The Shattered Mirror of Globalisation: Unveiling the Consequences for the Electricity Industry

“Many brand today’s world a ‘two-legged rat!’ for the brazen deception it embodies…

Workart fully right of Germán & Co

“As President, I will set a national goal of ensuring that America has the No. 1 lowest cost of energy of any industrial country anywhere on Earth.”

https://www.donaldjtrump.com/agenda47/agenda47-america-must-have-the-1-lowest-cost-energy-and-electricity-on-earth

Hypotheses: “At a Crucial Crossroads: The Future of U.S. and Global Energy…

America stands at a fateful energy crossroads, echoing past cycles of crisis and retrenchment. From the 1970s oil shocks that spurred calls for independence to later complacency when oil was cheap, U.S. energy policy has repeatedly swung between urgency and inertia (Browner, 2010). Now climate change amplifies the stakes, making this moment a critical turning point.

A new development came on January 20, 2025, when President Donald Trump signed an executive order suspending Inflation Reduction Act funding disbursements—particularly those referred to in Section 2 of the order. Nicknamed “Terminating the Green New Deal,” it also pauses Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act spending, effectively freezing billions allocated for clean energy and manufacturing projects (Magill, 2025). While the White House clarified that only certain segments of the law are affected, federal agencies face a 90-day deadline to review and propose new spending recommendations.

One path still doubles down on fossil fuel dominance, promising short-term economic gains and energy security but locking in climate chaos and potential geopolitical liabilities (Reuters, 2024). The other path fully commits to renewable energy, delivering innovation and long-term sustainability. Yet overcoming powerful fossil fuel lobbies and reliance on foreign-made critical minerals remains challenging (Sayki and Cloutier, 2023). The U.S. stands at a high-stakes juncture—continuing the status quo risks climate disaster and missed technological leadership, while bold action could secure economic vitality for generations.

References:

  Browner, C. (2010) 'Taking initiative on clean energy', Politico, 12 July 2010.

  Magill, K. (2025) ‘Trump freezes Inflation Reduction Act funding’, Manufacturing Dive, 24 January 2025.

  Reuters (2024) 'How do Trump and Harris differ on energy policy?', Reuters, 29 October 2024.

  Sayki, I. and Cloutier, J. (2023) 'Oil and gas industry spent $124.4 million on federal lobbying amid record profits in 2022', OpenSecrets, 22 February 2023.

Background:

U.S. Energy Strategy: Industry Influence, Economics, and the Shift Toward Traditional Sources

Introduction:

The United States has long fluctuated between prioritizing traditional energy sources (oil, gas, coal) and renewable energy in its national strategy. These shifts are rarely accidental; they reflect a complex interplay of industry ties, economic factors, and policy preferences among leaders. When policy leans toward traditional fossil fuels, it often correlates with strong lobbying influence and short-term economic arguments, whereas pushes for renewables tend to follow environmental concerns, innovation booms, or global agreements. This analysis examines: (1) historical swings in U.S. energy policy, (2) the economic impacts of fossil fuels vs. renewables (jobs, stability, subsidies), (3) how fossil industry lobbying shapes policy, (4) geopolitical implications of favoring traditional energy (security, trade, diplomacy), and (5) the environmental consequences of pivoting away from renewables.

Historical Trends in U.S. Energy Policy

U.S. energy policy has see-sawed over the decades, with periods of innovation and renewable investment often followed by returns to oil, gas, and even coal. Key shifts include:

1970s – Crisis and Alternatives: The 1973 oil embargo and energy crisis jolted policymakers into reducing dependence on foreign oil. The government funded the Trans-Alaska Pipeline and created the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, while also investing in renewable fuels and R&D (ethanol, biodiesel, solar, wind) for the first time (Choices Article – Evolution of Renewable Energy Policy). Conservation took hold: Congress enacted fuel economy standards, and Americans embraced energy efficiency, briefly curbing demand growth (Choices Article – Evolution of Renewable Energy Policy).
1980s – Return to Oil: With oil prices stabilizing in the mid-1980s, momentum for renewables waned. Federal tax credits for solar and wind established in the late ‘70s expired, and President Reagan famously removed solar panels from the White House roof, signaling a policy reversion to traditional energy. Domestic oil and gas production and deregulation were again emphasized, while nascent renewable programs stalled (no major new federal mandates in this era).
1990s – Mixed Signals: Low energy prices kept renewables on the policy back-burner for much of the 1990s. However, concerns about energy security resurfaced when global demand pushed oil prices up in the late ‘90s (Choices Article – Evolution of Renewable Energy Policy). The 1992 Energy Policy Act and other laws introduced some incentives for alternative energy (e.g. wind production tax credit in 1992) and required federal fleets to use alternative fuels, but fossil fuels still dominated the agenda.
2000s – Energy Security vs. Climate: The early 2000s saw industry influence at a peak. In 2001, Vice President Dick Cheney’s Energy Task Force—stacked with oil executives—drafted a policy focused on expanding fossil production. (The task force met at least six times with Enron and other energy company executives behind closed doors (Big GOP contributor advised administration’s energy task force – Center for Public Integrity), spurring lawsuits over the secrecy and undue influence (Big GOP contributor advised administration’s energy task force – Center for Public Integrity).) President George W. Bush, himself from the oil industry, nonetheless supported some renewables for energy security – the 2005 energy law established a renewable fuel standard for ethanol, and his administration promoted biofuels to reduce oil import dependence (Choices Article – Evolution of Renewable Energy Policy). By contrast, states like California began adopting aggressive renewable portfolio standards. Late in the decade, President Obama’s 2009 stimulus injected billions into clean energy and efficiency, marking a strong pivot toward renewables and climate policy (e.g. subsidies for solar, wind, electric vehicles, and the beginnings of EPA carbon regulations).
2010s – Transition and Pushback: Under Obama, the U.S. joined the Paris Climate Agreement and implemented the Clean Power Plan to shift electricity from coal to wind, solar, and gas. Renewable generation surged, while coal plant closures accelerated. However, the 2016 election ushered in a sharp reversal. President Donald Trump made a “America First Energy Plan” to revive coal and expand oil and gas the centerpiece of his agenda. He withdrew the U.S. from the Paris Agreement and rolled back Obama-era regulations, justifying a “robust emphasis on fossil fuels” and a scaling back of renewable programs as necessary for lower energy prices and “energy dominance” (Trump has big plans for climate and energy policy, but can he implement them?). This meant more federal land drilling, faster pipeline approvals, and attempts to bail out coal plants. Despite this traditional energy push, market forces (cheap natural gas, falling renewable costs) kept driving a renewables rise through the late 2010s.
2020s – Climate Priorities Return: In 2021, the pendulum swung again. The Biden administration rejoined the Paris accord and passed unprecedented clean energy investments (the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 alone put $369 billion toward clean energy). Even so, debates continue: global events like the 2022 war in Ukraine prompted calls for more U.S. oil and gas production to secure allies’ energy supply, showing the constant tension between short-term energy security goals and long-term climate/renewable goals in U.S. strategy.

Source:

  U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) (n.d.)** ‘Energy sources have changed throughout the history of the United States’. Available at: .

Economic Impacts: Fossil Fuels vs. Renewable Energy

Economic considerations are central to energy policy decisions. Politicians often weigh the job creation potential, market stability, and subsidies of fossil fuels against those of renewables – and these factors can cut both ways:

Jobs and Industry Growth: Traditional energy sectors (oil, gas, coal) have historically been major employers, but clean energy now leads in job creation. By the late 2010s, U.S. clean energy jobs already outnumbered fossil fuel jobs roughly 3-to-1 (). For example, solar panel installers and wind turbine technicians became some of the fastest-growing occupations. One report found over 3.3 million Americans were employed in clean energy (renewables, energy efficiency, electric vehicles) in 2018, far exceeding fossil fuel extraction and generation jobs (). These trends continued into the 2020s as solar and wind capacity expanded. In contrast, coal mining jobs have steadily declined for decades due to automation and competition, and even oil/gas employment can swing with commodity prices. Renewable energy investments tend to produce more jobs per dollar because they are more labor-intensive during construction and installation (e.g. building a wind farm employs many workers even if operating it later is low-labor). This makes the “jobs” argument for shifting back to fossil fuels weaker over time, except in specific regions (e.g. coal country) where fossil jobs are concentrated.
Market Stability and Energy Costs: Fossil fuel markets are inherently cyclical and volatile – oil and gas prices boom and bust based on global supply, conflict, and OPEC decisions. This volatility can destabilize the broader economy: in fact, spiking fossil energy prices were responsible for about one-third of the 9.1% U.S. inflation at the peak of 2022 (Fossil Fuel–Driven Price Volatility Demonstrates the Need for a Renewable Transition – Roosevelt Institute). Renewables, by contrast, have stable and declining costs over time (once a solar farm is built, the “fuel” – sunlight – is free). Greater adoption of renewables can insulate the economy from oil price shocks. A recent analysis argues that relying on fossil fuels poses a “persistent threat” to price stability, and that shifting to renewable electricity would help tame long-term inflation fluctuations (Fossil Fuel–Driven Price Volatility Demonstrates the Need for a Renewable Transition – Roosevelt Institute). However, opponents of rapid renewable adoption point out short-term reliability and integration costs – e.g. the need for grid upgrades and storage – which can affect energy prices during the transition. Still, on a per-unit cost basis, wind and solar are now often the cheapest new sources of power in the U.S., even beating natural gas in many regions (especially when volatility is factored in).
Government Subsidies and Support: Fossil fuels have enjoyed generous government support for decades, far more than renewables until very recently. Tax breaks and subsidies for oil, gas, and coal date back as far as the early 20th century (and even the 1800s in the case of coal tariffs) A historical review noted that federal support for renewables has been “minimal compared with the past government investment in coal, gas, oil, or nuclear,” which helped those traditional industries grow ([Long-History-US-Energy-Subsidies Even today, the U.S. tax code provides oil and gas producers deductions for drilling costs, depletion allowances, and other incentives that effectively subsidize fossil energy. In addition, external costs like climate change and pollution are not priced into fossil fuels (another implicit subsidy). Renewables also receive subsidies (e.g. federal wind and solar tax credits, state renewable mandates), but these only scaled up significantly in the 2000s-2010s. By the 2020s, federal policy began leveling the field – the Inflation Reduction Act 2022 created long-term tax credits for clean energy worth hundreds of billions, aiming to spur domestic manufacturing of solar panels, wind turbines, batteries, etc. The economic debate often centers on which sector deserves public support: proponents of fossil fuels argue they provide reliable energy and tax revenues, while clean energy advocates note that investment in renewables yields future industries and avoids environmental damages. Notably, studies show renewable investments generate good-paying jobs and innovation without the long-term environmental liabilities of fossil fuels. In summary, short-term economic arguments for sticking with traditional energy (existing jobs, immediate infrastructure) are weighed against long-term gains from the growing, more stable clean energy economy.

Source:

  Johnson, J. (2011) ‘Long History of U.S. Energy Subsidies: Report shows centuries of government support for fossil fuels, much less for renewable energy’, Chemical & Engineering News, 89(51). Available at: https://cen.acs.org/articles/89/i51/Long-History-US-Energy-Subsidies.html#:~:text=Using%20government%20documents%2C%20academic%20papers%2C,new%20energy%20technologies%20and%20infrastructures (A).

Fossil Fuel Industry Influence and Lobbying in Policy Decisions

The trajectory of U.S. energy strategy cannot be understood without acknowledging the power of the fossil fuel lobby. Oil, gas, and coal companies have deep ties in Washington, built over a century of political spending and networking, which they use to shape policy in their favor. Key aspects of this influence include:

Lobbying Expenditures and Campaign Funding: The fossil fuel industry is one of the top spenders on lobbying federal officials. In 2022 alone, the U.S. oil and gas industry spent about $124.4 million lobbying Congress and the executive branch (Oil and gas industry spent $124.4 million on federal lobbying amid record profits in 2022 • OpenSecrets). This money funds armies of lobbyists who advocate for permits, tax breaks, and favorable regulations for drilling and mining. Moreover, industry trade groups like the American Petroleum Institute amplify this influence (API spent over $4 million on lobbying in 2022) (Oil and gas industry spent $124.4 million on federal lobbying amid record profits in 2022 • OpenSecrets). The industry also pours tens of millions into campaign contributions, predominantly to politicians who oppose aggressive climate policies. Over the 2000s, fossil-fuel-linked political action committees and donors outspent renewable energy advocates by a wide margin – one analysis found that anti-climate lobby groups and PACs outspent climate advocacy by 27-to-1 from 2008 to 2018 (Oil and gas industry spent $124.4 million on federal lobbying amid record profits in 2022 • OpenSecrets). This financial clout translates to access: lawmakers reliant on campaign funds are more likely to vote against carbon taxes or to support oil subsidies. The result is often policy gridlock or rollback on clean energy initiatives whenever fossil interests are threatened.
Revolving Doors and Policy Capture: Beyond money, fossil fuel companies have secured influence by positioning allies in government. It’s common for oil executives and lobbyists to rotate into top energy policy jobs (and vice versa). For example, in the early 2000s, Vice President Cheney (a former oil-services CEO) convened an energy task force that met secretly with industry executives to craft national energy policy (Big GOP contributor advised administration’s energy task force – Center for Public Integrity). The task force’s recommendations closely mirrored oil and gas industry wishes, highlighting how direct input from industry insiders can steer policy. More recently, during the Trump administration, several key officials had oil industry ties – from the Secretary of State (ex-ExxonMobil CEO Rex Tillerson) to Interior Department appointees who had worked for extractive industries. These ties often led to regulatory appointments of individuals skeptical of renewable energy or climate science, and decisions like opening more public lands to drilling or weakening methane emission rules. In short, the fossil lobby’s influence permeates all levels: writing legislation, guiding agency rules, and even shaping public narratives (through funding of think tanks and advertising). By contrast, the renewable energy lobby and environmental groups, while growing in influence, have historically had far fewer resources. This imbalance helps explain why U.S. policies have sometimes been slow to embrace renewables despite their technological viability – incumbent industries use political power to delay the transition.

Geopolitical Implications of Prioritizing Traditional Energy Sources

Energy policy is not just a domestic issue; it has far-reaching geopolitical effects. Emphasizing traditional fossil fuels in U.S. strategy carries a mix of benefits and risks for national security, global markets, and diplomacy:

Energy Security and Independence: A key argument for boosting domestic oil, gas, and coal is to improve U.S. energy security – ensuring the nation isn’t overly reliant on foreign suppliers. In the past 15 years, the U.S. shale revolution dramatically increased domestic production, making the U.S. the world’s largest producer of petroleum and natural gas by the mid-2010s (Geopolitical implications of U.S. oil and gas in the global market). Greater output at home means less dependence on unstable regions: for example, U.S. imports of oil have fallen from over 60% of consumption in 2005 to roughly 25% by 2019. A fossil-focused “energy dominance” strategy leverages this boon – using abundant U.S. oil and gas to supply both domestic needs and allies abroad. Indeed, expanding LNG (liquefied natural gas) exports has given the U.S. a tool to help Europe diversify away from Russian gas. However, true energy independence remains elusive. Even at record production, the U.S. still imports about 10 million barrels of oil per day, and domestic prices are tied to the volatile global market (Geopolitical implications of U.S. oil and gas in the global market). Prioritizing fossil fuels may increase production, but it cannot fully shield the U.S. from global price shocks or supply disruptions (e.g. a war in the Middle East can still send U.S. gasoline prices soaring). By contrast, a more renewable-based system would source energy from domestic wind, sun, and other inexhaustible resources, reducing vulnerability to international supply swings once the infrastructure is in place. In sum, boosting traditional energy offers short-term security via supply abundance, yet it keeps the U.S. tethered to a volatile global fossil market in the long run.
Trade Dependencies: The choice between fossil and renewable emphasis also affects trade relationships and dependencies. Relying on oil often entangles the U.S. with petrostates (Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Venezuela) to secure supply or stabilize prices. Conversely, pursuing renewables can create new dependencies on clean technology supply chains – notably, minerals and manufacturing dominated by China. For instance, China today accounts for nearly 85% of global solar panel production (Regional distribution of solar module production | Statista) and is a leading supplier of lithium-ion batteries for energy storage and electric vehicles. If the U.S. forgoes investing in renewables now, it might later find itself buying solar panels, wind turbines, and batteries from abroad, ceding industrial leadership to rivals. We already see this in the solar sector: China’s massive scale and control of raw materials have given it a near-monopoly in solar manufacturing. Thus, a fossil-centric path could swap one dependency (oil from OPEC) for another (clean tech hardware from Asia) as the world eventually transitions. From a trade perspective, there is also a risk that U.S. goods could face carbon tariffs in the future from regions like the EU if America is viewed as not doing its share on emissions. On the positive side, maintaining robust oil and gas capacity allows the U.S. to be an energy exporter. In recent years the U.S. became a top LNG exporter, strengthening trade ties with gas-importing allies (Europe, Japan) and undercutting adversaries who use energy as coercion. In summary, geopolitics cuts both ways: traditional energy dominance can bolster U.S. influence in hydrocarbon markets, but a lagging clean tech sector could leave the U.S. dependent on foreign renewable technology in the future.
Diplomatic Strategy and Global Leadership: Energy policy sends a powerful signal about U.S. global priorities. Emphasizing fossil fuels domestically often goes hand-in-hand with a retreat from international climate initiatives, which can strain alliances with countries prioritizing climate action. A vivid example was the Trump administration’s decision to quit the Paris Climate Agreement and champion coal at UN climate forums, which isolated the U.S. from European allies and undermined U.S. credibility in global environmental diplomacy (Trump has big plans for climate and energy policy, but can he implement them?). Countries in the EU, as well as emerging powers vulnerable to climate impacts, generally want the U.S. engaged in the clean energy transition. If U.S. policy swings back to traditional energy, it may gain favor with other petro-states (creating closer ties with countries like Saudi Arabia or Russia on energy matters) but at the cost of diplomatic capital with a much larger group of nations committed to carbon reduction. Moreover, climate change is increasingly at the center of international security discussions; a U.S. that downplays renewables may be seen as not leading on one of the defining issues of the century. On the other hand, being a major fossil fuel producer does give the U.S. certain strategic advantages: it can impose oil sanctions on adversaries (as it did on Iran and Venezuela) with less fear of domestic shortages, and it can use energy exports as a foreign policy tool (for instance, offering shipments of LNG to friends in need). Ultimately, prioritizing traditional energy provides short-term geopolitical leverage in a fossil-fuel-driven world, but it runs the risk of diminishing U.S. leadership in the inevitable global shift toward clean energy. Many experts note that the energy transition will redraw geopolitical maps – countries that lead in renewable technologies may gain influence, while those clinging solely to fossil fuels could see their power wane as demand for oil declines in the long run. The U.S. faces a strategic choice in that regard.

