How to Make Drilling for Oil Woke Again

It feels like an eternity, but it was only a decade ago when the political center-left was still for “all of the above” energy sources: fossil fuels and renewables alike. It was the not-so-distant days of Barack Obama, when the US president defended fracking as a force for good, saying there wasn’t a trade-off “between our environment and our economy,” and when drilling, it may surprise some, was still lefty.

Get the Latest US Focused Energy News Delivered to You! It’s FREE:

But over the years, liberals became increasingly hostile to fossil fuels as the evidence of climate change accumulated. From 2020 onward, the hostility turned into militant opposition, culminating with US President Joe Biden’s election slogan of “no more drilling, period.” It was an era of virtue-signaling, fueled by the nonsensical belief that the days of oil were numbered. Implausible scenarios of collapsing oil demand by 2050 became commonplace.

With the US-Iran war demonstrating not just how captive the world economy remains to fossil fuels, but also how easily energy can be weaponized, whether to drill at home is becoming an even more pressing question for some countries.

Canada under former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau was paradigmatic of the anti-fossil fuel trend. But the political landscape has shifted, making the nation, one of the world’s largest fossil fuel producers, a good place to ask: Can oil drilling be woke again? I put the question to Tim Hodgson, the Canadian energy minister under center-left Prime Minister Mark Carney.

Hodgson gave an emphatic yes. “We are value-based pragmatists,” the 65-year-old former banker told me in an interview conducted a few days before the US-Iran war started in late February. “We’re going to engage the world the way it is, not the way we wish it was.”

The Canadian official, perhaps the closest ally Carney has in his cabinet, isn’t about to tattoo a MAGA-style “Drill, Baby, Drill” slogan on his forearm, though. He claims Canada has a right to produce more oil and gas because it’s reducing the emissions footprint of drilling, cutting the carbon intensity of its polluting oil sands by about 40% over the last two decades.

“Tell me another country that has done a step change in the carbon intensity of an entire industry,” he says. “If that’s what you are blessed with as a resource and you are making those kinds of leap forwards from environmental perspective, haven’t you earned the right to produce? Because people want to buy it.”

What about leaving the oil and gas in the ground as many on the left have advocated in the past? “If you have the luxury of leaving in the ground, God bless you,” Hodgson says. But he makes clear that’s a choice few, if any, can afford. Certainly not Canada under his watch. “I don’t think that’s how we’re going to move forward in the world.” For him, the solution is to produce more energy — and keep it affordable. “What’s very clear to me today is there is a very large percentage of the human population that doesn’t want to make the trade off of economic growth for lower carbon.”

It’s a message I’m starting to hear more from the liberal and center-left spectrum, not just in Canada but also in Western Europe. Among political parties that jumped onto the anti-fossil fuel bandwagon, “all of the above” is now back in fashion. Many have realized — the hard way — that restricting oil and gas production before reducing demand means energy inflation and social discontent. Now, some left-leaning governments with strong green credentials are backtracking. Look at Mexico, where President Claudia Sheinbaum, a climate scientist by training, recently announced a plan to tap shale oil and gas reservoirs. She didn’t use the word, but that means fracking, something that until only months ago was a taboo in her country. Still, not everyone’s onboard. The UK, for example, is, at least for now, opposed to new drilling in the North Sea.

Ironically, the center-right, long the standard bearer of the “all of the above” approach to energy, is moving in the opposite direction. In the most populist corners, including the Trump administration and the European far-right, it has been replaced by a policy that sounds very much like “only the above we like” — meaning no wind and, very often, no solar. Their complaint? Both require subsidies. Of course, they remain silent about the subsidies needed for new nuclear plants. Those, it seems, are politically acceptable.

For the center-left, supporting fossil fuels makes not only economic, but also political sense. If there’s demand for oil and gas, opposing drilling at home only shifts production overseas. It costs tax income, local jobs and national security. Politically, it costs blue-collar votes, on top of providing an easy target for the other side. After all, winning elections is the prerequisite for stronger climate policy that, over time — emphasis on over time — promotes renewable energy to replace fossil fuels.

Hodgson puts it this way: “I think there was a sense coming out of [the 2015 climate agreement of] Paris that we were going to cut our way to net zero. And I think what the prime minister says now is we’re gonna grow our way to net zero.” As an example, he points to the drop in the cost of solar panels, which has allowed a technology that looked like science fiction two decades ago to go mainstream. Other technical innovations may come in the future.

One can question his strategy. The so-called pragmatic approach to climate and energy often sidesteps a daunting question: If the world keeps pumping oil and gas — and consuming them — what happens with climate change? Effectively, it means accepting global warming of 2 degrees, and probably more, above the pre-industrial average. That equates to significant warming, and probably significant damage.

I still think his approach makes sense. It combines sensible climate change policy with an acknowledgement of both the economic and political realities of the day. The focus should be on trying to decarbonize the global economy, starting with the electrical system via renewables, coal-to-gas switching and nuclear, rather than strangling fossil fuel supply. If the first is successful, the second would naturally follow.

This column reflects the personal views of the author and does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.