Pipelovs seem more popular due to Trump’s threats. But does it make sense to build new ones?

When the expansion of the pipeline opened on May 1, 2024, carrying oil from Albeta to the coast of BC, there was no festive opening ceremony. The Federal Government of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, who bought the project and spent more than $ 34 billion – which makes the pipeline one of the largest infrastructure projects ever built in Canada – said almost nothing about it.

“This was a thing that the liberal government did the right for the oil sector … and they did not celebrate at all. There was no ribbon cutting ceremony,” said Rory Johnston, founder Context of goodsOil research service.

Even Prime Minister Alberta Danielle Smith, Chief Antagonist Trudeau, thanked the federal liberals for the end of the pipeline, saying that This would be the “Games exchanger” for Albert’s oil industry and welcomed him as an example of federal provincial cooperation.

But the liberals were strongly criticized for pipelines from the proponent of the climate, who considered him the government issued his goals of the emission reduction and giving the oil and gas industries-the toddler of the Canadian greenhouse gas emiterment that heated planet-gross stimulus.

All this seemed like a distant memory of discussions on the leadership of the Liberal Party this week. In discussions about French and English, candidates for leading the leader expressed warmer feelings for pipelines.

“A project like Energy East is possible. The fact is that it is possible to build a pipeline in Quebec, Maritimes of Albert … I think it’s an opportunity for us to use us,” said former Central banker Mark Carney in France’s discussion on Monday.

“I am very proud that I am a minister who has received access to our Pacific Ocean energy. This diversification is so valuable today. It gives us an alternative to the United States. We need that more than ever before,” former Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland said in English on Tuesday.

All of this comes since Canada faces the threats of US President Donald Trump that he will make Canada 51. And that he will stun the tariffs on Canadian exports, which could overthrow the Canadian economy dependent on exports-has been up to the new interest in shortening economic and energy independence in Canada, including pipelines.

But even if the political climate becomes more favorable for new pipeline projects, they continue to face a liquid transition from fossil fuels into pure energy.

This means that the construction of new pipelines could have a sense of Canadian energy security and politicians seeking impact because they face Trump, but this may not be very attractive for private companies trying to make money.

What do Canadians think of new pipelines?

Angus Reid Internet survey Of the 2,012 Canadians shot at the end of January, it suggests that support is a pipeline.

Energy East, a pipeline proposal for the west-east that was canceled in 2017, recorded an increase in support from 58 to 65 percent of 2019, suggests a poll. The pipeline support reached 47 percent even in Quebec, where there were a massive movement against the project when he was proposed for environmental care.

It seems that just over half of Canadians support Northern Gateway, the proposed pipeline that Alberta Nafta will bring to the BC coast but was Canceled the government Trudeau in 2016.

In BC, the poll found that 55 percent of the surveyed were supported by Northern Gateway, which originally opposed many indigenous and environmental groups due to potential spills through the province, and in the waters outside the northern BC

“People are currently throwing themselves on alternatives. You know, how to separate their US economy from the US?” said Hayden Mertins-Kirkwood, a senior researcher at the Canadian Alternative Policy Center.

He said that this turning to pipelines shows a lack of political imagination, and Canada should use the moment to strengthen other industries – such as pure electricity or production with a safer future in a world that rotates from fossil fuels.

“There is a huge risk of stranded property here to continue to double the infrastructure that we will not need in the next few decades,” he said.

“Instead of building a new infrastructure that will last us 100 years.”

Matto Mildenberg, professor of political science at Santa Barbara University of California, who studies policy and policy of climate change in North America, said that although political tensions with the US opened up the space to talk about pipelines, he still expected each future liberal rule to remain focused on the transition of energy, something a dozen.

“I don’t consider no message we hear from the freeland campaign and Carney as indicated as a climate priority as a problem,” he said.

What are the lessons learned from Trans Mountain?

The Trans Mountain and its eye cost projects are prevalent in any future Canadian pipeline proposals.

Kinder Morgan, based in Texas, first suggested an expansion of pipelines in 2012. The oil pipeline carries an oil from Alberta to ports and refineries on the west coast, and the company wanted to more than double its capacity and bring the capacity of Albert’s petroleum products to export to markets in Asia and elsewhere.

But the project faced significant protests and legal challenges from environmental groups, the first nations along the route and the BC government itself. In 2018, Kinder Morgan suspended the project and said that he might have to leave it completely because of all opposition.

The Trudeau government then came in to finish it, buying a pipeline for $ 4.5 billion and spent billions more to build a spread.

“Even if this was difficult because of the budget, even if the pipeline itself actually never spoiled even as an independent project, and the benefit of the crown is the one that builds is that the federal government can capture a far wider economic picture for whether or not,” Johnston said.

He said this means that the Government can take into account the long-term benefits for Albert, for the oil industry workers, and now because of the method of exporting oil without completely relies on the US and if the pipeline itself fails as a job based on the fact that it is expensive.

As part of the toll -used toll procedure, the federal energy regulator will review why the project cost so much.

“I think if we are seriously dealing with such a project to build a nation, we have to understand what went wrong with Trans Mountain,” Johnston said, pointing out that some costs would probably have to drill through the mountains or bad luck, like a flood. Other pipelines do not necessarily have such expensive obstacles, he said.

What about the transition of pure energy?

Of 2021The International Energy Agency, advised by industrialized countries in energy markets and projections, was clear: in order to avoid the worst effects of climate change, which are more often and stronger, the world must work on net-in-2050s.

That, Iea says, means No new long -term oil and gas projects should be built.

Last June, to predict that Global oil demand will peak up by 2029, while energy creation is moving into renewable sources and electric cars are becoming more popular.

“If the world is successful in designing the demand for fossil quickly enough to reach a net zero show by 2050, new projects would face great commercial risks,” warns the Agency, as the world would turn to renewable energy and there would be no sufficient demand for fossil fuels.

“I think the Canadians will have to deal with probably a decreasing role of fossil fuels in the global economy that an energy transition is being carried out. This will mean that the Canadian economy cannot be rooted long in the fossil fuel extraction,” said Midenberg.

“I think it is a better approach to thinking about a disorder created by the current American administration to think about other ways in which Canada can become independent of energy in a way that also meets climate needs.”