Tag Archives: Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau

How the Carbon Cult Subverts Political Discourse

From Science Matters

By Ron Clutz

Trudeau Turns the Carbon Tax Screws on Canadians April 1

Ross Mckitrick explains the smoke and mirrors in Trudeau’s justifications for his racheting carbon tax in a National Post article Wanted: A leader who is honest about climate policy.  Excerpts in italics with my bolds and added images.

Pierre Poilievre is leading anti-carbon tax rallies around the country, ginning up support for an old-fashioned tax revolt. In response, Justin Trudeau went to Calgary and trumpeted — believe it or not! — his love of free markets. After explaining the economic logic of using a carbon tax to reduce greenhouse gases, the prime minister slammed regulatory approaches, which, he said, “all involve the heavy hand of government. I prefer a cleaner solution, a market-based solution and that is, if you’re behaving in a way that causes pollution, you should pay.” He added that the Conservatives would instead rely on the “heavy hand of government through regulation and subsidies to pick winners and losers in the economy as opposed to trusting the market.”  Amen to all that!

But someone should tell Trudeau that his own government’s
Emission Reduction Plan mainly consists of heavy-handed
regulations, subsidies, mandates and winner-picking grants.

Within its 240 pages one does find a carbon tax. But also 139 additional policies, including:

♦  Clean Fuels Regulations,
♦  An electric vehicle mandate that will ban gasoline cars by 2035,
♦  Aggressive fuel economy standards that will hike such cars’ cost in the meantime,
♦  Costly new emission targets specifically for oil & gas, agriculture, heavy industry and waste management,
♦  Onerous new energy efficiency requirements both for new buildings and renovations of existing buildings, New electricity grid requirements, and page upon page of
♦  Subsidy funds for “clean technology” firms and other would-be winners in the sunlit uplands of the new green economy.

Does Trudeau oppose any of that? Hardly. But the economic logic of a carbon tax only applies when it is used on its own. He doesn’t get to boast about the elegance of market mechanisms on behalf of a policy package that starts with a price signal then destroys it with a massive regulatory apparatus. Trudeau also tried to warm his Alberta audience to the carbon tax by invoking the menace of mild weather and forest fires. In fairness it was an unusual February in Calgary. The month began with a week of above-zero temperatures, hitting five degrees Celsius at one point, then there was a brief cold snap before Valentine’s Day, then the daytime highs soared to the low teens for nine days and the month ended with soupy above-zero conditions. Weird.

Oops, that was 1981. This year was weirder: February highs were above zero for 25 out of 28 days, eight of which were even above 10 degrees C.

Oops again, that was 1991. Granted, February 2024 also had
its mild patches, but not like the old days.

Of course, back then warm weather was just weather. Now it’s a climate emergency and Canadians demand action. Except they don’t want to pay for it, which is the main problem for politicians when trying to come up with a climate policy that’s both effective and affordable. In fact, you can only have one of those two. Take your pick: effective or affordable, affordable or effective.

In practice, of course we typically end up zero for two,
with policies that are both ineffective and unaffordable.

You can claim your policy will yield deep decarbonization while boosting the economy, which almost all politicians in every western country have spent decades doing. But it’s not true. With current technology, affordable policies yield only small temporary emission reductions. Population and economic growth swamp their effects over time, which is why mainstream economists have long argued that while we can eliminate some lowvalue emissions, for the most part we will just have to live with climate change. Trying to stop it would cost far more than it’s worth.

Meanwhile the policy pantomime continues. Poilievre’s anti-carbon tax rallies are popular, but what happens after we axe the tax? If he plans to replace it with regulatory measures aimed at achieving the same emission cuts, he really should tell his rallygoers that what he has in mind will hit them even harder than the tax they’re so keen to scrap.

Or does he have the courage to do the sensible thing
and follow the mainstream economics advice?

If he wants to be honest with Canadians, he must explain that the affordable options will not get us to the Paris target, let alone to net-zero, and even if they did, what Canada does will have no effect on the global climate because we’re such small players. Maybe new technologies will appear over the next decade that change the economics, but until that day we’re better off fixing our growth problems, getting the cost of living down and continuing to be resilient to all the weather variations Canadians have always faced.

Addendum

Notice that Trudeau asserts that his carbon tax is needed so that “polluters pay.”  Millions of Canadian taxpayers’ dollars have been spent on prime time TV ads reminding viewers that we have to do something to stop “carbon pollution”, by which they mean CO2 emissions.  No matter that CO2, far from being an unnatural contaminant, is plant food without which (less than 150 ppm) plants and animals die.  No mention of thousands of scientists proclaiming that “There is No Climate Emergency,” and that global warming and rising CO2 since the Little Ice Age have led to unprecedented human flourishing.

So essential CO2 is labeled as a pollutant in order to insist that emissions from burning hydrocarbons must be reduced to avert a crisis: heat waves, forest fires, floods, droughts, etc. etc.  The premise is “We have to do something to stop emitting CO2.”  Politicians of all stripes dare not question it.  And a video interview below demonstrates how that premise prevents any reasonable discussion of energy policy.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer released a report looking into how much the carbon tax is actually costing Canadian households. In the CBC interview, Parliamentary Budget Officer Yves Giroux breaks down the report. And, Dale Beugin, executive vice-president of the Canadian Climate Institute discusses the analysis his organization has conducted on the government’s emissions reduction plan. Note the PBO role is non-partisan, while the CCI agenda is open and obviously Gung Ho against CO2.

