Energy
Why Eastern Canada Needs to Support Western Provinces and Reject the Government’s Energy Policies
From EnergyNow.ca
By Catherine Swift
There are currently about 400 different laws, regulations, taxes and other measures in Canada that serve as greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction measures. No one has a clue which of them are effective or useless or how much they are damaging our economy and reducing Canadians’ standard of living needlessly.
Much of the commentary on the Carney-Smith pipeline Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) has focused on the question of whether or not the proposed pipeline will ever get built.
That’s an important topic, and one that deserves to be examined — whether, as John Robson, of the indispensable Climate Discussion Nexus, predicted, “opposition from the government of British Columbia and aboriginal groups, and the skittishness of the oil industry about investing in a major project in Canada, will kill [the pipeline] dead.”
But I’m going to ask a different question: Would it even be worth building this pipeline on the terms Ottawa is forcing on Alberta? If you squint, the MOU might look like a victory on paper. Ottawa suspends the oil and gas emissions cap, proposes an exemption from the West Coast tanker ban, and lays the groundwork for the construction of one (though only one) million barrels per day pipeline to tidewater.
But in return, Alberta must agree to jack its industrial carbon tax up from $95 to $130 per tonne at a minimum, while committing to tens of billions in carbon capture, utilization, and storage (CCUS) spending, including the $16.5 billion Pathways Alliance megaproject.
Here’s the part none of the project’s boosters seem to want to mention: those concessions will make the production of Canadian hydrocarbon energy significantly more expensive.
As economist Jack Mintz has explained, the industrial carbon tax hike alone adds more than $5 USD per barrel of Canadian crude to marginal production costs — the costs that matter when companies decide whether to invest in new production. Layer on the CCUS requirements and you get another $1.20–$3 per barrel for mining projects and $3.60–$4.80 for steam-assisted operations.
While roughly 62% of the capital cost of carbon capture is to be covered by taxpayers — another problem with the agreement, I might add — the remainder is covered by the industry, and thus, eventually, consumers.
Total damage: somewhere between $6.40 and $10 US per barrel. Perhaps more.
“Ultimately,” the Fraser Institute explains, “this will widen the competitiveness gap between Alberta and many other jurisdictions, such as the United States,” that don’t hamstring their energy producers in this way. Producers in Texas and Oklahoma, not to mention Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, or Russia, aren’t paying a dime in equivalent carbon taxes or mandatory CCUS bills. They’re not so masochistic.
American refiners won’t pay a “low-carbon premium” for Canadian crude. They’ll just buy cheaper oil or ramp up their own production.
In short, a shiny new pipe is worthless if the extra cost makes barrels of our oil so expensive that no one will want them.
And that doesn’t even touch on the problem for the domestic market, where the higher production cost will be passed onto Canadian consumers in the form of higher gas and diesel prices, home heating costs, and an elevated cost of everyday goods, like groceries.
Either way, Canadians lose.
So, concludes Mintz, “The big problem for a new oil pipeline isn’t getting BC or First Nation acceptance. Rather, it’s smothering the industry’s competitiveness by layering on carbon pricing and decarbonization costs that most competing countries don’t charge.” Meanwhile, lurking underneath this whole discussion is the MOU’s ultimate Achilles’ heel: net-zero.
The MOU proudly declares that “Canada and Alberta remain committed to achieving Net-Zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.” As Vaclav Smil documented in a recent study of Net-Zero, global fossil-fuel use has risen 55% since the 1997 Kyoto agreement, despite trillions spent on subsidies and regulations. Fossil fuels still supply 82% of the world’s energy.
With these numbers in mind, the idea that Canada can unilaterally decarbonize its largest export industry in 25 years is delusional.
This deal doesn’t secure Canada’s energy future. It mortgages it. We are trading market access for self-inflicted costs that will shrink production, scare off capital, and cut into the profitability of any potential pipeline. Affordable energy, good jobs, and national prosperity shouldn’t require surrendering to net-zero fantasy.If Ottawa were serious about making Canada an energy superpower, it would scrap the anti-resource laws outright, kill the carbon taxes, and let our world-class oil and gas compete on merit. Instead, we’ve been handed a backroom MOU which, for the cost of one pipeline — if that! — guarantees higher costs today and smothers the industry that is the backbone of the Canadian economy.
This MOU isn’t salvation. It’s a prescription for Canadian decline.
