I never bought into the green demand that we must end fossil fuel extraction yesterday. I think it’s wishful thinking. A well-planned transition to electric makes more sense to me, where oil & gas play a role while we develop our rare earth resources and energy infrastructure.
1) it would have been informative to see figure three replicated with 2025 data for a better apples to apples comparison.
2) I think that Carney realizes, unlike his predecessor, that the goal of mitigating the climate problem is a) not something with a short/term solution and b) not without significant costs that are outside the economies current capacity.
Goals set by passionate believers are great, they created both needed focus and urgency, but they are rarely achievable without some realignment.
The climate transition we need will not occur in 10 or even 25 years, this is a 75 to 100 year project which will require oil, gas, coal etc as we move to renewables, hydrogen, fusion.
I have no doubt we will get to a closer to neutral carbon footprint but $$ and time are required.
I also think it is extremely arrogant to assume that we will have full control over what the earth itself will do.
Very insightful post. Of course there is an climate issue, but the revenues from expanding sale of Canadian oil to help finance a transition to cleaner energy sources. This is a multi decades project. Most political leaders don’t see this far out, they are more concerned with just getting reelected. It appears that PM Carney has a longer term vision.
To echo Blair, I don't think you mentioned the Climate Emergency once in your discussion. Do you not believe in it? I'm not saying I'm dismissing any argument for the tar sands further development---I just want to know how your reasoning squares with the need to move the world to a carbon neutral economy ASAP.
1) it would have been informative to see figure three replicated with 2025 data for a better apples to apples comparison.
2) I think that Carney realizes, unlike his predecessor, that the goal of mitigating the climate problem is a) not something with a short/term solution and b) not without significant costs that are outside the economies current capacity.
Goals set by passionate believers are great, they created both needed focus and urgency, but they are rarely achievable without some realignment.
The climate transition we need will not occur in 10 or even 25 years, this is a 75 to 100 year project which will require oil, gas, coal etc as we move to renewables, hydrogen, fusion.
I have no doubt we will get to a closer to neutral carbon footprint but $$ and time are required.
I also think it is extremely arrogant to assume that we will have full control over what the earth itself will do.
The difference this time may be the expectation that there will be as strong demand for our project as there was in the 1990s. So, although the oil and gas we sell will no doubt help the situation across Canada, it may not have quite as strong an effect on the economy as before.
I’d say that the current situation concerning the Strait of Hormuz would solidify the demand for a stable oil supply. Just like now Germany is committing to purchase LNG from Canada’s West Coast and ship it through the Panama Canal. Countries that need energy will do what it takes to secure a stable supply.
Well, let's hope so. We're a lot more reliable than Russia, I hope, but I presume quite a bit more expensive given the transportation costs. There are also possibilities west of us, I guess.
I’m happy to agree with all of that. And yet it’s ancient history in a world that needs to move rapidly to net zero emissions, and not vapourware CC&S but actual lowering of emissions. So, yes, the oil sands expansion was good for the Canadian economy when I was graduating, and yes, there’s no way forward with further expansion in 2026.
I never bought into the green demand that we must end fossil fuel extraction yesterday. I think it’s wishful thinking. A well-planned transition to electric makes more sense to me, where oil & gas play a role while we develop our rare earth resources and energy infrastructure.
1) it would have been informative to see figure three replicated with 2025 data for a better apples to apples comparison.
2) I think that Carney realizes, unlike his predecessor, that the goal of mitigating the climate problem is a) not something with a short/term solution and b) not without significant costs that are outside the economies current capacity.
Goals set by passionate believers are great, they created both needed focus and urgency, but they are rarely achievable without some realignment.
The climate transition we need will not occur in 10 or even 25 years, this is a 75 to 100 year project which will require oil, gas, coal etc as we move to renewables, hydrogen, fusion.
I have no doubt we will get to a closer to neutral carbon footprint but $$ and time are required.
I also think it is extremely arrogant to assume that we will have full control over what the earth itself will do.
Thank you for the insights.
Very insightful post. Of course there is an climate issue, but the revenues from expanding sale of Canadian oil to help finance a transition to cleaner energy sources. This is a multi decades project. Most political leaders don’t see this far out, they are more concerned with just getting reelected. It appears that PM Carney has a longer term vision.
To echo Blair, I don't think you mentioned the Climate Emergency once in your discussion. Do you not believe in it? I'm not saying I'm dismissing any argument for the tar sands further development---I just want to know how your reasoning squares with the need to move the world to a carbon neutral economy ASAP.
Very good article and clearly articulated.
1) it would have been informative to see figure three replicated with 2025 data for a better apples to apples comparison.
2) I think that Carney realizes, unlike his predecessor, that the goal of mitigating the climate problem is a) not something with a short/term solution and b) not without significant costs that are outside the economies current capacity.
Goals set by passionate believers are great, they created both needed focus and urgency, but they are rarely achievable without some realignment.
The climate transition we need will not occur in 10 or even 25 years, this is a 75 to 100 year project which will require oil, gas, coal etc as we move to renewables, hydrogen, fusion.
I have no doubt we will get to a closer to neutral carbon footprint but $$ and time are required.
I also think it is extremely arrogant to assume that we will have full control over what the earth itself will do.
Thank you for the insights.
The difference this time may be the expectation that there will be as strong demand for our project as there was in the 1990s. So, although the oil and gas we sell will no doubt help the situation across Canada, it may not have quite as strong an effect on the economy as before.
I’d say that the current situation concerning the Strait of Hormuz would solidify the demand for a stable oil supply. Just like now Germany is committing to purchase LNG from Canada’s West Coast and ship it through the Panama Canal. Countries that need energy will do what it takes to secure a stable supply.
Well, let's hope so. We're a lot more reliable than Russia, I hope, but I presume quite a bit more expensive given the transportation costs. There are also possibilities west of us, I guess.
I’m happy to agree with all of that. And yet it’s ancient history in a world that needs to move rapidly to net zero emissions, and not vapourware CC&S but actual lowering of emissions. So, yes, the oil sands expansion was good for the Canadian economy when I was graduating, and yes, there’s no way forward with further expansion in 2026.