By Dave Wilkin
The 2024 edition of the World Energy’s Statistical Review was recently released. Below I highlight some key statistics from it, then share my takeaways and how they may affect Canadian energy policy direction.
Global primary energy consumption continues to rise, growing 2% last year, while the renewables (mostly wind and solar, excluding hydro) grew 12%, now comprising 8% of the global energy mix, unchanged from 2022. Nuclear and Hydro had minimal growth. Fossil fuels are still comprised of over 80% of the global energy mix, and their related emissions have reached a new high, rising over 8% over the last decade.
Diving deeper, we see stark differences. In non-OECD (mostly developing) countries, primary energy consumption grew 22% over the decade, driven largely by fossil fuels growth, which make up 84% of their energy mix. Their emissions surpassed 70% of the global total. Notably, these countries collectively hold 90% of natural gas reserves and 85% of oil reserves, enough to last around 70 years, at current production levels. Renewables growth was a robust 18% last year (half in China), yet their energy mix share remained mostly unchanged at just under 7%.
In contrast, Europe’s primary energy consumption fell 10% and emissions declined 19% over the past decade. Renewables expanded 7% in 2023, bringing them up to a 15% energy mix share. European emissions now comprise just 9% of the global total. Yet fossil fuels still make up almost 70% of their energy mix and they remain very heavily dependent on imports, which still comprise over half of their primary energy. Last year Canada supplied only 1.5% of their imported oil, and no LNG, while the US supplied about 18% of their oil and 45% of their LNG. The majority of their energy imports still come from OPEC+ countries. Continuing cutbacks on energy imports from Russia have pushed them to further reduce consumption and pursue alternatives.
Over the past decade, US primary energy consumption rose 2%, oil increased 3% and natural gas was up a stunning 25%. Despite these increases, emissions declined 9%, largely from cleaner natural gas replacing coal. In contrast, Canada’s primary energy consumption and emissions fell around 3%, oil declined slightly, while natural gas grew almost 15%. Last year, renewables expanded about 4% in the US and 6% in Canada, pushing their energy mix share to just 9% and 5% respectively. Fossil fuels share remained at about 65% in Canada and 81% in the US. Notable, of our $152 billion in 2023 oil and gas exports (20% of all Canadian exports), almost all was US bound.
Here are key takeaways from this energy picture:
- The global energy transition is not on track to reach the 2050 net-zero emissions goal. Renewables are growing, but not at a sufficient rate to even offset continuing energy demand growth. This was echoed in the 2024 McKinsey Global Energy Perspective.
- Despite some progress in developed countries, non-OECD countries are the primary driver of fossil fuel growth. They have the reserves to continue on that path, pushing global emissions higher.
- In Europe, where most high carbon pricing resides & electricity and natural gas prices are triple ours, progress to net-zero emissions remains insufficient. After decades of significant policy efforts & spending, almost 70% of their energy still comes from fossil fuels, higher than ours. Energy insecurity from their continuing high dependence on imported fuels from undemocratic countries remains. Adding to this challenge, overly aggressive energy transition policies are driving growing deindustrialization.
- In the US, both oil and natural gas consumption continues to grow.
So how might things unfold on the Canadian political scene?
For the Trudeau government, no changes, despite Mark Carney’s arrival as a party advisor. They will continue with their carbon tax and other aggressive energy regulations & reduction targets, arguing the urgency to fight climate change remains top priority.
Conservatives will remind voters that under Trudeau, and despite his carbon tax, heavy regulations, and over $160 billion in committed climate-related spending, energy-related emissions declined just 3.4%. They will point out that Canada contributes just 1.5% (and declining) to global emissions and that the US doesn’t/won’t have a carbon tax, placing Canadian businesses/exports increasingly at a competitive disadvantage. They may also highlight the big European challenges.
After 9 years, this Liberal government is tired, and most voters are done with Trudeau. Under a conservative government, the carbon tax is history, aggressive climate targets, heavy industry regulations and green energy subsidies will likely be scaled back. Actions to significantly expand Canadian energy exports, including oil & especially LNG, looks likely.
