Keep climate a national priority — donate today
It’s time to build. That was Mark Carney’s message to Canadians during the election campaign, and it ought to be one of his top priorities as he continues his job as prime minister. That means more housing, more healthcare and more (heck, any) high-speed rail. But it also means more energy — and more of the infrastructure that moves and manages it.
That’s right: it’s time for the Liberals to build another national energy program. Done properly, this one can enhance national unity rather than undermining it. It can help heal the rifts being exploited in Alberta by Danielle Smith and her not-at-all-merry band of separatists. It can lay the foundation for the sort of national economy (and national economic mindset) that Carney has talked about repeatedly. And it can help Canada meet its climate goals and grow its economy at the same time.
It should begin with a national electricity grid, one that improves our collective resilience, increases the volume of electrons available for decarbonization and lowers costs in the process. As the International Institute for Sustainable Development noted in a December 2024 report, this would stimulate economic activity across the country, from Quebec’s planned build-out of hydroelectricity to Atlantic Canada’s near limitless wind potential, Ontario’s fleet of nuclear reactors and Alberta’s massive wind and solar capacity.
Rather than buying electrons from the United States, as tends to happen now, we can buy them from each other instead — and create tens of thousands of new jobs in the process. It would also, in time, save Canadian households and businesses billions of dollars. As the Canadian Climate Institute’s own report shows, reaching net-zero electricity by 2050 will mean a 12 per cent decrease in average household energy spending, with 70 per cent of households saving an average of $1,500 per year.
A new national energy program wouldn’t just be about renewable energy, though. As Carney said during the campaign, “it's time to build new trade and energy corridors working in partnership with the provinces, territories and Indigenous peoples.” Those corridors can help us unlock the enormous value contained in the ground across the country, whether it’s critical minerals in Ontario and Quebec or oil, gas, uranium and potash on the prairies. In a world that will be defined over the next three decades by an energy transition, we have everything needed to fuel its progress.
This is not the sort of blank cheque for fossil fuel development that so many in the Conservative world are calling for, though. There can be no attempts to ram pipelines through resistance in the way that defined the Harper government’s colossal (and costly) failures on this file. Instead, those new trade and energy corridors should be designed with the express purpose of empowering the adjacent communities in British Columbia, Ontario and Quebec to benefit from the resources that might flow through them.
New oil and gas pipelines, if there is private sector interest in building them — no sure thing given collapsing oil prices and the prospect of another OPEC-driven price war — must be built with the national interest foremost in mind. That means displacing foreign and US oil imports and increasing our energy independence ought to be a higher priority than accessing global markets. It also means that there can be no new infrastructure connecting Canada’s oil and gas with the United States, as Premier Smith and other Conservatives have continued to propose.
And yes, all of this has to be done with an eye on climate change. Maybe that means a more deliberate attempt to get oil and gas companies off their wallets on emissions reductions, both through support for carbon capture and storage projects and the strengthening of the existing industrial carbon price. If the Carney government is willing to eliminate the emissions cap, as I suggested it should in an earlier column, it could both lower the political temperature and force the Alberta government to the negotiating table. Its price for any deal on that ought to be the elimination of all the provincial red tape and regulations that are being used to deliberately suffocate Alberta’s wind and solar industry.
A national energy program for the 21st century wouldn’t be without its critics. It would provoke howls of outrage from the people — mostly in Alberta or the pages of Postmedia publications — who practically live to complain about anything a Liberal government does. And it would invite comparisons to the first National Energy Program, one that has been effectively misrepresented and weaponized by Conservative politicians for over four decades now. It’s not without its risks, in other words.
But the potential rewards make that risk worth taking. A new national energy program would create a clear sense of common purpose, support the creation of jobs and economic activity across the country and help advance Canada’s interests and aspirations on climate change. It would, in the most literal sense of the term, be an act of nation-building — one that might be more needed than ever.
Comments
If we in Alberta could elect a government with ideas instead of one with complaints and a 1950’s vision of the future, then we might truly unlock the potential of the west and provide a stable future for generations. It is that simple, vote for forward vision, not backward.
Fawcett: "And [a national energy program] can help Canada meet its climate goals and grow its economy at the same time."
Note the conspicuous absence of climate and energy experts in Fawcett's column. His wishful op-ed cites no academic analysis or study. The column is based merely on his uninformed imaginings.
