Energy
From Sippy Cups to Solar Panels: Why a Blanket Ban on Plastics Misses the Mark
From EnergyNow.ca
By Canada Powered by Women
Repeated attempts by the federal government to implement a sweeping ban on plastics don’t consider the crucial role plastics play in the lives of Canadians and energy transformation.
Plastic is in many products we need every day, including medical equipment, headphones, car seats, menstrual products and computers. For mothers enjoying summer with their kids — don’t forget sippy cups, running shoes and diapers (to name a few).
In Canada, as many as 70,000 plastic products are made every day. They are essential, whether we’re working, having fun or simply trying to go about our daily lives.
The chemistry and plastics sector is also the third largest manufacturing sector in Canada, employing more than 190,000 people and shipping more than $108 billion in products in 2022.
So, this fall when the Appeals Court revisits the federal government’s move that labelled many plastics as “toxic”, engaged women from across the country are going to be watching.
They’re watching because the use of plastic touches many areas of their personal lives and interests.
Plastic is a critical component in the energy transformation (which we know engaged women care a lot about) and it’s intricately connected to the development and deployment of renewable energy technologies. These are important considerations for our country’s broader energy policy and sustainability goals, and engaged women are paying attention because they’re not convinced Canada has energy policies that positively affect prosperity.
Engaged women in Canada have also told us they want a balanced approach on the environment, energy and economic prosperity. As a result, their understanding of policies is deepening, and they are focusing on long-term prosperity and affordability while striving for a well-rounded strategy when it comes to policymaking.
So how did we get here with the plastics issue, and what happens next?
The single-use plastic ban that started it all
In 2019, the federal government announced it would seek to ban single-use plastic items such as straws, cutlery, take out containers, stir sticks and plastic bags to reduce plastic waste.
The ban came into effect in 2022 after the federal government added all plastic manufactured items (PMIs) to a toxic substance list (a key step in allowing it to ban these items).
Waste management is a provincial responsibility, but the federal government is able to regulate substances for environmental protection if they are listed as toxic under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act.
In 2023, a federal court reviewed the legislation after complaints surfaced saying Ottawa failed to demonstrate enough scientific evidence to justify the sweeping regulations.
The court agreed, ruling that the federal government exceeded its authority by listing all PMIs as toxic, calling the move “unreasonable and unconstitutional”.
The federal government appealed the decision, and on June 25-26 this year, the Federal Appeals Court heard arguments for and against listing all PMIs as toxic.
A decision on the appeal is expected this fall, and the outcome of the ruling has many concerned about what future bans and other restrictive regulations and policies will mean for everyday Canadians.
How plastics restrictions could hurt Canadians
Christa Seaman, vice-president of the plastics division with the Chemistry Industry Association of Canada, says further restrictions on using plastic will have serious ramifications.
“If we start to take away plastic packaging that’s keeping our food safe, for example, you’ll actually see increased cost to consumers because food is going to spoil before it gets to market or shipping is going to be more expensive because the packaging for the products are going to weigh more,” says Seaman.
Seaman also highlights restrictions on plastics could limit the availability of certain products that rely on plastic packaging or components, and Canadians may have reduced access to the variety of inexpensive goods we use today.
Plastics play a big role in low-carbon technology development
There are sustainable ways to keep plastics out of the environment and in the economy, Seaman says, particularly because of the key role they’re already playing in the proliferation of green technologies.
For example, batteries in electric vehicles (EVs) are heavier than in vehicles with internal combustion engines so plastics are being used to manufacture EVs.
“Plastics, being lightweight and durable, are key to keeping the weight of the vehicle down,” she says. “We have less wear and tear on our roads and we’re actually able to increase the driving range per charge, without compromising safety at all.”
Plastics also make renewable energy sources like wind and solar possible, Seaman says. They are a key component in solar panels, and blades of wind turbines are made with fibreglass and other plastic composite materials.
Rather than an outright ban on plastics, we’d be better off exploring how a circular economy — one that includes the appropriate use, reuse and recycling of plastics — can keep plastic waste out of the environment and create a more sustainable future.
Some provinces and territories have also initiated an important shift in responsibility by making producers of plastic products responsible for funding their collection and recycling, Seaman says.
“Provinces are setting the guidelines on achieving certain benchmarks and targets for recyclability, which will go back to how the products are designed,” she says. “The cheaper and easier it is to recycle, the less they’re going to have to spend on the recycling system in the end.”
Seaman says the industry goal is to focus on reduction first by making packaging smaller or thinner. Then the focus turns to reusing plastics, and once those options are exhausted the goal is to recycle.
What we need from policymakers
Listing all plastics as toxic, and then implementing bans around their use, is heavy-handed and misguided.
Seaman says a collaborative approach between policymakers and producers is what’s needed now, and policy should reflect what’s best for the public, the environment and the economy.