Environmental Consequences of Shifting Away from Renewables

Perhaps the most profound impact of favoring fossil fuels over renewables is on the environment and climate. The scientific consensus is clear that burning fossil fuels is the primary driver of global climate change, and that a rapid transition to clean energy is needed to avoid catastrophic impacts. The environmental stakes of the policy reversal are high:

Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Fossil fuel combustion (for electricity, transportation, and industry) accounts for the majority of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. Renewables, by contrast, produce little to no direct emissions. For example, a wind turbine or solar panel emits essentially zero CO₂ in operation, whereas a coal plant releases roughly 1 ton of CO₂ per MWh. If the U.S. slows its renewable energy build-out and burns more coal, oil, and gas, its emissions trajectory will worsen. This would undermine national targets to cut emissions (the U.S. pledged a 50% reduction by 2030 under Paris) and make global climate stabilization harder. Recent progress illustrates the difference policy can make: U.S. energy-related carbon emissions had been declining in part due to coal-to-gas switching and renewable growth (US Energy Policy: A Changing Landscape) (US Energy Policy: A Changing Landscape). But a resurgence of coal use or expanded oil consumption could reverse that decline. In short, shifting away from renewables means higher emissions, jeopardizing climate goals. One analysis projects that if clean energy transition stalls, U.S. emissions would only drop modestly by 2035 – far below what’s needed to limit warming. Beyond CO₂, increased fossil fuel use also elevates emissions of methane (from natural gas systems) and other pollutants.
Pollution and Public Health: Traditional fossil fuels have significant environmental footprints beyond climate change. Coal-fired power plants and diesel engines emit pollutants like sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, particulate matter, and mercury, which degrade air quality and cause respiratory and cardiovascular diseases in the population. Oil drilling and coal mining can contaminate water supplies and destroy natural habitats. A policy shift favoring these sources would extend such impacts. By contrast, renewable energy has a much smaller environmental footprint. As a Department of Energy factsheet notes, the current U.S. fossil-heavy energy mix is linked to issues like acid rain, air pollution, and water contamination, whereas renewables can meet energy demand with far fewer of these side effects (U.S. Renewable Energy Factsheet | Center for Sustainable Systems). In 2018, it was estimated that air pollution from fossil fuels cost the global economy $2.9 trillion in health and environmental damages – costs that would fall dramatically in a cleaner energy scenario. Thus, stepping back from renewables carries an opportunity cost in lost health benefits. Additionally, fossil fuel infrastructure (pipelines, refineries, mines) often impacts vulnerable communities, raising environmental justice concerns if those are expanded.
Climate Resilience and Environmental Sustainability: Ironically, doubling down on fossil fuels can make the U.S. less resilient in the face of climate change. As global warming accelerates, extreme weather (hurricanes, wildfires, heat waves) threatens energy infrastructure and reliability. A renewable-based, distributed energy system with energy storage is seen by experts as more adaptable and resilient to such disruptions (for example, rooftop solar with batteries can keep lights on during grid outages). If policy shifts focus back to centralized fossil power plants and a high-carbon system, the U.S. may face greater long-term costs from climate adaptation and disaster recovery. Moreover, the environmental momentum loss is significant: scaling back support for renewables could slow the improvement of technologies like energy storage, smart grids, and electric vehicles – all crucial for sustainability. In contrast, maintaining a renewable trajectory yields positive feedback: as solar, wind, and battery tech improve and scale up, they get cheaper and more efficient, accelerating emissions reductions further. A halt or reversal would delay that virtuous cycle.

In summary, the environmental consequences of favoring traditional energy are unequivocally negative: higher greenhouse emissions driving more severe climate change, more air and water pollution harming public health, and a missed chance to mitigate and adapt to climate risks. Every year of delay in the renewable transition locks in additional CO₂ in the atmosphere that will persist for centuries. This is why many scientists and economists argue that the long-term environmental costs of reverting to fossil fuels far outweigh any short-term economic gains. Renewable energy, while not impact-free, offers a path to sustainable growth that fossil fuels simply cannot match in environmental performance (renewables produce far less greenhouse gas and pollution in operation (Environmental Impacts of Renewable Energy Sources | ADEC ESG)).

References:

Center for Sustainable Systems (CSS) (2023). U.S. Renewable Energy Factsheet. University of Michigan. Available at: https://css.umich.edu/publications/factsheets/energy/us-renewable-energy-factsheet (Accessed 27 Feb 2025).
Duffield, J.A. & Collins, K. (2006). Evolution of Renewable Energy Policy. Choices Magazine 21(1).
Environmental Entrepreneurs (E2) (2019). Clean Jobs America: Repowering Communities. E2 Clean Jobs America Report. Available at: https://www.e2.org/reports/clean-jobs-america-2019/.
Gross, S. (2018). Geopolitical implications of U.S. oil and gas in the global market. Testimony to U.S. House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee, 22 May 2018. Brookings Institution. Available at: https://www.brookings.edu/articles/geopolitical-implications-of-u-s-oil-and-gas-in-the-global-market/.
Gross, S. & Sall, L. (2024). Trump has big plans for climate and energy policy, but can he implement them? Brookings Institution. Available at: https://www.brookings.edu/articles/trump-has-big-plans-for-climate-and-energy-policy-but-can-he-implement-them/.
International Energy Agency (IEA) (2023). Solar PV Global Supply Chains. IEA Report (July 2023).
Johnson, J. (2011). Long History of U.S. Energy Subsidies: Report shows centuries of government support for fossil fuels, much less for renewable energy. Chemical & Engineering News, 89(51).
Karlsson, K. & Melodia, L. (2023). Fossil Fuel–Driven Price Volatility Demonstrates the Need for a Renewable Transition. Roosevelt Institute Brief, Nov 2023. Available at: https://rooseveltinstitute.org/publications/fossil-fuel-driven-price-volatility-demonstrates-the-need-for-a-renewable-transition/.
Moore, R. (2002). Big GOP contributor advised administration’s energy task force. Center for Public Integrity, 31 Jan 2002. Available at: https://publicintegrity.org/politics/big-gop-contributor-advised-administrations-energy-task-force/.
Sayki, I. & Cloutier, J. (2023). Oil and gas industry spent $124.4 million on federal lobbying amid record profits in 2022. OpenSecrets, 22 Feb 2023. Available at: https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2023/02/oil-and-gas-industry-spent-124-4-million-on-federal-lobbying-amid-record-profits-in-2022/.
Scandrett, G. (2024). Environmental Impacts of Renewable Energy Sources. ADEC Innovations ESG Blog, updated 9 Dec 2024. Available at: https://www.adecesg.com/resources/blog/environmental-impacts-of-renewable-energy-sources/.

Billions Going Up in Smoke: Redefining State Policy for Abrupt, Transformative Change…

Before we delve into the core issues, we must recognize a communications software firm in Stockholm. Their digital cluster has been instrumental in conducting rigorous hypothesis testing and minimising biases. This acknowledgement is particularly crucial in today’s world, where geopolitical connections are increasingly unusual, disruptive, and strained across two hundred partnerships. Moreover, we find ourselves in an era devoid of clear ideological principles.

One prominent thinker, Peter Wason, suggested that what seems illogical can be logical. Given our limited computing resources, the software company’s collaborative spirit has been essential in navigating these complexities. Wason’s work, particularly the Wason selection task, highlighted: ¨how human reasoning can often be counterintuitive and influenced by context, showing that logical structures can appear illogical depending on their presentation…

At the break of dawn, Spanish newspapers with global reach announced the passing of Mexican singer Francisca Viveros Barradas, known as Paquita la del Barrio, at the age of 77. Her powerful contralto voice, rebellious persona, and extraordinary ability to channel the depths of heartbreak made her a beacon of what could be called a culture of heartache and disillusionment. Through fiery lyrics of betrayal, confusion, and sorrow—forever immortalized in the now-iconic phrase “¿Me estás oyendo, inútil?” (“Are you listening to me, you useless man?”)—Paquita gave voice to those who felt wronged or discarded. Her song “Rata de dos patas,” composed by Manuel Eduardo Toscano and featured on the 2001 album ¨Taco Placero¨, transcended Mexican cantinas, becoming an anthem of empowerment and emotional catharsis worldwide.

Connecting such intensely personal themes to broader global affairs may seem unlikely. Yet, Paquita’s raw, impassioned ballads resonate in a world grappling with profound upheaval—where betrayal and shattered trust extend beyond the personal realm to societal and political dimensions. In hidden corners of large cities, amid bustling avenues and unpaved streets where crises simmer and injustice thrives, her unwavering spirit reminds us that from the ashes of heartbreak can spring the drive for transformative change. One anecdote even recounts culture ministers from across the Americas and the Caribbean, after a day of diplomacy, belting out Paquita’s rancheras in a famed venue called “El Munich,” shouting, “Are you listening to me, you useless man?” in unison—a testament to the universality of heartbreak and frustration.

Such sentiments of accumulated grievances, deep-seated mistrust, and the urgent need for collective catharsis are also mirrored in the complexities of the energy sector. To understand the current state of the electrical industry, we must trace its evolution nearly a century back. Some researchers argue it was shaped by the interwar period, when rising nationalism and propaganda paved the way for Nazism and global conflict. Others, such as Mr. Steven Bannon, point to more recent events—particularly the 2019 Wuhan crisis—as pivotal in this historical trajectory.

Among the primary challenges in our research was establishing a historical period as a baseline and identifying manifest variables as triggers. Consequently, we compared wealth distribution, electricity consumption, and pricing between the affluent “Champagne Cup Society” of the 1980s and today’s billionaire, technology-driven era. We introduced multiple data points into various analytical models to examine how disruptive shifts in global markets have eroded accountability in the energy industry.

We also explored the political dilemma of balancing stable governance and rotating leadership—a core principle of democracy—against the sudden disruptions that can destabilise institutions in fragile developing nations. Trust is central to sustaining institutional stability and credibility, a variable we identified as indispensable. Interestingly, our initial findings uncovered “structural imbalances reminiscent of those in a fractured relationship.” But where exactly do these imbalances reside? Among nations, institutions, social groups, or individuals? Who stands to gain, and who is left vulnerable?

These questions highlight how deeply economic and political power imbalances can mirror the raw emotional discord Paquita so hauntingly captured. In love and global energy policy, trust is the central issue—its breach leading to heartbreak, upheaval, and an urgent call for systemic change.

References:

Bannon, S. (2020) Comments on the 2019 Wuhan Crisis, various public interviews.
Paquita la del Barrio (2001) Rata de dos patas. In: Taco Placero. Mexico: Musart.
Oxfam (2019) Global Inequality Report: The Champagne Cup Society Revisited. Oxfam International.
Steven Bannon and 2019 Wuhan Crisis mention adapted from: Bannon, S. (2020) Public Commentary on Global Crises. Available at: [URL] (Accessed: [date]).
‘Champagne Cup Society’ reference: World Inequality Database (2018) Champagne Glass and Wealth Distribution Studies, [Online]. Available at: [URL] (Accessed: [date]).
Earthjustice. (2024). Two Years Ago, We Passed the Biggest Climate Spending Bill Ever. Here’s What It Has Achieved. *Earthjustice*.

Structural Imbalances and the War Over Energy: A Deeper Look

In recent years, global observers have drawn parallels between deep-rooted economic frictions and the dynamics of a fractured relationship. Nowhere is this more apparent than in the structural imbalance primarily between China and the United States, driven by stark contrasts in trade flows and economic policies. China’s export-driven growth model, reinforced by low labor costs and state-led industrial strategies, clashes with the United States’ significant trade deficit and reliance on imported goods. Add to this divergence in currency regimes—China’s tightly managed yuan versus the freely traded U.S. dollar—and tensions surrounding intellectual property rights create the potential for a protracted trade conflict. These persistent discrepancies fuel broader geopolitical rivalries, evidenced by tit-for-tat tariffs, fierce negotiations, and looming threats of decoupling (Krugman, 2020).

The second, more pressing question is whether the global trend genuinely favours renewable energy or pays lip service to it. The underlying challenge relates to “systemic inertia,” the entrenched structures of power and profit that remain heavily invested in coal, oil, and gas (IEA, 2022). While many nations are implementing policies to promote wind farms, solar parks, and battery storage, fossil fuel dependence is immense. Breaking free requires more than technological feasibility; it demands dismantling century-old financial and geopolitical frameworks built upon hydrocarbons. One analysis note, “Fossil fuels are not merely energy commodities; they form the bedrock of modern economies, geopolitical leverage, and global oil empires” (Bridge & Le Billon, 2017). This fundamental truth underscores why any shift towards renewables necessitates a deeper reconfiguration of global power hierarchies—challenging the states and corporations whose influence, capital, and infrastructure are intertwined with fossil extraction and trade.

Herein lies the paradox: while new technologies and growing environmental imperatives advocate for decarbonisation, powerful actors defend fossil fuel interests under economic stability, energy security, and job protection. For instance, oil majors invest significantly in lobbying to extend drilling permits, while some governments hesitate to curtail their coal assets due to immediate revenue needs (Rystad Energy, 2022). Even in China—rapidly becoming a world leader in renewables—coal remains a substantial part of its energy matrix, attesting to the complex balance between growth targets and green initiatives (World Bank, 2023).

Ultimately, the so-called “war” over energy sources runs more profound than the physical dominance of fossil fields. It is a battle over global order—deciding who writes the rules, who reaps the profits, and whose voice commands the conversation in the age of climate change. A mere pivot to solar panels and wind turbines is insufficient if underlying structures, from financial systems to political alliances, remain tethered to fossil paradigms. This clash could culminate in a genuine clean energy revolution—or a prolonged stalemate that tests the resilience of international cooperation. The fate of the planet’s climate, global prosperity, and geopolitical stability hinges on how swiftly or reluctantly these imbalances are resolved.I

Green Energy at a Crossroads: Will Trillions in Investments Stand the Test of Time?¨

The global shift toward green energy has been monumental: trillions of dollars have poured into wind farms, solar installations, electric vehicle infrastructure, and emerging technologies such as hydrogen and advanced battery storage. These funds, sourced from banks, trade unions, and government subsidies, represent not merely a financial bet but a collective commitment to curbing the existential threat of climate change. Yet, the fate of these vast investments hinges on several critical factors that will determine whether green energy continues to flourish or stall under shifting political winds.

First, policy stability remains paramount. While many governments set ambitious climate targets and enacted incentives for renewable energy, these policies can swing dramatically with leadership changes. A supportive administration may provide grants, tax breaks, and regulatory backing for new wind farms or solar arrays, only for a successor to scale back or freeze that funding. This inconsistency creates uncertainty for investors, raising the perceived risk of renewable projects. Strong, bipartisan policy frameworks are thus essential for long-term market confidence (IEA, 2023).

Second, technological innovation is expanding at breakneck speed, driving down the cost of green energy. Solar and wind power are no longer fringe options; they are increasingly competitive with fossil fuels on a levelized cost basis (IRENA, 2022). Meanwhile, advancements in battery technology and hydrogen fuel cells address intermittency concerns, enabling greater grid flexibility. As new breakthroughs emerge—such as next-generation nuclear, carbon capture solutions, and energy-dense batteries—the green sector could become even more cost-effective, displacing the final barriers to widespread adoption. This virtuous cycle of innovation can, in turn, attract even more capital to the sector.

Third, financial sector enthusiasm has shifted. In the past, renewable projects were regarded as niche or high-risk ventures. However, increasing climate awareness and pressure from stakeholders—from trade funds to institutional investors who are mindful of environmental, social, and governance (ESG) issues—have changed this perception criteria—and have propelled major banks and pension funds to commit billions to green portfolios. The rise of green bonds and sustainability-linked loans provides further evidence that capital markets now view clean energy as a viable, profitable sector (BloombergNEF, 2021). Still, market appetites can change rapidly: a technological stock downturn, a global recession, or geopolitically driven fossil fuel price manipulation could redirect investment flows.