From the Daily Caller News Foundation
By Steve Milloy
The Paris Climate Accord was adopted 10 years ago this week. It’s been a decade of disaster that President Donald Trump is rightly trying again to end.
The stated purpose of the agreement was for countries to voluntarily cut emissions to avoid the average global temperature exceeding the (guessed at) pre-industrial temperature by 3.6°F (2°C) and preferably 2.7°F (1.5°C).
Since December 2015, the world spent an estimated $10 trillion trying to achieve the Paris goals. What has been accomplished? Instead of reducing global emissions, they have increased about 12 percent. While the increase in emissions is actually a good thing for the environment and humanity, spending $10 trillion in a failed effort to cut emissions just underscores the agreement’s waste, fraud and abuse.
As a nonprofit, we are dependent on the generosity of our readers.
Please consider making a small donation of any amount here.
Thank you!
But wasting $10 trillion is only the tip of the iceberg.
The effort to cut emissions was largely based on forcing industrial countries to replace their tried-and-true fossil fuel-based energy systems with not-ready-for-prime-time wind, solar and battery-based systems. This forced transition has driven up energy costs and made energy systems less reliable. The result of that has been economy-crippling deindustrialization in former powerhouses of Germany and Britain.
And it gets worse.
European nations imagined they could reduce their carbon footprint by outsourcing their coal and natural gas needs to Russia. That outsourcing enriched Russia and made the European economy dependent on Russia for energy. That vulnerability, in turn, and a weak President Joe Biden encouraged Vladimir Putin to invade Ukraine.
The result of that has been more than one million killed and wounded, the mass destruction of Ukraine worth more than $500 billion so far and the inestimable cost of global destabilization. Europe will have to spend hundreds of billions more on defense, and U.S. taxpayers have been forced to spend hundreds of billions on arms for Ukraine. Putin has even raised the specter of using nuclear weapons.
President Barack Obama unconstitutionally tried to impose the Paris agreement on the U.S. as an Executive agreement rather than a treaty ratified by the U.S. Senate. Although Trump terminated the Executive agreement during his first administration, President Joe Biden rejoined the agreement soon after taking office, pledging to double Obama’s emissions cuts pledge to 50 percent below 2005 levels by 2030.
Biden’s emissions pledge was an impetus for the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act that allocated $1.2 trillion in spending for what Trump labeled as the Green New Scam. Although Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act reduced that spending by about $500 billion and he is trying to reduce it further through Executive action, much of that money was used in an effort to buy the 2024 election for Democrats. The rest has been and will be used to wreck our electricity grid with dangerous, national security-compromising wind, solar and battery equipment from Communists China.
Then there’s this. At the Paris climate conference in 2015, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry stated quite clearly that emissions cuts by the U.S. and other industrial countries were meaningless and would accomplish nothing since the developing world’s emissions would be increasing.
Finally, there is the climate realism aspect to all this. After the Paris agreement was signed and despite the increase in emissions, the average global temperature declined during the years from 2016 to 2022, per NOAA data.
The super El Nino experienced during 2023-2024 caused a temporary temperature spike. La Nina conditions have now returned the average global temperature to below the 2015-2016 level, per NASA satellite data. The overarching point is that any “global warming” that occurred over the past 40 years is actually associated with the natural El Nino-La Nina cycle, not emissions.
The Paris agreement has been all pain and no gain. Moreover, there was never any need for the agreement in the first place. A big thanks to President Trump for pulling us out again.
Steve Milloy is a biostatistician and lawyer. He posts on X at @JunkScience.
Death by a thousand clicks – government censorship of Canada’s internet
Viral TikTok video shows 7-year-old cuddling great-grandfather before he’s euthanized
Chinese Billionaire Tried To Build US-Born Baby Empire As Overseas Elites Turn To American Surrogates
Politicians should be honest about environmental pros and cons of electric vehicles
-
Alberta1 day agoAlberta’s huge oil sands reserves dwarf U.S. shale
-
Alberta1 day agoCanada’s New Green Deal
-
Energy22 hours agoCanada’s sudden rediscovery of energy ambition has been greeted with a familiar charge: hypocrisy
-
armed forces1 day agoOttawa’s Newly Released Defence Plan Crosses a Dangerous Line
-
Business1 day agoCOP30 finally admits what resource workers already knew: prosperity and lower emissions must go hand in hand
-
Indigenous1 day agoResidential school burials controversy continues to fuel wave of church arsons, new data suggests
-
Business20 hours agoOttawa Pretends To Pivot But Keeps Spending Like Trudeau
-
Daily Caller21 hours ago
Paris Climate Deal Now Decade-Old Disaster
The federal Liberal government’s approach to energy policy has created problematic regional divisions across Canada. It’s time for the East to reject these crass politics and show greater support for the West.