The discussion with the PBO ends at 11 minutes into the video, the remainder being CCI talking about ways to shape industrial policies to force additional emissions down to meet Paris targets.  A few excerpts from the first part show how difficult it is to escape the premise that we have to do something about CO2.

CBC:  I’m sure have been watching what’s been happening in the House of Commons the conclusions in your report they’re being cited by the conservatives in particular as proof that Canadians are worse off because of carbon pricing and that means this policy needs to go. Is that a fair representation of your findings?

PBO: Well it’s a representation of our findings once you also include the economic impacts of introducing a carbon tax. So there’s the fiscal impact on households paying the tax versus the amount of the rebate that households are receiving. But once you also include the economic impacts due to the introduction of a carbon tax, for example the reduction in activity or the slower growth in economic activity in some sectors then that’s the full impact.

CBC:  The fiscal analysis is the financial analysis that the government points to. They say most families will still get  more in rebates than they pay, sort  of Straight Cash Out, Straight Cash in.  Is that a fair representation?

PBO: The conclusion we arrived at if you take into consideration the carbon tax that households pay on their fossil fuels that they’re buying: gasoline, natural gas, diesel and so on, they pay that directly as well as the embedded energy component of whatever goods and services they buy and they subtract from that the the rebate then about 80% of households are better off.

CBC: It gets complicated and this is where it gets controversial because you took a look at the broader effect that carbon pricing, any kind of tax has on an economy, it can have an economic impact to the negative and this is the line from report that conservatives point to once you factor in the rebate but also the economic impacts the majority of the households will see a negative impact as a result of the carbon tax. The rebuttal to that conclusion is that it doesn’t tell the whole story it doesn’t look at other options and other impacts. What do you say in terms of people understanding the meaning of that analysis?

PBO: The analysis looks at the world where the we have a carbon tax versus the absence of a carbon tax which is how we do economic analysis. So the impact of a carbon tax on the economy will have impacts on some sectors; the transportation sector to take one example, or the oil and gas sector, lower employment than would otherwise be the case or lower profits than would otherwise be the case. So that translates into economic impacts on average for households: lower employment, lower profits, lower dividends for those who own stocks Etc. so these are the economic impacts.

CBC: This is where the analysis has caused some confusion and drawn some criticism because the analysis only compares the impact as you said of a carbon price versus nothing, and nothing isn’t an option right? It doesn’t compare carbon pricing versus other options that other experts would say could be even more expensive. So how should people assess the political arguments we’re seeing without a clear comparative analysis of the options?

PBO: So my mandate is to provide cost estimates of policy proposals by the government or policy measures that the government has introduced. My mandate does not include providing cost estimates of alternative scenarios or multiple options. So you’re right that doing something else to reach International targets or a Canada’s commitment under the Paris Accord would also have costs. For example if we were to introduce massive subsidies for new technologies to wean ourselves off fossil fuels, that would obviously have costs. Introducing regulations also has costs and these costs could could be measured if we knew exactly what these alternatives are but there’s no clear policy proposal from the government as what would be the alternative to a carbon tax. So it’s difficult to cost something that has not been proposed yet.

It’s true that the consensus among economists is generally speaking a carbon tax is probably the least disruptive way to reduce emissions. That being said we see that the government itself is not relying solely on a carbon tax for various reasons. So the government itself is introducing subsidies for clean fuel and many regulations.

CBC: So you can’t assess this compared to another proposal because there is no other proposal to assess.
You also don’t factor in the cost of climate change. We’ve seen massive wildfires still burning from
last year throughout the winter In British Columbia and in Alberta; you know the extreme weather on
the East Coast, flooding and storms, all of that has a massive economic impact as well and a
loss of productivity and cost to governments.

The idea is to stop that from getting worse or more frequent,
how do we assess that versus the cost
of using carbon pricing to lower emissions.

PBO: That’s a very difficult field to to venture into because the number of unusual weather events that’s
occurring. We don’t know which ones are due to climate change and which ones would have
occurred anyways, or whether their extent would have been smaller or even worse, probably
smaller especially in a short period of time. We’ve tried to estimate the impact of climate change
between now and the year 2100 and we find that there is a cost to climate change but for the next
few years between now and 2030 it’s very difficult to determine precisely the cost of climate change.  It’s an area that we ventured into but it’s not easy and not that many institutions and organizations have established clear parameters under which to estimate the cost of climate change.

It’s very unlikely that there’ll be significant technological breakthroughs between now and
2030 sufficient to even partially offset the cost of a carbon tax for example, or any measures to mitigate or reduce our carbon emissions. But it’s quite possible that Beyond 2030 once technologies become more mature they’ll be able to offset some of the costs that we’ll we’ll have to incur to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. So that’s why it’s difficult to say whether the costs will be offset by the benefits over the longer term but between now and 2030 it’s clearly not going to happen.

I’m providing unbiased nonpartisan information, information not pronouncements, not verdicts on policies. It’s up to decision makers and Canadians to make up their own minds based on the information we provide them so they can decide whether a carbon tax or other measures are the best way forward to reduce carbon emissions. We’re not passing judgments as to whether a policy is working or not.

My Observations

This interview shows that the carbon cult narrative
subverts rational policymaking in three significant ways.