Finally, global cooperation plays a pivotal role. Climate change is an international crisis demanding coordinated action. If geopolitical rifts deepen—evidenced by trade wars and resource nationalism—supply chains for wind turbines, solar panels, and battery components could fragment. Such fragmentation would raise costs, hamper innovation, and slow deployment. Conversely, collaboration through treaties, research partnerships, and aligned industrial policies can expedite progress, ensuring that these trillion-dollar investments yield substantial environmental and economic returns (IPCC, 2023).

In the end, the green energy sector stands at a critical inflection point. Trillions have already been invested, and many signs—from plummeting technology costs to growing public demand—are optimistic. Yet the sector’s future hinges on stable policy, technological breakthroughs, secure financing, and genuine global cooperation. Should these elements falter, the world risks squandering financial capital and a historic chance to mitigate climate change and reshape the global energy landscape.

References

  BloombergNEF (2021) Clean Energy Investment Trends. Available at: https://about.bnef.com/clean-energy-investment-trends/ (Accessed: [date]).

  International Energy Agency (IEA) (2023) Renewables 2023: Analysis and Forecast. Paris: IEA.

  International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) (2022) Renewable Power Generation Costs in 2022. Abu Dhabi: IRENA.

  Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (2023) Sixth Assessment Report: Summary for Policymakers. Geneva: IPCC.

Rare Earth Elements and Geopolitical Power Struggles

Rare earth elements (REEs)—a group of 17 metallic elements—have quietly become a decisive factor in the global balance of power [1]. Their unique properties render them essential for advanced defence systems, high-tech industries, and clean energy technologies, fostering intense competition among nations for secure access. [2]. This analysis of the strategic importance of REEs evaluates former U.S. President Donald Trump’s proposed mineral deal with Ukraine, explores the role of fossil fuels in the evolving world order, and considers how control over key resources might reshape global alignments among the United States, China, and Russia, disrupting all order in every regard.

Geopolitical Importance of REEs

Central Materials for Modern Industries

REEs are indispensable to modern economies. They power high-performance magnets in military hardware, electric vehicles, and wind turbines, essential for smartphones, computers, and other digital devices [2]. Although not geologically “rare,” REEs are costly to extract and refine, partly due to their chemical complexity and environmentally damaging byproducts [1]. This makes them strategically vital yet vulnerable to supply shocks.

China’s Near-Monopoly

China dominates the global rare earth supply chain, accounting for roughly 90% of global processing capacity [6]. Through state-led investment, low labour costs, and relaxed environmental standards, China undercut other producers in the 1990s and 2000s, forcing mines elsewhere—including the U.S. Mountain Pass facility—to send ore to Chinese refineries [2]. Beijing has demonstrated a willingness to use export controls as a geopolitical lever, briefly suspending supplies to Japan in 2010 and threatening similar measures during trade tensions with the U.S. [7]. Such moves underscore the immense leverage conferred by rare earth dominance.

U.S. and Russian Responses

Alarmed by China’s grip, the U.S. and Russia have accelerated efforts to expand domestic output. The U.S. invoked the Defense Production Act to finance new Texas separation facilities while promoting “friend-shoring” with allies like Australia and Canada [4]. Russia, holding sizable reserves of its own, is investing over a billion dollars to develop large deposits in Siberia in hopes of becoming the world’s second-largest producer [3][4]. Despite these efforts, China’s entrenched position remains a formidable obstacle, and shifting the balance will require years of sustained investment and policy coordination [1].

Trump’s Mineral Deal with Ukraine: Good or Bad?

Strategic Significance of Ukraine’s Deposits

Ukraine claims to hold up to 5% of the world’s “critical” raw materials, including several promising rare earth sites such as Novopoltavske [1]. This could bolster U.S. energy security and reduce reliance on China [2]. However, much of Ukraine’s mineral data stems from outdated Soviet-era surveys that lack modern feasibility assessments [1]. Many deposits lie in conflict zones, and the country’s energy infrastructure has been severely compromised by war [2][5].

Viability and Obstacles

Rare earth extraction demands vast capital, advanced refining processes, and long development timelines—often exceeding a decade [2]. Even if Ukraine confirmed substantial reserves, building the necessary processing infrastructure would be prohibitively expensive, especially amid ongoing hostilities [2][5]. S&P Global deems Ukraine’s REE deposits potentially unprofitable in the short term given high costs, security risks, and logistical barriers [1].

Deal Terms and Friction

President Trump’s proposed agreement sought preferential access to Ukraine’s raw materials—potentially claiming 50% of future state-owned resource revenues—without offering Ukraine firm security guarantees [1]. This arrangement alarmed Ukrainian officials, who viewed it as ceding strategic assets without ensuring their defense needs. Negotiations stalled, reflecting the transactional approach favored by the Trump administration and underscoring Ukraine’s precarious position as both a beneficiary of Western support and a potential resource colony [1][2].

China–Nicaragua Rare Earths Agreement

In parallel with its global push, China recently signed a deal to develop 280,000 hectares for rare earth mining in Nicaragua [11]. The venture expands Beijing’s reach in Latin America, mirroring similar overseas investments aimed at consolidating control over strategic minerals. Although initial surveys suggest significant REE potential, these deposits’ quality and economic viability remain untested [11]. Should they prove profitable, China’s dominance in the sector could grow further, complicating Western efforts to diversify supply chains and secure alternative sources of critical materials [2].

Fossil Fuels in the Emerging Global Order

While REEs capture headlines in high-tech sectors, fossil fuels remain a cornerstone of economic and geopolitical power [8]. Central proven oil and natural gas reserves in regions like Canada, China, Venezuela, Guyana, Trinidad and Tobago, Iran, Turkey, Norway, various African nations, and the Arab world continue to shape alliance patterns and trade flows [8][9]. For instance, OPEC+ production decisions can ripple global markets, influencing everything from inflation rates to diplomatic leverage [9]. According to BP’s latest estimates, the world’s proven natural gas reserves could sustain consumption for approximately 50 years [9]. This abundant yet finite supply underpins critical industries and strategic relationships; countries blessed with rich hydrocarbon deposits often wield substantial influence in multilateral negotiations [10].

Even as the clean energy transition accelerates, oil and gas demand remains robust, particularly in emerging markets. Yet balancing hydrocarbon revenues with climate goals has become a significant policy challenge. Governments across the globe—whether in oil-exporting states like Saudi Arabia or gas-rich regions of Africa—face mounting pressure to diversify their economies and reduce dependence on fossil exports [8]. Conversely, consumer nations weigh energy security against environmental obligations, seeking stable supply while pursuing carbon neutrality targets [9]. This tension makes fossil fuels an integral part of the new global order, where traditional energy superpowers and rising renewable champions must navigate a complex interplay of markets, regulations, and diplomacy [10].

REEs in a New World Order

Defining Superpower Status

Just as oil shaped 20th-century geopolitics, control of REEs could define global power in the 21st century [6]. Nations with stable rare earth supply chains will lead in high-tech manufacturing and defence capabilities, while those lacking access risk economic and security vulnerabilities [7]. China, by maintaining dominance in REE processing, wields a potent tool of economic statecraft that can deter adversaries.

Risk of Resource-Driven Conflict

Global demand for REEs is surging, fueling fears of “resource wars.” Although outright military clashes over REEs remain unlikely, coercive trade measures and zero-sum resource grabs may escalate tensions [3][6]. Nations holding large, untapped deposits could become flashpoints if foreign investors and local governments clash over extraction rights [5].

Emerging Alliances and Technological Innovation

In response to China’s near monopoly, the U.S. and its allies have formed initiatives like the Minerals Security Partnership to develop new sources and processing plants in friendly nations [5]. This evolving landscape might result in a bifurcation of supply chains: one led by China (potentially partnered with Russia), and another by the U.S., EU, and allied states [4]. Long-term recycling and substitute materials innovation could mitigate these tensions by reducing dependence on virgin REEs [2][7].

Conclusion

Rare earth elements have shifted from obscure commodities to a focal point of 21st-century geopolitics [6]. The U.S.-China-Russia triangle underscores that REE access equates to strategic power, influencing diplomatic leverage, defence readiness, and industrial competitiveness [1][7]. Meanwhile, fossil fuels continue to undergird many global alliances, with vast oil and natural gas reserves shaping economic resilience and foreign policy [8][9]. As seen in President Trump’s contentious attempt to secure Ukrainian resources, these dynamics can strain alliances and reorder global alignments [2]. Whether the competition evolves into deeper conflict or spurs cooperative innovation depends on the major powers’ political choices now. Both rare earths and fossil fuels remain at the heart of a new world order, one defined by resource security, technological leadership, and the delicate balance between national interests and global cooperation.

References

[1] Coi, G. (2025) Donald Trump might have made a bad mineral deal with Ukraine, POLITICO, 26 Feb. Available at: https://www.politico.eu/article/donald-trump-bad-mineral-deal-ukraine-volodymyr-zelenskyy/ (Accessed: 27 Feb 2025).

[2] Baskaran, G. and Schwartz, M. (2025) Assessing the Viability of a U.S.-Ukraine Minerals Deal, Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), 21 Feb. Available at: https://www.csis.org/analysis/assessing-viability-us-ukraine-minerals-deal (Accessed: 27 Feb 2025).

[3] Stolyarov, G. (2013) Russia to invest $1 billion in rare earths to cut dependence on China, Reuters, 10 Sep. Available at: https://www.reuters.com/article/business/russia-to-invest-1-billion-in-rare-earths-to-cut-dependence-on-china-idUSBRE9890EQ/ (Accessed: 27 Feb 2025).

[4] Lyrchikova, A. and Stolyarov, G. (2020) Russia has $1.5 billion plan to dent China’s rare earth dominance, Reuters, 12 Aug. Available at: https://www.reuters.com/article/business/russia-has-15-billion-plan-to-dent-chinas-rare-earth-dominance-idUSKCN2581S3/ (Accessed: 27 Feb 2025).

[5] Home, A. (2022) U.S. forms ‘friendly’ coalition to secure critical minerals, Reuters (Analysis), 30 Jun. Available at: https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/us-forms-friendly-coalition-secure-critical-minerals-andy-home-2022-06-30/ (Accessed: 27 Feb 2025).

[6] Schmid, M. (2019) Rare Earths in the Trade Dispute Between the US and China: A Deja Vu, Intereconomics, 54(6), pp. 378–384. Available at: https://www.intereconomics.eu/contents/year/2019/number/6/article/rare-earths-in-the-trade-dispute-between-the-us-and-china-a-deja-vu.html (Accessed: 27 Feb 2025).

[7] Dreyer, J.T. (2020) China’s Monopoly on Rare Earth Elements — and Why We Should Care, Foreign Policy Research Institute, 7 Oct. Available at: https://www.fpri.org/article/2020/10/chinas-monopoly-on-rare-earth-elements-and-why-we-should-care/ (Accessed: 26 Feb 2025).

[8] IEA (2023) World Energy Outlook 2023, Paris: International Energy Agency. Available at: https://www.iea.org/reports/world-energy-outlook-2023 (Accessed: 27 Feb 2025).

[9] BP (2022) Statistical Review of World Energy 2022, London: BP. Available at: https://www.bp.com/en/global/corporate/energy-economics/statistical-review-of-world-energy.html (Accessed: 27 Feb 2025).

[10] OPEC (2021) OPEC Annual Statistical Bulletin 2021, Vienna: OPEC. Available at: https://www.opec.org/opec_web/en/publications/2021.htm (Accessed: 27 Feb 2025).

[11] Xinhua (2025) ‘China, Nicaragua sign rare earth mining deal spanning 280,000 hectares’, Xinhua News Agency, 15 Jan. Available at: http://www.xinhuanet.com/english/2025-01/15/c_139965420.htm (Accessed: 27 Feb 2025).

Dirty War in the Electricity Sector…

Energy infrastructure—the pipelines, power grids, ports, railways, and undersea cables that keep modern society running—has become a new battlefield in a surreptitious conflict. Across the globe, state and non-state actors alike engage in espionage, sabotage, and militarized manoeuvres to secure or disrupt energy lifelines. This “dirty war” in the electricity sector echoes past colonial contests over resources and yields far-reaching consequences for international stability and trust.

Militarization of Energy Infrastructure

Once seen as purely commercial or civilian, energy facilities are increasingly under military watch. Authorities fear disruptive attacks on power grids, gas terminals, and pipeline routes. In Poland, for example, the government approved legislation in 2023 granting the navy the authority to sink hostile vessels threatening the Baltic Pipe gas link from Norway. Such protection extends to ports, LNG terminals and undersea cables deemed vital to national security. NATO and the European Union similarly fortify undersea pipelines and cables amid heightened awareness following recent sabotage incidents. What was once the domain of engineers and private industry has become a critical theatre of state-level defence strategies.

Sabotage in the Shadows

The wave of sabotage illustrates the vulnerability of energy infrastructure. The Nord Stream gas pipeline explosion in the Baltic Sea in September 2022 marked one of the most publicized acts of sabotage in recent history. Investigators concluded it was a deliberate operation but have not definitively attributed blame. The impact was immediate and disruptive, underscoring energy’s central role in geopolitical conflicts.

Beyond pipelines, undersea cables carrying internet and electric power also face increased risk. In 2023 and 2024, submarine cables were mysteriously severed in the Baltic Sea, severing communication and potentially threatening energy transfers. While some incidents, such as the Balticconnector rupture between Finland and Estonia, were traced to accidental damage, others remain suspected. Such intrusions often involve “grey-zone” tactics that fall short of open war but are strategic tools to weaken opponents.

Cyber threats are equally concerning: hackers linked to various state actors regularly target power grid control systems. The 2015 Ukraine power grid hack, which briefly disrupted electricity for hundreds of thousands, demonstrated the potential devastation of cyber sabotage. Similar tactics could be deployed elsewhere with equally dramatic effects.

Grand Power Ambitions: A New Energy Great Game

Today’s contest for energy infrastructure mirrors the 19th-century scramble for colonies, though focused on pipelines, ports, and undersea routes rather than territories. The United States continues its longstanding policy of maintaining a strong military presence in the Middle East to secure key oil shipping lanes. Control of these corridors confers substantial leverage over energy-importing rivals.

China, in turn, is investing heavily in overseas infrastructure through the Belt and Road Initiative. Ports, pipelines, and refineries built under this framework enhance Beijing’s global reach. Western observers warn that these ostensibly commercial projects could become dual-use facilities, providing strategic advantages reminiscent of colonial-era imperial bases. Meanwhile, Russia has also wielded energy resources as a strategic lever, sometimes cutting off supplies to influence neighbors politically.

Even a seemingly peripheral event can have broader implications. For example, Taiwan’s recent detention of a Congolese-flagged ship crewed by Chinese nationals is seen as a microcosm of more prominent rivalries. The vessel was allegedly involved in cutting an undersea cable, highlighting covert attempts at crippling opponents’ communications or power links without resorting to overt hostilities.

Scramble for Fossil Fuels and Rare Minerals

While countries pledge transitions to cleaner energy, the immediate economic and political stakes tied to fossil fuels remain huge. The war in Ukraine demonstrates how disruptions in fossil fuel supply reverberate globally. For instance, Europe’s scramble to replace Russian gas sent prices soaring, placing vulnerable economies at risk and prompting wealthier nations to secure supplies first.

Alongside oil and gas, rare earth elements—like lithium, cobalt, and other critical minerals—fuel geopolitical competition. These resources underpin electric vehicle batteries, wind turbines, and other green technologies crucial to modern economies. China’s dominance in rare earth processing grants it an outsized influence. In response, the U.S., EU, and partners are exploring mining options in Australia, Brazil, and Africa. Competition in this domain has the potential to mirror the 20th-century battles over oil concessions, further straining international relations.

Collateral Damage: Eroding Trust and Stability

The normalization of sabotage erodes trust between nations, complicating collaboration efforts on shared challenges like climate change. Sabotage incidents require time-consuming investigations, generate widespread suspicion, and complicate negotiations. For instance, the sabotage of Nord Stream pipelines continues to strain relations among implicated countries, fueling uncertainty over possible future attacks.

Moreover, sabotage and cyber intrusions carry economic consequences, from price surges to disruptions in consumer supply. Countries that host strategic infrastructure may be coerced into choosing sides, intensifying blocs and rivalries. Such hostility drives further militarization, creating a feedback loop of suspicion, escalation, and potential open conflict.

Despite these challenges, some international frameworks show promise. NATO and the EU have bolstered joint defences of undersea critical infrastructure, and there is growing dialogue on establishing new norms akin to arms-control treaties—albeit for underwater cables and pipeline security. Multilateral cooperation on traceability and accountability in cyberspace could also mitigate risks. Yet these measures remain nascent, and powerful states often flout rules when national interests are at stake.

