menu_open Columnists
We use cookies to provide some features and experiences in QOSHE

More information  .  Close

The resilience case for Canadian transport electrification

21 0
22.07.2026

Recent global events, from war-driven oil shocks to attacks on critical infrastructure, have shown the fragility of current centralized fossil fuel chains. The effects have been felt most prominently at the pump, resulting in an average fuel price increase of 27.1 per cent since the closing of the Strait of Hormuz. As Canada seeks more resilience from these shocks, shown by the recently published national electricity strategy and broader electrification agenda, no product highlights this more than electric vehicles (EVs). Right now, the more important policy question is no longer whether EVs are cleaner or more efficient, but which transportation and energy systems are likely to prove more resilient in an era defined by geopolitical fragmentation, cyber risk, climate disruption and information disorder.

With that in mind, the more important distinction may be between centralized fossil fuel systems and increasingly distributed electric systems. Gasoline and diesel supply chains depend on highly centralized infrastructures of extraction, refining, transport and retail distribution. These systems are vulnerable to geopolitical conflict, cyberattacks, natural disasters, shipping disruptions and price volatility. Recent global conflicts and energy crises have repeatedly demonstrated how quickly fuel prices and supply chains can destabilize when concentrated infrastructure is disrupted. Even countries like Canada and the US — two of the top oil producing countries in the world — are not immune from such commodity shocks and subject to international oil prices.

For years, EV critics have framed them as fragile, overly digital machines: vulnerable to cyberattacks, dependent on unreliable infrastructure, and incapable of functioning during serious crises. In public discourse, gasoline-powered internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles are often portrayed as the more rugged and resilient option — particularly during geopolitical instability, infrastructure disruption or emergencies. But many critiques directed........

© National Observer