Connect with us
[the_ad id="89560"]

Business

A tale of two countries – Drill, Baby, Drill vs Cap, Baby, Cap

Published

10 minute read

From EnergyNow.ca

By Deidra Garyk

Analysis of the U.S. Election and the Canadian Oil and Gas Emissions Cap

Monday, November 4, the Canadian federal government announced the long-awaited draft emissions cap for the oil and gas industry.

The next day, the world’s largest economy held an election that resulted in a decisive victory for the position of 47th President of the USA.

With the GOP (Republicans) taking a commanding lead with 53 out of 100 possible Senate seats, and two more still to be confirmed, they have a majority that can help move along their plans for at least the next two years. Rumoured expectations are that they’ll take the House too, which will further solidify President-elect Trump’s mandate.

As part of Trump’s campaign platform, Agenda47, he promised “to bring Americans the lowest-cost energy and electricity on Earth.” The agenda pledged that “to keep pace with the world economy that depends on fossil fuels for more than 80% of its energy, President Trump will DRILL, BABY, DRILL.”

The platform also states that under his leadership, the US will once again leave the Paris Climate Accords, and he will oppose all Green New Deal policies that impact energy development. He also plans to roll back the Biden administration’s EV mandates and emissions targets, while advocating for low emissions nuclear energy.

It isn’t a guarantee that he will do anything that he says; however, if the past is any indication, we can expect Trump to follow through on his energy and climate promises.

Even though Canada and the USA are on a contiguous land mass, they could not be farther apart in energy and climate ideology.

On the northern side of the border, a day before, Canada’s green avengers of the Liberal cabinet congregated for a press conference to jubilantly announce their emissions cap, which has been studied and determined to be a defacto production cap. CAP, BABY, CAP!

Claims that the new rules go after pollution, not production, should be met with scepticism. If pollution is the problem, there would be blanket emissions caps on all heavy emitting industries and imported oil and gas would be subject to the same requirements, but it is not. I’m not sure how else to read it other than a willful slight with a sledgehammer against the Canadian oil and gas industry.

Especially since Natural Resources Minister Jonathan Wilkinson said that this is a backstop to ensure the Pathways Alliance does what they say they will. I wonder if the Pathways folks feel like they have a giant target on their backs… and fronts?

The hour-long press conference was a lesson in how to deceive with a straight face. Most of the Liberals’ claims have either been discredited or are unsubstantiated as to be meaningless.

Wilkinson, a Rhodes Scholar, calls this cap an “economic opportunity” because he believes that for Canadian oil and gas, climate change is a competitive issue, for both combusted and non-combusted products. Square that circle when no other country on the planet has an emissions cap on its oil and gas industry.

Nonetheless, the Liberals expect production to increase, which is counter to what they say out of the other side of their mouths – that oil and gas demand will peak this year, and we are not going to be using it much longer so we should just shut it all down.

Wilkinson excitedly announced the need for thousands and thousands of workers to build the decarbonization infrastructure of the new energy future. However, the Department of Environment’s  Cost-Benefit Analysis Summary contradicts this claim, citing thousands of job losses.

The Study also identifies that the costs from the plan will be borne by Canadians. The Conference Board of Canada expressed similar concerns, but they were dismissed by the politicians on stage.

Edmonton MP and Minister of Employment, Workforce Development, and Official Languages Randy Boissonnault, also known as “The Other Randy” for his ethical mis-steps, put on one of the best shows of the press conference. He speaks so convincingly that you almost believe him. Almost.

He claimed that when he was campaigning last election during the Covid pandemic, the number one topic at the doors was climate change. Edmontonians wanted to talk about climate change over the global pandemic that was disrupting their lives? Yeah, right.

The Other Randy praised Ministers Guilbeault and Wilkinson for working with industry on the regulations and promised that Canadian workers will be part of the consultation and final rules. Forgive me for being sceptical.

