Energy
A carbon tax by any other name
From Canadians for Affordable Energy
Written By Dan McTeague
It turns out that the story circulating last week from The Toronto Star that the Liberals were considering a “rebranding” of their Carbon Taxation program was true. On Wednesday the Liberals announced that the previously known “Climate Action Incentive Payment,” will now be referred to as the “Canada Carbon Rebate.” This was done “in an attempt to tackle what it calls confusion and misconceptions about the scheme.”
According to Liberal Minister Seamus O’Regan “If we can speak the language that people speak, because people say the words ‘carbon,’ they say the words, ‘rebate,’ right? And if we can speak that language, that’s important, so people understand what’s going on here.”
The Liberals seem to actually believe that the problem Canadians have with the carbon tax, and their growing support for Pierre Poilievre’s Conservatives to “Axe the Tax,” has simply been a matter of Canadians not “understand[ing] what is going on.”
The implication, of course, is that Canadians aren’t really struggling to pay their bills, feed their families and heat their homes right now. That their lives haven’t gotten more expensive overall as the cost of fuel has risen steadily.
That they’re just confused by poor branding — probably some high-priced marketing firm’s fault, really — and that once Trudeau & Co. find the right words, people will finally be happy to pay the tax, and be grateful to get some of their money back, since doing so will — somehow — save the planet.
Which is ridiculous.
It’s worth pointing out that this isn’t even the first time Trudeau’s carbon tax has been rebranded. You might recall that prior to 2018, the scheme was referred to as “carbon pricing” or simply the “carbon tax.” If you look back at Hansard records — the records of Parliamentary debate — you can see that in October 2018, Liberal MPs began referring to the scheme as a ‘price on pollution.’ Of course, calling carbon dioxide, a gas on which all life on earth depends, “pollution” was an obvious attempt to justify taxing Canadians for it.
But no matter what they call the thing, they are determined not to let it go.
Recent polls have indicated that the carbon tax is losing support from Canadians. A Nanos poll showed nearly half of Canadians think the carbon tax is ineffective; another poll indicates most Canadians want it reduced or killed altogether.
So why are the Liberals clinging so desperately to this tax that Canadians don’t support? Going so far as to rebrand, reframe, recommunicate rather than scrap it?
I might start to sound like a broken record here, but the only way to understand the context of the carbon tax, the second carbon tax (the Clean Fuel Standard,) an emissions cap, electric vehicle mandates and on and on, is to recognize that they are all components of the insane Net-Zero-by-2050 scheme dreamed up by Justin Trudeau and his UN and World Economic Forum cronies.
A carbon tax is simply one of the pillars of their Net Zero Agenda which they contend will enable Canada to achieve this nebulous goal of Net Zero emissions by 2050.
Though apparently to achieve it, the tax will need to get progressively more punishing. On April 1 the carbon tax goes up another $15, to $80 per ton, and will continue to rise yearly until it hits $170 a ton in 2030. Canadians are already feeling the pinch and it is hard to imagine it getting worse. But Liberals aren’t concerned with the struggles of everyday people and that is the reality. This has become a communications issue to them, not an existential one.
As to the new name itself, the Trudeau Liberals love to pay lip service to their rebate scheme and claim that Canadians are getting back more than they pay. But as we well know even the Independent Parliamentary Budget Officer found that, contrary to what their talking point, a substantial majority of households are paying more in carbon taxes than they get back.
Their communications plan too is so unhinged that they are pitching the carbon tax as an affordability measure designed to help struggling Canadians. Of course this begs the question: If Canadians are getting back more than they pay in carbon taxes, why take the money in the first place?
The rubber is hitting the road and Canadians have had enough. No matter what it’s called, the carbon tax has made our lives worse.
That will continue to be true, no matter what they call it.
Dan McTeague is President of Canadians for Affordable Energy
Daily Caller
US Supreme Court Has Chance To End Climate Lawfare

From the Daily Caller News Foundation
All eyes will be on the Supreme Court later this week when the justices conference on Friday to decide whether to grant a petition for writ of certiorari on a high-stakes climate lawsuit out of Colorado. The case is a part of the long-running lawfare campaign seeking to extract billions of dollars in jury awards from oil companies on claims of nebulous damages caused by carbon emissions.