Improving Canadian productivity & competitiveness while expanding Canadian energy and natural resource exports takes centerstage over fighting climate change (domestically). A big shift in energy policy is coming.
Dave Wilkin is a Professional Engineer, with a master’s degree in Electrical Engineering from the University of Toronto. His career spans over 40 years in Information Technology, banking, energy, and consulting. A former resident of Huntsville, Ontario, he now lives in Burlington but still spends time at his Huntsville area cottage.
Don’t miss out on Doppler!
Sign up here to receive our email digest with links to our most recent stories.
Local news in your inbox so you don’t miss anything!
Click here to support local news
The Real Person!
The Real Person!
Hard to believe an engineer is not aware of the very rapid, dramatic changes to renewable power and storage around the world.
Or not aware of the carbon tax rebate.
Poilievre refuses to acknowledge it even exists.
Or that most Canadians get back more in the rebate than they pay in the tax.
Grid batteries soak up the excess and make it available whenever it’s needed.
So renewable power is available 24/7.
Massive grid batteries are being installed around the world.
“US solar industry explodes past pivot point with incredible exponential growth”
“Batteries the biggest player again as renewable records smashed in California, reach 156 pct of load | RenewEconomy”
“battery storage became, for the first time, the largest supply source in the evening peak of what is one of the world’s largest grids.”
Think the carbon tax is expensive?
It’s rebated.
The massive cost of climate change is not.
The carbon tax rebate is up to $2,160/year for a rural family of 4 in Alberta.
‘Fuel” for an EV is actually FREE courtesy of the gas burners.
EV owners don’t pay the carbon tax on gas but still get the big rebate.
The rebate pays the entire yearly cost of “fuel” for an EV, road tax if any, and helps to pay off the EV.
On top of purchase rebates available in many provinces.
At least $5K total.
Despite what Poilievre says the carbon tax is a tiny part of inflation according to the BOC.
Search “There’s now a Bank of Canada number for carbon tax’s impact on inflation. It’s small”
“That number: 0.15 percentage points of the inflation increase can be attributed to the carbon tax.”
Almost nothing.
While climate change is hugely expensive and responsible for a huge part of inflation.
Search “From chocolate to home insurance, climate change is making life more expensive.”
Search “Explosive Growth – How Green Energy Fuels the Economic Boom”
“renewable energies made up ten percent of growth in global Gross Domestic Product – equivalent to 320 billion dollars.”
“Indeed, the growth rates for renewable energies last year were impressive: 80 percent of newly built electricity capacities worldwide were attributable to wind, solar, water, and biomass.”
“since 2021, more workers have been employed in the “clean” energy sector than in the fossil sector.”
That’s the clean, green economic future.
The Real Person!
The Real Person!
Deadly numbers. It’s like we are all going to continue to be stuck in a crowded elevator with a big fat rich guy smoking a cigar with fossil fuel pollution for a very long time. I am old but what about the little babies and children breathing in that stuff. So thanks for the good news.
Allen Markle says
This “little green planet, third from the sun” will fry when its sun goes nova in about 8 billion years. So I don’t have to worry about that. But the earths supposedly intelligent life form, us, seems to bound and determined to speed the process and advance the end part of the program. ‘Til we destroy our home and our existence.
Dave Wilkin: I know you realise there are some pretty powerful people who care not a whit about your rationale or numbers.
Imagine a tank commander outside Vuhledar in the Ukraine, instructing his driver to park up because he wants to conserve diesel.
putin grounding his fighter jets to cut back on the burning of kerosene.
India cutting steel production to try to get down to using only 50 million tons of coal, rather than the 100 or so million tons they use today. To preserve the environment.
Trump befouling the environment simply by breathing out.
Trudeau cutting back on the jet-setting.
Poilievre……..doing whatever!
Without the backdrop of the world as it is, numbers and ideology seem moot, if not superfluous. There are other world figures, leaders, who don’t care much about how the world end. Just as long as they are in charge when they ‘end’. In their mind, global warming is what the little people worry about.
But we have to keep the faith. Because today, the reality hurts.
The Real Person!
The Real Person!
