A tale of two countries – Drill, Baby, Drill vs Cap, Baby, Cap

Analysis of the U.S. Election and the Canadian Oil and Gas Emissions Cap

Monday, November 4, the Canadian federal government announced the long-awaited draft emissions cap for the oil and gas industry.

The next day, the world’s largest economy held an election that resulted in a decisive victory for the position of 47th President of the USA.

With the GOP (Republicans) taking a commanding lead with 53 out of 100 possible Senate seats, and two more still to be confirmed, they have a majority that can help move along their plans for at least the next two years. Rumoured expectations are that they’ll take the House too, which will further solidify President-elect Trump’s mandate.

As part of Trump’s campaign platform, Agenda47, he promised “to bring Americans the lowest-cost energy and electricity on Earth.” The agenda pledged that “to keep pace with the world economy that depends on fossil fuels for more than 80% of its energy, President Trump will DRILL, BABY, DRILL.”

The platform also states that under his leadership, the US will once again leave the Paris Climate Accords, and he will oppose all Green New Deal policies that impact energy development. He also plans to roll back the Biden administration’s EV mandates and emissions targets, while advocating for low emissions nuclear energy.

It isn’t a guarantee that he will do anything that he says; however, if the past is any indication, we can expect Trump to follow through on his energy and climate promises.

Even though Canada and the USA are on a contiguous land mass, they could not be farther apart in energy and climate ideology.

On the northern side of the border, a day before, Canada’s green avengers of the Liberal cabinet congregated for a press conference to jubilantly announce their emissions cap, which has been studied and determined to be a defacto production cap. CAP, BABY, CAP!

Claims that the new rules go after pollution, not production, should be met with scepticism. If pollution is the problem, there would be blanket emissions caps on all heavy emitting industries and imported oil and gas would be subject to the same requirements, but it is not. I’m not sure how else to read it other than a willful slight with a sledgehammer against the Canadian oil and gas industry.

Especially since Natural Resources Minister Jonathan Wilkinson said that this is a backstop to ensure the Pathways Alliance does what they say they will. I wonder if the Pathways folks feel like they have a giant target on their backs… and fronts?

The hour-long press conference was a lesson in how to deceive with a straight face. Most of the Liberals’ claims have either been discredited or are unsubstantiated as to be meaningless.

Wilkinson, a Rhodes Scholar, calls this cap an “economic opportunity” because he believes that for Canadian oil and gas, climate change is a competitive issue, for both combusted and non-combusted products. Square that circle when no other country on the planet has an emissions cap on its oil and gas industry.

Nonetheless, the Liberals expect production to increase, which is counter to what they say out of the other side of their mouths – that oil and gas demand will peak this year, and we are not going to be using it much longer so we should just shut it all down.

Wilkinson excitedly announced the need for thousands and thousands of workers to build the decarbonization infrastructure of the new energy future. However, the Department of Environment’s Cost-Benefit Analysis Summary contradicts this claim, citing thousands of job losses.

The Study also identifies that the costs from the plan will be borne by Canadians. The Conference Board of Canada expressed similar concerns, but they were dismissed by the politicians on stage.

Edmonton MP and Minister of Employment, Workforce Development, and Official Languages Randy Boissonnault, also known as “The Other Randy” for his ethical mis-steps, put on one of the best shows of the press conference. He speaks so convincingly that you almost believe him. Almost.

He claimed that when he was campaigning last election during the Covid pandemic, the number one topic at the doors was climate change. Edmontonians wanted to talk about climate change over the global pandemic that was disrupting their lives? Yeah, right.

The Other Randy praised Ministers Guilbeault and Wilkinson for working with industry on the regulations and promised that Canadian workers will be part of the consultation and final rules. Forgive me for being sceptical.

The Spiderman-like Steven Guilbeault, Minister of Environment and Climate Change, said that oil companies have seen record profits, going from $6.6 billion pre-pandemic to $66 billion post-pandemic, and the Liberals want that extra money used on projects they approve of, namely ones that are climate-related.

Guilbault believes this cap is necessary for prosperity and energy security, along with being good for workers and “for good union jobs”. It’s not often talked about, but within the feds’ climate plans is a push for unionizing jobs. It was top-of-mind for the Deputy Minister of Labour when I was part of a delegation to Ottawa last year. She was most interested in learning about how many oil and gas jobs are unionized and showed visible displeasure at finding out that most are not.

