Hydrocarbons Are The Backbone of Global Progress

From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy

The use of hydrocarbons is a necessity for modern life.

Climate Crusaders claim that our society could do without oil and natural gas by proceeding to a Utopia of ‘Net Zero’ by 2050, extracting CO2 (carbon dioxide) emissions from the atmosphere. However, as the Canadian Energy Centre notes, that cherished goal cannot be realized. This is true of fueling transport, heating or electric power, and all other uses of hydrocarbon fossil fuels.

People use oil and natural gas constituents for more than just burning. They use them in every sector of the economy, including military equipment and non profit organizations such as universities and hospitals.

The main component is ethane, C2H6, a ‘natural gas liquid’, extracted from raw natural gas. Ethane is then converted to ethylene, a versatile building block for many other chemicals, Other natural gas liquids, such as propane and butane, are generally used as fuel, in petrochemical production, and as some oil components.

Ethylene is used in various plastics, textiles, detergents and antifreeze. Plastics are used for containers, in countless household and industrial products, and tubing, filters, surgical masks, gloves, gowns, bandages, disinfectants and other medical products. Petrochemical-sourced materials are in the outer casing of medical devices and their components– important instruments such as blood diagnostics machines, DNA sequencers, MRI devices, ultra-sound and CAT and PET scanners.

Styrene, an ethylene end-product, makes synthetic rubber in tires. Synthetic rubber and related products are vital for the gaskets, seals, hoses and tubes in internal combustion, jet and diesel engines. Diesel engines are used in long-distance trucks bringing food to supermarkets. They also power excavating equipment that mines ores to refine into metals, fire trucks, and other machines, such as combines and tractors, which are vital to agriculture.

Petrochemicals also go into polymer fabrics such as polyester, spandex, acrylic and ‘breathable’ fabrics used by themselves or with ‘natural’ materials such as wool, cotton, silk and linen to make a great variety of items like clothes, underclothes, athletic wear, waterproof or winter jackets, hosiery, belts, handbags, upholstery material, furniture coverings, lawn and garden furniture, slope-stabilizing geotechnical fabrics, retractable arenas’ roof coverings, bedding materials, curtains, drapes, and tablecloths.

The same for the construction industries. Such products include paints, solvents, lacquers, countertops, knobs, flooring, adhesives, abrasives, pipes, plumbing and lighting fixtures. Two major insulation products builders and renovators are compelled to add to homes and office buildings make use of petrochemicals: polyurethane foam and styrofoam. Plastics go into the insulation’s outer sheath and for house wrap.

Plastics and related synthetic materials are also used in the latest generation of high-insulation windows, solar panels and wind turbines. Hence, petroleum based products are crucial to climate crusaders’ goal of lower energy consumption.

Plastics indeed add to the garbage volumes people generate. But plastic trash is manageable. Current recycling programs are ineffective, says the journal Nature. Despite rampant alarmism, waste-to-energy plastic destruction, as is bacterial digestion, is a viable alternative.

Petrochemicals and plastics make modern life possible. While substitutes are now under development, they are unlikely to become common anytime soon. So forbidding plastics would be detrimental, especially for emerging economies. Petrochemicals and plastics derived from hydrocarbons are crucial to making less-developed nations healthy and prosperous. Depriving them of that opportunity would be cruel and unnecessary.

Ian Madsen is the Senior Policy Analyst at the Frontier Centre for Public Policy

Related Topics:#CO2 #FrontierCentreForPublicPolicy #IanMadsen Hydrocarbons oilandgas Plastics Synthetics

Up Next

Biden’s Signature Climate ‘Boondoggle’ Might Be On Chopping Block After Trump Win

Don't Miss

Energy Effect: Trump’s big win fuels talk of policy actions

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

‘A Tremendous Boon’: Trump’s Sec Def Pick Will Give Pentagon Its First Real Wake Up Call In Decades

Business / 3 hours ago

Canadians should expect even more spending in federal fall economic statement

Uncategorized / 5 hours ago

Musk, Ramaswamy to lead Trump efforts to cut waste, fraud in federal government

Business

Canadians should expect even more spending in federal fall economic statement

Published on November 13, 2024

Todayville

From the Fraser Institute

By Jake Fuss and Grady Munro

The Trudeau government will soon release its fall economic statement. Though technically intended to be an update on the fiscal plan in this year’s budget, in recent years the fall economic statement has more closely resembled a “mini-budget” that unveils new (and often significant) spending commitments and initiatives.

Let’s look at the data.

The chart below includes projections of annual federal program spending from a series of federal budgets and updates, beginning with the 2022 budget and ending with the latest 2024 budget. Program spending equals total spending minus debt interest costs, and represents discretionary spending by the federal government.

