We have updated our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use for Eurasia Group and its affiliates, including GZERO Media, to clarify the types of data we collect, how we collect it, how we use data and with whom we share data. By using our website you consent to our Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy, including the transfer of your personal data to the United States from your country of residence, and our use of cookies described in our Cookie Policy.
{{ subpage.title }}
Tug of war rope between US & Canada over green subsidies and tech workers.
Hard Numbers: Canada snaps up US tech workers, greenhouse gasses surpass grim mark, green hydrogen comes to Quebec, shrimp paste alarm
6,000: Nicely played, Canada. Back in July, as US tech giants were laying off tens of thousands of employees, Canada seized the moment, changing its immigration rules to permit US H-1B visa holders to get work visas in Canada. So far this year, more than 6,000 holders of the US visa have relocated north of the border.
50: Atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide — the most pernicious of the greenhouse gasses — have exceeded their pre-industrial levels by 50% for the first time, according to a new study by the World Meteorological Organization. As we told you last week, Canada and the US are among the top offenders when it comes to slacking on commitments to reduce the production of fossil fuels, a major contributor to greenhouse gas emissions.
4 billion: On the plus side, the clean energy rivalry between the US and Canada continues to heat up, as Belgium’s Tree Energy Solutions has committed to building a $4 billion synthetic natural gas plant in Quebec. Canada finds itself in stiff competition with the massive subsidies that the Biden administration has offered to the industry in the US, with Canadian lawmakers warning of a “subsidy war.” As long as the Earth’s atmosphere is the big winner of that conflict, we say … let the battles begin.
37: What do brush mowers, baby pillows, shrimp paste, and dozens of early 2010s BMWs and Mini Coopers have in common? They are all among at least 37 different products that were recalled for safety reasons in Canada over the past week. The shrimp paste has mystery ingredients, the baby pillows can suffocate babies, and the cars catch on fire. It’s a wild time to be alive — stay safe out there, folks!
Can the world run on green energy yet? Author Bjorn Lomborg argues that's very far off
Renewable energy technology like solar power, wind turbines, and battery storage have made exponential advances in the last decade. But is it enough to address the climate crisis?
On GZERO World, Danish author Bjorn Lomborg sits down with Ian Bremmer to discuss his controversial views on climate change and his belief that current climate technology is nowhere near where it needs to be to move to a net-zero world truly. He acknowledges the price of things like solar panels has gone down, but argues renewable tech is still being propped up by government subsidies.
Scaling up renewable energy technology, even in wealthy countries, is still a huge challenge.
Lomborg says that solar and wind power are intermittent energy sources that can’t provide enough power to keep most places running 24/7. And while prices have come down significantly from where they were a decade ago, the price of lithium-ion batteries needs to be 99% cheaper for them to be a real, practical solution for reliable energy storage.
“We are just far, far away from this actually being something that will scale even in rich countries, and certainly not in poor.”
Watch the full interview on GZERO World: Climate change: are we overreacting?
Catch GZERO World with Ian Bremmer every week at gzeromedia.com/gzeroworld or on US public television. Check local listings.
- Climate change is "wreaking havoc" on supply chains ›
- After Fukushima, can nuclear power actually help save the planet? ›
- Trudeau lays out plan to grow Canada’s clean economy ›
- How Biden's climate bill moves the US towards clean energy ›
- India to unveil massive subsidy scheme to hasten clean energy transition ›
- Solving Europe's energy crisis with Norway's power - GZERO Media ›
"Climate is a problem, not the end of the world" - Danish author Bjorn Lomborg
How far should the world go to stop climate change? On GZERO World with Ian Bremmer, controversial Danish author Bjorn Lomborg discusses his perspective on climate and how it differs from the global climate narrative.
Lomborg acknowledges that global warming is a genuine problem but argues it’s not an apocalyptic threat. This nuance is important, Lomborg says. Because it allows for a more balanced approach to addressing climate, as opposed to an all-encompassing focus on the issue of lowering carbon emissions.
Because most of the world still runs on fossil fuels, he says, the singular focus on net-zero emissions is inefficient and misguided. Instead, Lomborg advocates for a greater emphasis on green innovation as a more practical way to address climate concerns.
