Connect with us
[bsa_pro_ad_space id=12]

Economy

Fossil fuels aren’t going anywhere, we benefit too much from them

Published

10 minute read

From the MacDonald Laurier Institute

By Chris Sankey

Indigenous people are finally reaping the rewards.

Over the last eight years we have experienced an unprecedented push from environmental activists to phase out fossil fuels. The Government of Canada seems to think it is possible. During question period in the Senate earlier this year, Sen. David Wells noted that, according to the Liberals, the energy transition “will cost $100-$125 billion per year at least to 2050,” and asked “When Canada only emits 1.5 per cent of global emissions, how does this expenditure make sense?”

Let me repeat that. $125 billion each year.

Who is going to pay for this? This is simply not possible, unless people want to see the Canadian economy in ruins.

Without fossil fuels, life as we know it would not be possible. State-of-the-art lifesaving medical equipment comes from fossil fuels and critical minerals from mining. Critical infrastructure, vehicles, planes, trains, container ships, ferries, and the billions of household necessities we buy from Canadian Tire, Walmart, Amazon and Ikea come from fossil fuels and help us function in our everyday lives. Without these needs we simply do not prosper.

Take for instance the environmental marches we see on our streets. The protesters seemingly have zero understanding of what makes their marches possible? Yes, fossil fuels. If you are going to protest for “Just Stop Oil,” then climate activists have to stop blocking traffic, because an idling vehicle is so much harder on the environment. And what about showing up in clothing and holding up signs made of hydrocarbons demonstrates your commitment to saving the planet? Hypocrisy? Absolutely.

From the moment we come out of our mother’s body, fossil fuels make our lives better. From cradle to grave, our lives are intertwined with fossil fuels. Just think of the act of giving birth. Chances are the mother was rushed to hospital in an ambulance, helicopter, plane, your personal vehicle, or taxi. As grandparents, siblings, uncles, aunts and cousins arrive at the hospital in their fossil fuel-powered cars and trucks smiling ear to ear welcoming the new baby to the family. They show up with gifts likely made from fossil fuels and critical minerals. If it is not made from fossil fuels, they were most definitely transported to the store using fossil fuels.

It is time we stop kidding ourselves that we can step away from the oil and gas wealth upon which our country benefits so much.

Only now, it will be Indigenous communities who are going to lead the multi-billion-dollar opportunity and put Canada at the front of global markets as a preferred supplier. For far too long, activist’s voice have been the determining factor in how governments make decisions on this necessary industry in our territories.

We need to make sure we have a framework that lays out a technology transition where we produce cleaner oil and gas by using new technology that will reduce emissions and grow our economies.

Since the Liberals were elected in 2015 everywhere we turn, our resource sector is being badly hurt. Forestry, fishing, oil and gas are screaming for more production, but federal regulations threaten to not only destroy the energy industry, but all industries with the emissions cap. Renewables are costing taxpayers billions in subsidies and it will not end there.

Indigenous people have always took care of the environment and grown our economies. From fishing, logging, farming and hunting, we used fossil fuels to make it happen.

Obviously, humans did not use fossil fuels prior to the industrial revolution and indigenous people made hunting weapons out of wood and stone. Life was challenging for our ancestors back then; life expectancy was short for all people.

Over time, technology in the energy sector changed for the better. I would be remiss if I did not include the fact that industry did not always have modern clean tech; emissions were high and cancer-causing effects were widespread. That introduced chemicals foreign to indigenous people. Like all things, newer and safer technology emerged. Making life much easier and convenient.

However, historically speaking indigenous people lived on fat and protein. Everything we ate was natural. Like all things that come and go, European contact forever changed our way of life. We were greatly impacted in every possible manner, from social, cultural, status and creed. But like we always have, we persevered like our ancestors wanted us too.

This is our turn to take our rightful place on the global stage. We are watching it play out in real time around the world. Energy and food security is the number one priority around the world. Indigenous communities near and far are leading the way in the pursuit of sustainable development, but government and activists are hindering our ability to progress.

It is important that Canadians be realistic when it comes to the use of oil and gas. All of us want to leave our planet better for the next generation. To do so, we must manage expectations. Many countries are just now finally transitioning to oil and gas from more environmentally harmful coal and countries like India will not be carbon neutral until 2070 or later.

Our country has an abundance of resources that the world wants. They are literally knocking on our door to get access to our wealth. We can help countries like China, India and Indonesia move away from burning coal and wood, and thereby help lift millions out of certain poverty, and improve their health.