Climate and energy experts could set Fawcett straight once and for all:
1) Prof. Marc Jaccard, Prof. Andrew Leach, the Canadian Climate Institute, the Pembina Institute, and Canada's Environment Commissioner could advise Fawcett that fossil-fuel expansion enabled by new pipelines makes it impossible for Canada to meet its climate targets.
2) The IEA, the IPCC, every ENGO, the 400+ scientists and academics who signed an open letter in January 2022, energy ecologist Vaclav Smil, the American Petroleum Institute, and even the Alberta government itself could advise Fawcett that taxpayer-funded carbon capture (CCS) in the O&G sector is a Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad idea.
Again, it does not matter how much money the government invests in renewables. If government invests in or otherwise enables fossil-fuel expansion at the same time, Canada cannot hope to meet its climate targets.
This today on The Tyee:
"BC Admits It Won’t Come Close to 2025 and 2030 Climate Goals" (The Tyee, 1 May 2025)
Fawcett: "In a world that will be defined over the next three decades by an energy transition, we have everything needed to fuel its progress."
Transitions start by moving in the direction you wish to travel. Doubling down on fossil fuels takes us in the wrong direction.
Fossil-fuel expansion cannot fuel the energy transition. Fossil-fuel expansion is antithetical to the energy transition.
Naomi Oreskes (CBC Radio,2017): "It's such an idiotic argument, it's really hard to give a rational answer to it. If you are building pipelines, you're committing yourself to another 30, 50, 75, 100 years of fossil fuel infrastructure. If we're really serious about decarbonizing our economy, it means we have to stop building fossil fuel infrastructure."
Compromise solutions that try to please everybody may be good politics, but the policy contradiction defies the best available science — and common sense.
Fawcett's continual dispensations of disinformation on Canada's energy future is a disservice to Observer readers.
Observer readers deserve expert energy and climate analysis. The former editor of Alberta Oil Magazine has shown again and again that he is either unable or unwilling to provide it.
If Fawcett has a climate plan, it is a plan to fail.
Why does CNO platform a climate disinformer? To soften up climate-concerned Canadians for the Liberals' fossil-fuel expansion agenda?
Fawcett: "That means displacing foreign and US oil imports and increasing our energy independence ought to be a higher priority than accessing global markets."
Idle thinking. A new east-west pipeline will be largely for exports. The bulk of which will go to the U.S.
It is uneconomic to pipe oil from Alberta to New Brunswick. Retooling Eastern Canada refineries for Alberta's heavy oil will cost billions. Who will pay?
Are Eastern Canadians customers willing to pay more at the gas pump for self-sufficiency?
In January 2022, 400+ scientists and academics signed an open letter advising against federal support for carbon capture (CCUS) in the O&G sector:
"Effective solutions to achieve deep emission reductions in the next decade along a pathway to zero emissions are already at hand, including renewable energy, electrification and energy efficiency. Funding CCUS diverts resources from these proven, more cost effective solutions that are available on the timeframes required to mitigate climate change.
"Despite decades of research, CCUS is neither economically sound nor proven at scale, with a terrible track record and limited potential to deliver significant, cost-effective emissions reductions.
"…Moreover, CCUS remains prohibitively expensive, while the costs of renewables have plummeted to the point that they are cheaper than fossil fuels. So unsurprisingly, over 80% of CCUS projects in the United States have failed.
"… Put simply, rather than replacing fossil fuels, carbon capture prolongs our dependence on them at a time when preventing catastrophic climate change requires winding down fossil fuel use. Relying on CCUS preserves status quo fossil fuel development, which must be curtailed to meet global climate commitments. Introducing a tax credit for CCUS for the energy sector will lock-in continued dependence on Canada's largest and most rapidly growing source of greenhouse gas emissions.
"… Deploying CCUS at any climate-relevant scale, carried out within the short timeframe we have to avert climate catastrophe without posing substantial risks to communities on the frontlines of the buildout, is a pipe dream."
Forget about carbon capture and storage: all it does is reduce a small fraction of the CO2 injected into the atmosphere by the oil economy in order to increase production that will emit even more CO2; there is no money to be made with that. CO2 in the soil has no value.
Forget about Climate targets: climate has become a negative word. Instead, do all we can to reduce energy use and save costs.
By all means, work with Alberta on positive adventures, and help reduce the tariffs on canola, (and steel and aluminium) be reducing our import tariffs on China's EV's. Try to get Chinese to manufacture at least parts of their EV's in Canada.
I can agree with that take on China, but I urge deep caution about any direct involvement in our domestic economy. We are not fully educated yet on the downfall of having the US so deeply integrated with our econony. That is an evolving reality, and in several respects the worst is yet to come. China can be far worse if we let it.
