CALGARY HERALD COLUMN: Canada Could Displace Half of Russian Energy Sales

Licia putin screenshot

To heat or eat? That is the question many Europeans are already grappling with this winter thanks to high energy prices.

Russia’s war against Ukraine, sanctions on Russia and Vladimir Putin’s punitive decision to turn off the natural gas tap to his neighbours in the rest of Europe are largely to blame for what most politicians and pundits are calling an energy crisis worse than the one that led to blackouts and long lineups at gas stations in 1979 during the Iranian revolution.

Canadians are rightly worried about our brothers and sisters in Europe and the United Kingdom. Could we help?

Think tank SecondStreet.org sought to answer just that question by examining just how much of Russia’s oil and natural gas exports Canada could displace if our governments made it a priority to approve pipelines and other infrastructure so that our plentiful and ethical oil and gas resources could be exported to Europe and other destinations.

SecondStreet.org surveyed eight experts in the oil and gas industry asking them to estimate how much Russian energy Canada could displace in the short, medium and long term. Their answers were then averaged and compared with projections for future Russian energy imports.

The report found that within a year, there wasn’t much our country could do — again, we lack pipeline capacity to get our resources to Canada’s coasts where they can be shipped overseas on tankers.

However, by the end of the decade, Canada could be offsetting upwards of 59 per cent of Russia’s annual natural gas exports and 46 per cent of their crude oil exports.

That would significantly curtail how many bombs, tanks and soldiers Putin could afford to send Ukraine’s way — or perhaps another country in the future — since half of Russia’s budget is paid for by oil and gas exports. And this is an important point. The world is facing a long-term problem with Russia. Long-term forecasts suggest the world will see more renewables coming onstream in the years ahead, but natural gas and oil will continue to be used for decades.

Even if Putin pulled out his forces today, it would be irresponsible to continue to purchase energy from his regime for even five or 10 years in the future.

As Ukrainian parliamentarian Alexey Goncharenko said recently, every barrel of Russian oil is filled with “Ukrainian blood.” The same, however, can be said of the bombs dropped on Yemeni citizens by the Saudi military funded by Saudi oil. It can be said of the bombs dropped on Syrian civilians by the Assad regime fuelled by Iranian oil wealth.

Canadian energy, by contrast, is blood-free and is developed to the highest environmental and social standards in the world.

Naomi Hossain, a professor of development politics at the American University in Washington, D.C., is putting the final touches on a paper that studies energy, fuel and food protests and riots around the world.

“In the last 12 months, from November 2021 to the end of October 2022 we counted there were more than 12,500 protests that were about the price of food, the price of energy … and cost of living issues, and is in every region of the world,” said Hossain, who was reached via telephone at her university office.

Hossain says in 30 countries there were more than 100 of these events, sometimes countrywide. She points out that she excluded from her research all protests that were against fossil fuels.

“We pay all this attention to environmentalists throwing tomato soup at Van Gogh’s sunflower painting, but actually the bigger story around energy this year, in my opinion based on this data, is that most people are really struggling to get the energy that they need. That’s the more significant story,” she said.

“This is not people wanting to fly around in their private jets. This is people trying to get to work, to afford bus fares, trying to heat their homes. All around the world, the phrase ‘to heat or eat’ is not an exaggeration. It’s a reality.”

She says if she were a politician, the energy crisis “would make me really worried.”

Hossain points to Lebanon, Sri Lanka and even the U.K. with Liz Truss’s short-lived prime ministership, as jurisdictions where politicians paid the political price because of high energy prices.

“Energy is really becoming a fundamental flashpoint in the citizen/state relationship all around the world.

“There hasn’t actually been much analysis of these types of protests before and I think that’s something to do with the way social scientists are wired. We don’t like to study things that we don’t really approve of, and I think that a lot of social scientists don’t approve of people fighting for their rights to fossil fuels because of climate change. But now we’re having to make an exception because this is such a big deal.

“When I see these protests around the world, it’s not because people want to burn fossil fuels in particular, they just have to have energy, because that’s what everyday life is all about. It’s all very well saying, ‘Keep it in the ground,’ but the rest of the developing world is saying, ‘It’s our turn now. Americans and the Chinese need to cut down their use.’”

All over Europe, governments have been imposing restrictions on how much energy their citizens can use. In Spain, through its sweltering summer, the government ordered that air-conditioning could be set no cooler than 27 C in public buildings. In France, shops were fined for leaving doors open while heating or cooling, and in Germany — which is most reliant on Russian fuels after shutting down coal-fired plants in an effort to meet climate change targets — citizens are not allowed to heat their homes or businesses to more than 19 C. The benchmark European gas price soared by 550 per cent in one year in the summer because supplies are so tight.

The energy crisis caused largely by Russian aggression is even expected to dim Christmas lights all across Europe to prevent blackouts.

Officials in cities like Lisbon, London, Frankfurt and Zurich are being forced to limit the hours of their Christmas light displays and scale them back as well.