Conclusion

In this era of heightened energy competition, pipelines, grids, and undersea cables play outsized roles in shaping national security. As major powers bolster infrastructure defenses, employ covert sabotage tactics, and jockey for resources, the potential for larger-scale conflict grows. Without robust international cooperation and updated regulatory frameworks, the “dirty war” in the electricity sector will persist, imperilling modern life’s networks. To avoid further destabilization, nations must recognize the shared vulnerability of critical energy infrastructure and commit to mutual restraint—lest these clandestine hostilities endanger the entire global system.

References

Brussels Institute for Geopolitics (2023) ‘Energy diplomacy – Europe’s new strategic mission (BIG003)’, BIG Review, November. Available at: https://big-europe.eu/ (Accessed: 27 February 2025).
Cavcic, M. (2024) ‘Hybrid warfare paints “gray zone” targets on shipping and offshore energy infrastructure’, Offshore Energy, 11 December. Available at: https://www.offshore-energy.biz/ (Accessed: 27 February 2025).
Hunt, E. (2023) ‘How the US could cut off Middle East oil to China if it wanted’, Responsible Statecraft (Quincy Institute), 7 June. Available at: https://responsiblestatecraft.org/ (Accessed: 27 February 2025).
Lee, Y. (2025) ‘Taiwan detains China-linked cargo ship after undersea cable disconnected’, Reuters, 25 February. Available at: https://www.reuters.com/ (Accessed: 27 February 2025).
Majkut, J., Palti-Guzman, L., Bergmann, M. et al. (2022) ‘Security Implications of Nord Stream Sabotage’, Center for Strategic and International Studies, 29 September. Available at: https://www.csis.org/ (Accessed: 27 February 2025).
Marine Technology News (2024) ‘Sabotage: Two undersea cables cut in Baltic Sea’, 18 November. Available at: https://www.marinetechnologynews.com/ (Accessed: 27 February 2025).
Mason, C. and Oxnevad, I. (2024) ‘Risk on the (Rare Earth) Rocks: The geopolitics of critical minerals’, Corporate Compliance Insights, 24 April. Available at: https://www.corporatecomplianceinsights.com/ (Accessed: 27 February 2025).
NATO (2024) ‘Reinforcing resilience: NATO’s role in enhanced security for critical undersea infrastructure’, NATO Review, 28 August. Available at: https://www.nato.int/ (Accessed: 27 February 2025).
Strzelecki, M. (2023) ‘Poland to boost military protection of Baltic energy infrastructure’, Reuters, 4 May. Available at: https://www.reuters.com/ (Accessed: 27 February 2025).
United Nations Security Council (2024) UN Meeting Coverage SC/15683: Nord Stream Pipeline Sabotage, 30 October. Available at: https://press.un.org/ (Accessed: 27 February 2025).
Wikipedia (2023) 2015 Ukraine power grid hack. Available at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_Ukraine_power_grid_hack (Accessed: 27 February 2025).
Wikipedia (2023) CS Alert (1890). Available at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CS_Alert_(1890) (Accessed: 27 February 2025).

200 Years of Trust Made in Ages…

The recent and abrupt foreign policy shift by the United States—signalled most starkly by a vote against Ukraine and an unexpected alignment with countries like Cuba, China, Iran, Nicaragua, and North Korea—has upended the carefully woven tapestry of transatlantic cooperation. Observers worldwide describe an “upside-down world” where once-stable alliances appear inverted. Two centuries of collaborative legacy between Europe and America now risk unraveling, raising questions about the durability of a relationship that has shaped modern international structures.

Historically, the United States and Europe have shared deep-rooted political, economic, and cultural ties. In the early nineteenth century, a convergence of ideas on democracy, free markets, and liberal governance cultivated trust across the Atlantic. Over time, bilateral trade expanded, and intellectual exchanges accelerated the adoption of shared values, particularly during watershed moments like the Enlightenment’s final echoes in Europe and the US’s pioneering experiments in republican governance. By the early twentieth century, cooperation deepened further with the United States’ decisive entry into World War I, setting the stage for broader strategic alignment.

The bond grew even more robust during and after World War II. Europe and America jointly confronted fascist powers, leading to an era of sweeping multilateralism. The Marshall Plan, conceived under President Harry Truman, funnelled critical financial support to a devastated Europe, spurring economic recovery and forging unbreakable political friendships. NATO, also formed under Truman’s watch, symbolized collective security, ensuring that any threat to one nation would be met with a united response from all allies. These initiatives turned shared ideals into tangible structures that anchored global affairs.

Throughout the Cold War, this Western alliance stood as the first line of defense against Soviet expansion. European nations, often with heavy American investment and military backing, maintained strong institutions that safeguarded democratic freedoms. The eventual collapse of the Eastern Bloc seemed to validate transatlantic unity, offering a blueprint for how shared sacrifices and diplomatic coordination could bring about systemic change.

In recent years, however, subtle fractures emerged, often attributed to disagreements over trade tariffs, differing stances on climate commitments, and questions of burden-sharing in NATO. Yet nothing prepared the world for the scale of the latest pivot in Washington. The United States, once a stalwart supporter of Ukraine, has broken from tradition and aligned itself with regimes historically at odds with Western values. This move has confounded European capitals, questioning the reliability of an ally that once championed democracy worldwide. Economic repercussions loom as well, since regulatory frameworks and trade agreements have become closely intertwined with mutual defense obligations.

Politically, a departure from the established consensus on renewable energy further exposes these rifts. Europe has pioneered large-scale green initiatives, counting on American support for a global push toward sustainability. Now faced with an inconsistent U.S. approach—one moment endorsing climate action, the next favoring resource deals with authoritarian regimes—European leaders worry about long-term cooperation. The potential collapse of critical transatlantic projects jeopardizes not only the symbolic unity of the West but also practical collaboration on technological innovation and ecological resilience.

Despite the unpredictability in Washington, the history binding Europe and America remains profound. Together, they weathered numerous crises, from the Napoleonic aftermath to the World Wars and the bipolar Cold War standoff. These cumulative experiences underscore a resilience that might yet withstand current upheavals. Recalling the spirit of Truman’s transformative initiatives, voices on both sides of the Atlantic urge for renewed diplomatic engagements. Joint policy statements, multilateral gatherings, and grassroots cultural exchanges could serve as anchors, reminding policymakers of the immense value embedded in two centuries of collective achievements.

In an era fraught with crises—geopolitical tensions, energy uncertainties, and emerging global threats—this partnership’s future hinges on a delicate balancing act. If the rift widens, the world may face an even more fragmented international order, prone to regional power plays and ideological competition. Conversely, a recommitment to democratic principles, economic synergies, and security cooperation could reinvigorate the ties that have, for so long, maintained relative global stability. Whether these bonds endure will depend on leaders’ willingness, on both sides of the Atlantic, to remember the legacy of 200 years and find the foresight to preserve it.

References

Freedman, L. (2022) ‘The changing alliances: Europe’s uncertain future with the US’, International Affairs, 98(4), pp. 645–662.
Kennan, G. (1946) ‘The Long Telegram’, US National Archives. Available at: https://catalog.archives.gov/ (Accessed: 27 February 2025).
Morgan, T. (2023) ‘Transatlantic trade and the fragile ties that bind’, Brookings Report, 15 July. Available at: https://www.brookings.edu/ (Accessed: 27 February 2025).
Truman, H.S. (1947) ‘Address before a joint session of Congress: The Truman Doctrine’, US Congressional Records. Available at: https://www.trumanlibrary.gov/ (Accessed: 27 February 2025).
European Commission (2022) ‘Cooperative security in a changing global order’, EU Policy Brief, May. Available at: https://ec.europa.eu/ (Accessed: 27 February 2025).

Rata de dos patas” and Its Impact on Political Science

“Rata de dos patas,” famously performed by Mexican singer Paquita la del Barrio, is generally celebrated as a fierce anthem addressed to an unfaithful partner. However, beyond its bold and defiant lyrics, some cultural commentators point to a significant political backstory tied to the “Solidaridad” (Solidarity) program introduced by President Carlos Salinas de Gortari (1988–1994). This initiative was initially promoted as an innovative strategy to combat poverty by channeling resources into marginalized regions, developing infrastructure, and fostering community participation in Mexico and throughout the Americas.

At first, Solidaridad was lauded for its apparent promise. Schools, clinics, and roads were to be built in rural and impoverished areas, raising hopes for tangible economic and social progress. Over time, dissenting voices grew louder, alleging that the program operated more as a political tool than a true path to development. Accusations of clientelism and misappropriation of funds further tarnished Solidaridad’s reputation. According to critics, this supposedly “wonderful” program quickly revealed itself as an empty mirage, concealing a web of corruption that ultimately undermined its lofty rhetoric.

In this context, the piercing anger of “Rata de dos patas” takes on fresh significance. Beyond capturing the bitterness of romantic betrayal, the song reflects a broader sense of disillusionment and outrage among communities that felt hoodwinked by a government claiming to champion their needs. The biting insult of “rat” fits neatly with the sentiment of being deceived: just as the unmasked illusions of Solidaridad laid bare the administration’s failings, Paquita’s lyrics call out false promises and moral bankruptcy. Consequently, “Rata de dos patas” not only stands as a cultural emblem of spurned love but also underscores the depth of collective frustration when political promises implode under their weight, revealing a stark reality of broken trust and unmet expectations.

The song’s impact on political science is profound, as it highlights the emotional resonance of political betrayal. It serves as a reminder that political promises, when unfulfilled, can lead to deep-seated mistrust and disillusionment among citizens. This mistrust can have far-reaching consequences, affecting voter turnout, civic engagement, and overall confidence in democratic institutions. The lyrics of “Rata de dos patas” tap into a universal sentiment of feeling let down by those in power, making it a potent symbol of political discontent.

Moreover, the song’s enduring popularity underscores the importance of cultural expressions in political discourse. Music and art often reflect societal sentiments more vividly than academic analyses, providing a lens through which to view the emotional undercurrents of political events. In this way, “Rata de dos patas” becomes a tool for understanding the emotional landscape of political disappointment and the challenges faced by governments in maintaining public trust.

The legacy of “Rata de dos patas” serves as a cautionary tale for political leaders, emphasizing the importance of transparency, accountability, and genuine commitment to the welfare of citizens. It reminds us that political actions have emotional consequences that can resonate deeply within society, shaping public perception and trust in governance. As such, the song stands as a testament to the power of cultural expressions in reflecting and influencing political sentiments, highlighting the need for integrity and honesty in political leadership.

Why This Approach Matters

In a world shaped by resource conflicts, geopolitical realignments, and technological shifts, the ability to see beyond conventional narratives is more valuable than ever. We don’t just follow trends—we map them, using hundreds of variables to track energy markets, infrastructure security, rare earth dependencies, and economic shifts.

We’ve provided a snapshot on Canada and Iran, but that’s just the beginning. If deeper insights are needed—whether on trade flows, energy resilience, or supply chain disruptions—we have the data and analytical models to support it.

What We Offer

A Transparent Lens – No pre-loaded conclusions, no ideological constraints—just facts, patterns, and trajectories.
Dynamic Research – If there’s a specific variable you need, we can integrate it. Every trend we examine is multi-dimensional, ensuring the most accurate, adaptive insights.
Actionable Intelligence – Whether it’s the future of energy, the evolution of rare earth supply chains, or emerging geopolitical risks, our research is structured to inform, not dictate.

If you have a specific area of focus—energy security, supply chain resilience, infrastructure risks—just say the word. We’ll bring the data, the depth, and the clarity to ensure you have the full picture—not just a snapshot.

Let’s dive deeper—where should we explore next? 🚀📊🔍

Summary from the thinkers…

1. Humanity’s Most Significant Risks and Why?

The world faces an unprecedented convergence of global risks, many of which stem from resource competition, geopolitical realignments, climate change, and emerging energy vulnerabilities. These risks threaten stability, economic prosperity, and long-term security.

Resource Conflicts

The growing demand for fossil fuels, rare earth elements (REEs), and critical minerals has heightened tensions between major economies, exacerbating geopolitical rivalries and increasing the potential for direct military confrontations. The dominance of China in rare earth processing (controlling over 90% of the global market) has led to strategic stockpiling by Western nations and efforts to diversify supply chains. Meanwhile, the U.S. and Canada are racing to develop their own mining and refining capacity, while Russia is expanding rare earth mining in Siberia to counterbalance Western influence. Countries that control these resources gain technological and defense advantages, shaping the next global power struggle.

Infrastructure Sabotage and Energy Security

The Nord Stream pipeline explosions in 2022 marked a turning point in the security of global energy infrastructure, demonstrating how critical pipelines and undersea cables remain vulnerable to cyberattacks, sabotage, and geopolitical disruptions. More recently, mystery attacks on Baltic gas pipelines and power cables (2023–24) have raised alarm over covert hybrid warfare tactics used to destabilize nations. Energy grids, telecommunications infrastructure, and key shipping routes (such as the Panama Canal and the Strait of Hormuz) have become primary targets in a new era of energy-based conflicts.

Distrust and Geopolitical Fragmentation

The fracturing of global alliances and the erosion of diplomatic trust pose serious risks. U.S.–China tensions over trade, technology, and REEs have led to a strategic decoupling of supply chains. Meanwhile, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and Western sanctions have redrawn global trade routes, forcing Moscow to pivot energy exports toward China and India. The European Union’s push for energy independence from Russia has reshaped global LNG markets, while Iran’s renewed oil trade with China has further divided global energy alliances. These shifting relationships highlight structural imbalances reminiscent of those in a fractured relationship, where major powers increasingly act unilaterally rather than cooperatively.

Climate Change Impacts

Rising temperatures, extreme weather events, and water shortages are accelerating the need for a global energy transition. However, this transition is being delayed by political divisions over fossil fuel dependency, with some governments prioritizing energy security over climate commitments. The U.S., EU, and China continue to invest in renewables, but OPEC nations and fossil fuel-dependent economies resist rapid shifts. Climate-driven resource conflicts—such as disputes over drought-stricken river basins, desertification, and access to lithium deposits—are emerging as new flashpoints in global stability.

Together, these risks underscore the fragility of modern energy, trade, and security networks, highlighting the urgent need for resilience strategies.

2. The Future of Electricity and Industry

The global energy sector is at a crossroads, with two competing pathways:

Continuation of Fossil Fuels
Many governments prioritize short-term energy security by extending the life of oil, gas, and coal, particularly in response to geopolitical disruptions and energy crises. The ongoing war in Ukraine, rising tensions in the Middle East, and U.S. policy shifts under a second Trump administration could see increased fossil fuel production and deregulation.
Gradual but Unstoppable Rise of Renewables
Technological breakthroughs in solar, wind, energy storage, and hydrogen will continue, driven by declining costs, corporate net-zero pledges, and public demand for clean air. However, major challenges remain: scaling battery production, securing REE supplies, and overhauling outdated grid infrastructure to accommodate intermittent renewables.

Automation, AI-driven energy management, and advanced smart grids will be crucial for integrating these energy sources efficiently. Additionally, the race to secure critical minerals for electric vehicle (EV) batteries—including lithium, nickel, and cobalt—will reshape global trade relationships.

3. How Will It Function?

Short-Term Outlook: Hybrid Systems Dominate

In the near future, most nations will rely on hybrid energy systems, integrating renewables with traditional baseload power (natural gas, coal, nuclear). The continued reliance on gas-fired power plants will ensure stability, especially as grids adapt to variable wind and solar generation.

Long-Term Outlook: Smarter Grids, More Storage, Decentralization

Over time, improved battery storage, decentralized grids, and advanced transmission technologies will allow renewables to supply the majority of global electricity demand. Regions investing in offshore wind, advanced geothermal, and next-generation nuclear reactors will lead the transition.

4. Fuel Composition

The global energy mix will remain diverse but will vary based on policy and technological advances:

Fossil Fuels: Oil and gas remain dominant in transportation, heavy industry, and power generation, especially where energy security concerns outweigh climate commitments.
Renewables: Wind, solar, and geothermal continue to grow, with government incentives and falling technology costs driving adoption.
Nuclear: Some countries (France, Canada, China) are reinvesting in nuclear power for stable, low-carbon electricity, though waste management and safety concerns remain barriers.
Hydrogen: Green hydrogen could replace natural gas in industrial applications, but cost reductions and infrastructure development are needed before mass adoption.

5. The Fate of Renewable Energy

Despite political setbacks (such as U.S. policy reversals under Trump), long-term trends still favor renewables. Key drivers include:

Cost-competitiveness: Wind and solar power are now cheaper than fossil fuels in many regions.
Government incentives: Policies such as Europe’s Green Deal and the U.S. Inflation Reduction Act provide billions in subsidies for clean energy projects.
Corporate demand: Tech giants and multinational corporations are shifting to 100% renewable energy, driving investment.
International commitments: Even amid political uncertainty, nations are increasingly bound by climate treaties and emission reduction goals.

6. Can the U.S. Survive Without Europe?

While the U.S. has the resources and market size to sustain itself economically, losing Europe as a trade partner and geopolitical ally would weaken its global influence. A transatlantic split could lead to:
Stronger EU-China cooperation on trade and clean energy technology.
U.S. energy and defense industry setbacks, as Europe seeks alternative suppliers.
Weakened NATO cohesion, making global security more volatile.

Europe, in turn, would face challenges in replacing U.S. military and economic cooperation, potentially accelerating its move toward strategic autonomy.

