By Mitchell Beer

Donald Trump’s weekend raid on Venezuela has analysts debating how quickly the country can restore some of its past oil production, how much that activity will benefit Trump’s fossil industry donors and allies, and whether the White House agenda is about extracting more oil or asserting global power in a glutted oil market.

Meanwhile, national leaders from Colombia and Cuba to Canada, Greenland, and Denmark are reacting to a new geopolitical reality as Trump’s agenda for Western Hemisphere domination comes into sharper focus.

Venezuela holds the largest oil reserves in the world, at an estimated 303 billion barrels. At the media conference Saturday where he announced that U.S. forces had kidnapped Venezuelan President Nicólas Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, to stand trial in New York, Trump was clear about the plan, though not so much about how he expected to deliver on it.

“We’re going to have our very large United States oil companies, the biggest anywhere in the world, go in, spend billions of dollars, fix the badly broken infrastructure, the oil infrastructure, and start making money for the country,” he told media.

If that happens, it’ll also deliver a financial windfall to Trump’s billionaire supporter Paul Singer, co-CEO of Elliot Investment Management, which indirectly owns Citgo—a U.S.-based subsidiary of Venezuela’s state oil company that in turn owns three refineries on the U.S. Gulf Coast, 43 oil terminals, and a network of more than 4,000 independently-held gas stations, Popular Information reported Monday.

A New Balance of Power

Trump’s top-line message ricocheted through North American fossil fuel markets on Monday. Canadian oil sands giants Suncor Energy, Cenovus Energy, and Canadian Natural Resources Ltd. initially lost 4% to 7% of their share value before recovering somewhat through the day, CBC reports. That was because “refineries on the U.S. Gulf Coast are set up to process heavy crude like that produced in Alberta’s oil sands and in Venezuela,” The Canadian Press explains. “U.S. sanctions on the South American country have meant virtually none of its supplies go to the U.S. market today.”

But “if those restrictions were lifted, then Canada may have more competition right away in terms of Venezuelan oil that now technically can access the U.S. Gulf Coast,” Jackie Forrest, executive director of the ARC Energy Research Institute, told the news agency.

In the U.S., shares in Chevron Corporation, which operates in Venezuela, and ExxonMobil, which did in the past, moved “sharply higher”, The Associated Press writes, with analysts at JPMorgan projecting Monday that the U.S. takeover could “reshape the balance of power in international energy markets.”

And yet, “not much has changed in oil markets near-term and it could be months or even years before the fate of sanctions and Venezuela’s production shakes out,” CP writes, citing Dane Gregoris, managing director of the oil and gas research group with the Enervus analytics platform.

“Political changes happen quickly, but industrial changes happen very slowly,” he said.

Despite many years of international sanctions and poor maintenance of its oilfield infrastructure, “some oil industry analysts believe Venezuela could double or triple its current output of about 1.1 million barrels of oil a day and return the nation to historic production levels relatively quickly,” AP adds. “If or when that would happen, however, is more complex. Many energy analysts see a longer and more difficult road ahead.”

Bloomberg opinion columnist Javier Blas says Trump has set out to build “his very own oil empire,” with political sway over available reserves in the U.S., Latin America, and Canada. “Like it or not, all of them are living under the ‘Donroe Doctrine’—an increasingly belligerent Washington’s sphere of influence over the Americas,” he writes. “Together they account for nearly 40% of the world’s oil output” and 20% of global reserves, giving him “an economic and geopolitical lever no U.S. president has had since Franklin D. Roosevelt in the 1940s.”

Citing two sources from outside that sphere of influence, a U.S.-sanctioned Russian oligarch and a Kremlin envoy, Blas opines that “having de facto control of the Western Hemisphere’s petroleum wealth is a geopolitical game changer. For decades, U.S. military adventurism was constrained by the impact of any war on energy costs. Today the White House has primacy over oil-producing allies and adversaries alike—whether it’s Saudi Arabia or Iran, Nigeria or Russia.”

Fossils May Not Play Along

But not all analysts agree that U.S. fossil companies are likely to play along.

“For weeks, Trump has been courting oil companies, promising them a glorious return to Venezuela,” after the country “seized private assets decades ago in its push to nationalize the petroleum industry,” Politico Power Switch writes. The Maduro/Flores kidnapping “comes as a down payment of sorts to the industry—though not necessarily one that the U.S. oil majors are eager to collect.”

U.S. fossils have “longed” to re-establish their operations in petrostate Venezuela, Politico says, and Trump cabinet secretaries Chris Wright and Doug Burgum are now arm-twisting them to do just that. But “rebuilding decayed oil fields in a still socialist-led country amid a global oil glut is few people’s idea of a good time,” the news analysis states. “It’s likewise unclear how the U.S. would guarantee the safety of employees and equipment, how companies would be paid, and whether oil prices will rise enough to make Venezuelan crude profitable.”

Moreover, as the global oil industry “continues to stare down the prospect of a broad transition to renewable energy,” it’s “not obvious that future markets can justify a surge of investment in Venezuela,” says Grist staff writer Jake Bittle. “While there are buyers for additional oil that could be pumped in Venezuela—some of them on the U.S. Gulf Coast—experts say a total revival on the order that Trump is promising may not be in the cards.”

The market for heavy oil from Venezuela (or from Alberta, for that matter) is limited, and while analysts have different ideas about when global oil demand will start to decline, they mostly agree that the peak is coming, Bittle writes. “At that point, there may no longer be sufficient demand to keep exploiting new oil fields, no matter how large. And given that it will take many years just to update the infrastructure that will allow for increased oil production in Venezuela in the first place, investors may decide that the juice is not worth the squeeze.”

‘Northwards of $100 Billion’

On LinkedIn Monday, Patrick Galey, head of fossil fuel investigations at Global Witness, said it would cost “northwards of $100 billion just to get Venezuelan output back up to two million barrels per day (still less than half of Texas’ daily production). And the only player still there, Chevron, is notoriously cost averse these days.”

More likely, Galey adds, “this is a play to boost oil prices at a time when the world faces a 3.8-million-barrel-per-day oversupply (yes, really) of a product, demand for which is in terminal decline and U.S. production productivity of which has been trending downwards for a while now.”

Maria Pastukhova, programme lead, global energy transition at the London- and Brussels-based E3G energy transition think tank, agreed that restoring Venezuela’s oil infrastructure would be “slow, expensive, and risky” at a time when “the global oil market is well supplied, demand growth is fading, and China is signalling an approaching demand peak.” That means “control over Venezuelan oil is less about adding supply and more about geopolitical optionality. A U.S.-aligned Venezuela is unlikely to unleash a wave of new production, but it would significantly reduce access for China, Russia, and Iran, weakening their geopolitical leverage.”

Small wonder that the loss of a key ally had China strongly condemning the U.S. action Saturday. In a foreign ministry statement, Beijing said it was “deeply shocked by and strongly condemns the U.S.’s blatant use of force against a sovereign state,” the Globe and Mail reports. China described the raid and kidnapping as “hegemonic acts” that “threaten peace and security in Latin America and the Caribbean region.”

