Connect with us
[bsa_pro_ad_space id=12]

Energy

Federal Greenwash law: guilty until proven innocent

Published

1 year ago

8 minute read

From Resource Works

“Under this new law, you’re guilty unless you prove your innocence to some back-room bureaucratic body. That’s simply not a Canadian concept.”

In its latest display of environmental correctness, the federal government passed a new anti-greenwashing law that requires individuals or organizations making claims or promises about the climate benefits of products or processes to prove their truth.

Such “truth,” the law stipulates, must be proven to the satisfaction of a federal bureaucracy — by way of “an adequate and proper test” or “adequate and proper substantiation in accordance with internationally recognized methodology.”

However, those tests and methodologies have not been defined or announced, remaining hopelessly vague. A federal bureaucrat is now empowered under the law to review such climate statements and claims, and to compel court proceedings if they deem them not to meet the ambiguous criteria.

It’s clear the law (Bill C-59, amendments to the Competition Act) would apply to companies claiming, for example, that their production processes or new technologies will reduce greenhouse gas emissions. However, the Competition Bureau conveniently will not have to prove that the claims are false or misleading. The new law instead requires the accused company or agency to prove their innocence.

The penalties can be severe, with fines of up to $10 million ($15 million for repeat offenders) or as much as three times the benefit derived from the misrepresentation. If that benefit cannot be reasonably determined, the penalty could be up to three percent of the company’s annual worldwide gross revenues.

Canada is thus following the green correctness of the European Parliament, which now requires “proof” of claims of a neutral, reduced, or positive impact on the environment when a producer reduces or offsets emissions.

The European Union’s move followed a study by the European Commission, which found more than half  of green claims were vague, misleading, or unfounded, with 40% being “completely unsubstantiated.”

Industry in Canada has been quick to protest Bill C-59, and it’s not just the oil and natural gas sector raising concerns. Industries ranging from automotive to mining to manufacturing are also challenging the new law.

Dennis Darby, CEO of the Canadian Manufacturers & Exporters Association, called the changes “quite heavy-handed” and said his member companies worry about potential legal challenges over any environmental claims they make about emissions-reducing technologies.

The Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP) also protested: “These amendments effectively silence discussion around climate and environmental policy for political gains, while promoting the voices of those most opposed to Canada’s oil and natural gas sector.

“The federal government’s approach to these amendments has introduced a new level of complexity and risk for those looking to invest in Canada. The amendments to the Competition Act will make it more difficult for proponents to speak to Canadians and gain public support for their projects, particularly for those focused on reducing emissions.”

CAPP argued in a submission to the Competition Bureau: “The effect of this legislation is to silence the energy industry and those that support it, in an effort to clear the field of debate and promote the voices of those most opposed to Canada’s energy industry.

“Implementing a vague law with exceptionally high penalties, without consultation, and with an outsized impact on the country’s largest industries, is both anti-democratic and anti-business.”

Will the new Canadian law also apply (as CAPP says it should) to climate campaigners and green groups who claim that a company, product, or process damages the global climate?

One green group recently attacked liquefied natural gas (LNG) developments in British Columbia using (among other things) a photoshopped image of a smoke-emitting oil and gas facility in Iran. Could that be prosecuted under the new law? It should be, but who knows?

Will the new reverse-onus law apply in practice to government departments, ministries, and ministers? Again, who knows?

The federal Canada Energy Regulator, for example, made a number of green statements in a recent  Market Snapshot about LNG in BC:

  • “LNG Canada is actively working on electrifying certain processes, especially for the proposed Phase 2. This shift will reduce reliance on fossil fuels and help lower the carbon intensity of LNG production.”
  • “Woodfibre LNG will use electric motors powered by renewable electricity from B.C. Hydro, making the project one of the lowest-emission LNG export facilities in the world.”
  • “The proposed Cedar LNG facility will also be powered by renewable electricity from B.C. Hydro and will be one of the lowest-emission LNG facilities in the world.”
  • “The proposed Ksi Lisims LNG facility would have one of the lowest carbon intensities of large-scale LNG export projects in the world, utilizing several technologies to reduce carbon emissions, including renewable hydropower from the B.C. electricity grid.”
  • “The Tilbury LNG facility is powered by renewable hydroelectricity, which means it can produce LNG that is nearly 30 percent less carbon-intensive than the global average.”

Does the Canada Energy Regulator now have to “prove” all those statements?

And what about Prime Minister Trudeau himself? The First Nations LNG Alliance (which has said the law could be used as one more tool to discourage Indigenous partnerships and investment in energy projects) asked if the law would apply to the prime minister.

“Prime Minister Justin Trudeau hailed the go-ahead decision by the Cedar LNG project, majority-owned by the Haisla First Nation in B.C. He said it will be ‘the world’s lowest carbon footprint LNG facility.’ So does the prime minister now have to ‘prove’ that Cedar LNG is the world’s lowest carbon footprint LNG facility?”

Regardless, under this new law, you’re guilty unless you prove your innocence to some back-room bureaucratic body. That’s simply not a Canadian concept, nor a Liberal one. This new law needs to be changed or repealed.

Related Topics:

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

More from this author
Alberta / 2 hours ago

School defunding petition in Alberta is a warning to parents

Business / 2 hours ago

Liberals refuse to disclose the amount of taxpayer dollars headed to LGBT projects in foreign countries

Digital ID / 2 hours ago

Canada moves forward with digital identification for federal benefits seekers

Daily Caller

McKinsey outlook for 2025 sharply adjusts prior projections, predicting fossil fuels will dominate well after 2050

Published on November 10, 2025

By

 

From the Daily Caller News Foundation

By Vijay Jayaraj

A new report from McKinsey & Company, the “Global Energy Perspective,” lays bare what many of us – dismissed as “climate deniers” – have been asserting all along: Coal, oil and natural gas will continue to be the dominant sources of global energy well past 2050.

The McKinsey outlook for 2025 sharply adjusts prior projections. Last year, the management consultant’s models had coal demand falling 40% by 2035. Today, McKinsey projects an uptick of 1% over the same period. The dramatic reversal is driven by record commissioning of coal-fired power plants in China, unexpected increases in global electricity use, and the lack of viable alternatives for industries like steel, chemicals and heavy manufacturing.

The report states that the three fossil fuels will still supply up to 55% of global energy in 2050, a forecast that looks low to me. Today’s share for hydrocarbons is about 64%.

Dear Readers:

As a nonprofit, we are dependent on the generosity of our readers.

Please consider making a small donation of any amount here.

Thank you!

In any case, McKinsey’s report confirms what seasoned energy analysts and pragmatic policymakers have long maintained: The energy transition will not be swift, simple, or governed solely by climate targets. In fact, this energy transition will not happen at all without large scale deployment of nuclear, geothermal or other technological innovations that prove practical.

In places such as India, Southeast Asia and sub-Saharan Africa, the top energy priorities are access, affordability and reliability, which together add up to national security. Planners are acutely aware of a trap: Sole reliance on weather-dependent power risks blackouts, industrial disruption, economic decline and civil unrest.

That is why many developing nations are embracing a dual track: continued investment in conventional generation (coal, gas, nuclear) while developing alternative technologies. McKinsey says this in consultancy lingo: “Countries and regions will follow distinct trajectories based on local economic conditions, resource endowment, and the realities facing particular industries.”

In countries like India, Indonesia and Nigeria, the scale of electrification and industrial expansion is enormous. These countries cannot afford to wait decades for perfect solutions. They need “reliable and good enough for now.” That means conventional fuels will be retained.

McKinsey’s analysis also underscores what physics and engineering dictate: Intermittent and weather-dependent sources, such as wind and solar, require vast land areas, backup batteries and generation and power-grid investments, none of which come cheaply nor quickly.

The technologies of wind and solar branded as renewable should instead be called economy killers. They make for expensive and unstable electrical systems that have brought energy-rich nations like Germany to their knees. After spending billions of dollars on unreliable wind turbines and solar panels and demolishing nuclear plants and coal plants, the country is struggling with high prices and economic stagnation.

The Germans now have a word for their self-inflicted crisis: Dunkelflaute. It means “dark doldrums”—a period of cold, sunless, windless days when their “green” grid fails. During a Dunkelflaute in November 2024, fossil fuels were called on to provide 70% of Germany’s electricity.

If “renewables” were truly capable, planners would shut down fossil fuel generation. But that is not the case. While wind and solar are pursued in some places, coal and natural gas remain much sought-after fuels. In the first half of 2025 alone, China commissioned about 21 gigawatts (GW) of new coal-fired capacity, which is more than any other country and the largest increase since 2016.

Further, China has approved construction of 25 GW of new coal plants in the first half of 2025. As of July, China’s mainland has nearly 1,200 coal plants, far outstripping the rest of the world.

McKinsey points to a dramatic surge in electricity demand driven by data centers, which is estimated to be about 17 % annually from 2022 to 2030 in the 38 OECD countries.  This kind of growth in electricity use simply cannot be met by wind and solar.

When analysts, journalists and engineers point out these realities, they’re branded as “shills” for the fossil fuel industry. However, it is not public relations to point out the physics and economics that make up the math for meeting the world’s energy needs. Dismissing such facts is to deny that reliable energy remains the bedrock of modern civilization.

The cost of foolish “green” policies is being paid in lost jobs, ruined businesses, disrupted lives and impoverishment that could have been avoided by wiser choices.

For those who have repeated energy realities for years, the vindication is bittersweet. The satisfaction of being right is tempered by the knowledge that many have suffered because reality has been ignored.

Vijay Jayaraj is a Science and Research Associate at the CO2 Coalition, Fairfax, Va. He holds an M.S. in environmental sciences from the University of East Anglia and a postgraduate degree in energy management from Robert Gordon University, both in the U.K., and a bachelor’s in engineering from Anna University, India.

Continue Reading

Energy

Thawing the freeze on oil and gas development in Treaty 8 territory

Published on November 8, 2025

By

From Resource Works 

Will direct tenure awards to First Nations unlock Montney gas?

By Nelson Bennett

An innovative approach to facilitating natural gas production in B.C. while respecting treaty rights could become a case study for future cooperation and partnerships between First Nations, government and industry.

In an attempt to open an area that producers have essentially been shut out of in northeastern B.C., the B.C. government directly awarded oil and gas tenure to the Halfway River First Nation, giving them greater control over how oil and gas extraction in the area might happen.

That tenure is now getting “farmed out” to companies like ARC Resources.

“The granting of the tenure by the B.C. government to the nation is new,” said Greg Kist, executive manager for Tsaa Dunne Za Energy, the Halfway River First Nation’s energy business.

Greg Kist, former president of Pacific NorthWest LNG and current managing executive for Tsaa Dunne Ta Energy, THE CANADIAN PRESS/Jeff McIntosh.

Depending on the outcome of the experiment, it’s the kind of thing that might one day be showcased at a future Indigenous Partnership Success Showcase event.

For more than two decades, a large area in Halfway River First Nation traditional territory in northeastern B.C. has been off limits to industrial activities like logging and oil and gas exploration and extraction, due to treaty rights.

In 1999, the BC Supreme Court quashed a timber harvesting permit approved by the province for Canfor, based on Halfway River First Nation’s Treaty 8 rights.

An extraction moratorium of sorts was placed over core HRFN territory, which happens to be in the “fairway” of the Montney natural gas formation.

“All of the lands were deferred from any further development,” Kist said. “And that meant everything from logging it, to oil and gas activities.”

This “deferral” of industrial activities in the area has been one of the question marks hanging over the oil and gas-rich Montney formation in northeastern B.C.

The 2021 BC Supreme Court Yahey decision had also left Treaty 8 territory dotted with question marks.

In Yahey, the court ruled cumulative impacts of activities like oil and gas development constituted a breach of the treaty rights of the Blueberry River First Nation, one of eight B.C. signatories to Treaty 8.

These various treaty rights rulings in northeastern B.C. create a serious challenge: How can B.C. continue to benefit from an abundance of natural gas to feed a burgeoning LNG industry without infringing the rights of Treaty 8 First Nations?

In the case of Halfway River, the B.C. government, the First Nation and industry are taking an innovative approach, using oil and gas tenure.

Last year, the B.C. government and HRFN signed a treaty settlement agreement that grants the nation more control over land use and development. As part of the agreement, the B.C. government directly awarded HRFN oil and gas tenure over 34,000 hectares of land. It was the first time the province has directly awarded oil and gas tenure to a First Nation.

In turn, the HRFN is now farming out its tenure rights to companies like ARC Resources, whose existing land holdings in the Attachie play are directly adjacent to the HRFN tenure.

“The resource quality is comparable to ARC’s existing Attachie asset, further extending the development runway at one of ARC’s most profitable assets,” ARC said in its second quarter financials at the end of July.

The tenure awarded to HRFN through its energy business, Tsaa Dunne Ta Energy, encompasses prime Montney real estate that had been essentially sterilized from development for decades.

“That 34,000 hectares is right in the middle of the Montney fairway,” Kist said.

Under an “earning and development” agreement with Tsaa Dunne Za Energy, ARC Resources will gain access to 36 parcels of land contiguous with its existing land parcel in the Attachie play. This expands its Attachie holdings by 10%.

Green area denotes Halfway River First Nation tenure; blue represents ARC Resources tenure.

“Think of it as Tsaa Dunne farming that land out to ARC, and we have an agreement that benefits us financially,” Kist said.

“The tenure award and landscape planning pilot will help to ensure that oil and gas development in these areas is sustainable and managed in accordance with the values of the Halfway River First Nation,” Chief Darlene Hunter said last year with the signing of the treaty settlement agreement.

Kist notes that the agreement with ARC represents only 25% of the land tenure granted to HRFN. So 75% of the land tenure could be open to further agreements with other natural gas producers.

“There will likely be more deals over time as we look at the different opportunities that are out there,” Kist said.

Kist is the former president of Rockies LNG and, before that, president of Pacific Northwest LNG. He and Jim Stannard, a former Petronas executive, are now managers for Tsaa Dunne Za Energy.

The tenure award does not represent a transfer of subsurface rights. All subsurface rights to things like minerals, coal, and oil and gas belong to the Crown.

“And at the end of the day, the B.C. government still gets its royalties,” Kist said. “But now the nation is very much in control of that activity.”

The recent agreement with ARC to develop 36 parcels adjacent to its Attachie lands is just the first one to be signed so far. There may be more such agreements in the future, Kist said.

Kist said the First Nation tenure model could end up being used elsewhere.

“I think the B.C. government’s going to look at these sorts of opportunities in areas where maybe there is a lack of development moving things forward,” he said.

“I think this could potentially be the model for development, with First Nations leading the way.”

Continue Reading

Trending

X