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.”

Related Topics:#EnergyNow.CA #PlasticsBan BlanketBanOnPlastics CanadaPoweredByWoment FoodSafety]PlasticProducts PlasticsSector

Up Next

First Nations Buy Into Pipelines

Don't Miss

‘A Tough Place To Do Business’: Chevron Exec Details Company’s Decision To Move HQ Out Of California

Todayville

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

“It’s Not Freedom — It’s the First Step Toward Freedom”

Haultain Research / 2 hours ago

Trying to Defend Maduro’s Legitimacy

International / 4 hours ago

U.S. Claims Western Hemispheric Domination, Denies Russia Security Interests On Its Own Border

Energy

The U.S. Just Removed a Dictator and Canada is Collateral Damage

Published on January 3, 2026

Todayville

Kelsi Sheren

Early this morning, the United States says it carried out a ground raid supported by air strikes inside Venezuela, reportedly involving elite U.S. forces, including Delta Force, and removed Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and his wife Cilia Flores from the country.

President Donald Trump confirmed the operation publicly and stated that the United States intends to “run Venezuela” during a transition period, explicitly including control over the country’s oil sector. That single statement should alarm Canada far more than any diplomatic condemnation ever could.

Kelsi Sheren is a reader-supported publication.

To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Subscribe to Kelsi Sheren

While this move may be justified on moral or strategic grounds for the U.S., it is unequivocally bad news for Canada, really really bad. Canada’s energy position just weakened significantly and now Canada’s leverage with the United States has always rested on one simple fact: the U.S. needed Canadian oil.

Not liked it. Needed it.

Canada became Washington’s largest and most reliable foreign energy supplier not because it was cheap, fast, or efficient but because alternatives were unstable, sanctioned, or politically toxic. Venezuela was one of those alternatives.

It isn’t anymore.

If the U.S. succeeds in stabilizing Venezuelan oil production under its influence, Canada loses something it cannot easily replace and wish it did sooner, strategic indispensability. When your biggest customer gains options, your negotiating power not only shrinks, it completely disappears.

Venezuelan crude is largely heavy oil, the same category as much of Canada’s oil sands production. Many U.S. refineries, especially along the Gulf Coast, are designed to process heavy crude. For years, sanctions and mismanagement kept Venezuelan barrels off the market. Canadian heavy helped fill that gap. That advantage just cracked open. If Venezuelan supply re-enters global markets under U.S. oversight, Canadian oil faces more competition, downward pressure on prices, wider discounts for heavy crude and reduced urgency for new Canadian infrastructure. Urgency that Mark Carney refused to see was needed.

Canada’s oil is already expensive to extract and transport. It is already burdened by regulatory delays, pipeline bottlenecks, and political hostility at home. Now it faces a rival with larger reserves, lower production costs, shorter shipping routes and U.S. strategic backing

That is not a fair fight, but the liberals put us in this position and only have themselves to blame. Ottawa officially has no cards left to play. Canada’s response options are beyond limited and that’s the real problem.

Ottawa cannot meaningfully condemn the U.S. without risking trade and defence relations. It cannot influence Venezuelan reconstruction. It cannot outcompete Venezuelan oil on cost and it has spent years undermining its own energy sector in the name of climate virtue signalling. This is just the snake eating it’s tail and now realizing its proper fucked.

Canada is watching a major shift in global energy power from the sidelines, with no leverage and no contingency plan. This is the cost of mistaking morality for strategy. This is the cost of an ego gone unchecked.

Canada likes to tell itself that being stable, ethical, and predictable guarantees relevance. It doesn’t, Canada isn’t even in the game anymore it just hasn’t realized it. It only works when your partner has no better options.

The U.S. did not remove a communist dictator in Venezuela to protect Canadian interests. It did it to secure American interests energy, influence, and control. Thats what a real leader does, puts it’s country and it’s citizens first.

Canada’s reliability is now a nice bonus, not a necessity. That shift will show up quietly in trade negotiations, in infrastructure decisions and how quickly Canadian concerns get brushed aside. No dramatic break. Just less attention. Less urgency. Less patience and soon enough Canada won’t be invited to the table to even begin the conversation. Canada has just been down graded to the kids table.

This moment didn’t begin today. It began when Canada failed to build pipelines, ego drove away energy investment, allowed its regulatory system to become a chokehold and treated its largest export sector as an embarrassment.

While Ottawa debated optics, the U.S. planned for contingencies. Today was one of them.

The removal of a communist dictator in Venezuela may be a massive victory for it’s citizen and a strategic win for the United States but for Canada, it is a warning shot. Canada just became more optional in a world that punishes irrelevance quickly and quietly.

Being polite won’t save us. Being virtuous won’t save us.

Only being necessary ever did and today, Canada no longer became necessary.

KELSI SHEREN

– – – – – – – – – – – –

One Time Donation! – Paypal – https://paypal.me/brassandunity

Buy me a coffee! – https://buymeacoffee.com/kelsisheren

Let’s connect!

Youtube – https://www.youtube.com/@thekelsisherenperspective

Instagram – https://www.instagram.com/thekelsisherenperspective?utm_source=ig_web_button_share_sheet&igsh=ZDNlZDc0MzIxNw%3D%3D

X: https://x.com/KelsiBurns

Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/kelsie_sheren/

Substack: https://substack.com/@kelsisheren

TikTok – https://x.com/KelsiBurns

Energy

Rulings could affect energy prices everywhere: Climate activists v. the energy industry in 2026

Published on January 2, 2026

Todayville

From The Center Square

By Andrew Rice

Anti-oil and gas advocates across the country have pursued litigation in recent years attempting to force the fossil fuel industry to pay for decades of financial damages the advocates claim were caused by climate change.

