From LifeSiteNews

By Frank Wright

Dr. Benny Peiser recently spoke about how the E.U. and various European nations have started a ‘rollback’ of their climate agendas due to ‘increasing costs and increasing hostility from the public.’

A recent presentation given in Canada brings welcome news to the reality-based community: Net Zero’s days are numbered. The costs of the “utopian” green agenda have been realized, and the public are not buying it any more.

This is the message of Dr. Benny Peiser of the Global Warming Policy Foundation, who was in Calgary on April 9 to speak about “Europe’s Net Zero rebellion and the implications for Canada.”

“The game is over for anyone who is willing to commit industrial suicide through the implementation of Net Zero policies,” he says, going on to cite public opinion and political decisions which are driving the political agenda of the future.

Peiser shows how the European Union and the nations of Sweden, France, Germany, Britain, and Italy have started this “rollback” – due to “increasing costs and increasing hostility from the public.”

Saying that Canada, where he spoke, is “maybe five years” behind the Net Zero rollback in Europe, he said the agenda was in retreat there as its “astronomical” costs have now been grasped by the public.

“This is direct,” he says.

We have been telling [the public] for 15 years this will be very expensive … and your energy bills are going up because of the renewables.

This is all far too abstract for people. They don’t get that.

Citing reports which show that Net Zero will cost over a trillion euros a year, every year, he says:

This they get directly – the car they can’t drive, the way they heat their homes. What they’re allowed to do.

That has caused huge opposition and a lot of headache for governments.

Peiser says political parties across Europe have realized that they face being swept from power in the forthcoming elections in June.

Politics pivots back to reality

The headaches Peiser cites include the near collapse of the German government late last year over a policy to make heat pumps compulsory. A week after Peiser’s talk, news came that the Scottish coalition government has collapsed, with the Greens withdrawing support from the ruling SNP after the abandonment of climate change targets.

Politicians are faced with a choice between electoral oblivion and public opinion, and Peiser says this has led to structural change in European policy.

Peiser believes that the enormous public support behind the farmer protests, coupled with green policies creating crisis in the German government, has made the E.U. think again.

“As a result of these protests governments and the European Commission itself have begun to cave in,” Peiser said. “They are not just losing farmers but a large chunk of the public at the same time.”

Peiser is aware that election cycles see politicians shelve unpopular policies – only to resume them after the votes have been counted. Yet he notes a structural change in priorities.

“The E.U. in its draft agenda for the next five years has decided to relegate climate and shift to defense,” he continued, saying that the European Union is shifting from the green agenda to the “real agenda.”

This pivot to reality is one that is long overdue. As Peiser points out, the case for Net Zero is one that is made out of words, not of facts. To take one example, that of electric vehicles, he says “the biggest fear in Europe is not climate change. The biggest fear is cheap electric vehicles from China.”

The E.U.’s recent Net Zero Industry Act (NZIA) has been shaded by economic and industrial concerns, as well as fear from the climate lobby that it too is a rollback of Net Zero commitments.

Passed on April 25, its name alone would suggest business as usual for the climate agenda.

However, in a press conference introducing the Act last November, German “conservative” MEP Christian Ehler was keen to anticipate criticism from the Green lobby, saying “this is not an attempt to scrap social achievements or environmental law.”

Ehler’s emphasis here was on industry and whether Europe will have an economic and industrial future – or not.

Ehler stressed the need to keep industry “on our side” and that the past practices of regulation threatens the economic future of European industry,

It’s simply reflecting the very fact that our industry is burdened by regulation in a way that we can’t expect them to succeed – if we really want to have them on our side – and if we really have to have an economic future for the European industry.

READ: New documentary exposes climate agenda as ‘scam’ to increase globalist power and profit

An act in name only

This may explain why, according to two experts, the Act is in fact just words. Yet it is not only the threat of Green-inspired regulation which faces European industry.

Chinese dominance of the market has rendered E.U. Net Zero measures to create a “sustainable” industry producing “green technology” such as solar panels mere “paper tigers,” according to one analyst.

Simone Tagliapietra, a senior fellow at think-tank Bruegel said this in response to the E.U.’s new Act.

His comments, reported by Euractiv on April 26, included an explanation why the legislation “doesn’t change anything.”

A second analyst, Nils Redeker of the Berlin-based Jacques Delors Centre, agreed according to Euractiv that the new measures “could, in practice, and will most likely, be ignored.”

The green lights are going out all over Europe, most obviously in what was once its industrial and economic powerhouse.

