The future of the energy industry undoubtedly divided Canada during the 2019 election period. The country is in ideological war due to the environmental impact the Canadian oil industry has on climate change. The recent federal election proved that western Canadians are primarily in favour of the continued success of the country’s energy industry.
Even before the election was on the horizon, the proposed Trans Mountain Pipeline was already pulling out the divisive opinions throughout Canada; regardless, construction is underway. So, how did Canada finally come to a conclusion about the pipeline? Through interventions and LNG developments in Western Canada, the Trudeau government managed to save the pipeline. In 2018, Canada’s government purchased the pipeline from Kinder Morgan Inc. with the intention to expand the infrastructure and triple the volume of substance it would carry.
The construction of the Trans Mountain Pipeline promises some success for Canada’s oil and gas industry; however, the country will still be out millions as the government stopped the Northern Gateway Pipeline while simultaneously putting the Pacific Tanker Ban into effect. The Pacific North Coast Oil Tanker Ban restricts oil tankers from travelling to BC’s north coast in an effort to limit catastrophic spills that have historically destroyed ecosystems and economies; however, some argue that tit was a safer option than shipping through Vancouver. Unfortunately, this has not been the only project to be withdrawn; in 2018 alone, the Liberal government scratched 37 projects off the list.
The School of Public Policy at the University of Calgary has expressed that constraints on pipeline capacity means more than $14 billion dollars will be lost annually. The purpose of these constraints and regulations is to encourage environmentalism and reduce Canada’s contribution to climate change, but at what cost? The higher the cost in Canadian jurisdictions, the less investors there will be in the industry. Recently, international investors have become more cautious of where they put their money when it comes to Canada; they can easily invest the same money within countries that do not have the added cost that Canada’s jurisdictions create.
At this point, there are hundreds of thousands of Canadians that are unemployed or underemployed due to the state of the oil and gas industry. Although the plague of unemployment stems from the oil and gas sector, the effects do not end there. In fact, the effects of the suffering industry trickle through the entire Canadian economy. So again, we wonder if the cost of favouring the environment to the extent of the Liberals is worth the stability of Canada’s economy. Regardless of where it comes from, the world needs energy, so shouldn’t Canada dedicate itself to producing the most sustainable products on the planet rather than putting misplaced trust on other countries to do the same?
Fortunately, some environmental activists have found a happy-medium to the oil and gas versus climate debate. They have acknowledged that Canada can and should focus its efforts on achieving net zero emissions, rather than eliminating the industry altogether. With some innovation investment and focused improvement to creating sustainable products, Canada could be well on its way to fostering a successful economy that leaves a minimal carbon footprint behind. It is up to the liberal government over the next four years to make this happy-medium happen.
References
Information on the above topic was pulled and summarized from the following sources:
https://boereport.com/author/stewart-muir/
https://www.wcel.org/program/tar-sands-pipelines-tankers/pacific-coast-oil-tanker-ban
