On a smoky Wednesday morning in downtown Calgary, the steps of the Harry Hays federal government building became the stage for a passionate protest that brought together physicians, environmental advocates, and concerned citizens. Their target? The use of public funds to subsidize new pipelines and ambitious carbon capture projects. While the slogans were loud—"hey-ho, pipelines have got to go" echoed down the sidewalk—the message was more nuanced than a simple anti-pipeline stance. For Dr. Joe Vipond, past president of the Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment, the issue is not just about energy infrastructure, but about the health and economic well-being of Canadians.
"You can see right now in the parts of the country that are burning, how much wildfire smoke—or even the displacement of people from their homes—is a significant health issue," Dr. Vipond told the assembled crowd, as reported by Calgary Herald. He continued, "We have that ability as physicians in interpreting the climate issue in a way that Canadians can understand how it impacts them." For Dr. Vipond and many of his colleagues, the effects of climate change are not abstract—they are measured in asthma attacks, lost homes, and rising health care costs. This tangible understanding, he noted, was a driving force behind Alberta's successful phase-out of coal. Now, he wants Canadians to grasp another concrete reality: the risk that taxpayer investments in pipelines and carbon capture may not pay off.
The demonstration, which began in the building’s courtyard before security moved the group to the city-owned sidewalk, was organized in response to recent federal and provincial moves to support fossil fuel infrastructure. Protestors carried signs and chanted, but Dr. Vipond was clear about their intentions. "There shouldn’t be public money going into pipelines," he emphasized. The group was not calling for a blanket ban on pipelines; instead, their demand was that the financial risk should be shouldered by private investors, not taxpayers.
The timing of the protest was pointed. Pipelines have once again taken center stage in Canada’s political debate. Conservative Party Leader Pierre Poilievre, recently returned to the House of Commons, has called for two pipelines to be under construction by the one-year anniversary of Prime Minister Mark Carney taking office. Meanwhile, the governments of Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Ontario have jointly announced a search for companies to conduct a feasibility study on a new pipeline stretching from Alberta to Ontario. The stakes, both political and economic, are high.
Dr. Vipond’s concerns are rooted in economics as much as in health. "At a time where building a pipeline is a risky endeavour, that risk should be taken on by private capital," he stated. The fear is that public subsidies for such projects could see tax dollars lost if the investments fail to deliver returns—an anxiety that resonates with many Canadians wary of government spending in uncertain times.
The debate over pipelines is unfolding against a backdrop of shifting global energy demand. According to the International Energy Agency, global oil demand is projected to rise by about 700,000 barrels per day both this year and in 2026. This forecast, released in mid-August 2025, suggests that the world’s appetite for oil remains robust, at least in the short term. Supporters of new pipelines argue that Canada must seize the opportunity to supply this demand, while critics warn that investing in fossil fuel infrastructure may soon become a losing proposition as the world accelerates its transition to cleaner energy sources.
Pipelines, however, were not the only focus of Wednesday’s protest. Speakers and demonstrators also took aim at federal support for large-scale carbon capture projects—a technology touted by industry and some policymakers as a way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from heavy industry. In July 2025, the federal government announced more than $20 million in funding for carbon capture initiatives in Alberta, including new storage sites for compressed carbon and research into capturing emissions from sources such as diesel engines.
Yet, as highlighted by environmental group Calgary Climate, many remain skeptical about the technology’s effectiveness and cost. In a public release, the group stated that carbon capture projects are "highly complex, site-specific, and consistently underperform. Costs in Canada have reached as much as $200 per tonne of CO₂ captured." This figure is significant when compared to the government’s own estimate of the "social cost" of releasing CO₂, which Environment and Climate Change Canada pegs at $271 per tonne. The social cost is intended to capture the broader economic and health damages caused by carbon pollution, but critics argue that the high price tag for capture means the technology may never be financially viable without ongoing subsidies.
Marc Dorin, director of the Polluter Pay Federation and a former oil and gas industry veteran, was blunt in his assessment. "It’s a pipe dream. Industry wants government to pay for it. They know it is going to be expensive," Dorin told reporters. His skepticism is rooted in years spent working in the sector, followed by a career representing landowners affected by energy projects. For Dorin and others, the push for public funding of carbon capture is less about environmental stewardship and more about transferring financial risk from industry to taxpayers.
The clash over public funding for pipelines and carbon capture is emblematic of a larger debate about Canada’s energy future. Supporters of government investment argue that such projects are essential for maintaining jobs, supporting economic growth, and ensuring energy security. They point to rising global oil demand and the potential for Canadian technology to lead in emissions reduction. Opponents counter that public dollars should not be used to prop up industries with uncertain futures, especially when the health and climate risks are so pronounced.
What’s clear is that the debate is far from settled. As Dr. Vipond and his fellow demonstrators made clear, the decisions made today about where and how to invest public funds will have lasting consequences for the country’s health, economy, and environment. The protest in Calgary was just one chapter in an ongoing story—one that will continue to unfold as policymakers, industry, and citizens wrestle with the complex trade-offs at the heart of Canada’s energy transition.
For now, the echoes of protest still linger in downtown Calgary, a reminder that the questions of who pays, who benefits, and who bears the risk remain as urgent—and as contentious—as ever.