Firstly, there is no accounting of all the economic and social damage done by the multitude of federal government climate policies and regulations (139 that McKitrick found in the Emission Reduction Plan). Secondly the benefits to offset the carbon tax costs consider only saving some damages from extreme weather. This is problematic in two ways. There is no certainty that imposing these costs on Canadians will have any effect on CO2 levels, or  that climate and weather will be any different for having made the effort.

Add to that the ignoring of actual benefits to humankind and to the biosphere from rising atmospheric CO2 and warming temperatures. Virtually every year global agricultural production sets records because of warming and CO2 enhancing photosynthesis. That puts food on the table for billions of people. What insanity to pursue things like carbon capture to rob the biosphere of CO2, while dreaming of a cooler future planet. Both objectives would threaten the world food supply and can hardly be benefits to justify emissions reductions.

Finally CCI gives the game away when they say, in effect:
“You don’t like the carbon tax, but doing nothing is not an option.”

In fact doing nothing to reduce CO2 emissions is the best option, though politicians are loath to admit it. Few nations are achieving their Paris Treaty targets, and their emissions dwarf Canada’s.

The prosperity that comes from hydrocarbons can serve to build and maintain robust infrastructure and means of production for humanity to adapt to any changes in the climate, such as those in the past likely to happen again beyond our ability to stop them.

SS Canada: Off Course and Headed for Icebergs

From Friends of Science Calgary

Contributed by Robert Lyman © 2024. Robert Lyman’s bio can be read here.

        EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Like an ocean liner approaching icebergs, the Canadian economy is in dangerous waters as it enters 2024.

SS-CANADA-IN-DANGER-FINALHerunterladen

Real gross domestic product (GDP) per person is barely growing and  the OECD has projected Canada’s long-term growth (i.e. to 2060 and beyond) in GDP per capita as the worst (the worst!) among the developed countries. Capital invested in the economy per worker has been falling, as are productivity and living standards.

what-is-behind-canadas-growth-crisisHerunterladen

The situation is made worse by the Trudeau government’s fiscal, economic and environmental policies. The oil and gas industry, long the powerhouse of the resource sector, has cut its reinvestment of income in half and instead allocates more funds to buying back shares and increasing dividends. The manufacturing sectors are being hollowed out by ever-higher electricity prices in some provinces and by ever-more-stringent regulatory reviews that delay or impede new resource and infrastructure projects. The Trudeau government has proudly embraced the goal of reducing Canada’s greenhouse gas emissions to zero by 2050, completely ignoring the enormous costs of and technological barriers to that goal, and the fact that attaining it would have little impact on global emissions driven by economic development trends in Asia.

As we enter 2024, we should ponder the long list of new environment-related measures that the federal government plans to undertake this year. The rate of the carbon tax (and its evil twin, the Output Based Pricing System imposed on industry) is scheduled to rise on April 1st to $80 per tonne of carbon dioxide equivalent. Environment and Climate Change Canada plans several more regulatory changes that will adversely affect business, homeowners and consumers. The federal government probably will pass legislation to protect “nature and biodiversity” that will further harm investment and development and require financial institutions to impose onerous “net-zero” planning and reporting requirements on the firms to which they lend.

No doubt there will be other bad news events arising from the “net-zero” mandates given to publicly owned electric utilities and provincial agencies that regulate electricity and natural gas utilities.

Well-funded environmental organizations may use their influence to promote ending the use of natural gas; subsidizing electric vehicles, heat pumps and wind and solar energy; impeding the certification of all hydrocarbons-related infrastructure; and supporting lawsuits that will convert anti-economy policies into legislative requirements. They are pursuing the anti-plastics agenda with almost religious intensity. The Canadian ship of state is in danger, and there are no safe harbours in sight.

How did Alberta wind up facing blackouts in the extreme cold?

From Watts Up With That?

Essay by Eric Worrall

h/t cedarsand: “… at this time of year, we don’t have any solar power … Over the last couple of days, the wind has dropped off dramatically. …”

How did Alberta wind up facing blackouts in the extreme cold? A Q and A with AESO

…

Author of the article:
Jonny Wakefield
Published Jan 14, 2024 

We hit the demand peak on Thursday and it looked like we were going to be fine, there was no indication that we were going to be in a situation where we might have to shed load like we did last night. Suddenly 48 hours later, there’s warnings of potential brownouts and blackouts. I’m wondering how we got from a fairly stable situation on Thursday to what we experienced last night and might experience again this evening? 

With the extreme cold, we are seeing very, very high demand. We set an all-time record Thursday night, 12,384 megawatts. The key difference — and there’s never one single factor that puts us into a grid alert — it’s the extreme cold, we’ve had reduced imports and very little wind. And of course, when we get into the peak period from 4-7 p.m., at this time of year, we don’t have any solar power. So on Thursday, we were in a bit better situation, because we had strong wind, we had 1,200 megawatts approximately throughout the peak period from four to seven. So that really made a difference. Over the last couple of days, the wind has dropped off dramatically. We’ve also had a couple of natural gas plants, one is offline, and one is operating at reduced capacity.

…Read more: https://edmontonjournal.com/news/local-news/how-did-alberta-wind-up-facing-blackouts-in-the-cold

State politicians were quick to point the main weak link was renewable energy.