Clearly, there’s a trend that with every consecutive budget and fiscal update the Trudeau government revises spending estimates upwards. Take the last two fiscal years, 2023/24 and 2024/25, for example. Budget 2022 projected annual program spending of $436.5 billion for the 2023/24 fiscal year. Yet the fall economic statement released just months later revised that spending estimate up to $449.8 billion, and later releases showed even higher spending.

The issue is even more stark when examining spending projections for the current fiscal year. Budget 2022 projected annual spending of $441.6 billion in 2024/25. Since then, every subsequent fiscal release has revised that estimate higher and higher, to the point that Budget 2024 estimates program spending of $483.6 billion for this year—representing a $42.0 billion increase from the projections only two years ago.

Meanwhile, as spending estimates are revised upwards, plans to reduce the federal deficit are consistently pushed off into later years.

For example, the 2022 fall economic statement projected a deficit of $25.4 billion for the 2024/25 fiscal year, and declining deficits in the years to come, before reaching an eventual surplus of $4.5 billion in 2027/28. However, subsequent budgets and fiscal updates again revised those estimates. The latest budget projects a deficit of $39.8 billion in 2024/25 that will decline to a $26.8 billion deficit by 2027/28. In other words, though budgets and fiscal updates have consistently projected declining deficits between 2024/25 and 2027/28, each subsequent document has produced larger deficits throughout the fiscal outlook and pushed the timeline for balanced budgets further into the future.

These data illustrate the Trudeau government’s lack of accountability to its own fiscal plans. Though the unpredictable nature of forecasting means the government is unlikely to exactly meet future projections, it’s still reasonable to expect it will roughly follow its own fiscal plans. However, time and time again Canadians have been sold a certain plan, only to have it change dramatically mere months later due to the government’s unwillingness to restrain spending. We shouldn’t expect the upcoming fall economic statement to be any different.

Authors:

Jake Fuss and Grady Munro

Daily Caller

Climate Change Fanaticism Was The Big Election Loser

Published on November 13, 2024

Todayville

From the Daily Caller News Foundation

By Stephen Moore

A few days before last week’s election, Independent Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders issued a dire warning to voters. If Trump won, “the struggle against climate change will be over.”

He had that right.

Climate change fanaticism was effectively on the ballot last week. That green energy agenda was decisively defeated.

It turns out the tens of millions of middle-class Americans who voted for Trump weren’t much interested in the temperature of the planet 50 years from now. They were too busy trying to pay the bills.

The result shouldn’t be too surprising. Polls have shown climate change ranks near the bottom of voters’ concerns. Jobs, inflation and illegal immigration register much higher on the scale of concerns.

But if you asked the elite of America in the top one percent of income, climate change is seen as an immediate and existential threat to the planet. Our poll at Unleash Prosperity earlier this year found that the cultural elites were so hyper-obsessed with climate issues, they were in favor of banning air conditioning, nonessential air travel and many modern home appliances to stop global warming. Our study showed that not many of the other 99 percent agree.

Wake up, Bernie and Al Gore.

Climate change has become the ultimate luxury good: the richer you are, the more you fret about it.

Among the elite, obsessing about climate change has become a favorite form of virtue-signaling at the country club and in the faculty lounges. There is almost no cross that the green elites — the people who donate six figures or more to groups like the Sierra Club — aren’t willing to make lower income Americans bear to stop global warming.

Herein lies the political curse of the climate issue. A millionaire doesn’t care much if the price of gas rises by $1 a gallon or if they have to pay another $100 a month in utility bills. But the middle class hates paying more.

It wasn’t just economic concerns that turned the voters against climate crusaders like President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris. Workers weren’t too thrilled with the heavy fist of government commanding them to buy an electric vehicle — whether they wanted one or not.

It hasn’t helped the greens’ cause that the same progressives who are out to save the planet with grandiose transformations and global government, seem to have no problem with the garbage polluting the streets of our major cities or the graffiti or the feces and urine smell on the street corners of San Francisco and New York. That’s real pollution. And it’s affecting us here and now.

The good news is this year’s voter revolts against the radical green agenda are not a vote for dirtier air or water. The air that we breathe and the water we drink is cleaner than ever — a point that President Donald Trump correctly made. We will continue to make progress against pollution.

To try to sell middle America on the climate-change agenda of abolishing fossil fuels, the greens peddled bogus arguments that climate change would hurt poor communities most. In reality the financial costs of the climate policies and the paychecks lost were felt by the non-elite.

Democrats forgot to visit the steel-mill construction sites or the auto plants or the oil patch and ask those workers what they thought.

Well, now we know the reality. Americans think their shrinking paychecks and the higher price of gas they pay at the pump is the real clear-and-present danger. If Democrats don’t start to get that, they too will go to bed worrying about their jobs.

Stephen Moore is a senior fellow at the Heritage Foundation and a co-founder of Unleash Prosperity. His latest book is titled: “The Trump Economic Miracle.”