7. Banking Policy Toward the Electric Sector

Financial markets are increasingly favoring clean energy investments, but uncertainty remains. Banks may:

Limit funding for high-risk renewable projects in regions with unstable policies.
Favor fossil fuel expansion if policy shifts suggest stronger government backing.
Increase green financing options in response to carbon-neutral pledges.

8. Is Three Years Enough to Implement Disruptive Changes?

No. Energy transitions, infrastructure projects, and supply chain realignments take decades, not years. While short-term policies can set the direction, achieving meaningful transformation within a three-year window is unlikely.

9. Relationship Between Trump and Putin

A second Trump administration could take a more pragmatic stance toward Russia, prioritizing energy trade and negotiations over sanctions. However, geopolitical tensions—especially over Ukraine—could limit any potential rapprochement.

10. Fate of Ukraine

If Western support declines, Ukraine could face increased vulnerability. However, continued EU and NATO backing may sustain its long-term defense. The war’s outcome will depend on Western resolve, Russia’s strategy, and potential diplomatic settlements.

11. Will the U.S. Take Control of the Panama Canal?

While unlikely under current treaties, the U.S. remains invested in securing global shipping routes. Increased Chinese influence in Latin America could prompt greater U.S. military and economic involvement in Panama, but direct control is improbable.

12. Current Global Relations

U.S. & Europe: Strained over energy policies, trade disputes, and NATO commitments.
China: Dominates REE supply chains, escalating U.S.–China trade tensions.
Iran: Expanding energy ties with China and Russia amid sanctions.
Russia: Redirecting oil and gas sales to non-Western markets.

Resolution of these disputes will require new diplomatic alignments, resource diversification, and long-term trust-building.

Conclusion

The world is undergoing a seismic energy and geopolitical transition, shaped by competition over resources, technology, and climate policies. Despite setbacks, clean energy remains on an upward trajectory, while fossil fuel politics remain deeply entrenched. The next decade will determine whether nations successfully navigate these shifts—or descend into further conflict and economic fragmentation.

References

Government of Mexico (1989) Programa Nacional de Solidaridad (PRONASOL). Mexico City: Secretaría de Desarrollo Social.
Levy, S. (1991) ‘Poverty alleviation in Mexico: The case of Solidaridad’, World Development, 19(12), pp. 1573–1588.
Ochoa, E. (1992) ‘Promises and realities: Salinas’s Solidaridad and political clientelism’, Journal of Mexican Studies, 8(1), pp. 45–68.
Paquita la del Barrio (1995) ‘Rata de dos patas’, La música de la grande, Discos Musart.
Simpson, B. (2022) ‘Cultural representation in Mexican political discourse: From Salinas’s Solidaridad to Paquita la del Barrio’s protest songs’, Latin American Review, 4(2), pp. 32–46.

**You can’t possibly deny me…**

**Have a wonderful day filled with good health, happiness, and love…**

In December 2023, Energy Central recognized outstanding contributors within the Energy & Sustainability Network during the ‘Top Voices’ event. The recipients of this honor were highlighted in six articles, showcasing the acknowledgment from the community. The platform facilitates professionals in disseminating their work, engaging with peers, and collaborating with industry influencers. Congratulations are extended to the 2023 Top Voices: David Hunt, Germán Toro Ghio, Schalk Cloete, and Dan Yurman for their exemplary demonstration of expertise. – Matt Chester, Energy Central

Gratitude is a vital aspect of our existence…

In a world that’s constantly growing and grappling with inflation, the art of blogging faces its fair share of hurdles. To keep our content top-notch during these challenging times, we’ve poured resources into top-tier software, licenses, and stunning copyrighted images, among other essentials. But fear not, we’re not navigating this journey alone! Just last week on “X,” actions like “liking” or “retweeting” have become your secret weapons—free and private, thanks to “Musk” your support through these simple yet impactful gestures is not just a token of appreciation but a significant contribution that shapes our journey!

If you’re feeling motivated to make a difference, consider extending your generosity through PayPal at gjmtoroghio@germantoroghio.com, or by using our IBAN account: SE18 3000 0000 0058 0511 2611. Alternatively, you can effortlessly support our blog with a secure contribution via Stripe using the donation link. Every little bit helps!

Thank you for being a part of our journey! Your generous support is truly invaluable to us! It plays a crucial role in helping us achieve our goals and make a positive impact. Thank you for being such an important part of our journey!

https://x.com/Germantoroghio/status/1890688176206786821

**You can’t possibly deny me…**

**Have a wonderful day filled with good health, happiness, and love…**

Donate

Canada…

1.- INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW

Canada is one of the most resource-rich countries on Earth, stretching from the Atlantic to the Pacific and Arctic coasts. Its vast territory—home to forests, mountains, plains, and a lengthy coastline—has produced an abundance of natural resources, including energy (oil, natural gas, hydropower), minerals (gold, copper, nickel, potash), forest products, fisheries, and agricultural land. (1)

These resources fulfil key roles in:

Economic Growth: They generate revenue, support exports, create jobs, and stimulate investment.
Regional Development: Resource-based industries are the economic backbone for many rural and remote communities.
Trade: Canada is a major global exporter of energy, minerals, lumber, and agricultural commodities. (2)

2.- MAJOR CATEGORIES OF CANADIAN NATURAL RESOURCES

A. ENERGY RESOURCES

Oil Sands: Alberta’s oil sands represent the third-largest oil reserves in the world. Extraction primarily occurs around Fort McMurray (Athabasca oil sands), along with deposits at Peace River and Cold Lake.
Conventional Oil: Found in parts of Alberta, Saskatchewan, and offshore fields near Newfoundland and Labrador.
Natural Gas: Abundant in Western Canada (primarily Alberta and British Columbia). Key deposits are in the Montney and Duvernay Formations.
Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG): Coastal British Columbia is expected to become a critical hub for LNG exports. (3)

Hydro Power

Canada ranks among the world’s largest producers of hydroelectricity. Provinces like Québec, British Columbia, Manitoba, Ontario, and Newfoundland & Labrador host significant hydro infrastructure. Prominent examples include the James Bay Project (Québec), the W. A. C. Bennett Dam (BC), and the Churchill Falls Generating Station (Labrador). (4)

Nuclear Power

Ontario accounts for most of Canada’s nuclear power generation (e.g., Bruce Power, Darlington, and Pickering), providing a reliable source of low-carbon electricity. (5)

Renewables (Other than Hydro)

Wind Energy: Rapid expansion in Ontario, Québec, Alberta, and the Maritime provinces.
Solar Energy: Growing in Ontario and Alberta but remains a relatively small share of total energy production.

Biomass and Geothermal:

B. MINERAL RESOURCES

Precious Metals: This includes gold (in Ontario, Québec, BC, Nunavut), silver (often a by-product of base metal mining), and platinum group metals (in Ontario and Québec).
Base Metals: Significant deposits of copper (BC, Ontario, Québec), nickel (Sudbury Basin, Voisey’s Bay, Thompson), and zinc/lead (New Brunswick, Québec, Manitoba).
Iron Ore: Large mines operate in the Labrador Trough near the Quebec–Labrador border.
Potash: Saskatchewan is the world’s largest potash producer, essential for fertilizer.
Diamonds: Discoveries in the Northwest Territories (Ekati, Diavik) and northern Ontario (Victor Mine) have placed Canada among the world’s leading diamond producers.
Uranium: The Athabasca Basin in northern Saskatchewan hosts some of the highest-grade uranium deposits globally. (7)

C. FOREST RESOURCES

Canada boasts approximately 9% of the world’s forests, featuring vast boreal forests stretching from Yukon to Newfoundland and Labrador, alongside coniferous and mixed forests in British Columbia, Ontario, and Québec. The forestry sector—which includes lumber, pulp and paper, and engineered wood products—employs many Canadians and supports significant exports. Most of Canada’s lumber is produced in British Columbia, Québec, and Ontario. (8)

D. FISHERIES AND AQUACULTURE

Boasting the world’s longest coastline along the Atlantic, Pacific, and Arctic Oceans, Canada’s marine fisheries have traditionally been significant (e.g., Atlantic cod, until its collapse in the early 1990s). Today, major fisheries include lobster, snow crab, shrimp, salmon, and shellfish along both coasts. Freshwater fisheries contribute on a smaller scale, whereas aquaculture (salmon, mussels) is expanding in BC and the Maritimes. (9)

E. AGRICULTURAL LAND

Prairie Provinces (Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba): Known for extensive fields of wheat, canola, barley, and other grains. Saskatchewan leads in canola production.
Fruit and Vegetable Production: Ontario’s Niagara region, BC’s Okanagan Valley, and select areas nationwide have thriving horticultural sectors.
Livestock: Alberta is renowned for beef, while Québec and Ontario are strong in dairy; Manitoba is a key hog producer. (10)

3.- ECONOMIC IMPORTANCE

Canada’s natural resources are fundamental to its economic strength:

Exports: Energy (oil, gas), minerals (like gold, potash), and forestry products form pillars of the export economy, with the U.S. as Canada’s largest trade partner.
Employment and GDP: These sectors employ hundreds of thousands of Canadians. Alberta’s economy leans heavily on oil and gas, while forestry is a mainstay in many rural BC and Québec communities.
Regional Development: Resource wealth spurs infrastructure improvements, population growth, and broader economic development in remote locales, such as mining towns in Northern Ontario. (11)

4.- ENVIRONMENTAL AND POLICY CONSIDERATIONS

Climate Change and Emissions

Oil Sands: Criticized for high greenhouse gas emissions. Both producers and government bodies have aimed to lower extraction’s carbon footprint, yet international concerns persist.
Forestry Management: Canada’s sustainable forest policies support reforestation and best practices, although old-growth logging in BC remains contentious. (12)

Indigenous Rights and Consultation

Many resource-rich regions overlap with lands historically used or claimed by Indigenous peoples. Modern treaties, impact-benefit agreements, and consultation frameworks strive to ensure that Indigenous communities have meaningful input on projects and share in potential benefits. (13)

Regulations and Environmental Assessments

Large projects—oil pipelines, mines, hydro dams—undergo federal or provincial reviews. While provinces manage natural resources, federal rules apply to fisheries, navigable waters, GHGs, and interprovincial or international initiatives. (14)

Market Access and Pipeline Debates

Pipeline proposals—such as Trans Mountain, Keystone XL, and Energy East—highlight tensions between economic benefits and environmental/climate responsibilities. (15)

5.- Transition to Low-Carbon Economy

Canada is diversifying its energy mix (hydro, wind, solar) and reducing emissions with a national carbon tax and clean energy investments. Clean-tech innovation is crucial for long-term competitiveness in the global market. (16)

Future outlook

Continued Global Demand: As global markets seek materials—particularly critical minerals (nickel, lithium, cobalt)—Canada can expand responsibly to meet EV and renewable energy demands.
Sustainability: Heightened environmental awareness, climate goals, and Indigenous rights obligations mean stricter scrutiny of resource developments.
Economic Diversification: Provinces reliant on hydrocarbons (e.g., Alberta) explore petrochemicals, renewables, and high-tech. Meanwhile, forestry and mining firms are investing in greener, value-added processes.
Technology and Innovation: Automated systems, AI, and advanced exploration methods transform resource sectors. Carbon capture in the oil sands, sustainable forestry, and precision agriculture lead Canada’s resource evolution.
Global Geopolitics: Demand for stable, responsibly sourced commodities may benefit Canada, known for political stability and strong regulations. However, competition and commodity price volatility remain ongoing challenges. (17)

KEY TAKEAWAYS Resource-Rich Foundation

Canada’s vast oil, gas, mineral, forestry, and water assets power its economy and exports.
Economic Significance: Energy and mining lead export revenues, while forestry and agriculture remain lifelines for rural areas.
Environmental Balancing Act: Mitigating climate change, conserving habitats, and honoring Indigenous rights are central to managing these resources.
Policy and Innovation: Stricter regulations, carbon pricing, and advancing tech (clean tech) guide the transformation of Canada’s resource sectors.
Global Role: Rising global demand—particularly for critical minerals—positions Canada as a potential leader in the shift toward a low-carbon future.

Canada’s natural resources have played a central role in shaping its history, economy, and national identity. From Alberta’s vast oil sands and northern mineral deposits to its abundant forests and rich fisheries, the country’s resources are a cornerstone of its development. However, Canada’s main challenge is how to harness these resources sustainably in an increasingly uncertain global environment. Striking a balance between economic growth, environmental responsibility, and collaboration with Indigenous communities is crucial for the future of Canada’s resource-driven industries. In addition, Canada is a major producer and exporter of natural gas, with much of its exports traditionally focused on the U.S. market. However, with the growing interest and development of Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) exports, Canada is now positioning itself to tap into broader global markets. The following section will explore Canada’s natural gas exports in detail and delve into key industry considerations. (18)

5.- CANADA’S NATURAL GAS EXPORTS AND MARKET: A COMPREHENSIVE ANALYSIS

OVERVIEW OF PRODUCTION AND MAJOR REGIONS

Canada is one of the world’s top natural gas producers. Most of its output originates in the Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB)—spanning Alberta, British Columbia, and Saskatchewan. Alberta remains the foremost producer, yet British Columbia’s share has surged thanks to shale developments such as the Montney. By 2023, BC generated about 6.7 Bcf/d of gas (36% of the country’s total). Saskatchewan’s volumes (~0.3–0.4 bcf/d) have declined, and offshore Atlantic production ended in 2018. Canadian marketable gas production reached approximately 17.9 Bcf/d in 2023, reflecting technological strides such as horizontal drilling and fracking. (19)

KEY EXPORT DESTINATIONS AND TRADE RELATIONSHIPS

The United States continues to be the prime market for Canadian natural gas. Historically, nearly all Canadian exports have flowed south through pipelines. In 2023, Canada exported about 3.1 Tcf of natural gas—100% of which was directed to the U.S. Canada remains the most significant external gas supplier to the United States, reflecting deep North American market integration. However, the U.S. “shale revolution” significantly increased American gas production, reducing demand for Canadian imports. Although Canadian shipments have decreased from their mid-2000s peak, and the U.S. now exports some gas northward, it still buys about half of Canada’s production, emphasizing the “one-customer story.” (20)

PIPELINE INFRASTRUCTURE FOR EXPORTS

Canada’s pipeline network is extensive. The Nova Gas Transmission Limited (NGTL) system in Alberta gathers gas for multiple corridors:

Western Corridor (to the U.S. West Coast): Includes Foothills Pipeline to Kingsgate (BC–Idaho) and Westcoast (Enbridge BC) to Sumas (BC–Washington).
Midcontinent/Midwest Corridor: Alliance Pipeline, Foothills system at Monchy (SK–Montana).
Great Lakes/Northeast Corridor: TC Energy’s Canadian Mainline extends through SK and MB to ON, then crosses into U.S. markets at Emerson (MB–MN), Sarnia/Detroit, and Niagara/NY. (21)

CANADA’S LNG INFRASTRUCTURE AND EXPORT PROJECTS

Although Canada is a major producer, it lacked large-scale LNG export capacity for years. While the U.S., Australia, and Qatar rapidly grew LNG exports, Canada has only now begun major LNG projects in British Columbia:

LNG Canada (Kitimat, BC): A CAD $40-billion venture led by Shell. Phase 1 aims for ~14 Mtpa (~1.8 Bcf/d) starting exports by 2025, potentially doubling later.
Woodfibre LNG (Squamish, BC): About 2.1 Mtpa (~0.3 Bcf/d), powered by hydro, targeting niche Asian markets.
Cedar LNG (Kitimat, BC): Using hydropower, a floating LNG facility led by the Haisla First Nation, ~3 Mtpa (~0.4 Bcf/d).

