Oilfield pumpjacks, belonging to Vesta Energy, produce crude on wells in the Duvernay oil formation north of Red Deer, Alta. on Aug.14, 2019. In the U.S. presidential debate last week, instead of Democratic candidate Kamala Harris talking about banning fracking, as she did five years ago, she is now talking up domestic energy production. It’s positively Republicanesque.Larry MacDougal/The Canadian Press
What a difference a few years can make. In the U.S. presidential debate last week, Democrat Kamala Harris touted her country’s massive increase in oil production. One of her key lines was “we have got to invest in diverse sources of energy so we reduce our reliance on foreign oil.”
Instead of the Vice-President talking about banning fracking, as she did five years ago, she is now talking up domestic energy production. It’s positively Republicanesque.
Some commentators have chalked this up to words the climate-focused Ms. Harris has to say to pander to the crucial swing state of Pennsylvania – where the debate with former president Donald Trump took place, and where the rough-and-tumble business of hydraulic fracturing produces much of the natural gas consumed on the Eastern Seaboard.
Or, maybe her remarks are born from something deeper. In a Washington Post story headlined “Why Kamala Harris has embraced America’s oil boom,” the director of the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia University said the Vice-President’s remarks reflect political and economic reality. For instance, fracking is the largest source of energy production in the country, Michael Gerrard said. And though wind and solar are growing quickly, a significant shift to cleaner sources of energy remains a distant goal.
The Democrats aren’t going to back away from their signature climate law, the Inflation Reduction Act. But the fact climate change received scant attention at the Democratic National Convention last month was not an accident. Because of politics or pragmatism, there’s a reckoning playing out in the world of climate policy for progressive politicians.
In Canada, it was seen in the carbon-price reversals last week by NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh and British Columbia’s David Eby. Mr. Singh continued his months-long, muddled backing away from a consumer fuel charge, in its current form. And Mr. Eby is the NDP Premier of a province that prides itself on its environmental bonafides. But he faces a tough election in October, and now says he would eliminate the levy if Ottawa drops its own policy.
The NDP leaders are responding to a shift in the public mood in the past two or three years. The cost of living and housing means for many, there’s less bandwidth for environmental concern. Russia’s war on Ukraine has made the Western world pay more attention to energy – not only to avoid buying from Vladimir Putin, but also to have enough reasonably priced supplies on hand. Similarly in the U.S., some Democrats who once demonized their own oil and natural gas industries now appear to accept that it’s necessary, or at least value the job numbers in swing states.
People are certainly conflicted. More Canadians now look at massive, out-of-control wildfires and see them as “proof of climate change,” according to a survey from pollster Greg Lyle provided to The Globe and Mail. His Innovative Research Group surveyed Canadians in August and found 57 per cent of Canadians believe this summer’s devastating Jasper fire is proof of a changing climate. Eight years ago, when the Horse River Wildfire pushed into Fort McMurray, that number was 39 per cent.
But despite Canadians’ belief that wildfire season has worsened, actual concern about climate change in Mr. Lyle’s surveys has decreased since 2021 – as has support for a national minimum for carbon price.
This has all come about at least in part because of messaging from Pierre Poilievre, who doesn’t fret about the climate and has fought the consumer carbon price at every turn. But Conservatives are leading in the polls because they have successfully captured the mood of the times: If environmental policies add to the burden of people already squeezed by their bills, even a wee bit, there’s going to be pushback.
Even if Canadians hadn’t just gotten through a period of high inflation, carbon pricing was always a policy that economists love and political scientists warn about. Consumers pay the cost of carbon pricing upfront in a visible way, while the carbon rebates and the potential benefits to the planet only come in the longer term.
The Liberals have made their position worse with their constant refrain that the carbon price and annual hikes have almost no effect on most households and the economy, their frequent dismissal of the economic and energy security benefits of the oil and natural gas sector, and their politicization of how the price was applied across the country. And they haven’t yet yielded from their position like NDPers.
But it’s increasingly clear the consumer carbon price is on borrowed time. And that will force Canadian leaders to come up with new energy and climate policies – hopefully ones that combine pragmatism and public support with emission reductions. This also means Mr. Poilievre will soon have to come up with a plan beyond “axe the tax.”