Trump’s Emerging Doctrine: ‘Strike, Then Coerce’

Over the last 72 hours, multiple analysts have cast Trump’s action as tangible proof of a new geopolitical doctrine. The raid in Caracas “capped a month of aggressive military action by Trump that also included targeting alleged extremists in northern Nigeria, attacking Islamic State militants in Syria, and threatening to restrike Iran,” the Wall Street Journal reports—not to mention repeated, controversial air strikes on fishing boats alleged to be carrying drugs in the Caribbean Sea and East Pacific Ocean.

“The flurry of military moves underscored Trump’s reliance on the surprise use of force during his second term,” the WSJ adds, “an emerging doctrine to strike and then coerce that is likely to be sorely tested as the White House seeks to press Venezuela and other countries he targets to comply with his demands.”

Within not many hours, Trump was threatening additional targets, including Colombian President Gustavo Petro, Cuba, Mexico, and Greenland. Over the weekend, he claimed Cuba “is in a lot of trouble,” while the U.S. “needs” Greenland for the sake of national security.

Trump’s statements had Mexican President and former IPCC scientist Claudia Sheinbaum categorically rejecting the U.S. intervention. “Unilateral action and invasion cannot be the basis for international relations in the 21st century,” she said in a three-page statement Monday. “They lead neither to peace nor to development.”

In Copenhagen, Greenlandic Prime Minister Jens-Frederik Nielsen and Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen told Trump to stop threatening a takeover of Greenland, with Frederiksen warning that an attack on the semi-autonomous Danish territory would mean an end to the NATO military alliance.

“If the United States chooses to attack another NATO country militarily, then everything stops,” she told Danish TV Monday. “That is, including our NATO and thus the security that has been provided since the end of the Second World War.”

Canada’s former UN ambassador Bob Rae told CBC there’s “absolutely no room for complacency” in Ottawa’s response to the attack, adding that Trump claiming ownership over the entire Western Hemisphere amounts to “nonsensical” overreach.

“What the hell is this?” he asked. “You can’t unilaterally declare that you have unique jurisdiction over an entire half of the world, and all the people who live in that half of the world just have to put up or shut up.”

But Prime Minister Mark Carney’s statement Saturday was far more cautious, leading with a critique of Maduro’s “brutally oppressive and criminal regime” before calling for a “peaceful, negotiated, and Venezuelan-led transition process” that respects the democratic will of the country.

“In keeping with our long-standing commitment to upholding the rule of law, sovereignty, and human rights, Canada calls on all parties to respect international law,” Carney said. “We stand by the Venezuelan people’s sovereign right to decide and build their own future in a peaceful and democratic society.”

With Carney meeting European and British leaders in Paris to discuss security guarantees for Ukraine, foreign policy experts are urging the countries to “send a strong signal” against Trump’s action, the Globe and Mail reports.

“If we’re seen as condoning this, it’s giving a hunting licence to Putin and quite frankly Xi when it comes to Taiwan,” said Fen Hampson, chancellor’s professor and professor of international affairs at Carleton University. “It is not in our interest to revert to the law of the jungle, and it is not in the interests of the other countries that are meeting in Paris to revert to the law of the jungle. It’s time to send a message to Washington: We don’t like this.”

“There’s safety in numbers” for western leaders to defend “fundamental principles such as sovereignty, international law, and the non-use of force, unless there’s a credible reason, including self-defence, to intervene militarily in another country’s affairs,” agreed international affairs professor Roland Paris, director of the Graduate School of Public and International Affairs at the University of Ottawa.

The post Venezuela Raid Collides with Failing Oil Demand as Trump Opens New Era of Geopolitical Threat appeared first on Thoughtful Journalism About Energy's Future.

By Ian Urquhart

“Alberta is a place soaked in self-deception.” Those words began Alberta-based journalist Mark Lisac’s 2004 book aimed at shattering the myths that have unhelpfully animated too much of Alberta’s politics over the past few decades.

Current and former Alberta politicians are once again embracing and treating separatist grievances seriously. That means it’s time once again to highlight and challenge political misconceptions that have the potential to destroy Canada.

Oil is the root of one such myth. The misconception? That Ottawa perennially opposes the oil and gas sector and is determined to stop its continued growth. The National Energy Program (1980), the Northern Gateway pipeline project (2016), the Energy East Pipeline (2017) and the proposed greenhouse gas pollution cap allegedly prove Ottawa’s hostility.

Notably missing from these grievances is the Keystone XL pipeline and the Trans Mountain Expansion Project. Ottawa supported these projects aimed at transporting Alberta oil sands crude to foreign markets. The federal government even purchased the Trans Mountain project from Kinder Morgan in 2018 — not to kill it, but to build it.

Read more: Justin Trudeau’s risky gamble on the Trans Mountain pipeline

As for Keystone XL, Alberta Premier Jason Kenney thanked Prime Minister Justin Trudeau for supporting the project. This doesn’t fit the separatist narrative, so it’s largely ignored.

Oil sands booster

No one should dispute the National Energy Program’s devastating impact on Alberta’s conventional oil and gas sector 40 years ago. But the oil sands, not conventional oil, propelled Canada to its position as the world’s fourth largest oil producer.

Has Ottawa facilitated or obstructed the spectacular post-1990 growth of oil sands production?

The record shows that, since the mid-1970s, Ottawa has facilitated and supported the oil sands sector. The federal government helped keep the Syncrude project alive in 1975 when it took a 15 per cent interest in Canada’s second oil sands operation.

Ironically, Ottawa’s enthusiasm for more, not less, petroleum from the oil sands also appeared in 1980 via the National Energy Program (NEP), the devil in Alberta’s conservative catechism. What most accounts of the NEP don’t mention is that Ottawa offered tax benefits to oil sands companies while stripping them from conventional oil producers.

Furthermore, the NEP’s “made-in-Canada” pricing effectively guaranteed Syncrude would receive the world price for its production. At $38 per barrel, Syncrude received more than double what conventional producers received. If the NEP was harsh on conventional oil producers, it helped create a golden future for the oil sands.

In the mid-1990s, Ottawa helped propel the post-1995 oil sands boom. The industry-dominated National Task Force on Oil Sands Strategies sought federal tax concessions to promote oil sands growth. The federal government delivered them in its 1996 budget, despite Prime Minister Jean Chretien’s general concern with cutting the deficit.

Again, these measures clearly contradict the myth of federal opposition to the oil industry.

Generous emissions caps

Ottawa’s policy favouritism towards the oil sands didn’t end there. It has consistently animated the federal government’s treatment of the oil sands in its climate change policies.

The federal Climate Change Plan for Canada (2002) treated oil and gas leniently. Its measures for large industrial emitters bore a striking resemblance to the climate change policy preferences of the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers. Suncor and Syncrude, the two leading oil sands producers, estimated these federal proposals would add a pittance, between 20 and 30 cents, to their per barrel production costs.