Premiers pan green-energy plans as cold weather strains Alberta’s electricity grid

Rob Drinkwater
Published Jan. 15, 2024 3:47 p.m. AEST

EDMONTON –  

…

“Right now, wind is generating almost no power. When renewables are unreliable, as they are now, natural gas plants must increase capacity to keep Albertans safe,” Alberta Premier Danielle Smith posted on social media Friday, shortly after the province’s grid operator issued an appeal for consumers to conserve electricity to protect the system.

A day later, following a second grid alert that warned of potential rotating blackouts, Saskatchewan Premier Scott Moe posted that surplus power it was sending Alberta’s way was coming from natural gas and coal-fired power plants.

“The ones the Trudeau government is telling us to shut down (which we won’t),” Moe said on X, the platform formerly known as Twitter.

…Read more: https://edmonton.ctvnews.ca/premiers-pan-green-energy-plans-as-cold-weather-strains-alberta-s-electricity-grid-1.6725876

Wake up Canada. No amount of renewable capacity can save you, when wind and solar both fail at the same time. The only reason the Alberta grid clung to life during the wind fail is coal and gas power, from Alberta and Saskatchewan – power plants which the Federal Government is pressuring Saskatchewan to close.

Those who continue to support Prime Minister Trudeau’s reckless crusade against reliable energy, the blood of your friends and neighbours will be on your hands.

Biden: Make China Great Again

From Watts Up With That?

Guest “You can’t fix stupid” by David Middleton

Did Biden really think cancelling the Keystone XL pipeline would force Canada to leave the oil in the ground?

20 January 2021

Biden kills Keystone XL permit, again

President-elect Joe Biden formally announced on Wednesday he was revoking a key permit for the proposed Keystone XL pipeline, the second time a Democratic administration has scuttled the $8 billion project in less than a decade.

[…]Politico

24 January 2021

Canada’s Trans Mountain pipeline sees fortunes shine after KXL’s demise

WINNIPEG/OTTAWA (Reuters) – The expansion of Canada’s government-owned Trans Mountain pipeline assumes greater importance for the oil sector after the cancellation of rival Keystone XL reduced future options to carry crude, potential buyers say.

Trans Mountain Corp, a government corporation, is spending C$12.6 billion ($9.9 billion) to nearly triple capacity to 890,000 barrels per day (bpd), a 14% increase from current total Canadian capacity.

[…]Reuters

2024 January 8

Canada’s Trans Mountain Pipeline expansion reportedly 95% complete

Data source: U.S. Energy Information Administration, Environmental Systems Research Institute, Inc. (ESRI), Giving Data Meaning (GDM), and the Government of Canada: Natural Resources Canada

Work on Canada’s Trans Mountain Pipeline expansion project is reportedly over 95% complete. When it comes onstream, the expansion will nearly triple the pipeline’s current 300,000 barrels per day (b/d) capacity to move crude oil from oil sands in landlocked Alberta to Canada’s Pacific Coast for export to new customers in Asia or along the U.S. West Coast. Although initially expected to come online early this year, the project could be delayed as much as two years by a recent ruling, according to the project’s owner.

The existing Trans Mountain Pipeline currently offers one avenue for waterborne crude oil exports out of Canada by moving crude oil from Edmonton in Alberta to Burnaby, a port near Vancouver on the coast of British Columbia. The expansion project aims to increase the pipeline’s current capacity by 590,000 b/d, bringing the pipeline to a capacity of 890,000 b/d.

The Canadian government acquired the pipeline from Kinder Morgan for CA $4.5 billion in 2018 and formed the Trans Mountain Corporation (TMC) to oversee and manage the pipeline and the expansion project. The pipeline expansion, which consists of added pipeline capacity that generally runs along a similar route to the current pipeline, has faced several legal challenges from environmental activists and Canadian First Nations groups.

Data source: Canada Energy Regulator, Canada’s Energy Future

Canada’s crude oil production increased steadily for most of the last 13 years. Canada’s average annual production of crude oil and condensate rose nearly 2.0 million b/d between 2009 to 2019. In 2020, the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic decreased crude oil production as crude oil prices declined significantly. Canada’s production has since resumed its growth trend. Canada’s production exceeded pre-pandemic levels in 2022 when crude oil and condensate production averaged 4.9 million b/d, according to data from the Canada Energy Regulator (CER).

Most new growth in Canada’s crude oil production is concentrated in the landlocked province of Alberta. In 2022, Alberta’s crude oil production accounted for 82.7% of total crude oil production in Canada, up from 76.1% in 2012.

Data source: U.S. Energy Information Administration, Petroleum Supply Monthly

Currently, more crude oil flows from Canada to the United States than to any other country by a wide margin; U.S. imports from Canada have averaged about 3.7 million b/d since 2020, according to our Petroleum Supply Monthly. U.S. crude oil imports from Canada accounted for about 79% of Canada’s total crude oil production during that time. Canada is also the largest source of crude oil imports to the United States, and these imports primarily flow to refineries in the Midwest and the U.S. Gulf Coast.

CER’s refusal on December 5 to grant a variance request to Trans Mountain may delay the project start date. After the decision was issued, Trans Mountain indicated the delay could last as long as two years.

Principal contributor: Kevin Hack

Tags: pipelines, liquid fuels, oil/petroleum, crude oil, production/supply, exports/imports, map, Canada, internationalUS EIA

Killing Keystone: Almost as dumb as draining the SPR

Biden may actually have done Canada a favor.