The Spiderman-like Steven Guilbeault, Minister of Environment and Climate Change, said that oil companies have seen record profits, going from $6.6 billion pre-pandemic to $66 billion post-pandemic, and the Liberals want that extra money used on projects they approve of, namely ones that are climate-related.

Guilbault believes this cap is necessary for prosperity and energy security, along with being good for workers and “for good union jobs”. It’s not often talked about, but within the feds’ climate plans is a push for unionizing jobs. It was top-of-mind for the Deputy Minister of Labour when I was part of a delegation to Ottawa last year. She was most interested in learning about how many oil and gas jobs are unionized and showed visible displeasure at finding out that most are not.

The press conference seemed to be more of a one-sided political bun fight, with a disproportionate amount of time spent talking smack about Pierre Poilievre, Premier Danielle Smith, and Premier Scott Moe. Perhaps demonstrating the Liberals’ trepidation about the future since the final regulations will come out late next year and go into effect January 1, 2026, when it’s likely they will be out of office.

With the climate zealots out of power, enforcement may be a challenge. What if companies don’t meet the arbitrary targets and deadlines imposed by the rules? What if companies don’t buy the required credits? A reporter asked, but Guilbeault didn’t give an answer in his response. I guess we will have to wait to see what changes are made to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act (CEPA), the enforcement regulations.

Wilkinson said climate change is a “collective action problem” that must be addressed as it is the “existential threat to the human race.” This gives you a sense of how they see things – there is a problem and government is the solution.

Meanwhile, energy policy is a “Day 1 priority” for Trump. As a businessperson, he understands that demand is growing, and limited regulations are the way to develop all forms of energy.

Even if industry can meet the emissions reduction targets – there are a variety of opinions on the proposed rules – it does not mean the regulations should be implemented. Canada’s real per capita GDP is 73 per cent of America’s, so as Canada goes hard on emissions reduction regulations, if investment moves south, that number is not going to improve. Don’t let them tell you otherwise.

Deidra Garyk is the Founder and President of Equipois:ability Advisory, a consulting firm specializing in sustainability solutions. Over 20 years in the Canadian energy sector, Deidra held key roles, where she focused on a broad range of initiatives, from sustainability reporting to fostering collaboration among industry stakeholders through her work in joint venture contracts.

Outside of her professional commitments, Deidra is an energy advocate and a recognized thought leader. She is passionate about promoting balanced, fact-based discussions on energy policy and sustainability. Through her research, writing, and public speaking, Deidra seeks to advance a more informed and pragmatic dialogue on the future of energy.

Automotive

Trump’s proposed EV subsidy cuts and tariffs could upend BC’s electric vehicle goals

Published on

From Resource Works

Canada’s regime of electric vehicle subsidies is facing a crisis with United States President-elect Donald Trump’s promise to end his own country’s EV incentives. Trump has proposed eliminating the $7,500 USD tax credit for those who purchase EVs, as well as threatening to impose a 25 per cent tariff on Canadian and Mexican imports.

Considering the interconnection of the North American automotive industry, this has the potential to severely disrupt Canada’s ambitious goals for widespread EV adoption. In British Columbia, whose provincial government has fully embraced the EV transition, the consequences of Trump’s presidency will be felt the strongest.

Trump’s pledge to eliminate the subsidies comes from his economic vision of a reduced role for the federal government in the American economy. This does resonate with vast segments of the U.S. market, but how it will impact Canada’s automakers is far less clear-cut.

EV subsidies in Canada, either at the federal or provincial level, are essential for the EV industry’s momentum to be maintained. Rebates of $5,000 are offered federally, and $4,000 under the CleanBC “Go Electric” program.

BC consumers can afford to buy EVs at a higher rate, and that helps sustain sales.

If Trump terminates the subsidies, automakers like General Motors, which are already dealing with slower EV production, will be reluctant to stay the course. The EV supply will fall, causing higher prices.

BC is Canada’s trailblazer in the EV market, accounting for almost 1 in 5 EV registrations across the entire country despite making up less than 14 per cent of the population. Policies like CleanBC have made EVs an attractive, affordable option for middle-class buyers, and the provincial government is committed to building up EV infrastructure.

The provincial government’s interim mandates are designed to align with federal goals, which aim for 10 per cent zero-emission vehicle (ZEV) sales by 2025, 30 per cent by 2030, and then 100 per cent by 2040.

BC’s progress will be derailed by market turbulence triggered by Trump’s proposed policies. The removal of U.S. subsidies will be paired with his threat of 25 per cent tariffs on Canadian imports.

In addition to the likely reduction in EV supply, automakers like GM and Ford, which produce many of the EV models partially made in Canada for export to the American market, will be made more expensive and price Canadian-made EVs out of competition.

In BC, the EV battery plants being built in Ontario and Quebec will be delayed or even cancelled due to the lack of economic viability. Manufacturers will shift back to producing hybrid or gas-powered cars, hampering BC’s EV and ZEV targets.

As a result, BC consumers will be hit hard by the twin blows of inflated EV prices and slashed rebates. Provincial and federal budgets are already stretched, and CleanBC could be on the chopping block for cuts if the North American EV industry stagnates.

Charging infrastructure, another key component of BC’s EV strategy, might also suffer. As manufacturers like Tesla and GM scale back production, investments in public charging stations could decline, perpetuating range anxiety and further slowing EV adoption rates.

Trump should be taken at his word when he says EV subsidies will be slashed and tariffs will be imposed on Canadian markets. For BC, the stakes are even higher, and the choices made by the province’s leaders may determine if the CleanBC regime and the EV program will survive the next few years.

One thing is clear, the North American automarket is more unpredictable than it has ever been since NAFTA, and Canada as a whole does not hold the balance when it comes to leverage.

Continue Reading

Business

Mom sues Mattel after ‘Wicked’ doll packaging provided link to pornographic website

Published on

From LifeSiteNews

By Doug Mainwaring

“To her absolute shock the website, ‘Wicked.com’, had nothing to do with the Wicked Doll”

A South Carolina mom is suing toymaker Mattel after her young daughter accessed a pornographic website through a link provided on the packaging for a doll based on the new movie “Wicked.”

The mom, Holly Ricketson, recounted in her class action suit filed in Los Angeles federal court that her daughter “used an iPhone to visit the website shown” on the packaging, according to Entertainment Weekly.

“To her absolute shock the website, ‘Wicked.com’, had nothing to do with the Wicked Doll,” Entertainment Weekly reported. “Rather, Wicked.com pasted scenes of pornographic advertisements across her phone screen.”

The link intended to be included on the packaging was WickedMovie.com. The recently released blockbuster movie is based on the successful Broadway musical by the same name.

Ricketson and her daughter reportedly were both “horrified” by what they saw and suffered emotional distress.

“Parents trust that products marketed to children are safe and free from risks of exposure to harmful content,” said Roy T. Willey IV, one of the attorneys representing Ricketson.  “Unfortunately, that trust was broken in this instance.”

“This lawsuit is not just about recovering the cost of these dolls; it is about holding corporations accountable for the responsibility they have to safeguard children,” the attorney explained. “When a company markets a product to young children, it has an obligation to ensure that every aspect of that product — from its design to its packaging — is free of risks to their safety and well-being.”

“The Wicked Dolls have returned for sale with correct packaging at retailers online and in stores to meet the strong consumer demand for the products,” a spokesperson for Mattel told US Weekly. “The previous misprint on the packaging in no way impacts the value or play experience provided by the product itself in the limited number of units sold before the correction. We express our gratitude to our consumers and retailers for their understanding and patience while we worked to remedy the issue.”

The South Carolina mom’s lawsuit accuses Mattel of unjust enrichment, negligence and violation of California’s false advertising law, among other things, according to Entertainment Weekly.

Continue Reading

Trending

X