Other projects remain in planning, including East Coast LNG proposals (e.g., Goldboro in Nova Scotia, conversion of Canaport) that focus on Europe, though these remain uncertain. (22)

EXPORT VOLUMES, TRENDS, AND ECONOMIC IMPACT

Canada’s gas export trends have shifted over the past decade. After peaking near 10 Bcf/d in the early 2000s, exports fell to ~6–7 Bcf/d by the mid-2010s as U.S. domestic production surged. By 2021, Canada shipped about 2.8 Tcf (~80 Bcm), accounting for half of its total production, almost entirely to the U.S. This heavy reliance on one buyer makes Canada vulnerable to U.S. market changes. Economically, revenue from these exports has fluctuated with price cycles—historically high in the early 2000s, then lower through much of the 2010s, and rebounding during the 2021–2022 price spikes. Natural gas is vital to Canada’s energy GDP and trade balance. (23)

CANADA’S GLOBAL ROLE IN NATURAL GAS

Despite being a major producer, Canada’s global gas trade has been modest, as nearly all exports are directed to the U.S. With new LNG capacity, Canada could emerge as a top ten LNG exporter, selling to Asia or Europe. Advantages include shorter shipping routes to Northeast Asia than the U.S. Gulf Coast and abundant, stable reserves. Challenges involve competition from established exporters (U.S., Qatar, Australia, Russia) and the necessity for efficient, timely development. (24)

REGULATORY & POLICY LANDSCAPE AFFECTING EXPORTS

The growth of Canadian gas exports is influenced by:

Federal Regulation: The Canadian Energy Regulator oversees interprovincial pipelines and LNG export licensing.
Provincial Responsibilities: Alberta and BC manage royalties, environmental standards, and upstream rules.
Climate Commitments: Federal carbon pricing, methane reduction, sectoral emissions caps.
Export Market Approach: While British Columbia and Alberta advocate for LNG expansions, the East Coast’s approach to LNG has been met with scepticism. Overall, Canada aims to support gas development consistent with its climate policies. (25)

CHALLENGES IN EXPANDING NATURAL GAS EXPORTS

Environmental and Climate Concerns: GHG footprint, habitat impacts, and protests from communities and Indigenous groups.
Infrastructure Bottlenecks: High-cost pipelines and LNG megaprojects, remote conditions (e.g., Arctic), regulatory hurdles.
Market Competition & Volatility: The global gas sector is competitive; prices can swing sharply, affecting profit margins for costly projects.
Regulatory Delays: Complex federal/provincial reviews and possible legal disputes over jurisdiction.
Indigenous & Community Opposition: Earning local support (social license) is essential; many oppose or demand stringent conditions for resource projects. (26)

FUTURE OUTLOOK AND OPPORTUNITIES

If these obstacles are handled effectively, Canada’s gas exports can:

Growing LNG Capacity: Projects like LNG Canada, Woodfibre, Cedar tap into Asian markets.
Maintain U.S. Pipeline Trade: The U.S. remains a core customer, though overshadowed by domestic shale.
Boost Economic and Industrial Growth: Expand upstream production, foster Indigenous partnerships, adopt new technologies.
Potential Transition to Hydrogen: Longer-term pivot to low-carbon gas/hydrogen could diversify exports further. (27)

In short, Canada’s natural gas export sector presents significant opportunities but faces substantial challenges. Transitioning from a pipeline-reliant domestic supplier to a globally recognized LNG exporter represents a challenging evolution in Canadian energy policy. While the U.S. market remains crucial, developing LNG infrastructure in British Columbia, and potentially on the East Coast, will facilitate access to Asian markets and beyond. The potential benefits include considerable revenue generation, job creation, and enhanced geopolitical influence. However, navigating this pathway necessitates addressing climate commitments, respecting Indigenous rights, adhering to stringent regulations, and competing internationally. With strategic planning and effective collaboration, Canada has the potential to become a leading global supplier of cleaner energy, aligning economic growth with climate-conscious policies. (28)

6.- CANADA–CHINA RELATIONS

HISTORICAL DIPLOMATIC ENGAGEMENT

Under Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau, Canada recognised the People’s Republic of China in 1970—years before the U.S. This established a lasting framework for bilateral trade, investment, and cultural exchanges. However, episodes of tension have arisen over human rights issues and politicised arrests (e.g., the Meng Wanzhou case and the detention of the “Two Michaels”). (29)

ECONOMIC INTERDEPENDENCE AND TRADE

China stands as Canada’s second-largest trading partner. Canadian exports to China include natural resources (lumber, minerals, canola) and educational services; imports typically encompass consumer goods and electronics. In 2018–2019, China’s temporary ban on Canadian canola highlighted the risk of heavy reliance on one market. Canada additionally contends with China’s opaque regulatory practices and IP theft concerns.

KEY TENSIONS

Ø Human Rights: Ongoing concerns about Xinjiang (Uyghurs), Hong Kong’s freedoms and civil liberties.

Ø Espionage & Interference: CSIS repeatedly warns of Chinese attempts to influence Canadian institutions, elections, and controversial detentions (Meng Wanzhou, Two Michaels).

Ø Arctic & Sovereignty: China’s declared status as a “near-Arctic state” alarms Canada about sovereignty threats in the far north.

Ø Belt and Road Initiative (BRI): Canada remains outside the BRI, wary of China’s strategic and economic influence globally. (30)

NAVIGATING U.S.–CHINA RIVALRY

Canada, a close U.S. ally, generally aligns with Washington on key security policies (e.g., banning Huawei from 5G). Simultaneously, Ottawa seeks to maintain constructive relations with Beijing for trade purposes. Striking a balance between protecting Canada’s national security interests and taking advantage of China’s vast market remains an ongoing challenge. (31)

7.- CANADA–RUSSIA RELATIONS

COLD WAR DIPLOMACY, POST-SOVIET COOPERATION

Canada maintained diplomatic ties with the USSR from 1942, aligning with NATO against Soviet expansion after WWII. Despite political hostility, limited commerce (like wheat exports) persisted. Following the USSR’s collapse, Canada supported Russia’s market transition and welcomed it into the G8, collaborating on nuclear disarmament and Arctic initiatives. Relations deteriorated by the late 2000s. (32)

ARCTIC SOVEREIGNTY DISPUTES

Both countries assert overlapping claims in the Arctic, submitting extended continental shelf documentation. Although there was previously cooperation in the Arctic Council, Russia’s military buildup and Canada’s expansions in Arctic patrol capabilities signal wariness on both sides. (33)

IMPACT OF SANCTIONS SINCE 2014

Russia’s 2014 annexation of Crimea spurred Canada to join allies in imposing sanctions and cooling trade and diplomatic contacts. Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine led Canada to escalate sanctions, prohibit Russian energy imports, and enable the seizure of sanctioned Russian assets to aid Ukraine’s reconstruction. (34)

CANADA’S ROLE IN NATO DETERRENCE

Under Operation REASSURANCE, Canada leads the NATO battlegroup in Latvia, contributing troops, fighter jets, and warships to bolster Eastern Europe’s defenses. Politically, Canada decries Putin’s aggression and closely coordinates with G7 partners to isolate Russia on the world stage. (35)

8.- CANADA–UKRAINE RELATIONS

DEEP HISTORICAL & CULTURAL TIES

Canada is home to over a million citizens of Ukrainian descent—making it one of the largest Ukrainian diasporas. It was one of the first countries to recognise Ukraine’s independence in 1991. The Ukrainian Canadian Congress wields influence to maintain strong political and humanitarian support for Ukraine. (36)

POLITICAL AND DIPLOMATIC SOLIDARITY

Canada consistently upholds Ukraine’s sovereignty. Prime Minister Trudeau has visited Kyiv several times to reaffirm Canada’s “unwavering support.” Canadian MPs have passed motions endorsing Ukraine’s democratic path and condemning Russian incursions.

MILITARY AID AND SECURITY COOPERATION

Operation UNIFIER: Since 2015, Canadian forces have trained over 33,000 Ukrainian personnel, helping modernize Ukraine’s military.
Post-2022 Invasion: Canada has committed more than CA$ 4.5 billion in defence aid, including artillery, armour, air defence, training, and intelligence-sharing. The scale of this assistance surpasses what might be expected from a country of Canada’s size. (37)

ECONOMIC AND HUMANITARIAN SUPPORT

Canada has provided billions in loans and direct financial assistance to the Ukrainian government, and considerable humanitarian aid. By mid-2023, over 165,000 Ukrainians had sought refuge in Canada under the Canada-Ukraine Authorization for Emergency Travel (CUAET). (38)

DIPLOMATIC ADVOCACY

Ottawa plays an active role in broad sanctions against Russia and endorses Ukraine’s aspiration toward NATO and EU membership. Ukrainian leaders often praise Canada as one of their staunchest allies. (39)

9.- CANADA’S POSITION ON TRUMP-ERA PROPOSALS FOR RUSSIA-UKRAINE PEACE

TRUMP ADMINISTRATION’S APPROACH

Donald Trump’s presidency offered contradictory signals on Ukraine—public sympathy toward Russia (e.g., “Crimea is Russian”) alongside the official continuance of sanctions. His freezing of Ukrainian military aid in 2019 (seeking political concessions) alarmed Canada, underscoring its potential vulnerability if U.S. policy shifted drastically.

As of February 2025, President Donald Trump’s administration’s policy toward Ukraine has undergone significant shifts, marked by a departure from previous strategies and a move toward direct negotiations with Russia. (40)

U.S. Policy Shifts:

Ø Direct Negotiations with Russia: President Trump has initiated direct talks with Russian President Vladimir Putin, aiming to negotiate an end to the ongoing conflict in Ukraine. These discussions have notably excluded Ukraine and European allies, raising concerns about potential concessions to Russia and the implications for Ukraine’s sovereignty.

Ø Economic Partnership Proposal: The Trump administration has proposed an economic partnership with Ukraine, focusing on U.S. investment in key sectors such as natural resources and infrastructure. This initiative is designed to stimulate Ukraine’s economic growth and ensure that generated revenue supports long-term reconstruction. The partnership emphasizes transparency and aims to align American and Ukrainian interests.

Ø Criticism of Ukrainian Leadership: President Trump has openly denounced Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, branding him a “dictator” and alleging that he misled the U.S. into funding an unwinnable war. This rhetoric has strained relations and raised concerns about future U.S. support for Ukraine. (41)

Canada’s Response:

Ø Reaffirmation of Support for Ukraine: Considering recent U.S. policy shifts, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has reiterated Canada’s steadfast support for Ukraine. Trudeau highlighted that Ukraine’s struggle is crucial not only for its sovereignty but also for global stability.

Ø Diplomatic Engagements: Prime Minister Trudeau has discussed the conflict in Ukraine with President Trump, aiming to address concerns over the evolving U.S. stance and its potential impact on NATO unity and European security. (42)

Potential Impact of the Trump Presidency

Canada fears a sudden U.S. retreat from Ukraine. In response, Canada might strengthen ties with European allies to preserve sanctions and military aid, possibly clashing with Washington if a new “peace” deal compels Ukraine to surrender territory. (43)

HOW WOULD CANADA REACT

Canada adheres to “Nothing about Ukraine without Ukraine.” It would oppose any imposed settlement that rewards Russian aggression, coordinating diplomatically with allies to shape potential negotiations and retain sanctions until Ukraine’s sovereignty is honored. (44)

CONCLUSION

Canada’s natural gas export sector offers significant promise but faces considerable challenges. Transitioning from a pipeline-dependent continental supplier to a globally recognized LNG exporter marks a crucial turning point in Canadian energy policy. While the U.S. market remains crucial, developing LNG infrastructure in British Columbia (and potentially on the East Coast) will create new routes to Asia and beyond. Potential rewards are substantial: revenue, job creation, and enhanced geopolitical standing. However, the path ahead requires addressing climate obligations, Indigenous rights, strict regulations, and international competition. With strategic planning and prudent collaboration, Canada could emerge as a key global supplier of cleaner energy, harmonizing economic growth with climate-conscious policies.

Canada’s relationships with China, Russia, and Ukraine highlight its middle-power balancing act: combining economic pragmatism with unwavering support for democratic principles. Relations with China have deteriorated due to concerns over human rights issues., alleged espionage, Arctic ambitions, and economic leverage. Relations with Russia collapsed after its 2014 action in Crimea and sank further when Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022, prompting Canadian sanctions and a strong NATO presence. Meanwhile, Canada’s partnership with Ukraine—rooted in historical diasporic links—has reached new heights via intense military and humanitarian aid.

Canada must reconcile its strategic and economic needs with promoting human rights and global norms in all three relationships. During Donald Trump’s presidency, Canada remained steadfast in sanctioning Russia and supporting Ukraine, even as U.S. signals wavered. Another Trump administration could pose further challenges, possibly requiring Canada to bind closer to Europe if the U.S. scaled back its support for Ukraine.

Still, Canada’s overall foreign policy trajectory remains constant: upholding the rules-based international system, sanctioning aggressors, and championing allied nations under threat. Belief in the sanctity of territorial sovereignty underpins Canada’s Ukraine stance and shapes its approach to Russia. Concurrently, Canada seeks practical economic ties with China yet stands ready to defend its core interests.

Domestically, Canada’s resource-driven economy—and especially its natural gas sector—is evolving to tackle environmental concerns, Indigenous reconciliation, and global competition. Internationally, Canada’s firm stance on democracy and stability endures. The coming years will test how effectively Ottawa can maintain cohesion with its partners—including an unpredictable U.S.—while pursuing its own national aims in a rapidly transforming geopolitical setting. (45)

SOURCES

1. Government of Canada – Official Resource Briefings

Title: Official Resource Briefings
Source/Publisher: Government of Canada
(Referenced as #1 in the original list.)

2. CORIM Blog – Canada–China Relations

Title: “Canada–China Relations Are at a Crossroads”
Source/Publisher: CORIM Blog
(Referenced as #2 in the original list.)

3. Canadian Energy Regulator – Market Snapshots

Title: Market Snapshots
Source/Publisher: Canadian Energy Regulator (CER)
(Referenced as #3 in the original list.)

4. Politico – G7 & Russia

Title: “G7 Rejects Trump’s Bid to Bring Russia Back”
Source/Publisher: Politico
(Referenced as #4 in the original list.)

5. Reuters – Coverage on China’s ‘Hostage Diplomacy’

Title: Coverage on China’s “Hostage Diplomacy”
Source/Publisher: Reuters
(Referenced as #5 in the original list.)

6. Government of Canada – Indo-Pacific Strategy (2022)

Title: Indo-Pacific Strategy (2022)
Source/Publisher: Government of Canada
(Referenced as #6 in the original list.)

7. Atlantic Council – Ukrainian Diaspora Analysis

Title: Analysis of the Ukrainian Diaspora
Source/Publisher: Atlantic Council
(Referenced as #7 in the original list.)

8. Department of National Defence (Canada) – Operation UNIFIER

Title: Operation UNIFIER Releases
Source/Publisher: DND (Canada)
(Referenced as #8 in the original list.)

9. Prime Minister of Canada – News Releases on Ukraine Aid

Title: News Releases on Ukraine Aid
Source/Publisher: Prime Minister of Canada
(Referenced as #9 in the original list.)

10. New Voice of Ukraine / Reuters – Trudeau on Potential Trump Return

Title: “Trudeau on Potential Trump Return”
Source/Publisher: New Voice of Ukraine / Reuters
(Referenced as #10 in the original list.)

11. Various Trade Data

Details:

Statistics Canada (StatsCan)
U.S. Energy Information Administration (US EIA)
Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP)
RBC Economic Reports
(Referenced as #11 in the original list.)

12. BBC & CNN Summaries – Arctic Sovereignty Issues

Title: “Arctic Sovereignty Issues”
Sources/Publishers: BBC, CNN
(Referenced as #12 in the original list.)

13. The Guardian – Ukrainian Diaspora in Canada

Title: “In Canada, World’s Second Largest Ukrainian Diaspora”
Source/Publisher: The Guardian
(Referenced as #13 in the original list.)

14. DND – Canada’s Role in NATO Battlegroup Latvia

Title: Canada’s Role in NATO Battlegroup Latvia
Source/Publisher: Department of National Defence (Canada)
(Referenced as #14 in the original list.)

15. Business Insider – Peace Plan Delivery

Title: “Ukrainian Lawmaker: My Peace Plan Delivered to White House”
Source/Publisher: Business Insider
(Referenced as #15 in the original list.)

16. Axios – Trump on Crimea

Title: “Trump Says ‘Crimea Is Russian’ Quote”
Source/Publisher: Axios
(Referenced as #16 in the original list.)

17. NPR – Canada’s Approach to Russia Sanctions

Title: “Canada’s Approach to Russia Sanctions”
Source/Publisher: NPR
(Referenced as #17 in the original list.)

18. RBC – Canadian Oil & Gas Outlook

Title: “Canadian Oil & Gas Outlook”
Source/Publisher: RBC
(Referenced as #18 in the original list.)

19. Canadian Gas Association – Natural Gas Facts

Title: “Natural Gas Facts”
Source/Publisher: Canada Gas Association
(Referenced as #19 in the original list.)

20. U.S. Energy Information Administration – Natural Gas Imports & Exports

Title: “Natural Gas Imports & Exports”
Source/Publisher: U.S. EIA
(Referenced as #20 in the original list.)

21. Additional Reference – International Energy Agency (IEA) & Related

Details: IEA Shale Gas Reports, Environmental Impact Assessments
(Referenced as #21 in the original list.)

22. Canada & The World – Government of Canada Archival Documents

Title: Government of Canada Archival Documents (“Canada & The World”)
Source/Publisher: Government of Canada Archives
(Referenced as #22 in the original list.)

23. Additional References – Macrotrends, Bloomberg Terminal

Details: Macrotrends in Natural Gas, Bloomberg Terminal Commodity Data
(Referenced as #23 in the original list.)

24. Analysis from Multiple Academic Articles on Canada’s Foreign Policy

(Referenced as #24 in the original list.)

25. Expert Commentary from Think Tanks

Details: CIGI, CD Howe Institute, Fraser Institute, etc.
(Referenced as #25 in the original list.)

26. Public Statements from Prime Minister’s Office (2018–2023)

(Referenced as #26 in the original list.)

27. Observations from Policy Watchers, CANSIM, and Parliamentary Debates

(Referenced as #27 in the original list.)

28. Additional Institutional References

Details: IMF, World Bank, trade associations
(Referenced as #28 in the original list.)

29. Freedman, L. – “Ukraine and the Art of Strategy”

(Referenced as #29 in the original list.)

30. Press Releases from DND, Global Affairs Canada, CBC Coverage

(Referenced as #30 in the original list.)

31. Historical Documents – Library and Archives Canada

(Referenced as #31 in the original list.)

32. Official Statements – Canada’s Position on Russia–Ukraine

Title: “Canada’s Position on Russia–Ukraine” – Press Conferences
(Referenced as #32 in the original list.)