The press conference seemed to be more of a one-sided political bun fight, with a disproportionate amount of time spent talking smack about Pierre Poilievre, Premier Danielle Smith, and Premier Scott Moe. Perhaps demonstrating the Liberals’ trepidation about the future since the final regulations will come out late next year and go into effect January 1, 2026, when it’s likely they will be out of office.

With the climate zealots out of power, enforcement may be a challenge. What if companies don’t meet the arbitrary targets and deadlines imposed by the rules? What if companies don’t buy the required credits? A reporter asked, but Guilbeault didn’t give an answer in his response. I guess we will have to wait to see what changes are made to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act (CEPA), the enforcement regulations.

Wilkinson said climate change is a “collective action problem” that must be addressed as it is the “existential threat to the human race.” This gives you a sense of how they see things – there is a problem and government is the solution.

Meanwhile, energy policy is a “Day 1 priority” for Trump. As a businessperson, he understands that demand is growing, and limited regulations are the way to develop all forms of energy.

Even if industry can meet the emissions reduction targets – there are a variety of opinions on the proposed rules – it does not mean the regulations should be implemented. Canada’s real per capita GDP is 73 per cent of America’s, so as Canada goes hard on emissions reduction regulations, if investment moves south, that number is not going to improve. Don’t let them tell you otherwise.

Deidra Garyk is the Founder and President of Equipois:ability Advisory, a consulting firm specializing in sustainability solutions. Over 20 years in the Canadian energy sector, Deidra held key roles, where she focused on a broad range of initiatives, from sustainability reporting to fostering collaboration among industry stakeholders through her work in joint venture contracts.

Outside of her professional commitments, Deidra is an energy advocate and a recognized thought leader. She is passionate about promoting balanced, fact-based discussions on energy policy and sustainability. Through her research, writing, and public speaking, Deidra seeks to advance a more informed and pragmatic dialogue on the future of energy.

Up Next

Former BC Premier John Horgan passes away at 65

Don't Miss

TMU Medical School Sacrifices Academic Merit to Pursue Intolerance

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

The beauty of economic corridors: Inside Alberta’s work to link products with new markets

Energy / 2 hours ago

Why are Western Canadian oil prices so strong?

Business / 2 hours ago

Saskatchewan becomes first Canadian province to fully eliminate carbon tax

Business

Saskatchewan becomes first Canadian province to fully eliminate carbon tax

Published on April 1, 2025

Todayville

From LifeSiteNews

By Clare Marie Merkowsky

Saskatchewan has become the first Canadian province to free itself entirely of the carbon tax.

On March 27, Saskatchewan Premier Scott Moe announced the removal of the provincial industrial carbon tax beginning April 1, boosting the province’s industry and making Saskatchewan the first carbon tax free province.

“The immediate effect is the removal of the carbon tax on your Sask Power bills, saving Saskatchewan families and small businesses hundreds of dollars a year. And in the longer term, it will reduce the cost of other consumer products that have the industrial carbon tax built right into their price,” said Moe.

Under Moe’s direction, Saskatchewan has dropped the industrial carbon tax which he says will allow Saskatchewan to thrive under a “tariff environment.”

“I would hope that all of the parties running in the federal election would agree with those objectives and allow the provinces to regulate in this area without imposing the federal backstop,” he continued.

The removal of the tax is estimated to save Saskatchewan residents up to 18 cents a liter in gas prices.

The removal of the tax will take place on April 1, the same day the consumer carbon tax will reduce to 0 percent under Prime Minister Mark Carney’s direction. Notably, Carney did not scrap the carbon tax legislation: he just reduced its current rate to zero. This means it could come back at any time.

Furthermore, while Carney has dropped the consumer carbon tax, he has previously revealed that he wishes to implement a corporation carbon tax, the effects of which many argued would trickle down to all Canadians.

The Saskatchewan Association of Rural Municipalities (SARM) celebrated Moe’s move, noting that the carbon tax was especially difficult on farmers.

“It puts our farming community and our business people in rural municipalities at a competitive disadvantage, having to pay this and compete on the world stage,” he continued.

“We’ve got a carbon tax on power — and that’s going to be gone now — and propane and natural gas and we use them more and more every year, with grain drying and different things in our farming operations,” he explained.

“I know most producers that have grain drying systems have three-phase power. If they haven’t got natural gas, they have propane to fire those dryers. And that cost goes on and on at a high level, and it’s made us more noncompetitive on a world stage,” Huber decalred.

