario. We need a leader to come out and call climate change a priority, and focus on the green transition that we should have seen years ago. Energy independence is going to be found with renewable energy and heat pumps (ground & air sourced), not with homegrown methane-spewing pipelines. It's time for some short term pain for long term gains.
Yes., But the Green Party has what? 7% of the vote tops nation-wide? Look at the difference in polls of Mark Carney vs. Pierre Poilievre. Then look at Karina Gould vs. Pierre Poilievre.
Result? Prime Minister Poilievre. Say goodbye to climate action then. Say hello to massive fossil fuel promotion.
The federal government is not a construction or energy company. When an owner (government, First Nations band, farmer, renewable energy company.....) builds a solar or wind farm they put out RFPs, RFEOIs, or RFQs to consultants and companies run by those very capitalist CEOs you despise so much to design and build the project.
Yes, CEOs are the very ones who will build the renewable projects we know are necessary. My only concern is that the public owner needs to retain ownership of at least the land and hopefully an equity slice of the operation. In all cases, minimum standards must be defined in the project scope and in long term operations.
In an ideal scenario, Canada would build out a robust distributed network of renewables (solar, wind, and green storage), owned by communities / coops. What we need governments (Federal, Provincial and municipal) to do is provide the engineering design and coordination to ensure grid linkages where necessary to share reserves and balance the load. Current government mindsets can't fathom this model as it doesn't fit nicely into their neo-liberal ideology of "grow baby grow" economy. If it can't be bottled and exported/sold, it only helps people and communities, not corporations (CEOs and shareholders) - Heaven forbid!
Everything you wrote before "current government mindsets..." is actually the majority standard practice, with the exception of coops. I worked in municipal government for 27 years and 6 years before that as a private design consultant and saw it firsthand from both sides of the counter.
The rare exceptions are when predominantly conservative governments try to privatize public assets, or slightly more often, give too much control to private construction or management consortiums. In all cases I'm familiar with there was public backlash.
This is one of the most clear articles on the transition out there. Kudos!
I would add that US refineries are now talking openly about ramping down their dependency on tariffed Canadian heavy oil by retooling for US light oil. The ramifications for Alberta would be devastating, though it will take years to bring enough light oil refining capacity online to displace most Canadian oil.
The lag time is an ideal period in which to ramp up renewables and mass ekectrufucation at home and cut our stupid dependency on (i), a single market and (ii), climate busting substances.
The problem with US light oil is that most of it comes from fracked shale which has serious geological constraints that lead to high decline rates. Fracked shale wells dry up a lot quicker than the old largely depleted convention wells. Fracking and multi-drectional drilling is also expensive and the investment hype routinely ignores the high debt levels of shale drilling outfits forced to drill more just to maintain steady production rates.
There is also a world oil glut in the works in part as renewables nibble away at oil demand. Oversupply leads to falling prices. Low prices lead to uneconomical investment regimes.
Moving into a variety of renewables is looking like the best way for nations to get off the merry go round of carbon economics and to leave the petroleum circus once and for all.
Leave the United States to its fossil energy fate. Get off oil and gas at home, make more stuff at home and use more of our own human resources to build a better society and to make better friends.