Connect with us

Energy

Mark Ruffalo, Hollywood filmmakers wrong about Canadian energy, RBC

Published

1 year ago

9 minute read

Hollywood actors Mark Ruffalo, Rachel McAdams and Joaquin Phoenix are pressuring TIFF to remove RBC as a sponsor because of the bank’s support for Canadian oil and gas. Getty Images photos

From the Canadian Energy Centre

By Deborah Jaremko
 

They say RBC is not a ‘worthy source of financing’ for Canadian film because of its ongoing support for Canadian oil and gas. They are wrong

A group of Hollywood filmmakers including Mark Ruffalo, Joaquin Phoenix and Rachel McAdams is calling on the Toronto International Film Festival (TIFF) to drop RBC as its main sponsor. 

They say RBC is not a “worthy source of financing” for Canadian film because of its ongoing support for Canadian oil and gas. They claim RBC is fueling climate change and disrespecting Indigenous rights.  

They are wrong.  

RBC is helping fund climate solutions while enabling Indigenous self-determination and prosperity. And Indigenous communities do not want Hollywood to speak for them.  

Here are the facts.  

Fact: RBC primarily funds Canadian oil and gas, and the world needs more Canadian oil and gas – not less 

The world’s growing population needs access to reliable, affordable, responsibly produced energy. And a lot more of it.  

According to the United Nations, last November the global population reached 8 billion people, just over a decade after hitting the landmark 7 billion in 2011. Driven by India and China, the world’s population is projected to reach 8.5 billion in 2030 and 9.7 billion 2050.  

All those people need energy. Many don’t even have it today, with about 775 million without access to electricity last year, according to the International Energy Agency (IEA).  

Even with accelerating investment in low carbon energy resources, the world’s consumption of oil, gas and coal is as high or higher than it has ever been, with both oil and coal demand reaching new records this year, the IEA reports.  

The agency projects the world’s total energy consumption – which increased by 15 per cent over the last decade – will increase by a further 24 per cent by 2050.  

On the world’s current trajectory, the IEA says oil, gas and coal will account for 62 per cent of world energy supply in 2050, compared to 78 per cent in 2021.  

As IEA executive director Fatih Birol said last year, “We will still need oil and gas for years to come… I prefer that oil is produced by countries like Canada who want to reduce the emissions of oil and gas.” 

Canada has been a cornerstone of global energy markets and a reliable partner for years, he said. 

Fact: Coastal GasLink will help reduce emissions  

The Hollywood activists take issue with RBC’s funding of the Coastal GasLink pipeline. This is nonsensical because the project can help reduce emissions in Asia. It also has the support of and is benefiting Indigenous communities.  

One of the fastest and most effective ways to reduce emissions is to switch from coal-fired power to power generated from natural gas, traded globally as LNG.  

Consider that between 2005 and 2019, emissions from the U.S power sector dropped by 32 per cent because of coal-to-gas switching, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.  

The LNG Canada project – supplied with Canadian natural gas via Coastal GasLink – will have among the world’s lowest emissions intensity, at 0.15 per cent CO2 per tonne compared to the global average of 0.35 per cent CO2 per tonne, according to Oxford Energy Institute.  

Natural gas from LNG Canada alone could reduce emissions in Asia by up to 90 million tonnes annually, or the equivalent of shutting down up to 60 Asian coal plants, the project says. That’s also a reduction of more than the entire emissions of the province of British Columbia, which were 64 million tonnes in 2022.   

Expanding Canada’s LNG exports to Asia could reduce emissions by 188 million tonnes per year, or the annual equivalent of taking all internal combustion engine vehicles off Canadian roads, according to a 2022 study by Wood Mackenzie.  

“It is a disservice to take the choice of Canadian LNG away from those that need it,” Billy Morin, former chief of the Enoch Cree Nation, said earlier this year. 

Fact: Coastal GasLink benefits Indigenous communities 

The Coastal GasLink pipeline is enabling shared prosperity between Indigenous communities and Canada’s energy industry.  

Not only will it connect to the LNG Canada terminal on the traditional lands of the Haisla Nation – where the project has been transformational for the community, according to Chief Councillor Crystal Smith – but it will also provide natural gas for the proposed Cedar LNG project, in which the Haisla Nation is 50 per cent owner. 

“Cedar is not only important from a Haisla perspective, [but from] a global perspective,” Smith says.  

“Our territory is not in a bubble and protected from what is happening in Asia and India with coal burning.” 

Sixteen First Nations will become 10 per cent owners of the Coastal GasLink pipeline itself once it is completed.  

And so far, LNG Canada and Coastal GasLink together have spent more than $5.7 billion with Indigenous-owned and local businesses.    

“When there is foreign interference, especially from high-profile celebrities like Ruffalo, it sets us back. He does not think beyond the pipeline. He does not think beyond the cause of the day,” Indigenous policy analyst Melissa Mbarki wrote following a previous attack on Coastal GasLink by the actor.   

