In recent years, a new “supply-side” climate politics has emerged as activists have turned their attention from fossil fuel combustion to fossil fuel extraction and transport. This article investigates conditions for success of anti–fossil-fuel activism by comparing the fate of two proposed coal terminals on either side of the Canada–United States border. Both cases highlight that fossil fuel transport infrastructure is especially vulnerable to opposition as a result of concentrated costs and limited economic benefits in transit jurisdictions that did not produce the fossil fuels in question. Still, not all contexts are equally amenable to supply-side contestation. Institutional differences explain approval of a new coal port in Canada, while a similar US facility was rejected: a weaker environmental assessment regime and more limited opportunities for local government and Indigenous vetoes. However, the regulator’s subsequent withdrawal of the still-pending Canadian terminal’s permit five years later reveals that delay can be as good as victory for opponents when markets for fossil fuels decline.