33. Concluding Summary Derived from Cross-referenced Data

(Referenced as #33 in the original list.)

Iran…

Introduction and Overview

Iran has abundant natural resources, notably its vast oil and gas reserves. It holds the world’s second-largest natural gas reserves and fourth-largest proven oil reserves (1), making hydrocarbons a cornerstone of its economy. Other resources include significant mineral deposits (like copper and iron ore), agricultural land across various climates, and fisheries along the Caspian Sea and Persian Gulf. These resources play a crucial role in Iran’s economy by generating export earnings and supporting industries, although international sanctions have constrained full utilization.

Major Categories of Natural Resources

Energy Resources: Oil and Natural Gas are Iran’s flagship resources. The country has an estimated 209 billion barrels of oil (about 12% of global reserves) and over 1,200 trillion cubic feet of natural gas (about 17% of global reserves) (2). It was OPEC’s 5th-largest oil producer in 2021 and the world’s 3rd-largest gas producer. (3) Most oil fields lie in the southwest (Khuzestan) and offshore in the Persian Gulf, while the giant South Pars gas field in the Gulf (shared with Qatar) drives gas output. Iran also has some hydropower dams and is exploring renewables (solar and wind) given its sunny deserts and windy plains, but fossil fuels dominate its energy mix.
Minerals: Iran boasts 68 types of minerals with large reserves of copper, iron ore, zinc, lead, chromite, and others. (4) It is among the world’s top 10 in copper and zinc reserves and is a leading producer of steel and cement in the region. Major mining centres (e.g., Sarcheshmeh for copper) feed domestic and export industries. A recent notable find is a massive lithium deposit (~8.5 million tons) in Hamedan, which, if verified, would be the world’s second largest and could position Iran in the global battery supply chain. (5)
Forestry: Iran’s forest cover is limited (around 6–7% of its land). The most significant forests in the north are the Caspian Hyrcanian forests, harbouring hardwood species. Elsewhere, forests in the Zagros Mountains and other areas are sparse due to arid climates. Timber production is modest and primarily for domestic use, with strict controls on logging to prevent desertification.
Fisheries: Iran has a longstanding fishing industry, with coastlines on the Persian Gulf, Gulf of Oman, and Caspian Sea. The Persian Gulf yields shrimp and fish, while the Caspian was once famed for sturgeon and caviar. Fisheries and aquaculture contribute to the food supply and employ coastal communities, though their share of GDP is relatively small.
Agriculture: Iran’s varied climate supports a diverse agriculture sector on its arable lands (about 30% of land area). Key staples include wheat (strategically important for food security) and rice in the north. Iran is a leading global producer of specialty crops like pistachios, saffron, and dates. Other major products are fruits (pomegranates, citrus), nuts, cotton, and livestock (notably sheep and goats). Agriculture accounts for roughly 10–13% of GDP and over 15% of employment), (6) making it vital for rural livelihoods even as oil dominates exports.

Economic Importance

Natural resources underpin Iran’s economy, primarily through hydrocarbons. Oil and gas have traditionally provided a large share of government revenue and export earnings – in 2021, they still made up an estimated 45% of government budget revenues. (6) When sanctions allow, crude oil exports (historically 2–2.5 million barrels per day) bring in hard currency, primarily from Asian markets. The energy sector’s impact on GDP is significant (oil/gas ~25% of GDP in some years, though volatile), and it drives downstream industries like refining and petrochemicals. The mining sector is a growing contributor: Iran’s metals and minerals (iron, copper, steel, etc.) form a key part of “non-oil” exports, earning about $8.8 billion in 8 months of 2024. (7) Agriculture, while only ~10% of GDP, remains vital for employment and food self-sufficiency, and Iran exports high-value crops (pistachios, fruits) to earn foreign exchange. Resource industries also spur regional development – for example, oil operations have urbanized parts of Khuzestan, and mining has boosted cities in Kerman and Yazd. However, Iran’s over-reliance on oil makes the economy vulnerable to price swings and sanctions-induced export drops (8), leading to volatile growth and inflation.

Environmental and Policy Considerations

Iran faces a balancing act between resource extraction and environmental stewardship. Oil and gas operations contribute to greenhouse emissions, and Iran has one of the highest CO₂ output levels globally. The government has set modest climate targets under the Paris Agreement, but economic pressures often override emissions cuts. Domestic energy is heavily subsidised, leading to inefficient use and urban air pollution. Gas flaring (burning off excess gas) in oilfields is an ongoing issue, wasting resources and emitting pollutants, though there are efforts to curb it. Water scarcity is a critical environmental challenge – decades of damming and overuse for irrigation have led to drying wetlands and groundwater depletion. This issue came to a head with protests over water in farming regions.

Regulatory oversight exists (e.g., an Environmental Protection Organization), but enforcement is uneven. High-profile incidents, like the 2019 oil pipeline leak in the south or industrial waste in rivers, have raised public concern. Iran is taking steps in renewables – installing wind farms and solar parks – as sustainable supplements to its energy mix, partly to free up more oil for export and reduce urban smog.

On the social side, local and Indigenous community rights are increasingly part of the conversation. While Iran doesn’t use the term “Indigenous” in the same way as some other countries, there are ethnic communities (e.g. Arab minorities in oil-rich Khuzestan or Baluch farmers in the southeast) voicing grievances that resource projects haven’t benefited them proportionately. The government has tried directing more oil revenue to provincial budgets and offers compensation for land in mining areas, but tensions remain. Policy reforms like the “Resistance Economy” strategy encourage diversifying away from raw oil exports – for example, by investing in petrochemical plants (adding value to oil/gas) and expanding the mining value chain (more metal processing domestically). Sanctions have pushed Iran to pivot its trade: more oil is being processed into petrochemicals for export and bartered with neighbours and China for needed goods (9). Environmental impact assessments are required for big projects. Still, activists argue for more transparency and stricter protections, especially as Iran eyes new projects (like developing that significant lithium find) in ecologically sensitive areas.

Trade and Market Dynamics

International trade of resources is both an opportunity and a challenge for Iran. Oil is the dominant export commodity. Iran can export >2 million barrels/day of crude oil when unconstrained, and it has historically sold to Asia (China, India, South Korea, Japan) and Europe. However, US and UN sanctions over the past decade sharply curtailed Iran’s access to markets; exports plunged after 2018, though China continues to import Iranian oil (often via intermediaries). (10) To circumvent restrictions, Iran has increasingly traded via barter deals with regional partners – for instance, swapping oil and gas with neighbours like Iraq or trading energy for goods from China and Turkey. Its natural gas exports are limited (despite huge reserves) due to sanctions and infrastructure bottlenecks – small volumes go by pipeline to Turkey and Iraq. Iran is a founding member of OPEC and the Gas Exporting Countries Forum (GECF), aiming to coordinate and bolster hydrocarbon prices.

Iran’s strategic geography influences its energy transit. It sits on the Strait of Hormuz, a choke point through which ~20% of global oil passes – Tehran has sometimes threatened closure, unsettling markets. (11) Domestically, an extensive pipeline network distributes oil and gas, and Iran has built pipelines to export gas to Turkey and plans to Pakistan (though the latter is stalled). The lack of LNG terminals means Iran cannot quickly ship gas globally, which is a long-term gap it wants to fix.

Beyond hydrocarbons, Iran exports minerals and metals, mainly to Asia. China is a major buyer of Iranian copper, iron and semi-finished steel. Trade partners: China has emerged as Iran’s top trade partner (for oil, petrochemicals, and minerals), followed by other Asian economies; the UAE and Turkey serve as re-export hubs for Iranian goods. Before sanctions, the EU was a significant oil and Persian carpets market, but that has diminished. Iran relies on China, Russia, and Turkey to import machinery, consumer goods, and grain.

Infrastructure development continues despite challenges: Iran is expanding the Chabahar port (with Indian investment) to boost mineral exports from its east and improving rail links to move bulk goods to ports. The country’s inclusion in China’s Belt and Road Initiative may further integrate its trade routes. Pipelines also feature in regional geopolitics – Iran has proposed pipelines to deliver gas to India (undersea) or deeper into Iraq/Syria, though sanctions impede financing. In sum, Iran’s trade in natural resources is marked by adaptation to sanctions (greater self-reliance and regional barter) and the search for new markets, all while maintaining a strong OPEC voice in managing oil prices.

Outlook

Iran’s resource sector faces an uncertain but potentially transformative future. Sanction relief (or continuation) is the most significant swing factor: if a nuclear deal emerges and sanctions are lifted, Iran could rapidly ramp up oil production and attract foreign investment into ageing oilfields and massive untapped gas fields. (12) This would boost GDP and government revenue but also bring pressure to diversify to avoid the “resource curse.” Conversely, if sanctions persist, Iran will deepen ties with countries like China and Russia, continue smuggling oil at discounts, and lean on mining and agriculture for incremental growth.

The country is also eyeing a pivot to new resources. The reported lithium discovery in 2023 is seen as a future “white gold” opportunity – Iran could become a player in lithium for batteries, provided it secures extraction technology and investment. (13) Similarly, “critical minerals” like rare earth elements (needed for electronics and renewable energy) present an untapped domain; Iran’s varied geology hints at potential deposits that strategic surveys may confirm.

Domestic demand trends will shape the resource mix. Iran’s young population and industrialization efforts mean rising energy needs. Yet, the government aims to reduce domestic oil consumption (through subsidy reform and replacing oil-burning power plants with gas or renewables) to export more oil. The large natural gas reserves could be used for petrochemicals, electricity, and possibly LNG exports if technology and capital become available. In fact, Iran plans to dramatically increase gas output for both domestic use (to stop winter shortages) and future export infrastructure.

On the environmental front, Iran is likely to feel increasing impacts of climate change – severe droughts (like the one that shrank Lake Urmia) threaten farming and hydropower, and extreme heat strains the power grid. This may force stronger water conservation policies, investment in climate-resilient agriculture, and a slow shift toward renewable energy sources. Iran has set a goal to install several gigawatts of solar and wind capacity; these projects may accelerate if costs drop and financing can be arranged, especially to electrify remote areas and free up more fossil fuel for export.

Geopolitically, Iran’s resources will keep it in a position of leverage. Global demand for oil and gas is forecast to plateau or decline by mid-century as renewable energy rises. Still, in the medium term (this decade), markets remain thirsty – Iran’s ability to supply could moderate global prices, giving it bargaining power if sanctions negotiations recur. Its integration into new blocs (e.g. SCO, a potential BRICS member) could create alternative trade frameworks for its commodities, bypassing Western-centric channels.

In summary, Iran’s rich natural resource base will remain the foundation of its economy. In the coming years, efforts will be made to modernize and expand capacity (significantly if sanctions ease), diversify within the sector (more value-added petrochemicals, mining products, and possibly lithium), and mitigate environmental strains. The challenge will be leveraging these resources for sustainable development rather than short-term gain, by investing in technology, engaging with global markets on better terms, and ensuring local communities’ benefit. This balance will determine Iran’s economic resilience in the future.

Sources:

1. World Bank – Iran Overview

Title: Iran Overview: Development news, research, data
Source/Publisher: World Bank
Link (if available): World Bank – Iran Overview
(Referenced multiple times as #1, #8, #9, #10, #12 in the original list.)

2. DW – Why is energy giant Iran facing gas shortages?

Title: Why is energy giant Iran facing gas shortages?
Publication Date: 19 December 2024
Source/Publisher: Deutsche Welle (DW)
(Referenced as part of #1 and again at #11 in the original list.)

3. IRNA – Iran’s Gas and Oil Reserves

Title: Iran ranks 2nd, 3rd in gas, oil reserves in world
Source/Publisher: IRNA English (Islamic Republic News Agency)
(Referenced in #2 and #3 in the original list.)

4. Tehran Times – Mining Sector Exports

Title: Mining sector achieves $8.8b in exports over 8 months
Source/Publisher: Tehran Times
(Referenced as #4 and #7 in the original list.)

5. Mining Technology – Lithium Deposit Discovery

Title: Iran discovers 8.5 million ton lithium deposit
Source/Publisher: Mining Technology
(Referenced as #5 and #13 in the original list.)

6. IEA – Russian Oil and Gas Analysis

Title: Energy Fact Sheet: Why does Russian oil and gas matter?
Type: Analysis
Source/Publisher: International Energy Agency (IEA)
(Referenced as #6 in the original list.)

Mexico…

1.- Introduction and Overview

Mexico is a country of wide-ranging natural wealth, from hydrocarbons under the Gulf of Mexico to rich mineral belts and fertile agricultural lands. It has significant (though declining) oil and gas reserves, extensive metallic minerals (the world’s leading silver producer, along with gold, copper, and zinc mines), vast forests, productive fisheries in two oceans, and a robust agricultural sector. While Mexico’s economy has diversified toward manufacturing and services, natural resources still contribute substantially to exports, regional employment, and energy security. The nation’s geographic diversity – mountains, deserts, coastlines, and tropics – gives rise to a broad array of resources that have shaped its development and trade relationships.

2.- Major Categories of Natural Resources

Energy Resources: Mexico has been a major oil producer for decades, with resources both onshore and offshore. The majority of oil is sourced from the Gulf of Mexico (specifically the Bay of Campeche fields, such as Ku-Maloob-Zaap and Cantarell), managed by state-owned Pemex. Oil reserves are approximately 17 Tcf proven (1), and Mexico imports a significant amount of gas (primarily via pipeline from the U.S.) to meet its demand. Coal is present (especially lignite and some bituminous in Coahuila), used mostly for domestic power generation, but Mexico is not a major coal exporter. In recent years, renewables have grown: hydropower dams (like Chicoasén) are longstanding, and wind farms in Oaxaca and solar plants in the north have expanded under clean energy goals. By 2023, about 23% of Mexico’s electricity came from “clean” sources (including hydro and nuclear) (2). A notable development is Mexico’s discovery of a sizable deepwater oil province in the Gulf and the nationalization of lithium in 2022, reflecting intent to tap emerging energy resources (the lithium deposits in Sonora could be strategic for batteries, with an estimated 1.7 million tons of lithium resources.
Mineral Wealth: Mexico is exceptionally rich in minerals. It is the world’s largest producer of silver – traditional mining districts like Zacatecas and Chihuahua have yielded silver for centuries. The country also ranks in the top 10 globally for gold production and has significant output of copper, lead, zinc, and iron ore. Northern states (Sonora, Chihuahua) host large gold and copper mines, while central Mexico (Zacatecas, Durango) is famous for silver. Mexico also holds 90% of the world’s known borate (boron) reserves and is a top producer of fluorspar and celestite. Non-metallic minerals are important too: Mexico exports substantial cement, limestone, and marble. In total, the mining sector is diverse – in 2022, about half of the value of mining production came from precious metals, 40% from base (non-ferrous) metals, and the rest from industrial minerals. (3)
Forestry: Around one-third of Mexico’s land is forested (4) ranging from coniferous forests in the Sierra Madre to tropical jungles in the Yucatán and Chiapas. The country’s forests provide timber, resin, and other products, with major logging of pine and oak in temperate areas. States like Durango and Chihuahua are known for commercial forestry, and Mexico produces wood pulp, paper, and furniture woods. However, deforestation (often for agriculture or pasture) has been a concern – Mexico loses tens of thousands of hectares of jungle each year. (5) The government and communities manage some forests sustainably (community forestry in Oaxaca is a success story). Forestry is a smaller contributor to GDP, but in rural economies it’s meaningful and forests underpin biodiversity and carbon sequestration efforts.
Fisheries: With extensive coastlines on the Pacific Ocean and Gulf of Mexico/Caribbean, Mexico has rich marine fisheries. The Pacific coast, especially the Gulf of California, teems with commercial species – tuna, sardines, shrimp, and squid are among top catches. The state of Sinaloa leads in Pacific fisheries (shrimp farming is also significant). In the Gulf of Mexico, fisheries include shrimp, snapper, and grouper. Mexico’s fishing industry supplies both domestic markets and exports (for example, shrimp and tuna exports to the US and Asia). Aquaculture (fish and shellfish farming) is growing as wild stocks face pressure. While not a top-tier global fishing nation, Mexico is a leading fisheries producer in the Americas, and fishing is crucial for many coastal communities.
Agriculture: Mexico’s varied climates support a wide array of agriculture. In the northwest (Sonora, Sinaloa), large-scale farms produce wheat, tomatoes, vegetables and irrigated crops for export (this “breadbasket” feeds winter produce to North America). The Bajío region grows corn, sorghum, strawberries, and other crops, while tropical states (Veracruz, Chiapas) cultivate sugarcane, coffee, and tropical fruits (mangoes, bananas). Mexico is the world’s #1 producer of avocados and limes, and a dominant exporter of berries, peppers, and tomatoes to the U.S. It also leads globally in beverage crops like blue agave (for tequila). Livestock farming is significant – northern ranches raise cattle (Mexico is a top beef exporter), and there’s substantial poultry and dairy in central Mexico. Agriculture (with forestry and fishing) contributes around 3.8% of Mexico’s GDP (6) but employs about 12–13% of the workforce It’s vital for rural incomes and a source of foreign exchange through exports of high-value produce. (7)

3.- Economic Importance

Natural resources have a mixed but noteworthy role in Mexico’s economy. Historically, oil was a pillar – in the 1980s, oil revenues underwrote a large share of the national budget. Today, oil and gas still matter: the oil sector accounts for ~4–5% of GDP and about $110 billion in export revenue in 2021 (8), representing roughly 10% of total exports. This is lower than in past decades due to the growth of manufacturing exports and a drop in oil output, but petroleum remains Mexico’s largest single export commodity (crude and refined products). The state oil company Pemex is a major employer and contributor to public finances (though heavily indebted), and regions like Campeche and Tabasco rely on the oil industry.

