Economy
Business Council of Canada warns Trudeau’s oil and gas emissions cap could cripple economy
Business Council of Canada’s Michael Gullo
From LifeSiteNews
‘Canada’s GDP outlook for this year will be a dismal 0.6 % and Canada is poised to be the worst-performing advanced economy from 2020 to 2030 and from 2030 to 2060,’ said the Business Council of Canada’s Michael Gullo.
The Business Council of Canada has warned that the Trudeau government’s proposed oil and gas emissions cap could cripple the economy.
On February 5, the Business Council of Canada wrote an open letter to Assistant Deputy Minister Environmental Protection Branch John Moffet to voice concerns over the Liberal government’s proposed regulations on oil and gas.
“Imposing an emissions cap will likely force operators to involuntarily curtail their production. This would effectively reduce the overall capacity of the most productive segment of Canada’s economy at a time when investment and growth is desperately needed,” Michael Gullo, the council’s vice-president of policy, wrote.
Furthermore, Gullo warned that the emissions cap could “exacerbate the country’s inflation and affordability problems by applying a broad-based economic shock that will reduce tax revenues and add pressure to the federal deficit.”
“Canada’s GDP outlook for this year will be a dismal 0.6 % and Canada is poised to be the worst-performing advanced economy from 2020 to 2030 and from 2030 to 2060,” he added.
“Our energy sector is a stalwart of the country’s economy,” Gullo explained. “It accounts for more than 10 per cent of Canada’s GDP, drives our trading relationship with the United States, and props up real wages and household and retirement incomes.”
Gullo’s warning comes in response to the Liberal government’s Regulatory Framework to Cap Oil and Gas Sector Greenhouse Gas Emissions. The draft regulations, published in December, aim to severely limit the gas and oil emissions by 2030 to make a net-zero goal by 2050 possible.
The regulations seek to set emission caps for all provinces, which Gullo pointed out could interfere with current emission policies, potentially leading to lawsuits. Gullo also explained that the policy’s proposed timeline is “unrealistic.”
He argued the new regulations could undermine carbon pricing mechanisms and endanger the competitiveness of the oil and gas industry within Canada.
“Investments are not made on speculative legislation. It is simply unrealistic to assume that projects, technologies and decarbonization strategies will be deployed, permitted and operational in four years,” wrote Gullo.
The Business Council of Canada’s warning comes on the heels of Alberta announcing that it would not be enforcing the proposed regulations.
“Albertans will not accept this cap or the attack on its constitutional jurisdiction, economy, and citizens that the cap represents,” Alberta (Environment Minister Rebecca Schulz) wrote.
Alberta pointed out that the proposed regulations are unconstitutional, unrealistic, would prove detrimental to Canada’s economy, and would not necessarily reduce emissions worldwide.
However, the Liberal government, under the leadership of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, seems intent on pushing emission regulations regardless of their effects on Canadians.
Currently, the Trudeau government is trying to force net-zero regulations on all Canadian provinces, notably on electricity generation, as early as 2035. His government has also refused to extend a carbon tax exemption on heating fuels to all provinces, allowing only Atlantic provinces this benefit.
Trudeau’s current environmental goals are in lockstep with the United Nations’ “2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development” and include phasing out coal-fired power plants, reducing fertilizer usage, and curbing natural gas use over the coming decades.
The reduction and eventual elimination of the use of so-called “fossil fuels” and a transition to unreliable “green” energy has also been pushed by the World Economic Forum (WEF) – the globalist group behind the socialist “Great Reset” agenda – an organization in which Trudeau and some of his cabinet are involved.
In November, after announcing she had “enough” of Trudeau’s extreme environmental rules, Alberta Premier Danielle Smith said her province has no choice but to assert control over its electricity grid to combat federal overreach by enacting its Sovereignty Act. The Sovereignty Act serves to shield Albertans from future power blackouts due to the federal government’s decisions.
Unlike most provinces in Canada, Alberta’s electricity industry is nearly fully deregulated. However, the government still could take control of it at a moment’s notice.
