Energy
Why carbon emissions will fall under Trump
MxM News
Quick Hit:
In a recent op-ed for RealClearEnergy, Benjamin Dierker argues that carbon emissions will decrease under the administration of President Donald Trump, despite criticism from environmentalists. Dierker points to historical trends and the potential for innovation as key factors. He contends that reducing government regulation and embracing performance-based incentives will lead to more efficient and cleaner energy solutions.
Key Details:
-
In his first week back in office, President Trump exited the Paris Climate Accord, removed restrictions on LNG exports, and boosted the hydrocarbon industry, prompting environmentalists to warn of climate setbacks.
-
Dierker predicts that by 2030, these moves will result in lower carbon dioxide and greenhouse gas emissions due to increased innovation.
-
He argues that historical data shows U.S. carbon emissions have been declining since peaking in 2005-2007, largely due to the shift from coal to natural gas.
Diving Deeper:
Benjamin Dierker, writing for RealClearEnergy, challenges conventional environmental narratives by predicting a decline in carbon emissions under President Donald Trump’s administration. In his op-ed, “Why Carbon Emissions Will Fall Under Trump,” Dierker cites historical trends and advances in innovation as reasons why emissions will decrease despite the administration’s pro-hydrocarbon policies.
Dierker highlights Trump’s early actions, including exiting the Paris Climate Accord, lifting LNG export restrictions, and promoting hydrocarbon development in Alaska and across the U.S. These moves have drawn sharp criticism from environmentalists who argue that rolling back regulations will result in higher emissions and environmental degradation. However, Dierker argues the opposite, stating, “I believe that by 2030, the impact of this administration will be less carbon dioxide and greenhouse gases. The simple reason: innovation.”
Pointing to historical context, Dierker notes that while U.S. carbon dioxide emissions grew for a century, they peaked between 2005 and 2007 and have since been declining. He attributes this decrease not to international climate agreements but to technological advancements, particularly hydraulic fracturing and the increased use of natural gas. According to Dierker, “The story of the 21st Century to date has been more efficient energy resources displacing less efficient ones.”
Dierker challenges the notion that economic growth inherently leads to more emissions, noting that between 2000 and 2020, the U.S. population grew by nearly 20%, while annual CO2 emissions fell by 20%. He attributes this to enhanced efficiency and technological progress, emphasizing that “serving this larger population with new power, water, internet, and roadways was more efficient over time, not necessitating greater emissions.”
Dierker also argues that Trump’s focus on deregulation will not lead to increased pollution, as critics suggest. He explains that many businesses have already made capital-intensive investments in clean and efficient technologies that they are unlikely to abandon simply because regulations are removed. He contends, “The technology and assets already in place are clean, efficient, and powerful; they won’t be abandoned because the regulations go away.”
Further, Dierker criticizes prescriptive regulations, which mandate specific technologies or methods, for stifling innovation. He points to the 45Q tax credit, which incentivizes carbon capture technology but fails to encourage more efficient methods, such as processes that decarbonize natural gas by separating hydrogen and solid carbon. He asserts, “One that yields two valuable co-products: clean hydrogen for power and industrial use and solid carbon to serve as a construction material to build and improve American infrastructure.”
Dierker concludes with optimism, suggesting that Trump’s regulatory approach, coupled with innovation, will lead to “greater safety, efficiency, and resilience of our nation’s infrastructure, supply chains, and industry.” He predicts that the U.S. will continue to reduce emissions while enhancing its economic and industrial capacities, ultimately leading to “a cleaner and healthier America.”
Alberta
Alberta Premier Danielle Smith Discusses Moving Energy Forward at the Global Energy Show in Calgary
From Energy Now
At the energy conference in Calgary, Alberta Premier Danielle Smith pressed the case for building infrastructure to move provincial products to international markets, via a transportation and energy corridor to British Columbia.
“The anchor tenant for this corridor must be a 42-inch pipeline, moving one million incremental barrels of oil to those global markets. And we can’t stop there,” she told the audience.
The premier reiterated her support for new pipelines north to Grays Bay in Nunavut, east to Churchill, Man., and potentially a new version of Energy East.
The discussion comes as Prime Minister Mark Carney and his government are assembling a list of major projects of national interest to fast-track for approval.
Carney has also pledged to establish a major project review office that would issue decisions within two years, instead of five.
Alberta
Punishing Alberta Oil Production: The Divisive Effect of Policies For Carney’s “Decarbonized Oil”
From Energy Now
By Ron Wallace
The federal government has doubled down on its commitment to “responsibly produced oil and gas”. These terms are apparently carefully crafted to maintain federal policies for Net Zero. These policies include a Canadian emissions cap, tanker bans and a clean electricity mandate.