Alternatively, we also must recognize that Chinese components already exist in nearly all our consumer goods, and in some industries China produces the highest qualty and most advanced highly vital products in the world. Batteries are a big example.
There is no point in negotiating with Danielle Smith, and trying to do so would not "lower the temperature". This idea is based on the notion that Danielle Smith's politics has in some way something to do with actual grievances of Albertans, which, if addressed, would make them less angry with the federal government.
But that is not the case, for two reasons. First, Albertans' perceived grievances are based on what the media, including right wing social media rabbit holes, tells them their grievances should be. The Alberta media, including right wing social media rabbit holes, is largely controlled by the Alberta oil patch, whether directly, through being a big advertiser that news outlets don't want to offend, by funding the think tanks and PR companies that do the astroturf, or whatever. And the Alberta oil patch is American owned; it has no interest in what happens to Alberta or Albertans, and would certainly have no interest in pipeline schemes that were intended to benefit Canada rather than their US parent companies (not that any fossil fuel pipeline scheme would actually help Canada, but there could be one that didn't benefit US oil companies).
Given this, the only thing that could "lower the temperature" would be either a Canadian government that was completely subservient to American, and specifically American fossil fuel, interests, or sweeping media reform that stopped the Alberta oil patch from controlling nearly all political discourse in Alberta, or the near complete collapse of the oil patch itself, such that it could no longer fund its garbage. The good news is there's a pretty good chance of that last one in the not so long term future.
The second reason is that even if there were genuine grievances Albertans had with the federal government, which could in theory be addressed through negotiations with Alberta, Danielle Smith's politics of fed-bashing has nothing to do with those grievances. Again, she is completely owned by the US-owned oil companies operating in Alberta, and she's also corrupt in other ways, and she has some crazy political ideas of her own, so a lot of what she does in government is inevitably going to HARM the people of Alberta, and sometimes they are going to notice. The politics of going after the feds is mainly about distracting from the harm she is doing to her province, some on purpose, some by accident. The federal government cannot by negotiation stop her from continuing to harm her own people, and so cannot take away her need to make up things to blame them for. All they can possibly do with negotiation is reward her strategy by giving her a "win" to trumpet, validating further relentless attacks.
Agreed. At some point you simply have to call it, and pull rank.
The Supreme Court has already ruled on federal jurisdiction over climate change, but Smith scrupulously avoids that of course, continuing instead with the victim BS where the feds have been attacking "their" economy for years via "their" precious oil industry for no reason other than..... uh, what exactly I wonder?
Well, with confidence in just fire-hosing misinformation being deeply ingrained now, thanks to all the media you mention, along with the federal government's (and journalist's) skittishness about asking Smith WHY she keeps calling top drawer, settled science "ideology," the only reasonable conclusion is pure malice aforethought. (The conservatives give themselves away constantly with such kneejerk, outlandish inferences because that's what moves THEM.)
Her press conference this afternoon was unusual and very disturbing to watch, and just infuriating, even when you live here and know the drill.
I feel for Mark Carney, but with progressives' electoral win, maybe this full court press will clarify what has to be done.
Carney at least has vote rich Quebec, some big cities and Atlantic Canada behind him. It would be a tall order, but Carney can afford to call out Smith's BS and accept constitutional challenges on federal jurisdiction in regulating pollution, crossing provincial boundaries with federal clean power grids and challenging the AB sovereignty blackmail.
That challenge will create a massive backlash in political rhetoric, but it would also resolve the issue that bluster and threats can succeed against the feds forever.
80% of the Irving Refinery production goes to the USA, so the Alberta oil would have to be as cheap as oil off a tanker. So why would we subsidize US consumers?
Generally potash demand goes up 3% per year, when the BHP mine comes on line, supply > demand for the next 10 years, older mines may close, if not dirt cheap potash
The IPCC is incredibly clear that building any new fossil fuel infrastructure guarantees that the Paris Agreement climate goals will become forever unreachable and ensure that the worst climate scenarios become completely unavoidable. Absolutely any suggestion that fossil fuel infrastructure can be expanded "in a way that serves the national best interest" is a gaslighting death wish, unless we somehow feel certain that collapsing the world's agricultural productivity to obliterate our food supply is somehow good news. It's exasperating to perpetually see pundits like Max falsely frame climate denial policy as principled climate solutions, when they're basically the equivalent of saying that the best way to put out a house fire is by wielding a flamethrower.