Dave, we are reminded every day that we live in a big greenhouse with vents closing rapidly and the temp going up. Last night’s 20-foot storm surge on Florida’s gulf coast was the highest ever. There are umpteen conflicting guestimates, but oil and gas are finite resources. They must be replaced before they are depleted. Or else we will really be in a mess.
There are many bumps on the road to clean energy and a more livable climate, such as wars, oil and gas producers dragging their feet to wring the remaining profits out of old energy, and politics, but it’s a road we must take. Bidens Inflation Reduction Act works well to build clean energy jobs, but at the expense of US national debt. The Trudeau government is using the exact same tools as most other responsible governments to facilitate the urgent change, with less impact on our debt, but it takes time.
The Carbon tax, used by many countries, is like Buckley’s Mixture. It tastes awful but it works. The net cost of electricity for my energy-efficient EV is zero. That’s right, zero. The cost is totally offset by the carbon rebate and saves me over $2,000 per year in energy costs compared to my gasoline car. And I save 26 tonnes of CO2 over 5 years. Drop in the bucket but it helps.
Since you mentioned Trudeau, I must say that Poilievre’s plans for clean energy are more like Trump’s project 2025. Nil and scary. He says nothing because he’s afraid to be honest. He will set us back decades.
The Real Person!
The Real Person!
Bob Braan, I understand all too well the electrical generation numbers, you missed my point. Renewables energy growth was under half of global energy consumption growth last year. Overall, all power generation expanded just 2.5%. To meet net-zero targets, generation needs to expand at least 3x that rate to achieve the more than tripling of total generation capacity that will be needed.
Unless the enormous scale, real costs (likely 100’s of trillions$) & current insufficient pace of the energy transition are broadly understood and unless wealthy countries understand that without developing countries having affordable energy to meet their growth needs, the transition needed is impossible.
Renewables are only part of the solution, not the solution. Prematurely curtailing fossil-fuels would trigger a global energy crisis that makes the most recent EU one look tiny.
As things stand, we had better be investing much more in resiliency, unfortunately.
Bill MacLean says
I agree that we should be investing much more in resiliency. And I agree the costs are high, but the cost of not acting is much higher. The cost of future climate events is just going to keep rising around the world. The problem is if the world doesn’t cut fossil fuel use a lot faster than it is, we may not survive at all, never mind a fuel crisis. I like to think that grandchildren and great grandchildren might have a future. If it is hopeless, as you indicate, then we won’t need to worry about government debt – lets spend and spend more to have the most people have the best possible lives because in two generations whether we end a species or just have the current economic/world system collapse, the debt won’t matter.
Conservatives often talk about financial debt being a burden for future generations, but we have been and continue to build an environmental debt that dwarfs any financial debt (in money as well as other costs) and future generations may have nothing to pay it with.
Whether because the climate imposes the changes or we make them, economic change is coming. The planet is ending its subsidy of our waste (plastics, greenhouse gases, heavy metals, etc etc) and when a subsidy ends, the costs go up as the true price is then reflected. Humanity has never paid the full price of disposal of its garbage (the cost to make whatever the waste is environmentally neutral). Whether we pay a price for pollution (of all kinds)and help others reduce their pollution, or we pay a price due to ecosystem collapse, wild weather events, increased disease, millions of displaced people, we will still pay a price. The latter will be a higher price, much higher.
The Real Person!
The Real Person!
Just like Trump, Poilievre keeps repeating “alternative facts” ad nauseum.
Just like Doug Ford and Dani Smith in Alberta.
Why? Because it works on the gullible.
https://doppleronline.ca/huntsville/a-need-for-optimism/
Remember “Poilievre ran in favour of carbon taxes multiple times in his career.”
The switch to a clean, green future means you will have far more disposable income.
Less money spent on energy, health care and cars.
“UK renewable boom plunges electricity prices”
“California neighborhoods with more EVs see better air quality, public health”
Inexpensive EVs from China, built in Mexico to avoid tariffs, are on the way.
Don’t believe anyone about the tax and rebate. Figure it out yourself.
We pay around $300/year carbon tax on gasoline and another $300/year carbon tax on natural gas and get $920/year back with the carbon tax rebate.
