by John Duncan

The Iranian regime is certainly brutal. But it’s also powerful as it continues to project its might after a month of illegal air strikes by the United States and Israel.

Read more: Iran’s attacks drone on, with the U.S. at risk of losing the war

Iran is in the top 10 per cent of countries by size and population, has the third largest proven petroleum reserves and controls strategically crucial geography.

Furthermore, both the regime and many ordinary Iranians are prepared to defend the country. Since 1953, when the U.S. helped orchestrate a coup to overthrow Iran’s democratically elected Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh, Iranians have understood they’re in America’s crosshairs.

This was especially true after the 1979 Islamic Revolution that overthrew the shah and during the U.S.-backed Iraq war against Iran that killed a million Iranians in the 1980s. As a result, Iran has spent decades beefing up and decentralizing its military capability.

In contrast, Dan Caine, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, warned U.S. President Donald Trump in February that the U.S. was short on both munitions and allied support for a war against Iran. Israel, America’s partner in war, is also short, especially in interceptor munitions. Trump and Israeli leader Benjamin Netanyahu dismissed the concerns, which suggests they planned a short war.

What are Trump’s options?

Critics have accused Trump of dragging the U.S. — or allowing it to be dragged — into a “forever war.” Those critics include those in his MAGA base, a problem for Trump as he anticipates November’s mid-term elections.

One unconventional option that might expedite victory, discussed during Trump’s first term, is to use nuclear weapons against Iran. Trump has said nukes won’t be used, but he’s well-known for erratic reversals.

A nuclear strike might expedite surrender, but it took two strikes on Japan in 1945 before the Japanese surrendered, and, failing an Iranian surrender, several strikes might be required to destroy the military capability distributed across Iran’s 31 provinces. Because many Americans would be appalled by a nuclear attack, putting the mid-terms at risk, the nuclear option is unlikely.

Much of the concern about Trump’s election machinations heading into the mid-terms is focused on the manipulation of procedures and officials. The legacy of the Jan. 6, 2021 attacks on the U.S. Capitol is one extreme possibility, as is manipulating the Iran war to achieve electoral gains.

Trump will probably lean into his rhetorical strengths and try to convince Americans the U.S. has won when it hasn’t. Claiming victory in the face of its absence is not new to him. Even in his second term, Trump continues to push the false claim that he won the 2020 election.

Consider the bizarre drama that started on March 21 when Trump and Iran exchanged dire threats. Then, out of the blue, Trump declared the existence of peace talks, which Iran denied. Perhaps they are imaginary talks on the way to an imaginary victory for Trump.

Read more: Why Donald Trump is such a relentless bullshitter

Mission accomplished?

It seems clear Trump is planning to declare victory well ahead of the mid-terms — and in part because of them. Such a strategy would involve baiting opponents into “forever war” criticisms, only to ridicule them in stump speeches, generating the image of a president who finishes his wars.

A declared victory in Iran and a timely exit, in addition to the liberation of Venezuela and a possible Cuban coup, might all coalesce into potent election messaging for the Republicans.

Soon enough, Trump may announce something akin to former president George W. Bush’s premature proclamations about the Iraq War in 2003 by saying something like this:

“Major combat operations in Iran have ended. The United States and Israel have prevailed. We do not know the day of final victory, but we have seen the turning of the tide.”

If successful, he will secure two more years “like nobody’s ever seen before” of Republican congressional dominance.

Major obstacles

The battle for November will feature a few competing narratives in the U.S. But there are four major hurdles for Trump in particular.

• Information: For voters to be convinced that Trump is a decisive crusader against evil rather than another “forever war” president, right-wing media must sell yet another big lie, mainstream media must continue to pull its punches and the Democrats must continue to flounder.
• Affordability crisis: Trump also has to ensure he doesn’t “win” in Iran while losing on affordability at home. Most American oil comes from the U.S., Canada and Mexico, so the U.S. is protected from global supply disruptions, but global markets push up prices everywhere. Trump’s mere declaration of talks recently brought oil prices down, but only temporarily.
• Allies needed: Because voters will want to see a significant military withdrawal, Trump needs other countries to manage the chaos he’s created. But after disrespecting allies for months, he is struggling to establish a “coalition of the willing” on which to offload the conflict.
• Iranians must co-operate: But because the U.S. and Israel have twice attacked Iran during diplomatic negotiations, Iran needs other stakeholders in the process. Without them, Iran will not be incentivized to stop fighting and nothing will belie an imaginary Trump victory more than ongoing Iranian attacks.