In Suncor Energy (U.S.A.) Inc., et al. v. County Commissioners of Boulder County, major American energy companies are asking the Supreme Court to decide whether federal law precludes state law nuisance claims targeting interstate and global emissions. This comes as the City and County of Boulder, Colo. sued a long list of energy companies under Colorado state nuisance law for alleged impacts from global climate change.
The Colorado Supreme Court allowed a lower state trial court decision to go through, improbably finding that federal law did not preempt state law claims. The central question hangs on whether the federal Clean Air Act (CAA) preempts state common law public nuisance claims related to the regulation of carbon emissions. In this case, as in at least 10 other cases that have been decided in favor of the defendant companies, the CAA clearly does preempt Colorado law. It seems inevitable that the Supreme Court, if it grants the cert petition, would make the same ruling.
Dear Readers:
As a nonprofit, we are dependent on the generosity of our readers.
Please consider making a small donation of any amount here.
Thank you!
Such a finding by the Supreme Court would reinforce a 2021 ruling by the Second Circuit Appeals Court that also upheld this longstanding principle of federal law. In City of New York v. Chevron Corp. (2021), the Second Circuit ruled that municipalities may not use state tort law to hold multinational companies liable for climate damages, since global warming is a uniquely international concern that touches upon issues of federalism and foreign policy. Consequently, the court called for the explicit application of federal common law, with the CAA granting the Environmental Protection Agency – not federal courts – the authority to regulate domestic greenhouse gas emissions. This Supreme Court, with its 6-3 conservative majority, should weigh in here and find in the same way.
Boulder-associated attorneys have become increasingly open to acknowledging the judicial lawfare inherent in their case, as they try to supplant federal regulatory jurisdiction with litigation meant to force higher energy prices rise for consumers. David Bookbinder, an environmental lawyer associated with the Boulder legal team, said the quiet part out loud in a recent Federalist Society webinar titled “Can State Courts Set Global Climate Policy. “Tort liability is an indirect carbon tax,” Bookbinder stated plainly. “You sue an oil company, an oil company is liable. The oil company then passes that liability on to the people who are buying its products … The people who buy those products are now going to be paying for the cost imposed by those products.”
Oh.
While Bookbinder recently distanced himself from the case, no notice of withdrawal had appeared in the court’s records as of this writing. Bookbinder also writes that “Gas prices and climate change policy have become political footballs because neither party in Congress has had the courage to stand up to the oil and gas lobby. Both sides fear the spin machine, so consumers get stuck paying the bill.”
Let’s be honest: The “spin machine” works in all directions. Make no mistake about it, consumers are already getting stuck paying the bill related to this long running lawfare campaign even though the defendants have repeatedly been found not to be liable in case after case. The many millions of dollars in needless legal costs sustained by the dozens of defendants named in these cases ultimately get passed to consumers via higher energy costs. This isn’t some evil conspiracy by the oil companies: It is Business Management 101.
Because the climate alarm lobby hasn’t been able to force its long-sought national carbon tax through the legislative process, sympathetic activists and plaintiff firms now pursue this backdoor effort in the nation’s courts. But their problem is that the law on this is crystal clear, and it is long past time for the Supreme Court to step in and put a stop to this serial abuse of the system.
David Blackmon is an energy writer and consultant based in Texas. He spent 40 years in the oil and gas business, where he specialized in public policy and communications.
Alberta
The case for expanding Canada’s energy exports
From the Canadian Energy Centre
For Canada, the path to a stronger economy — and stronger global influence — runs through energy.
That’s the view of David Detomasi, a professor at the Smith School of Business at Queen’s University.
Detomasi, author of Profits and Power: Navigating the Politics and Geopolitics of Oil, argues that there is a moral case for developing Canada’s energy, both for Canadians and the world.
CEC: What does being an energy superpower mean to you?
DD: It means Canada is strong enough to affect the system as a whole by its choices.
There is something really valuable about Canada’s — and Alberta’s — way of producing carbon energy that goes beyond just the monetary rewards.
CEC: You talk about the moral case for developing Canada’s energy. What do you mean?
