Clean energy is the future — why are we investing in fossil fuels?
I don't know about you, but I have to say I'm a bit confused these days. In fact, in political terms, I really don't know whether I'm coming or going.
Am I coming out of a fossil fuel-addicted world into a greener cleaner one, or going back to fossil fuels as the only default position to keep Canada financially afloat in the face of a fascist's tariffs?
I know which direction almost 80 per cent of us want to be headed, but I'm not sure our provincial and federal leaders agree, given all this talk about gas and oil pipelines cutting through environmentally sensitive northern lands and mega-mining projects in Ontario's 'ring of fire' — peatlands that store a staggering 35 billion tonnes of the world's carbon.
So I'm left asking — is this the only way we can cut loose from the U.S. and cope with a trade war, or are our leaders simply taking the easy way out? Easy in the sense that it's all too familiar, seems to be pragmatic and, at least in the short term, may more or less maintain our standard of living.
In the somewhat longer term, it won't be easy at all, given that we live in a world that's already blown past the 1.5 degree Celsius mark above pre-industrial levels, and crossed several of the seven thresholds that measure the distance between a climate emergency and climate chaos.
Given the latter reality, I find myself asking a couple of simple questions — why aren't Mark Carney and Wab Kinew talking about a clean energy revolution as a way to beat the tariffs and trade war? Why isn't Carney talking about a bolder vision, challenging the government to work together to retool Canada's economy and set our country up to become a world leader in clean energy and green technology?
Now, maybe I'm naïve, and god knows I'm no economist, but it seems to me, as I've said before, that if Canada was able to blast forward from an agrarian based economy to an industrialized one in just six years during the Second World War, why can't we do the same now?
I mean, we've got a lot of smart Canadians who would likely rise to the challenge and there are quite a few highly skilled Americans looking for a way out of the current political nightmare in their own country, who could be recruited to the cause.
And transitioning to clean energy like solar and wind doesn't just make environmental sense, it's also a financially smart, given that renewable energy is now 41 per cent cheaper and just as efficient. It's also more secure, because as UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres recently observed — 'There are no price spikes for sunlight, no embargos on wind.'
In fact, countries like Denmark and Germany have already demonstrated that the transition to clean energy works by generating 50 per cent to 67 per cent of their power needs with solar and wind.
Canada, meanwhile, is generating a paltry seven per cent to 11 per cent of its total electricity with alternate sources. This when Atlantic Canada is deemed to have some of the best wind power potential in the world and the Prairies have excellent prospects for solar.
Not to mention the fact that clean energy technologies offer numerous business opportunities for economic growth, which also expands Canada's trade options.
Just look at China where investments low carbon manufacturing as well as solar and EVs have created new and booming markets.
And the irony is that the vast majority of Canadians want a renewable energy transition to happen. According to the Pembina Institute, even 70 per cent of Albertans are worried about their heavy dependence on oil and gas, and more than 80 per cent think their government should be planning for new opportunities for energy workers.
Which suggests to me that most Canadians know the world is undergoing an energy transition and are worried that our country will be left in the dust by Europe and China where efforts to reach Net Zero are accelerating.
Look, the truth is we don't have much time to get this done, given that climate driven, extreme weather events — from flash floods in Texas, to the massive forest fires in Manitoba — are accelerating. So instead of building pipelines and mining one of the world's largest carbon sinks, maybe we should be focused on investments that will bring Canada into an economically stable, low carbon future.
Maybe it's time for our leaders to halt the fool's errand of looking to the past for short-term, carbon-heavy solutions, and start talking to Canadians about a just transition to clean energy. One that will guarantee a better, safer, more secure future for our grandchildren.