Justin Trudeau’s response to Alberta’s 2015 oil sands emissions cap also underlined Ottawa’s favouritism, not hostility, to the dominant player in Canada’s oil patch.

Rachel Notley’s NDP government set this cap at 100 million tonnes of GHG per year, plus another 10 million tonnes allowed to new upgrading and co-generation facilities. This cap was a whopping 39 million tonnes or 55 per cent higher than what the oil sands emitted in 2014.

This generous cap contributed to a tremendous increase in oil sands production. Healthy profits became record profits in 2022. Ottawa embraced Alberta’s largesse, incorporating the province’s cap into its post-2015 climate policies.

Furthermore, Ottawa increased its leniency towards the oil sands by exempting new in-situ (non-mining) oil sands projects in Alberta from the federal Impact Assessment Act. This exemption applies until Alberta’s emissions cap is reached. Canada’s latest National Inventory Report on greenhouse gas emissions reported record oil sands GHG emissions of 89 million tonnes in 2023, still 11 million tonnes shy of the 100 million tonne threshold.

Weaponizing myths

Finally, we have today’s proposed national cap on greenhouse gas emissions. Alberta is apoplectic about the cap. But whether or not it’s intentional, Premier Danielle Smith’s outrage feeds into secessionist sentiment by seemingly misrepresenting the cap’s impact on oil and gas production.

Smith and her environment minister use the work of the Parliamentary Budgetary Officer (PBO) to nurture their “Ottawa hates oil” narrative. They claim the officer’s analysis of the cap’s economic impact showed it “will cut oil and gas production by five per cent, or more than 245,000 barrels per day.”

This is simply not true.

In fact, the PBO concluded that, with the cap, oil sands production “is projected to remain well above current levels” — 15 per cent higher than in 2022. The proposed federal emissions cap, like the Alberta NDP’s cap of a decade ago, is higher than current oil sands emissions levels. The PBO concluded the proposed ceiling for oil sands emissions would be six per cent higher than 2022 emissions.

Ottawa’s proposed cap, in fact, continues its decades-long support of the oil ands.

Myths are central to our being. When I tell my grandsons about the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow, I hope to inspire curiosity, imagination and interest in their grandmother’s Irish heritage.

But in politics, fanciful stories can be dangerous. Some weaponize myths, using the fictions at their core to encourage followers to let falsehoods rule their behaviour. That seems to be playing out yet again in Alberta. We must demand better from the political class.

The post Opinion: Alberta has long accused Ottawa of trying to destroy its oil industry. That’s a dangerous myth appeared first on Thoughtful Journalism About Energy's Future.

By Mitchell Beer

With the polls closing in eight days, we took a long weekend road trip to staid, suburban Ottawa. A boisterous Mark Carney rally had the spirit but not the details to get climate back on the agenda.

With Canada’s federal election just eight days away, Liberal leader Mark Carney wowed the crowd at a Canada Strong rally in the suburban riding of Nepean, where he’s running for a seat in the House of Commons, pledging to push back and keep pushing against the most immediate existential threat Canada faces.

So of course The Weekender went on a three-hour road trip on a Sunday afternoon before rewriting this week’s post and almost renaming our publication The Midnighter. Good thing it’s a long weekend.

With Never 51 signs in every direction, and a little girl in Easter bunny ears showing her #ElbowsUp while she sat on her dad’s shoulders, Carney pitched his all-hands effort against the rogue regime in the White House. That would be the rolling disaster that began with Donald Trump declaring economic warfare against Canada, followed by repeated threats to annex us as a 51st state—recently confirmed by press secretary Karoline Leavitt. (Pro tip: Ain’t going to happen.)

Trump “is trying to break us so that America can own us,” Carney declared. He repeated his now-familiar line that that the wantonly destructive tariffs and snide, expansionist rhetoric from the Oval Office have “changed forever our relationship with the United States. That old relationship is over.”

The partisan crowd in Nepean loved it. But it was also the right message to capture the moment of urgency that has united Canadians from coast to coast to coast.

And it had the tone and many of the elements that we’ll need to bring climate change and its solutions back to the top of the national agenda, whoever forms the next government after the dust settles April 28.

How to Tackle a Crisis

Throughout this high-stakes campaign, there’s been a lot of frustration that climate change has scarcely been on the agenda. But if you listened to Carney’s language today on the sovereignty crisis, you could see some of the contours of the climate response we’ve been waiting and working for for decades. Not so much in the specific policy planks, but in the overall approach.

He stressed that Canadians and our governments are responding to a severe, cascading threat “with purpose and with hope.”

He acknowledged the moments when governments have to step up with “overwhelming force”, to “lead when the private sector is retreating under anxiety and uncertainty”.

He cast his lot with practical, pragmatic solutions. “When I see something that’s not working, I change it.”

He warned that the reflexive negativity in some corners of the political spectrum “won’t pay the rent or mortgage”, and neither will a soaring commitment to rescue plastic straws. Above all, he said, “don’t ever call Canada stupid,” as Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre apparently did in a selected clip from an interview with right wing provocateur Jordan Peterson.

And Carney painted a picture of a hopeful future where today’s younger generations won’t have to worry about the economic crisis, “because we’ll take care of it.”

A lot of it was standard fare for a political newbie, introducing himself to the constituents he hopes to represent. Like when he credited his parents with raising him to believe in hard work, community, and taking care of each other, his hockey coaches for teaching him to play hard and “stay humble” (a line that some of his past Bank of England staff might dispute).

But the speech also pointed to the patterns of thought and action we’ll need when the sovereignty crisis is no longer taking up all the oxygen in the room. We’ll need it even sooner when the next government, whatever its political stripe, looks to the tools in the climate solutions toolbox that can support us in the sovereignty fight.

So by all means, let’s start by getting our country through the immediate threat that a rampaging U.S. president and his equally delusional henchfolk have brought to our doorstep, make sure we get through it healthy and whole. But we can also build on the principles Carney just articulated and get on with the climate fight we thought we’d signed on for before Trump forced us to change the channel.

Leaders’ Debate Misses the Moment

An unsung but possibly important moment in Nepean was when Canadian-British economist and climate policy expert Diana Fox Carney introduced her husband to the crowd, describing him as a “constant learner” and a good listener. From the back-and-forth during the national leaders’ debate Thursday evening, it’s pretty clear that those will be essential skills for all four of the “contestants,” as Poilievre called them. Carney included.

When climate change has shown up in this election campaign, it’s been at the pivot point between two competing plans for Canada-wide energy corridors.

Poilievre is promising a new generation of fossil fuel pipelines that no investor is interested in building, aimed at delivering oil and gas to overseas customers that will be well on their way to decarbonizing their energy systems by the time the infrastructure is built. By then, Bloc Québécois leader Yves-François Blanchet said Thursday night, Trump will be 90 years old and the immediate threat will be long gone.

Carney is touting an east-west electricity grid as a “nation-building project” to “secure Canadians’ access to affordable, reliable, clean, Canadian electricity”, supported by a new First and Last Mile Fund to kick-start critical mineral projects and build the clean energy supply chain.