“We need all solutions to be on the table: your compostable, your biodegradable, your advanced recycling, your mechanical recycling.”
Seaman says the focus should be placed on outcome-based regulations and science.
“Let’s talk about the outcomes we’re all trying to achieve, because nobody wants to see plastics in the environment, in the waterways or in landfill. Let’s look at what targets need to be and find a way to get there together.”
From Resource Works
Heather-Exner Pirot of the Business Council of Canada and the Macdonald-Laurier Institute spoke with Resource Works about the transition to Donald Trump’s energy policy, hopes for Keystone XL’s revival, EVs, and more.
Do you think it is accurate to say that Trump’s energy policy will be the complete opposite of Joe Biden’s? Or will it be more nuanced than that?
It’s more nuanced than that. US oil and gas production did grow under Biden, as it did under Obama. It’s actually at record levels right now. The US is producing the most oil and gas per day that any nation has ever produced in the history of the world.
That said, the federal government in the US has imposed relatively little control over production. In the absence of restrictive emissions and climate policies that we have in Canada, most of the oil production decisions have been made based on market forces. With prices where they’re at currently, there’s not a lot of shareholder appetite to grow that significantly.
The few areas you can expect change: leasing more federal lands and off shore areas for oil and gas development; rescinding the pause in LNG export permits; eliminating the new methane fee; and removing Biden’s ambitious vehicle fuel efficiency standards, which would subsequently maintain gas demand.
I would say on nuclear energy, there won’t be a reversal, as that file has earned bipartisan support. If anything, a Trump Admin would push regulators to approve SMRs models and projects faster. They want more of all kinds of energy.
Is Keystone XL a dead letter, or is there enough planning and infrastructure still in-place to restart that project?
I haven’t heard any appetite in the private sector to restart that in the short term. I know Alberta is pushing it. I do think it makes sense for North American energy security – energy dominance, as the Trump Admin calls – and I believe there is a market for more Canadian oil in the USA; it makes economic sense. But it’s still looked at as too politically risky for investors.
To have it move forward I think you would need some government support to derisk it. A TMX model, even. And clear evidence of social license and bipartisan support so it can survive the next election on both sides of the border.
Frankly, Northern Gateway is the better project for Canada to restart, under a Conservative government.
Keystone XL was cancelled by Biden prior to the invasion of Ukraine in 2022. Do you think that the reshoring/friendshoring of the energy supply is a far bigger priority now?
It absolutely is a bigger priority. But it’s also a smaller threat. You need to appreciate that North America has become much more energy independent and secure than it has ever been. Both US and Canada are producing at record levels. Combined, we now produce more than the Middle East (41 million boe/d vs 38 million boe/d). And Canada has taken a growing share of US imports (now 60%) even as their import levels have declined.
But there are two risks on the horizon: the first is that oil is a non renewable resource and the US is expected to reach a peak in shale oil production in the next few years. No one wants to go back to the days when OPEC + had dominant market power. I think there will be a lot of demand for Canadian oil to fill the gap left by any decline in US oil production. And Norway’s production is expected to peak imminently as well.
The second is the need from our allies for LNG. Europe is still dependent on Russia for natural gas, energy demand is growing in Asia, and high industrial energy costs are weighing on both. More and cheaper LNG from North America is highly important for the energy security of our allies, and thus the western alliance as it faces a challenge from Russia, China and Iran.
Canada has little choice but to follow the US lead on many issues such as EVs and tariffs on China. Regarding energy policy, does Canada’s relative strength in the oil and gas sector give it a stronger hand when it comes to having an independent energy policy?
I don’t think we want an independent energy policy. I would argue we both benefit from alignment and interdependence. And we’ve built up that interdependence on the infrastructure side over decades: pipelines, refineries, transmission, everything.
That interdependence gives us a stronger hand in other areas of the economy. Any tariffs on Canadian energy would absolutely not be in American’s interests in terms of their energy dominance agenda. Trump wants to drop energy costs, not hike them.
I think we can leverage tariff exemptions in energy to other sectors, such as manufacturing, which is more vulnerable. But you have to make the case for why that makes sense for US, not just Canada. And that’s because we need as much industrial capacity in the west as we can muster to counter China and Russia. America First is fine, but this is not the time for America Alone.
Do you see provinces like Alberta and Saskatchewan being more on-side with the US than the federal government when it comes to energy?
Of course. The North American capital that is threatening their economic interests is not Washington DC; it’s Ottawa.
I think you are seeing some recognition – much belated and fast on the heels of an emissions cap that could shut in over 2 million boe of production! – that what makes Canada important to the United States and in the world is our oil and gas and uranium and critical minerals and agricultural products.
We’ve spent almost a decade constraining those sectors. There is no doubt a Trump Admin will be complicated, but at the very least it’s clarified how important those sectors are to our soft and hard power.