“Over the long term, such actions serve to drive away investment and keep Indigenous communities in poverty. We are dealing with so many social issues, including high rates of suicide, incarceration and homelessness. Speaking on our behalf is not the answer if you fail to acknowledge the entire story.”    

Fact: Indigenous communities speak with their own voices 

Ruffalo is a prominent activist against the Coastal GasLink pipeline, often spreading misinformation about the project’s relationship with Indigenous communities. But they are fighting back.  

“Hollywood celebrities from outside of Canada are actively campaigning against the Coastal GasLink project, claiming Indigenous People do not support it. However, 20 elected First Nations governments along the route do support it,” the Indigenous Resource Network said in a statement last year.  

“Hollywood celebrities are standing in the way of us being able to make our own decisions. Their main goal is to push their agenda and use us as talking points; ultimately, communities are left to pick up the pieces. 

“Although their intentions may be to help Indigenous people in Canada, this can be best done by allowing our people to use their own voices. We are able to decide for ourselves what is best for ourselves and our communities.” 

Fact: The film industry has its own emissions to deal with 

Rather than campaign against Canadian energy projects that can help reduce emissions and foster prosperity for Indigenous communities, Hollywood film makers could be better served addressing the emissions in their own backyard.  

A 2020 study by the British Film Institute analyzing the emissions associated with producing movies in the U.S. and U.K. found that films with a budget of $70 million or over generate an average 2,840 tonnes of CO2 pollution. 

Air travel alone to support a movie production of this scale generates equivalent emissions of flying one way from London to New York 150 times, BFI said.  

Related Topics:

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

More from this author
Catherine Herridge / 46 mins ago

How X And Joe Rogan Broke The Back of 60 Minutes

Energy / 9 hours ago

Is Canada the next nuclear superpower?

Business / 12 hours ago

The Health Research Funding Scandal Costing Canadians Billions is Parading in Plain View

Energy

Is Canada the next nuclear superpower?

Published on November 24, 2024

By

From Resource Works 

The rise of AI and other technologies have pushed energy demand through the roof, and Canada can help power that with nuclear. 

Good to see Prime Minister Justin Trudeau pushing nuclear power as a key contributor to meeting the world’s soaring demand for electricity.

“The energy consumption necessary around AI (artificial intelligence) nobody has properly understood yet,” he said. “We have stepped up big time on nuclear.”

He cited Canada’s uranium reserves and progress in building both full-scale CANDU reactors and small modular reactors (SMRs). He said other countries need to “skate where the puck is going” on cleaner energy sources.

“We know that if we are going to meet our net-zero targets around the world, and certainly in this region, nuclear is going to be really part of the mix.”

He stopped short of saying Canada would build more major nuclear reactors for domestic use but spoke about the development of SMRs. Ottawa has previously stated it wants to become “a global leader in SMR deployment.”

Meanwhile, International Trade Minister Mary Ng said Canada is launching a gateway for nuclear development in the Asia-Pacific region. She said growing Pacific Rim economies will face increasing demand for electricity, not just to curb emissions.

“All this followed CANDU licence-holder AtkinsRéalis announcing a “multi-billion-dollar” sale of two CANDU reactors to Romania, the first to be built since 2007. The federal government contributed $3 billion, the company said.

And in one of our Resource Works Power Struggle podcasts, energy journalist Robert Bryce said: “We’re seeing the revitalization of the nuclear sector… There are a lot of promising signs.”

Also from Bryce: “Forty-seven per cent of the people on the planet today live in electricity poverty. There are over three billion people who live in the unplugged world; 3.7 billion who live in places where electricity consumption is less than what’s consumed by an average kitchen refrigerator.”

Policy Options magazine notes how Canada and 21 other countries signed a 2023 pledge to triple nuclear energy capacity by 2050, and says: “The reality would appear to be clear: there is no feasible net-zero future without the deployment of new nuclear power.”

For Canada, it adds: “We have an opportunity to expand our global status, but this requires overcoming years of policy inaction while other nations have modernized their nuclear strategies. To triple our nuclear capacity by 2050, we need clear priorities and unwavering political commitment.”

Earlier this year, François-Philippe Champagne, federal minister of innovation, science and industry, said nuclear power needs to grow for the world’s renewable-energy economy.

“Nuclear, definitely. For me, we have to look at hydro, we have to look at nuclear, we have to look at small modular reactors, we have to look at wind, we have to look at solar.”

Jonathan Wilkinson, energy and natural resources minister, promised to expedite the approval process for new Canadian nuclear projects.

Canada now gets about 15% of its electricity from nuclear generation, mostly from reactors in Ontario.