Many Europeans say they are showering less, and sticking to cold food rather than turning on their ovens to cook.

Canadian liquified natural gas and our oil could help alleviate the suffering of our European allies — if only we could get our product to them. It’s long past time for Canada’s federal and provincial governments to allow our ethical gas and oil to help our suffering allies.

Licia Corbella is a contributor with SecondStreet.org and a former editorial page editor at the Calgary Herald.

This column appeared in the Calgary Herald and the Edmonton Journal on December 5, 2022.

Share on Facebook
Share on Twitter

You can help us continue to research and tell stories about this issue by making a donation or sharing this content with your friends. Be sure to sign up for our updates too!

Prevention – reduce demand in the first place

If Canadians lived healthier lives, we could reduce demand for emergency services, orthopaedic surgeries, primary care and more. 

For instance, if you visit the Canadian Cancer Society’s website, you’ll read that “about four in ten” cancer cases are preventable. The Heart and Stroke Foundation notes that “almost 80 percent of premature heart disease and stroke can be prevented through healthy behaviours.” A similar number of Diabetes cases are also preventable. 

Many joint replacements and visits to ERs and walk-in clinics could also be avoided through healthy living. 

To be sure, not all health problems can be avoided through healthy living – everyday the system treats Canadians with genetic conditions, helps those injured in unavoidable accidents and more.  

But there is an opportunity to reduce pressure on the health care system through Canadians shifting to healthier lifestyles – better diets, more exercise, etc. 

To learn more, watch our Health Reform Now documentary (scroll up) or see this column. 

Partner with non-profits and for-profit clinics

European countries will partner with anyone who can help patients. 

It doesn’t matter if it’s a non-profit, a government entity or a private clinic. What matters is that patients receive quality treatment, in a timely manner and for a competitive price.  

In Canada, governments often delivery services using government-run hospitals instead of seeing if non-profit or private clinics could deliver the services more effectively. 

When governments have partnered with non-profit and private clinics, the results have often been quite good – Saskatchewan, Ontario and British Columbia are just a few examples of where partnerships have worked well. 

Canada should pursue more of these partnerships to reduce wait times and increase the volume of services provided to patients.  

To learn more, watch our Health Reform Now documentary (scroll up) or see the links above. 

Make cross border care more accessible

In Canada, citizens pay high taxes each year and we’re promised universal health care services in return. The problem is, wait times are often extremely long in our health system – sometimes patients have to wait years to see a specialist or receive surgery. 

If patients don’t want to wait long periods, they often have to reach into their own pocket and pay for treatment outside the province or country. 

Throughout the European Union, we also find universal health care systems. But a key difference is that EU patients have the right to go to other EU countries, pay for surgery and then be reimbursed by their home government. Reimbursements cover up to what the patient’s home government would have spent to provide the treatment locally. 

If Canada copied this approach, a patient waiting a year to get their hip operation could instead receive treatment next week in one of thousands of surgical clinics throughout the developed world. 

Governments benefit too as the patient is now back on their feet and avoiding complications that sometimes come with long wait times – meaning the government doesn’t have to treat those complications on top of the initial health problem. 

To learn more, watch our Health Reform Now documentary (scroll up) or this shorter video. 

Legalize access to non-government providers

Canada is the only country in the world that puts up barriers, or outright bans patients from paying for health services locally. 

For instance, a patient in Toronto cannot pay for a hip operation at a private clinic in Toronto. Their only option is to wait for the government to eventually provide treatment or leave the province and pay elsewhere. 

Countries with better-performing universal health care systems do not have such bans. They allow patients a choice – use the public system or pay privately for treatment. Sweden, France, Australia and more – they all allow choice. 

Why? One reason is that allowing choice means some patients will decide to pay privately. This takes pressure off the public system. For instance, in Sweden, 87% of patients use the public system, but 13% purchase private health insurance. 

Ultimately, more choice improves access for patients. 

To learn more, watch our Health Reform Now documentary (scroll up) or watch this short clip on this topic. 

Shift to funding services for patients, not bureaucracies

In Canada, most hospitals receive a cheque from the government each year and are then asked to do their best to help patients. This approach is known as “block funding”. 

Under this model, a patient walking in the door represents a drain on the hospital’s budget. Over the course of a year, hospital administrators have to make sure the budget stretches out so services are rationed. This is why you might have to wait until next year or the year after for a hip operation, knee operation, etc. 

In better-performing universal health systems, they take the opposite approach – hospitals receive money from the government each time they help a patient. If a hospital completes a knee operation, it might receive, say, $10,000. If it completes a knee operation on another patient, it receives another $10,000. 

This model incentivizes hospitals to help more patients – to help more patients with knee operations, cataract surgery, etc. This approach also incentivizes hospitals to spend money on expenses that help patients (e.g. more doctors, nurses, equipment, etc.) rather than using the money on expenses that don’t help patients (e.g. more admin staff). 

To learn more about this policy option, please watch our Health Reform Now documentary (scroll up) or see this post by MEI.