Democracy waning

Whichever scenario prevails, Americans will likely lose. Their complete war costs could include repercussions from the unprecedented illegal bombing of Iran, as well as from unnecessarily turning regional allies into targets.

All of this is tied to what many Americans regard as increasing Israeli aggression, including the killing of 70,000 people in Gaza, which the U.S. has facilitated with funding, political cover and its widely mocked Board of Peace.

America’s democracy, economy and credibility are waning as Trump shamelessly pursues self-aggrandizement and self-enrichment.

“That makes me smart,” he might say, but only a failed leader serves his own interests at the expense of his country.

The post Why Donald Trump will try to declare victory in Iran well before November appeared first on Thoughtful Journalism About Energy's Future.

By Samuel Buckstein

Nuclear power is experiencing a resurgence worldwide and Ontario is no exception. The province has a long history with this awesome and terrifying energy technology, and it is once again turning to nuclear power in response to concerns over national sovereignty, economic growth, electrification and decarbonization.

The persistent shortcomings of nuclear power

Finding pathways out of Ontario’s hydro and climate mess

Looking back over Ontario’s troubled history with nuclear energy, it is concerning to see the Ford government stumbling back to the bar for another round of nuclear cool-aid. Yet Ontario’s plan shows little evidence of having done its homework. Contrary to the government’s claims, it is fiscally irresponsible, incapable of delivering the energy the province needs in the time required, and compromises Ontario’s energy security.

When it should be investing in much cheaper and more easily deployed renewables, the province is recklessly doubling down on nuclear despite the evidence against it.

A legacy mired in debt

To understand Ontario’s nuclear trajectory, it is helpful to reflect on its origins. When civilian nuclear power was commercialized after the Second World War, its advocates promised it would be “too cheap to meter.” Buoyed by encouragement and financing from both provincial and federal governments, Ontario Hydro duly invested in a fleet of 20 CANDU reactors at three nuclear power stations over the course of 30 years.

By the turn of the millennium, Ontario Hydro’s nuclear obsession had saddled it with $38.1 billion in debt — $20.9 billion of it stranded (unsupported by assets). This burden was so immense that it toppled the once proud flagship Crown corporation. Ontarians continue to pay for this nuclear hangover today. As of March 2023, ratepayers were still on the hook for $13.8 billion.

Even as late as 1989, with Ontario Hydro already buckling under its crushing debt, the utility was forecasting the need for 10 to 15 new reactors by 2014. Reality proved otherwise, with peak electricity demand in 2014 lower than it had been 25 years earlier.

After a generation of staggering cost overruns and catastrophic international incidents at Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima, nuclear power fell out of favour in much of the developed world. Cheaper, more flexible and faster-to-deploy alternatives took its place, first gas and then renewables.

Today, China is the only country in the world that can bring three to four new reactors online every year while steadily improving cost efficiency and construction timelines. China is also installing nearly 100 times more renewable capacity annually, accounting for more than half the world’s newly added generation.

Lessons from the U.K. and Ukraine

However, Ontario should learn from the United Kingdom, not authoritarian China. The experience of Hinkley Point C, the first new nuclear power plant to be built in the U.K. in more than 20 years, should be a cautionary tale.

At least five years behind schedule and two times over budget, Hinkley Point C will likely be the most expensive nuclear power plant yet. The electricity generated by this colossal waste of rate-payer dollars will cost between two to four times more than renewable energy, which can be brought online in half the time. This is what the provincial government has in store for Ontario.

The scale of Ontario’s plan is immense. In addition to the CANDU refurbishments at Darlington and Bruce, Ontario has announced the refurbishment of Pickering B, one of the oldest and most urban nuclear power stations in the world.

Canada needs to accelerate its transition to renewable energy

Focus on renewables, not nuclear, to fuel Canada’s electric needs

Sovereignty concerns

Ontario has also contracted with GE Vernova Hitachi to build up to four small modular reactors (SMRs) at the Darlington site. It is unclear why the government has committed to building four SMRs before even the first is constructed. The greater concern with this arrangement is GE Vernova Hitachi is a U.S.-controlled company and the fuel supply chain is in the U.S. and France, not Canada.

To understand how fragile such a dependency can become, consider the situation facing Ukraine and its Soviet-built RMBK reactors. After Russia’s illegal annexation of Crimea and Donbas in 2014, Ukraine found itself dependent on its aggressor to fuel the reactors. At the time, nuclear power generated approximately half of Ukraine’s pre-war electricity, similar to the proportion of Ontario’s reliance on nuclear energy. Ukrainians are now facing severe energy insecurity, with freezing temperatures and blackouts.