Economy
Energy transition will be much longer and more arduous than they’re telling you
From the Fraser Institute
While many Canadian politicians and activists continue to trumpet the “energy transition” and conjure visions of a low-carbon future that supposedly lurks just around the corner, along comes Natural Resources Canada with its latest Energy Fact Book. A careful review of the publication pours cold water on any notion of a rapid shift to a fundamentally different energy system, one that features a much smaller role for the fossil fuels that now supply the vast majority of the energy used by Canadians.
The book contains a wealth of information on Canada’s large and notably diverse energy sector, covering production, consumption trends, investment, and the environmental impact of energy production and use. Separately, Natural Resources Canada also publishes “energy profiles” for the individual provinces and territories that provide further insight into energy production and consumption patterns across the country.
Starting with energy production (and considering all sources of energy, including uranium), crude oil accounts for about 45 per cent of Canadian energy output, measured in petajoules. Natural gas and natural gas liquids comprise another 32 per cent, with uranium chipping in 11 per cent of primary energy production. Smaller shares come from coal (5 per cent), hydroelectricity (5 per cent) and “other” renewables (3 per cent).
The statistics on energy output confirm that fossil fuels dominate the mix of energy sources produced in Canada. There’s little reason to believe this will change in a significant way in the near term.
Turning to energy consumption, a review of the most recent information leads to a broadly similar conclusion.
Based on Statistics Canada’s latest data, industry, collectively, is responsible for about 35 per cent of final end-use energy demand; this category includes manufacturing, natural resource extraction and processing, and construction. Transportation is the second-largest consumer of energy (29 per cent of final demand), followed by the residential (16 per cent) and commercial sectors (14 per cent).
What about the various sources of energy Canadians depend on for their comfort and well-being and to enable industrial and other business activity? Refined petroleum products rank first, providing about two-fifths of all energy consumed. Natural gas is second (35-36 per cent). Electricity comprises just 16-17 per cent of the energy used in Canada. Overall, fossil fuels still meet more than three quarters of Canadians’ requirements for primary energy.
Some may be surprised that electricity constitutes less than one-fifth of the energy used in Canada. A principal strategy of governments aspiring to slash greenhouse gas emissions is to redirect energy demand to electricity and away from oil, natural gas and other carbon-based energy sources. That makes sense, particularly since Canada’s existing electricity grid is about 80 per cent carbon-free. But a “big switch” to electricity won’t be easy. Consider that, over the first two decades of the millennium, Canadian natural gas consumption jumped by 34 per cent while electricity demand rose by 12 per cent. This underscores the resiliency of household and business demand for reliable affordable energy—of which natural gas is the best example.
Raising electricity’s share of total energy consumption will necessitate an enormous expansion across all segments of the Canadian electricity sector, encompassing not only the development of far more generation capacity but also the construction of additional transmission networks to deliver electric energy to end-users. Industry experts talk of boosting the amount of electricity produced in Canada by up to three times within two decades—a herculean task, assuming it’s even possible.
And, in line with the “net zero” goals espoused by many governments, virtually all of new electricity presumably must come from carbon-free sources (e.g., hydropower, other renewables, biomass, nuclear). There’s also the challenge of replacing the remaining carbon-based electricity still produced in Canada with carbon-free alternatives, as mandated by the Clean Electricity Regulations (CER) recently adopted by the Trudeau government.
Suffice to say the transition away from fossil fuels as the predominant source of energy consumed in Canada will be a lengthy and arduous journey and is sure to encounter more and bigger obstacles than most of Canada’s political class understands or cares to acknowledge.
Author
Business
FACT CHECK: Who’s to blame for high grocery, energy, other costs?
From The Center Square
By
With inflationary costs reaching a 40-year high under the Biden-Harris administration, President Joe Biden, Vice President Kamala Harris and others in their administration have repeatedly blamed businesses, livestock producers, grocery stores, oil and natural gas companies and others for high prices.
At the same time, a record number of businesses closed, declared bankruptcy and laid off hundreds of thousands of workers, citing high inflationary costs. In a recent report, nearly half of all small businesses said they won’t survive a second Harris term, higher costs and increased taxes, The Center Square reported.
Despite this, Harris says she plans to implement price controls, increase taxes on businesses and allow the 2017 tax cuts to expire, creating a $6 trillion chasm between her plan and former President Donald Trump’s, the Wall Street Journal reported.