Poilievre has evidently convinced his supporters that “pre-approved” projects built along a designated national corridor can be conjured up in six months (and there are some Indigenous leaders and constitutional law experts who would like a word). Carney is saying two years, still a lightning fast timeline that concerns environmental assessment experts.

But there’s another landmine in the Liberal leader’s path.

In the course of the campaign, he has quite appropriately focused more on clean electricity than fossil fuels. And while he was still running for the Liberal Party leadership, he talked about negotiating a carbon border adjustment with like-minded trading partners, in what would amount to a tariff on high-emitting products.

But in the leaders’ debate, he still defaulted to carbon capture and storage (CCS) and small modular nuclear reactors as technologies that Canada will need to decarbonize its energy system. It fell to Blanchet, once again, to correct the record.

“Sorry to crash your party,” he said, “but carbon capture is a fairy tale.” (He might have added that the CCS industry has admitted as much.)

So getting onboard with a real least-cost energy strategy is the first place we’ll need to see Carney the learner and listener step up. The second missed signal is one that none of the four leaders picked up in the debate.

What’s In It for the Folks Back Home?

The bigger disconnect is the one that could keep climate discussions toward the bottom of the agenda, long after Trump and his acolytes are just a scary nightmare in the rear view mirror.

A colleague of mine likes to say that not that many people can define net-zero, but everyone knows that they expect to get heating or cooling, lighting or connectivity when they flip a switch. We do need big-picture plans to deliver on that front-line promise.

But as long as the discussion stays at 30,000 feet—in the trade-offs between different energy corridors, or the important finer points of environmental assessment law—we’ll lose the essential connection to people in Etobicoke and Jasper, in Burnaby, British Columbia and Upper Tantallon, Nova Scotia, who take the hit when political leaders make the wrong choices on climate and energy.

Here are just a few of the questions we should have heard in the debate, and that all the leaders and their campaigns should have been able to answer:

• In the next grid outage, which party is promising the distributed energy system that will keep my insulin refrigerated and my loved one’s medical device running until the power comes back on? And who’s funding the community wraparounds that help those systems succeed?

• How does a national energy corridor (of either flavour) connect to or help reduce the risk of severe storms and flooding across the Greater Toronto Area, or Montreal, or Atlantic Canada, or Calgary, now and in the future?

• How will each party’s platform help Canada attract new business investment and create good, well-paid jobs by guaranteeing an affordable, reliable electricity supply? (Hint: Today’s vulnerable, glitchy grid isn’t always up to the task.)

• When will federal and provincial governments help transit agencies offer the high-frequency service that made Brampton, Ontario an unlikely success story, and stop blaming each other for the agencies’ chronic shortage of operating funds?

• And how many more neighbourhoods or towns must we burn to the ground—from Fort McMurray and Jasper to Lytton, B.C. and Enterprise, Northwest Territories—before we combine the right preventive measures with a serious, all-hands effort to get our climate pollution under control?

All of these questions point to climate change as the problem and the energy transition as at least a central part of the solution—as long as we get the transition right. They all fit well with top-line messages about economic security and national sovereignty. And they connect the dots while mostly avoiding the standard “c-words” like “climate”, “carbon”, and “crisis” that have been marginalized and vilified by decades of misinformation, brought to you by a fossil fuel industry that chose not to take action after correctly anticipating the climate crisis in the 1970s.

This kind of honest, grounded debate won’t magically show up in the next seven or eight days. After we see the election result April 29, there will be some listening and learning to do, whoever wins.

But whatever the result, we’ll all be better off with the kind of first principles we heard in Nepean today—applied first to Trump’s malignant threats, then to climate change and the energy transition. That’s a test that any national leader of any political stripe should be able to pass.

The post Opinion: Carney’s ‘Canada Strong’ rally taps into today’s existential crisis, sets the tone for the next one appeared first on Thoughtful Journalism About Energy's Future.

By Mitchell Beer

Liberal leader Mark Carney is receiving limited praise for putting clean electricity at the centre of his plan to make Canada “the world’s leading energy superpower”, amid uncertainty about his simultaneous commitment to “conventional energy” and continuing concerns about red tape blocking local climate projects.

In a statement in Calgary Wednesday, Carney listed energy security, trade diversification, and long-term competitiveness as the three cornerstones of his party’s energy platform in the April 28 federal election. “Canada has a tremendous opportunity to be the world’s leading energy superpower, in both clean and conventional energy,” he said, while reducing climate pollution at the same time. “We can lead the energy transition while ensuring affordable energy at home and building the strongest economy in the G7.”

The statement called for Ottawa to “secure Canada’s energy and electricity sovereignty” by:

• “Working with provinces and territories to build out an East-West electricity grid, in a historic nation-building project, to secure Canadians’ access to affordable, reliable, clean, Canadian electricity”; while

• Investing in Canada’s “conventional and clean energy potential” to “reduce our reliance on the United States and build trading relationships with reliable partners.”

The announcement touted measures to:

• Support clean energy and critical mineral projects with a new First and Last Mile Fund meant to “kickstart the clean energy supply chain”;

• Fast-track clean energy projects of national interest, as identified by federal, provincial, and territorial governments and Indigenous peoples, with a single regulatory review process “that uphold environmental standards and Indigenous consultation”;

• Double the federal Indigenous Loan Guarantee Program to $10 billion;

• Continue the current government’s suite of clean energy tax credits and reinforce the Canada Growth Fund, “including by supporting carbon contracts for difference”;

• Establish a new major projects office at the federal level with a mandate to issue decisions within two years instead of five.

Choose Our Partners Carefully

Carney told media in Calgary the plan would call for Canada to “choose its partners carefully, and work with those who share our values,” iPolitics reports. “Ignoring climate change,” he said, is “not only morally wrong, but economically wrong.”

But “to build the strongest economy in the G7 we need to develop both clean energy and the lowest carbon conventional energy,” he added.

The Liberal Party news release and backgrounder [pdf] ran long on language about clean and community energy, short on support for fossil fuels, and contained not a single nod to pipelines. But the references to conventional energy still raised some consternation with climate hawks.

“We’re glad to see the Liberal Party highlighting that investing in clean electricity capacity is critical for our sovereignty and economy,” Climate Action Network Canada Executive Director Caroline Brouillette said in a release. “The sun and wind are free, abundant resources that Donald Trump cannot weaponize—so let’s make use of them and build out the supporting infrastructure for a national East-West electricity grid.”

However, ‘conventional energy’ is “a euphemism for continuing the status quo approach of expanding fossil fuels,” which means “pipelines going across Indigenous lands, many billions sunk into stranded assets, and climate harm caused by increased emissions that will come back to hurt us in the form of floods and wildfires,” she added. Carney and the Liberals “must be clear: fossil fuels are making us more vulnerable. Renewables are our path to security. An all-of-the-above approach simply does not work.”