As if this were not concerning enough, Ontarians are subsidizing the first commercial demonstration of an unproven foreign nuclear technology while the government continues to naively claim Ontario will remain the industrial base from which the U.S.-controlled company will scale. Given the trade policies of the current U.S. government, not least of all its efforts to gut Ontario’s auto sector, it is hard not to see this belief as a fool’s hope.

No price tag and no certainty it will pay

Despite these red flags, Ontario’s nuclear ambitions do not stop there. The government is also considering building two new large nuclear power stations at the Bruce site and at a new location near Port Hope. This despite the fact that, like the U.K., the domestic nuclear supply chain has all but vanished. This is precisely the kind of multi-billion-dollar, multi-decade infrastructure lock-in that bankrupted Ontario Hydro.

The government has been silent on how much this plan will cost. No one can predict whether demand will materialize to justify this massive supply expansion, or what electricity prices will be when these reactors finally come online. Committing to decades of investment in such an uncertain environment is sheer folly.

To top it all off, nuclear power is not even operationally flexible. Generation cannot be adjusted rapidly enough to follow demand, and the reactors can only be quickly turned off, but not back on again (it took Ontario more than a day to restore power after the 2003 Great Northeastern Blackout due to neutron poisoning in the reactors).

Renewable options

It does not have to be this way. Much has changed since the last wave of nuclear infatuation. Renewables are now the cheapest source of energy on a levelized basis. While renewables may be intermittent, they are reasonably predictable, and for the first time since the inception of the electricity industry, generation no longer needs to coincide perfectly with consumption. Rapidly falling battery costs have made energy storage a commercially viable reality.

It is true that China currently dominates the supply chains for solar, wind and batteries, but once the equipment is installed it is virtually impervious to foreign interference. Unlike the supply of nuclear fuel, the sun shines everywhere.

Ontario and Canada should be collaborating with other democratic allies to reduce dependence on Chinese suppliers. In the meantime, the fact remains that unsubsidized renewables and batteries outperform nuclear and gas on cost and deployment time. Sadly, instead of embracing this more affordable and distributed future, the provincial government remains stuck in an inflexible and fiscally reckless past.

Nuclear power can provide energy security, but only if it is supported and fuelled by a domestic supply chain, like the original CANDUs. Its unmatched energy density makes sense where land is scarce, but that is hardly the case in Ontario. It may even be a defensible form of industrial policy if you believe in that kind of state interventionism. But above all else, nuclear power is neither nimble nor affordable (outside China) and it’s about time the Ontario government stopped posturing otherwise.

More Policy Options articles on nuclear power:

• Ontario’s nuclear option is the wrong path to meet green energy targets
• Canada’s newest nuclear industry dream is a potential nightmare

The post Ontario’s nuclear push risks another costly policy failure appeared first on Thoughtful Journalism About Energy's Future.

By Gavin Pitchford

I was absolutely gobsmacked earlier this week by just how pervasive certain myths are, and realizing how much work we in the clean economy have to do before Canadians will believe we can make the transition.

And before a critical mass of Canadians see the clean economy as a real option that can displace the fossil fuel industry as an engine for prosperity, employment, improved health, a better environment, and also, a little climate action.

At the invitation of greenwashing expert Dr. Wren Montgomery (Clean50 2026), I took the clean economy show down Highway 401 to London, Ontario and Western University, my alma mater. I was addressing two fourth year Honours Business Administration (HBA) classes at Ivey, arguably Canada’s top business school.

Before I began my description of Canada’s clean economy, I asked both classes a lead-off question: What percentage does Canada’s oil and gas business contribute to our GDP?

Their answers blew me (and Wren) away.

The students came back with a wide range of responses. The closest, from just one of the ~20 students who answered, suggested 35%. Most of the others? Between 50 and 65%. One said 40% and a couple came in at 70%, with one outlier suggesting 90%.

It was literally breathtaking.

Murmurs of ‘Wow’

These are very sharp students. Some of them have already spent summers working for banks and consulting firms. And from all the attention we pay to the fossil fuel industry, the FUD (fear, uncertainty, and doubt) the industry spreads, and the amount politicians talk about it, students assumed its importance to Canada was literally 10 times bigger than it actually is.

Also of note, it’s only ~20% of Alberta’s GDP. Of course, if Premier Danielle Smith stopped making it impossible to roll out new wind and solar projects, that number would decrease quite rapidly.

My lecture then tabulated the clean economy numbers—clean/climate tech, renewable energy, green building, green fuels, biotech, venture investment, responsible investing, sustainability consulting. Counting only the numbers I could get with any accuracy, with lots of holes still to fill, the total for the clean economy was actually higher.