Watch the full interview on GZERO World: Climate change: are we overreacting?
Catch GZERO World with Ian Bremmer every week at gzeromedia.com/gzeroworld or on US public television. Check local listings.
Climate change: are we overreacting?
Climate experts agree that climate change is real and human-caused. But how far should the world go to combat it? Will the worst-case scenarios forecast by climate scientists end up a reality?
On GZERO World with Ian Bremmer, author Bjorn Lomborg says the answer is no. Climate change is indeed a problem, he says, but “it’s not the end of the world.”
We're not talking about ‘we need to double or triple [renewable energy capabilities].’ We need a hundred-fold increase,” Lomborg tells Ian Bremmer. “We are far away from this actually being something that will scale even in rich countries and certainly not in poor countries.”
Lomborg worries that policy priorities are out of whack and billions of dollars are being wasted on incremental climate mitigation when there are so many urgent issues, like education or maternal mortality, where that money could be used more effectively.
Catch GZERO World with Ian Bremmer every week at gzeromedia.com/gzeroworld or on US public television. Check local listings.
Ian Explains: Can we save the planet without hurting the economy?
“How much are we willing to sacrifice to stop climate change?”
That’s how the conversation is usually framed, that fighting climate change requires some sort of trade-off: save the planet vs. maintain living standards, reduce carbon emissions vs. increase profits, lower global temperatures vs. lift more people out of poverty.
On Ian Explains, Ian Bremmer argues that this framing is actually a false choice. In the last decade, the underlying technology and economics of decarbonization have improved so much, we no longer need to choose between investing in climate mitigation and economic growth. In fact, clean energy technology like solar panels, wind turbines, and advanced battery storage have become, in many ways, more affordable than fossil fuels.
But despite the clear advantages of decarbonization, powerful interests like Big Oil, fossil fuel workers, and petrostates seem determined to cling to the status quo and slow down the green transition. Can competing interests put aside their differences and short-term goals to come up with a climate policy that works for everyone?
Watch more on this episode of GZERO World with Ian Bremmer on US public television (check local listing) and at gzeromedia.com/gzeroworld.
- Climate crisis can't be hijacked by global competitions: Justin Vaisse ›
- Geoengineering: science fiction or a solution to the climate crisis? ›
- Want to fix climate change? This is what it’ll take. ›
- What Africa has to say about climate change ›
- The Graphic Truth: Has climate change hurt or helped farmers? ›
- Climate change is "wreaking havoc" on supply chains ›
Clean energy sources amid a futuristic landscape.
The false trade-off between climate action and economic growth
World leaders are flooding New York this week for the 78th United Nations General Assembly and Climate Week NYC, less than two months before the landmark COP28, the UN Climate Change Conference, is set to begin in Dubai. With climate being at the top of the agenda and top of mind, I thought I’d use today’s newsletter to debunk a myth that pervades an annoying amount of climate doomerism.
Most climate change discussions frame the issue in cost-benefit terms. Would we rather save the planet or keep our living standards? Save the planet or increase profits? Save the planet or lift people out of poverty? In other words, how much are we willing to sacrifice to stop climate change?
In rich countries like the US, both sides of the aisle assume this tradeoff between climate action and economic prosperity exists. The difference between them is that most of the political right wants to prioritize growth at the expense of climate action, while the “de-growth” and anti-capitalist parts of the left want to halt growth for the sake of climate action.
Meanwhile, the consensus in developing nations – which today account for two-thirds of global carbon emissions but are only responsible for about one-fifth of historical emissions – is that poorer countries have the right (indeed, the obligation) to put economic development above climate action. This view is also premised on the assumption that economic growth can only be powered by fossil fuels, and therefore, that saving the planet requires economic sacrifice.
But that is a false dilemma. In 2023, there is no longer a systemic trade-off between decarbonization and economic growth.
A technological revolution in the making
The reason for this is that technological advances have made clean energy – especially solar power, wind power, and battery storage – cheaper than fossil fuels.