Climate Red Tape

On the same day as Carney’s Calgary announcement, The Atmospheric Fund published a call to streamline the rules for getting local clean energy projects built. “While North American banks are busy cutting red tape for the fossil fuel industry, wouldn’t it be a better time to shine a light on regulations that are impeding business in the cleantech sector?” asked Evan Wiseman, TAF’s senior manager of climate policy.

“In this current, chaotic moment, cities, provinces, and the Canadian government are united in looking for ways to cost-effectively and quickly scale domestic and local economic development,” he added. “Regulators can unlock significant job growth and efficiency by removing barriers to clean energy technologies. Further, they can create jobs, build up local supply networks, and insulate our energy sector against international forces beyond our control.”

Wiseman said TAF began meeting with construction trades, manufacturers, and heat pump and solar installers before Trump launched his economic war on Canada (and most of the rest of the world). Those discussions explored the “rabbit hole” of red tape obstructing the clean energy transition.

“We identified municipal bylaws, provincial legislation, and utility processes that were created decades ago, long before heat pumps or [electric vehicles] were on the market. None of them were intentionally set to impede climate action—but all of them are now slowing it down.”

As examples, the post lists municipal zoning bylaws, Ontario’s wind power moratorium, and local utility rules that block rooftop solar—all of which would presumably warrant attention in tandem with a Carney-led bid to fast-track project approvals.

Winning the Carbon Tax Vote

Meanwhile, heads may have been turning (or worse) at Conservative Party of Canada headquarters after polling showed that Carney, not CPC leader Pierre Poilievre, is receiving voters’ thanks for eliminating the former Trudeau government’s controversial consumer carbon tax.

In new polling from Abacus Data, 55% of respondents “cited Carney as the leader who should get the credit for doing away with the price on carbon on April 1, compared to just 28% who said Poilievre brought about this goal by pushing for it,” veteran political columnist Susan Delacourt writes for the Toronto Star. “What this poll shows is that Carney is reaping much of the advantages of scrapping the levy, and far less blame for being associated with the government that introduced it.”

“This data will make some Conservatives’ heads explode,” Abacus CEO David Coletto told Delacourt.

Elsewhere on the campaign trail:

• Canadian scientists are sounding the alarm in a leading international journal after Poilievre promised to “end the imposition of woke ideology in the allocation of federal funds for university research” if he forms the next government. “I think this is the first time a politician in Canada has crossed that line to officially say they want to interfere to control research topics,” Madeleine Pastinelli, president of Quebec’s university professors’ union, told the journal Science. “It could be a very terrible time for us.”

Evidence for Democracy has launched a non-partisan Vote Science website “to try to put science, research, and evidence-informed decision-making at the centre of the campaign,” Science writes.

“If we look south of the border, we can see examples of how the ideological perspectives can become really perverse in different ways,” said E4D Executive Director Sarah Laframboise. “I think when we use this ambiguous language to shape scientific research it opens the door to ideological interference in what should be a rigorously independent system.”

• Policy Options is out with an analysis by Emma Starke, a senior research associate and PhD candidate at Simon Fraser University, and Katya Rhodes, an associate professor at the University of Victoria, concluding that a Conservative government would likely increase Canada’s greenhouse gas emissions.

“Our analysis of the party platforms for the April 28 election shows that GHG emissions would fall by 2035 under the Liberal approach—even with the removal of the unpopular but effective consumer carbon tax,” they write. “They would rise under the Conservative plan to axe existing performance regulations along with the carbon tax.”

The post Campaign trail: Carney earns praise for clean power plan as TAF spotlights ‘climate red tape’ appeared first on Thoughtful Journalism About Energy's Future.

By Chris Bonasia

As concerns over Canada’s energy security spark renewed interest in a national electricity grid, an energy expert says political coordination—not just high-tech infrastructure—should be the priority.

“Whenever we have a conversation in Canada about this, someone talks about building a power line, and that’s not the issue,” Bruce Lourie, chair of the Transition Accelerator, told The Energy Mix. Rather, “it’s the political structure of the electricity system that is preventing us from coordinating our systems and encouraging trade.”

In a recent Globe and Mail opinion piece, Lourie outlines his vision for linking Canada’s collection of provincial grids into a coordinated, nationwide system that would reliably deliver more secure, affordable electricity to consumers. He emphasizes interprovincial planning: “By coordinating and connecting grids currently stranded behind jurisdictional boundaries, we can create a resilient, more affordable energy system for all Canadians.”

Most households and businesses currently receive electricity through independent provincial grids, limiting the ability of system operators and consumers to benefit from regional resource diversity. Some provinces have connections to exchange electricity when needed—but this is the exception rather than the rule, and they are underutilized where they do exist.

For example, British Columbia and Alberta are linked by a 500-kilovolt intertie, but restrictions imposed by the Alberta Energy System Operator (AESO) keep it from operating at full capacity. This undermines the grid’s resilience—AESO had to lift the restrictions to avoid rolling blackouts during a January 2024 cold snap—and raises costs for ratepayers. An analysis by the Alberta Chambers of Commerce found that the restrictions, along with limits on an intertie to Montana, produce an estimated C$300 to $500 million in additional costs annually for Alberta electricity consumers.

Another power line would not solve the issue, Lourie said, noting that there aren’t incentives to prioritize regional planning.

What’s more, an earnest effort to coordinate regional grid planning could achieve outcomes more quickly than a massive new infrastructure project like a cross-country high-voltage line. The planning effort could be completed faster than the five-year estimates for an east-west grid, which Lourie said are unrealistic to begin with.

“It shouldn’t take more than a year or two to start creating the coordinated planning structures,” he told The Mix. “The first step is really to maximize the utilization of existing infrastructure, as opposed to figuring out what we need to build.”

Making better use of the infrastructure already in place could save an estimated $2 billion per year, he writes for the Globe.

Further steps include dismantling interprovincial barriers by creating regional planning councils, harmonizing provincial market and regulatory frameworks, coordinating long-term planning for transmission infrastructure, and ensuring that the costs and benefits of projects are transparent.

Provincial jurisdiction over electricity has so far limited federal involvement in interprovincial coordination, Lourie said. But planning would need to be led by the regions themselves, as the nuts-and-bolts of implementing a coordinated framework will vary from place to place.

“The battle now really is that people just throw up their hands and say, ‘oh well, it’s all politics, and we can’t do anything,’” he said.

But he added that there is also greater awareness that the system needs to change, and growing recognition that Canada is going to have to build a lot of new electricity resources.

“And again,” Lourie said, “they realize that the only way to do that effectively is to not have every province build all of its own stuff, but to do this in a more coordinated fashion.”

The post Opinion: Canada’s energy security depends on political coordination, not power lines: Lourie appeared first on Thoughtful Journalism About Energy's Future.

By Donald Wright

Canadians owe Donald Trump a debt of thanks. His musings about Canada becoming the 51^st state have reminded us why we are Canadians in the first place and why we want to remain Canadians.