Markets

Canada produces more oil and natural gas than we need to meet energy demand within our country, so the remainder is exported. Currently, almost all of Canada’s oil and natural gas exports go to one customer: the United States.

Diversifying markets for Canada’s oil and natural gas production is vital to ensure Canada receives full value for its natural resources, and to ensure the industry continues to support Canadian jobs, government revenues and contributions to Canada’s gross domestic product (GDP). Energy exports can also establish Canada as a global supplier of responsibly produced energy, providing energy security for nations in need while potentially displacing oil and natural gas supplied by authoritarian regimes. 

[…]

NEW MARKETS

World Energy Needs

World demand for crude oil is expected to grow in the coming decades. According to the International Energy Agency (IEA) report World Energy Outlook 2022, global oil demand will increase from 94.5 million b/d in 2021 to 102.4 million b/d by 2023, that’s an 8% increase. The combined demand growth from China and India alone is forecast to be 3.1 million b/d. 

[…]Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers

As a consequence of Biden’s malfeasance, Canadian oil producers will benefit from market diversification. On the other hand, US refiners will be harmed by government-imposed market disruptions.

Making China Great Again

Reuters, 2023 September 19

Canada’s Trans Mountain pipe expansion to disrupt oil flow to US, boost prices

By Nia Williams and Stephanie Kelly

September 19, 2023

CALGARY, Sept 19 (Reuters) – Canada’s Trans Mountain oil pipeline expansion (TMX), which will nearly triple the flow of crude from Alberta to Canada’s Pacific Coast beginning early next year, will shake up North America’s supply by diverting barrels now mainly delivered to refiners and exporters in the U.S. Midwest and Gulf Coast.

Its startup could add as much as $2 per barrel to prices paid by U.S. Midwest oil refineries that sit along Canada’s existing main oil-export route. Plants that benefited from discounted oil include those operated by BP (BP.L), Citgo Petroleum, Exxon Mobil (XOM.N) and Koch Industries’ Flint Hills Resources, analysts said.

[…]Reuters

Some of the Trans Mountain pipeline oil will be delivered to refiners on the US west coast, however refining capacity (PADD 5, green curve) has been declining since 2010.

Operable Refining Capacity PADD 2, PADD 3 and PADD 5 (US EIA)

Heavy oil that would have been delivered to PADD 2 and PADD 3 refineries will now go to Asia and PADD 5 refineries.

Refilling the SPR

During his first two years of aimlessly wandering around the White House, Biden drained 40% of the SPR in a futile effort to boost his poll numbers.

US Strategic Petroleum Reserve (thousands of barrels). EIA

How’s that refilling process going?

EIA

Once Again: It’s America Last

“I did that!”

Addendum

EnergyNow.ca

Supplying energy to the U.S. ChiComs

Trudeau noted that while his government is concerned with climate change, the oilsands would continue to be developed.

“No country would find 173 billion barrels of oil and just leave it in the ground,” he said. “The resource will be developed. Our job is to ensure this is done responsibly, safely and sustainably.”EnergyNow.ca

Trudeau Climate Crusade Hits Alberta Wall

From Science Matters

 By Ron Clutz

Tyler Durden has the story at zerohedge Alberta Premier Defies Trudeau Carbon Agenda – Invokes Sovereignty Act.  Excerpts in italics with my bolds and added images.

It is an action which multiple red states in the US undertaken: Blocking carbon controls ingrained in “green power” initiatives conjured by the federal government.

Now it appears the momentum has spread to Canada through Alberta’s conservative leadership as Premier Danielle Smith defies the Trudeau regime by invoking the province’s recently drafted Sovereignty Act.

The Sovereignty Act is designed to give Alberta’s legislative assembly the power to identify any federal programs or actions that violate Alberta’s constitution, the government would then refuse to implement those programs.  The implementation of the act means that finally, an open dialogue on the existential threat of the UN’s “sustainable development goals” and Agenda 2030 has begun in Canada.  

The reasons for opposition to “Net Zero” objectives have been repeated over and over again by political critics, economic critics and scientific critics alike. 

1.  Net zero as the UN defines it is impossible using existing green technologies with inefficient and costly power generation.

2.  Net zero proponents refuse in most cases to acknowledge the usefulness of nuclear power as a means to reduce reliance on oil and gas.

3.  Net zero would require perpetual authoritarian oversight of individual carbon emissions and probably population reduction in the near term.

4.  None of the above even matters because there’s no concrete evidence whatsoever man-made carbon causes global warming.

In other words, the supposed crisis is a fraud and there’s no reason
for any nation, province or state to sacrifice their power grids.

Beyond the big con, stagflation has made carbon controls economically impossible. Aggressive price spikes since 2020 make gas, oil and coal more important than ever in maintaining basic services for the populace along with the needs of industry. Reducing available supply in the face of desperate demand would only fuel the fires of inflation further. Even Europe has been reverting back to “villainous” energy sources like coal to keep things running.

When people face the possibility of freezing or starving there is little chance they are going to listen to unfounded claims of climate doomsday from a bunch of ultra-rich yacht sailing private jet-setting carbon-spewing hypocrite elites.