And so I was blessed to actually watch world views changing –and in real time!

We talked about where the fossil fuel industry is headed over the next 10 years (flat to down) vs. the clean economy (300% growth over next 10 years, if we keep pace with the rest of the world).

We talked about the incredible impact and massive risk of abandoned oil wells and the oil sands ($260 billion in estimated cleanup costs, with less than $2 billion held in reserve to do the job). How Big Oil offloads liabilities for cleanup by selling almost-depleted wells for pennies on the dollar to smaller companies that strip as much oil as possible—then abandon the business, the cleanup, and the liability, leaving taxpayers on the hook for yet one last VERY big subsidy.

To put this in perspective, the cleanup bill will get bigger, as 50% of existing wells are expected to become non-profitable/non-productive by 2030. And yet the cleanup tab is already half –HALF—of our federal budget for one year.

Solutions That Are Saleable World-Wide

They were dumbfounded all this information was not already well understood by Canadians. That no one had ever shared it with them. One perceptively compared the fossil industry’s misinformation to that previously spread by the tobacco industry.

And they wanted this information spread widely!

We had a couple of dissenting voices in the crowd. “I don’t want government support going to the oil companies—but I don’t want it going to clean tech, either,” said one. Several nods from the free market bros around the room.

So we talked about why clean tech companies should get government support and why oil companies should not: Because clean tech is in a start-up phase, because it’s where the jobs are and where many more will come from, and mostly because intellectual property is highly portable. Other countries want ours, and our best are being pursued with significant government support, matching and top-ups for building facilities, easier access to capital—the list goes on. It means tomorrow’s Canadian business leaders can be lured south to the United States, to Europe, and even to China. taking the jobs with them. And so Canada needs to keep pace with investment, or lose them.

Nods from the free market types. They got it now…

After a lot of further conversation, the students expressed genuine frustration that no one had ever shared these facts with them before, then asked what they could do.

And then they committed to calling their MPs. And I’m holding them to it!

If you want to add your comments, there’s a shorter version of this story posted on LinkedIn.

Gavin Pitchford is founder and executive director of the Canada’s Clean50 sustainability leadership award program and CEO of Delta Management. This post originally appeared in the weekly Clean50 newsletter, and has been edited to match Energy Mix style.

The post Fossil Industry Distortions Make the Energy Transition Harder to Imagine appeared first on Thoughtful Journalism About Energy's Future.

By Fatih Birol, Executive Director

The post 7 certainties about energy for this age of uncertainty appeared first on Thoughtful Journalism About Energy's Future.

By Jorge H. Sanchez-Perez

The American invasion of Venezuela — along with fresh threats to annex Greenland — provide the world with a unique opportunity to perform a post-mortem examination on what was once known as the international rules-based legal order.

This legal order was based on rules enshrined in the United Nations Charter of 1945. Its collapse creates uncertainty that requires careful consideration from all those interested in world peace.

Read more: Trump’s intervention in Venezuela: the 3 warnings for the world

First, however, it’s important to understand what legal orders are and how they can collapse.

Social rules come in different forms — some might be religious, some moral. But complex political communities tend to be ruled by another set of rules, legal ones.

Legal rules tend to be organized in what are commonly called legal orders, and these orders guide the actions of members of the political communities in their everyday lives. One goal of most legal orders is, usually, co-ordination among those who are part of a social group.

When we think about legal orders, we usually focus on the ones that are closer to our political communities, such as those connected to our cities, provinces and states. But there’s one legal order that tends to be ignored more often than not — the international legal order.

International law

One defining feature of international legal orders is that they are far removed from people within their own political communities, so negotiations to establish shared rules are usually carried out by representatives of large states or other powerful political entities.

Even though the international legal order feels isolated from everyday rules — like city laws telling us which side of the road to drive on — it shares the same basic features that make any system of co-ordination work.

One key feature is meeting the expectations of the people within a political community. For a legal order to last over time, it must do this. In other words, because legal orders are systems of co-ordination, they tend to endure as long as their rules are expected and accepted, even if those rules are unjust.

Although some people believe that a law must be just to count as law, that view is hard to sustain when we look at the past few hundred years of human history. Many periods offer clear examples of both domestic and international legal systems that upheld deeply unjust and morally troubling positions.

Yet it would be difficult to argue that there was no legal order in places like the Ottoman Empire or Nazi Germany. In both cases, genocide — among the gravest moral failures imaginable — occurred within functioning legal systems. This suggests that legal orders can persist even while enabling repeated immoral actions.