Still, it’s worth thinking about some of the legal steps to, and political implications of, a possible Canadian statehood.

First, Canada is a constitutional monarchy. To join the United States, it would have to become a republic. While that’s not impossible, it wouldn’t be easy. Amending the Canadian Constitution in relation to the King or Queen requires unanimous provincial consent. When was the last time all 10 provinces agreed on anything?

And what about Indigenous Peoples

Meanwhile, there are 634 First Nations governments – each with their own relationship with Canada or the Crown. Indeed, one of the mandates of the Department of Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs is to recognize and implement “treaties concluded between the Crown and Indigenous Peoples.”

If it’s difficult to imagine Indigenous Peoples agreeing to give up their treaty rights, it’s equally difficult to imagine the U.S. negotiating new treaties and nation-to-nation relationships with 634 First Nations.

For its part, Quebec will never agree to give up the substantial power and real sovereignty it has as a province, even if every other province agreed to – which they won’t. In defence of their borders and the French language, Quebecers would likely secede from Canada long before any serious move towards Canadian statehood – and who could blame them?

Of course, this assumes that American lawmakers want a 51^st state – and they don’t. Certainly, Republican lawmakers don’t, for the same reason they don’t want Puerto Rico and Washington, D.C. to become states.

Each state has two senators and it’s a safe bet that both Canadian senators would be Democrats or be from a separate party that would caucus with the Democrats. The GOP cannot risk becoming a minority in a closely divided Senate.

When Hawaii joined as the 50^th state in 1959, there was a lot of handwringing, especially in the Jim Crow South. For example, a Mississippi senator insisted that Hawaii’s admission would mean “two votes for socialized medicine, two votes for government ownership of industry, two votes against all racial segregation and two votes against the South on all social matters.”

The post Opinion: Canadians don’t want to be the 51st state – and Americans don’t really want us appeared first on Thoughtful Journalism About Energy's Future.

By Xiaodan Pan, Benny Mantin, Martin Dresner

United States President Donald Trump has officially imposed 25 per cent tariffs on Canadian and Mexican imports, sending shockwaves through Canadian consumers and businesses.

The decision escalates tensions in an increasingly fragile relationship between the countries, marking a significant shift in North American economic ties.

The unfolding trade war between is expected to have far-reaching consequences for people and businesses on both sides of the border. How can Canadians navigate the trade war and minimize the financial strain of the tariffs?

As experts in supply chain management, we aim to break down the impact of these tariffs and offer practical strategies for Canadians to help navigate the economic turbulence ahead.

How consumers react to trade wars

When the news of a potential trade war is first publicized, consumers tend to react by monitoring the situation until further information is available.

Once the government announces which products will be affected, consumers begin to take action. Some Canadians have already started stockpiling products whose prices are likely to rise or be in short supply following the imposition of tariffs.

Stockpiling can lead to product shortages at retailers, which may be worsened by the fear of missing out. Media headlines highlighting empty shelves can act as reinforcement loops, further fuelling frenzied shopping behaviour.

This kind of “panic buying” is common in times of crisis, much like the rush to buy supplies before the onset of a major hurricane and the hoarding of essential supplies during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Consumers and retailers face challenges

With a trade war breaking out, both consumers and retailers will need to adapt.

Shortages are likely to occur as new importation procedures slow the time products take to cross the border. The ensuing delays, along with higher tariff rates, will push some retailers to raise prices to cover cost increases. Others may limit purchases to discourage hoarding behaviour.

Some firms may even take advantage of the situation by raising prices on products not covered by the tariffs to pad their profits — a practice known as “greedflation,” which happened during the pandemic. Another potential consequence is “shrinkflation,” where package sizes become smaller while prices remain unchanged.

As consumers adapt by changing their shopping habits or using their stockpiled reserves, some of the shortages may be eased. However, retailers may struggle to manage their inventories as demands fluctuate — a phenomena known as the “bullwhip effect.” Navigating these shifts will require careful planning.

Challenges of buying domestic

Trump’s trade war has intensified calls to “buy Canadian” as a way to support domestic products.

Recently, the Canadian government has threatened counter-tariffs on imported products that have Canadian substitutes — for example, targeting Kentucky bourbon in favour of Canadian whiskey or Florida orange juice for Canadian apple juice.

Read more: ‘Buying Canadian’ is an opportunity to reflect on the ethics of consumerism

However, fully replacing imports with domestic goods presents significant challenges. Many Canadian farmers and manufacturers lack the capacity to quickly scale up production to meet demand, at least in the short run.

Production costs may also be significantly higher in Canada than abroad, which is a major reason for relying on imports in the first place. Apparel manufacturing is a good example. It has a high labour component — the reason that most of it has been moved to low-cost countries in Asia.

In general, U.S. productivity is higher than Canadian productivity, contributing to lower costs in the U.S. In addition, some products simply cannot be produced in Canada at all, such as tropical fruits and vegetables.

Furthermore, trade wars create uncertainty, making farmers and manufacturers hesitant to make large-scale investments that may not pay off once the trade conflict ends. While this approach foregoes potential short-term gains for long term stability, it also exacerbates shortages and price hikes during and after the trade war.

The new normal

Unlike one-off events like hurricanes, or fluctuating disruptions such as COVID-19, the outcome of a trade war is difficult to predict. This makes it difficult to forecast what the “new normal” will be.

Certainly, some consumers who substitute domestic products for imported products may continue to do so in the long run. However, others may switch back to imported products if the tariffs are lifted and prices are lowered.

Knowing that this might happen, domestic producers may not ramp up production during a tariff war. Those who do increase production may later find themselves with excess capacity and inventory surpluses after the conflict ends.

Meanwhile, manufacturers and retailers that raise prices to cover tariff-related costs may choose to keep them elevated even after tariffs are removed. For instance, canned food prices saw a significant price rise following the implementation of the 2018 U.S. steel tariffs.

Consumer acceptance of the price increases, adjustments to new higher cost supply chain structures, or efforts to maintain profit margins, may potentially establish a higher baseline prices in the post-trade-war economy.

Navigating the trade war

How can Canada best shield itself from the effects of the trade war? The easy answer is to become more self-reliant, but this is a costly option that requires technology, skilled labour and capital investments.

As a result, this option should only be chosen for the most necessary and essential items, like certain pharmaceuticals and food staples. Other strategies must also be considered:

1. Building supply chain resilience: Sourcing from multiple suppliers and retaining inventories of the most essential products may increase inventory and purchasing costs, but will reduce risks. It allows enterprises to withstand short-term supply chain disruptions and puts them in a better position to survive a trade war.
2. Engaging in honest communication: Governments and retailers should regularly update the public on negotiations, new tariff schedules and potential price changes, reducing the guesswork that fuels panic buying and stockpiling. Transparency allows individuals to make the best purchasing decisions.
3. Protecting low-income consumers: Retailers should limit sales quantities of staple products during disruptions to avoid hoarding behaviour. Governments should consider tax relief and subsidies aimed at budget-constrained individuals to relieve the burden of higher tariff-related costs.