As Americans struggled with increased grocery costs, including the high cost of meat, producers were faced with higher fuel, feed, grain and hay costs, driving up their operational costs that were passed onto consumers, according to multiple reports. In response, in 2021, the White House National Economic Council blamed high meat prices on “dominant corporations in uncompetitive markets taking advantage of their market power.”
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce disagrees, arguing that market concentration in the meat packing industry had been virtually unchanged for 25 years at the time. It then asked “if high prices are the result of corporate greed, why did these ‘greedy’ companies wait two decades to raise prices?” It clarified that increased meat prices were driven by supply and demand and overall inflation, largely created by increased federal spending and debt.
With costs increasing across the board, some companies adjusted by selling less product for more, referred to as shrinkflation, The Center Square first reported in 2022. However, Biden and Harris blamed companies for higher costs, reportedly in response to Democratic operatives advising them to do so, The Washington Post reported.
“What we said is, ‘You need a villain or an explanation for this. If you don’t provide one, voters will fill one in. The right is providing an explanation, which is that you’re spending too much,’” one Democratic operative told the Post. “That point finally became convincing to people in the White House.”
“And thus began the effort to wrongly blame employers for high prices,” the chamber’s executive vice president Neil Bradley said in a report identifying examples of the White House “wrongly blaming businesses for high prices.”
Also in 2022, Biden publicly blamed container companies for high shipping costs. News reports pointed to supply chain issues impacted by worker shortages, changes in customer spending that resulted in more cargo arriving in ports that the ports couldn’t handle, and port fines and fees contributing to higher costs.
The chamber notes that increased prices “resulted from consumers shifting their spending from services to goods” during the COVID-lockdown era, causing increased cargo demand. “Increased demand created backlogs at the ports, raising prices even higher. As supply and demand normalized, prices fell.”
By 2023, the president again publicly blamed the U.S. oil and natural gas industry for gas prices reaching a seven-year high. This was after he took more than 200 actions against the U.S. oil and natural gas industry, U.S. House Democrats introduced a bill that would have added a 50% per barrel tax, and the U.S. Treasury Department proposed a $110 billion tax hike on the industry, The Center Square reported.
But the industry doesn’t control the market, it’s subject to it like everyone else, Texas Independent Producers & Royalty Owners Association President Ed Longanecker said. The Biden-Harris administration could have lowered costs by expediting permits, lifting the federal leasing ban and creating “a more stable regulatory environment that provides certainty to producers and investors,” he told The Center Square. “Overburdensome regulations, increased taxes and anti-oil and natural gas rhetoric” exacerbated high energy prices and raised consumer costs, he said.
The administration has also repeatedly sued the industry and Texas, which leads U.S. production, exports and energy creation. In response, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott has aggressively fought to protect the Texas industry from Biden policies, the governor argues.
Also in 2023, the chair of Biden’s Council of Economic Advisers said grocery sector profit margins “were elevated” and needed to “pass-through” to consumers. Earlier this year, Biden again claimed, “there are still too many corporations in America ripping people off: price gouging, junk fees, greedflation, shrinkflation.”
The chamber refutes these claims, pointing to federal data, arguing that “higher grocery prices are a result of inflationary pressure across the supply chain and basic supply and demand dynamics,” explained by Department of Agriculture and Government Accountability Office economists.
Biden and Harris blaming businesses for high prices is “entirely backward,” Bradley says. “The truth is the Administration’s own fiscal and regulatory policies are driving inflation, and the American consumer is left holding the bag.”
-
Health2 days ago
Integrative Approaches For Cancer
-
Addictions2 days ago
Harm reduction projects in Nelson are fraying the city’s social fabric, residents say
-
Automotive2 days ago
Ottawa’s tariffs undercut Ottawa’s EV mandate
-
Business2 days ago
Judge allows Elon Musk’s ‘thermonuclear’ lawsuit against Media Matters to proceed
-
Alberta2 days ago
Alberta bill in the works protects healthcare workers, hospices from having to offer euthanasia
-
Addictions2 days ago
B.C. parents powerless to help their addicted teens
-
Business2 days ago
US lawmakers accuse Pfizer, Eli Lilly of testing new drugs on prisoners in Communist China
-
Crime2 days ago
Trump suggests he’d release Epstein files if re-elected: ‘I’d be inclined to do it’