History also shows, however, that legal orders do collapse, and often more quickly and more frequently than many might expect.

The Ottoman Empire and Nazi Germany, for example, ceased to exist a long time ago. From a broader historical perspective, the legal order of the Roman Republic in the second century BCE no longer exists and bears little resemblance to the system governing modern Rome within Italy today.

Like the other legal orders mentioned, the post–Second World War order increasingly looks like a relic rather than a binding reality — a fact we must clearly recognize if we hope to save some of its positive features.

Fundamental rights

After the Second World War, one of the main agreements among most political communities around the world was that the previously held right to wage wars against other countries was no longer acceptable. Sovereignty consequently became one of the cornerstones of the international legal order.

This was enshrined in Articles 1 and 2 of the United Nations Charter. The logic was simple: as the charter’s preamble notes, repeated wars had brought immense suffering to people entitled to fundamental rights based on their dignity, worth and equality. As a result, this new order abolished the right of political communities to wage war for any reason.

In practice, however, this order rested on a watered-down version of that ideal. Even when sovereignty and human rights were violated via military action, the appearance of an aim to protect them had to be maintained. Powerful states could breach these principles so long as they preserved the illusion that they were attempting to uphold and safeguard sovereignty and rights.

This unspoken rule — that power could override law if the façade remained intact — underpinned the international legal order from 1945 to 2023.

As the world watched the assault on Gaza unfold — deemed a genocide by the United Nations — many western political communities that had helped build the post-war legal order abandoned even the pretense that sustained it.

Once the illusion of respect for sovereignty and human rights collapsed, the system lost a key element that had kept it functioning. This is why I’ve argued previously that the rules-based international order went to Gaza to die at the hands of those who created it.

Annexation made easy

Unlike U.S. President George W. Bush’s war in Iraq, which was framed by American diplomats as defending human rights, Donald Trump’s invasion of Venezuela and the capture of Nicolás Maduro weren’t presented as respecting any lofty principles.

His actions were grounded on the views that the U.S. has a claim to Venezuela’s oil. The intervention was driven by economic interests and hearkened back to the the Monroe Doctrine, an 1823 U.S. policy that promoted American dominance of the Western Hemisphere.

The events in Venezuela suggest the post-1945 international legal order, which emphasized sovereignty and fundamental rights, has been replaced by one more like the pre-Second World War system, when nations could go to war for almost any reason.

Read more: Trump’s squeeze of Venezuela goes beyond Monroe Doctrine – in ideology, intent and scale, it’s unprecedented

Under the legal order now in place, Canada and Greenland could easily be the next targets of American annexation. Similarly, Taiwan could be annexed by China and Ukraine by Russia.

What the world is witnessing now is the international rules-based order being stripped of whatever value it once had. It is time to accept this reality if we are to build a better international order next time.

The post Venezuela attack, Greenland threats and Gaza assault mark the collapse of international legal order appeared first on Thoughtful Journalism About Energy's Future.

With Jacob Blanc

The United States military recently carried out a covert operation to capture and then remove Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and his wife, transporting them from Caracas to New York. The pair is accused of narco-terrorism, conspiracy, drug trafficking and money laundering.

President Donald Trump announced that the U.S. will temporarily “run” Venezuela until a “safe, proper and judicious transition” can be ensured. Trump also announced Venezeula was handing over up to 50 million barrels of oil to the U.S. to be sold at “market price.”

Read more: A predawn op in Latin America? The US has been here before, but the seizure of Venezuela’s Maduro is still unprecedented

There’s nothing new about the American desire to put an end to the Maduro regime. In March 2020, during Trump’s first term, Maduro was indicted by the U.S. on narco-terrorism and cocaine trafficking charges. A reward of US$15 million was offered for his arrest. But the U.S. had been increasing pressure on Venezuela for months through both military and diplomatic tactics.

Nor is it the first time that the U.S. has intervened militarily in Latin America. It happened in Grenada and Panama in 1983 and in Honduras in 1988.

But an intervention of this magnitude in a large South American country is unprecedented. Jacob Blanc, a Latin American specialist and professor in the history department at McGill University, explains.

The Conversation Canada: Were you surprised by the American intervention in Caracas?

Jacob Blanc: Yes, I was, especially because of how audacious it was. There is a long history of American interventions in Latin America, but in the larger countries these have generally been carried out in a more subtle way. The United States has supported regime changes when they are perceived as pro-Communist or anti-American. But this case — a military intervention in the middle of the night at the presidential palace and the abduction of the leader of a modern country — is unusual. What’s more, Trump is not touching the political system. He is leaving the regime in place, with Vice-President Delcy Rodriguez as interim president. This is unprecedented.