New climate change technology has emerged in the energy sector, such as carbon capture and storage that will reduce and eliminate emissions and the need for diluent in oil pipelines. Our combination of Indigenous knowledge and history to the land makes for a stronger argument to partner with Indigenous communities.  Alignment amongst indigenous communities is key to securing a project. Proper alignment will de-risk a project and attract investment and industry to the table where we will have a seat and even equity.

Engagement with Indigenous communities is the solution. The vast majority of our people are not against development. We are only against development when we are excluded from the opportunities, or if the evaluation process was developed without Indigenous input.

It is not rocket-science. Include the people whose territory you want to build on. This is an opportunity to build relationships through meaningful dialogue and trust. We must have nation to nation dialogue and build leadership to leadership relationships.  No hidden agendas, just up-front, honest conversations about oil and gas and the costs and benefits of development.

I am tired of watching our people struggle. Our people do not want to watch the prosperity boat sail by Poverty Island. Markets do not wait for anyone. We cannot keep waiting for the right time. We cannot keep waiting for life to get better. First Nations can make it better by being at the economic table where our people can bring traditional knowledge to industry and make decisions in the best interests of our communities. Whether we agree or not in the first instance, we need to be in the room working towards a brighter future, because at the end of the day we all need rubber boots too.

Chris Sankey is a Senior fellow at the MacDonald Laurier Institute, a former Elected Councilor for the Lax Kw Alaams Band and Businessman.

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

Economy

‘Gambling With The Grid’: New Data Highlights Achilles’ Heel Of One Of Biden’s Favorite Green Power Sources

Published on

From the Daily Caller News Foundation

By NICK POPE

 

New government data shows that wind power generation fell in 2023 despite the addition of new capacity, a fact that energy sector experts told the Daily Caller News Foundation demonstrates its inherent flaw.

Wind generation fell by about 2.1% in 2023 relative to 2022 generation, despite the 6 gigawatts (GW) of wind power capacity that came online last year, according to data published Tuesday by the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA). That wind power output dropped despite new capacity coming online and the availability of government subsidies highlights its intermittency and the problems wind power could pose for grid reliability, energy sector experts told the DCNF.

The decrease in wind generation is the first drop on record with the EIA since the 1990s; the drop was not evenly distributed across all regions of the U.S., and slower wind speeds last year also contributed to the decline, according to EIA. The Biden administration wants to have the American power sector reach carbon neutrality by 2035, a goal that will require a significant shift away from natural gas- and coal-fired power toward wind, solar and other green sources.

A table depicting the decrease of wind power generation in 2023 relative to 2022. (Screenshot via U.S. Energy Information Administration)

“Relying on wind power to meet your peak electricity demands is gambling with the grid,” Isaac Orr, a policy fellow at the Center of the American Experiment who specializes in power grid-related analysis, told the DCNF. “Will the wind blow, or won’t it? This should be a moment where policymakers step back and consider the wisdom of heavily subsidizing intermittent generators and punishing reliable coal and gas plants with onerous regulations.”

Between 2016 and 2022, the wind industry received an estimated $18.6 billion worth of subsidies, about 10% of the total amount of subsidies extended to the energy sector by the U.S. government, according to an August 2023 EIA report. Wind power received more assistance from the government than nuclear power, coal or natural gas over the same period of time.

“This isn’t subsidies per kilowatt hour of generation. It’s raw subsidies. If it were per kilowatt hour of generation, the numbers would be even more extreme,” Paige Lambermont, a research fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, told the DCNF. “This is a massive amount of money. It’s enough to dramatically alter energy investment decisions for the worse. We’re much more heavily subsidizing the sources that don’t provide a significant portion of our electricity than those that do.”

“Policy that just focuses on installed capacity, rather than the reliability of that capacity, fails to understand the real needs of the electrical grid,” Lambermont added. “This recent disparity illustrates that more installed wind capacity does not necessarily correlate with more wind power production. It doesn’t matter how much wind you add to the grid, if the wind isn’t blowing at peak demand time, that capacity will go to waste.”

Wind power’s performance was especially lackluster in the upper midwest, but Texas saw more wind generation in 2023 than it did in 2022, according to EIA. Wind generation in the first half of 2023 was about 14% lower than it was through the first six months of 2022, but generation was higher toward the end of 2023 than it was during the same period in 2022.

In 2023, about 60% of all electricity generated in the U.S. came from fossil fuels, while 10% came from wind power, according to EIA data. Beyond generous subsidies for preferred green energy sources, the Biden administration has also aggressively regulated fossil fuels and American power plants to advance its broad climate agenda.

The Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) landmark power plant rules finalized this month will threaten grid reliability if enacted, partially because the regulations are likely to incentivize operators to close plants rather than adopt the costly measures required for compliance, grid experts previously told the DCNF. At the same time that the Biden administration is effectively trying to shift power generation away from fossil fuels, it is also pursuing goals — such as substantially boosting electric vehicle adoption over the next decade and incentivizing construction of energy-intensive computer chip factories — that are driving up projected electricity demand in the future.

“The EIA data proves what we’ve always known about wind power: It is intermittent, unpredictable and unreliable,” David Blackmon, a 40-year veteran of the oil and gas industry who now writes and consults on the energy sector, told the DCNF. “Any power generation source whose output is wholly dependent on equally unpredictable weather conditions should never be presented by power companies and grid managers as safe replacements for abundant, cheap, dispatchable generation fueled with natural gas, coal or nuclear. This is a simple reality that people in charge of our power grids too often forget. Saying that no doubt hurts some people’s feelings, but nature really does not care about our feelings.”

Blackmon also pointed out that, aside from its intermittency, sluggish build-out of the transmission lines and related infrastructure poses a major problem for wind power.

“Wind power is worthless without accompanying transmission, yet the Biden administration continues to pour billions into unreliable wind while ignoring the growing crisis in the transmission sector,” Blackmon told the DCNF.

Another long-term issue that wind power, as well as solar power, faces is the need for a massive expansion in the amount of battery storage available to store and dispatch energy from intermittent sources as market conditions dictate. By some estimates, the U.S. will need about 85 times as much battery storage by 2050 relative to November 2023 in order to fully decarbonize the power grid, according to Alsym Energy, a battery company.

The White House and the Department of Energy did not respond to requests for comment.

Continue Reading

Alberta

Alberta government should eliminate corporate welfare to generate benefits for Albertans

Published on

From the Fraser Institute

By Spencer Gudewill and Tegan Hill

Last November, Premier Danielle Smith announced that her government will give up to $1.8 billion in subsidies to Dow Chemicals, which plans to expand a petrochemical project northeast of Edmonton. In other words, $1.8 billion in corporate welfare.

And this is just one example of corporate welfare paid for by Albertans.

According to a recent study published by the Fraser Institute, from 2007 to 2021, the latest year of available data, the Alberta government spent $31.0 billion (inflation-adjusted) on subsidies (a.k.a. corporate welfare) to select firms and businesses, purportedly to help Albertans. And this number excludes other forms of government handouts such as loan guarantees, direct investment and regulatory or tax privileges for particular firms and industries. So the total cost of corporate welfare in Alberta is likely much higher.

Why should Albertans care?

First off, there’s little evidence that corporate welfare generates widespread economic growth or jobs. In fact, evidence suggests the contrary—that subsidies result in a net loss to the economy by shifting resources to less productive sectors or locations (what economists call the “substitution effect”) and/or by keeping businesses alive that are otherwise economically unviable (i.e. “zombie companies”). This misallocation of resources leads to a less efficient, less productive and less prosperous Alberta.
And there are other costs to corporate welfare.

For example, between 2007 and 2019 (the latest year of pre-COVID data), every year on average the Alberta government spent 35 cents (out of every dollar of business income tax revenue it collected) on corporate welfare. Given that workers bear the burden of more than half of any business income tax indirectly through lower wages, if the government reduced business income taxes rather than spend money on corporate welfare, workers could benefit.

Moreover, Premier Smith failed in last month’s provincial budget to provide promised personal income tax relief and create a lower tax bracket for incomes below $60,000 to provide $760 in annual savings for Albertans (on average). But in 2019, after adjusting for inflation, the Alberta government spent $2.4 billion on corporate welfare—equivalent to $1,034 per tax filer. Clearly, instead of subsidizing select businesses, the Smith government could have kept its promise to lower personal income taxes.

Finally, there’s the Heritage Fund, which the Alberta government created almost 50 years ago to save a share of the province’s resource wealth for the future.

In her 2024 budget, Premier Smith earmarked $2.0 billion for the Heritage Fund this fiscal year—almost the exact amount spent on corporate welfare each year (on average) between 2007 and 2019. Put another way, the Alberta government could save twice as much in the Heritage Fund in 2024/25 if it ended corporate welfare, which would help Premier Smith keep her promise to build up the Heritage Fund to between $250 billion and $400 billion by 2050.

By eliminating corporate welfare, the Smith government can create fiscal room to reduce personal and business income taxes, or save more in the Heritage Fund. Any of these options will benefit Albertans far more than wasteful billion-dollar subsidies to favoured firms.

Continue Reading

Trending

X