Two recent court decisions — one at the Supreme Court and another at the Federal Court — have ruled against the federal government with respect to the Impact Assessment Act (the “No More Pipelines Bill”) and the single-use plastics ban. The courts found these laws to be unconstitutional as the federal government had intruded on provincial jurisdiction, among some other considerations such as the absurdity of declaring plastics “toxic.”
Around the same time, Environment Minister Steven Guilbeault announced a punitive new emissions cap on the oil and gas industry at COP28, which was also attended by Alberta Premier Danielle Smith and Saskatchewan Premier Scott Moe. This was seemingly timed to embarrass Guilbeault’s provincial counterparts and the Canadian oil and gas executives in attendance.
Back in October, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced a three-year exemption for home heating oil from the carbon tax. As heating oil is only used extensively in the Atlantic provinces, this was clearly an attempt to win back sharply declining Liberal support in that region. After Liberals claimed the carbon tax must be applied everywhere — in every industry and every region — this move served as a complete refutation of everything the Liberals had said before. It completely undermined their rationale for the carbon tax.
Meanwhile, countries around the world such as the United Kingdom and much of the European Union have been abandoning or significantly watering down their “net-zero” plans. Auto manufacturers are backing off production of electric vehicles (EVs) as they are not selling and all the lofty goals of the climate-crisis crowd are being questioned, as it has become clear the impact of these policies is hugely damaging to the economy and our standard of living.
For the trillions of dollars spent around the globe to attain the elusive net-zero target, very little has been achieved other than negative impacts on average citizens. Meanwhile, an elite class of “green” activists and government officials travel around the world first-class on the taxpayers’ dime, spewing much carbon in the process.
There are currently about 400 different laws, regulations, taxes and other measures in Canada that serve as greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction measures. No one has a clue which of them are effective or useless or how much they are damaging our economy and reducing Canadians’ standard of living needlessly. This is because the Trudeau government never evaluates the effectiveness of its policies.
The Liberals first sold us the carbon tax as the only measure needed to reduce GHGs, arguing it was a market-based mechanism that would motivate consumers and businesses to make their own sensible decisions to reduce fossil fuel usage. We were also told by former environment minister Catherine McKenna the carbon tax would never exceed $50 a tonne, which we now know was just one of many Liberal bald-faced lies as the tax is slated to increase to at least $170/tonne by 2030.
Despite dishonest claims the carbon tax was the only measure needed, we have subsequently seen the so-called Clean Fuel Standard, the absurdly red-tape intensive Impact Assessment Act (which the Supreme Court has now overthrown), and Guilbeault’s recent emissions cap.
Interestingly, other parts of the economy emit similar amounts of GHGs as the oil and gas sector, but those industries are not subject to an emissions cap. Could it be because those industries are located in regions that tend to vote Liberal, unlike Alberta and Saskatchewan? Perish the thought!
Throughout all of the climate policy overkill, the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan have remained steadfast in opposing foolish federal government initiatives based on facts, science and constitutional law. All Canadians should know that Alberta in particular is a disproportionately significant contributor to the rest of Canada in many ways — equalization payments, contributions to programs such as CPP and Employment Insurance as well as personal and corporate taxation and royalty revenue from the oil and gas industry.
It was truly ironic that, in the context of the federal budget earlier this year, Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland boasted that government revenues had come in higher than forecast. Yet the key source for this excess revenue was the oil and gas sector the Liberals are working hard to kill.
Alberta and Saskatchewan have been doing yeoman’s work defending the jurisdictional rights of all provinces and opposing the costly and unproductive federal government policies. At the same time, their success is boosting the economy of the whole country.
While Trudeau plays his destructive and divisive regional games — putting in place policies that benefit some parts of Canada while punishing others — all in the name of Liberal votes, the whole of Canada should call his bluff and support the leadership role that is being taken by the Prairie provinces.
The next federal election would be an ideal time to demonstrate that support.
Catherine Swift is president of the Coalition of Concerned Manufacturers and Businesses of Canada