Germany in crisis

Following a budget crisis which also threatened the survival of the German government’s “Red/Green/Yellow” or “traffic light” coalition last November, the former E.U. paymaster of Germany was said to be “likely in recession.”

The February 19 report by the Daily Telegraph noted the resulting “uncertainty” over Net Zero implementation. This is another sign of the impact of reality on the deeply unpopular policies of what Peiser called the “utopia” imagined by the Green lobby.

The Daily Telegraph also reported that the German central bank had warned of “no end in sight” for the “ongoing weakness” of Europe’s largest economy.

The Bundesbank added that “uncertainty regarding climate and transformation policy remains elevated.”

In his analysis of the electoral cost of Net Zero, Peiser seems to have read the room very well. The political climate has changed. 

As the British government is faced with power cuts over soaring demand for electricity, its refusal to build more gas-fired power stations may see the actual lights go out as well as the figurative beacon of an agenda the Conservative Party have greenlit for years.

U.K. climate chief quits

The outgoing head of the U.K.’s climate change committee has conceded that Net Zero is a toxic brand:

Net Zero has definitely become a slogan that I feel occasionally is now unhelpful, because it’s so associated with the campaigns against it.

Chris Stark, who looks exactly as you would imagine he would, blamed a minority faction of imaginary “culture warriors” whilst saying on April 22 in The Guardian that the cost of living was effectively irrelevant.

“It’s the culture warriors who have really taken against it,” said Stark. “A small group of politicians or political voices has moved in to say that net zero is something that you can’t afford, net zero is something that you should be afraid of … But we’ve still got to reduce emissions. In the end, that’s all that matters.”

Stark’s missionary zeal is untouched by a Europe-wide survey cited by in Peiser’s presentation. According to the survey, conducted in January by the European Council on Foreign Relations (ECFR), it is the climate zealots themselves who are the minority. 

With a sample from 12 European nations, it shows a clear majority in 10 countries for “reducing energy bills” over “reducing carbon emissions.” In Germany, support for lower energy costs is more than twice that for the higher ones promised by “reducing emissions.”

Peiser explained, “What [the survey] tells you is that a clear minority of Europeans are prioritizing the climate issue over their energy cost issue.”

READ: Climate expert warns against extreme ‘weather porn’ from alarmists pushing ‘draconian’ policies

Describing the clear majority of European citizens against the cost of Net Zero, he says “that is the most dramatic change I’ve seen in the last 20 years.” 

This “realization of cost moment” is one which Peiser shows had been predicted in the 1970s by Anthony Downs, whose “issue attention cycle” predicted public understanding of the true cost as the point beyond which climate policies will no longer enjoy public support.

The graph roughly charts the interest and support of the public, which moves from ignorance of the “problem” to generate public support through a sense of alarm. This enthusiasm steeply fades as the public realizes the price of the product they have been sold. 

Yet this process is based on the common sense to the common man. The U.K.’s former climate change chief Christopher Stark is immune to this determining factor. 

He displays the alarming detachment from reality which typifies the Net Zero zealot, and which Peiser warns is proving electorally – and industrially – suicidal.  

Speaking of the implementation of Net Zero, Stark claimed, against rapid deindustrialization, soaring energy prices, and former measures to restrict cars and home heating to costly and inferior alternatives, that “the lifestyle change that goes with this is not enormous at all.” 

This also ignores the likely “power cuts” that Britain will face, given a massive upsurge in Net Zero-driven electricity demand.

The Daily Telegraph, reporting accusations from the Green lobby that Rishi Sunak was “abandoning” Net Zero, said on March 17 that without more gas fired power generation, support for Net Zero “would collapse.”

The report continued that “the U.K. would almost certainly endure power cuts, causing civic and commercial havoc, without more gas-fired baseload in place.” 

The piece concludes with a verdict which is now becoming a theme: “And then the case for tackling climate change, already increasingly questioned, would become politically toxic.”

The rule of law – or the rule of lawyers

As Peiser notes, this toxification has weakened the power of politics itself, with the rule of law being replaced by the rule of lawyers. He notes a recent ruling by the European Court of Human Rights, which condemned the Swiss government for “violations of the Convention [on Human Rights] for failing to implement sufficient measures to combat climate change.” 

Peiser said the ruling showed that democratic majorities do not have the legal power to refuse an agenda enforced by activist judges. He went on:

The judges in their in their ruling said it’s kind of naive to think that democracy would work just with majorities in Parliament and that only judges can rule or decide what makes legal sense – that’s why it’s so important for judges to tell parliaments what they should do. 

That’s essentially what they were saying today.

