Contributed by Robert Lyman © 2023. Robert Lyman’s bio can be read here.
In a news item that attracted almost no attention in the Canadian national media, the federal and Nova Scotia provincial governments recently drove a stake through the heart of the province’s offshore energy development opportunity. On December 4, 2023 Jonathon Wilkinson, Federal Minister of Natural Resources and Renewables and Tory Rushton, Nova Scotia Minister of natural Resources of Nova Scotia announced their “shared decision” to veto the decision of the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board to issue Exploration Licence 2437 to Inceptio Limited, which would have authorized exploration on a shallow parcel on the Sable Bank of the Scotian Shelf.
The news release announcing this decision stated that it was made on the basis of “broader policy considerations, including our shared commitments to advance clean energy and pursue opportunities in the clean energy sector” and that the decision would “enable us to research and understand the interactions between the two industries as we transition to a clean energy future”.
The explanation makes no sense whatsoever. Let’s consider why.
The “broader policy considerations” obviously refer to the policies related to climate change, which themselves depend for their credibility of acceptance of at least four highly doubtful theses – that human greenhouse gas emissions pose a catastrophic threat to the world; that the models used by international organizations like the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to project future climate effects can be relied upon, even though they have failed to account for actual temperature and weather events since they were designed in the 1990s; that the countries of the world are all committed to radically reduce emissions, even though emissions, driven by economic growth in the developing countries, are constantly rising; and that even if Canada, which produces 1.5% of global emissions, ceased to exist, it would make even a slight difference in global temperatures or climate. None of these theses is true.
Suppose, for the sake of argument, though, that all of them were slightly valid considerations.
GHG emissions represent 0.04 per cent of the atmosphere, of which 96 per cent derives from natural causes and 4 per cent are anthropogenic (i.e. produced by humans). Two thirds of the annual human-caused GHG emissions are from the use of coal, oil and gas. Of the portion that is produced by oil and natural gas, 80 per cent is produced by the final combustion of the fuels. In other words, the exploration, development, transportation, refining and marketing of oil and natural gas accounts for only 20 per cent of the emissions. Consumers, not producers, are the ones responsible for that.
If Canada ceases to produce oil and natural gas, will it change national emissions? Very little, so long as Canadians seek to use the affordable and secure energy sources to heat, cook and move themselves and their traded goods. In other words, if we stopped producing it, we would just import it from other countries that would be glad to have the economic investment and employment associated with hydrocarbons development.
Notation regarding wind, solar, biofuels, etc. added to Our World in Data graph.
Here are some facts. The world relies on fossil fuels for 82 per cent of its primary energy use. In spite of the wealthier countries spending over $10 trillion on what the International Energy Agency calls “renewables” and “clean energy” over the period from 2014 to 2023, these sources only account for 7 per cent of global energy use. In 2023, global consumption of oil, natural gas and coal all increased, driven by the desire of the poorer countries to use secure and affordable energy to support economic development and rising living standards for their rapidly growing populations. The US Energy Information Administration, probably the most authoritative source of analysis on world energy trends, projects demand for oil and natural gas to continue rising until at least 2040.
As for the claims that “clean energy” offers economic development opportunities, here is another fact. Statistics Canada has reported since 2007 on the share that “clean energy” represents of Canada’s Gross Domestic Product. In 2007, it was 3 per cent. In 2022, after billions of dollars in public subsidies had been poured into this sub-sector, the share was still 3 per cent. It is not growing. The jobs are mostly going to China.
It is frankly shocking that a Progressive Conservative government in Nova Scotia would go along with the climate-related hysteria of the Trudeau government.
Maybe it is because Nova Scotia is already such an economic powerhouse that it can afford to pass up economic development opportunities. Maybe it can also afford to give up the equalization payments, too. Or not.
The text says that Nova Scotia received equalization payments equal to 16.9% of its government revenues while the graph shows that the province received total federal transfers equal to 31.8% of its revenues. Perhaps the graph should show only the equalization payments so that it matches the text.