It’s not too late for Canada to flex its muscles on the world stage and use its resources to advance our national interests, and our allies’ interests. In fact, it’s absolutely critical that we do so.
From EnergyNow.ca
By Terry Winnitoy, EnergyNow
The Keystone XL Pipeline, proposed in 2008, was designed to transport Canadian crude oil from Alberta to refineries in the United States, specifically to Steele City, Nebraska, and onward to refineries in Illinois and Texas, as well as to an oil pipeline distribution center in Cushing, Oklahoma.
Spanning approximately 1,179 miles and designed to transport up to 830,000 barrels of oil per day, the pipeline promised significant economic and energy security benefits. However, it became a focal point of political and environmental controversy, leading to its eventual cancellation by Presidents Obama and Biden.
Here’s a brief look at its history, the reasons it should have been built, the political dynamics that led to its cancellation and will President-elect Trump revive it?
Why the Keystone XL Pipeline Should Have Been Built
Economic and Job Creation
The pipeline was projected to create thousands of construction jobs and several hundred permanent jobs, providing a significant boost to the economy. It was also expected to stimulate economic activity through the development of related infrastructure and services.
Energy Security
By facilitating the efficient transport of a large volume of oil from a stable and friendly neighboring country, the pipeline would have reduced American dependence on oil imports from more volatile regions, enhancing national energy security.
Environmental Safety
Pipelines are generally safer and more environmentally friendly for transporting oil compared to rail or truck, with lower risks of spills and accidents. The Keystone XL was designed with the latest technology to minimize leaks and environmental impact.
Regulatory Oversight
The project underwent extensive environmental reviews and was subject to strict regulatory standards to ensure it adhered to environmental protection and safety measures.
Political Reasons for Cancellation
Environmental Activism
The pipeline became a symbol for environmentalists who opposed further development of fossil fuel infrastructure. They argued it would contribute to climate change by enabling the extraction and consumption of oil sands, which are more carbon-intensive than other oil sources.
Obama’s Cancellation
President Obama rejected the pipeline in 2015, citing environmental concerns and its potential impact on global climate change. He argued that approving the pipeline would have undercut America’s leadership on climate change.
Trump’s Reversal and Biden’s Final Cancellation
President Trump revived the project in 2017, citing economic benefits and energy security. However, President Biden canceled it again on his first day in office in 2021, fulfilling a campaign promise to prioritize climate change issues and transition towards renewable energy.
Political Symbolism
For both Obama and Biden, the decision to cancel the Keystone XL Pipeline was also a symbolic gesture, demonstrating a commitment to environmental sustainability and a shift away from fossil fuel dependence in line with their administrations’ climate policies.
Will President-Elect Trump Reinstate It?
Currently, there is no definitive answer on whether President-elect Trump will reinstate the Keystone XL Pipeline. His previous administration showed support for the project, citing its potential economic and energy security benefits. However, reinstating the pipeline would require navigating significant political, legal, and environmental challenges that have developed over the years.
It would also depend on the current geopolitical, economic, and environmental priorities at the time of his taking office. The Keystone XL Pipeline’s history is a complex tapestry of economic aspirations, environmental concerns, and political maneuvers.
Its cancellation has been a contentious issue, reflecting the broader national and global debates over energy policy and climate change strategy. Whether it will be reinstated remains a significant question, contingent on a multitude of factors including political will, environmental policies, and market dynamics.
That all said, re-instating its approval might be the perfect “in your face” moment for Trump to Obama and Biden as he begins his second term of presidency. We’ll have to wait and see.
COP 29 leaders demand over a $1 trillion a year in climate reparations from ‘wealthy’ nations. They don’t deserve a nickel.
What Will Be the Future of the Keystone XL Pipeline Under President Trump?
Health Care Update: Province will deliver health services regionally in seven “health corridors”
Trump Energy Policies will be executed by New York Rep. Lee Zeldin and North Dakota Gov. Doug Burgum
-
Brownstone Institute2 days agoThe Most Devastating Report So Far
-
Business2 days agoCarbon tax bureaucracy costs taxpayers $800 million
-
ESG2 days agoCan’t afford Rent? Groceries for your kids? Trudeau says suck it up and pay the tax!
-
John Stossel1 day agoGreen Energy Needs Minerals, Yet America Blocks New Mines
-
Daily Caller2 days agoLos Angeles Passes ‘Sanctuary City’ Ordinance In Wake Of Trump’s Deportation Plan
-
Alberta1 day agoProvince considering new Red Deer River reservoir east of Red Deer
-
Addictions1 day agoBC Addictions Expert Questions Ties Between Safer Supply Advocates and For-Profit Companies
-
Aristotle Foundation1 day agoToronto cancels history, again: The irony and injustice of renaming Yonge-Dundas Square to Sankofa Square