The mining sector, while smaller (non-oil mining ~1–2% of GDP), is significant in certain regions and for exports. Mexico’s mineral exports were about $17.6 billion in 2022 (9), led by silver, gold, copper, and zinc. Mining is a key employer in rural areas of Sonora, Zacatecas, Coahuila, etc., and draws considerable foreign investment (Canadian firms, for example, operate many mines). Resource extraction has spurred the development of infrastructure like roads and power in remote areas.

Agriculture, at ~3–4% of GDP, punches above its weight in trade: Mexico is a net exporter of produce and beverages (sending billions of dollars of goods to the U.S. under NAFTA/USMCA). It also underpins food security and price stability, as maize (corn) is a staple of the Mexican diet and supporting farmers is socioeconomically important. However, many small farmers struggle with productivity and drought, prompting government support via subsidies and price guarantees.

One major way natural resources influence Mexico’s economy is through export earnings and the trade balance. Oil exports have long been a top foreign currency earner, but as oil export volumes fell and the country became a net importer of gasoline, the benefit lessened. Meanwhile, manufactured goods (cars, electronics) surged to ~90% of exports, diluting the share of raw resources. Still, in 2023, high oil prices led to a windfall for Pemex and helped offset the cost of importing refined fuels. Similarly, high metals prices benefit Mexican mining companies and local economies. Natural gas imports (mostly from the U.S.) have cut electricity costs and enabled industrial growth, linking resource access to broader economic activity.

At a regional level, resources drive development: for example, in the Gulf coast states, the oil industry provides high-paying jobs and infrastructure (ports, refineries), whereas in states like Michoacán and Jalisco, avocado farming has created rural wealth. Tourism in some areas even ties into natural bounty – e.g. Sportfishing on Baja’s coasts or eco-tourism in jungles – blending resource use with service sectors. The Mexican government also uses resource revenue as a tool for social programs; e.g. oil income has funded welfare initiatives. Thus, while not as dominant as in some countries, natural resources remain a strategic economic asset, contributing to exports, employment, and regional development in Mexico.

4.- Environmental and Policy Considerations

Mexico faces the challenge of exploiting its resources while protecting the environment and communities. Oil and mining operations have environmental impacts – there have been notorious incidents like oil spills (the Ixtoc I well blowout in 1979, and more recently smaller leaks) and mining waste spills (e.g., a 2014 sulfuric acid spill from a copper mine in Sonora) that contaminated rivers. The government mandates environmental impact assessments for major projects, but enforcement has sometimes been weak, leading to conflicts with local populations.

Climate policy: Mexico has committed under the Paris Agreement to reduce greenhouse emissions and in 2022 updated its pledge to cut GHG 35% by 2030 (unconditional). (10) It also aims for net-zero by 2050. In practice, there’s tension: Mexico is investing in renewable energy (one of Latin America’s largest solar parks opened in Chihuahua, and wind capacity has grown in Oaxaca and Tamaulipas), yet the current administration has also promoted fossil fuels. President Andrés Manuel López Obrador (AMLO) has emphasized energy sovereignty, supporting Pemex and the state electric utility (CFE) even if that means extending life for oil refineries and coal plants. This has slowed some private renewable projects. Still, laws like the Energy Transition Law set a target for 35% of electricity from clean sources by 2024. As of 2023, clean generation was around 23% (11), so efforts are ongoing (including new hydro renovations and a push for geothermal, where Mexico has potential).

Deforestation and land use: Agricultural expansion and illegal logging have made Mexico one of the countries with significant deforestation. Policies (often in partnership with local ejidos/communities) try to incentivize reforestation and sustainable forestry. Mexico has several UNESCO biosphere reserves protecting forests (e.g., the Monarch Butterfly Reserve), and it participates in REDD+ programs to reduce emissions from deforestation. Water resources are also a concern: northern Mexico is arid, and water-intensive farming (and now mining like lithium extraction) raises sustainability issues. The government has enforced water use limits in some basins and negotiated with the U.S. on cross-border rivers as climate change brings more droughts.

Community and indigenous rights: Mexico recognizes indigenous peoples’ rights to consultation (ILO Convention 169) for projects on their lands. In practice, conflicts have arisen – for example, indigenous Yaqui communities in Sonora protested over water diversion for mining, and Maya communities in Yucatán have raised concerns about a planned large-scale solar farm and the Tren Maya project affecting the environment. Mining projects in states like Guerrero and Chiapas have sometimes led to social conflict and even violence, prompting calls for stronger safeguards and benefit-sharing with locals. On the other hand, some communities do welcome projects that bring jobs. The balance is evolving: recently, a Mexican court suspended a mining project in Puebla due to lack of adequate indigenous consultation, indicating the growing legal weight of community voices.

Regulatory landscape: In 2013–2014, Mexico enacted a major Energy Reform that opened the oil, gas, and power sectors to private and foreign investment after decades of state monopoly. (12) This led to new oil blocks auctioned to companies like Shell and BP and contracts for private renewable energy generators. However, since 2018, policy has shifted – AMLO’s government halted new oil bid rounds and passed reforms favoring CFE in electricity dispatch. A 2023 reform of the Mining Law reduced concession terms and put stricter environmental rules, (13) aiming to prevent speculation and require water sustainability in mining. While intended to protect resources and communities, some investors see it as increasing uncertainty. The government also nationalized lithium by law, creating a state company for lithium (LitioMx) and limiting private extraction of this strategic resource. Environmentalists have welcomed measures like these and the cancellation of a mega airport partly to protect a lake, but critics worry about transparency and efficiency of state-led projects.

In summary, Mexico’s policies seek to ensure resources benefit the nation (resource nationalism is strong) while gradually improving environmental oversight. Implementation is key – from reducing gas flaring and refinery emissions to enforcing mine remediation and boosting renewables integration. Public awareness of environmental issues is rising, as seen in protests against pollution and the demand for climate action from youth movements. Mexico’s challenge will be to strengthen its regulatory institutions so that economic development from natural resources does not come at the cost of irreparable environmental damage or community marginalization.

5.- Trade and Market Dynamics

Mexico’s natural resources figure prominently in its trade profile, though overshadowed in value by manufactured exports. Oil exports traditionally went almost entirely to the United States; even today the U.S. Gulf Coast is the main buyer of Mexican crude (Maya blend heavy crude). However, with the U.S. itself producing more oil, Mexico has diversified slightly – exporting some crude to Europe and Asia when opportunities arise. Paradoxically, Mexico imports a large volume of refined fuel from the U.S., especially gasoline, because its own refineries can’t meet domestic demand. This energy trade across the border is facilitated by a dense network of pipelines (for oil products and natural gas) and maritime tankers. Recent infrastructure moves include building a new refinery (Dos Bocas) and upgrading others to reduce fuel imports and process more of its own crude. Meanwhile, pipelines like Los Ramones and cross-border connectors have made the U.S. the source of ~70% of Mexico’s natural gas supply in 2022, (14) linking the two countries’ energy markets closely.

In mining, Mexico is a major player in global supply chains: it exports raw and refined silver to markets like India and electronics industries worldwide; gold primarily to refineries in the U.S. and Switzerland; and copper concentrates to smelters (some domestically and in Asia). Trade agreements (USMCA, and various FTAs with Europe and Asia) generally allow minerals to flow with low tariffs. The U.S. relies on Mexico for certain minerals – for instance, fluorspar (for chemical industries) and graphite are imported from Mexico to the U.S. (15) Conversely, Mexico imports some mineral inputs it lacks (like potash fertilizer, or steel coal). Supply chain integration is evident in sectors like automotive: Mexican mines provide metals, which go into parts manufactured domestically, which are then exported as cars.

Agricultural trade is heavily intertwined with NAFTA/USMCA partners. Mexico exports billions of dollars of produce (vegetables, fruits) and beer to the U.S., and imports large quantities of yellow corn, soybeans, and grains from U.S. farmers for its livestock sector. This exchange has made Mexico one of the top export markets for U.S. agriculture and vice versa. Additionally, Mexico exports specialty crops globally – for example, it’s a top exporter of sugar and coffee to the EU and of avocados to Europe and Asia. Trade infrastructure like cold storage at border crossings and the port of Veracruz (for tropical crop exports) supports this flow. The 2020 USMCA maintained zero tariffs on ag trade but introduced sanitary standards that Mexico works to comply with to keep access. A current issue is Mexico’s ban on genetically modified corn for human consumption, which may affect imports from the U.S. and is being negotiated.

Fisheries exports include shrimp (to U.S., Europe) and tuna (often processed domestically then exported). Coastal states benefit from trade via seaports like Mazatlán and Veracruz, which handle seafood shipments.

Energy infrastructure is positioning Mexico as a potential transit hub as well. The government has floated plans for LNG export terminals on the Pacific (to ship U.S. gas to Asia via Mexico) and a gas pipeline connecting to markets in Central America. Mexico already hosts the end of the Pan-American oil pipeline system (the Tapline) and the massive Cactus-Reynosa gas pipeline that feeds into Texas. Ceyhan – sorry, (Ceyhan is Turkey; here, Coatzacoalcos and Salina Cruz) – The country even has an isthmus rail/pipe corridor project (Trans-Isthmus) to move oil and goods between the Gulf and Pacific, leveraging its geography for global trade.

Major trade partners: The United States is overwhelmingly number one, given proximity and NAFTA – it receives ~80% of Mexico’s total exports. For resources, the U.S. buys most of Mexico’s oil (historically) and mining output, and supplies most of Mexico’s natural gas and gasoline. Canada also imports Mexican minerals (and Canadian firms invest in Mexican mines). Other significant partners include China (Mexico sells some oil and minerals to China; China sells Mexico machinery and increasingly invests in sectors like lithium), and Europe (which imports some Mexican oil, tequila, and produce, and in turn is a source of investment and technology). Within Latin America, Mexico exports refined fuels to Central America and imports some agricultural commodities from South America.

Trade dynamics are also shaped by policy shifts: the 2013 Energy Reform allowed private companies to export oil and gas for the first time in decades (before, only Pemex could). Some foreign oil companies that won exploration blocks may eventually export oil if they produce successfully. However, the current government’s nationalist stance means Pemex regained a dominant role in exports. Similarly, mining export growth might slow if regulatory burdens rise, though high commodity prices will encourage continued output.

In summary, Mexico’s natural resource trade is characterized by deep integration with North America, a mix of imports and exports in energy (export crude, import fuels/gas), strong agricultural export performance, and an attractive mining sector for global markets. Infrastructure – from pipelines and ports to highways – is continually being developed or upgraded to streamline this trade, while policy aims to maximize the value Mexico gains (for instance, via refining oil domestically rather than exporting crude, or requiring local purchases in mining).

6.- Future Outlook

Mexico’s natural resource sectors are poised for both opportunities and challenges ahead. Oil and gas production is at a crossroads: legacy oil fields are depleting, yet Mexico has untapped potential in deepwater Gulf of Mexico and the recently discovered Ixachi onshore gas field and Sakakemang (if developed). The government’s strategy is to bolster Pemex with investment to slightly increase oil output (targeting ~2 million barrels per day) while using new refinery capacity to end gasoline imports. In the next 5–10 years, we may see Pemex partnering with more private firms (out of necessity for capital and tech) despite the current political hesitance – especially if oil prices are high and there’s urgency to replace declining fields. The Sakarya-like gas find in the Gulf of Mexico is not yet in hand for Mexico, but exploration continues and any major discovery would be a game-changer. Also, by 2025 the large Deer Park refinery (jointly owned with Shell in Texas) and the new Dos Bocas refinery are expected to be fully operational, potentially making Mexico a net exporter of some refined fuels.

Conversely, global trends toward decarbonization put a question mark on long-term oil demand. Mexico’s heavy reliance on oil revenue could be further alleviated by its growing manufacturing base, but regions dependent on oil (Tabasco, Campeche) will need economic diversification as the world transitions to electric vehicles and renewable energy. Mexico is well positioned to benefit from the EV supply chain shift: it has announced plans for EV battery factories and lithium processing in Sonora (leveraging the lithium deposit). By investing in downstream industries for lithium (battery production) and copper (for wiring and components), Mexico could turn its resources into industrial growth. The creation of a state lithium company suggests government intent to control this “resource of the future,” but successful exploitation will require partnerships for technology.

Renewable energy outlook is bright in Mexico: it has some of the world’s highest solar irradiance in Sonoran and Chihuahuan deserts and excellent wind corridors (Oaxaca’s Tehuantepec Isthmus is world-class). If policy shifts to encourage more private investment (which may happen under a different administration post-2024), there could be a renewable boom. Already, meeting the 40% by 2030 renewables target (16) will drive installation of new wind/solar farms and grid upgrades. This creates a new “natural resource” opportunity – abundant clean energy – which Mexico could even export (there are proposals to send solar power via HVDC lines into the U.S. or wind power to Baja’s grid).

Mining future: Mexico will likely remain a top metals producer. The global push for critical minerals (e.g., copper for electrification, lithium for batteries) means Mexican mines and unexplored areas will be in focus. The government’s tighter mining laws might slow new permits, but also encourage maximizing existing sites. Expect more exploration in underexplored regions (lithium in clay deposits in Sonora beyond the main find, rare earth elements in Baja California’s deposits, and continued gold/silver finds e.g. in Oaxaca’s emerging mines). Environmental and community scrutiny of mining will increase, prompting companies to adopt better practices and benefit-sharing to secure social license.

Agriculture and climate: Mexico’s agricultural future must contend with climate change – higher temperatures and water stress, especially in the north, could reduce yields of water-intensive crops. This is pushing innovation in water-saving irrigation, drought-resistant seed varieties, and shifting crop patterns. Mexico might expand greenhouse farming (already used for tomatoes/peppers) to adapt to climate extremes. The country is also well placed to grow crops for biofuels (like agave for bioethanol or jatropha for biodiesel) if policies favor them, potentially creating new resource markets. Agricultural exports will remain strong if Mexico continues to capitalize on off-season production for Northern markets, though it must manage soil health and competition for land (urbanization is eating into farmland around booming cities).

On the environmental front, Mexico is likely to take a more active role. Popular sentiment and international pressure could result in stronger enforcement of environmental laws. We may see higher penalties for oil spills, a phase-out of fuel oil burning in power plants (benefiting air quality), and possibly the closure of older coal plants as gas and renewables fill the gap. The country’s vast biodiversity (one of the world’s megadiverse nations) might spur growth in eco-tourism and conservation jobs, integrating natural resource preservation with economic benefits.

Geopolitically, Mexico’s resource sector could benefit from “near-shoring” and shifting supply chains. For instance, as the U.S. and allies seek to rely less on Chinese minerals, Mexico could be a preferred source given the trade agreement and proximity – we might see investments in Mexican mining of graphite, lithium, rare earths, etc., with processing facilities built in North America (including Mexico). Energy security concerns in the region mean Mexico’s role as a gas transit route (moving U.S. gas south or potentially Venezuelan gas if that market opens) might grow. Mexico has even discussed building a gas pipeline to the Yucatán and on to Central America, exporting its excess U.S.-sourced gas further – such projects could materialize in the 2030s, making Mexico a regional energy hub.

In short, Mexico’s natural resource future will involve modernizing traditional sectors (making oil, mining, and agriculture more efficient and sustainable) and embracing new opportunities (renewables, lithium, and possibly hydrogen production from abundant solar). Policy stability and investment in technology and infrastructure will be key to harnessing these resources for inclusive growth. If managed well, Mexico can continue to reduce its historical over-reliance on oil while ensuring its rich array of natural resources contributes to long-term prosperity and environmental resilience.

Source:

1. México – Petróleo y Gas

Título/Referencia(s): “Mexico – Oil and Gas”
Fuente(s)/Publicación(es): International Trade Administration (ITA) u otras (no especificadas)
Aparición en la lista original: (1) y (12)

2. México – Ember

3. México – Minería y Minerales

Título/Referencia(s): “Mexico – Mining and Minerals”
Fuente(s)/Publicación(es): Varias (no especificadas)
Aparición en la lista original: (3), (9), (13) y (15)

4. México – Cobertura forestal y deforestación

Título: “Total forest area in Mexico”
Título: “Planting deforestation: The forests that Mexico loses to agribusiness”

5. México – Sector agrícola en el PIB

Títulos:
- “Agricultural sector’s share of GDP in Mexico 2023” (Statista)
- “Agriculture, forestry, and fishing, value added (% of GDP)” (posible fuente: Datos del Banco Mundial)
- Aparición en la lista original: (6)
Títulos:
- “Mexico GDP share of agriculture – data, chart” (The Global Economy)
- “Mexico MX: GDP: % of Total Value Added: Agriculture” (CEIC)
- Aparición en la lista original: (7)