Awkward – Canada creates a brand new fossil fuel subsidy just in time for COP28, a reminder that sticks hurt and carrots are healthy

From The BOE Report

Terry Etam

Upon hearing about the federal government’s decision to roll back the carbon tax on heating oil, I rolled up my sleeves. The point of writing about energy at all is to try to illuminate some aspect of an energy topic from a viewpoint inside the energy sector; to explain some energy nuance that the general population, which cares little for the nuances of energy, may find valuable. Energy is not simple, and there are a lot of loud storytellers out there, selling magical beans and wishful thinking.

To me, the carbon tax rollback was an annoyingly flagrant bit of vote-buying, yet another irritant from the federal government but one that, on centre-stage, seemed to have far less potential for cross-country histrionics than, for example, the time the prime minister threw his talented and principled First Nations minister under the bus. Now that was a shockwave.

This carbon tax vote grab? Ha. SNC Lavalin, Jody Wilson-Raybould, the WE Charity scandal, foreign interference… a heating oil subsidy doesn’t even crack an annual top-ten list of federal governance dirty diapers.

Or so I thought. Hoo boy. The Hail Mary scheme has blown up, blown up real good. Critics are everywhere, from across the political and environmental spectrum. Liberal heavyweights are attacking Trudeau; economists that love the carbon tax for its ‘efficiency’ are declaring the carbon tax dead. Incredulously, premiers have voiced a unanimous opinion that the entire country needs to be treated consistently.

Upon further thought, it shouldn’t be a big surprise that even the hard core climate crowd is displeased. The federal government has been lavish with announcements and proclamations about eliminating fossil fuel subsidies, that they would do so faster than imaginable, that, well, read their words for yourself: “Canada is the only G20 country to phase out inefficient fossil fuel subsidies ahead of the 2025 deadline. We are the first country to release a rigorous analytical guide that both fulfills our commitment and transparently supports action.”

“What the hell is this?” appears to be the consensus among a disparate group of voices that reaches consensus on nothing.

Be very clear why there is outrage: this is a shallow, obvious vote grab that crumbles the pillars of this government, and it most definitely is a creation of a brand new fossil fuel subsidy – so much for international credibility after all the hectoring this government has done globally. (If you have any doubts that this is anything but a political maneuver, consider that almost exactly a year before, in October 2022, the Conservatives tried to pass a motion to exempt home heating oil from the carbon tax, and all Liberal MPs save one brave Newfoundlander voted against it.)

Since the whole topic of the carbon tax has now come up though, here is a critical point that warrants some thought.29dk2902lhttps://boereport.com/29dk2902l.html

Canada and the US have chosen two different strategies to reduce emissions. Canada has, of course, the carbon tax – if you use or burn hydrocarbons, you’re going to pay (certain rural maritimers temporarily notwithstanding). Governmental, and government friendly, economists contort themselves into pretzels to demonstrate that the rebates handed back by the federal government “more than compensate” for the carbon tax, but every citizen that goes to a grocery store and realizes that every item in the industrial chain that handled any of those products in this country paid their own carbon tax, and that all that is rolled into the end product, has a very strong real-world suspicion that the government’s equation is laughable. 

Beyond that, there is a big problem with Canada’s ‘stick’ approach to carbon reduction. Canadians can choose to limit the impact of the carbon tax by switching to something less carbon intensive, or spending to otherwise limit emissions. You don’t want to pay the carbon tax, you or your business? “No problem!” Says the federal government; just spend some exorbitant amount of capital, based on frameworks and guidelines that are not yet even ready.

In the US, the government long ago (2008) introduced something called 45Q, a carbon credit which was recently beefed up significantly under the Biden Inflation Reduction Act energy policy. 45Q is a carrot. If you are a carbon emitter, well, no one likes the emissions, but go ahead and carry on with your business. 

If you choose to reduce your carbon emissions however, the government will hand you a cheque (sorry, check) for doing so – $85 per tonne CO2e, to be precise. You can start a new business that generates emissions credits, and if you can do it for less than $85/tonne, you have a new profit centre. There is a companion credit called 45X; credit revenue can be generated from it by manufacturing components that go into various energy technologies including structural fasteners, steel tubing, critical minerals, pretty much any battery component, etc.

In short, an existing business can carry on as before, or embark on a new venture with a guaranteed revenue stream from carbon credits generated.

In Canada, the stick is, like, really big, and for real. If you exist and consume conventional energy, you will pay, and pay dearly, and the amount will go up every year until either 2030 or until you cry uncle, whichever comes first.

Want to avoid paying the tax? Again, you will pay dearly, but differently; you will pay for capital expenditures on whatever means are available to you, using whatever policies are worked out by governments at all levels (Not a secret: a great many of the regulatory bugs are not yet worked as to potential solutions to limit emissions, capture/store carbon, etc.).

In Canada, either way, you pay through the nose. In the US, you have options to go into another line of business, or to find potentially unrelated ways to reduce emissions, with a ‘guaranteed revenue stream’ in the form of credits.

Guess in which direction businesses will thunder?

Economists love Canada’s carbon tax because it is ‘efficient’. Well, yes, that is true in an oddball sort of way, just as I can guarantee you that I can ‘efficiently’ reduce local vehicular traffic by blowing up every bridge and overpass. How’s that for efficient? I could cut traffic levels by greater than 50 percent within hours of delivery of the ACME Dynamite.

At the end of the day, the federal government’s backpedaling on the carbon tax is symptomatic of a cornerstone of the entire movement failing, because it was made of styrofoam and the building upon which it was constructed will only work with carefully engineered cement.