Peiser was speaking on the same day the ruling was announced, which according to a Swiss report will “have a direct impact on the Council of Europe’s 46 member states” and that “its ramifications will extend to the whole world.” 

This element of legal insurrection is one direct example of how the sovereignty of democracy is being undermined. In this case, a group of elderly female climate campaigners received a sympathetic hearing from the ECHR’s presiding judge, Siofra O’Leary. Her judgment overruled the Swiss courts’ dismissal of the case. It read:

The Court found that the national courts had not provided convincing reasons as to why they had considered it unnecessary to examine the merits of the complaints. They had failed to take into consideration the compelling scientific evidence concerning climate change and had not taken the association’s complaints seriously.

As Peiser warns, we are ruled by Science Followers, whose emotional enthusiasm for the climate panic talks past the costs of the sale of this agenda. It is a product which most people now recognize promises the permanent collapse of living standards in the West, and is taking democracy down with cries for climate “justice.”

Suicidal policy vs. ‘populism’

Peiser says Net Zero is already “suicidal” – and not in name only. Changing the branding will not wash with voters, Peiser says, as the impact of cost and on freedom is “direct.” 

This, he says, is what is driving the beginning of the end of Net Zero. 

“Europeans have been told that this Net Zero issue and renewables and so on will make life easier for people.” Instead, he says, “the opposite has happened.”

They’ve been told that energy costs would go down. They’ve gone up.

He observes a factor which could apply to practically any of the policies he also claims are driving “populism.” 

So people are beginning to realize that what they’ve been told hasn’t actually materialized. 

The opposite has materialized.

Peiser himself notes that this “opposite effect” is driving the rise of “populist parties … skeptical of mass immigration, of Net Zero and of other mainstream policies.” 

He says, “I don’t know exactly why they’re called populist but something makes them popular.”

Yet his own presentation shows a simple explanation. What is called “populism” is simply a reaction to the insanity of the policies of national suicide presented as wisdom. The emergence of these parties is the opposite reaction to a political system whose every argument is a contradiction of reality. 

Peiser says that this political correction is coming, and soon.

The mainstream parties are concerned that they will hemorrhaging voters. 

That’s what the prospects are for the elections in June.

His assessment is shared by the European Council on Foreign Relations, which predicted a “sharp right turn” in the forthcoming E.U. Parliament elections. 

He says that for Europe “there might be – for the first time – a center right populist majority in Parliament. If that were to happen of course all bets are off.” 

What is more, Peiser concludes that political climate change is coming home – to yours:

That’s the situation in Europe which sooner or later will come to a theater close to you.

Construction workers look on at the FortisBC Tilbury LNG expansion project in Delta, B.C., Monday, Nov. 16, 2015. CP Images photo

From the Canadian Energy Centre

By Ven Venkatachalam

Lower costs for natural gas, shipping and liquefaction give Canada an edge in the emerging global LNG market

Worldwide concerns about energy security have put a renewed focus on the international liquefied natural gas (LNG) industry. The global demand for LNG is expected to increase over the next few decades.

Global demand growth will be driven primarily by Asian markets where the need for LNG is expected to increase from 277 million tonnes (MT) in 2025 to 509 MT by 2050 (see Figure 1). By 2050 the demand for LNG in Europe will be 83 MT and in Africa 20 MT. In South America too, demand will increase – from 13 MT in 2025 to 31 MT in 2050.

Source: Derived from Rystad Energy, Gas and LNG Markets Solution.

In North America (Canada, Mexico, and United States) a number of LNG projects that are either under construction or in the planning stages will benefit from the rise in global LNG demand.

North American LNG production is expected to grow from 112 MT in 2025 to over 255 MT by 2050 (see Figure 2). In Canada, the LNG projects under construction or in the planning stages include LNG Canada Phases 1 & 2, Woodfibre LNG, Cedar LNG, the Tilbury LNG expansion, and Ksi Lisims LNG. Canada’s LNG production is expected to grow from just 2 MT in 2025 to over 43 MT by 2050. In the United States production is projected to increase from 108 MT in 2025 to 210 MT in 2050.

Source: Derived from Rystad Energy, Gas and LNG Markets Solution.

This CEC Fact Sheet uses Rystad Energy’s Gas and LNG Markets Solution¹ to benchmark the cost competitiveness of LNG projects that are under construction and proposed in Canada compared to other LNG projects under construction and planned elsewhere in North America. (Note that the content of this report does not represent the views of Rystad Energy.)

The LNG cost competitiveness benchmarking analysis used the following performance metrics:

• LNG plant free-on-board (FOB) cost break-even;
• Total LNG plant cost (for delivery into Asia and Europe).