Erna Buffie is a writer and environmental activist. Read more at https://www.ernabuffie.com/
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Toronto Sun
38 minutes ago
- Toronto Sun
Letters to the Editor, Aug. 5, 2025
UNPOPULAR VOTE This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. THIS CONTENT IS RESERVED FOR SUBSCRIBERS ONLY Subscribe now to read the latest news in your city and across Canada. Unlimited online access to articles from across Canada with one account. Get exclusive access to the Toronto Sun ePaper, an electronic replica of the print edition that you can share, download and comment on. Enjoy insights and behind-the-scenes analysis from our award-winning journalists. Support local journalists and the next generation of journalists. Daily puzzles including the New York Times Crossword. SUBSCRIBE TO UNLOCK MORE ARTICLES Subscribe now to read the latest news in your city and across Canada. Unlimited online access to articles from across Canada with one account. Get exclusive access to the Toronto Sun ePaper, an electronic replica of the print edition that you can share, download and comment on. Enjoy insights and behind-the-scenes analysis from our award-winning journalists. Support local journalists and the next generation of journalists. Daily puzzles including the New York Times Crossword. REGISTER / SIGN IN TO UNLOCK MORE ARTICLES Create an account or sign in to continue with your reading experience. Access articles from across Canada with one account. Share your thoughts and join the conversation in the comments. Enjoy additional articles per month. Get email updates from your favourite authors. THIS ARTICLE IS FREE TO READ REGISTER TO UNLOCK. Create an account or sign in to continue with your reading experience. Access articles from across Canada with one account Share your thoughts and join the conversation in the comments Enjoy additional articles per month Get email updates from your favourite authors Don't have an account? Create Account Re 'Clever counter to longest ballot stunt' (Lorne Gunter, July 30): Gunter hits the nail on the head with his column describing Elections Canada's move to mitigate the disastrous effects of the self-appointed, non-democratic, Longest Ballot Committee in the coming byelection in Battle River-Crowfoot. If these yahoos are serious about changing the Canadian electoral system, get the votes in Parliament to make the change democratically — let all Canadians have their say, not just a disgruntled few. Duane Sharp Mississauga (We vote for Gunter's opinion) HUSH, HUSH Re 'Canada's left shows they don't support free speech' (Brian Lilley, July 28): Free speech in Canada? Just like free trade with the U.S. A mirage. Canada has no free speech and no free trade. Never did. Never will. We are muzzled unless we pay tribute to our social controllers. Anything outside the approval zone is declared hate speech, prosecuted, persecuted and shut down. We need an attitude adjustment. Consider this quote attributed to Voltaire by English writer S.G. Tallentyre (pseudonym of Evelyn Beatrice Hall): 'I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.' Never happens in demented and delusional Canada. This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. LD Cross Ottawa (Make sure to read Jerry Agar's column on the adjacent page) CRIMINAL ONSLAUGHT After 10 years of brutal Liberal dictatorship that the Canadian Constitution and the Canadian Charter of Rights offer Canadians no protection against extreme political ideology. About the only thing that I can find is the legal obligation of the governing party to provide safety and security for Canadians. Now, clearly, the Liberals are not doing this. Crime is up; criminals, terrorists and cartels are flooding into Canada. Why have there been no charges laid against federal politicians? Glenn William Cunningham Calgary (Canada's judges are too busy supporting those politicians by coddling criminals) Opinion Columnists Weird Wrestling Toronto & GTA
Global News
2 hours ago
- Global News
Rwanda reaches deal with U.S. to take upto 250 migrants, Reuters reports
The United States and Rwanda have agreed for the African country to potentially accept hundreds of migrants deported from the U.S., the spokesperson for the Rwandan government and an official told Reuters, as President Donald Trump's administration takes a hardline approach toward immigration. The agreement, under which Rwanda would accept up to 250 migrants, was signed by U.S. and Rwandan officials in Kigali in June, said the Rwandan official, speaking on condition of anonymity, adding that Washington had already sent an initial list of 10 people to be vetted. 'Rwanda has agreed with the United States to accept up to 250 migrants, in part because nearly every Rwandan family has experienced the hardships of displacement, and our societal values are founded on reintegration and rehabilitation,' said the spokesperson for the Rwandan government, Yolande Makolo. 'Under the agreement, Rwanda has the ability to approve each individual proposed for resettlement. Those approved will be provided with workforce training, healthcare, and accommodation support to jumpstart their lives in Rwanda, giving them the opportunity to contribute to one of the fastest-growing economies in the world over the last decade.' Story continues below advertisement The White House and State Department had no immediate comment. The Department of Homeland Security referred questions to the State Department. Get daily National news Get the day's top news, political, economic, and current affairs headlines, delivered to your inbox once a day. Sign up for daily National newsletter Sign Up By providing your email address, you have read and agree to Global News' Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy President Donald Trump aims to deport millions of immigrants in the U.S. illegally and his administration has sought to ramp up removals to third countries, including sending convicted criminals to South Sudan and Eswatini, formerly known as Swaziland. 2:36 Venezuela releases 10 jailed Americans in prisoner swap with El Salvador Rwanda has in recent years positioned itself as a destination country for migrants that Western countries would like to remove, despite concerns by rights groups that Kigali does not respect some of the most fundamental human rights. In May, the foreign minister said Rwanda was in the early stages of talks to receive immigrants deported from the United States. The Trump administration argues that third-country deportations help swiftly remove some migrants, including those with criminal convictions. Immigration hardliners see third-country removals as a way to deal with offenders who cannot easily be deported and could pose a threat to the public. Story continues below advertisement Opponents have criticized the deportations as dangerous and cruel, since people could be sent to countries where they could face violence, have no ties and do not speak the language. The Trump administration has pressed countries to take migrants. It deported more than 200 Venezuelans accused of being gang members to El Salvador in March, where they were jailed until they were released in a prisoner swap last month. The Supreme Court in June allowed the Trump administration to deport migrants to third countries without giving them a chance to show they could be harmed. But the legality of the removals is being contested in a federal lawsuit in Boston, a case that could potentially wind its way back to the conservative-leaning high court. Rwanda signed an agreement with Britain in 2022 to take in thousands of asylum seekers, a deal that was scrapped last year by then newly-elected Prime Minister Keir Starmer. No one was sent to Rwanda under the plan because of years of legal challenges.