Europe is no different, celebrating emissions reduction successes while not wanting to talk much about how the industrial sector has been hollowed out. “Stick” taxes force companies to shut down and/or leave, and just plain punish citizens for things like heating their homes.

The carbon tax is a solution to the extent that there is readily-trimmable fat in the system. But it has to be designed to go after that fat, not after everything that moves. Autos are a perfect example. The federal government could have mandated a switch to hybrids, and banned sales of 500-hp SUVs and whatever (don’t yell at me free marketers; I’m pointing out real-world pathways that are possible). They could have mandated a rise in corporate average fuel economy in one way or another.

That is trimmable fat. Attacking home heating fuels is not.

This isn’t to say the US’ program is sheer genius. However, it is worth noting that 45Q has been around for fifteen years; what has happened recently is that it has been beefed up in a way that makes sense. (The US is also doing nonsensical things like forcing companies into carbon capture and sequestration, at the same time that, as US Senator Joe Manchin points out, “CCUS and DAC developers have submitted more than 120 applications to EPA [Environmental Protection Agency] for Class VI well permits to sequester carbon since the IRA passed, and there are 169 total pending applications, and not one approval has been made by the Biden Administration.”)

The energy transition as envisioned by the ‘climate emergency’ crowd was doomed to fail because it was based on a ‘too fast, too soon’ transition game plan – which was actually not a plan at all, more of a command – and, equally as relevant, was based on the tenuous fear instilled in citizens by bad weather (an entire generation is now being raised to 1) be terrified of the weather, and 2) be convinced that their actions can influence it. Stop it.). 

Our entire world is built on oil, natural gas, coal (in some parts of the world) and hydrocarbon energy systems in general. Sue ‘Big Oil’ all you want; that won’t change anytime soon. 

Energy illiteracy is the slow-moving black plague of our time.

Canada’s efficient carbon tax pits citizens against their heating needs, against their business interests, and against inescapable realities. 

Here’s the sad part: All the federal government is doing here is facing reality, or starting to. Europe did the same last year, spending hundreds of billions in brand new fossil fuel subsidies to shield consumers from rocketing energy prices. When push comes to shove, governments will wilt under pressured voter pocketbooks.

Boneheads will at this point insert the oft-heard refrain “So you’re saying we should just do nothing.” I’ve heard that so often it sounds like mosquitoes in summer. It’s the only attack some people have. 

It is actually an amazing time to see new energy technologies take shape, with the best minds in the entire energy industry pushing in that way. We are seeing the creation of hydrogen hubs, development of new technology like fuel cells, greater use of methane capture from landfills, etc. A great many great minds are making significant progress. 

But even those geniuses can’t change the laws of reality. Eight billion people are now alive at the same time due to a certain system, and it will take a very long time to change that system if all of those people stay alive and try to live like the west does.

Energy wise, we need better, much better. Canada’s government is paying the price for heedlessly listening to ideological cheerleaders. Just like Canada’s citizens have been.

Energy conversations should be positive and, most of all, grounded in reality. Life depends on it. Find out more in  “The End of Fossil Fuel Insanity” at Amazon.ca, Indigo.ca, or Amazon.com. Thanks!

Read more insightful analysis from Terry Etam here, or email Terry here.

Environmentalism crashes into a lithium iceberg

From CFACT

By Duggan Flanakin 

The once-Titanic environmental movement has is dead — crushed by the climate iceberg. The world has shifted from clean air and clean water to “clean” energy that is not clean at all. Real environmental concerns over renewable energy – damage to endangered right whales and bald eagles from wind turbines, water use and contamination and toxic waste from lithium and cobalt mining – are not even part of the conversation.

The ill-fated voyage of the Titanic ended when it ran smack dab into a giant iceberg, 90 percent of which was below the surface. The worldwide push for electric vehicles, which has no greater cheerleaders than U.S. President Joe Biden and Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, is like a killer iceberg with dirty little secrets hidden far under the surface by a compliant media.

Biden just this week stepped up his crusade to force Americans to buy lithium-battery electric vehicles with proposed CO2 emission standards. This despite the fact that a large majority of people today still prefer the internal combustion engines they have relied upon for over a century.

The crusaders have turned carbon dioxide, which increases plant growth and can be used to produce synthetic e-fuels, into a monster that must be exterminated. This hypocritical position is shared by those eager for eliminating many carbon units (humans) to “save the planet.”

The Biden proposal avoids asking whether the tradeoff between presumed lower carbon dioxide levels and higher air and water pollution is worth it. The negative pollution impacts have until now been concentrated in countries (including Chile, Argentina, and Australia) where those most affected cannot vote in U.S. elections.

The world now knows that lithium mining is not pretty. Even the lithium industry admits that “the mining and extraction process of lithium resources produces pollutants and has a great impact on the surrounding environment.” Moreover, “lithium mining conditions are not good.” Therefore, “the extraction process of lithium ore has become a major problem.”

As Paul Homewood explains, “the [lithium mining] process depletes ground water and leaves behind toxic wastewater that contaminates fields and harms wildlife.” Lithium mining also releases 15,000 kilograms of carbon dioxide emissions for every ton of lithium extracted.

Lithium mining involves drilling into salt flats to pump out a salty, mineral-rich brine that is placed in evaporation pools. The process takes months – and about 500,000 gallons of water per ton of lithium. Thus, lithium mining lowers the water table, pollutes nearby aquifers, and reduces locally available drinking water.