The carbon tax is wildly unpopular and blamed for the rising cost of living throughout Canada. Currently, Canadians living in provinces under the federal carbon pricing scheme pay $80 per tonne.

Automotive

Electric cars just another poor climate policy

Published on April 1, 2025

Todayville

From the Fraser Institute

By Bjørn Lomborg

The electric car is widely seen as a symbol of a simple, clean solution to climate change. In reality, it’s inefficient, reliant on massive subsidies, and leaves behind a trail of pollution and death that is seldom acknowledged.

We are constantly reminded by climate activists and politicians that electric cars are cleaner, cheaper, and better. Canada and many other countries have promised to prohibit the sale of new gas and diesel cars within a decade. But if electric cars are really so good, why would we need to ban the alternatives?

And why has Canada needed to subsidize each electric car with a minimum $5,000 from the federal government and more from provincial governments to get them bought? Many people are not sold on the idea of an electric car because they worry about having to plan out where and when to recharge. They don’t want to wait for an uncomfortable amount of time while recharging; they don’t want to pay significantly more for the electric car and then see its used-car value decline much faster. For people not privileged to own their own house, recharging is a real challenge. Surveys show that only 15 per cent of Canadians and 11 per cent of Americans want to buy an electric car.

The main environmental selling point of an electric car is that it doesn’t pollute. It is true that its engine doesn’t produce any CO₂ while driving, but it still emits carbon in other ways. Manufacturing the car generates emissions—especially producing the battery which requires a large amount of energy, mostly achieved with coal in China. So even when an electric car is being recharged with clean power in BC, over its lifetime it will emit about one-third of an equivalent gasoline car. When recharged in Alberta, it will emit almost three-quarters.

In some parts of the world, like India, so much of the power comes from coal that electric cars end up emitting more CO₂ than gasoline cars. Across the world, on average, the International Energy Agency estimates that an electric car using the global average mix of power sources over its lifetime will emit nearly half as much CO₂ as a gasoline-driven car, saving about 22 tonnes of CO₂.

But using an electric car to cut emissions is incredibly ineffective. On America’s longest-established carbon trading system, you could buy 22 tonnes of carbon emission cuts for about $660 (US$460). Yet, Ottawa is subsidizing every electric car to the tune of $5,000 or nearly ten times as much, which increases even more if provincial subsidies are included. And since about half of those electrical vehicles would have been bought anyway, it is likely that Canada has spent nearly twenty-times too much cutting CO₂ with electric cars than it could have. To put it differently, Canada could have cut twenty-times more CO₂ for the same amount of money.

Moreover, all these estimates assume that electric cars are driven as far as gasoline cars. They are not. In the US, nine-in-ten households with an electric car actually have one, two or more non-electric cars, with most including an SUV, truck or minivan. Moreover, the electric car is usually driven less than half as much as the other vehicles, which means the CO₂ emission reduction is much smaller. Subsidized electric cars are typically a ‘second’ car for rich people to show off their environmental credentials.

Electric cars are also 320–440 kilograms heavier than equivalent gasoline cars because of their enormous batteries. This means they will wear down roads faster, and cost societies more. They will also cause more air pollution by shredding more particulates from tire and road wear along with their brakes. Now, gasoline cars also pollute through combustion, but electric cars in total pollute more, both from tire and road wear and from forcing more power stations online, often the most polluting ones. The latest meta-study shows that overall electric cars are worse on particulate air pollution. Another study found that in two-thirds of US states, electric cars cause more of the most dangerous particulate air pollution than gasoline-powered cars.

These heavy electric cars are also more dangerous when involved in accidents, because heavy cars more often kill the other party. A study in Nature shows that in total, heavier electric cars will cause so many more deaths that the toll could outweigh the total climate benefits from reduced CO₂ emissions.

Many pundits suggest electric car sales will dominate gasoline cars within a few decades, but the reality is starkly different. A 2023-estimate from the Biden Administration shows that even in 2050, more than two-thirds of all cars globally will still be powered by gas or diesel.

CanvasJS.com

Source: US Energy Information Administration, reference scenario, October 2023
Fossil fuel cars, vast majority is gasoline, also some diesel, all light duty vehicles, the remaining % is mostly LPG.

Electric vehicles will only take over when innovation has made them better and cheaper for real. For now, electric cars run not mostly on electricity but on bad policy and subsidies, costing hundreds of billions of dollars, blocking consumers from choosing the cars they want, and achieving virtually nothing for climate change.