Environment
Ottawa’s plastic ban may actually hurt the environment
From the Fraser Institute
” a market research firm, found that in New Jersey… “non-woven polypropylene… consumes over 15 times more plastic and generates more than five times the amount of GHG emissions during production per bag than polyethylene plastic bags.” In other words, the ban helped increase pollution. “
Despite a court ruling late last year, which deemed the Trudeau government ban on single-use plastic (cutlery, straws, grocery bags, etc.) “unreasonable and unconstitutional,” the ban essentially remains in place pending appeal or further regulatory action. But according to the government’s own data and analysis, plastic waste is a virtual non-issue in Canada, as 99 per cent of all plastic waste is disposed of safely in landfills or is incinerated. And less than 1 per cent of Canada’s plastic waste finds its way into the environment.
Moreover, there’s great potential for people to replace banned plastic items, including plastic grocery bags, with other plastic bags not included in the ban such as heavy gauge “reusable” shopping totes and other types of plastic trash bags made of heavier-gauge plastics than the filmy bags banned from grocery stores.
In New Jersey, for example, while plastic grocery bag use did decline following a statewide ban in 2022, plastic substitute materials skyrocketed, plastic consumption rose threefold for heavier reusable bags and sixfold for woven and non-woven polypropylene bags, which are not produced domestically, not recycled nor do they contain recycled content. Freedonia, a market research firm, found that in New Jersey “increased consumption of polypropylene bags” contributed to a “500% increase in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions compared to non-woven polypropylene bag production” and that “non-woven polypropylene… consumes over 15 times more plastic and generates more than five times the amount of GHG emissions during production per bag than polyethylene plastic bags.” In other words, the ban helped increase pollution.
In California, an environmental interest group called CALPIRG recently issued a report generally favouring plastic bag bans, observing that they do indeed reduce the use of banned bags. However, the report notes that “loopholes,” which allow consumers to use heavier plastic bag alternatives, results in more plastic consumption and waste—not less. According to CALPIRG, plastic bag disposal rates increased in one jurisdiction (Alameda) from 157,000 tons in the year before the ban on single-use grocery bags to 231,000 tons in 2021. On a per-person basis, it rose from 4.1 tons disposed of per 100,000 people to 5.9 tons disposed of per 100,000 over that same span.
In both New Jersey and California, efforts are underway to “fix” the loopholes that have allowed proliferation of plastic consumption and waste in the wake of plastic bag bans. However, these actions are unlikely to work unless they can somehow stop consumers from simply switching to plastic garbage bags or buying online heavier-gauge plastic shopping totes (and trashing them after a few shopping trips). Consumers have already shown they’re prepared to do these things.
Here at home, there’s no reason to believe that Canadian consumers will react any differently to a ban on single-use plastics. Canadians are just as likely to reach for the convenient substitute, whether that’s heavier paper products or heavier plastic products not covered under existing bans.
If sanity reigned, Canada would get ahead of the perverse consequences likely to flow from plastic bans by scrapping the entire idea and allowing consumers to consume what they believe best suits their lives and pocketbooks. Canada already has an admirable waste management system that keeps 99 per cent of disposed plastics safely locked away in environmentally protective landfills or eliminates them completely through incineration.
There’s no need for plastic bans or a governmental takeover of the plastics sector via regulation. Government should throw these bans in the bin.
Author:
The Dual Challenge: Energy and Environment
Scott Tinker
The world faces two important and interrelated challenges. Affordable and reliable energy for all, and protecting the environment. The energy-environment challenge is not simple, but it is solvable if we understand and address the complex fabric of energy security, scale of energy demand, physics of energy density, distribution of energy resources, interconnectedness of the land, air, water and atmosphere, and the extreme disparity in global wealth and economic health. The truth is that there are no good and bad, clean and dirty, renewable and nonrenewable energy sources. They all have benefits, and they all have challenges. Climate change is an important issue, but it is not the only environmental issue. Solar and wind are important low carbon solutions, but they are only part of the solution. We must put our best minds to the task of addressing the dual challenge, working together to better the world.
From the Fraser Institute
By Elmira Aliakbari and Julio Mejía
Doubling Canadian natural gas production and exporting to Asia could reduce global emissions by up to 630 million tonnes—nearly as much as Canada produces in a year
Canada could help significantly reduce global greenhouse gas emissions by increasing natural gas production and exporting the additional supply to Asia in the form of liquefied natural gas (LNG), according to a new study from the Fraser Institute, an independent, non-partisan Canadian public policy think tank.
“As countries like China and India continue to burn coal for power, Canadian LNG offers a lower-emission alternative with the potential for major global impact,” said Elmira Aliakbari, director of natural resource studies at the Fraser Institute and coauthor of the study, Exporting Canadian LNG to the World: A Practical Solution for Reducing GHG Emissions
The study estimates the impact from Canada doubling its natural gas production and exporting to Asia to replace coal-fired power. In that scenario, global emissions could drop up to 630 million tonnes annually, which is the equivalent of removing approximately 137 million cars from the road. More specifically, replacing coal-fired power in China with Canadian LNG could cut emissions by up to 62 per cent for every unit of power produced.
“Focusing only on domestic emissions ignores Canada’s potential to support global climate goals,” said Aliakbari. “By displacing coal abroad, Canadian LNG can play a critical role in cutting total global emissions even if domestic emissions were to increase.”
However, regulatory uncertainty and a range of federal and provincial policies continue to hinder LNG development in Canada, despite strong global demand.
“Policymakers need to clear a path if Canada is going to play a meaningful role in reducing global emissions,” Aliakbari added.
Exporting Canadian LNG to the World: A Practical Solution for Reducing GHG Emissions
- Coal, a major source of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, remains a leading energy source in many Asian countries, especially China and India. Some European countries have also turned back to coal as sanctions on Russian energy intensified following the invasion of Ukraine.
- As the world seeks practical solutions for reducing greenhouse-gas emissions, natural gas, with its lower carbon footprint, offers a promising alternative to coal.
- With abundant reserve, Canada is well positioned to help reduce global reliance on coal. By exporting Canadian liquified natural gas (LNG) and helping Asian and European countries reduce their reliance on coal, Canada can lower net global GHG emissions.
- Exporting LNG from Canada to China and substituting LNG for coal in the generation of power there can eliminate between 291 and 687 gCO₂eq per kWh of power generated, a reduction of between 34% and 62%.
- If Canada were to double its current natural gas production and export the additional supply to Asia as LNG to displace an equivalent amount of coal used to generate power, global GHG emissions could be reduced by up to 630 million tonnes annually, a significant reduction equivalent to 89% of Canada’s total GHG emissions.
- Canada enjoys several competitive advantages, including cooler temperatures that reduce liquefaction energy costs and a strategic location that offers shorter shipping routes to Europe and Asia compared to many other suppliers.
- Regulatory challenges and a mix of federal and provincial policies, however, have slowed or blocked LNG developments in Canada.
Elmira Aliakbari
Julio Mejía
Anti-Trump protests planned across the country on Saturday as LA violence continues
Telegram founder Pavel Durov exposes crackdown on digital privacy in Tucker Carlson interview
Audit report reveals Canada’s controversial COVID travel app violated multiple rules