Until quite recently, high-polluting fossil fuels (especially coal) were by far the cheapest sources of energy available. Renewables didn’t come close. But in the past decade, the unsubsidized price of electricity from solar and wind declined by 89% and 69%, respectively. And the cost of lithium-ion batteries – which are needed to smooth out the intermittent supply of solar and wind energy – has declined by 90%. As a result, new solar power plants have gone from being 710% more expensive than the cheapest fossil-fueled plants in 2010 to being 29% cheaper now, and new onshore wind plants have gone from being 95% more expensive to being 52% cheaper than the cheapest fossil-fueled plants in the same period.
Today, when you compare the lifetime cost of building and operating new power plants, renewable energy sources like solar and wind are already the cheapest options for most of the world. In some places, building new solar and wind plants is even cheaper than keeping existing coal plants running!
This price advantage explains why the world’s largest carbon emitters are quickly moving away from coal and toward wind and solar power, and why renewable power has more than tripled as a share of global power generation in the last decade. In Europe, wind and solar generate more power than coal and gas. And solar, wind, and battery storage account for 82% of planned generating capacity additions in the US this year.
Interests trump politics
A common refrain is that these renewable technologies are being forced on unwilling Americans and Europeans by woke politicians and activists. But ask yourself, why would countries like China and India, states like Texas and Florida, and companies like BP and Total be building so much solar, wind, and battery storage capacity if not out of self-interest?
China and India certainly have little inclination to make national sacrifices for the planet’s benefit. Texas and Florida are Republican bastions — not exactly tree-huggers. And, like all corporations, BP and Total seek to maximize profits for shareholders. If you think Greta Thunberg is pushing developing countries as diverse as Brazil, Chile, Vietnam, India, and Morocco to deploy solar power at scale, I’ve got a coal mine to sell you…
The truth is that the world is adopting clean energy because it’s cheaper than the alternative. Even countries and companies that don’t care about climate change at all are finding it worthwhile to switch to renewables. And thanks to these technologies’ uniquely steep learning curves, the more they get deployed, the cheaper they’ll become, and the cheaper they become, the more they’ll get adopted everywhere.
At the same time that the increased adoption of renewables will reduce carbon emissions and deadly pollution, falling energy prices will lead to a rise in real incomes and standards of living. The advent of cheap, abundant, and widely available energy will free up income for people to spend on other things and allow poor countries to turbocharge their development while leapfrogging fossil fuels. If it sounds like a win-win, it’s because it is.
The invisible hand still needs a policy push
Although technological ingenuity and self-interest are making the energy transition an unstoppable reality, these forces alone aren’t enough to get the world all the way to net zero emissions in time to avoid some of the worst impacts of climate change.
For starters, there are still powerful vested interests and inertia holding back decarbonization, despite its increasingly obvious economic advantages. Many actors with political pull benefit from the carbon-intensive status quo, which generates up to $2 trillion in economic rents every year. These incumbents – ranging from petrostates and Big Oil to retail gas stations and fossil fuel workers – are fighting tooth and nail to slow down the energy transition and latch on to their power. Moreover, fossil fuels still make up 77% of the world’s energy production, and for now the cost of operating existing fossil fuel plants is lower than the cost of building new renewable plants in most (but not all) places. Absent policy action, that will remain the case for some years yet.
Then there’s the fact that electricity – the problem that solar, wind, and batteries solve – only accounts for about 40% of global carbon emissions. Cutting the remaining 60% will require addressing the other sources of emissions: transportation, commercial and residential buildings, and industrial processes. Some of this can be achieved by electrifying more of our energy use – like we are already doing by switching to electric vehicles, heat pumps, and induction stoves – while continuing to decarbonize electricity. But some – such as greening harder-to-abate, heat-intensive processes like cement and steel production – will require investment and incentives to invent, develop, and adopt new technological solutions.
Finally, while switching to renewables pays for itself in the long run, building new infrastructure while retiring fossil-fuel assets early can bring large upfront costs. This problem is especially acute for developing nations, which will generate most of the demand for new electricity in the coming decades but lack the fiscal space and access to long-term finance needed to meet the upfront costs of deploying clean energy systems. It’s in these countries’ economic interest to lock in low-carbon infrastructure now rather than get stuck with fossil-fuel assets that are already being phased out in the developed world and will be stranded in a matter of years. But they will need massive financing from rich countries to do that.