Supply chain disruptions inevitably result in higher costs and product shortages, often impacting low-income households the hardest. Even after the trade war ends, higher prices may persist as the new norm. To minimize the impact of tariffs, governments and enterprises need to adopt policies that reduce economic strain and result in fairer outcomes for all.

The post Opinion: Canada is now in a trade war with the U.S. — here’s what you need to know to prepare for it appeared first on Thoughtful Journalism About Energy's Future.

By Tova Gaster

Vancouver City Council has postponed a controversial, high-profile vote by one day to accommodate 142 speakers who signed up to share their views on whether the city should rescind its ban on gas hookups in new buildings.

On Tuesday November 26, council heard proposals from city staff about the implications of the reversal, expecting to cast a vote. Outside City Hall, advocates for the gas ban, including members of Women Transforming Cities, For Our Kids Vancouver, and Dogwood BC, rallied with banners and drums to oppose the bylaw change.

“Let’s put gas in the past, heat pumps for all!” attendees chanted.

City Proposes Two Paths For Developers

At the meeting, city staff presented [pdf] a report following from the council’s July vote to reinstate gas for new builds. Staff propose offering developers two paths for new buildings: Path 1 does not include gas, building to the highest level of the British Columbia Zero Carbon Step Code (ZCSC), while Path 2 allows gas for heating and hot water, but prioritizes energy efficiency through building envelope requirements.

“Path 1 offers the best outcome for climate, while Path 2 will increase annual carbon pollution,” said Patrick Enright, City lead for the small, existing and new developments team.

If all new developments take Path 1, it would decrease Vancouver’s carbon footprint by 15,900 tonnes per year by 2035, estimates the report. If all developments took Path 2, the footprint would grow by 65,100 tonnes annually by 2035—equivalent to adding 16,000 cars on the road, Enright said. City staff predict developers would pursue a mixture of Path 1 and 2, or gas and no gas.

Councillor Brian Montague had raised concerns in July that the gas ban increased costs for builders. But city staff emphasized that neither path will reduce costs, speed up permits, or improve heating.

They added that engagement with the construction industry found that many have concerns about Vancouver’s regional reputation as a sustainable buildings leader, which reinstating gas could jeopardize. However, others advocated for builders to maintain options about their energy path.

The second path “seems like a step backward on climate and doesn’t save money,” Councillor Pete Fry said after the presentation.

To hear all 142 registered speakers, Mayor Ken Sim motioned to defer the vote to Wednesday, Nov. 27.

Sim had cast the tie-breaking vote in July, when council voted 6-5 to rescind the 2020 city bylaw banning gas hookups in new low-rise buildings by 2025. The reversal followed “behind-the-scenes” discussions involving senior city officials with industry ties, reported Postmedia, raising transparency and potential conflicts of interest concerns.

A coalition of construction industry leaders, environmental advocates, small businesses, and medical professionals opposed the walkback of one of the city’s flagship climate policies. Advocates for the transition off gas say the reversal is a step backward from other Canadian jurisdictions like Quebec, which recently banned new gas heating in buildings by 2040.

“If we know we need to decarbonize society, why would we keep adding to the problem by building new buildings that we have to decarbonize later?” asked Paige Gorsak, an organizing manager at Dogwood BC.

Gas Warms the Atmosphere, Pollutes Homes

Gas in buildings harms health and reduces air quality. Electric heating systems, such as heat pumps, are also equivalent in cost, on average, according to research from the Pembina Institute and Clean Energy Canada.

“It’s not only a climate issue, but a health and cost of living issue,” Sunil Singal, a campaigner at Stand.earth, told a Dogwood event held to organize against rescinding the gas ban.

Research suggests natural gas is just as harmful as other fossil fuels, if not worse. A new study finds that the greenhouse gas footprint of liquefied natural gas (LNG) can be up to 33% greater than that for coal.

While natural gas releases less climate pollution when it’s burned, fugitive methane leaks in gas extraction and transportation pack a huge atmospheric warming punch that 2023 research suggests is worse than previously thought.

Buildings are also often the biggest source of carbon emissions in cities like Toronto and Vancouver.

Lobbyists Turn Up The Heat, Local Businesses Respond

According to Dogwood BC’s Gorsak, rescinding the natural gas ban would make Vancouver the first city to reintroduce a known pollutant into homes.

But a Postmedia investigation found that the vote could be good business for Mayor Ken Sim’s senior advisor, who owns two private natural gas companies.

In an interview with CBC, Montague attributed his support for the rollback to homebuilder choice, and reducing red tape to make increasing housing supply cheaper.

According to construction industry leaders, however, emissions requirements and heat pumps aren’t the culprit for expensive housing.

“Energy and emissions requirements are not significant drivers of new housing costs; many other factors affect project costs and timelines,” said Mark Bernhardt, CEO of Bernhardt Contracting and president of the Canadian Home Builders’ Association of BC, in a release issued by Vancouver’s Zero Emissions Innovation Centre (ZEIC).

Rather, policy uncertainty—such as the ban reversal—increases costs for homebuilders.

Bernhardt is one of hundreds of homebuilders and small business owners who signed a letter in October calling on Vancouver to restore its gas ban. Dozens of construction industry leaders sent a similar letter.

“Burning fossil fuel in homes is like smoking—once considered normal, now clearly harmful to our health,” Chris Hill, Principal of B Collective Homes, said in the ZEIC release. “For the last over five years, we’ve built homes entirely free of gas or fossil fuels, demonstrating that electrification is not only possible but scalable. With thoughtful design and minimal effort, we can lead the way to healthier, all-electric homes that benefit both people and the planet.”

Editor’s Note: This story was updated on Tuesday, November 26, with news of the deferred city council vote.

The post Vancouver defers gas ban vote after surge in public interest appeared first on Thoughtful Journalism About Energy's Future.

By Hongyu Xiao, Lejla Latifović

The Ontario Government recently announced plans to send each resident a one-time $200 cheque in early 2025. While this $3-billion initiative may offer much-needed financial assistance, albeit temporary, it also raises an important question: could these funds deliver more meaningful, lasting impact if directed elsewhere?

Imagine if $3 billion were invested in projects that improve air quality, reduce healthcare costs and lessen the economic burden on communities impacted by high pollution levels. Such an investment would create value beyond a one-time cheque, benefiting Ontarians far beyond the immediate future.

Many Ontarians are feeling the economic pinch from the rising cost of living, and this $200 will no doubt be helpful. But it’s worth noting that everyone, regardless of income, will receive this rebate – including those who may not need it as urgently. Redirecting these funds towards long-term solutions could help reduce healthcare costs and air pollution, benefiting socio-economically disadvantaged communities most directly.

These communities often face the greatest impact from poor air quality due to their proximity to highways, freight corridors, or industrial zones with high levels of diesel and commercial transport. With fewer resources to counter poor air quality and limited access to green spaces, residents face increased health risks. Investing in clean transportation could address these issues, leading to significant health improvements and cost savings.

The cost of status quo: Ontario’s gas and diesel dependence

Ontario’s reliance on diesel- and gas-powered vehicles poses a major health and economic burden. Health Canada estimates that in the Greater Toronto Hamilton Area (GTHA) alone, traffic-related air pollution contributes to 700 premature deaths and over 2,800 annual hospitalizations due to heart and lung conditions – an economic impact of over $4.6 billion per year. Investments in, for example, medium-duty electric vehicles, particularly school buses and public transit, could help reduce these burdens.

Ontario’s 20,000 school buses, 93 per cent of which run on diesel, are a clear example of this challenge. Diesel exhaust contains well-established carcinogens and harmful pollutants, posing serious health risks, especially for children whose respiratory systems are still developing. Transitioning these buses would not only protect children’s health but also improve air quality for entire communities.

A path forward: Clean transportation in Ontario

Let’s consider what $3 billion could accomplish. Ontario lags other provinces in clean transportation, with just 10 electric buses compared to Quebec’s 120 (projected to reach 1,229 by 2027). Redirecting $3 billion into Ontario’s clean transportation could accelerate EV adoption, creating healthier conditions for students and communities. Electrifying just 65 per cent of Ontario school busses could create over 13,000 jobs, contribute nearly $2 billion to the economy, and cut annual emissions by about 234,000 tons of CO2.

To put this into context, Ontario’s $3 billion rebate budget exceeds the entirety of the federal government’s Zero Emission Transit Fund ($2.75 billion over five years), which has helped purchase over 5,000 zero-emission buses across the country. It also significantly exceeds Quebec’s $250 million investment over three years to electrify 65 per cent of its school buses by 2030, as well as British Columbia’s Go Electric Program, which has allocated $650 million since 2011 for vehicle rebates and fleet charging. While these programs fund long-term improvements, the Ontario government intends to spend $3 billion in just one year, lacking the opportunity for lasting benefits.

Creating long-term value for Ontario

Transformative, sustainable investments like these would not solve immediate affordability concerns, but they offer steady, long-term reductions in health costs and other economic burdens. This means that, at an individual level, Ontarians could experience fewer air-quality health related expenses and an improved quality of life over time.

By prioritizing electric vehicles, Ontario’s government has a unique opportunity to make an investment that pays off in lasting ways. This isn’t just an environmental choice, it’s a step toward a healthier, more resilient and more competitive Ontario.

The post Opinion: Rethinking Ontario’s $200 cheque appeared first on Thoughtful Journalism About Energy's Future.

In the wake of Donald Trump’s astonishing political comeback Tuesday evening, international leaders say the chaos ahead in the United States won’t derail the energy transition or the effort to implement the Paris climate agreement.

“The result from this election will be seen as a major blow to global climate action, but it cannot and will not halt the changes under way to decarbonize the economy and meet the goals of the Paris Agreement,” said former UN climate secretary Christiana Figueres, one of the architects of the 2015 Paris deal. “Standing with oil and gas is the same as falling behind in a fast moving world. Clean energy technologies will continue to outcompete fossil fuels, not just because they are healthier, faster, cleaner, and more abundant, but because they undercut fossil fuels where they are at their weakest: their unsolvable volatility and inefficiency.”

Meanwhile, Figueres said, “the vital work happening in communities everywhere to regenerate our planet and societies will continue, imbued with a new, even more determined spirit today. Being here in South Africa for the Earthshot Prize makes clear that there is an antidote to doom and despair. It’s action on the ground, and it’s happening in all corners of the Earth.”

“We will work with the next U.S. administration wherever possible to strengthen the international rules-based order and deal with shared security challenges, including the climate crisis,” said Jennifer Morgan, Germany’s state secretary and special envoy for international climate action.

“For Germany and the EU, the transition to climate neutrality is a cornerstone of our future competitiveness,” Morgan added, just days after the European Union reported an 8 per cent drop in greenhouse gas emissions in 2023, driven largely by its rapid shift to renewable power. “We therefore will work with all partners towards a level playing field in the race for green industries,” she said. “We will continue to implement our climate laws and work with international partners across all levels of government, civil society, and in the private sector on the swift and full implementation of the Paris Agreement.”

“Yes. It really sucks,” wrote former Canadian environment and climate minister Catherine McKenna, now CEO of Climate and Nature Solutions. “But we need to pick ourselves up, work together, and double down on climate action and activism including working much harder to bring regular people in the fight. Especially women and girls… to demand that their governments take action on climate.

U.S. climate hawks pointed out that the economy, particularly inflation, was a crucial factor in the U.S. vote—and that the country’s continuing dependence on fossil fuels is a major part of that problem. After the country’s annual inflation rate hit 9.1 per cent in June, 2022, the Roosevelt Institute attributed one-third of the increase to fossil fuel prices. By contrast, the Biden-Harris administration’s clean energy policies were creating jobs across the country, a large share of them in the swing states that appear to have overwhelmingly handed their support to Trump last night.

“If Trump follows through with his threat to withdraw from the Paris Agreement, the biggest loser will be the United States,” said Climate Analytics CEO and former IPCC author Bill Hare. But “we have been there before—the U.S. withdrawal in the first Trump presidency did not cause the Agreement to collapse, as some pundits predicted.”

Hare added, however, that “unwinding U.S. domestic action under a Trump administration will damage efforts to limit warming to 1.5°C. The prospects of keeping open the 1.5°C goal will ultimately hinge on the level of action taken by all other countries in the next few years and also on what the U.S. does following the Trump presidency’s conclusion.”

In his first term, Trump rolled back dozens of environmental regulations, opened up new lands to oil and gas leasing, gutted environmental regulations on fossil fuel projects, but couldn’t completely stop a renewable energy surge brought on by Obama administration policies, U.S. organizations say. Now, climate leaders are once again talking about the municipal and state-level coalitions that will be needed to salvage U.S. momentum on the energy transition and local climate response.

“I sincerely hope the recent hurricanes in the United States have caused President Trump to rethink his belief that climate change will create ‘more oceanfront properties’,” said former Irish president Mary Robinson, former chair of The Elders. “It will only bring more death and devastation. It remains to be seen if he will once again isolate the U.S. by pulling out of the Paris agreement.”

And just like last time, Trump’s rise opens up an opportunity for his country’s geopolitical rivals to lead on climate response and the clean economy.

“Once again, China finds itself at a pivotal moment,” said Yao Zhe, global policy advisor at Greenpeace East Asia. “Expectations are high that China will join key nations in reassuring the world that climate action will continue,” beginning with a new Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC) under the Paris Agreement that “outlines clear actions to transition away from fossil fuels.”

Climate change “played a crucial role in stabilizing U.S.-China relations during the Biden time,” Yao Zhe added. “The Trump administration may undo some of the climate diplomacy gains of recent years, but U.S.-China climate cooperation will continue at the subnational level and among non-state actors.”

The post Energy transition, climate emergency won’t stop for Trump, global leaders say appeared first on Thoughtful Journalism About Energy's Future.