TCC: What kind of relationship did the United States have with Venezuela?

J.B.: Venezuela is particularly important to Americans because it was the country where one of the first independence movements against the Spanish took place. This was where the colonial wars took root, and where [military and political leader] Simón Bolívar proposed unifying the South American hemisphere in a confederation. Bolivar’s plan did not succeed, but Venezuela was at the forefront of this movement. Then, in the 20th century, oil was discovered in several countries in northern South America, including Venezuela — which has the largest reserves in the world — and Colombia. The economy benefited, but this also created regional problems.

The region became more important to the Americans in the 1990s with the instability in the Middle East. With the rise to power of Hugo Chávez, [president from 1999 until his death], and his left-wing ideas, relations cooled. Chávez became the bête noire of the Americans, who accused him of corruption, among other things.

An oil embargo was imposed in 2019, which considerably weakened the oil sector. Under Hugo Chavez, the oil sector was already slowing down, mainly due to corruption. It will take years and a lot of money for the Americans to get it back on track, but the Americans themselves created part of the problem with the embargo.

TCC: How do other South American countries view this intervention?

J.B.: It depends on their ideology. Brazil, Mexico and Colombia, which are more left-wing, have denounced the intervention, but Argentina and Chile have supported it. In my opinion, this will accentuate the divide between the two ideologies present in South America, but this situation is not really new. For Cuba, the threat is real. But an American intervention on the island would be purely ideological, as the country has almost nothing to offer. It would be a trophy for Trump to show off.

TCC: Trump’s bellicose rhetoric against Colombia is surprising, given that the country is a democracy. How should we interpret this?

J.B.: Yes, it surprises me a little. But at the same time, it makes sense: the official justification for the intervention against Venezuela is the illegal entry of drugs into the United States. But Venezuela is a small player. Colombia, on the other hand, is a very large exporter. So if the justification is true, that makes it all the easier to do the same thing in Colombia.

TCC: What message is Trump sending to the rest of the world?

J.B.: Trump’s actions are reminiscent of what Putin is doing in Ukraine, and what Xi Jinping could do in Taiwan or other neighbouring countries. This jeopardizes the international rules that nations established after the Second World War, when they set up a system — which might be weak, but it’s still a system — to prevent wars.

Read more: Venezuela attack, Greenland threats and Gaza assault mark the collapse of international legal order

TCC: What does the future hold for Venezuela?

J.B.: It will all depend on the type of administration Trump supports. For now, he is not changing the regime or the system and says he wants to manage it from a distance, through various incentives. I believe the Trump administration is crossing its fingers and hoping that the new presidency will not implode due to internal factions. We can expect infighting within the current government, as well as with the military.

Many want power. Donald Trump wants to have his cake and eat it too. He wants to make the operation look like a victory without any risks or costs; without sending soldiers who could lose their lives. But nothing is less certain. And if chaos spreads in the region, particularly in Colombia, it will be Trump’s fault. He has taken a very, very risky gamble.

The post Maduro’s capture: ‘Trump has taken an unprecedented and very risky gamble’: Historian appeared first on Thoughtful Journalism About Energy's Future.

By Stewart Prest

The recently struck memorandum of understanding (MOU) between Canada and Alberta is a high-stakes strategy that risks deepening already deep divides in Canadian politics.

While the MOU touches on a number of issues, at its heart is a shared vision for a new pipeline from Alberta to British Columbia’s protected northern coast.

In effect, the deal offers a quid pro quo: Ottawa agrees to relax a range of federal environmental regulations — including a ban on tanker traffic in B.C.’s north — and to support a pipeline in exchange for a commitment from Alberta to eventually increase the price of carbon on industrial emissions in the province to $130 a tonne.

It’s a vision negotiated without the involvement of either the B.C. government or the Indigenous Peoples affected by the plan. While the agreement calls for consultations with both groups, they are relegated to the status of secondary partners, with concerns to be addressed in the execution of the plan outlined by Ottawa and Alberta.

A policy solution for an identity issue

The deal is clearly meant to bridge the gap between populist voters centred in the Prairie provinces and the rest of the country. But both the content and the process risks widening that gap, even as it deepens divisions elsewhere in the country.

Simply put, Prime Minister Mark Carney is trying to find a policy solution to an identity problem, and doing so by picking sides rather than neutrally facilitating agreement.

It’s part of the polarized, populist identity in Alberta, in particular, to oppose Ottawa and Liberal governments. In fact, when Alberta Premier Danielle Smith referred to the MOU in front of the United Conservative Party (UCP) convention, she was roundly booed. Rather than being hailed as champion who had achieved valuable policy concessions, she was greeted as a traitor to the cause.