The bottom line is that although there’s a lot governments can do to help speed up the energy transition, even without government action the transition is most definitely happening. And it is happening without a reduction in our living standards. You don’t have to stop driving or ration electricity or eat bugs. Poor countries don’t have to stay poor. The opposite is true: stopping climate change will make most everyone richer.
That’s great news because if the fate of the planet depended on everyone agreeing to voluntarily impoverish themselves, you can bet your sweet bippy humanity would be 100% cooked.
What the US and Canada really want from each other
US President Joe Biden and Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau finally had their COVID-delayed summit in March 2023. Biden and Trudeau clearly get along, and US-Canada ties are as strong as ever. Yet, some thorny issues still need to be ironed out.
The two neighbors see eye-to-eye on things like immigration or pushing back against China and Russia. But there's friction on Haiti and especially on the US Inflation Reduction Act, whose subsidies are wooing Canadian green biz south of the border.
On GZERO World, Ian Bremmer discusses the bilateral relationship with David Cohen, the US ambassador to Canada, and Kirsten Hillman, Canada's Ambassador in Washington. Then, Ian asks Canadian Defense Minister Anita Anand why she won't let her kids use TikTok (amongst other pressing national security questions).
- Is the US exporting its toxic politics to Canada? ›
- Podcast: How healthy is the US-Canada relationship? ›
- US-Canada can and will extract critical minerals sustainably, says top US diplomat ›
- Will US-Canada border deal mean riskier future for migrants? ›
- US green subsidies pushback to dominate Biden's Canada trip ›
Trudeau lays out plan to grow Canada’s clean economy
On the heels of his recent meeting with US President Joe Biden in Ottawa, Canadian PM Justin Trudeau took to the stage at the US-Canada Summit in Toronto on Tuesday to woo Bay Street — Canada’s version of Wall Street — and voters with a clear message: The future is bright for Canadian (green) businesses and workers.
Referring to Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act, which been a source of friction over fears it’ll see investment flee south of the border, as a historic investment to fight climate change, Trudeau spotlighted his own plan to invest in the clean-energy economy.
The PM hopes that the Canada Growth Fund, a new $15 billion investment vehicle announced in last week’s budget, will help scale the clean-tech companies that might otherwise have moved to the US owing to IRA-linked subsidies. This, combined with billions in foreign direct investment, he said, will help “Canadian workers and Canadian industry stay competitive.”
Trudeau’s plan will also ensure that Canada offers a reliable supply chain feeding the US trading partnership. “Global economies are seeking stable trading partners and reliable supply chains in the face of geopolitical uncertainty,” he said.
The PM acknowledged that globalization has failed to deliver increased wealth for all, resulting in disillusioned masses who remain skeptical of the establishment. Political forces today, he warned, are trying to leverage this economic pain, promoting isolationism and dangerously sewing distrust.
“Profits only come when people are doing well,” he said.
Whether he can deliver on pledges to improve Canadian competitiveness will be up to voters to decide. Trudeau must face the electorate before Oct. 2025.
Trudeau spoke at a US-Canada summit in Toronto co-organized by Eurasia Group and BMO, a top Canadian bank. The event brought together government and business delegates from the two countries to talk issues like US-Canada politics, trade, tech innovation, security, energy, and climate change. Among the guests were US Sen. Chris Coons, Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, Ontario Premier Doug Ford, and Ambassadors Kirsten Hillman and David Cohen.
- Testing Trudeau's star power ›
- US green subsidies pushback to dominate Biden's Canada trip ›
- Buddy Biden and budget: Enough to boost Trudeau? ›
- Biden-Trudeau talks focus on immigration and defense ›
- Inflation Reduction Act will lower energy costs & bring back jobs, says US energy secretary ›
- Podcast: How healthy is the US-Canada relationship? - GZERO Media ›
- India-Canada standoff heats up while US seeks a compromise - GZERO Media ›