DD: I think the default assumption in public rhetoric is that the environmental movement is the only voice speaking for the moral betterment of the world. That needs to be challenged.
That public rhetoric is that the act of cultivating a powerful, effective economic engine is somehow wrong or bad, and that efforts to create wealth are somehow morally tainted.
I think that’s dead wrong. Economic growth is morally good, and we should foster it.
Economic growth generates money, and you can’t do anything you want to do in social expenditures without that engine.
Economic growth is critical to doing all the other things we want to do as Canadians, like having a publicly funded health care system or providing transfer payments to less well-off provinces.
Over the last 10 years, many people in Canada came to equate moral leadership with getting off of oil and gas as quickly as possible. I think that is a mistake, and far too narrow.
Instead, I think moral leadership means you play that game, you play it well, and you do it in our interest, in the Canadian way.
We need a solid base of economic prosperity in this country first, and then we can help others.
CEC: Why is it important to expand Canada’s energy trade?
DD: Canada is, and has always been, a trading nation, because we’ve got a lot of geography and not that many people.
If we don’t trade what we have with the outside world, we aren’t going to be able to develop economically, because we don’t have the internal size and capacity.
Historically, most of that trade has been with the United States. Geography and history mean it will always be our primary trade partner.
But the United States clearly can be an unreliable partner. Free and open trade matters more to Canada than it does to the U.S. Indeed, a big chunk of the American people is skeptical of participating in a global trading system.
As the United States perhaps withdraws from the international trading and investment system, there’s room for Canada to reinforce it in places where we can use our resource advantages to build new, stronger relationships.
One of these is Europe, which still imports a lot of gas. We can also build positive relationships with the enormous emerging markets of China and India, both of whom want and will need enormous supplies of energy for many decades.
I would like to be able to offer partners the alternative option of buying Canadian energy so that they are less reliant on, say, Iranian or Russian energy.
Canada can also maybe eventually help the two billion people in the world currently without energy access.
CEC: What benefits could Canadians gain by becoming an energy superpower?
DD: The first and primary responsibility of our federal government is to look after Canada. At the end of the day, the goal is to improve Canada’s welfare and enhance its sovereignty.
More carbon energy development helps Canada. We have massive debt, an investment crisis and productivity problems that we’ve been talking about forever. Economic and job growth are weak.
Solving these will require profitable and productive industries. We don’t have so many economic strengths in this country that we can voluntarily ignore or constrain one of our biggest industries.
The economic benefits pay for things that make you stronger as a country.
They make you more resilient on the social welfare front and make increasing defence expenditures, which we sorely need, more affordable. It allows us to manage the debt that we’re running up, and supports deals for Canada’s Indigenous peoples.
CEC: Are there specific projects that you advocate for to make Canada an energy superpower?
DD: Canada’s energy needs egress, and getting it out to places other than the United States. That means more transport and port facilities to Canada’s coasts.
We also need domestic energy transport networks. People don’t know this, but a big chunk of Ontario’s oil supply runs through Michigan, posing a latent security risk to Ontario’s energy security.
We need to change the perception that pipelines are evil. There’s a spiderweb of them across the globe, and more are being built.
Building pipelines here, with Canadian technology and know-how, builds our competitiveness and enhances our sovereignty.
Economic growth enhances sovereignty and provides the resources to do other things. We should applaud and encourage it, and the carbon energy sector can lead the way.
-
National2 days agoLiberal bill “targets Christians” by removing religious exemption in hate-speech law
-
C2C Journal14 hours agoWisdom of Our Elders: The Contempt for Memory in Canadian Indigenous Policy
-
Crime2 days agoInside the Fortified Sinaloa-Linked Compound Canada Still Can’t Seize After 12 Years of Legal War
-
Business2 days agoLooks like the Liberals don’t support their own Pipeline MOU
-
Business1 day agoConservative MP warns Liberals’ national AI plan could increase gov’t surveillance
-
Business2 days agoCanada Can Finally Profit From LNG If Ottawa Stops Dragging Its Feet
-
Alberta13 hours agoAlberta introducing three “all-season resort areas” to provide more summer activities in Alberta’s mountain parks
-
Business1 day agoStorm clouds of uncertainty as BC courts deal another blow to industry and investment