Winnipeg Free Press
2 hours ago
- Winnipeg Free Press
FACT FOCUS: Trump says he's cut drug prices by up to 1,500%. That's not possible
Days after he sent letters instructing top pharmaceutical manufacturers to use a 'most favored nation' pricing model for prescription drugs, President Donald Trump told reporters on Sunday that he had cut costs by up to 1,500%. But Trump's grandiose claim is mathematically impossible. Here's a closer look at the facts. TRUMP: 'You know, we've cut drug prices by 1,200, 1,300, 1,400, 1,500%. I don't mean 50%, I mean 14 — 1,500%.' THE FACTS: This is false. Cutting drug prices by more than 100% would theoretically mean that people are being paid to take medications. The Trump administration has taken steps to lower prescription drug prices, but experts say there's no indication costs have seen such a massive drop. Geoffrey Joyce, director of health policy at the University of Southern California's Schaeffer Center, called Trump's claim 'total fiction' made up by the Republican president. He agreed that it would amount to drug companies paying customers, rather than the other way around. 'I find it really difficult to translate those numbers into some actual estimates that patients would see at the pharmacy counter,' said Mariana Socal, an associate professor of health policy and management at Johns Hopkins University who studies the U.S. pharmaceutical market. She added that Trump's math is 'really hard to follow.' Asked what Trump was using to back up his claim, White House spokesman Kush Desai said: 'It's an objective fact that Americans are paying exponentially more for the same exact drugs as people in other developed countries pay, and it's an objective fact that no other Administration has done more to rectify this unfair burden for the American people.' The White House provided a chart of price differentials for drugs in the U.S. and comparable countries, but did not offer any other evidence. On Sunday, Trump also described cuts to drug prices as a future development, not that already happened. 'So we'll be dropping drug prices,' he said. 'It will start over the next two to three months by 1,200, 1,300 and even 1,400%.' Prices for most prescription drugs — unbranded generics are the exception — are higher in the U.S. than they are in other high-income countries. This is in large part due to the way drug prices are negotiated in the United States. Trump made his recent appeal in letters to 17 pharmaceutical manufacturers, the White House announced last week. He asked them to reduce costs in the U.S. by matching the lowest prices of prescriptions drugs in other comparably developed countries. Some drugmakers have since indicated that they are open to cutting costs. This move follows an executive order Trump signed in May setting a 30-day deadline for drugmakers to electively lower prices in the U.S. or face new limits in the future over what the government will pay. The federal government has the most power to shape the price it pays for drugs covered by Medicare and Medicaid. It's unclear what — if any — impact the Trump administration's efforts will have on millions of Americans who have private health insurance. Socal pointed out that if drug manufacturers had cut costs to the extent Trump claims, they would be shouting it from the rooftops, especially given the heat they've taken over the years for their pricing practices. Wednesdays What's next in arts, life and pop culture. 'My expectation would be that they would make announcements — public announcements — and that those announcements would come way in advance of the actual effective dates when those price cuts would come into effect,' she said. Joyce agreed that there has been no indication of a substantial cut. 'Not at all, not at all, none whatsoever,' he said. 'And let alone 1,500.' ___ Find AP Fact Checks here:
