Connect with us

Economy

Feds outline $83B in clean economy tax credits in bid to compete with U.S. incentive

Published

7 minute read

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance Chrystia Freeland arrive to deliver the federal budget in the House of Commons on Parliament Hill in Ottawa, Tuesday, March 28, 2023. THE CANADIAN PRESS/Justin Tang

Serious money is heading for Canadian industries looking to reduce emissions after the federal government unveiled its answer to the U.S. Inflation Reduction Act.

The spending commitments announced in Tuesday’s federal budget include tax credits for investments in clean electricity, clean-tech manufacturing, and hydrogen that together are expected to cost some $55 billion through to the 2034-35 fiscal year.

Total tax incentives amount to almost $83 billion over that timeframe when the carbon capture and storage and clean-tech investments credits announced last year are factored in, both of which saw minor boosts this round.

The government says the funding is necessary to boost clean economy spending from some $15 billion a year to the $100 billion a year needed. The spending is also needed to not fall behind as other countries roll out subsidies, most notably with the US$369 billion contained in the landmark U.S. legislation passed last year.

“In what is the most significant economic transformation since the Industrial Revolution, our friends and partners around the world, chief among them the United States, are investing heavily to build clean economies,” said Deputy Prime Minister Chrystia Freeland as she introduced the budget.

Tax credits are the backbone of the effort because they are stable and efficient way to roll out government support, while leaving decision-making with the expertise of the private sector, said a senior government official in the budget lockup.

Clean electricity is the biggest focus of the credits, costing $6.3 billion over the first four years starting in 2024, and $25.7 billion through to the 2034-35 year. Notably, provincial utilities and Indigenous-owned corporations will be eligible for the credits.

The spending is meant to help spur both more generation, as well as a better-connected east-west grid to meet the expected doubling of electricity demand by 2050.

The clean electricity package is where the government has likely done enough to meet its goals, said Michael Bernstein, executive director of Clean Prosperity.

Other funding areas however, including the $11.1 billion in credits for manufacturing and $12.4 billion for carbon capture through to 2034, likely aren’t enough to close the gap with what the U.S. is offering, he said.

“It really is one of those situations where your competitor has stepped up and said we are going to be providing an almost unthinkable amount of money.”

Canada has opted for construction-focused project support, while the U.S. IRA covers operational costs with payments based on production volumes. It’s like Canada is offering a single large cup of soda, whereas the U.S. is offering endless kiddy-cup sized refills, meaning Canada needs to offer a pretty big cup to compete, said Bernstein.

Since it’s not covering operations, Canada needs to move quickly on offering the carbon pricing backstop that it’s promised to develop in the budget, he said.

The so-called contracts for difference would provide certainty to industry on future carbon pricing and credits, but so far they’re still in consultation, as are several other key policies.

“What surprised me was how many things are still left to be determined,” said Rachel Samson, vice-president of research at the Institute for Research on Public Policy.

Along with the contacts for difference, she noted that details are scarce about how the $15 billion Canada Growth Fund will be spent.

The government announced in the budget that the fund will be administered independently by the Public Sector Pension Investment Board, with money starting to flow in the first half of the year, but didn’t provide guidance on priority areas.

Samson said it was good the government isn’t trying to direct the money itself, but worried that pension fund managers are too cautious to put the money in the bold projects needed.

“We need projects that are more on the cutting-edge, that are riskier.”

The government also pushed down the road any commitments on biofuels such as sustainable jet fuels, which surprised Samson as Canada is currently exporting the raw wood pellet feedstock and knows companies have projects ready to go.

The budget was also notable for what wasn’t in it for the oil and gas industry. While it did tweak last year’s carbon capture incentives, it didn’t go as far as some were pushing for, while the emissions cut-off for hydrogen production will likely exclude most carbon-capture based hydrogen projects.

“Oil and gas did not get a lot of what I think it wanted in this,” said Samson.

The lack of funding comes as climate advocacy groups have pushed against support for both programs as wasteful projects that don’t achieve the emission cuts needed in the near term, while also pushing against support for an industry that has reported record profits.

The government has also framed the budget as one of fiscal restraint that it hopes will allow private capital to do much of the heavy lifting to keep Canada in the running.

“Canada must either meet this historic moment, this remarkable opportunity before us, or we will be left behind as the world’s democracies build the clean economy of the 21st century,” said Freeland.

This report by The Canadian Press was first published March 28, 2023.

Storytelling is in our DNA. We provide credible, compelling multimedia storytelling and services in English and French to help captivate your digital, broadcast and print audiences. As Canada’s national news agency for 100 years, we give Canadians an unbiased news source, driven by truth, accuracy and timeliness.

Follow Author

Economy

Trump’s Promise Of American Abundance, Fueled By ‘Liquid Gold’

Published on

From the Daily Caller News Foundation

By JAMES P. PINKERTON

 

One of the brightest nuggets of policy in Donald Trump’s July 18 acceptance speech to the Republican convention in Milwaukee was his ode to “liquid gold.” That is, oil.

As part of his inflation-fighting plan, Trump offered a gleaming solution: increase energy production, thereby decreasing energy prices. “By slashing energy costs,” Trump declared, “we will in turn reduce the cost of transportation, manufacturing and all household goods.”

He continued: “We have more liquid gold under our feet than any other country by far. We are a nation that has the opportunity to make an absolute fortune with its energy.”

Indeed. According to the Institute for Energy Research (IER) technically recoverable oil resources in the U.S. total 2.136 trillion barrels. At the current price of around $80 a barrel, that’s some $171 trillion. And so, Trump concluded, “we will reduce our debt, $36 trillion.”

As former Alaska governor Sarah Palin would say, “You betcha.” In Palin’s Alaska, oil is so abundant, relative to the population, that everyone gets a check from the state. Last year, it was $1,312. For a family of four, that’s more than $5000. Our goal should be that every American gets such an energy dividend.

Moreover, the abundance of America’s carbon fuels is not limited to oil. According to IER, we have 3.391 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. That’s worth $165 trillion.

To be sure, these staggering dollar totals can’t be counted directly against the national debt—or in support of some future tax cut. Yet every dollar of our energy assets would contribute to the economy, and if even 10  percent of the humongous total could be available to the public, we could, in fact, pay off the national debt.

Moreover, thanks to fracking and other enhanced recovery techniques, we keep finding more energy: Human ingenuity has upended old beliefs about energy shortages, ushering in an almost Moore’s Law-ish surge in production.

Indeed, there’s so much oil and gas (and coal) that an emerging school of thought holds that carbon fuels aren’t “fossil” at all, but rather, the product of earth’s vulcanism. The core of this earth, after all, is the same temperature as the surface of the sun. Perhaps all that heat is cooking something.

In any case, we keep finding more oil, and not just in the U.S.

So how, exactly, do we take advantage of this planetary cornucopia? As Palin said, as Trump said, and as the convention crowd chanted, “drill, baby, drill.”

Okay, but what about climate change? Most Republicans don’t worry too much about that, but if Democrats do, they should be reassured that we can capture the carbon and so take it out of the atmosphere. Trees and other green vegetation have been capturing carbon for eons; the element is, in fact, vital to their very existence. Similarly, the human body is 18 percent carbon. Yes, all of us ourselves are carbon sinks.

So we, being smart, can capture vastly more carbon — capturing it in everything from wood to cement, from plastics to nanotubes. These in turn can be landfill, construction materials — maybe even a space elevator.

We can, in fact, establish a a circular carbon economy: carbon fuels extracted, burned, and then recycled back into feedstocks. By this reckoning, carbon fuels are renewable. Such creative thinking can power all those energy-hungry data centers on which Big Tech and AI depend. So there’s the makings of a bipartisan “Grand Carbon Bargain,” uniting mostly blue-state tech with mostly red-state energy. More energy + more tech = more wealth for all.

In Milwaukee, Trump spoke of American “energy dominance,” and that’s great. But with all the energy we can produce and consume, we can speak of economic abundance — and that’s even greater.

James P. Pinkerton served in the White House domestic policy offices of Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush. He is the author, most recently, of “The Secret of Directional Investing: Making Money Amidst the Red-Blue Rumble.”

Continue Reading

armed forces

Trudeau pledges another $500 million to Ukraine as Canadian military suffers

Published on

From LifeSiteNews

By Clare Marie Merkowsky

Despite the nation’s own armed forces grappling with an alarming recruitment crisis, Justin Trudeau and his government have poured over $13.3 billion into Ukraine.

More Canadians tax dollars are being sent overseas as Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has promised an additional $500 million in military aid to Ukraine. 

During a July 10 meeting with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, Trudeau announced that he would send another $500 million to Ukraine as it continues its war against Russia, despite an ongoing decline in Canada’s military recruitment.  

“We’re happy to offer we’re announcing today $500 million more military aid this year for Ukraine, to help through this very difficult situation,” Trudeau said. 

In addition to the $500 million, Canada will also provide much of Ukraine’s fighter jet pilot training as Ukraine receives its first F-16s. 

Trudeau’s statement comes after Canada has been under fire for failing to meet NATO’s mandate that all members commit at least two percent of their gross domestic product (GDP) to the military alliance. 

According to his 2024 budget, Trudeau plans to spend $8.1 billion over five years, starting in 2024-25, and $73.0 billion over 20 years on the Department of National Defence.   

Interestingly, $8.1 billion divided equally over five years is $1,620,000 each year for the Canadian military. Therefore, Trudeau’s pledge of $500 million means he is spending just under a third on Ukraine compared to what he plans to spend on Canadians.  

Indeed, Trudeau seems reluctant to spend money on the Canadian military, as evidenced when Canadian troops in Latvia were forced to purchase their own helmets and food when the Trudeau government failed to provide proper supplies.  

Weeks later, Trudeau lectured the same troops on “climate change” and disinformation.       

However, at the same time, Trudeau readily sends Canadian tax dollars overseas to Ukraine. Since the Russia-Ukraine war began in 2022, Canada has given Ukraine over $13.3 billion, including $4 billion in direct military assistance.    

In May, Trudeau’s office announced $3.02 billion in funding for Ukraine, including millions of taxpayer dollars to promote “gender-inclusive demining.”  

Trudeau’s ongoing funding for Ukraine comes as many Canadians are struggling to pay for basics such as food, shelter, and heating. According to a recent government report, fast-rising food costs in Canada have led to many people feeling a sense of “hopelessness and desperation” with nowhere to turn for help.  

Continue Reading

Trending

X