Following meetings in Saskatoon in early June between Prime Minister Mark Carney and Canadian provincial and territorial leaders, the federal government expressed renewed interest in the completion of new oil pipelines to reduce reliance on oil exports to the USA while providing better access to foreign markets. However Carney, while suggesting that there is “real potential” for such projects nonetheless qualified that support as being limited to projects that would “decarbonize” Canadian oil, apparently those that would employ carbon capture technologies. While the meeting did not result in a final list of potential projects, Alberta Premier Danielle Smith said that this approach would constitute a “grand bargain” whereby new pipelines to increase oil exports could help fund decarbonization efforts. But is that true and what are the implications for the Albertan and Canadian economies?
The federal government has doubled down on its commitment to “responsibly produced oil and gas”. These terms are apparently carefully crafted to maintain federal policies for Net Zero. These policies include a Canadian emissions cap, tanker bans and a clean electricity mandate. Many would consider that Canadians, especially Albertans, should be wary of these largely undefined announcements in which Ottawa proposes solely to determine projects that are “in the national interest.”
The federal government has tabled legislation designed to address these challenges with Bill C-5: An Act to enact the Free Trade and Labour Mobility Act and the Building Canada Act (the One Canadian Economy Act). Rather than replacing controversial, and challenged, legislation like the Impact Assessment Act, the Carney government proposes to add more legislation designed to accelerate and streamline regulatory approvals for energy and infrastructure projects. However, only those projects that Ottawa designates as being in the national interest would be approved. While clearer, shorter regulatory timelines and the restoration of the Major Projects Office are also proposed, Bill C-5 is to be superimposed over a crippling regulatory base.
It remains to be seen if this attempt will restore a much-diminished Canadian Can-Do spirit for economic development by encouraging much-needed, indeed essential interprovincial teamwork across shared jurisdictions. While the Act’s proposed single approval process could provide for expedited review timelines, a complex web of regulatory processes will remain in place requiring much enhanced interagency and interprovincial coordination. Given Canada’s much-diminished record for regulatory and policy clarity will this legislation be enough to persuade the corporate and international capital community to consider Canada as a prime investment destination?
As with all complex matters the devil always lurks in the details. Notably, these federal initiatives arrive at a time when the Carney government is facing ever-more pressing geopolitical, energy security and economic concerns. The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development predicts that Canada’s economy will grow by a dismal one per cent in 2025 and 1.1 per cent in 2026 – this at a time when the global economy is predicted to grow by 2.9 per cent.
It should come as no surprise that Carney’s recent musing about the “real potential” for decarbonized oil pipelines have sparked debate. The undefined term “decarbonized”, is clearly aimed directly at western Canadian oil production as part of Ottawa’s broader strategy to achieve national emissions commitments using costly carbon capture and storage (CCS) projects whose economic viability at scale has been questioned. What might this mean for western Canadian oil producers?
The Alberta Oil sands presently account for about 58% of Canada’s total oil output. Data from December 2023 show Alberta producing a record 4.53 million barrels per day (MMb/d) as major oil export pipelines including Trans Mountain, Keystone and the Enbridge Mainline operate at high levels of capacity. Meanwhile, in 2023 eastern Canada imported on average about 490,000 barrels of crude oil per day (bpd) at a cost estimated at CAD $19.5 billion. These seaborne shipments to major refineries (like New Brunswick’s Irving Refinery in Saint John) rely on imported oil by tanker with crude oil deliveries to New Brunswick averaging around 263,000 barrels per day. In 2023 the estimated total cost to Canada for imported crude oil was $19.5 billion with oil imports arriving from the United States (72.4%), Nigeria (12.9%), and Saudi Arabia (10.7%). Since 1988, marine terminals along the St. Lawrence have seen imports of foreign oil valued at more than $228 billion while the Irving Oil refinery imported $136 billion from 1988 to 2020.
What are the policy and cost implication of Carney’s call for the “decarbonization” of western Canadian produced, oil? It implies that western Canadian “decarbonized” oil would have to be produced and transported to competitive world markets under a material regulatory and financial burden. Meanwhile, eastern Canadian refiners would be allowed to import oil from the USA and offshore jurisdictions free from any comparable regulatory burdens. This policy would penalize, and makes less competitive, Canadian producers while rewarding offshore sources. A federal regulatory requirement to decarbonize western Canadian crude oil production without imposing similar restrictions on imported oil would render the One Canadian Economy Act moot and create two market realities in Canada – one that favours imports and that discourages, or at very least threatens the competitiveness of, Canadian oil export production.
Ron Wallace is a former Member of the National Energy Board.
How Chinese State-Linked Networks Replaced the Medellín Model with Global Logistics and Political Protection
New RCMP program steering opioid addicted towards treatment and recovery
Trump deploys National Guard to Los Angeles after violent attacks on ICE agents
LA Mayor Karen Bass Makes New Demands Of Trump At Monday Night Press Conference
Natural gas pipeline ownership spreads across 36 First Nations in B.C.
Affordable Energy: Everything you need to know about energy and the environment
