Last month, Alberta didn’t just announce it had transitioned entirely off coal as an energy source; the province kicked the fossil fuel six years ahead of a wildly ambitious schedule. The scale of achievement this represents defies exaggeration—and contains a warning for oil fans everywhere. […] what happened to coal is coming for oil next.
Virtually every major analyst that isn’t an oil company (and even some of them, like BP) now expects global demand for oil to peak around 2030, if not sooner; McKinsey, Rystad Energy, DNV, and the International Energy Agency all agree. This places Canada in a uniquely vulnerable position. Oil is Canada’s biggest export by a mile, a vital organ of our economy: we sold $123 billion worth of it in 2022 (cars came in second, at just under $30 billion). Three quarters of that oil is exported as bitumen—the most expensive, emissions-heavy form of petroleum in the market and therefore the hardest to sell. That makes us incredibly sensitive to fluctuations in global demand. Think of coal as the canary in our oil patch.
Extractive industry is heavily required if we’re going to get off fossil fuels, we have tons of metals that are pretty damn important for building nuclear and various renewable energy sources.
But in the meantime, the world was clamouring for natural gas because of sudden restrictions due to the war in Ukraine and it was pants-on-head retarded to turn that down.
Which is true, but the issue is that Canada didn’t plan ahead like either Saudi Arabia or Norway and use our oil wealth for something useful.
We have away royalties and used the money for tax cuts and giveaways to the rich. Alberta in particular is guilty of being unable to plan for a rainy day.
Fossil fuels aren’t a yes/no thing, we aren’t getting off them cold turkey and neither is any other country. Part of the process is substituting higher emitting fossil fuels with lower emitting ones while we work towards the goal.
For the 25½ years we have left? Better subsidize research on alternatives to plastic and kerosine. Oil getting more expensive in the process would even be helpful.
They were saying we should have taken advantage of the short-term opportunity.
The problem is that Natural Gas is not portable and the plants required to ship it overseas take time and investment to build.
So, the situation was not so “pants on head” obvious really. That said, I agree with them that we should have done it. I say that as somebody that would like the fossil fuel industry to go away.
Canada would probably be a major LNG provider to Europe at this point if we had done it. However, they are trying to transition away from it as well so the clock is ticking. And, of course, if the war ends, some will go back to buying from Russia. So it was only ever a short-term opportunity for Canada ( though longer than many believed at the time ).
Natural Gas is still a fossil fuel so your main argument is correct. However, it is a lot better than oil or coal. It makes sense to move to natural gas over coal to generate electricity and the world is doing that. It also would have made sense to move vehicles, especially larger trucks, to Natural Gas. Even if the end-goal is electric, NG would have been a great first step ( especially in paces where the electricity is coal or natural gas anyway ).
Every country is different, and they all have their economic strengths. Ours happens to be relatively environmentally conscious resource extraction, and if we stop then that just drives demand towards other regions where things aren’t done to the same high standards.
Because we are the second largest country in the world and have vast amount of natural resources… why shouldn’t we develop them?
All the materials being used by these tiny (geography-wise) European countries that many consider to be “better” than us certainly aren’t coming from those countries… why shouldn’t it come from us?
We’re worse off because we severely limit our development of our natural resources and a lot of what we do develop is exported in a fairly raw state (we don’t do much value adding).
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !canada@lemmy.ca
Extractive industry is heavily required if we’re going to get off fossil fuels, we have tons of metals that are pretty damn important for building nuclear and various renewable energy sources.
But in the meantime, the world was clamouring for natural gas because of sudden restrictions due to the war in Ukraine and it was pants-on-head retarded to turn that down.
Which is true, but the issue is that Canada didn’t plan ahead like either Saudi Arabia or Norway and use our oil wealth for something useful.
We have away royalties and used the money for tax cuts and giveaways to the rich. Alberta in particular is guilty of being unable to plan for a rainy day.
Uhm, natural gas is not an alternative to oil. Has the same problems.
Fossil fuels aren’t a yes/no thing, we aren’t getting off them cold turkey and neither is any other country. Part of the process is substituting higher emitting fossil fuels with lower emitting ones while we work towards the goal.
For the 25½ years we have left? Better subsidize research on alternatives to plastic and kerosine. Oil getting more expensive in the process would even be helpful.
Should have, yes. But time is short now.
They were saying we should have taken advantage of the short-term opportunity.
The problem is that Natural Gas is not portable and the plants required to ship it overseas take time and investment to build.
So, the situation was not so “pants on head” obvious really. That said, I agree with them that we should have done it. I say that as somebody that would like the fossil fuel industry to go away.
Canada would probably be a major LNG provider to Europe at this point if we had done it. However, they are trying to transition away from it as well so the clock is ticking. And, of course, if the war ends, some will go back to buying from Russia. So it was only ever a short-term opportunity for Canada ( though longer than many believed at the time ).
Natural Gas is still a fossil fuel so your main argument is correct. However, it is a lot better than oil or coal. It makes sense to move to natural gas over coal to generate electricity and the world is doing that. It also would have made sense to move vehicles, especially larger trucks, to Natural Gas. Even if the end-goal is electric, NG would have been a great first step ( especially in paces where the electricity is coal or natural gas anyway ).
Can you explain why? As in, why does Canada need so much mining when there are other wealthy nations that don’t focus so much on it?
Maybe all nations do, idk
Every country is different, and they all have their economic strengths. Ours happens to be relatively environmentally conscious resource extraction, and if we stop then that just drives demand towards other regions where things aren’t done to the same high standards.
Because we are the second largest country in the world and have vast amount of natural resources… why shouldn’t we develop them?
All the materials being used by these tiny (geography-wise) European countries that many consider to be “better” than us certainly aren’t coming from those countries… why shouldn’t it come from us?
Shouldn’t that mean we are, economically, in a better position than those tiny European countries?
I’m not too savvy but I always thought Canada’s economy is worse than the average Western European country. Maybe that’s not true either.
We’re worse off because we severely limit our development of our natural resources and a lot of what we do develop is exported in a fairly raw state (we don’t do much value adding).
“pipsqueak1984” – guys I think I found Pierre.