The Facts

Former U.S. President Bill Clinton once talked about building a bridge to the 21st century. If the goal today is to help reduce global emissions in the 21st century, why can’t oil and gas be the foundation for that bridge?

Pardon me while I channel up the lyrics from a 1971 Ten Years After song: “I’d love to change the world, but I don’t know what to do.”

When the International Energy Agency (IEA) called for an immediate halt to all new oil and gas investment worldwide back in May, it appears they neglected to account for two important realities: Africa and Asia.  

 

Want to know why Canadian oil and gas gets so little respect from anti-oil and gas activists? It’s not because Canada’s main energy sector is somehow a miscreant on measures of carbon emissions or anything else. Instead, it is often due to three approaches: focusing only on absolute emissions and ignoring the effect of economic growth and per capita measurements; skipping over the reality of a cold northern country; and making the perfect (utopian end) the enemy of the good.

 

When the issue of taxpayer subsidies for energy comes up — oil and gas and renewables alike — the public, policymakers and media could be forgiven if they feel like they’re drowning. Endless decimal points and numbers that run into the trillions can make it near impossible to grasp what it all means to one personally.

 

Canadian Energy Centre Executive Director of Research Mark Milke joined Business Insider host Mario Toneguzzi to discuss the findings of new research on new Canadians working in the oil and gas extraction sector.

A few years back, one of us (Mark) took an early morning taxi ride in Vancouver. The driver, originally from Latin America, began to complain—without any prompting—of how crazy it was that local anti-oil and gas protesters were trying to block the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion.