Energy
Federal Greenwash law: guilty until proven innocent
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.
Daily Caller
Biden’s Signature Climate ‘Boondoggle’ Might Be On Chopping Block After Trump Win
From the Daily Caller News Foundation
In the wake of the election of President Donald Trump to serve a second term in office, along with presumptive Republican majorities in both houses of Congress, many are now asking about what the future will hold for the oddly named Inflation Reduction Act.
Trump made it repeatedly clear on the campaign trail that he is not a fan of that law, which was passed on straight party-line votes in both houses of Congress, or of the hundreds of billions of dollars in green energy subsidies contained in it.
In a statement sent out in a post-election memo, Sierra Club President Ben Jealous took on a pessimistic tone, saying: “Donald Trump was a disaster for climate progress during his first term, and everything he’s said and done since suggests he’s eager to do even more damage this time.” Given the major role played by the Sierra Club and other climate-alarm groups in writing the IRA, that is exactly the kind of comments we might expect.
But a full repeal of the IRA seems unlikely to succeed, even with GOP control of the House and Senate. Republican majorities will be slim and the GOP has never shown an ability to hold all its members together when voting on controversial issues. Thus, a more scalpel-like approach seems more likely to succeed.
I asked Karr Ingham, a respected petroleum economist who serves as the president of the Texas Alliance of Energy Producers, if he thinks Trump and his administration would seek to repeal the Inflation Reduction act in full. Ingham said: “I certainly hope so.” Specifically, Ingham pointed to a need to repeal “the methane tax [waste emissions charge] in the IRA, and frankly, much of the spending boondoggle that is the IRA should simply be eliminated.”
Tom Pyle, president of D.C.-based think tank the Institute for Energy Research, said he believes President Trump “absolutely should” pursue a full repeal of that law. “The vast array of subsidies embedded in the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) is already destabilizing our electricity grid, while the spending further fuels inflation and contributes to soaring government deficits.”
Pyle further notes that Trump has promised an array of tax cuts for working Americans and families and will need to find budget offsets for those. Pyle believes the IRA offers such an opportunity. “Getting rid of subsidies for big corporations in exchange for tax relief on working families is both good policy and good politics,” he adds.
But American Petroleum Institute President Mike Sommers said his group favors retaining at least some major pieces of the IRA, specifically pointing to subsidies for carbon capture and storage (CCS) and hydrogen development. “We’ll advocate for provisions that we support, and we’ll seek repeal of provisions that we think don’t line up with continued production in the states of oil and gas,” Sommers told Politico. This is no surprise given that some of API’s biggest members have already made big bets on both CCS and hydrogen projects.
It is also important to remember that, since the IRA was signed into law in September 2022, renewable energy companies have invested hundreds of billions of dollars into wind, solar and electric vehicles projects, and a big portion of those investments are happening in key Republican states and counties.
Jason Grumet, CEO at the American Clean Power Association, said in a statement that, “Private sector clean energy investment is bringing jobs and economic opportunity to small towns and rural communities across the nation, while hundreds of new factories have come online in states that have seen far too many good jobs move overseas.” Grumet also pointed to the fact that quite a lot of investment into both wind and solar took place during Trump’s first term in office even without the added incentives from the IRA subsidy and tax incentive regimes, adding that ACPA and its members are “committed to working with the Trump-Vance administration and the new Congress to continue this great American success story.”
There is little question the Trump administration will take a hard look at many of the IRA provisions, but political realities combined with the billions already invested based on the continuation of these programs makes a full repeal seem highly unlikely.
David Blackmon is an energy writer and consultant based in Texas. He spent 40 years in the oil and gas business, where he specialized in public policy and communications.
Economy
Hydrocarbons Are The Backbone of Global Progress
From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy
By Ian Madsen
The use of hydrocarbons is a necessity for modern life.
Climate Crusaders claim that our society could do without oil and natural gas by proceeding to a Utopia of ‘Net Zero’ by 2050, extracting CO2 (carbon dioxide) emissions from the atmosphere. However, as the Canadian Energy Centre notes, that cherished goal cannot be realized. This is true of fueling transport, heating or electric power, and all other uses of hydrocarbon fossil fuels.
People use oil and natural gas constituents for more than just burning. They use them in every sector of the economy, including military equipment and non profit organizations such as universities and hospitals.
The main component is ethane, C2H6, a ‘natural gas liquid’, extracted from raw natural gas. Ethane is then converted to ethylene, a versatile building block for many other chemicals, Other natural gas liquids, such as propane and butane, are generally used as fuel, in petrochemical production, and as some oil components.
Ethylene is used in various plastics, textiles, detergents and antifreeze. Plastics are used for containers, in countless household and industrial products, and tubing, filters, surgical masks, gloves, gowns, bandages, disinfectants and other medical products. Petrochemical-sourced materials are in the outer casing of medical devices and their components– important instruments such as blood diagnostics machines, DNA sequencers, MRI devices, ultra-sound and CAT and PET scanners.
Styrene, an ethylene end-product, makes synthetic rubber in tires. Synthetic rubber and related products are vital for the gaskets, seals, hoses and tubes in internal combustion, jet and diesel engines. Diesel engines are used in long-distance trucks bringing food to supermarkets. They also power excavating equipment that mines ores to refine into metals, fire trucks, and other machines, such as combines and tractors, which are vital to agriculture.
Petrochemicals also go into polymer fabrics such as polyester, spandex, acrylic and ‘breathable’ fabrics used by themselves or with ‘natural’ materials such as wool, cotton, silk and linen to make a great variety of items like clothes, underclothes, athletic wear, waterproof or winter jackets, hosiery, belts, handbags, upholstery material, furniture coverings, lawn and garden furniture, slope-stabilizing geotechnical fabrics, retractable arenas’ roof coverings, bedding materials, curtains, drapes, and tablecloths.
The same for the construction industries. Such products include paints, solvents, lacquers, countertops, knobs, flooring, adhesives, abrasives, pipes, plumbing and lighting fixtures. Two major insulation products builders and renovators are compelled to add to homes and office buildings make use of petrochemicals: polyurethane foam and styrofoam. Plastics go into the insulation’s outer sheath and for house wrap.
Plastics and related synthetic materials are also used in the latest generation of high-insulation windows, solar panels and wind turbines. Hence, petroleum based products are crucial to climate crusaders’ goal of lower energy consumption.
Plastics indeed add to the garbage volumes people generate. But plastic trash is manageable. Current recycling programs are ineffective, says the journal Nature. Despite rampant alarmism, waste-to-energy plastic destruction, as is bacterial digestion, is a viable alternative.
Petrochemicals and plastics make modern life possible. While substitutes are now under development, they are unlikely to become common anytime soon. So forbidding plastics would be detrimental, especially for emerging economies. Petrochemicals and plastics derived from hydrocarbons are crucial to making less-developed nations healthy and prosperous. Depriving them of that opportunity would be cruel and unnecessary.
Ian Madsen is the Senior Policy Analyst at the Frontier Centre for Public Policy
-
Censorship Industrial Complex17 hours ago
US Lawmakers Investigate Biden White House-Affiliated UK Censorship Group’s Plot To “Kill” Elon Musk’s X
-
Uncategorized20 hours ago
RCMP to create fake online profiles to track Canadian ‘extremists’: docs
-
Disaster1 day ago
FEMA’s response to the hurricanes of 2024 – Inadequate, corrupt, and politically charged
-
Daily Caller21 hours ago
Mass Deportations, Cracking Down On Sanctuary Cities And More: Here’s What Trump Has In Store For Immigration
-
Daily Caller20 hours ago
Now that Trump is president-elect, who could serve in his administration?
-
International1 day ago
At-large Iranian man charged in plot to assassinate Trump
-
Opinion2 days ago
The majority of voters have moved on from legacy media and legacy narratives
-
COVID-192 days ago
Peter McCullough urges Trump to pull dangerous COVID shots from the market, citing injuries, deaths