Several cases have been dismissed while others advanced through court systems, with some being considered before the U.S. Supreme Court in 2026. Critics of the litigation call it “woke lawfare” and an attempt to force progressive political policies via the judicial system.

Critics also argue the lawsuits threaten U.S. energy independence and, depending on outcomes, will have sweeping impacts on every American.

Here are some of those cases.

Chevron USA Inc. v. Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana

On Jan. 12, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana, vs. Chevron USA Inc. The case questions to what extent a state court can litigate against an oil company for its production of oil even if it obtained federal permits to produce the oil.

The litigation challenges activities of the oil companies dating back to World War II in some cases. Chevron argued the lawsuit was flawed, claiming that the activities in question were permitted, legal, and often conducted under federal direction – particularly those tied to national security during World War II.

A Plaquemines Parish jury in April ordered Chevron to pay $744 million in damages for its role in the degradation of the state’s coastal wetlands. Environmental activists celebrated the verdict. It was the first of 42 lawsuits filed since 2013 by parishes across coastal Louisiana to go to trial.

The Trump administration’s Justice Department stepped in on Chevron’s side, urging the Supreme Court to move the case from state court to federal court.

Business groups and energy advocates warned the verdict will drive jobs and investment out of Louisiana. The Louisiana Association of Business and Industry called the decision “shortsighted,” saying it would “brand Louisiana as a state that will extort the most recognizable companies on earth for billions of dollars, decades later.”

O.H. Skinner, executive director of Alliance for Consumers, told the Center Square the case seeks to score large settlements from the energy industry and stop oil production.

“The case arises from a broader campaign of woke lawfare in which activists and municipal governments seek to use courtrooms to determine what companies are allowed to produce and what consumers can buy,” Skinner said.

Suncor Energy Inc. v. Boulder

The nation’s highest court is still deciding whether it will hear arguments in Suncor Energy Inc. v. Boulder; a case to decide whether state and local governments can use nuisance laws to sue energy companies for activities that may cause climate change.

The case, originating in Colorado, centers around a City of Boulder and Boulder County lawsuit in state court against Suncor Energy claiming it misled the public in its activities that the local governments claim led to climate change effects.

Lawyers for Suncor Energy argue that allowing a case like this one to play out goes against protections in the Clean Air Act that prevent lawsuits from occurring against emitters from across state lines.

“Public nuisance can’t be used for global problems. It can be used for local problems,” Skinner told The Center Square. “That’s what it’s supposed to be used for.”

However, Skinner said many organizations that are pursuing climate change litigation are seeking to bankrupt energy companies with large monetary settlements. He said litigants will likely attempt to drain energy companies of their resources and use the funds to advocate certain ideological causes.

“These are highly ideological dark-money-funded, multi-faceted legal campaigns to bankrupt an entire industry and confiscate it for ideological reasons,” Skinner said.

City and County of Honolulu v. Sunoco

Similarly, in 2020, City and County of Honolulu v. Sunoco was one of the first examples of public nuisance lawsuits pursued in a state court. The city and county of Honolulu filed a lawsuit in 2020 accusing oil and gas companies, including Sunoco, Exxon Mobil, BP, Chevron and Shell, of misleading the public for decades about the dangers of climate change induced by burning fossil fuels.

The companies asked the U.S. Supreme Court to intervene in the case, but the court, without ruling on the merits, declined to do so in January.

While the case is based in Hawaii, Skinner said litigants there hope it will have far-reaching effects across the country.

“They’re not trying to stop behavior just in those states,” Skinner said. ”The thing that really freaks me out is how people in regular, everyday, real America are going to potentially be affected.”

The People of the State of California v. Exxon Mobil Corporation

Going a step further than Boulder and Honolulu, California Democrat Attorney General Rob Bonta filed a complaint against ExxonMobil in 2024 for what he says are its contributions to “the deluge of plastic pollution” affecting the state.

Exxon countersued, alleging “Bonta and the US Proxies – the former for political gain and the latter pawns for the Foreign Interests – have engaged in a deliberate smear campaign against ExxonMobil, falsely claiming that ExxonMobil’s effective and innovative advanced recycling technology is a ‘false promise’ and ‘not based on truth.,” American Tort Reform Foundation reported.

One of the foreign interests is IEJF, an Australian nonprofit that’s connected to an Australian mining conmpany “that competes with ExxonMobil in the low carbon solutions and energy transition markets, ATRF reported.

Skinner said the litigants in this case are attempting to significantly reduce plastic use throughout the state of California and potentially beyond.

“That’ll make your average person’s life dramatically harder, and it’ll make a lot of things a lot more expensive, and it’ll make having kids, like, brutal,” Skinner said.

Leon v. Exxon Mobil Corp.

Aside from monetary settlements, petitioners in this case also are seeking wrongful death claims against energy companies for their contributions to climate change. The case stems from a woman in Washington state who said her mother died from heat-related illness due to the exacerbated effects of climate change.

She is suing energy companies for their alleged creation of conditions over a period of decades that led to increased temperatures on the day her mother died.

Skinner told The Center Square this case is one of the more blatant examples of ideology affecting the way a litigant pursues cases.

“I think they care because a death is worth a lot of money,” Skinner said. “The climate homicide cases are one of the more far-fetched legal theories I’ve ever seen, because you’re leveling this incredibly staggering charge.”

Climate cases will continue to move through the court system, with one to be heard before the U.S. Supreme Court in early 2026.

Skinner is urging the U.S. Supreme Court and lower courts to rule in favor of energy companies across the country.

“We want the energy companies to win, not because they are perfect actors, but because the alternative is that our lives are governed day in and day out by woke trial lawyers, woke [nongovernmental organizations] and local governments,” Skinner said.