Given the rude reception, it’s not surprising that in recent days Alberta has sought ways to limit its environmental commitments.

Read more: How ideology is darkening the future of renewables in Alberta

Playing favourites in the federation

Over the longer term, the agreement risks legitimizing the narrative of “Alberta aggrieved” by treating it as a distinct, sovereign jurisdiction entitled to special treatment.

In fact, the trappings and language of the agreement seem to reinforce the idea that “Alberta” is a natural negotiating partner with “Canada” rather than part of Canada.

The MOU’s signing ceremony in Calgary — not the provincial capital of Edmonton or Ottawa — bore all the hallmarks of international treaty-making, complete with flags and a formal text in both official languages. The symbolism reinforced the image of the deal as a kind of grand bargain between Ottawa and oil country.

While the federal government often strikes deals with provincial governments, this situation is quite different. It’s a deal only with Alberta but it primarily involves British Columbia. The agreement therefore elevates Alberta to the level of a quasi-sovereign jurisdiction to be treated as an equal with Canada. B.C., site of any future hypothetical pipeline terminals, has been rendered a deal-taker, not a deal-maker.

Unfortunately, that’s not how the federation is supposed to work. Just because the federal government has ultimate jurisdiction doesn’t mean other regions don’t get a say. It’s hard to imagine the federal government striking a deal with Ontario about what should happen in Québec without Québec’s involvement.

Read more: Alberta has long accused Ottawa of trying to destroy its oil industry. Here’s why that’s a dangerous myth

B.C. fury

B.C. Premier David Eby was accordingly furious with the federal government’s approach before the deal was announced.

Since then, while pointing out weaknesses in the deal, the NDP premier has also been at pains to show his willingness to work with Alberta on workarounds, including an expanded Transmountain pipeline or another pipeline that would leave the oil tanker moratorium in place on B.C’.s northern coast.

In leaving Eby out of the conversation, the federal Liberals have alienated a natural ally in their pursuit of economic development, forcing the premier to defend B.C.’s status within the federation, the rights of the province’s Indigenous communities and the province’s protected northern coast and Great Bear Rainforest.

Constitutional obligations to consult

Even more telling is the united reaction of First Nations. The Assembly of First Nations has unanimously voted in favour of a motion calling for the MOU to be scrapped. In fact, the federal government may have put itself in legal jeopardy over its failure to consult prior to the MOU.

At some point, it will likely have to explain in court how it could be serious about consulting in good faith with Indigenous Peoples in accordance with its obligations under Section 35 of the Constitution Act when the MOU gives the appearance of approving the project in principle before such conversations even begin.

Offering ownership stakes to Indigenous groups in a project devised without their involvement is not consultation. Simply put, unless governments can show they’re open to amending their plans in light of information they receive during consultations, they risk falling short of their obligations.

Cracks in the Liberal coalition

While polls suggest a majority of Canadians support the idea of a pipeline so far, the Liberals’ own coalition shows some signs of fraying.

Former environment minister Steven Guilbeault’s resignation from cabinet over the deal, along with the resignations of multiple environmental advisers to the Liberal government, suggest the party’s reputation for environmental progress has taken a hit given the slow and fuzzy approach to climate action outlined in the MOU.

Other federal parties sense an opportunity. The Bloc Québecois has strongly denounced the deal and has offered to support B.C. in its campaign to defend the province’s autonomy. The move underscores the sensitivities that remain in Québec around issues of provincial rights.

Even more tellingly, federal Conservatives, perhaps initially dismayed by a deal uniting federal Liberals and Alberta Conservatives, are now putting a motion before the House of Commons asking it to endorse the government’s position on the MOU and make good on its commitments. The Liberals, for their part, have vowed to vote against the motion, arguing that it only endorses part of the MOU.

In effect, the Conservatives are seeking to turn the government’s own MOU into a wedge issue against it. The Conservatives will likely continue to press the issue going forward given how the idea of a pipeline at any cost unites Conservatives and divide Liberals. Liberal MPs in B.C. and Québec, in particular, will also likely feel torn between loyalty to the party and deference to the views of constituents opposed to the deal.

In short, a pipeline intended to unify threatens to throw divisions into even sharper relief — even within the Liberal Party itself.

The post Opinion: Why Mark Carney’s pipeline deal with Alberta puts the Canadian federation in jeopardy appeared first on Thoughtful Journalism About Energy's Future.