The Institute for Energy Research reported that residents of Argentina’s Salar de Hombre Muerto believe lithium operations have contaminated streams used for drinking water and crop irrigation. In Chile, mountains of discarded salt and canals filled with contaminated water mar the landscape. Chilean lithium battery expert Guillermo Gonzalez lamented that, “This isn’t a green solution – it’s not a solution at all.”

Despite predictions, you will hear none of these concerns in today’s articles touting the “lithium revolution.” Just as the EPA ignores concerns over the likely link between offshore wind turbines and whale deaths, the Biden EPA ignores the negative impacts of lithium mining in its manic quest to force Americans into electric vehicles or no vehicle at all.

Damn the environment! Saving the planet requires drastic steps!

Buoyed (or bribed?) by massive subsidies under the misnamed Inflation Reduction Act, General Motors announced it would invest $650 million to gain exclusive rights to the first fruits from Lithium America’s Thacker Pass, Nevada, mine.

Almost immediately afterward, U.S. District Court Judge Miranda Du ruled that the Bureau of Land Management had properly approved the mine’s permit, paying the way for the company to begin supplying enough lithium for a million EV batteries a year beginning in 2027.

A month earlier, the Department of Energy announced plans to lend $700 million to Australia-based Ioneer Ltd., for the smaller Rhyolite Ridge lithium mining project, also in Nevada. That project has been slowed by (misguided?) proponents of protecting the endangered wildflower, Tiehm’s buckwheat, but the triumph of climate over environment makes this a likely done deal.

The DOE said the loan demonstrates the Administration’s commitment to strengthen the nation’s battery supply chain, electrify the transportation sector, and cut reliance on fossil fuels and foreign suppliers of raw materials. A spokesman for the Center for Biological Diversity called the loan commitment “a fairly transparent effort … to build political momentum for the project.”

The only other U.S. lithium mine, Silver Peak (also in Nevada), is owned by Albermarle, maybe the world’s largest lithium producer. Albemarle has announced plans to double production from the mine. The company was also awarded a $150 million DOE grant, under the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, to finance construction of a new, commercial-scale lithium concentrator facility in North Carolina.

The push by the Biden Administration to activate the Thacker Pass and Rhyolite Ridge mines and to pour money into Albemarle’s operations marks a significant departure from past Biden policies that have thwarted would-be mining operations in Alaska, Minnesota, and Colorado – and from longstanding Democratic Party anti-mining policy.

No one ever asks where the water for these massive mining operations is coming from – in the drought-plagued American West.

President Biden’s “little brother up north,” Prime Minister Trudeau, is celebrating a revived lithium mining industry. There, oil and gas production has long been demonized as catastrophic to the environment, yet in-situ oil mining leaves only a tiny footprint and cleans the soils and open-pit oil mines must restore the affected acreage to its pristine state after ridding the soils of polluting oil.

While oil mining remains far from pristine, so is lithium mining. Yet across Canada, new lithium mines are being touted as the wave of the future and Canada’s contribution to saving the planet from warmer weather (which most Canadians would likely celebrate).

In 2020 the Saskatchewan government gleefully announced a new joint lithium project by Prairie Lithium Corp and LIEP Energy Ltd. The press release, which did not even address pollution, noted that the project can earn transferable royalty credits worth 25 percent of eligible capital and operating expenditures.

Last July Northern Miner issued a glowing report on lithium mining’s future in Canada, including prospective investments into petroleum brine production techniques in Alberta, a fast-growing battery and EV manufacturing base in Quebec and Ontario, and other projects.

The report cited Canada’s “more attractive” regulatory environment, noting that mine permitting times in Canada are far shorter than in the U.S. and that the government had proposed $3.8 billion (Canadian) to support the mining sector. It never mentioned water or waste management.

Last November, CBC News announced that the startup of production at the La Corne, Quebec, lithium concentrate mine would position Quebec as a Canadian lithium leader. This despite faint cries from environmental groups and the Long Point First Nation that lithium projects threaten water quality and the Anishinabeg way of life. [A small price to save the planet!]

Earlier this month, Canadian North Resources Inc. (CNRI) announced plans to explore the potential for lithium minerals during 2023 at its Ferguson Lake property in British Columbia. CNRI says it has discovered extensive granitic pegmatite minerals on the property and says the regional geology and tectonic environment are favorable for lithium mineralization.

Just two years ago, when Imperial Metals applied to the British Columbia government for an exploratory permit to drill for gold around the source waters for the Skagit River, an international coalition of over 200 Indigenous groups, businesses, and environmentalists announced their opposition and made worldwide news. Today, crickets.

Just like icebergs (and even Frosty the Snowman) melt, it is quite likely that the lithium boom may run into problems with a human population unhappy at being bullied into accepting a future that diminishes their freedom, their pocketbooks, and their enjoyment of life. By then, though, the unspoken environmental damage done to land, water, people, and animal and plant life will have likely also wrecked economies that will no longer be able to pay for their restoration.

Author

  • Duggan Flanakin
  • Duggan Flanakin is a Senior Policy Analyst with the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow. A former Senior Fellow with the Texas Public Policy Foundation, Mr. Flanakin authored definitive works on the creation of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality and on environmental education in Texas.
  • A brief history of his multifaceted career appears in his book, “Infinite Galaxies: Poems from the Dugout.”