Connect with us
[the_ad id="89560"]

Business

Ottawa should end war on plastics for sake of the environment

Published

4 minute read

From the Fraser Institute

By Kenneth P. Green

Here’s the shocker: Meng shows that for 15 out of the 16 uses, plastic products incur fewer GHG emissions than their alternatives…

For example, when you swap plastic grocery bags for paper, you get 80 per cent higher GHG emissions. Substituting plastic furniture for wood—50 per cent higher GHG emissions. Substitute plastic-based carpeting with wool—80 per cent higher GHG emissions.

It’s been known for years that efforts to ban plastic products—and encourage people to use alternatives such as paper, metal or glass—can backfire. By banning plastic waste and plastic products, governments lead consumers to switch to substitutes, but those substitutes, mainly bulkier and heavier paper-based products, mean more waste to manage.

Now a new study by Fanran Meng of the University of Sheffield drives the point home—plastic substitutes are not inherently better for the environment. Meng uses comprehensive life-cycle analysis to understand how plastic substitutes increase or decrease greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by assessing the GHG emissions of 16 uses of plastics in five major plastic-using sectors: packaging, building and construction, automotive, textiles and consumer durables. These plastics, according to Meng, account for about 90 per cent of global plastic volume.

Here’s the shocker: Meng shows that for 15 out of the 16 uses, plastic products incur fewer GHG emissions than their alternatives. Read that again. When considering 90 per cent of global plastic use, alternatives to plastic lead to greater GHG emissions than the plastic products they displace. For example, when you swap plastic grocery bags for paper, you get 80 per cent higher GHG emissions. Substituting plastic furniture for wood—50 per cent higher GHG emissions. Substitute plastic-based carpeting with wool—80 per cent higher GHG emissions.

A few substitutions were GHG neutral, such as swapping plastic drinking cups and milk containers with paper alternatives. But overall, in the 13 uses where a plastic product has lower emissions than its non-plastic alternatives, the GHG emission impact is between 10 per cent and 90 per cent lower than the next-best alternatives.

Meng concludes that “Across most applications, simply switching from plastics to currently available non-plastic alternatives is not a viable solution for reducing GHG emissions. Therefore, care should be taken when formulating policies or interventions to reduce plastic demand that they result in the removal of the plastics from use rather than a switch to an alternative material” adding that “applying material substitution strategies to plastics never really makes sense.” Instead, Meng suggests that policies encouraging re-use of plastic products would more effectively reduce GHG emissions associated with plastics, which, globally, are responsible for 4.5 per cent of global emissions.

The Meng study should drive the last nail into the coffin of the war on plastics. This study shows that encouraging substitutes for plastic—a key element of the Trudeau government’s climate plan—will lead to higher GHG emissions than sticking with plastics, making it more difficult to achieve the government’s goal of making Canada a “net-zero” emitter of GHG by 2050.

Clearly, the Trudeau government should end its misguided campaign against plastic products, “single use” or otherwise. According to the evidence, plastic bans and substitution policies not only deprive Canadians of products they value (and in many cases, products that protect human health), they are bad for the environment and bad for the climate. The government should encourage Canadians to reuse their plastic products rather than replace them.

Automotive

Government subsidies cost more than EV capital investments

Published on

From the Canadian Taxpayers Federation

Author: Franco Terrazzano

The Canadian Taxpayers Federation is calling for an end to corporate welfare following today’s Parliamentary Budget Officer report showing government subsidies are 14 per cent more than the capital investments corporations are making in the electric-vehicle supply chain.

“Putting taxpayers on the hook for more money than these corporations are spending to build their own factories is an awful deal for ordinary Canadians,” said Franco Terrazzano, CTF Federal Director. “Taxpayers are being taken to the cleaners with this EV corporate welfare.”

The PBO released a report regarding recent government subsidies for EV factories.

“For the $46.1 billion in investments (capital expenses) across the EV supply chain, PBO estimates total corresponding government support (for capital and operating expenses) to be up to $52.5 billion, which is $6.3 billion (14 per cent) higher than announced investments,” according to the PBO report.

Of the $52.5 billion in taxpayer subsidies, the PBO estimates $31.4 billion is coming from the federal government and $21.1 billion is coming from provincial governments.

“These lopsided numbers show that these corporate handouts are nothing more than a vanity project for politicians,” said Jay Goldberg, CTF Ontario Director. “If these politicians want to grow the economy, they should cut taxes and red tape rather than make bad bets with taxpayers’ money.”

Continue Reading

Alberta

Alberta gets credit boost because of budget discipline

Published on

News release from the Canadian Taxpayers Federation

Author: Kris Sim

“bringing net adjusted debt to an estimated CAD 57.5 billion in fiscal 2024 (ended on March 31) from CAD 74.6 billion in fiscal 2022”

The Canadian Taxpayers Federation is applauding the Alberta government for its fiscal discipline which earned the province a boost in its credit rating.

“Alberta is one of the only provinces in Canada with a balanced budget, and it shows with this credit upgrade,” said Kris Sims, CTF Alberta Director. “Paying down the debt, restraining spending and saving for the future were very good moves by this government.”

In its most recent budget, Alberta reported a $367-million surplus. That stands in contrast to neighbouring Saskatchewan’s $273-million deficit and British Columbia’s record-breaking $7.9-billion deficit.

The rating agency, Fitch, upgraded Alberta’s credit from AA- to AA this week, highlighting its debt repayment as a key reason for the improvement.

“Alberta used its recent economic rebound to accelerate fiscal improvements and lower its debt, bringing net adjusted debt to an estimated CAD 57.5 billion in fiscal 2024 (ended on March 31) from CAD 74.6 billion in fiscal 2022,” the Fitch report reads.

The agency also cited Alberta’s spending restraint as a reason for the positive outlook.

“The rapid decline in debt and adherence to spending restraint in recent budgets have been complement with last year’s introduction of a fiscal framework requiring balanced budgets, annual contingencies and using surpluses for debt repayment, savings or one-time investment, is likely to bolster future resilience,” the Fitch report reads.

Interest charges on the province’s debt are estimated to cost taxpayers $3.3 billion this year.

“Credit ratings matter because Albertans pay billions of dollars on interest payments on the debt every year, better credit ratings make it less expensive to pay for that debt, and the less money we waste to pay debt interest charges the better,” said Sims.

 

Continue Reading

Trending

X