Energi Media journalism in video, audio, and essays
YouTube Channel: Video energy news
Substack Essays: Thoughtful Energy Journalism
Energi Talks Audio Podcast
Website: Energy news
Canada’s energy debate usually starts with supply. Can Alberta produce more oil? Can British Columbia export more LNG? Can another pipeline be built to the West Coast? Can government help make the economics work?
Professor Peter Newell starts somewhere else. He asks why some countries have chosen to limit fossil-fuel supply in the first place. And what those decisions tell us about managing an energy transition before markets make the decision for us.
Newell, a professor of international relations at the University of Sussex, is lead author of a 2026 paper examining what he and his colleagues call “first mover” countries. Denmark, Costa Rica, Colombia and the United Kingdom have used bans, moratoria, finance restrictions, and other policies to constrain oil and gas production.
The reasons differ. Some faced declining reserves. Some had attractive alternatives. Some saw political or economic advantage in moving early.
The important point for Canada is that fossil-fuel supply is not simply a geological or engineering question. It is a political-economic choice.
Newell argues that the risk changes as global demand changes. Infrastructure that looks valuable today can become stranded if demand weakens over the next decade or two. Governments can also deepen the risk by putting taxpayers behind pipelines, production, or other long-lived assets.
That leads to the hardest part of the Canadian conversation. Oil and gas generate exports, government revenue and well-paid jobs. Those benefits create powerful incentives to defend the status quo. But dependence also makes diversification harder the longer governments wait.
Newell points to countries and regions that used strategic plans, regional development, retraining and alternative industries to manage change. Denmark’s wind industry is one example. His argument is not that transitions are easy. It is that pretending the transition is not coming leaves workers and communities more exposed when change finally arrives.
Our conversation eventually arrives at the test Energi Media has been applying to proposals for new Canadian oil and gas infrastructure: show your math. If public money is required, proponents should be able to demonstrate the future demand that justifies the investment.
Newell agrees. Assumptions of oil and gas demand lasting forever, he says, do not withstand much scrutiny. That makes the demand side of the equation every bit as important as Canada’s ability to produce more supply.