The objective of this LNG cost competitiveness benchmarking is to compare the competitiveness of Canadian LNG projects against those of major competitors in the United States and Mexico. The selection of other North American LNG facilities for the benchmark comparison with Canadian LNG projects (LNG Canada, the Tilbury LNG Expansion, Woodfibre LNG, Cedar LNG, and Ksi Lisims LNG) is based on the rationale that virtually all Canadian LNG plants are under construction or in the planning stage and that they compare well with other North American LNG plants that are also under construction or are being planned between 2023 and 2050. Further, to assess the cost competitiveness of the various LNG projects more accurately, we chose only North American LNG facilities with sufficient economic data to enable such a comparison. We compared the cost competitiveness of LNG coming from these other North American projects with LNG coming from Canada that is intended to be delivered to markets in Asia and Europe.

1. Rystad Energy is an independent energy research company providing data, analytics, and consultancy services to clients around the globe. Its Gas and LNG Markets Solution provides an overview of LNG markets worldwide. The Solution covers the entire value chain associated with gas and LNG production, country and sector-level demand, and LNG trade flows, infrastructure, economics, costs, and contracts through 2050. It allows for the evaluation of the entire LNG market infrastructure, including future planned projects, as well as the benchmarking of costs for LNG projects (Rystad Energy, 2024).

Comparison of LNG project FOB cost break-even (full cycle)

Figure 3 provides a comparison of the free-on-board (FOB) cost break-even for LNG facilities under construction or being planned in North America. FOB break-even costs include upstream and midstream costs for LNG excluding transportation costs (shipping) as seen from the current year. Break-even prices assume a discount rate of 10 percent and represent the point at which the net present value for an LNG project over a 20- to 30-year period becomes positive, including the payment of capital and operating costs, inclusive of taxes.

Among the selected group of North American LNG projects are Canadian LNG projects with an FOB break-even at the lower end of the range (US$7.18 per thousand cubic feet (kcf)) to those at the higher end (US$8.64 per thousand cubic feet (kcf)).

LNG projects in the United States tend to settle in the middle of the pack, with FOB break-even between US$6.44 per kcf and US$8.37 per kcf.

Mexico LNG projects have the widest variation in costs among the selected group of projects, ranging from US$6.94 per kcf to US$9.44 per kcf (see Figure 3).

Source: Derived from Rystad Energy, Gas and LNG Markets Solution.

Total costs by project for LNG delivery to Asia and Europe

The total cost by LNG plant includes FOB cost break-even, transportation costs, and the regasification tariff. Figure 4 compares total project costs for LNG destined for Asia from selected North American LNG facilities.

Canadian LNG projects are very cost competitive, and those with Asia as their intended market tend to cluster at the lower end of the scale. The costs vary by project, but range between US$8.10 per kcf and US$9.56 per kcf, making Canadian LNG projects among the lowest cost projects in North America.

The costs for Mexico’s LNG projects with Asia as the intended destination for their product tend to cluster in the middle of the pack. Costs among U.S. LNG facilities that plan to send their product to Asia tend to sit at the higher end of the scale, at between US$8.90 and US$10.80 per kcf.

Source: Derived from Rystad Energy, Gas and LNG Markets Solution.

Figure 5 compares total project costs for LNG to be delivered to Europe from select North American LNG facilities.

Costs from U.S. LNG facilities show the widest variation for this market at between US$7.48 per kcf and US$9.42 per kcf, but the majority of U.S. LNG facilities tend to cluster at the lower end of the cost scale, between US$7.48 per kcf and US$8.61 per kcf (see Figure 5).

Canadian projects that intend to deliver LNG to Europe show a variety of costs that tend to cluster at the middle to higher end of the spectrum, ranging from US$9.60 per kcf to and US$11.06 per kcf.

The costs of Mexico’s projects that are aimed at delivering LNG to Europe tend to cluster in the middle of the spectrum (US$9.11 per kcf to US$10.61 per kcf).

Source: Derived from Rystad Energy, Gas and LNG Markets Solution.

Conclusion

LNG markets are complex. Each project is unique and presents its own challenges. The future of Canadian LNG projects depends upon the overall demand and supply in the global LNG market. As the demand for LNG increases in the next decades, the world will be searching for energy security.

The lower liquefaction and shipping costs coupled with the lower cost of the natural gas itself in Western Canada translate into lower prices for Canadian LNG, particularly that destined for Asian markets. Those advantages will help make Canadian LNG very competitive and attractive to markets worldwide.