So it’s a net benefit of $320/year for us.
Like it’s a net benefit for most that Poilievre wants to axe.
The fact is inexpensive renewables and storage are very rapidly replacing fossil fuels for new and existing energy generation.
Watch this video: “US solar industry explodes past pivot point with incredible exponential growth”
This not only benefits the planet with a reduction in climate change but also benefits everyone with a drastic drop in costs.
The very large emitters, China, India and the US are rapidly switching to renewables and storage.
In fact “Analysis: China’s emissions set to fall in 2024 after record growth in clean energy”
More clean energy built in China last year than the rest of the world combined.
Combined.
India is putting in a lot of renewable energy as well.
Including:”In the salt deserts bordering Pakistan, India builds its largest renewable energy project”
“It will supply 30 gigawatts of renewable energy annually, enough to power nearly 18 million Indian homes.”
“China installed a record 293 gigawatts (GW) of wind and solar in 2023 – pushing its total capacity to 1,050GW, according to a new report.”
Watch the video “Coal power stations losing billions – China’s coal-fired power boom is OVER”
Oil rich Texas is actually leading the way in the US and recognizes the massive benefits.
Unlike Alberta. Or Ontario.
Watch the videos: “Texas beats California: How oil country became the renewable energy leader”
and “Batteries save Texas after coal plant fails during worst heatwave in decades”
While Ontario goes rapidly backwards due to Doug Ford.
https://doppleronline.ca/huntsville/environment-and-economics-the-keys-to-a-sustainable-future-hugh-holland-commentary/
The Real Person!
The Real Person!
Dave Wilkins commentary paints a gloomy picture. I am not yet convinced that investing more in renewable energy sources and developing efficiencies in energy transmission and usage would not be preferred and more economical solution for the taxpayer and consumer than speeding up the business of current polluting fossil fuel products. Mr. Wilkins states “we had better be investing much more in resiliency, unfortunately” and also highlights affordable energy needs of developing countries.(lets sell them more of our unhealthy stuff- its like the asbestos we exported long after we stopped using it) There will be increasingly costly climate change intensified floods, drought and fire, displacement of people, unless we can reduce our fossil fuel dependence. It would be helpful if Mr Wilkins could outline what our investments in resiliency should be.( including increasing renewables I assume ) And what scalable, real-life fossil fuel related technology will make the planet remain liveable for most humans, plants and animals. The policy shift Mr Wilkins has described so far, sounds like a short-sighted, fossil fuel industry strategy to delay energy transition, similar to the decades, long coverup and denial of its hazards of products. Time is up, and we as taxpayers and consumers are now getting the bills for our fossil fuel pollution doom parties. I want that fat guy smoking the fossil fuel cigar in that free-falling elevator with us to just stop and think about others.
The Real Person!
The Real Person!
Yes Joanne, the numbers are scary, but that’s the current reality. .
Bob Braan, you continue quoting from overly biased green sources. The hard reality today is that the renewables (wind,solar) are more costly, when you add in their FULL costs – the energy storage, variability, grid changes needed, shorter lifespans, disposal costs – which are excluded from most green-leaning sources. As these renewables grid share rises beyond about 20%, costs rise quickly.
That is largely why EU household electricity prices are over triple those in Ontario. In Germany, where renewables are now over 50% of all generation, prices averaged over 4x higher last year.
This has led to accelerating deindustrialization and a big drag on their economy. https://www.forbes.com/sites/jimvinoski/2024/02/29/german-deindustrialization-is-a-wake-up-call-for-us-manufacturers/
Why are they being so aggressive on transitioning? The answer is obvious, as I have stated many times before – energy security. They are very exposed to costly, volatile fuel imports, unlike Canada. We should be thankful for that much.
This is why the energy transition is going to take a lot longer, and cost much more than the existing fossil-fuel based one being replaced. With world energy demand set to grow significantly by 2050, possibly by as much as 50%, resiliency investments are now more critical than before.
Canada is very well positioned – abundant oil and gas reserves, hydro resources, nuclear technology, critical mineral resources etc. Just need better political leadership now.