But the last nuclear reactor to come into service in Canada was at the Darlington station, east of Toronto, back in 1993. No new nuclear project has been approved since then, but multi-million-dollar upgrades are underway at existing Ontario plants.

Heather Exner-Pirot of the Macdonald-Laurier Institute and Jesse McCormick of the First Nations Major Projects Coalition see SMRs and micro-reactors as a plus for rural and remote areas of Canada that now rely on diesel to generate power. Some First Nations are also interested.

However, the two commentators point out that nuclear developers will need Indigenous support and will have to “provide meaningful economic benefits and consider Indigenous perspectives in project design.”

Now, the Wabigoon Lake nation in Ontario has stepped up as a potential host to a deep underground facility for storing nuclear waste.

As Canada looks to SMRs to meet electricity demand, our country also hopes to sell more uranium to other nations—perhaps with a little help from Russia.

In October, Russian President Vladimir Putin proposed restrictions on Russian uranium exports in retaliation for Western sanctions on Russian oil, gas, and LNG.

That boosted hopes for increased exports of Canadian uranium.

Canada, once the world’s largest uranium producer, is now the world’s second-largest, behind Kazakhstan, and accounts for roughly 13% of global output.

Putin’s threat gave more momentum to the plans underway by NexGen Energy for its $4-billion Rook 1 uranium mine in Saskatchewan.

The Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission has completed its final technical review of the project. Next comes a commission hearing, followed by a final decision on approval.

NexGen is working on detailed engineering plans in preparation for full construction, pending federal approval.

NexGen could push Canada to become the world’s largest uranium producer over the next decade. Other companies are rushing to Saskatchewan to start exploration projects in the Athabasca region, while existing players are reopening dormant mines.

All this follows the commitment by nearly two dozen countries in 2023 to triple their nuclear-energy output by 2050.

And so Britain’s BBC News topped a recent roundup on nuclear power with this headline: “Why Canada could become the next nuclear energy ‘superpower’.”

Continue Reading

Alberta

REPORT: Alberta municipalities hit with $37 million carbon tax tab in 2023

Published on November 24, 2024

By

Grande Prairie. Getty Images photo

From the Canadian Energy Centre

By Laura Mitchell

Federal cash grab driving costs for local governments, driving up property taxes

New data shows the painful economic impact of the federal carbon tax on municipalities.

Municipalities in Alberta paid out more than $37 million in federal carbon taxes in 2023, based on a recent survey commissioned by Alberta Municipal Affairs, with data provided to the Canadian Energy Centre.

About $760,000 of that came from the City of Grande Prairie. In a statement, Mayor Jackie Clayton said “if the carbon tax were removed, City property taxes could be reduced by 0.6 per cent, providing direct financial relief to residents and businesses in Grande Prairie.”

Conducted in October, the survey asked municipal districts, towns and cities in Alberta to disclose the amount of carbon tax paid out for the heating and electrifying of municipal assets and fuel for fleet vehicles.

With these funds, Alberta municipalities could have hired 7,789 high school students at $15 per hour last year with the amount paid to Ottawa.

The cost on municipalities includes:

Lloydminster: $422,248

Calgary: $1,230,300 (estimate)

Medicine Hat: $876,237

Lethbridge: $1,398,000 (estimate)

Grande Prairie: $757,562

Crowsnest Pass: $71,100

Red Deer: $1,495,945

Bonnyville: $19,484

Hinton: $66,829

Several municipalities also noted substantial indirect costs from the carbon tax, including higher rates from vendors that serve the municipality – like gravel truck drivers and road repair providers – passing increased fuel prices onto local governments.

The rising price for materials and goods like traffic lights, steel, lumber and cement, due to higher transportation costs are also hitting the bottom line for local governments.

The City of Grande Prairie paid out $89 million in goods and services in 2023, and the indirect costs of the carbon tax “have had an inflationary impact on those expenses” in addition to the direct costs of the tax.

In her press conference announcing Alberta’s challenge to the federal carbon tax on Oct. 29, 2024, Premier Danielle Smith addressed the pressures the carbon tax places on municipal bottom lines.

“In 2023 alone, the City of Calgary could have hired an additional 112 police officers or firefighters for the amount they sent to Ottawa for the carbon tax,” she said.

In a statement issued on Oct. 7, 2024, Ontario Conservative MP Ryan Williams, shadow minister for international trade, said this issue is nationwide.

“In Belleville, Ontario, the impact of the carbon tax is particularly notable. The city faces an extra $410,000 annually in costs – a burden that directly translates to an increase of 0.37 per cent on residents’ property tax bills.”

There is no rebate yet provided on retail carbon pricing for towns, cities and counties.

In October, the council in Belleville passed a motion asking the federal government to return in full all carbon taxes paid by municipalities in Canada.

The unaltered reproduction of this content is free of charge with attribution to the Canadian Energy Centre.

Continue Reading

Trending

X