By Lennie Kaplan

Alberta’s climate-change strategy, the emissions reduction and energy development plan (ERED), announced with fanfare by the Smith government in April 2023, seems to be in public limbo after more than two years.

The plan outlined a series of actions, opportunities and commitments to reduce the province’s emissions, including an aspirational target of a carbon-neutral economy by 2050.

But implementation appears to have stalled, which is troubling given renewed talks between Ottawa and Alberta about a “grand bargain” focused on significantly reducing greenhouse gas emissions, encouraging carbon capture and storage deployment, and unlocking pipeline development.

The 2025 mandate letters from Premier Danielle Smith to the ministers of environment and protected areas and energy and minerals make no reference to implementing the plan despite a 2023 mandate letter from the premier that talked about the two ministers co-ordinating to do so.

No significant action on implementation appears to have occurred over the past two years around the following key initiatives, which I support and believe are critical to success:

• reducing the provincial oilsands 100-megatonne (Mt) annual emissions limit to align with carbon capture and storage project targets – an estimated 11-Mt annual reduction in CO2 emissions by 2030 – of the Pathways Alliance, an organization representing six of the largest oilsands producers;
• working collaboratively with partners – including environmental NGOs, industry, Indigenous organizations, municipalities, labour groups and others – to design effective policy and programs to support implementation of the ERED;
• establishing policies and programs that are evidence-based, including understanding the environmental, social and economic impact of policy choices;
• publishing reports documenting the progress and outcome of the actions taken as part of the plan.

In a 2018 audit, the Office of the Alberta Auditor General pointed out that critical elements of a robust system to manage provincial climate-change plans included maintaining overall and sectoral implementation plans, as well as rigorous and effective monitoring of the progress of climate-change programs, including complete information on costs.

The lack of action on the ERED creates uncertainty about how Alberta can reach its goal of carbon neutrality by 2050 or any interim emissions-reduction targets for 2030, 2035, 2040 or 2045.

To come to that conclusion, we use the Canada Energy Dashboard, updated with detailed data to January 2025, based on the current suite of federal and provincial climate-change policies (but not the proposed federal oil and gas emissions cap, the federal clean-electricity regulations and the federal 75-per-cent oil-and-gas methane-reduction requirement) to examine Alberta’s emission projections. We further use refence cost assumptions for technologies such as carbon capture and storage, solar, wind and batteries, and hydrogen.

Based on this reasonable scenario, Alberta will miss its 2050 target of carbon neutrality by 222.4 megatonnes.

Canada needs to accelerate its transition to renewable energy

Many Albertans still fine with an oil-and-gas future

These Alberta emission levels do not include the implications of the latest Alberta government goal to increase oil production from nearly four million barrels per day in 2024 to six million barrels per day by 2030 and to eight million barrels per day by 2035.

Clearly, further actions will be critical, including vigorous implementation of the ERED, coupled with aggressive adoption of carbon capture and storage, and the early advent of direct air capture. So why the implementation delay?

One of the key components of a successful ERED is the need to conduct comprehensive emissions forecasting and analysis to develop credible sectoral and overall action plans.

The Alberta Environment and Protected Areas ministry recognized this recently when it issued an RFP to enhance the government’s internal capability to perform sophisticated analysis and forecasting of the social, economic and environmental impact of provincial climate-related policies and federal climate-related policies.

The goal is to have access to best practices and methods in the field of empirical economic-energy-environment modelling, including the ability to study the economic impact of policy scenarios, as well as how policy, energy prices and technological change impact energy use. This work is scheduled to begin in January.

Enhancing emissions forecasting and analysis capabilities within government is critical in preparing an overall ERED action plan as well as action plans for key industry sectors; establishing sectoral and interim emissions targets for 2030, 2035, 2040 and 2045; and promoting vigorous monitoring and reporting systems.

These are all best practices of a robust legislated climate-change accountability framework, which is vital because maintaining national and international credibility is important to Albertans.

The Alberta government talks about sovereignty within a united Canada. To put meaning to these words, Alberta needs a strong ERED if it expects to conclude a successful “grand bargain” with Ottawa on significantly reducing emissions, encouraging carbon capture and storage deployment, and unlocking pipeline development.

The post Opinion: What is going on with Alberta’s climate-change strategy? appeared first on Thoughtful Journalism About Energy's Future.

The post Letter to the Editor: Officials and media must stop misstating Aboriginal title law appeared first on Thoughtful Journalism About Energy's Future.

By Toril Bosoni, Head of Oil Industry and Markets Division

The post Opinion: As oil market surplus keeps rising, something’s got to give appeared first on Thoughtful Journalism About Energy's Future.